| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a game where people come together to have fun, not a boot camp or boarding school where you are the headmaster. You've absolutely no right to punish anyone else for wanting to have fun in a way dissimilar from your own (anymore than they have a right to punish you for bringing the wrong kind of chip dip).
Get over yourself and grow up. Do something constructive, like talking to your players about the real problem. Don't place blame. Smile and communicate. This game is about having fun, and being punished isn't conducive towards having a good time.
I know some people say there's no way to "roleplay wrong," but that's not really true. If you punish your players AT ALL, EVER, for a perceived slight, THEN YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.
How much arrogance must one have to think they have the right? 95% of the problems I see on this board can be overcome by acting like adults and communicating with one another. The other 5% of the problems are also easily resolved, by not inviting the problem back to future games. Punishing people only exacerbates the problem widens the already expansive social chasm between GM and player--reducing any chances that the actual problem will ever truly be resolved.
So stop acting like you're God, or the King at the table, or whatever else you envision yourself as, and start acting like the awesome GM they all hoped you'd be.
For the love of God, read the GameMastery Guide and take its advice to heart, audit the player's characters regularly, and talk to your players about any perceived problems you may be having. Trust me
/explosive Fourth of July rant
Hear hear! 100% correct. The days of tyrant GMs are over, and may they rest in torment and never return.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are rolls in the game where the RAW specifically states the GM has to roll in secret.
I consider myself a very transparent GM, but I still roll those in secret. I also often roll perception checks and knowledge checks in secret.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that sometimes there is a line to be drawn between punishing players for disruptive behavior, and characters that misstep themselves into trouble. If a player/character does something silly I might ask if they actually did it first, and then I'll play it out as reasonably as possible. Just depends on the time and the game. I'm generally forgiving of out of game disruption, but if something in game will kill you, it will kill you. No two ways around it. I don't like impromptu "back doors" because they take away the urgency of actions in hairy situations. Its not punishment so much as cause and effect.
Now,I can usually tell the difference between a character that is a troublemaker and a player that is just being a douche. I don't blame the player for playing their character. Though they may rethink their choice if the PC is too reckless for the group. We actually have a guy that volunteered to retire a character because of the likelihood that he'd get the rest of the party killed (or get killed by them). Which brings up another point. It should really be the other players at the table, or their characters, that take the responsibility of reeling in an out of control comrade. They're the ones that are ultimately going to suffer. The GM is just the world, and adventurers die everyday. The dudes that are circling the drain with the fool that just randomly pulled a hand crossbow and fired a poisoned arrow at the head priest are the ones that need to decide what too do with him if they survive. Most good players wont let another character drag them into a no win situation anyway.
That said, GMs can be a problem. For example, I have played with GMs that would rule anything said at certain times was "in game" which blew a lot of simple scenarios up into situations. I've also played with groups that will just hang out for more time then we actually play. Both can get annoying, but honestly I'm fine with either as long as I know what game I'm playing in. If I know that my GM has spent a lot of time planning a story, then yeah, I try and let him tell it when it gets involved. And I can understand why someone would get frustrated if a player up and ruins weeks of planning just because they can. Like Ravingdork said though, it seems easier to just say "Hey guys. This is important." Sometimes you have to select your group well too. I know that the group that I play with is handcrafted after years of experience, and we get along fine for the most part. When we do have an issue we bring it up. Sometimes available gamers can be sparse though. In the end, its a game and everyone, including the GM is there to have fun.
As far as transparent rolling goes, anyone can quickly figure out a monsters stats by glancing at a die and hearing a result, so that can lead to metagaming. Or the dread curse of the honest player: reverse-metagaming. Ugh...
No, I try to talk to the guy
True it is best to punish someone after they have been talked to, otherwise it might be unfair.
Being a GM has never been about being right, knowing all the rules or being in control. Its about being a good host. That's why a collection of PCs is called a "party." Now granted, you have to balance hosting duties with controlling an entire world around the players, throwing mind-bending amounts of conflict their way and being adept at the mechanics and pacing of the game to the point where your mechanizations appear seamless, but in the end you're STILL just the host of a party your players have been invited to.
So if someone comes to your party in attire you don't approve of, do you throw a drink in their face? Vice versa, do you simply ignore the guy at your party who gets hammered and hits on your wife?
Play with your friends. Have fun with the games. Don't punish, impugn, or otherwise demand any special treatment because you're running things. Just enjoy the company you have the privilege to have assembled.
But there's the rub isn't it? So many GMs, myself included up until a few years ago, are convinced that it's the PLAYERS who have the PRIVILEGE of hanging out and running through MY game. If you have even a little of this feeling or some version of it when the players hit your table ask yourself: what makes you any more right at this than the guy hijacking your awesome game for his own glory?
I like your analogy. But remember there are all kinds of parties. There are parties where the hosts go all out and people have a great time... for these parties it IS a privilege to be invited. The highest end of these being parties people would kill their best friend to get invited. Then there are the parties like the ones your parents drag you too where you sit through endless video of the most boring vacation ever, where you would be delighted to find an excuse not to attend while not hurting anyone's feelings. Somewhere in between those is the party where the hosts just invite a bunch of friends over for some grilled steaks and conversation. At the higher end the hosts put a great deal of effort into the event and have every right to be treated with respect above and beyond. At the bottom end you as the host should be grateful to anyone who bothered to show up. In the middle neither side supplies much effort and respect is shared.
Those are excuses not valid reasons. You can always roll in such a way that one other player witnesses the roll.That's why I like rolls in the open.....helps keep it all honest and forthright.Plus 1; the only reason a DM rolls in secret is to cheat.
Or to prevent players from knowing if they made the stealth or perception checks...or any other number of reasons, generally in the players favor.
You do realize if the GM kills everyone they don't get to play anymore either, right? The GM isn't rooting against the party.
If you allow a player to witness the roll, then you've defeated the completely valid purpose for rolling some rolls in secret*.
Perception checks to find traps can be rolled in secret. That isn't an excuse, nor is it 'cheating' - players shouldn't know if they failed to spot a trap, otherwise it utterly defeats the purpose of traps. Same thing with opposed stealth\perception checks for ambushes, opposed bluff\sense motive checks, etc.
*This isn't always true; some players have the integrity to avoid metagaming, but it's disingenuous to call it 'cheating' to try and avoid the potential for metagaming in the first place.
|
Those are excuses not valid reasons. You can always roll in such a way that one other player witnesses the roll.That's why I like rolls in the open.....helps keep it all honest and forthright.Plus 1; the only reason a DM rolls in secret is to cheat.
Or to prevent players from knowing if they made the stealth or perception checks...or any other number of reasons, generally in the players favor.
You do realize if the GM kills everyone they don't get to play anymore either, right? The GM isn't rooting against the party.
So the other players can know if they made the perception roll or stealth check and metagame that?
Or if I am actually rolling a perception check for enemies or just messing with the players so they stop metagaming.
I remember one dm started a game by saying if you didn't like what he said, get the f*ck out. I thought he was joking.
He needed to chill and play with the players, not play against us. Had some good ideas, but his games died. The narrative was too strong, we didn't have much control or power to change things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep. I remember a discussion I was having with one such bad dm, and he was shitty about the view of poster 1 on this forum. The idea dms aren't gods and should chill out and be civil was spreading, and this guy was resisting.
A lot of his games dried up, and I could see where things were going, and I had already been a dick dm for a few years, so I consciously made the change.
It also lowers in game dming stress, to not be so fixated on your wants. Paladin dm exists to serve.
i still deal with power mad tyrant DMs.
i play their games anyway.
because we don't have many groups that can tolerate my akward character design methods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
Ponzi Schemes are the new form of theft as are
Ridiculously High Prices
and Underpayed Employment
|
|
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
I have to hang out with thieves. Even if I know they are thieves. I have no choice as to who is around me or any other options in life but to hang around thieves and then go back to those same thieves week after week to let them keep robbing me, because there is literally nothing else to do.
Oh wait, no. No that would be stupid...
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
Ponzi Schemes are the new form of theft as are
Ridiculously High Prices
and Underpayed Employment
And who gets to define what "underpaid" is and why should they have that power?
|
I tell players "I run a dark world, low level, low maigc items. I know you will be fighting zombies and wolves, and not beholders and rakshashas, so please adjust your expectations."
-If players know what to expect they don't feel 'punished.'Reminds me of the first time I played pathfinder. I was so phyched and ready to play and I made a witch with the intent of casting fire ball and having all sorts of fun building the character. Then I was told we'd never go past 3rd level after three weeks of playing. He was shocked I suddenly wanted to change characters, and decided I wasn't allowed to, and shocked again I didn't want to play anymore. I didn't feel punished at all, but I didn't want to play.
Edit: I should probably add he did take it out on me later.
What did he do?
What did he do?
Long personal story. To sum it up, he felt that I might leave, so suddenly none of what my character did matter and npcs just started to ignore me. Turned into a hostile environment, probably not the best way to handle it. Campaign actually fizzled out because other people felt similar to me, coupled with other issues.
The important part of the story is none of the things before that felt like a punishment, though I feel they could've been handled better.
n
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
The check's in the mail. Would I lie to you?
world of illusion, doesn't exist to serve you, specifically.
Maybe you aren't being "punished". Maybe you are being given a hint that what you are doing is annoying...
The definition of punishment is doing to because you are annoyed by them.
So yeah, Ciretose stop punishing people and stop hinting; just tell them.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was reading through this thread, mentally weighing different arguments in a kind of distant, academic way. And then it suddenly hit me.
Oh my god. This is me. I'm doing this.
I realized that I had been subconsciously targeting a specific player in my games for purely absurd reasons, like his playstyle didn't conform to mine or he got into long-winded rules debates with me (which he usually won).
I don't know how this thread will end, in tragedy or punctuation marks, but I thought you should know, RD, that whatever else happens, you have helped one fool of a GM see the error of his ways.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
wait so its wrong for me as a dm to punish my players charecters when they mess up? Itz wrong for me to punish my players when they the players are being disruptive and such (aka as in punishing the player, not their charecter)?
I can understand not punishing a player charecter because of what the player has done outta game, I get that thats wrong.
But ita wrong for me to punish charecters to make the players feel tension when they play without caution, or to punish to give the player an insintive to drive the story forward or to branch out in a sidequest, or because the dice was against them with their charecter or -con, or to punish because their actions was haphazard and the world decided to take action?
If this is about punishing players thru their charecters of something they did outta game, then I can agree. But if we are talking about all forms of punishment away then I would have to disagree because punishment doesnt have to be the end of the game for someone but just a different path for them to take or consequences for their charecters actions.
I'm talking about all forms of punitive actions other than dismissal. The term punishment is kind of vague. Intent is a big factor. For the purposes of this thread, punishment is any negative/punitive action taken against a player OR their character that in no way improves the game for anyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Combat rolls should be made in the open, allowing the players to get nearer and nearer to 'knowing' how skilled their opponents are.
This is to simulate real combat, where combatants quite quickly get to assess how good their opponent is.
Neither is foolproof, which is another plus.
The characters have this information simply by fighting that opponent! This doesn't mean that players should always know all rolls.
As for stealth: if I'm sneaking and I step on a twig and the report reverberates around the forest alerting everyone in a 1000 yard radius, how come I can't hear it?
I was reading through this thread, mentally weighing different arguments in a kind of distant, academic way. And then it suddenly hit me.
Oh my god. This is me. I'm doing this.
I realized that I had been subconsciously targeting a specific player in my games for purely absurd reasons, like his playstyle didn't conform to mine or he got into long-winded rules debates with me (which he usually won).
I don't know how this thread will end, in tragedy or punctuation marks, but I thought you should know, RD, that whatever else happens, you have helped one fool of a GM see the error of his ways.
Good on you for seeing and acknowledging that, a dm can always improve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How about:
To all the players out there who feel like they are being "Punished"...get over yourself.
Have you considered you are being "Punished" as a way of saying "Hey, what you are doing it making the game less fun for the rest of us, so maybe stop being so selfish"
Maybe the world, even the world of illusion, doesn't exist to serve you, specifically.
Maybe you aren't being "punished". Maybe you are being given a hint that what you are doing is annoying...
Why give a hint, when you can give clear communication?
And it does go both ways. EVERYONE has to be mature and friendly for it to work. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
Your initial post certainly implied otherwise, it was directed solely at GMs.
If I as a GM say no Gunslingers, don't bring one and expect to play. If you as a GM say I have to play a Gunslinger, don't expect me to show to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the dm sets the setting and what can be played.
You hate gunslingers too?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
Ponzi Schemes are the new form of theft as are
Ridiculously High Prices
and Underpayed Employment
And who gets to define what "underpaid" is and why should they have that power?
i don't even make 12,000 a year.
hell, i don't even get 800 a month.
i don't make enough to even survive on.
i'd say highly underpaid is exploitation/theft when the person makes less than 30,000 USD net pay a year before benefits and after taxes.
"You know Sandra, the whole does-moronic-damage-on-the-first-attack thing your Smite Evil does? That's not working out so good since it turns out your PC is one-shotting everything I can throw at it. Great job going for the keen scimitar by the way, since you're critting on the first hit about one encounter in four and nuking things five CRs higher than your party. So... from now on you can just ignore the thing about doubling the bonus to damage on the first hit against undead, evil outsiders, and evil dragons."Nothing wrong with that, really.
Are you serious?
You don't see anything wrong with "F+&# you your main class feature doesn't work any more because I can't be arsed to make a decent encounter"?
Because that's effectively what that is, in less diplomatic language.
Sorry, a peeve I've developed browsing these forums is "A Core class ability the game was balanced around is breaking my game! How far should I nerf it!?!"
Somewhat more on-topic, I pretty agree with RD. A GM should never "punish" his players. You don't like something you allowed? Discuss it with the guy. Don't be surprised when he objects to you saying "Hey Jimmy I'ma make your character choke on a breadcrumb and die tomorrow because it's just not working for me".
In-game consequences for in-game actions that follow logically aren't punishments. Triggering a trap and then being affected by said trap isn't a punishment. It's the game. Raping a princess and then being castrated and hung the next morning by the king is a logical following.
Doing something the GM doesn't like but which shouldn't have in-game consequences is a punishment. If the GM says "You wander into the swamp, get lost, and starve to death", when you're less than 10 feet away from the road and you have points in Survival because you decided to go off-road to bypass an obvious ambush is a punishment. And terrible GMing.
I will ignore Ciretose because this would just be a rehash of the "The GM is always right because if he weren't he would have no players to GM for" thing we've discussed before.
Maybe if you didn't insist on, and I quote "akward character design methods.", other GMs would "tolerate" you.I still deal with power mad tyrant DMs.
I play their games anyway.
Because we don't have many groups that can tolerate my akward character design methods.
So having differing tastes somehow means Lumi DESERVES having a DM who doesn't treat the players properly?
I'm sorry, but that's a load of elitist bulls*** and you should know that. I am telling this to you as both a player and a DM.
As someone who has seen what kind of character design methods Lumi actually has, I'd let him play when I'm DM without a problem.
"You know Sandra, the whole does-moronic-damage-on-the-first-attack thing your Smite Evil does? That's not working out so good since it turns out your PC is one-shotting everything I can throw at it. Great job going for the keen scimitar by the way, since you're critting on the first hit about one encounter in four and nuking things five CRs higher than your party. So... from now on you can just ignore the thing about doubling the bonus to damage on the first hit against undead, evil outsiders, and evil dragons."Nothing wrong with that, really.
Are you serious?
You don't see anything wrong with "F~#% you your main class feature doesn't work any more because I can't be arsed to make a decent encounter"?
Because that's effectively what that is, in less diplomatic language.
Sorry, a peeve I've developed browsing these forums is "A Core class ability the game was balanced around is breaking my game! How far should I nerf it!?!"
Somewhat more on-topic, I pretty agree with RD. A GM should never "punish" his players. You don't like something you allowed? Discuss it with the guy. Don't be surprised when he objects to you saying "Hey Jimmy I'ma make your character choke on a breadcrumb and die tomorrow because it's just not working for me".
In-game consequences for in-game actions that follow logically aren't punishments. Triggering a trap and then being affected by said trap isn't a punishment. It's the game. Raping a princess and then being castrated and hung the next morning by the king is a logical following.
Doing something the GM doesn't like but which shouldn't have in-game consequences is a punishment. If the GM says "You wander into the swamp, get lost, and starve to death", when you're less than 10 feet away from the road and you have points in Survival because you decided to go off-road to bypass an obvious ambush is a punishment. And terrible GMing.
I will ignore Ciretose because this would just be a rehash of the "The GM is always right...
Amen, brother.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So having differing tastes somehow means Lumi DESERVES having a DM who doesn't treat the players properly?
No, it means Lumi does not "deserve" to have everyone else change to accommodate Lumi when Lumi is apparently unwilling to change to accommodate anyone else...
Or is it only elitist when people make you adapt to them, and not when you make them adapt to you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
world of illusion, doesn't exist to serve you, specifically.
Maybe you aren't being "punished". Maybe you are being given a hint that what you are doing is annoying...
The definition of punishment is doing to because you are annoyed by them.
So yeah, Ciretose stop punishing people and stop hinting; just tell them.
I actually just don't game with people that annoy me. Players or GMs.
Much, much easier solution.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(Comment redacted by poster)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So having differing tastes somehow means Lumi DESERVES having a DM who doesn't treat the players properly?No, it means Lumi does not "deserve" to have everyone else change to accommodate Lumi when Lumi is apparently unwilling to change to accommodate anyone else...
Or is it only elitist when people make you adapt to them, and not when you make them adapt to you?
No one used the word accommodate, or suggested its a one way street. People shouldn't have to 'accommodate' to other people's play styles(though it happens often enough, in little ways.) Its also unrelated to the discussion of punishment atm. No one deserves to be treated improperly or badly, we all come to the table to have fun.
More so on that point, dropping subtle hints that people need to change is weird. Where did that start in the thread? I don't see it as being effective, especially in this hobby where people can sometimes miss social cues entirely. If you talk things over your clear and get the other sides opinion. If you drop hints you don't get the other sides opinion, and they could take it pretty badly without ever getting your point. Bad Mojo.
I don't think anyone thinks it's ok to punish before talking to the guy. BUT be prepared to punish when he doesn't listen. Not punishing a guy who violates the rules everyone else is following will only serve to anger the ones following the rules.
I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
Ponzi Schemes are the new form of theft as are
Ridiculously High Prices
and Underpayed Employment
And who gets to define what "underpaid" is and why should they have that power?
i don't even make 12,000 a year.
hell, i don't even get 800 a month.
i don't make enough to even survive on.
i'd say highly underpaid is exploitation/theft when the person makes less than 30,000 USD net pay a year before benefits and after taxes.
800 a month would be nice to make I'll admit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule 2: Positive Consequences also happen...meaning if you help out the poor in a city...or show mercy to a defeated enemy...etc chances are that will help you out later. This is very important...because most of the accusation of punishments comes from players with GMs who seem to only have negative consequences happen.
That's why I've always hated the Leadership feat, and explain to my players that they should avoid it.
If they're playing their PCs in any kind of non-evil, non-jackass way, they'll have plenty of NPC allies, willing to help them out, some of whom will even accompany them into danger.
If the PCs have done their 'Magnificent Seven' thing, and saved the village, then they'll be followed by eager teens wanting to squire for them, whether they want them or not. (Think of Charles Bronson's character in that film, who has to tell them to shove off, and even spanks one for disrespecting his farmer father as a coward...he sure as hell hadn't spent a feat.)
If they've done something to gain the attention of the local government, they'll be deputised, given a charter to kick ass, and be able to commandeer local troops.
Why should a well-played heroic PC have to spend a limited feat resource, to gain the believable in-game benefit of their actions?
There's also the advantage, that if allied NPCs haven't 'cost' the PCs any of their feats, there's nothing preventing the GM from having the NPC step off-stage when it makes in-game sense.
So you can run the scenario where a whole regiment turns out to fight alongside the PCs, without having to adjust every single subsequent session to allow for them tagging along.
|
|
But there's the rub isn't it? So many GMs, myself included up until a few years ago, are convinced that it's the PLAYERS who have the PRIVILEGE of hanging out and running through MY game. If you have even a little of this feeling or some version of it when the players hit your table ask yourself: what makes you any more right at this than the guy hijacking your awesome game for his own glory?
I've found this attitude is far more common in groups where all GMing has traditionally been provided by one person. When they've nothing to compare it to, players are less likely to question the GM's style and methods.
And if, as a GM, you look round the table, and see a row of other people whose games you've played in, maybe enjoyed, you'll a) be less likely to pull a power trip, and b) more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt, that when they make a suggestion, it's backed up by experience, and meant well for the good of the game, rather than 'entitled whining', or whatever buzz-word of the week.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm talking about all forms of punitive actions other than dismissal. The term punishment is kind of vague. Intent is a big factor. For the purposes of this thread, punishment is any negative/punitive action taken against a player OR their character that in no way improves the game for anyone.
See this is the problem is this is all subjective to the invidual GM, to the invidual players, and to each invidual group. Really the most important thing a GM as to know beyond the rules, the campaign setting, even his own adventure(though those are also important) is his or her players. Which is where I see most GMs run into trouble.
Remember One man's punishment is another man's pleasure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But, if I don't punish my players, then how will I assert my dominance over the herd? ;)
But yeah, I have always agreed to the sentiment of dealing with issues face-to-face, with no hints, passive aggressive behavior, or punishing. We're adults. I act like one and expect to be treated like one. I am incredibly open and polite with issues at the table and I expect the same from GMs. If a GM has a problem with me, I want them to tell me. No passive aggressive BS, no in-game solutions. Tell me there is an issue and I will rectify it. And I do the same, polite and frank.
Remember One man's punishment is another man's pleasure.
I could see that phrasing going horribly wrong. Personally, I never liked taking glee in a particular player doing badly or in a GM taking glee in that sort of thing. Never sat well with me.
Remember One man's punishment is another man's pleasure.I could see that phrasing going horribly wrong. Personally, I never liked taking glee in a particular player doing badly or in a GM taking glee in that sort of thing. Never sat well with me.
I have unfortunately run a game where a player took joy in "breaking GMs". Ended hilariously though and since then, no one has let him in a game.
I've also seen GMs that enjoy breaking players. I don't play with those GMs.
Remember One man's punishment is another man's pleasure.I could see that phrasing going horribly wrong. Personally, I never liked taking glee in a particular player doing badly or in a GM taking glee in that sort of thing. Never sat well with me.I have unfortunately run a game where a player took joy in "breaking GMs". Ended hilariously though and since then, no one has let him in a game.
I've also seen GMs that enjoy breaking players. I don't play with those GMs.
Depending on who your with that's ideally what happens. I have a friend who never removes problem players from the table even though they bother him to no end because he feels like he can't find more, and I know another who removes people over and over until he finds the perfect group of like minded individuals(Wants a 6 man game, goings through 12 people who manage to sit down in sessions. Bit nutty, but its mostly due to his lack of explaining expectations.) Two of my better friends back in high school used to always play together even though one will openly break games and the other would be back and forth on whether he wants to stop him on that particular day or not. Lots of social examples and paradigms.
Of course, if your GM is just kicking you in the face for wearing an ugly shirt or some other arbitrary reason, the fact he takes pleasure in it shouldn't excuse it.
By break GM, I mean this guy would always sabotage PC interactions with NPCs, or purposefully ignore any form of story hooks, or twisting RAW in magnanimous way to try and get what he wanted. And all under the guise of playing to his character and following RAW. And he'd do this because he thought it was fun to derail and illicit reactions from the GM for his shenanigans.
So having differing tastes somehow means Lumi DESERVES having a DM who doesn't treat the players properly?No, it means Lumi does not "deserve" to have everyone else change to accommodate Lumi when Lumi is apparently unwilling to change to accommodate anyone else...
Or is it only elitist when people make you adapt to them, and not when you make them adapt to you?
No one used the word accommodate, or suggested its a one way street. People shouldn't have to 'accommodate' to other people's play styles(though it happens often enough, in little ways.) Its also unrelated to the discussion of punishment atm. No one deserves to be treated improperly or badly, we all come to the table to have fun.
More so on that point, dropping subtle hints that people need to change is weird. Where did that start in the thread? I don't see it as being effective, especially in this hobby where people can sometimes miss social cues entirely. If you talk things over your clear and get the other sides opinion. If you drop hints you don't get the other sides opinion, and they could take it pretty badly without ever getting your point. Bad Mojo.
Weekly William does everything he can to screw his players over
hell, he creates fiat ways to ignore any advantage the players gain through investment.
ever had your wizard lose his or her spellbook to "Fiat Thieves" who never once rolled a single die nor gave you a chance to respond?
ever got locked up and kidnapped by "Fiat Guards" with no chance to fight back, only to end up in a prison with not even a loincloth, and not a single item to help you fight the fiat guards whom every challenge leads to you waking up in a cell an hour later with 1HP.
Seriously though, why DO you play with this guy?
You have nothing but bad things to say about him, find a new game.
800 a month would be nice to make I'll admit.I don't believe thieves exist. I mean, sure, there are thieves, but they get arrested and put in jail. Which is the mechanism that removes thieves from circulation. So in the grand scheme of things, thieves aren't actually real, and any thieves you may encounter are basically the universe's rounding errors.
You need 6 billion people to not see a theft to allow a thief to succeed. You only need 1 alert person to prevent theft.
P.S. please give me $100, if you do I promise I'll give you $200 tomorrow. You can trust me because ponzi schemes always fail eventually, and what I'm doing hasn't failed yet, therefore what I'm doing can't possibly be a ponzi.
Ponzi Schemes are the new form of theft as are
Ridiculously High Prices
and Underpayed Employment
And who gets to define what "underpaid" is and why should they have that power?
i don't even make 12,000 a year.
hell, i don't even get 800 a month.
i don't make enough to even survive on.
i'd say highly underpaid is exploitation/theft when the person makes less than 30,000 USD net pay a year before benefits and after taxes.
considering that Rent can eat up 1,000$ USD or more on it's own, and a week's groceries are 500$ USD or more assuming you live the starving college student diet. if i lived alone, my debt would multiply each month and that isn't factoring a car, insurance, gas, or my medical requirements.
i'm lucky i live with my overworked accountant mother, whom seems to be the only thing keeping a certain Semi-Big west coast Grocery company even close to functioning.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously though, why DO you play with this guy?
You have nothing but bad things to say about him, find a new game.
because there are very few other groups in my area. and none of them want an autistic 24 year old anime geek with a 16 year freeform background, an unhealthy obsession with a certain anime inspired line of bullet hell danmaku shooters, and an unhealthy love for both a certain RPG line, and Strategy game line, both by Nippon Ichi Software, and several questionable anime titles involving cute small framed female characters that could pass off for far younger than they are.
Well...damn... not sure what to say about that one.
Play online, like I do. You can find a lot of cool people online to play with.
I've got a game starting up in a month or two you might enjoy, and I need a couple of people to fill out the group, if you want to try it. I'm new-ish to the game as a whole and GMing in particular, but I try my damnedest to be fair and keep the game interesting.