| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through the posts on this subject is a continual source of "OMG" moments for me in how people seem to interpret what is, and is not, socially appropriate behavior.
Perhaps it is best that I find myself gaming with people who seem to share my ideas of how to behave in public, with friends, after making commitments about what I would be willing to do.
I am amazed by how many people think "I'm not having fun" is a perfectly acceptable excuse for being a boor.
How is "Yeah, I'm not having fun. You guys enjoy, see ya." being boorish?
The ENTIRE POINT of the evening is to have fun. If you've gotten bored or frustrated due to irreconcilable differences in playstyle, why stick around?
I'm especially flabbergasted by kmalt who always seems to firmly be in the "It's the GMs game, his rules, suck it up or leave" group, but now he's saying that LEAVE is no longer one of the valid choices!
It's just "Suck it up and play by his rules, whether you want to or not. No discussion. No escape. NOTHING BUT PAIN."
WHAT?
Reading through the posts on this subject is a continual source of "OMG" moments for me in how people seem to interpret what is, and is not, socially appropriate behavior.
Perhaps it is best that I find myself gaming with people who seem to share my ideas of how to behave in public, with friends, after making commitments about what I would be willing to do.
I am amazed by how many people think "I'm not having fun" is a perfectly acceptable excuse for being a boor.
How is "Yeah, I'm not having fun. You guys enjoy, see ya." being boorish?
The ENTIRE POINT of the evening is to have fun. If you've gotten bored or frustrated due to irreconcilable differences in playstyle, why stick around?
I'm especially flabbergasted by kmalt who always seems to firmly be in the "It's the GMs game, his rules, suck it up or leave" group, but now he's saying that LEAVE is no longer one of the valid choices!
It's just "Suck it up and play by his rules, whether you want to or not. No discussion. No escape. NOTHING BUT PAIN."
WHAT?
probably because this is the internet and there is no voice inflection. The pro leavingthe table contingent may have nothing but the best and most courteous intentions, but as words on a screen, a lot of what they are arguing comes off as rude At best. Note that I am not saying you should stay for a bad game. But something more than "I'm not having fun, Im leaving now" would be required I'm the way of explanations in order for me not to think of you as somewhat autistic.
Ultimately I would never play with (or live with, for that matter) people I didn't know well enough to be sure that such disagreements and/or hygienic differences wouldn't happen and the game wouldn't need to end for me on such a sour note. I realize many people do not have that luxury.
I've walked out on exactly three games in my 30+ years of gaming.
First time: I was 15, and a freshman in high school. I joined an existing AD&D game with five other guys who were all a year or two older than me. They were a bit tougher and farther along the "a-hole" spectrum than I was, but they seemed like OK guys, and while we probably wouldn't hang out for non-gaming reasons, gaming with them was pretty fun.
About a year later, Dave, another friend of mine that was interested in learing to play D&D, asked me if he could play too, so I asked the rest of the group, and they said OK. So we both came to the next weekend's game at one of their houses.
Dave happened to be Jewish (a very small minority in a very-Catholic part of the US), and as soon as he showed up at the gaming table, everyone else in the group started dropping Jewish "jokes" which quickly devolved into full-on anti-Semitism. The comments started getting worse and worse, to the point where Dave got up and left, and started walking home. I was really angry at the rest of the guys, and told them that they were being total a-holes. They then started making WASP jokes about me, so I left too, and managed to catch up with Dave on his walk home. I never played with those guys again. (Dave and I started our own D&D group.)
Second time: At a small gaming convention in the mid-'90s. Call of Cthulhu game. Basically, nothing was happening. There was no mystery to solve, none of the apparent plot hooks led anywhere, nothing unusual was happening at all, and the players were all getting VERY bored. I broke character about 90 minutes in, and said, "Hey, out-of-character. Is this adventure going to, y'know, START any time soon? 'Cause I'm getting kinda bored." The GM paused and said that the clues were completely in front of us, but we apparently were too dumb to pick them up. I replied, "Thanks for calling us stupid. I'm outta here, and I'm asking for a refund for this game." The other four players joined me, and we got our table fee refunded for that session.
Third time: About two years ago. The one and only PFS game I've ever tried, at my FLGS (which has since closed). This wasn't so much a bad GM, as a mis-match of expectations. First of all, I was old enough to be the father of every other player (and the GM), and had to endure some askew looks from the parents of the other players ("why is a 40-year-old man playing a game with 14-year-olds?"). I was trying to play first-person (like I prefer to do). The GM must never have encountered that kind of play before, because it seemed to completely confuse him. He and the other players ended up metagaming, talking sort-of in-characer about game mechanics (like in "Order of the Stick"), and very easily getting off-topic and talking about some anime show I'd never heard of. (Okay, they were a bunch of 14-year-olds, so expecting or maturity was perhaps a bit of a stretch.) About two hours in, I'd had enough, and politely excused myself with a "Hey, I'm really sorry to do this, but I'm just not into this. Have fun without me." And I left.
Well I guess I can share my horror story about walking out.
Me and my usual gaming group was playing Pathfinder with our usual GM, who is a nice guy but sometimes likes to create rules on the fly rather than look them up.
Anyway we were chugging along in the dungeon when my barbarian kicked down a door only to be stabbed by a guy 10 feet away from the door. The GM said "he had prepared a lunge." which I pointed out wasn't actually allowed as per the RAW. Anyhoo we went back and forth and voices got raised and it was then that I remembered my wife's funeral was that day. Of course, I was out of there in a heartbeat. Color my face embarassed. I got to the funeral in time (barely) but had a lot of explaining to do, needless to say.
That was the only time I ever left a game mid-session.
Well I guess I can share my horror story about walking out.
Me and my usual gaming group was playing Pathfinder with our usual GM, who is a nice guy but sometimes likes to create rules on the fly rather than look them up.
Anyway we were chugging along in the dungeon when my barbarian kicked down a door only to be stabbed by a guy 10 feet away from the door. The GM said "he had prepared a lunge." which I pointed out wasn't actually allowed as per the RAW. Anyhoo we went back and forth and voices got raised and it was then that I remembered my wife's funeral was that day. Of course, I was out of there in a heartbeat. Color my face embarassed. I got to the funeral in time (barely) but had a lot of explaining to do, needless to say.
That was the only time I ever left a game mid-session.
You're ridiculous. :P
It's a bit of a hyperbolic description but I'm sincerely trying to wrap my head around this.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you agree with ciretose on most things, yes? Including the whole "If you don't like how the GM runs the game you should adjust, vote to swap DMs, or leave" thing, correct?
But now you're saying it's rude to leave?
I truly don't understand.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've walked out. I was the GM. I was tired, I was pissed, and I was sick of being used against my will as the narrator for one guy's sex escapades.
That moment of being fed up to the point of leaving doesn't just happen to players.
I've walked out. I was the GM. I was tired, I was pissed, and I was sick of being used against my will as the narrator for one guy's sex escapades.
That moment of being fed up to the point of leaving doesn't just happen to players.
That would probably be the main reason I would want to get up and leave a game, although if I was the GM I would think I'd have more staying power to just say no, but I don't know what the specifics of the situation were. Maybe he just kept insisting even after you said you were uncomfortable running that?
EDIT: Slight tanget, I think sex and such related things are more awkward for tables where the player describe character actions in the first person. At my table it's almost always third person "My character does X" or "Shaymus does X".
That would probably be the main reason I would want to get up and leave a game, although if I was the GM I would think I'd have more staying power to just say no, but I don't know what the specifics of the situation were. Maybe he just kept insisting even after you said you were uncomfortable running that?I've walked out. I was the GM. I was tired, I was pissed, and I was sick of being used against my will as the narrator for one guy's sex escapades.
That moment of being fed up to the point of leaving doesn't just happen to players.
He didn't insist or ask or discuss it. He just did it. Even after I told him to stop he kept doing it. A flat-out "no" wasn't enough. Ignoring him completely to talk to the other side of the table wasn't enough.
Leaving the table was almost enough. Not coming back is what cinched it, I think.
What does steampunk have to do with no magic? The two aren't related. I can name several settings with magic and steampunk together. If someone said no magic specifically and then you left in an uproar halfway because there was no magic you might just be a little crazy.
Its rude to leave if it involves messing with peoples property. Sometimes you have commitments and you really shouldn't be sitting at a table where you aren't having fun. It can show pretty easily.
The DMing telling the player his game specifically has no magic was the point, not that there are some steampunk settings with magic in them.
Much of the discussions we had about entitlement involved the player wanting to create a character that was not compatible with the DMs setting...this situation would come up well before mid-combat.
Well my point was that if you say its steampunk, don't be shocked if someone doesn't know that means no magic. I see the two as compatible, and I don't know anyone who reads minds and would instantly know that's what it meant. If you say its no magic and someone ragequits over it being no magic several days after playing because he expected magic, there was probably something wrong down the line. It could be any number of things, such as the GM being completely against the player with foes that had DR/magic but didn't have magic available, or introducing magic using foes when you were told there would be no magic but these foes are special so they get magic and you never will. It could also be the player getting fed up with something he chose to deal with, such as no magic. It could also just be a communication issue and he really wanted his +1 flaming chainsaw sword, and the GM didn't have anything remotely like that and just expected him to use run of the mill swords that never had any cool steam punk tech or advancement planned.
Much of the conversation about entitlement had a lot of assumptions and some bad feelings and other issues. Probably shouldn't bring that here, or even mention it. I know I don't want to.
Edit: I should add there are any number of ways to leave. Such as politely excusing yourself, throwing yourself out the window because its the first floor and conveniently closest, or causing crazy amount of property damage ending with a broken fire hydrant. I of course suggest the first over the other two.
The conversation would have come up before the game about the player being a spellcaster and thus denied.
DM: Game is steampunk
Player: Ok my character is going to throw fireballs and have a cyber implant
DM: Not that type of game
The hyperbole and making the player look like a jerk really kill that example. Why would you ask for a cyber implant in a steam punk game? That's cyberpunk isn't it? Throwing fireballs might be something you can do in steampunk, but it would depend on the setting. If you've played .hack for instance mages and magic aren't that out of place, nor guns and chainsaw weapons as a regular thing. If your playing in some avatar type place there could be a ton of synergy between the steampunk and the magic of the world, but few weapons or augments. On the other hand, if the world was based on Victorian era with no magic but lots of cool goggles and toys and possibly a flamethrower, we probably won't expect magical fireballs.
My examples involved no spell casters. I took that into account. It did however bring up flaming chainsaw blades, which happens to have been something that's come up in the past in a game oddly enough. Also examples similar to what I've seen other people post, such as NPCs breaking rules for the setting you were given at character creation, or the GM not adjusting his setting to handle the old rules meshing badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather this thread not become another thread for discussing "player entitlement". It hardly seems relevant to the topic of discussion: whether or not to leave a social gathering that fails to be a positive experience for an individual. Since we have now received testimony from a GM who left a game mid-go it should abundantly clear at this point that the sides of this conflict are not drawn along the borders of a binary DM and Player Identification. In addition, each situation where a person leaves a session partway through is wholly different and should be treated as such. There is no finite code of conduct or "solution" that covers all of these situations. Instead of assigning good or bad stigma to the phenomena as a whole, we should embrace the wackiness and variety of stories on this thread and continue to post more absurd experiences.
I'd rather this thread not become another thread for discussing "player entitlement". It hardly seems relevant to the topic of discussion: whether or not to leave a social gathering that fails to be a positive experience for an individual. Since we have now received testimony from a GM who left a game mid-go it should abundantly clear at this point that the sides of this conflict are not drawn along the borders of a binary DM and Player Identification. In addition, each situation where a person leaves a session partway through is wholly different and should be treated as such. There is no finite code of conduct or "solution" that covers all of these situations. Instead of assigning good or bad stigma to the phenomena as a whole, we should embrace the wackiness and variety of stories on this thread and continue to post more absurd experiences.
Exactly.
There are absolutely acceptable reasons to leave the table (not including work and/or emergencies), it's simply a matter of where one draws the line. In the case of the female character's player being constantly sexually assaulted and worse, I would be tremendously offended whether it was directed at me or not, and I would ABSOLUTELY walk out and probably not talk to this person again.
Getting up and walking out because you aren't allowed to play a Drow? That's kind of dumb.
Walking out Mid-Combat.
One of the joys of creating a character is creating something and someone that can engage with, interact with, and be effective in an imaginary world. If the DM makes it intolerably difficult or even (dare I say it) impossible, it destroys a great deal of the character-player dynamic.
So, if in combat, an individual character is completely ineffective, arbitrarily so, the player is faced with the philosophical conundrum of why he or she is there in the first place. This, I think, is when communication needs to go up a bit, before getting angry and walking out.
If the situation cannot be resolved via communication, then standing up from the table until the combat is over is not an unreasonable act. You could ask the DM if there is a particular type of character that would be more effective in the combat scenario, and if you can play that character.
Later, after the combat, ask the DM if the scenario was designed with the player characters in mind, or if he had adapted it at all if it was in a published adventure. It might help to ask the DM what he imagined the outcome would be, and to explain how ineffective you feel as a player when your character can't do anything.
One thing I've done in the past is simply taken Full Defense if I can't think of anything else effective to do, and just watch the rest of the combat to see who the effective character is. Is it the wizard? The cleric? The rogue? The fighter? Determine who is breaching the enemy's weaknesses and then aid that character to the best of your ability.
Reading through the posts on this subject is a continual source of "OMG" moments for me in how people seem to interpret what is, and is not, socially appropriate behavior.
Perhaps it is best that I find myself gaming with people who seem to share my ideas of how to behave in public, with friends, after making commitments about what I would be willing to do.
I am amazed by how many people think "I'm not having fun" is a perfectly acceptable excuse for being a boor.
How is "Yeah, I'm not having fun. You guys enjoy, see ya." being boorish?
The ENTIRE POINT of the evening is to have fun. If you've gotten bored or frustrated due to irreconcilable differences in playstyle, why stick around?
I'm especially flabbergasted by kmalt who always seems to firmly be in the "It's the GMs game, his rules, suck it up or leave" group, but now he's saying that LEAVE is no longer one of the valid choices!
It's just "Suck it up and play by his rules, whether you want to or not. No discussion. No escape. NOTHING BUT PAIN."
WHAT?
Well, Kmal2t already did a fine job of explaining the hyperbolic strawman in your argument here Rynjin so I won't belabor that point. I had previously stated that there were limits to what is acceptable or tolerable in ANY social activity, and that walking out on a social activity of any sort (D&D, dinner and a movie, casual lunch, poker night, etc.) is an activity that will be viewed by those you are with as either appropriate or inappropriate based on their interpretation of the severity of the situation at the time.
"I'm not having fun so I'm leaving" as described by the OP and as defended by several posters on this thread is boorish behavior. It's "I'm taking my ball and going home."
In fact that sort of attitude is so universally recognized as immature and selfish that I find it remarkable not only that you defend it, but that people mark your defense as "favorites". Oh well, I frequently find myself amazed at which posts are marked as "favorites" on these boards. Nothing new there.
Sure, if the GM throws a glass of soda in your face, walk out. Agreeing to play by certain rules and then not liking the fact that the rules don't favor you the way you hoped they would is not appropriate for walking out and ruining the game for everyone else.
Or at least it didn't used to be, back when I was learning how to interact with other people in social situations.
Times change apparently.
"I'm not having fun so I'm leaving" as described by the OP and as defended by several posters on this thread is boorish behavior. It's "I'm taking my ball and going home."
But it isn't.
Let's play with your ball analogy here for a sec.
You have a group of kids playing kickball in the park.
One kid isn't having fun and leaves, leaving everyone else to their fun.
This is what you are calling boorish. I disagree that it is.
"I'm taking my ball and going home" is not what is happening here. The player in question is leaving his "ball" for everyone else while he goes to do something else.
If people are being mean to me, i will not give a damn if i am rude to them.
In my business we have two possible words for people with this attitude...Unemployable or Boss.
The world is filled with people you are not going to get along and unless you are the boss you just can't keep maintain this philosophy and expect to keep a job.
-MD
|
In my business we have two possible words for people with this attitude...Unemployable or Boss.
Then i am really glad i am not in your business, whatever it is.
Thankfully i work at a company where people are not a-holes and actually treat each other with respect. And since our boss, the owner of the company did all the work that we do now and know what kind of people we interact with on a daily basis, he is very reasonable and understanding. I've gotten offers for better payed jobs, but i remained with this one, simply because i love the atmosphere.
If people are being mean to me, i will not give a damn if i am rude to them.In my business we have two possible words for people with this attitude...Unemployable or Boss.
The world is filled with people you are not going to get along and unless you are the boss you just can't keep maintain this philosophy and expect to keep a job.
-MD
The same is not true in groups of (perhaps only alleged) friends. While people need their jobs to make a living, they don't typically need to remain friends with an individual in order to survive.
"I'm not having fun so I'm leaving" as described by the OP and as defended by several posters on this thread is boorish behavior. It's "I'm taking my ball and going home."But it isn't.
Let's play with your ball analogy here for a sec.
You have a group of kids playing kickball in the park.
One kid isn't having fun and leaves, leaving everyone else to their fun.
This is what you are calling boorish. I disagree that it is.
"I'm taking my ball and going home" is not what is happening here. The player in question is leaving his "ball" for everyone else while he goes to do something else.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of combat (or even not in combat) would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.
Your analogy would be more appropriate if you used a baseball game and the only kid who could pitch worth a damn walked out because he thought he had thrown a strike and the umpire called it a ball.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of a session would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.Your analogy would be more appropriate if you used a baseball game and the only kid who could pitch worth a damn walked out because he thought he had thrown a strike and the umpire called it a ball.
Erm.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've had a couple of people who have had to leave the table in the middle of a session for reasons that didn't involve anger, and aside from the worry that the situations caused, it wasn't really all that hard to adjust the encounter for the remaining players.
You had to suspend disbelief a bit, but it wasn't anything that wrecked the game.
YMMV.
Except this is DnD and we don't need a tank, heals, deeps combo. We might miss the character, but DM fiat can fill in the blanks, adjust. You could even turn it into an NPC and go on with a little bit of adjusting. Its not a game that requires many people, just someone to run it and some players. It might run best a certain way, but its not like baseball where you have a particular number of people and positions.
I would find it the same as taking the ball home with you if you happened to wrap up the battlemap and minis and books into a satchel and carry that off maybe, but its not likely that will happen unless he owns the materials. Which isn't unlikely mind you, but its certainly not what will happen every time.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of a session would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.Your analogy would be more appropriate if you used a baseball game and the only kid who could pitch worth a damn walked out because he thought he had thrown a strike and the umpire called it a ball.
Erm.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I've had a couple of people who have had to leave the table in the middle of a session for reasons that didn't involve anger, and aside from the worry that the situations caused, it wasn't really all that hard to adjust the encounter for the remaining players.
You had to suspend disbelief a bit, but it wasn't anything that wrecked the game.
YMMV.
It is a serious inconvenience to have to deal with the situation if you have any investment in the game at all. I am willing to deal with that inconvenience for a good reason. "I didn't get my way so I'm leaving" is not sufficient reason for one person to inconvenience the whole table.
Again, these are social mores that no doubt have fallen into disuse and neglect, but that's the way I was raised.
In the OP's situation as described I would have made the best of it for the sake of the other players.
Because I was raised that way.
YMMV
I was at a table with a player like that. The GM response was a curse involving the player's great sword going limp. Needless to say the rest of the table had a few comments.
I've walked out. I was the GM. I was tired, I was pissed, and I was sick of being used against my will as the narrator for one guy's sex escapades.
See, one of our old time players was not used to guys playing female characters or female gamers at the table.
He had a bad habit for a long while, of having his character grab other PCs' butts, look up skirts, and what-not, whether the player was male or female.
I did my best to keep him in line (eventually he got kicked out). But I would not have blamed either gender player for walking out while that guy persisted in his creepiness.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of combat (or even not in combat) would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.
Your analogy would be more appropriate if you used a baseball game and the only kid who could pitch worth a damn walked out because he thought he had thrown a strike and the umpire called it a ball.
Whichever analogy, I don't see it as bad behavior. It's much better to just bow out and leave than stay when you're frustrated and not having fun, for whatever reason.
In my experience it...INFECTS people if you're doing something and your heart's REALLY not in it.
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of combat (or even not in combat) would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.
Your analogy would be more appropriate if you used a baseball game and the only kid who could pitch worth a damn walked out because he thought he had thrown a strike and the umpire called it a ball.
Whichever analogy, I don't see it as bad behavior. It's much better to just bow out and leave than stay when you're frustrated and not having fun, for whatever reason.
In my experience it...INFECTS people if you're doing something and your heart's REALLY not in it.
I think this is important to consider.
If an argument has gone on for a considerable length (some stories have included such) with no resolution acceptable to both parties in sight... at that point, it's holding up the game for the content players, who are now not having fun either.
Getting up "for awhile" and cooling off without leaving outright might be a better solution, but in that case the game would either grind to a halt until the disgruntled player comes back or they would be forced to accomadate in the same way* as they would if he completely left.
[spoiler=*]Situations where there is only 1 copy of the character sheet and it's customary for the player's to hold onto them might have more of a problem with the player leaving, but honestly this situation should be avoided for other reasons. I usually require my players to give me a scanned/emailed copy of character sheets on hand in the event that I have to fill in for them one week, but I think any GM worth his weight in salt shouldn't have much trouble making due anyhow.[/spoiler
Rynjin, it is rare that I find myself in a situation playing D&D where one player leaving in the middle of combat (or even not in combat) would not create serious difficulties for the rest of the players at the table who have coordinated their strategy and tactics around the group and suddenly no longer have a tank, or a blaster or a healer.
This argument more or less falls apart when you realize the game is powered by imagination.
It is a serious inconvenience to have to deal with the situation if you have any investment in the game at all. I am willing to deal with that inconvenience for a good reason. "I didn't get my way so I'm leaving" is not sufficient reason for one person to inconvenience the whole table.
Again, these are social mores that no doubt have fallen into disuse and neglect, but that's the way I was raised.
In the OP's situation as described I would have made the best of it for the sake of the other players.
Because I was raised that way.
YMMV
I guess it really is a matter of mileage varying. If I was actually seriously invested in a game, and somebody wanted to leave it because they weren't having a good time, I wouldn't begrudge them that.
Way back in the beginning of me playing RPGs there was a gentleman who played with us who really wasn't into the game as much as the rest of us were. He was obviously not having a good time, but he stuck with it because his brother had asked him to.
He was a really nice kid, but once he left the quality of the game improved a great deal. To be terribly honest, I think the game would have been more enjoyable if he had quit earlier. That's probably an awful thing to say, but there you go.
I love the people I play with now. Everybody comes to the table invested, and ready to play. Things do grow heated at times, and we have our fair share of less than quiet "discussions". But if there came a time that one of my friends felt like the game wasn't worth their time any more, for whatever reason, I would gladly adjust the story to accommodate their leaving (if I were DM), or adjust my place in the story (as a player) rather than tell them they had to stick around and do something they weren't enjoying just to make my game less problematic. Past experience has shown me that the game is actually a little better if everyone's on the same page anyway.
I admire you for considering the feelings of everyone involved at the table. Gentility is worthy of high estimation in my view. But I have to say, that at least in this instance, the table might be actually better off with the person not having fun taking their ball and leaving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can be justifiably rude. Leaving a game in the middle of the game is rude. (Also, leaving a party because you're not having fun is very rude.) Now, you may not care you're being rude for various reasons (poor manners). You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.). The group may understand and forgive your rudeness (have to work, family emergency, etc.). None of this changes the fact that it is rude, it's just that sometimes being rude is the lesser of two evils.
|
|
You can be justifiably rude. Leaving a game in the middle of the game is rude. (Also, leaving a party because you're not having fun is very rude.) Now, you may not care you're being rude for various reasons (poor manners). You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.). The group may understand and forgive your rudeness (have to work, family emergency, etc.). None of this changes the fact that it is rude, it's just that sometimes being rude is the lesser of two evils.
č
Poor manners are not the only reason people are rude.
You can be justifiably rude. Leaving a game in the middle of the game is rude. (Also, leaving a party because you're not having fun is very rude.) Now, you may not care you're being rude for various reasons (poor manners). You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.). The group may understand and forgive your rudeness (have to work, family emergency, etc.). None of this changes the fact that it is rude, it's just that sometimes being rude is the lesser of two evils.č
Poor manners are not the only reason people are rude.
That's why I listed several reasons. I said it was poor manners if you did not care if it was rude.
Umm, gaming is not a job. Players are not employees. Gaming is a 100% voluntary activity.If people are being mean to me, i will not give a damn if i am rude to them.In my business we have two possible words for people with this attitude...Unemployable or Boss.
The world is filled with people you are not going to get along and unless you are the boss you just can't keep maintain this philosophy and expect to keep a job.
-MD
Speak for yourself :D
I have walked out exactly once.
I was in college and one of our regular DM's from highschool ran a campaign over a summer while we were all home. I am not sure what was up his bum that day but we really got into it, then again he became a frat boy and a real tool while he was away at school so maybe that explains it. We never ran with mini's and there was a situation where I was on the second floor of a building trying to shoot a bow out a window down to the street. He told me I couldnt see, to which I asked why. I dont remember the exact reply but it amounted to something along the line of I am the DM and I said you cant see.. so leave it at that. I then asked for a better description so I could figure out what action I could take and he said if I questioned him again he would dock me XP. I seem to recall saying "but" or the like and he then docked me a half level of xp.
I think I used a geat deal of colorful language about where he could place implements in his anatomy and walked out....pretty sure I never bothered to play with him as DM again. Not sure to this day what his deal was. We were very close in highschool, but I dont think we really talked much after that.
You can be justifiably rude. Leaving a game in the middle of the game is rude. (Also, leaving a party because you're not having fun is very rude.) Now, you may not care you're being rude for various reasons (poor manners). You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.). The group may understand and forgive your rudeness (have to work, family emergency, etc.). None of this changes the fact that it is rude, it's just that sometimes being rude is the lesser of two evils.
I just don't get this at all.
This:
You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.).
makes me think that you're saying this:
"That young lady left the game because she was being sexually harrased? Well, that was rude of her, but I guess I can forgive her this time, seeing as she was being harrassed."
NO! Just no!
That is not rude! There should be absolutely ZERO pressure, social or otherwise, to make anybody think they have to stay around where someone is harrasing them. I just...
There is no evil, lesser or otherwise, in leaving a situation where there is violence or harrasment! It is such a dangerous thing to tell somebody that there is!
Blahhhh!
And this:
The group may understand and forgive your rudeness (have to work, family emergency, etc.).
Andy: "Steve left the game because his wife was dying."
Frank: "Tch. Rude. But I guess it can be forgiven."
Seriously? I'm all for politeness, and there are times when leaving a situation is rude, but my goodness! I just don't get this weird "it's rude to leave a social situation ANYTIME when you made arangements to be there."
It's NOT!
Or if it is, then I am ruthlessly and unrepentantly rude.
You're rudeness may be justified (acts of violence, sexual harrasment, etc.).makes me think that you're saying this:
"That young lady left the game because she was being sexually harrased? Well, that was rude of her, but I guess I can forgive her this time, seeing as she was being harrassed."
No, I'm saying:
"I know it's rude to leave but I'm unwilling to put up with your behavior any longer."
I find it hard to imagine a group of people that are perfectly accepting of sexual harrasment but real sticklers for social etiquette.