| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd have taken a time out and discussed what he was really angry about, which was less about the die roll and more about not getting to play the Black-Blooded Oracle. Stopping the game for the night punishes the other people playing for the argument you two were having.
As for the whole "you are a bad GM for letting an NPC do something a PC doesn't get to do", well, I don't buy that. I might have waited a while before introducing it, or made sure everyone knows that there are some classes/feats/ideas that I prefer PCs not to use. But we've had dozens of threads where people argue about that, so keep in mind you'll be told that you are wrong a lot. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let's hit this in the order of most inappropriate to least:
1- His outburst toward you was very rude and he did need to apologize.
2- You did pull a somewhat dick move by banning the curse then using it yourself.
3- Continuity is good in games. If you can't remember a ruling you made a couple months back then it is highly likely you are forgetting other campaign details that you can be sure the players will remember later when you break that continuity.
My advice? First take notes! Yes it is remarkable what you can forget about and when you can go over notes from months ago you can keep continuity by saying "oh yeah I banned that curse, I better not use it myself or it is really going to anger player x." Feel free to make stuff up and then take notes on it as well. Need one piece of the curse to make the NPC work like you want? Then just give her the part she needs and change the rest. Oh and thank him for his apology and apologize yourself for the dick move (even though it was unintentional it still irritated him). And even though it is in your rights to ban something then use it yourself it comes across as an unfair restriction against that player personally.
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.
Well, sir. Just reading my posts but not reading anyone else's is not a good way to understand what someone said to make me say things.
I respect the opinions of those who think I should not have denied him the Black-Blooded Oracle (which I again do not remember even doing...). I also wanted to introduce guns to the campaign slowly and not have players start as a gunslinger (not that any of them care about guns really). None of this changes the facts of the situation that I am the only GM in our entire town who has not started telling him "No fox characters. Period." (White Wolf Hengyokai games where they are actually common aside, but don't think anyone has played that here in years. But other WW games, D&D, what have you... everybody says no foxes)
Also, to the person that thought my wording meant the GM mattered more than a player because I said "Saying **** you to a GM" ... Yes, if he'd said **** you to another player I also would have been "whoaaaa" however, at that point it would be up to the other player to decide just how much it meant to him and for the two of them to decide if or how much of an apology was necessary. Same as the other players did with me.
Part of the problem with things on this board is people don't know me, they don't' know my players, all you know is what I tell you, which is I admit suspect because you only have my word. I try to be honest, but in the end it's still how I see it only.
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?
No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.
If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't say I have much new to add, but whatever...
I would say you handled the situation correctly in regards to the response.
Personally though, I would not have used the black-blooded NPC after having denied that to the PC. The only exception would be if I explained after denying it that "This curse is rare and is going to be an important plot point in the campaign". If I disallowed it without the above caveat I would make note note to not use it, since yeah...I can see why the player might get angry.
On the other hand, I have shifted to being a fairly unrestricted DM, so in general I don't do many restrictions, and those that exist are usually either for power level or because they conflict too much with the campaign. PCs are sort of suppose to be special snowflakes in the grand scale of things.
| 1 person 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.
Well, then Paizo themselves are bad GMs and writers. In a certain published AP campaign it strongly suggests not allowing gunslingers or even guns in the campaign (sure, it gives a few ideas on how to introduce them but it's up to the GM to do so, the assumption by the writers is no guns and especially no gunslingers and you will never find guns or bullets in any treasure lists) Yet, there is one NPC with a gun at the end of the campaign. They said to ban guns. They gave a gun to an NPC. Another published AP it assumes again that no players have guns... no guns in the treasure lists (in fact not even a suggestion on how to add guns like the previous AP I mentioned did) until like the 5th book where they introduce NPCs (pretty sure at least one is actually classed as gunslinger, but I could be wrong... been awhile since I read the AP, but still even if it doesn't make any of them gunslingers, would it be wrong to do so?) with fully automatic weapons (yes, again not saying the name of the AP, but there is a Paizo published AP that features modern (well, WWI era) guns). But wait, those fully automatic weapons were not available to the players at the start of the game... Bad form, Paizo, bad form?
EDIT: Expanding on that, especially the part about if you dont' allow a class you'd expect it not to show up in the campaign...
Are you telling me that if the players are told they can't have guns and especially can't be gunslingers and then later in the campaign they go to Alkenstar... You are telling me I should completely rewrite the entire history and NPC population of Alkenstar to remove the guns and especially gunslingers that i did not allow to the players?
Here is another example... I played once with a GM who would not allow me to play a wizard specialized in necromancy. That's a class OPTION, same as the black-blooded oracle... Does that mean he just forbade himself from ever having a necromancer NPC?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ugh please do not tell me you are using Skull & Shackles for that example
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ugh please do not tell me you are using Skull & Shackles for that example
Why does that matter? Point is, a GM is fully in their rights to ban guns, yet guns exist later in the campaign. So, it stands as to is a GM who runs that adventure being a jerk by sticking to the "no players with guns" suggestion?
Guys, this thread is volatile as it's about a player insulting the GM, but please be careful not to insult those involved in the discussion yourself...
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trigger for this was a group communication thing (which doesn't absolve the player for what they said, but if you can prevent the trigger occurring in the first place it's preferable to dealing with the fallout later, in my book)
Some people are fine with giving the GM full control, down to denying player choices of character on what may even appears to be a whim at the time. Personally, I still say this is the default expectation of the game if not otherwise decided, but saying it's the default expectation still isn't going to stop some people getting upset later on.
Some people, that approach isn't going to work. It doesn't matter how many rulebooks say the GM is effectively god, it doesn't matter how many quotes you have from other players telling them that's how they play. What matters is that isn't the type of game they want to play.
So, it's important to both communicate your expectations as GM to the players, and to get their expectations in return. Set the ground rules before anyone even picks up a rulebook. Some things are going to make certain people incompatible in a gaming environment no matter how much either tries to bend, and getting those out of the way (either to find out an acceptable compromise or simply accept you can't be in the same group together) is important.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Americans are so touchy about swear words. Search for some Dutch swear words, as words like the one your friend used will pale in comparison.
I think (but I don't want to answer for AbsolutGrndZer0) that it is less the word(s) being used but more the level of disrespect from being addressed in a profane way. You can disagree with someone without being disrespectful or antagonistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example, many GMs say "Core Races only" So, if a GM does this, should he throw out his copy of the ARG and avoid having any Drow? Changelings? Anything not allowed to a player is also not allowed to the GM? Where does that stop? Do we no longer allow werewolves because players can't be werewolves? Do we put the extreme at I can't introduce a Tarraque because players can't be a tarrasque? Yes, that is an absurd extreme example, but is it really when there are GMs that say "Core Races only" yet would you put that exact same restriction on non-monster NPCs? Why does it stop when you hit monsters?
In the end, you can say "If you told a player they couldn't play X and then later introduced X on an NPC" all day, but how many GMs are really "absolutely anything goes for players" as that? I don't know any myself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?
Apparently because then you are saving that character idea for your special snowflake NPC.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another example, many GMs say "Core Races only" So, if a GM does this, should he throw out his copy of the ARG and avoid having any Drow? Changelings? Anything not allowed to a player is also not allowed to the GM? Where does that stop? Do we no longer allow werewolves because players can't be werewolves? Do we put the extreme at I can't introduce a Tarraque because players can't be a tarrasque? Yes, that is an absurd extreme example, but is it really when there are GMs that say "Core Races only" yet would you put that exact same restriction on non-monster NPCs? Why does it stop when you hit monsters?
In the end, you can say "If you told a player they couldn't play X and then later introduced X on an NPC" all day, but how many GMs are really "absolutely anything goes for players" as that? I don't know any myself.
Hold on you are misunderstanding why some things are ok and others not. And yes in many cases if a GM bans a race for example and then uses it later then it was probably for a good reason the players will likely instantly understand... such as reserving Drow as an enemy race only, or because he wants all the PCs to start as farmers in the hill country and some options wouldn't be seen as farmers in the hill country. IF however you were running a fairly nonrestrictive game and banned fox people then had friendly fox people NPCs showing up then the player would likely feel slighted. It looks to him like you banned it only to keep him from playing one and no other real reason. Can you understand now?
Americans are so touchy about swear words. Search for some Dutch swear words, as words like the one your friend used will pale in comparison.I think (but I don't want to answer for AbsolutGrndZer0) that it is less the word(s) being used but more the level of disrespect from being addressed in a profane way. You can disagree with someone without being disrespectful or antagonistic.
Exactly. I have friends who cuss like a drunken sailor sometimes. Doesn't bother me. It's not the words, it's the intent behind them.
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.
If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).
I agree, disruptive outbursts don't make a game better and they should be avoided.
Do you consider it to be an apologist when someone tries to look at a situation and understand why something happened?
Hold on you are misunderstanding why some things are ok and others not. And yes in many cases if a GM bans a race for example and then uses it later then it was probably for a good reason the players will likely instantly understand... such as reserving Drow as an enemy race only, or because he wants all the PCs to start as farmers in the hill country and some options wouldn't be seen as farmers in the hill country. IF however you were running a fairly nonrestrictive game and banned fox people then had friendly fox people NPCs showing up then the player would likely feel slighted. It looks to him like you banned it only to keep him from playing one and no other real reason. Can you understand now?
Sort of but not exactly, because I don't even remember banning it how can I truly say why I banned it? I guess I should clarify that, and state that when I don't even remember banning it three months ago, I can only really guess that my reason was I didn't want a player to be a black-blooded oracle and therefore know all about black-blooded oracles and circumvent the whole plot of having to protect the "evil necromancer" who is just an innocent girl with a particularly nasty curse from townsfolk that want to "kill the evil necromancer" when they don't even fully understand what she is themselves, while trying to keep her from actually becoming the evil necromancer that they fear she is.
This player already has a hard time keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate sometimes (evidenced by his just saying outright he knew exactly what a black-blooded oracle was without a roll because he happened to be a level 5 tongues oracle himself), and he's shown already his character has a strong aversion to necromancy... but because he as a player knows that a BB oracle is not necessarily an evil necromancer, is he going to have his character fully accept the NPC when all his character knows is "She's got black blood making her seem undead and more than likely is going to be good at necromancy" because the only other BB oracle the witch that told them what she was happened to be Bones?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But in the end, is there really any situation where cussing at the GM or another player about a game decision is justified?No, regardless of what certain people in this thread erroneously think.
If they don't like the style or restrictions, they're free not to play. But they don't curse at someone else, regardless. And they're wrong to do so (and so are the apologists for this type of behavior).
I agree, disruptive outbursts don't make a game better and they should be avoided.
Do you consider it to be an apologist when someone tries to look at a situation and understand why something happened?
No. (Quite the strange question, given the context above. Are you apologizing for the deeply inappropriate - and indefensible - outburst? I certainly hope not. Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?
To me, both as a GM and a player, it doesn't make sense.
If the story revolves around the mechanics of it, you're just tying the player into the story that much more. It's actually an opportunity to draw your player into the story further, instead of making them sit on the outside of it and watch.
It also displays a lack of trust IMO. You consider this aspect of the story so important, that you can't let your player be part of that, because they might mess it up.
You're already determining that for versimilitude's sake, the presence of the "snowflake" is acceptable, but now you're disallowing for players to protect your special story.
That's what I find so frustrating in these gm/player debates. People on the GM side seem to think that the better way to build a story is to make it yourself and present it to the players and then complain about all the problems they have with their players. You could avoid a great many of those problems if you just include the players in building the story. Give them more control and access on important things in the campaign and I guarantee you'll also find it easier to gain access to important decisions about their characters.
Players get annoyed when they feel like the GM is only hedging in their options. The one piece of real estate they feel like they control, their character sheet, gets more and more hemmed in. Give them control/input over more things outside of their character sheet and there will be less resentment about restrictions on their character sheet.
I do it quite often in my campaign, I ask the players about the culture, NPC's, whatever. They get to give input and make decisions about why things are the way they are. Not only does it make them feel more involved, it also reduces the creative burden on me.
Further, note that managing to successfully determine the "why" may still mean that even the thought of an outburst, of any sort, is not justifiable; and the problem still lies entirely with person who made the outburst.)
Right, a few have said they see why he was upset, but that his outburst was inappropriate. Others have just said "Oh, well yeah I'd be mad too." The latter is an apologist of sorts, the former is not. I myself see why he was upset, that doesn't make cussing at the GM (or another player, since at least one person thinks my words suggested I think I deserve respect and the players do not) okay, or does it?
a·pol·o·gist
əˈpäləjist/
noun
noun: apologist; plural noun: apologists1.
a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
"an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s"
synonyms: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, champion, campaigner;
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?To me, both as a GM and a player, it doesn't make sense.
If the story revolves around the mechanics of it, you're just tying the player into the story that much more. It's actually an opportunity to draw your player into the story further, instead of making them sit on the outside of it and watch.
It also displays a lack of trust IMO. You consider this aspect of the story so important, that you can't let your player be part of that, because they might mess it up.
You're already determining that for versimilitude's sake, the presence of the "snowflake" is acceptable, but now you're disallowing for players to protect your special story.
That's what I find so frustrating in these gm/player debates. People on the GM side seem to think that the better way to build a story is to make it yourself and present it to the players and then complain about all the problems they have with their players. You could avoid a great many of those problems if you just include the players in building the story. Give them more control and access on important things in the campaign and I guarantee you'll also find it easier to gain access to important decisions about their characters.
Players get annoyed when they feel like the GM is only hedging in their options. The one piece of real estate they feel like they control, their character sheet, gets more and more hemmed in. Give them control/input over more things outside of their character sheet and there will be less resentment about restrictions on their character sheet.
Well, again seeing as how I almost never ban stuff unless I think it's overpowered (and I have no problem with the Black-Blooded Oracle) and I don't even remember banning it, I am only assuming the NPC story is the reason I banned it as the only reason other than hating it that I can think of. I really can't remember what I was thinking at the time I told him no when I don't even remember telling him no. That's really the biggest problem with the "special snowflake" argument.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You really do need to start taking notes. It really comes in handy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I would say being insulted as a GM is pretty much the same as being insulted in any other social situation. I dont necessarily believe that I have a position of any particular authority outside of the game while dming.
If someone cusses at me at a con I probably kick them out of the game.
If a friend I have known a long time cusses at me I probably laugh at them, get everyone another beer and take a beat to cool down, and then keep on playing.
I think it all comes down to the dynamic of your relationship with that person and the other people at the table.
Hold on you are misunderstanding why some things are ok and others not. And yes in many cases if a GM bans a race for example and then uses it later then it was probably for a good reason the players will likely instantly understand... such as reserving Drow as an enemy race only, or because he wants all the PCs to start as farmers in the hill country and some options wouldn't be seen as farmers in the hill country. IF however you were running a fairly nonrestrictive game and banned fox people then had friendly fox people NPCs showing up then the player would likely feel slighted. It looks to him like you banned it only to keep him from playing one and no other real reason. Can you understand now?
Sort of but not exactly, because I don't even remember banning it how can I truly say why I banned it? I guess I should clarify that, and state that when I don't even remember banning it three months ago, I can only really guess that my reason was I didn't want a player to be a black-blooded oracle and therefore know all about black-blooded oracles and circumvent the whole plot of having to protect the "evil necromancer" who is just an innocent girl with a particularly nasty curse from townsfolk that want to "kill the evil necromancer" when they don't even fully understand what she is themselves, while trying to keep her from actually becoming the evil necromancer that they fear she is.
This player already has a hard time keeping player knowledge and character knowledge separate sometimes (evidenced by his just saying outright he knew exactly what a black-blooded oracle was without a roll because he happened to be a level 5 tongues oracle himself), and he's shown already his character has a strong aversion to necromancy... but because he as a player knows that a BB oracle is not necessarily an evil necromancer, is he going to have his character fully accept the NPC when all his character knows is "She's got black blood making her seem undead and more than likely is going to be...
But to that player it looked like you were restricting him just because it was him nothing more. And since you don't even remember why any more maybe he is right? You have said other GMs put such unfair restriction on him already, he probably thinks you started doing that too (and maybe you did). Either way it can't hurt to apologize for yourself over the situation can it? You may even end up as better friends.
|
Someone close recently said to me that she has not ever met someone who was not at least part of a ....... at times, yet you have to keep the good parts and forget the rest.
So you should have a discussion with your old time friend, outside of game, with probably a few beers, get a good laugh, and move on.
best,
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, If i ran a Star Wars saga game, during the rebellion era, and a player asked to play a Jedi, and I said no, but had them stumble across a jedi in hiding later, that's a dick move?
Is that a special snowflake NPC? What qualifies as a special snowflake NPC? It's not a DMPC, it's just another NPC to engage (or not) with.
That's not un-including the players into the story, or any other kind of fascist DM BS. It's simply being a DM. Gaming as a whole is give and take, so when does the player give back and say, "Ok, I won't play that this time, let's see where your story leads", instead of throwing a fit and saying F U to the DM?
|
I would say to him calm down, that he was just nervous, and ask him to chill out and apologize.
But as a side note, i would allow him to make the dammed character, if i had a time for forethought. If not, i would disallow, explain why (the rarity, in your case) and ask him to choose another think and wait for it.
You really do need to start taking notes. It really comes in handy.
I do sometimes, but how much notes are you thinking? (making up names and situations for joke purposes and because I find it hard to come up with real reasons for doing stuff I almost never do I am giving silly reasons)
1. Told John he couldn't play a BB oracle because I don't like John's obsession with catgirls, i'm letting him play a catgirl isn't that enough?
2. Told Ryan he can play a Moroi born dhampir, cause they're awesome.
or just...
1. No black-blooded oracles allowed.
2. Yes, Moroi are allowed.
Then, even if I did write down every little thing like that, especially the latter list, where do I make the decision to break #1 for an NPC?
I've had many cases where I wanted to play something, GM told me no, I moved on and then later saw it on an NPC. I didn't feel slighted, I didn't cuss at the GM because "OMG you banned me from that how dare you make an NPC with it"
That's really the thing so many people it seems fail to understand I think that is kind of taking this slowing off topic... if you're trying to find a situation where it's okay for a player to cuss at another player. Unless my reasoning is because I just don't like John and have it out for him in real life (being GM saying no to a class archetype or a player messing with him trying to kill his character,) there is no reason for cussing at me or anyone else.
Another example (and I don't recall all the details, it was about 10 years ago), once I was in a game where the GM was allowing evil alignments, and so I asked if I could play a chaotic evil necromancer. I was told he wasn't allowing chaotic evil, just neutral evil and lawful evil. So, I made a lawful evil necromancer. Later in the game teamed up with or something an NPC who (i don't recall how) we figured out was chaotic evil. Should I have felt slighted? Should I have insulted the GM and cussed at him for allowing evil but not chaotic evil, then making a NPC ally of ours chaotic evil?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... if you're trying to find a situation where it's okay for a player to cuss at another player.
Ok no. Under no conditions is it ok for him to treat you like that. I am not excusing his behavior. I am trying to get you to understand it better and maybe become better friends.
So you didn't let him play what he wanted to play because you wanted to be able to use it and thought it was "too rare" for 2 of them to ever run into one another? Honestly, that would have annoyed the crap out of me as well. Players should get dibbs on what they want before the DM.
I also think you might have been a bit out of line assigning him such a high DC. Did he even have a chance to succeed on that? (Especially considering that he is an oracle himself, and this is what he wanted to play to begin with.)
That aside, he didn't have the right to cuss at you.
Again, since I don't even remember telling him no, I can only guess at what my reason must have been at the time. Would I tell him no if we were making characters today? No, I would let him play a BB oracle. That's the biggest problem with this... I can't honestly see myself saying no... but I did have the idea for this NPC at the start, so I am guessing that must have been my reason since it's the only reason that makes sense... or else I didn't tell him no... I have no idea.
As for the DC, yes he was. He rolled a 28 and while I don't recall his actual roll, I know it wasn't 19 or 20. He's got a pretty high religion so yes he could have made it.
... if you're trying to find a situation where it's okay for a player to cuss at another player.Ok no. Under no conditions is it ok for him to treat you like that. I am not excusing his behavior. I am trying to get you to understand it better and maybe become better friends.
Oh sorry, that last part wasn't to you specifically, I get the notes thing and it's a good idea, but see my last post before this one for why I think even extensive notes may or may not have worked in this case...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back when the player first asked (and I get that you don't remember him asking), I would probably have said 'hey, let's discuss it in private', and then told him one-on-one that "Look, something I've already planned out in this campaign for the party to run into is a BB Oracle. The whole premise of that part of the story is that it's a very rare curse and shouldn't be commonly known or recognized. If you're playing a BB oracle, that essentially ruins that part of the planned story. So in this case, I'm going to have to tell you no."
I personally think that the GM has the right to nerf certain concepts when it's going to make a difference like that to the story you've already put effort into planning.
If the player was understanding and polite over that, I might then have gone one step further and said, "If you still really want to play a BB oracle at that point in the game, how about we work out a story thing, where, via some ritual, you and the NPC BB oracle manage to share blood-- and you wind up switching mechanically over to BB Oracle?"
GMing is about finding ways to say yes, in my opinion. It's like an improv game, where you never say 'no', but you say 'yes, and....'
Of course, there's still a common sense rule in place. If someone wants to play a ridiculous build that's going to outshine every other player, I say no, flat out, but on the whole I try to run with yes, especially if the player is someone who will make things fun for other people.
That said, it's a lot of work to GM. I don't think I'd ever be down with a player telling me 'F*~+ you' in a non-joking fashion at the table. I would probably tell them they are welcome to GM if they don't like how I'm GMing.
Regarding what you do NOW: I agree that you need to talk to this player. I would explain to them that a) you honestly didn't remember them asking in the first place, but b) here are the reasons why you said no in the first place, and c) APOLOGIZE, because you didn't intend to 'steal their glory' or whatever. You're trying to tell a good story for everyone at the table, and you hope they can accept that, and you hope that the two of you are good now. Then, encourage him to talk to you if he has any more problems about this, and LISTEN.
|
I feel like, given your description of the events that transpired, that there may be additional social cues/emotional triggers that were in the undercurrent of the player's emotions and feelings.
I'm not entirely sure though as I also am on the spectrum. It just feels like there was something more going on here that just a disagreement.
So, If i ran a Star Wars saga game, during the rebellion era, and a player asked to play a Jedi, and I said no, but had them stumble across a jedi in hiding later, that's a dick move?
Is that a special snowflake NPC? What qualifies as a special snowflake NPC? It's not a DMPC, it's just another NPC to engage (or not) with.That's not un-including the players into the story, or any other kind of fascist DM BS. It's simply being a DM. Gaming as a whole is give and take, so when does the player give back and say, "Ok, I won't play that this time, let's see where your story leads", instead of throwing a fit and saying F U to the DM?
Why not just include the player in the story? Instead of inventing an NPC, have the player make the character and use them. Work with them to make it happen. Not only are you reducing your creative burden as the GM, you're also increasing the investment in the story for that player. Plus, you've completely avoided any and all resentment issues for being told "No" for the player.
Now, I can understand completely removing jedi for a mechanical purpose. A lot of force rules either water jedi down, or they're too OP to be considered equal members of a group, so to simplify and improve gameplay, they'll be ignored and mechanically will exist only as adversaries (basically just human shaped monsters). But that's different ball of wax.
If the NPC is a jedi in name only, no mechanics, then I don't think it's an issue at all, but then you could just let a player talk about how they're a jedi, without any usage of mechanics the same way.
I don't think the story is something that should be protected from the PC's. I think the story should be a result of the GM and players working together.
Why not just include the player in the story? Instead of inventing an NPC, have the player make the character and use them. Work with them to make it happen. Not only are you reducing your creative burden as the GM, you're also increasing the investment in the story for that player. Plus, you've completely avoided any and all resentment issues for being told "No" for the player.Now, I can understand completely removing jedi for a mechanical purpose. A lot of force rules either water jedi down, or they're too OP to be considered equal members of a group, so to simplify and improve gameplay, they'll be ignored and mechanically will exist only as adversaries (basically just human shaped monsters). But that's different ball of wax.
If the NPC is a jedi in name only, no mechanics, then I don't think it's an issue at all, but then you could just let a player talk about how they're a jedi, without any usage of mechanics the same way.
I don't think the story is something that should be protected from the PC's. I think the story should be a result of the GM and players working together.
Because his character is a Kitsune from Tian Xia, this part of the story was a witchwolf from Alkenstar and I had already ditched the whole plot because he was so adamant that he did NOT want to go to Alkenstar due to it being in the Mana Wastes, and him having a strong aversion to guns and steampunk in general. But then when I removed the plot in a way that made sense by having the NPCs asking for the help decide to go do it on their own, the other players (and he agreed to go with them only when he realized that without there being SOME magic in Alkenstar, they would not be able to teleport there) decided to do it anyway, teleporting to beat the two NPCs there.
I think the biggest problem here is that many are failing to understand is I don't think I would have told him no, but I do believe him that I did... I just can't figure out why... the only thing that makes sense is this NPC's story... but again, even that really is like... that's not a reason I can see myself using, yet it's the only one that I can think of...
At this point I am thinking I might talk to him before next game, see if he remembers even a reason I gave him... and maybe allow him to use the retraining rules to change his curse to black blood, maybe say the same primal magic energies that affected her spread it to him?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This whole thread baffles me as a gm. Since when do players feel they have the "right" to question the gm? Forgot why you banned something? Who cares. Its banned the player needs to deal with it. Or leave. Player does not equal gm.
That's what players and some GMs forget. The players have and always have had the ultimate power. To leave the game. Without players there is no game.
As a gm, I would never apologize if I was in the OPs shoes.
I am guessing the Player in question took it as "I don't allow BB oracles in this campaign" then you brought one in as a NPC.
It seems to be a communication issue. Obviously he was rather rude, but I think you guys need to talk this over like adults.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm amazed that people think the GM isn't allowed to craft a campaign that uses something the GM has banned from the players.
If the GM needs to make something extremely rare, and the player tries to take that option for their own character - making it less rare - then the GM should be able to ban it and use it, with minimal to no explanation, no question.
It's not bad GMing to disallow options from players, even if players want to use it themselves. It can damage the integrity of the campaign to deviate.
The anger over the knowledge check is even stranger. The player wanted to metagame, wanted to break a rule, and there's still some comments here suggesting hey, he got a 28, that's enough. No it's not. He needed a 30, that's the rule. The GM could've made an exception and let it go, but he's perfectly in his rights to follow the rules. The fact that the player wanted to use that class doesn't give the player any extra privileges.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not seeing what's wrong with telling a player "That character idea won't work for this campaign. I have an NPC later that will be closely related to that concept, and it might cause some issues story wise." How is that a dick move?It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
It's easy to see how, as a GM, he wouldn't have even thought in advance that this whole situation might come up.