|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Granted, there is an unheard side to this story (two more, if you consider the GM's side and the OP's "friends'" side), but in all honesty, I will give the OP the benefit of the doubt for the most part.
If things played out as in the OP's telling, then
1. Your "friends" are not your friends.
2. The GM did act like a jerk
3. The OP did push boundaries by apparently pestering the GM
4. The GM overreacted in a majorly childish way
4. And the OP should look to another gaming solution, be it online, at a FLGS, etc.
If things did not play out as the OP described, then
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. And the OP should look to another gaming solution, be it online, at a FLGS, etc.
All the back and forth really serves no purpose without the full story. Without that aspect, the only advise anyone can really give that is of value is to move on and find another game. Everything else is based on conjecture and assumption.
|
I think my main problem here is that, after people already gave good advice to the OP and the situation is resolved, there is no need to now put up a fuss about "OMG, it's the OP who really is wrong!" anymore. And, no, ciretose, I think you are acting angry. Others also have noted that you are "sounding" very emotional in this conversation.
Considering the people who think I "sound" angry had most of their posts removed for saying I should go F myself while I you can't actually cite anything I said that was "angry" it seems more like projection than fact.
Which is also what seems to be happening since what people are saying the OP said doesn't much match what the OP actually wrote...
|
|
Just to make it clear: I am not defending the OP, nor making any assumptions on how things went down or how is right or wrong in the situation. I have already stated to the OP that regardless of the reasons for what happened, he is best advised to look elsewhere for a game.That said, seriously? Are you joining a fraternity or playing rpgs with people who I presume are your friends. Jesus man that is some special kinds of elitism. I mean yea, the dm has the right to be selective about who plays in his game, but you act as it its ok to treat those people as the diseased huddles masses crowding at the gates to paradise.
Any 'good' player in a group where there is apparently a dire lack of games, so that some people in the 'group' are part of a 'meat grinder' that must beg for a game, whom does not openly encourage new GMs (be they experience players taking a crack at gming for the first time or relatively new players) and support them isnt a good player or a good friend. If they instead demand that the person 'earn enough cred' for them to deem him worthy of dming for them, they are elitest jerks.
All I can say is thank God most gamers arent like you and your 'friends'. I cant coceive of 'begging for a chance' to play a GAME with my friends. And the biggest draw about the community at large for me has always been the inclusiveness I've felt from the gamers I've met and made friends with.
1. Don't change my quotes.
2. If I am going to invest 4 to 6 hours of my life, more or less weekly, than yes, I want to make sure I enjoy the company of the people I will be with during those 4 to 6 hours, weekly.
And so do you, unless you have an open cattle call each week at your FLGS, you choose who to game with and who you don't want to game with.
And if you don't pick someone to GM who you actually think will be good at it, then you should not be surprised if the game goes poorly.
My experience: there have been people that I am friends with that I have lied to or have not mentioned that there is a game on because, they were either terrible players or they made other people uncomfortable.
I have played with people who are painfully shy and find new people at the table very difficult to deal with to the point where they won't show for a game because new people make them feel exposed and vulnerable. I can see a GM who is that shy freaking out when friends invite somebody new without consulting them.
So OP that group may not be for you... Best to create your own. But I am not going to condemn the group because there could be a 1000 reasons behind what happened.
I agree with this post. My experiences pretty much line up with yours. Also I would like to say it has been my experience about 90% of people will not tell somebody straight out the truth of I don't like them. I am usualy the one in my groups that has been the honest one jerk who no one wants to play with because people aviod confrontations like that. Sometimes I do it nicely other times not so nice...but usualy I do it alone because if anybody else in the group is there they will not back me up.
|
|
Wow, I did not intend to create a flame war here. I talked to one of the guys who originally invited me and he told me he'd talk to the GM about letting me sit in and watch at least. But I will try some online games to cut my teeth in the meantime.
The game is back on, as indicated in my original post, and tensions are calming down. I'm not going to try to get in this game, though I'll hopefully get into a future session.
The GM likes me, and as stated in my original post we get along fine. He just seems to think I won't excel or "get it" because I am the only one in the group who hasn't played Pathfinder before. In my opinion, he tends to over think things.
My other two friends, the ones who asked me to join them, have expressed they don't want to upset the GM. One of them said he never gets to play anymore and doesn't want to jeopardize what he sees as his only chance to play again while the other is fairly inexperienced himself and doesn't want to question the GM. Fair enough.
I have apologized and admitted I was being too persistent, albeit I was dumbfounded by the GMs reaction at first considering the other two practically begged me to play.
Thank you to everyone for your advice and consideration.
Don't worry about the flare up Kajiiata, it happens from time to time. Mostly the forums are a pretty helpful place without flare ups. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Sub-creator - That is basically like saying "If I stop stalking you..."
The OP said these were co-workers. Imagine you are at work and you talk to people you like at work and decide to have a campaign with them.
Then some guy you work with that you don't like (for whatever reason, valid or not) says he wants to play. You don't like him, you don't want to run a game for him. It would not be fun for you to have him in the game, and the only reason to game is to have fun.
You've made some assumptions there that were not present in the OP and they seem to pretty purposely put the OP in a bad light. You in fact seem to be taking a pretty strong stance against the OP's claims. Do you have some sort of inside source the rest of us are unaware of that would indicate that these aren't assumptions, but rather facts?
My advice - get the beginners box and create your own group... just male sure you rotate GM duties because GMing can take a lot out of you.
If you a games shop near by or a Uni (not sure of your age) you can pick up players and you have a safe neutral place to play. I would start off with one shots, with a different mix of people and then select the ones that you gel with the best for a longer game.
If you have Pathfinder Society nearby you are home and hosed, lots of people use society games to find players. It's also a good way to sharpen up your rules knowledge. I find PFS to be a bit too much like a sport so while fun I prefer home campaigns.
I learned years ago that trying to spend time with people who didn't stand by you when you needed them is a fool's endeavor.
From what I understand from the OP, the friends said "You should play with us!" And the GM, rather than giving whatever was the REAL reason he didn't want to play with the OP, told him lies about it being too difficult to add another player, shooting down characters he wanted to play, etc.
My advice, based on this: Find a new group to play with, find new friends.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ciretose, the problem is that the OP has been pretty clear about the reasons the GM gave. All the GM had to say was, "you don't match our playstyle". Instead, he said a fourth player would ruin his whole campaign, a video gamer couldn't possibly be interested in roleplay, and then declared the game canceled for everyone. Unless you want to outright accuse the OP of lying, it's pretty clear the GM could have handled this better.
Sure, he has the right to exclude who he likes. That doesn't mean he's not being a jerk if his reasons for exclusion are jerky.
Yeah, can't add much more to what Iron and Kobold said.
Based on this GM's excuses for not including a 4th player, you're not missing much.
Find a more welcoming group. Life's too short to game with people who (take it too seriously/can't be honest/can't communicate/are hostile to newcomers).
The best outcome might be the OP picking up the Gamemastery guide and making a go at it.
Again don't be too quick to judge from a one sided report. Any day now you may see some posts from a Manhattan player who can't get into any Pathfinder games either locally or at regional conventions. If said player does post here, he probably won't mention that the reason is that he is the kind of player who plays badly, cheats, and is abusive enough to his fellow players and GM's that he has been literally banned from every PFS group in the area.
Be guaranteed if that player posts his sob story on these boards, he's probably not going to mention that side of it.
I stand by it. The excuses offered, summarized by Kobold above, indicate that this GM has some growing to do.
The thing that sticks out most to me is not being able to add a fourth player with plenty of notice. That does not bode well for his ability to improvise as a GM.
If that was merely a lie to get the OP off his back, then he needs to work on his communication skills; every bit as crucial as improvisation for a GM.
Threatening to cancel the game makes me think he may be one of these petulant GMs who always dangles games out there but never actually runs them, and blames the failure on anything but himself.
Yeah, I'm being kind of harsh, but that's what I read out of this when the OP posted it. I'm sure there's another side to the story, but the OP is the one asking for help, and so that's my advice. If the GM comes to the forum and asks my help, I'd do the same for him.
|
|
You've made some assumptions there that were not present in the OP and they seem to pretty purposely put the OP in a bad light. You in fact seem to be taking a pretty strong stance against the OP's claims. Do you have some sort of inside source the rest of us are unaware of that would indicate that these aren't assumptions, but rather facts?
"I kept asking him to reconsider until he gave up and said he was going to cancel the whole campaign."
Direct Quote.
I am not making assumptions. I just read the OP.
I completely believe the OPs claims. That is the problem.
|
|
Ciretose, the problem is that the OP has been pretty clear about the reasons the GM gave. All the GM had to say was, "you don't match our playstyle". Instead, he said a fourth player would ruin his whole campaign, a video gamer couldn't possibly be interested in roleplay, and then declared the game canceled for everyone. Unless you want to outright accuse the OP of lying, it's pretty clear the GM could have handled this better.
Sure, he has the right to exclude who he likes. That doesn't mean he's not being a jerk if his reasons for exclusion are jerky.
Read the OP's interactions with the DM.
"So I mentioned it to the DM yesterday and his reaction was less than encouraging.
He just began working on the campaign, and with his workload doesn't expect to have a campaign ready until August. But he told me it was too late, that he already began designing the campaign for three players and a fourth would ruin everything. Additionally, he said my favored class of Sorcerer was out of the question because one of the other players was already a Wizard. On top of that, he doubted that the other players invited me, implying that they'd all have to meet before he could consider including me. Finally, he ridiculed my knowledge of the genre, belittling me for never playing a pen and paper RPG, saying he feared that my experience with video games means I was expecting hack and slash. Naturally, I disagree.
I kept asking him to reconsider until he gave up and said he was going to cancel the whole campaign."
So the OP goes the DM and says he was invited into the game. The GM says it isn't happening until august and it was too late.
That was the opening. Then when the OP "kept asking him to reconsider" the GM gave a long list of additional reasons why the OP wasn't welcome.
When this happens on the boards, if the GM just says "No" the GM is wrong for not explaining.
If the GM explains and gives reasons, as was the case here, the GM's reasons are insufficient...
The person holding the party didn't invite the OP. So it was awkward fro all parties, and the OP should have caught the hint the GM didn't want him in the game when the GM said "It's too late".
This isn't saying the OP is a jerk or the GM is a saint. This is saying the GM didn't want the OP in the game, and told the OP this, and gave reasons when the OP asked for them.
And that wasn't enough.
So what is enough? No one is answering that questions.
Some days it just isn't meant to be, this is one of them.
There actually is a happy medium between "not giving any reasons" and "giving reasons that don't make sense". It's called, actually having decent reasons. :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's leave the game out of it for a second....
I'm having some friends over this weekend; these friends are not entitled to invite other people over to my house on my behalf. If someone comes up to me and tells me he talked with my friends and decided to come with them, I have the right to say no. Pestering me about my reasons won't change that.
Can anyone find anything wrong with this?
Only if you first lie about how many chairs you have, and then cancel the party because your friends asked if they could invite someone.
|
|
There actually is a happy medium between "not giving any reasons" and "giving reasons that don't make sense". It's called, actually having decent reasons. :P
And if someone came up to me who I didn't invite and said "I want to play a sorcerer!" saying "It is too late" is much more polite than "I didn't invite you to play for a reason..."
And he only cancelled the game when, and I quote "I kept asking him to reconsider until he gave up and said he was going to cancel the whole campaign."
You keep overlooking that part.
The game was cancelled only when "no" wasn't taken for an answer. Even the OP admits to being too persistent at this point.
I didn't overlook it. I'm just pointing out that canceling was melodramatic.
1. It was not too late. The OP has made this clear. If the GM was trying to be polite, he wasn't trying very hard.
2. The GM then proceeded to insult the OP's roleplaying abilities because the guy plays video games. So much for politeness?
Kthulhu--and everyone who seems to think I'm denying the GM his First Amendment rights or something--I am aware that the GM has the 'right' to exclude a guy for no reason. I am simply saying that, y'know, that fact doesn't protect the GM from being a jerk. I have the right to say you smell, but I don't, because that would be rude and jerky. The GM has the right to exclude a player on account of video game hate, and he did, and he's at best foolish and close-minded.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm, I'm always brutally honest with people. Sure, it ruined a friendship or two, but now, all of my friends know that i will never tell them anything that wasn't true.
I also have a rule. Ask me to bring a friend to a party or a sitdown and I will most probably say sure. Don't ask me, your friend is not coming in.
If you can't be bothered to at least call beforehand, why should i bother going out to by extra snacks and drinks?
That said,
I realize two things:
- The OP was overly enthusiastic to play in the game.
- The GM is a petulant child who can't make a proper game.
|
|
Cancelling it was more or less the only option he had left when the OP wouldn't take no for an answer, other than letting the OP force his way into a game the GM didn't want him to be a part of and forcing the GM to run for this guy he never invited.
Let me say that again.
The GM never invited the guy to the game.
Ever.
Again, it's a guy who you didn't invite just showing up and not taking a hint when you point out you didn't invite him.
Or can I just knock on your door anytime I want, and you not letting me come in for awhile is you being a jerk?
Ciretose, I notice you're ignoring his whole point--that the GM should have been honest. As that was his point, he will simply give you an honest answer, like "You wouldn't contribute much, as you're only attending to make a point in an online argument." :P
If the GM had given a reason that wasn't obviously bullsh**, none of this would have happened.
"No, because that doesn't fit the setting."
Are you guys trying to make a point, or are you just trying to derail now? ;P
|
|
The GM was honest. He said it was too late and he didn't want to add the other player.
You don't like the reasons the GM gave. I don't like the player didn't take the hint of "It's too late" and demanded the GM explain further to the point the GM felt cancelling the game was better than putting up with the OP.
Was the GM just supposed to run a game with someone they didn't want (and didn't invite) in the game?
Does the GM exist not to actually have a good time themselves? Can a player never refuse to play with a GM running a game. If the GM had come up to the OP and badgered them to be in the game the GM was running, would the OP be a jerk for not wanting to play?
The GM never invited the OP. The OP was ostensibly asking the GM to be in the game, understanding No was a possible answer. Yet when it was given, that wasn't enough.
No answer the GM could give would be good enough for you, I think. Because the only answer that is needed is "I didn't invite you"
"It's too late" is one of those b+@$$!~* reasons I mentioned. The game starts in August.
This isn't a GM vs. player power argument, you know. We aren't arguing that the GM has to bend over backwards to please the players. Plenty of answers would be good enough for me, as I demonstrated when I gave example answers for Hama. The fact is, the player was too persistent and the GM was a jackass.
|
|
He never invited the OP. Then he listed off a number of reasons he didn't want the OP in the game.
And that wasn't good enough for you. How about "If you are going to harass me this much before the game even starts, to the point I would rather cancel the game than have to keep having you try to talk me into letting you play, there is no way I want to have to deal with you actually at the table and deal with those issues?"
He never invited the guy.
What part of that makes him obligated to run for the guy, for any reason?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No one is recommending that the GM should take any other course of action.
Everyone is saying that the GM's actions demonstrate that the OP should find another group.
This thread isn't even about the OP any more, it's about Ciretose, evidently.
Actually, no worries, Cire.
I don't dislike you, we just disagree. If your playing devil's advocate a little too enthusiastically is the worst we have to deal with on the forums nowadays, we're in great shape.
I just remembered the last few weeks.
Ciretose, it's sorta fun watching someone else get gang-tackled by the self-appointed gamer police.
I've been that target enough to know what it feels like.
I still say that there is simply not enough information for most of these judgements to be made. We only know one side of the story, and that side demonstrates some behavior of a questionable socially acceptable nature by the OP's own words.
What ELSE is going on here?
We don't know. My advice again to the OP is to figure out what kept him from being invited and work on that. But that could well require some deep soul-searching and self-examination to accomplish.
The only thing I will say as a long-time GM is that none of the offered reasons for not inviting the OP ring all that true to me. I would never exclude a player for any of those reasons.
So I naturally wonder if there is something else going on.
You've made some assumptions there that were not present in the OP and they seem to pretty purposely put the OP in a bad light. You in fact seem to be taking a pretty strong stance against the OP's claims. Do you have some sort of inside source the rest of us are unaware of that would indicate that these aren't assumptions, but rather facts?"I kept asking him to reconsider until he gave up and said he was going to cancel the whole campaign."
Direct Quote.
I am not making assumptions. I just read the OP.
I completely believe the OPs claims. That is the problem.
And you've been using that to imply a large number of things, like stalking, harassment, or a long and persistent campaign by the OP.
I'm curious if you noticed this other sentence:
"So I mentioned it to the DM yesterday"
To me, this implies that it was probably one conversation, or maybe at most a couple of conversations during the course of one day. I don't see any evidence that explicitly tells us it was multiple conversations with the GM. Do you?
Also, I'm curious if you think this is appropriate behavior:
"belittling me for never playing a pen and paper RPG"
|
|
I felt like I've been losing my edge. It had been awhile since I hadbeen told to go F myself :)
I don't know what is or isn't going on. I don't know if the OP is an awesome guy or not, or if the GM is good guy or a jerk.
What I do know is that it is clear the GM didn't want to run for the OP, and the OP didn't take no for an answer.
So...more or not more, in the future take no for an answer and you won't have these problems.
|
|
@AD - If someone who didn't invite you to play a game says he doesn't want you in the game, that is that.
If the person gives you a list of reasons they don't want to be in the game, if you agree or not, that is that.
If they feel like they have to cancel the game to get you to leave them alone...
Add to that that the friends didn't take his side.
And again, all of this disclosed in defense of the position, not opposed.
Why would I believe otherwise?
|
It doesn't really matter if the GM is a jerk or not. He didn't want to run a game for the OP. The OP pushed the issue. The result: the game was cancelled for EVERYONE.
Unless, of course, the GM came up with the brilliant plan of telling the OP that the game was cancelled...then having the game anyway. In which case everyone wins (except the OP).
Do you really think that the GM should HAVE to run a game for the OP if he doesn't want to? Are we really gonna start up that bit of the "Entitled Players vs Tyrant GMs" thread wars that were raging a few months ago?
|
|
Unless, of course, the GM came up with the brilliant plan of telling the OP that the game was cancelled...then having the game anyway. In which case everyone wins (except the OP).
I've been in games where this happened. Usually with exes who need to be moved out of the game post-break up but we don't want to hurt feelings...
This thread is kinda crazy.
Of course it doesn't matter if the GM is a jerk or not. That's why I don't see why Ciretose felt, uh...
I actually think I am helping
about arguing the "jerk" issue.
It doesn't matter. We feel the GM could have handled it better. He appears to feel the GM handled it fine. I think the GM power vs. player power war got mashed into a debate about social interactions, but it's clearly a matter of perspective regardless.
The end result is the same. The OP needs to find a new group and stop associating with these jerks/pestering these poor souls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the issue has been resolved for the OP and the group of people there in RL, anyway. Why don't we all give it a rest? This discussion is not going to prove anybody right or wrong.
|
|
You are the one saying the GM and his friends are jerks. I'm not saying the OP is a jerk. I'm saying he used poor manners, which is going to validate the GM wanting to exclude him.
Here is what the OP should have done.
OP: Hey, "X" and "Y" invited me to play!.
GM: Uh...it's too late.
OP: Oh...well, think of me next time, I've always wanted to play. (walks away)
GM: (Huh...now I kind of feel like a dick...OP was really cool about that...)
What happened
OP: Hey, "X" and "Y" invited me to play!.
GM: Uh...it's to late.
OP: But! But! But!
GM: Jesus dude...the game is off, stop bugging me about it.
Friends: (To OP) WTF Dude?
GM: See, that is why I didn't want him in the game.
OP: (Sad face)
Neither scenario really took place. My problem is not that you think the OP was annoying, but that you seem to think the GM was blameless. All your scenarios paint him as a victim when he's just as at fault--if not more so--than the OP.
And since my "it's a matter of opinion" post had no effect, I'll leave it at that.
|
|
Can you please cite where I said the GM is blameless?
Many people have said he is a jerk, the friends are jerks, etc...
Can you tell me where I said the GM is blameless. I said the OP made a mistake, because the OP did.
And he is the only one here. And he asked. So I told him.
Meanwhile many of you seem to want to put the GM on a pike...