| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this happened in my game tonight, and I will tell you the situation, then how I resolved it.
So, when I started my campaign a player wanted to play a Black-Blooded Oracle and based on the parameters of my campaign, I felt that it was not something I wanted for any players to have that particular curse. It's just too rare outside of the Darklands, and also, there was an NPC I was planning on having them meet later in the campaign (they just hit level 5 a bit ago,) a young girl they would have to help protect from a villainous werewolf, who I was thinking about making a Black-Blooded Oracle.
So, tonight while in Alkenstar with the girl (Skyside, so there is magic) the Curse of Black-Blood (Mystery is Spellscar) manifests in her because she grew up training to be a wizard, spent a lot of time training in the Spellscar Desert with her Master, so the exposure to primal magic and the randomness of what it can do is why she has Black Blood with the Spellscar Mystery. Crazy combo, but it's primal magic, it does random crazy stuff.
When the players discover the symptoms, first thing his character "automatically" recognizes the curse. I told him that no, he still has to roll even as an oracle himself. I had decided that being as rare as the curse is even in the Darklands, it would be a DC 25 in the Darklands, 30 to know outside of the Darklands. Well, he rolled a 28. So, I told him no he did not recognize the symptoms of Black Blood.
After a short debate about "Bull**** the difficultly can't be higher than 25" and me not wanting to be all "I am the GM shut up" I looked it up, and sure enough it is possible for very rare things to be DC 30.
That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."
At this point looked at him for a few seconds dumbfounded that he'd just said that to me, then I closed my laptop and said, "Game over. I won't have a player say **** you to me for any reason" but then I thought about the other players, and asked them their opinion. They both said they would stay out of it, so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing, either apologize or we're done." After about 30 seconds when he realized I was dead serious and grabbing my laptop bag, he did apologize with "You're right, it was extremely rude for me to say that, I am sorry... I do want to keep playing" so we did, but... the whole situation still has me thinking... The game went pretty good after that, so I think maybe he honestly realized he was in the wrong, but I have a -20 penalty to my sense motive check because of a curse of my own formerly known as Asperger's Syndrome so I can never truly be sure if an apology is sincere or not.
He's been a friend a long time (like 15 years or so... I knew him when he was like "buy me beer" because I was 22 and I was like "no, you are not 21 yet, I'm not going to jail for you" (forget exactly how much older I am), that's also another reason why I even gave him the chance to apologize without saying "Get the **** out of my game".
So, what do you all think? What would you do in this situation?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, what do you all think? What would you do in this situation?
Well, I would have wrapped it up right then and there. I agree with the other players, not something they should get involved in. You can resolve it with the guy before next session (or just let him steam).
I think it does highlight an interesting secondary point though: Sometimes you can't, as a GM, reveal your reason for saying no. Well, you can, but sometimes it's not cool to reveal half you storyline just to justify why a certain something is off the table.
|
Just a heads-up: Thread won't survive long with all the partial censors, especially in the title. Still 50 minutes or so to fully asterisk 'em!
Just trying to save some frustration if this whole conversation just up and @#$%ing* disappears or some @#$%.**
Also, dude's totally out of line.
*borking
**gorp
Yeah, if we weren't having two of the three players moving in April, one moving farther away than he could come for games every week, I pretty much need to finish the campaign by then, or leave it unfinished when they have to leave. So, ending early and not getting my "goal points" done was a big reason too...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have called for a time-out and left the room for a bit. I would want to make certain I have a cool head for discussing it.
I've made too many mistakes when not keeping my emotions in check...
Just a heads-up: Thread won't survive long with all the partial censors, especially in the title. Still 50 minutes or so to fully asterisk 'em!
Just trying to save some frustration if this whole conversation just up and @#$%ing* disappears or some @#$%.**
Also, dude's totally out of line.
*borking
**gorp
Ah, okay thanks. Didn't know they would object to partial censoring... changed it to all *'s.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably wouldn't have had it manifest the Curse of Black Blood.
Still, totes out of line on his part. Be glad you didn't have to deal with a player that threw dice and threatened a player's girlfriend.
I can see why he got upset but he was way out of line. You did good and he apologized so it seems like all is well now.
Yeah, I kind of can too, but then I also would have said no to any gunslingers too, because the mother of the girl they are helping is a former Shieldmarshal (not the class, just she worked as one before she left Alkenstar for personal reasons,) so having her plus a PC gunslinger plus a PC black blooded oracle.. we got all this very rare stuff all in the party oh look and NPCs too? I was already letting him play a Kitsune (which nobody else but me will let him do, which is part of the reason I was willing, he loves foxes (his ring tone is what does the fox say) and nobody else lets him play foxes... and I'm usually pretty open to all races as long as they are player appropriate, in fact we have one human in the party, the rest are at least featured or uncommon races in the ARG lol, including the 3 (well, now 4) NPCs involved with the party) which is super rare outside of Tian Xia.
I probably wouldn't have had it manifest the Curse of Black Blood.
Still, totes out of line on his part. Be glad you didn't have to deal with a player that threw dice and threatened a player's girlfriend.
Yeah, part of the story is that people see the curse and think she's evil, but she's not. So, I was considering Black Blood archetype, consumed, wrecker, etc. But, overall I think black blood is the best in that due to the way it essentially gives her negative energy affinity and at least suggests therefore a talent for necromancy for the general public to distrust her when they find out. What the players think is up to them.
|
I wasn't sure about the love of foxes and ring tone. Sorry I couldn't help but be suspicious. I think he was probably miffed because he wanted to be a black blood and you turned him down. Then add one as an NPC. He rolls well to identify it but you don't give it to him. From his perspective you may have denied him and screwed him out of a roll to protect your special snowflake NPC. You sound reasonable and didn't mean to plan it this way but that's how it went down. I think you handled it like a pro.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's a word. By all means get all het up about it, but it won't do anything but make the situation continue...
I prefer not to make a big issue about other people being idiotic. I would blink and move on, or if feeling particularly tired or vindictive say something along the lines of "That's nice darling, have you anything else clever to say?" or "Well haven't you exposed yourself!". Because they have exposed themselves as an idiot. Regardless of the situation, losing it never helps any situation, except perhaps where losing it violently in Rage is the ONLY. WAY. THROUGH. THE. BAD. GUYS.
Seriously, if the level of maturity has plummeted and emotional investment has risen to this level in your game then it doesn't sound healthy.
The player was definitely out of line. There is rarely any excuse for a player to say that to the GM (or fellow players). The other players were probably right not to get involved.
I probably would have avoided the use of the Black-Blood curse, or at least re-fluffed it while keeping the mechanics the same. Using it after forbidding it to the player likely rubbed the player the wrong way, or have come off as hypocritical or smug.
As an aside, and speaking in a very general sense, I try to allow my players access to the same mechanics NPCs have. Some things may not fit for flavor reasons, but can be re-fluffed. For example, if a good-aligned PC likes the abilities of a demon-summoning PrC, it could be re-flavored as a celestial-summoning one. This takes some work on the GM's part, however, and a GM is certainly within their right not to want to do such extra work (and they're not wrong for not wanting to).
Another thing is trust and respect between the players and GM. The players should have enough of each for their GM to realize that when and if he forbids something, he likely has a good reason, even if he doesn't want to expound on it.
Depending on how close you two are, he might not have considered what he said to be a big deal and was just letting off steam or trying to express his frustration. A lot of times, friends can say things to each other they couldn't to a stranger - even caustic or insulting things. The player definitely overreacted, however. Still, he seems to have realized his mistake and apologized.
Considering you two have known each other for so long, I'd hate to see a friendship thrown away in a moment of heated disagreement over a game. Hopefully things will clear up for you next session!
I probably would have avoided the use of the Black-Blood curse, or at least re-fluffed it while keeping the mechanics the same. Using it after forbidding it to the player likely rubbed the player the wrong way, or have come off as hypocritical or smug.
Well, part of the problem with that also is I don't even remember him asking... It was back in late November, early December that we even started, so while I can see how he would remember having asked to play something and been told no, I would not be remembering this long after that I'd told him no.
I wasn't sure about the love of foxes and ring tone. Sorry I couldn't help but be suspicious. I think he was probably miffed because he wanted to be a black blood and you turned him down. Then add one as an NPC. He rolls well to identify it but you don't give it to him. From his perspective you may have denied him and screwed him out of a roll to protect your special snowflake NPC. You sound reasonable and didn't mean to plan it this way but that's how it went down. I think you handled it like a pro.
Yeah, I can kind of see that. Also, as I've said before I tend to be pretty lenient about stuff, and I think if he had not been playing a Kitsune I might have let him have Black Blood (as I also said above to someone else, I don't recall him asking to even play it,) but rare race + rare class... I am pretty sure that's another big reason I said no.
What do I do as GM? Say "good bye."
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs set boundaries for their games. Like it or not they are likely there for good reason. Reasons that they are not compelled to reveal as that would likely ruin the story. Take your sad bag of entitlement and play at a table where you can be all the special little snowflake you want to be. It wouldn't be welcome at mine.
Oh, and I might also add, to all those like ThunderMan who think that I am being rude myself and such, when the NPC was asking for help back in Alkenstar protecting her daughter, he didn't want to go. For a couple of reasons.
1. Half of the city is a dead magic zone? He's an oracle. Refuses to go to Alkenstar.
2. Guns. Steampunk. Grr. Does not belong in Dungeons and Dragons. At all. Grrr.
So, I decided to give in and the two NPCs that were asking for their help skipped out of town and left a note that they were going to go do it on their own, but they had found some other information about the other quest that the players were on that is more in tune with the overall campaign (the Alkenstar/rescue thing was a sort of side plot for some extra experience and levels along the way of the main plot). Well, they managed to finish part of that and then the other players decided they wanted to go help them, he did not object to them, and so when they managed to afford a teleport spell and such, and were able to teleport Skyside where there IS magic in Alkenstar even beating the two NPCs there, that's what they did.
I'd already therefore written the whole trip to Alkenstar and meeting the girl out when they decided as an overall group not to let me do so.
As for forgetting that he'd asked to play a black-blooded oracle, at a character creation session with 3-4 players making characters I don't remember everything every player asked if they could play because what matters to the game is what they end up playing. If you have a photographic memory, I commend you. I do not. That doesn't mean that I should never be a GM because I don't remember every single thing a player does or asks 2-3 months later.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You did the right thing. Sounds like someone I know that has this weird fetish obsession with playing underage goth girls (but it's "okay" because they are really 500+ years old). I indulged it once and it got creepy really fast.
I seem to play with weird people sometimes...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a little devil's advocate, but I sure would be angry if my GM saved classes for special snowflake NPCs and denied them to his PCs. The players are supposed to be the heroes, not the supporting cast. You should have let him be the black blooded oracle and changed around your NPC. The fact that you also restricted Gunslingers for another special NPC rings alarm bells in my mind.
That said, you did acknowledge that you have trouble reading this kind of thing. My advice is: it might be worthwhile apologising to him as well. He did not respond with maturity and so should also apologise, but his anger was justified as you did do a pretty mean thing. Otherwise you risk creating resentment which could ruin the game.
Just say something like 'sorry, I shouldn't have included an NPC with the class that I had denied to you. I honestly didn't remember that you had wanted that class - it was not an intentional slight'. This will prompt him to also apologise and the whole thing can be forgotten.
My advice to the OP: talk to him about the incident, without any preconceived notion of the outcome of that conversation, except that your friendship is precious to both of you and that you would like to continue it.
I had a problem in-game with one of my fellow players, which left him irritated and confused. So we agreed to talk about it, so as to resolve the underlying issue of the conflict.
In my experience, these sort of things rarely happen out of the blue. In my case, my friend was behaving in a way that I had found irksome for years, but I had never confronted him about that. I was having personal problems in my life at this point, and was very stressed, so I lashed out (a bit) at him during one RPG session.
The first thing I said when we met after the session (in a private place, one to one) to discuss what happened was :"I'm sorry if what I said bothered you, or made you ill at ease or angry. That was never my intent."
Notice: I didn't apologize, because that wouldn't have sat right with me, but I did the next best thing imo - I reassured him that what I did wasn't done with malicious intent.
You'd be surprised at how essential it is that the basics ("We're both good and honest people here, I'm sure") be reasserted at times of stress in a relationship.
Also, when I spoke to my friend (of 23 years or so), it wasn't important to me to establish who was "right" and who was "wrong": I just wanted to make my point of view clear, to hear and understand his side of the equation AND to mend our friendship.
Those are my 2 cents. I wish you good luck in your dealings with your friend :-).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would have taken a time out to resolve the situation out of game, preferably without ending the session there and then. But, since you pretty much took something he wanted and showed it off to his face while saying he can't have it, you kinda asked for it. I would have never let it come to that myself, because it's just plain unfair to do that to your players.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Perhaps a little devil's advocate, but I sure would be angry if my GM saved classes for special snowflake NPCs and denied them to his PCs. The players are supposed to be the heroes, not the supporting cast.
While I absolutely agree, I also feel compelled to say that they're the heroes because of what they do, not (only) because of what they are.
Important NPCs must be special as much as the playing characters, even exotic or exceedingly rare, and even moreso due to their limited playing time in a show focused on the PCs.Players requesting to have "all the options" to perform as protagonists is not a valid argument - at least in my book.
Players requesting to shine as protagonists more than NPCs in a given story is perfectly reasonable.
Told him to cool off or find another group to play with. That said just if I tell someone they can't play something in my games, I make sure that thing NEVER appears in the game, even as an npc, out of fairness and to keep my word.
You did the right thing. Sounds like someone I know that has this weird
fetishobsession with playing underage goth girls (but it's "okay" because they are really 500+ years old). I indulged it once and it got creepy really fast.I seem to play with weird people sometimes...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not an excuse but telling a player no to an option then geing the sme option to an NPC is asking for angry players. But like I said that dosent give the player an excuse to be an ass hat.
I had a smiliar situation happen once when I was in the Army in South Korea.
A new (his first session with us) player demanded an option that I had banned at character creation (to be more precise I said that it do not exist in the world...period). When I told him no and cited the character creation guidelines he got irate cursed a bunch, knocked over some minis, etc. I kept my inner NCO in check took a breath and informed him that he had 3 options: 1. deal with it calm down and play 2. leave 3. be forceably removed my myself and the other players. He paused just long enough for one of the other players to take a step toward him...then he reaized I was serious and chose option 1. He played with us for about a year (until his tour was over) and was actually a decent player and person after that.
so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."
Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.
That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."
This is a rather reasonable response, though it was clearly stated in anger. Telling a player he cannot take a certain archetype and then giving it to an NPC is just bad GMing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good lesson here kids! F U is an appropriate response!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.
That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."This is a rather reasonable response, though it was clearly stated in anger. Telling a player he cannot take a certain archetype and then giving it to an NPC is just bad GMing.
I kind of agree. If Black-Blood Oracles are so rare that I can't be one then an NPC shouldn't be showing up as one. It's bad form and undermined your own position. Not saying that his response wasn't totally out of line also but I feel that the GM brought it on himself and then got really mad about being called out for it. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a crappy parenting style and in general a good way to make people not respect your stance on things.
Bottom line: GM should've stuck with BB oracles are too rare and made his NPC something else. Bad form. Player shouldn't have responded the way he did also. Bad form.If a GM tells me that some class is off limits then I expect to not see it in the campaign. I would be upset if it suddenly showed up in-game but I wouldn't have been so rude in my response.
so I said "Seriously, saying **** you to the GM is a serious thing..."Why is that? The way you phrase that, you make it seem as though you think saying f*** you to the GM is more serious than saying it to another player. That's a bad approach to take as a GM; you shouldn't think that your authority over the game means you deserve some special respect.
That was when he said "You know what? **** you. I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no."This is a rather reasonable response, though it was clearly stated in anger. Telling a player he cannot take a certain archetype and then giving it to an NPC is just bad GMing.
This sounds perfectly rational
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good lesson here kids! F U is an appropriate response!
So is passive aggression, it seems.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
YMMV, of course, but at my table saying "f~&% you" to the DM happens with regularity and is usually followed by me cackling with glee.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently there are people here who think it's okay to say F**K You at people like it's no big thing. And in certain company and with a certain tone amongst buddies who are playing around maybe that's true. But that's not the case here.
The OP made a bad call in terms of what he did. But that in NO CASE warranted the level of response from the player. If the player was AT ALL any kind of mature adult there were a bunch of different ways he could have handled it. The way he chose, to me, was completely unacceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good lesson here kids! F U is an appropriate response!So is passive aggression, it seems.
Naw, just good ol' fashioned sarcasm.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of agree. If Black-Blood Oracles are so rare that I can't be one then an NPC shouldn't be showing up as one. It's bad form and undermined your own position. Not saying that his response wasn't totally out of line also but I feel that the GM brought it on himself and then got really mad about being called out for it. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a crappy parenting style and in general a good way to make people not respect your stance on things.
Bottom line: GM should've stuck with BB oracles are too rare and made his NPC something else. Bad form. Player shouldn't have responded the way he did also. Bad form.If a GM tells me that some class is off limits then I expect to not see it in the campaign. I would be upset if it suddenly showed up in-game but I wouldn't have been so rude in my response.
Why? My GM is letting us play Carrion Crown with monster races but hasn't approved any undead characters. It's Carrion Crown. There's almost nothing BUT undead characters. Is he doing it wrong? Should I tell him '**** you'?
The story is what the story needs to be regardless of your sense of entitlement to a class. Being a thing in the wrong place of the story can have game altering repercussions.
Want to be that blackblooded oracle? Fine. The one that lead an attack on a city has left its people scared and hungry for revenge. As soon as your character shows up and pricks its finger the people mob you and lynch you before you can say sweet potato pie. Make a new character.
Would you be satisfied with that because it makes sense or do you have a perception that PCs are inviolate to the laws and norms of the world they live in?
I kind of agree. If Black-Blood Oracles are so rare that I can't be one then an NPC shouldn't be showing up as one. It's bad form and undermined your own position. Not saying that his response wasn't totally out of line also but I feel that the GM brought it on himself and then got really mad about being called out for it. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a crappy parenting style and in general a good way to make people not respect your stance on things.
Bottom line: GM should've stuck with BB oracles are too rare and made his NPC something else. Bad form. Player shouldn't have responded the way he did also. Bad form.If a GM tells me that some class is off limits then I expect to not see it in the campaign. I would be upset if it suddenly showed up in-game but I wouldn't have been so rude in my response.
Why? My GM is letting us play Carrion Crown with monster races but hasn't approved any undead characters. It's Carrion Crown. There's almost nothing BUT undead characters. Is he doing it wrong? Should I tell him '**** you'?
The story is what the story needs to be regardless of your sense of entitlement to a class. Being a thing in the wrong place of the story can have game altering repercussions.
Want to be that blackblooded oracle? Fine. The one that lead an attack on a city has left its people scared and hungry for revenge. As soon as your character shows up and pricks its finger the people mob you and lynch you before you can say sweet potato pie. Make a new character.
Would you be satisfied with that because it makes sense or do you have a perception that PCs are inviolate to the laws and norms of the world they live in?
I'd be very annoyed with the GM if I had been the player in the OP as well. But then my style, both as player AND GM is that the story is mutable, it can and will change to fit the characters that the players bring to the table. It's also why I work with my players to make characters that fit.
I'd be fine with your example of the blackblooded oracle being hunted. That would actually be cool to me as a player and feel like I'm directly involved in the story, instead of just being a member of the audience.
YMMV, of course, but at my table saying "f@%! you" to the DM happens with regularity and is usually followed by me cackling with glee.
I have a game I run where it is actively encouraged. As GM, I'm actually not allowed to contradict what the players say. In that game the GM is a mere mortal, while the players are all potential gods (usually at least one person ends up a god at the end). While explaining the game, a part of my spiel is:
"I'm going to make suggestions, but if you don't like them, you're a free to tell me '**** you'. As long as your idea makes sense to you, it's fine, I'm just here to make recommendations and offer options."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But then my style, both as player AND GM is that the story is mutable, it can and will change to fit the characters that the players bring to the table. It's also why I work with my players to make characters that fit.
There's got to be a point where this ends. I agree that the world should respond to the PCs but, honestly, they're no more special than NPCs. This is a mere trick of perception. The table is playing one set of characters usually toward a common goal. There is only one guy playing the NPCs. Everyone can see the PCs and the consequences of their actions (mostly) but only the GM can appreciate the impact of, literally, everyone else. As far as the gaming group is concerned, the spotlight is on the PCs. But, in reality, if you're running any sort of "living" world, they're just a speck in an ocean of change.
If you're building a campaign around a group of characters, that's one thing. It's also a style different from my own. I prefer to see characters birthed into an existing world and see them respond to it. I don't like shaping the universe according to the whims of players. I feel my way has more intrigue to it and leaves a feeling that there are things to be discovered compared to the group knowing there will never be elements A or B because no one wanted to play that or that all elements of the game can be immediately resolved by the current group without much ingenuity or reliance on outside characters. I also heavily prefer the existing Golarion materials. The APs just give a nice starting point but I do enjoy the flavor of the assumed setting.
So, difference in style? Is that what I'm seeing?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP : I read only your posts. The reactions they show to what other posters said are clearly positive when people say you were right and HIGHLY defensive when people say they do not agree with you.
This makes it sound like all you want is confirmation that you are a good and nice GM and that it is all the bad bad player's fault.
My opinion : you have a fair bit of responsibility in what happened and strong-armed your player (and supposedly friend) in uttering a likely insincere apology (because no one changes deep-felt emotions this quickly and coincidentally just after your threat).
I am not surprised that you don't feel comfortable with the way this issue was settled, because I think it is not settled AT ALL. Just quietly simmering under the surface. To really solve this, you would need to accept your role in what led to this and make your own apology to your player. I honestly feel that you are still far from ready to do this.
Enjoy your thread.
But then my style, both as player AND GM is that the story is mutable, it can and will change to fit the characters that the players bring to the table. It's also why I work with my players to make characters that fit.There's got to be a point where this ends. I agree that the world should respond to the PCs but, honestly, they're no more special than NPCs. This is a mere trick of perception. The table is playing one set of characters usually toward a common goal. There is only one guy playing the NPCs. Everyone can see the PCs and the consequences of their actions (mostly) but only the GM can appreciate the impact of, literally, everyone else. As far as the gaming group is concerned, the spotlight is on the PCs. But, in reality, if you're running any sort of "living" world, they're just a speck in an ocean of change.
If you're building a campaign around a group of characters, that's one thing. It's also a style different from my own. I prefer to see characters birthed into an existing world and see them respond to it. I don't like shaping the universe according to the whims of players. I feel my way has more intrigue to it and leaves a feeling that there are things to be discovered compared to the group knowing there will never be elements A or B because no one wanted to play that or that all elements of the game can be immediately resolved by the current group without much ingenuity or reliance on outside characters. I also heavily prefer the existing Golarion materials. The APs just give a nice starting point but I do enjoy the flavor of the assumed setting.
So, difference in style? Is that what I'm seeing?
It is part difference in style.
The PC's are different from NPC's, because behind the PC's are players that I'm interacting with. The only person behind the NPC's is me and I don't go to the game table to play with myself, that's a different night of the week.
I would say both of you were in the wrong, to a certain degree. I can kind of understand wanting to deny the PC something for the NPC, but doing it because you have your NPC planned is problematic in my mind. Then, when he the player recognized it and he the character missed it by 2, I'm of the opinion that that was close enough. Rules are rules, but what's the number one rule? Have fun. Forcing someone to avoid metagaming a large portion of a campaign isnt fun. The player knew it. You'd denied him access to it, then gave it to an NPC. The way to have made up for it would be to let him make that check. As is, I agree with The Black Raven that things are simmering. It could likely explode again, especially if not knowing it causes an issue that messes things up.
Then again, I've only played with close/good friends, so my experience may be a bit skewed. Though when I host my first campaign, I intend to make sure I limit my NPCs to what PCs could have done (within reason, of course. None of them will be playing zombies, for example.)
As for the other issue that popped up, whether it be the PCs being the stars of the show or just specks in the ocean, I say you need the perfect blend of both. Like one of us is a sorcerer, whose backstory mentions a deal with a demon and her father. There's a demon in this dungeon. Guess who he is. Stuff like that.
As others have suggested I would definitely have a follow-up conversation to discuss what happened and clear the air. You don't want this simmering behind the scenes and ruin things.
That said, I'm not really sure why the player got upset. Why didn't he just assume you had a good reason for not allowing the class? And so what if it shows up later on as an NPC? As long as it isn't an all-powerful DM PC that is showing everyone up and making them look bad I don't see why he should get all bothered by it.
Also, in regards to the special snowflake thing, isn't every NPC, around whom the story moves or who shapes the story, by necessity, a special snowflake? In my mind most of the notable NPCs are unique snowflakes because that is part of why the story is involving them. There is only one Karzoug in RoTRL. For me, a DM who manages to incorporate game mechanics in explaining why the story is impacted by the NPC gets thumbs up from me. Too many mechanics are divorced from story and finding ways to blend the two is good to me.