Player insults GM. What would you do as a GM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Burgomeister of Troll Town wrote:
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."

[Imagines playing in a game where he is encouraged to cuss at Comrade Turth and rubs his hands with glee]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Burgomeister of Troll Town wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Burgomeister of Troll Town wrote:
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."

[Imagines playing in a game where he is encouraged to cuss at Comrade Turth and rubs his hands with glee]

Normally it's a game about killing gods, but we could do one where you kill the Invisible Hand of the Market.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Normally it's a game about killing gods, but we could do one where you kill the Invisible Hand of the Market.

That sounds amazing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Avatar-1 wrote:

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.

I said nothing of the sort. But the DM must communicate with his players. Saying "No, that's banned" then bringing it in is poor communication. Saying' Hmm, that makes a plot point complicated and that's not something I want the players to take" is good communication.

And if later, he decided he had to bring it in, he should have took the player aside and explained it. Dropping it like a bomb is poor communication, and would make anyone upset.

In AD&D something similar happened. The new dragon book came out and two of us wanted to play a dragon. The DM said flatly "No, it's too OP, it's banned." But when the new girl wanted to play one, he was suddenly OK with it. This made the other two of us annoyed.


DrDeth wrote:

In AD&D something similar happened. The new dragon book came out and two of us wanted to play a dragon. The DM said flatly "No, it's too OP, it's banned." But when the new girl wanted to play one, he was suddenly OK with it. This made the other two of us annoyed.

Okay, if his reasoning was it's too OP then he let the new girl play it? Yeah, I'd be pretty annoyed myself.

I never once said black-blooded oracles were banned in my game, that I know for a fact. I don't use the word banned unless it's third party stuff (which I pretty much reserve a blanket ban on all third party even with myself, but if a player really wanted to play something third party and I didn't feel it was OP, then all players would have to agree to allow it, not just me.) or if I truly think it's OP, and I do not find the black-blooded oracle to be OP, nor do I really find anything published by Paizo as OP. SO, banned? No.

Also, to all those that say I should have given him full reason "I have a plot involving black blooded oracles, so I am not allowing it for players" or any such reason... The other GMs I know are total jerks, apparently... not only would they not give a reason such as that for not allowing something, but they wouldn't allow at least 75% of what I do allow and they don't even give him a chance to ask if he can play a kitsune (or other fox character) before they tell him no he can't play a fox, because they know he's going to ask. I let him play a Kitsune because I know nobody else does.

But in the end, even if I did what the above quote says, would that be then reason to say f you? Apparently, many think there is a point where it's okay, or else why keep trying to justify it by telling me what I should have done before he said it?


AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:

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...

If you are telling the truth of the matter, good on you for taking a stand. If the behaviour is not good enough, it was good of you to let him know in no uncertain terms.

Bravo fellow DM.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
In AD&D something similar happened. The new dragon book came out and two of us wanted to play a dragon. The DM said flatly "No, it's too OP, it's banned." But when the new girl wanted to play one, he was suddenly OK with it. This made the other two of us annoyed.

That's not similar at all. Telling one player that PC dragons are not allowed, and then let another player play one, is pretty obnoxious and in no way similar to saying that PCs can't play dragons, but still have NPC dragons in your game world.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the OP did anything wrong. He is perfectly entitled to keep certain aspects of his campaign secret from the PCs if he wants to go for a big reveal later, and he's able to determine whether a certain class and option is available to PCs or not, particularly if that has campaign implications. So the player who lost it was well out of order, not only for his churlish behaviour but also failing to understand his place as a player in someone else's campaign. Options for PCs do not necessarily equate to options for NPC, and vica versa, depending on the campaign context.

On the other hand, the player apologised on the night and a decent game was had, so I'm not too sure what the fuss is. The issue seems closed to me. Stuff like this happens, you get over it and move on.

Sovereign Court

DrDeth wrote:
In AD&D something similar happened. The new dragon book came out and two of us wanted to play a dragon. The DM said flatly "No, it's too OP, it's banned." But when the new girl wanted to play one, he was suddenly OK with it. This made the other two of us annoyed.

Except she is new, knows squat about rules and will not break the game because of playing an overpowered PC. An experienced player could, and probably will.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The DM is supposed to be a fair judge. Playing favorites is not fair treatment.

Sovereign Court

Didn't know being reasonable means playing favorites.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the little girl doesn't "want" to be black blooded due to complications with townsfolk and PC does let them.go on a quest to retrieve some stupidly rare stuff perform a ritual where he "takes" the evilness (or however yoou describe it) from her into.him let him either keep his old powers or replace the and have the little girl "choose" a different one

Note: dunno bout the class or archetypes or whatever but that would be my thought makes char feel special fun plot hooks and you get to be awesome GM again for allowing stuff


I was in a campaign that went down sort of like what happened with the OP. There weren't any direct insults, but the DM/Player trust was definitely damaged.

Spoilered for length

Spoiler:

The DM had started up a game. Sandbox, do whatever comes along kind of game. Two of the players were big into Psionics, but the DM didn't like the system, and banned Psionics from being used. Claims that in his campaign world, they straight up didn't exist. Which, DM's are fully in their right to do.

Fast forward to the group about level 15 or so, and the spellcasters(the guys who wanted to do Psionics) are crushing everything the DM throws at them. The group is rampant evil, murdering, pillaging, ya know, general "sandbox" stuff. DM runs out of ideas to counter all the spellcasting, and whips up... You guessed it... Psionic-using NPC's. A whole city of them, actually.

The players were pretty upset. The DM tried to later ret-con the situation, saying this city was in isolation and carefully hid away from the rest of the world, Psionics were an ancient, unknown magic art, etc etc. It was too late, the trust had been fractured.

The DM called me to ask my opinion on it(I moonlighted in this campaigns few times, but wasn't currently involved), and I basically told him "you worked over the players. You purposely disallowed options they wanted to use, and turned around and used those same options on them in a lame attempt to one-up them."

He tried to make nice by allowing psionics after that, but the results were even worse. Now that the option was on the table, the players went min/max berserk with psionics to sort of get back at the DM. No surprise, the campaign fell apart shortly after.

All in all, it's tricky when this happens. In the OP's case, the player just happened to want to play something the DM wanted to save for a later reveal. The odds of this happening in most games is slim, so it's hard to have a set procedure in place for when it happens.

Personally, I would have allowed the player the option, and included the npc reveal in the story, and tried to tie them together somehow. This makes the player's character an important focus, and ties the story directly into the players, which is far, far more immersive than simply telling the players about this wacky npc with this black blood thing going on. The more you can involve your PC's directly int he story, the better.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)

I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
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.

First, that was my first post in this thread so there is no "again." Second, since you can't keep your story straight, let me remind you what you said in the O.P.

Quote:
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.

Also:

Quote:
I asked if I could be a Black-Blooded Oracle and you said no.

Do you think your friend would be upset if he hadn't wanted to be a black blooded oracle and you had said no? Also do you think he was just making it up?

Honestly, it sounds like you cared more about your NPC than you did about your friend. Your players, not your NPCs, are supposed to be the center point of the campaign. I think you were being selfish because you wanted your NPC to be a special snow flake. Doesn't make your friend's reaction acceptable, but I definitely understand it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ShadowcatX wrote:
Honestly, it sounds like you cared more about your NPC than you did about your friend. Your players, not your NPCs, are supposed to be the center point of the campaign. I think you were being selfish because you wanted your NPC to be a special snow flake. Doesn't make your friend's reaction acceptable, but I definitely understand it.

If you're looking for more evidence of this, go to the OP's user page and click the "favorites" tab. Look at which posts in this thread they've favorited. It's quite clear that they came to the forums with this story looking to be told that they're in the right and that they don't share any culpability for what happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Burgomeister of Troll Town wrote:
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.

Heh - this is true for me as well. If I can't get at least one of the players to say 'Your an a!~&~!@' during a session I start wondering if I messed up on the session or some such.

I've also had a situation fairly recently where I denied a player a class, well a Theme really in my case but same thing pretty much. The difference may have been my reasoning as the player wanted to pick this kind of crazy 'your possessed by something from the Far Realm' type choice and I pretty much said 'Oh man that is such an awesome option and one day I really want to do a campaign where we can look at this sort of thing 'cause the Far Realm rocks and the whole Cthulhu madness thing is cool...but it does not fit with the plot line of the current campaign you'd be taking an awesome choice that I would, by necessity have to ignore and that would be such a shame. Pick something else and we'll save that story for another campaign'. The fact that I told the player that he could not be all about the Far Realm in no way means that I can't have some villain, for one reason or another, be about the Far Realm in my opinion.

Can't imagine my players complaining about this either.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

Me too, TBH. You're preaching to the converted. I've discovered, however, that different groups have wildly different styles and methods with how they communicate with each other - so communication is really important in those particular groups.

(It also makes me very very glad that I'm not in those groups, and the only [thankfully passing] contact I have with them is through this messageboard when I'm taking a breather at the office. This isn't even a player-GM issue, AFAIC, because even the players in my group are flabbergasted at this thread and some of the comments found herein. Alien to all of us.)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is very strange, I just typed a long post and then it's not showing--even though I see "last post by DeathQuaker at xxx" (before I posted this one). Unfortunately, I did not copy paste the post just in case as I often do. Did it just get eaten?

ETA: Someone suggested I look in my post history. It is there, so here it is, FWIW:

Quote:


To the OP: It sounds like you handled the situation as best you could, given the circumstances, and you and your friends' personalities. Given he is a longtime friend, I think giving him an opportunity to apologize was appropriate. The only suggestion I might make is that if he gets hostile again, would be to ask him to go into another room to discuss it, rather than do it in front of the other players (who clearly did not want to be involved).

I might have done some things differently, but on the other hand, I think I can distinctly say I don't have players that would act like that, all in terms of asking to play a banned class (I do have players push for unusual ideas for sometimes, but they usually take no for an answer without much fuss), metagaming and whining when not allowed to metagame, and in heatedly telling me to eff off when I make a rules call. I guess I am lucky. I can recall my days in gaming clubs and running demos at stores where I might be more likely to run into someone that might act like that, but it's been awhile.

If I DID have someone who acted like that, I would probably also ask them to leave the group if this was typical behavior or they were being especially disruptive. Not because someone shouldn't say "f#!% you" to a GM specifically, but because that level of hostility over a pretendy funtime game isn't welcome at my table. A player also saying that kind of thing to another would not be tolerated (and I might even be more angry about it). (Now: disclaimer: my friends and I are potty mouths, and I am fairly certain we have said the "eff you" to each other on various occasion, but generally in some level of jest, not to truly hurt. If someone said or appeared they were really hurt by that, an apology would indeed be expected--and likely given.)

Now, in the specific circumstance of the archetype, I would make clear that I may use the archetype for NPCs from the darklands, but as the PCs are not from the darklands it is not available to them. So the player would know to expect that they may encounter the archetype even if I have disallowed them to use it. If the player felt that was unfair, I would probably change my NPC concept to something else. (Back in 3.x there were some Prestige Classes I thought worked well for big bads and such but weren't appropriate for players; normally as I was clear about this, my players did not give me trouble for it and I used it sparingly).

HOWEVER, a big reason I'd feel free to share this with my players, and I trust my players not to metagame. And, archetype issue aside, the fact that the argument started over his basically insisting he should be able to metagame is an issue that hasn't been touched on much in my brief scan. You were right to make him roll and he should have accepted the result, and yes, certainly some Knowledge checks can and should be that high. If this is a common issue, you might want to chat about metagaming with the group -- and remind the players that avoiding metagaming is for their own enjoyment, to discover the story as it goes along.

If it shows up on its own later, please flag this as a double post.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

I've never found that I have to protect my story from the players. I've seen GM's do that, and it's never fun for me, because it feels like the story is being told to me, instead of me participating in it.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Spoiling a great reveal sucks.


Irontruth wrote:
I've never found that I have to protect my story from the players. I've seen GM's do that, and it's never fun for me, because it feels like the story is being told to me, instead of me participating in it.

If you're playing a mystery and are helping solve the puzzle, then how are you not participating?

If you're tracking down some slavers, then how are you not participating?

I don't see how you not knowing the slavers are behind the mystery from the outset creates the division of participating or not.


Hama wrote:
Spoiling a great reveal sucks.

Tell me about it. A GM friend of mine who plays in my Shattered Star is subscribed to the minis releases. He has all the names of the characters if he cared to do a quick google search with that alone. The blue dragon in it? Not a surprise. I've been a good sport about and keep placing the dragon on the mini just to taunt them with its coming but there's something to be said for actual surprises.


Buri wrote:
Hama wrote:
Spoiling a great reveal sucks.
Tell me about it. A GM friend of mine who plays in my Shattered Star is subscribed to the minis releases. He has all the names of the characters if he cared to do a quick google search with that alone. The blue dragon in it? Not a surprise. I've been a good sport about and keep placing the dragon on the mini just to taunt them with its coming but there's something to be said for actual surprises.

You'll note, I have never once said I don't like surprises. Not a single time I have said "there should be no surprises." If you asked me my opinion on surprises, I'd say they're good and help keep a story interesting. If you think I'm against surprises, there's a disconnect, because that would be a false assumption.

I'm against planning a detailed story, without the involvement of the players. I don't do it when I run as GM.

1) it's a lot of work, there are other things I want to do
2) I'm not a best-selling author (and I doubt many people in this thread are), my story would be flawed, have inconsistencies and fall into certain amateur writer traps
3) it doesn't engage the players as directly as I'd like

My most recent campaign, we did a short character creation process PRIOR to anything involving rules for Pathfinder. The players were given sets of questions they could pick, their answers being about their characters. I gave some information about the setting and the general idea of the campaign, but it was really those questions that helped set the tone for the players. Their answers basically gave me the direction and purpose of the story. Probably 2/3 of our time was spent dealing with situations that directly revolved around input from the players, the other 1/3 was situations the other GM and I (co-GM campaign) pushed to help evolve the campaign world around them.

We hit kind of an end-point recently, the campaign will pick up again in a couple months, but our currently ending, even I as the GM couldn't have guessed when we started this a year ago. Heck, I wouldn't have predicted it 2-3 sessions prior to it happening. It even included a dragon, which the players weren't expecting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Buri wrote:
Arnwyn wrote:
It isn't. (Though, as noted by others, good communication - as illustrated in your post - is key.)
I honestly fail to comprehend why a simple 'no' isn't sufficient. Why do I have to provide details about my story that could easily be spoilers in order to justify a decision? If pressed for a reason a mere "it won't work for this campaign" should be sufficient.

It isn't a matter of communicating more than the "no".

It's a matter of communicating before you start playing to find out whether your players will actually accept a "no".

I have the same GMing style as (apparently) you do, I tell people "no" and expect them to accept it and move on*. However, I make sure I tell any prospective player that before they join the game, along with all of my other expectations, and ask them (if they're still interested after hearing how I'm going to run the game) for theirs.

Sometimes (usually) that results in meeting people partway where our expectations differ. Sometimes (occasionally) it results in a prospective player deciding not to join the group after all. Sometimes (very, very rarely) it results in me deciding that player isn't going to work out and not inviting them to the group.

It's about accepting that not everyone can sit down and play a game together and enjoy it. Some of us are just too incompatible. It's about making sure if people are going to have to compromise that they know in advance and it isn't sprung on them once they're already invested in the game.

Get those compromises (on both sides) sorted out before the game, so they don't come up during. Get those clashes in style identified and dealt with before they cause problems.

* - Actually, this is a bit of an exaggeration. I tell them no, and that we can talk (outside of a game session) about alternatives.

Webstore Gninja Minion

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed some unhelpful posts. Please be civil to each other.

Shadow Lodge

DrDeth wrote:
Avatar-1 wrote:

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.

I said nothing of the sort. But the DM must communicate with his players. Saying "No, that's banned" then bringing it in is poor communication. Saying' Hmm, that makes a plot point complicated and that's not something I want the players to take" is good communication.

And if later, he decided he had to bring it in, he should have took the player aside and explained it. Dropping it like a bomb is poor communication, and would make anyone upset.

It wouldn't make anyone upset - some players would pick up on this and realise ohhh that's why I wasn't able to take it. The super-rare knowledge check was another clue. Granted the GM didn't realise his player would get upset about this at the time, and was probably taken aback trying to deal with the player's anger, but he can't be blamed for that. It's easy for us to say He Should Have Known now that we have the full story, but hindsight is 20/20 when you're in the moment.

Quote:
In AD&D something similar happened. The new dragon book came out and two of us wanted to play a dragon. The DM said flatly "No, it's too OP, it's banned." But when the new girl wanted to play one, he was suddenly OK with it. This made the other two of us annoyed.

This isn't the same thing - that's player favouritism, we're talking about something quite different.


Liz Courts wrote:
Removed some unhelpful posts. Please be civil to each other.

At the table, sometimes there is "civil" war.


Avatar-1 wrote:
This isn't the same thing - that's player favouritism, we're talking about something quite different.

A point I made earlier. To the player, especially due to his history of GMs playing favorites against him, this probably looked like exactly the same thing. If we can understand his anger then why not set his mind straight? And what harm could come from a GM apology over the misunderstanding?

Sovereign Court

Because that would mean that someone was wrong...


3 people marked this as a favorite.

There's a significant difference between, "I'm the DM and made a campaign-protective decision" and "I don't like your decision and think it's unfair ... SO EFF U, MAN!"

You do not owe a player an explanation, though it would be courteous and likely prudent to provide one at times. On the other hand, the player owes you respect, in large measure as a fellow human being who doesn't like having people say, "F-U!" to him/her, and to an extent because you're running the game and have a position of authority, however slight and nominal it may be according to your unspoken social contract.

Require an apology. If he refuses, tell him he's welcome back into the campaign directly after he does so ... and that the longer he takes and the more he digs in his heels, the more difficult it will be to swallow pride and do the right thing. It's beneath your dignity to exchange profanity with someone, friend or not ... and, frankly, when one treats someone with disrespect by cursing at them, he or she deserves a bit of snap-back.

On the other hand, if you've been disrespectful in other ways, now's the time to apologize and clear the air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Your reaction to the situation that resulted was optimal: he apologized, you forgave him (at least enough to keep playing) and everything seemed to work out okay. No fault there.

I do agree, though, that the situation needn't have happened in the first place.

To begin with, having a handful of people in the world with the black blood curse makes it rare, having just one person in the whole world makes it seem like a deliberate act on the part of some greater power, which, hey, maybe it is, but in that case no one would know about it unless they met this one person.

Two people with a very rare curse meeting each other might be improbable but it makes for a better story. These player might grow more attached to this NPC because they literally share a bond in blood. Maybe as a subplot they could try and find a cure, or clues about the nature of their curse.

Second, If your goal was to make the fact that this one character has the black blood curse as an important plot point and you didn't want a player to be one because it diminishes it, I can understand that. I think there's a better way to do that. It wouldn't be much different then, say, telling a player "It would be best if you didn't pick X or Y for your favored enemy because they won't be appearing in the story I have planned, but you may want to consider Z..."

Give him a carrot instead of a stick. Recommend another curse/mystery and throw in some enemies that. Suddenly "forbidding" him an option gives him a hint at the challenges he's going to face. If he's looking at it this way, when he meets the Black Blood, instead of cursing you out he may think to himself "Aha! THIS is where it comes in..." and try to figure out why this NPC is so important.

I may be way off depending on this guy's personality, but I think there would have been less cursing.


Hama wrote:
Because that would mean that someone was wrong...

no

You've never been sorry over someone else's hurt feelings?

Sovereign Court

Aranna wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because that would mean that someone was wrong...

no

You've never been sorry over someone else's hurt feelings?

I have, occasionally, when it was actually my fault. I however suffer from a mild superiority complex, mostly thanks to my very high IQ, and it is really difficult for me to admit when I am wrong.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

As to the OP, you handled the outburst just fine. Props.

Typically, if someone I was not friends with outside of the Game said anything along those lines to me, I would immediately have booted them from the game and they would no longer be welcome to play at my table ever again. Intertwined friendships complicate those matters of course, especially in areas with few active role-playing gamers.

As for the restrictions on races/classes/archetypes, etc., personally, I would explain to a player asking about it that the class/archtetype/race is not suited to player characters for my campaign, and leave it at that. I would not simply say "No" which is rude and standoffish. But I would not try to over-explain myself and say "Oh, no. My big bad is the exact same race and class. Can't do it." or something that will come back to bite me in the rear like "That class/archetype/race does not exist in my game universe" because then somewhere along the line, the class will probably be used. You don't have to be vague but you don't have to explain yourself ad nauseum either.

Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
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.

I would argue that GMs do generally deserve a high degree of respect, but not for the fact that they are in charge of running the game. They deserve that respect for the fact that they invest a greater deal of time, effort and energy to create and run the games for the players. It only takes an hour or two for a player to create a character. It takes hours upon hours to prep and ready an adventure. For those of us with full-time jobs, families, etc., free time is at a premium and could arguably be better spent doing other activities that require less sit-down time. But good GMs the ones actually investing huge portions of their lives and free time in order to ensure that others (not just themselves) are having a fun.

So, yes, an average GM does deserve a good deal of respect and a great GM deserves a very high degree of respect, just as good players deserve

Arnwyn wrote:
AbsolutGrndZer0 wrote:
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).

Oh, I disagree. I can think of some perfect times that a GM needs a good tongue-lashing, such as when the GM in question is found to be a racist, a misogynist, or enjoys using the slight amount of power that he/she has to verbally or emotionally abuse or degrade the players. Of course, it is at that point that the there is a definite severing of ties between GM and Player with no salvation to be hoped for.


If it interferes with play, it is a problem. I've called some dms out on their misogyny (very backward views), but since everyone is racist to a degree I find it is less of an issue. Certainly I find it weird (dm who hates Asians apparently, but has no problem with an Asian player) but opinions for me don't matter in game... unless they impact the game.

Game can be a time of venting (yes even racial grievances, we've had a sheriff that would complain about the Chinese and Indian criminals he has had to deal with that day, so many shocking stories), so as long as everyone is happy (I don't mind especially what is said) and the rolls keep coming.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Hama wrote:
Because that would mean that someone was wrong...

No

You've never been sorry over someone else's hurt feelings?

It's less about being sorry and more about how most people absolutely despise situations where they'd have to admit that they were wrong.

Liberty's Edge

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
If it interferes with play, it is a problem. I've called some dms out on their misogyny (very backward views), but since everyone is racist to a degree I find it is less of an issue.

What does that even mean? Everyone is a racist? EVERYONE? Please do not project your own views upon the rest of the world as though everyone else thinks as you do, or take the small group of people you regularly associate with and extrapolate that outwards to such a ridiculous degree. Not everyone believes that certain racial/ethnic groups are superior to others.

Sovereign Court

And how does misogyny have anything to do with racism? Racist isn't a catch-all term.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hama wrote:
And how does misogyny have anything to do with racism? Racist isn't a catch-all term.

I think that he's saying that he doesnt care about racism but he DOES care about misogyny.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Louis Lyons wrote:
I would argue that GMs do generally deserve a high degree of respect, but not for the fact that they are in charge of running the game. They deserve that respect for the fact that they invest a greater deal of time, effort and energy to create and run the games for the players.

Agreed. This somehow gets lost in translation at times. If you get invited over someone's house for dinner or to play poker or something, what do you say before you leave? Thanks for the invite. Pretty common. Its not some how demeaning to thank the host in such a situation.

GMing is similar (though I would argue even more of a time investment than cleaning up the house and preparing to host.) But for some reason a handful of people seem to think a GM is "lording over" the players.

Being that I am primarily the GM when I play, when I get the opportunity to play as a character, I always thank the GM for the session. I know how much time they invested into it.

Scarab Sages

Count Coltello wrote:

If the little girl doesn't "want" to be black blooded due to complications with townsfolk and PC does let them.go on a quest to retrieve some stupidly rare stuff perform a ritual where he "takes" the evilness (or however yoou describe it) from her into.him let him either keep his old powers or replace the and have the little girl "choose" a different one

Note: dunno bout the class or archetypes or whatever but that would be my thought makes char feel special fun plot hooks and you get to be awesome GM again for allowing stuff

If you're really good with the poker face, you can tell him this was your intention all along, so he could play his chosen concept, have it be tied to a central part of the plot, and feel even more special.


Tormsskull wrote:
Louis Lyons wrote:
I would argue that GMs do generally deserve a high degree of respect, but not for the fact that they are in charge of running the game. They deserve that respect for the fact that they invest a greater deal of time, effort and energy to create and run the games for the players.

Agreed. This somehow gets lost in translation at times. If you get invited over someone's house for dinner or to play poker or something, what do you say before you leave? Thanks for the invite. Pretty common. Its not some how demeaning to thank the host in such a situation.

GMing is similar (though I would argue even more of a time investment than cleaning up the house and preparing to host.) But for some reason a handful of people seem to think a GM is "lording over" the players.

Being that I am primarily the GM when I play, when I get the opportunity to play as a character, I always thank the GM for the session. I know how much time they invested into it.

Because some people take it to passive-aggressive levels. "I did so much work, you have to respect and appreciate me for it," doesn't fly with me. I'll respect and appreciate you because your my friend and if you do a good job, but you don't get a free pass because you spent X hours working on this, particularly if you spent time working on things that no one asked you to work on.

I've had people throw me birthday parties and get angry because I didn't say thank you or appreciate them enough for it... even though I didn't ask them to do it, and if they had asked me, I'd have told them not to do it.

I also don't have sympathy for GM's, because often they're working harder, not smarter. There are a myriad of ways to reduce your prep time, many of them including shifting portions of the creative workload to your players.

"I worked so hard, carrying all these boxes by hand. You owe me."
"Why didn't you just use the dolly sitting right there?"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:

"I worked so hard, carrying all these boxes by hand. You owe me."

"Why didn't you just use the dolly sitting right there?"

Also "Dude, if you needed help you should have told me!"


Never Unprepared by Phil Vecchione is a well-written book about prep that can help to greatly improve the efficiency of prep time, thereby reducing how much time you have to devote to it. It's not a "you should game this way" book, it's about the creative process and applying it to games. All of his advice could just as easily be found in books on writing novels, but it's present in a way that's more directly applicable to gaming.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
Louis Lyons wrote:
I would argue that GMs do generally deserve a high degree of respect, but not for the fact that they are in charge of running the game. They deserve that respect for the fact that they invest a greater deal of time, effort and energy to create and run the games for the players.

Agreed. This somehow gets lost in translation at times. If you get invited over someone's house for dinner or to play poker or something, what do you say before you leave? Thanks for the invite. Pretty common. Its not some how demeaning to thank the host in such a situation.

GMing is similar (though I would argue even more of a time investment than cleaning up the house and preparing to host.) But for some reason a handful of people seem to think a GM is "lording over" the players.

Being that I am primarily the GM when I play, when I get the opportunity to play as a character, I always thank the GM for the session. I know how much time they invested into it.

Because some people take it to passive-aggressive levels. "I did so much work, you have to respect and appreciate me for it," doesn't fly with me. I'll respect and appreciate you because your my friend and if you do a good job, but you don't get a free pass because you spent X hours working on this, particularly if you spent time working on things that no one asked you to work on.

I've had people throw me birthday parties and get angry because I didn't say thank you or appreciate them enough for it... even though I didn't ask them to do it, and if they had asked me, I'd have told them not to do it.

I also don't have sympathy for GM's, because often they're working harder, not smarter. There are a myriad of ways to reduce your prep time, many of them including shifting portions of the creative workload to your players.

"I worked so hard, carrying all these boxes by hand. You owe me."
"Why didn't you just use the dolly sitting right there?"

I agree with this. I have found that when I spend too much time preparing, I tend to over-prep and have a bunch of situational stats I wind up not needing, or the group goes askew in a totally different direction than what I planned for.

I discovered that I am at my best when I am prepping on the fly. Sounds ridiculous, but it's true. I can play off of what the players are doing, and build entire adventures, dungeon crawls, etc as the players are playing the game. I've statted up 12th level NPC's as initiative was being rolled.

I don't necessarily recommend this way of play for others, but for my mindset, it just works. The most I'll prep for a session is to jot a few notes head of time, possible locations, NPC names, general descriptions, a list of possible encounters, etc.

Liberty's Edge

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Irontruth wrote:
Because some people take it to passive-aggressive levels. "I did so much work, you have to respect and appreciate me for it," doesn't fly with me. I'll respect and appreciate you because your my friend and if you do a good job, but you don't get a free pass because you spent X hours working on this, particularly if you spent time working on things that no one asked you to work on.

That is why I said that GMs "generally" deserve a high degree of respect. Not that they are "always" or "automatically" entitled to a high degree of respect. There are indeed some GMs who spend massive amounts of time and energy to craft a game and end up making the gaming experience miserable for everyone involved. I do agree, respect is earned and not given, and the quality of play has a great deal to do with the amount of respect that is afforded to a GM.

However, even in cases of poor GMing, I think there should still be some appreciation made for the effort. But afterwards, the GM must be ready for some constructive criticism in order to up his own game. Unless the GM was one of those people who uses his/her position to have a power trip over the players, insult them, degrade them, or simply uses the players as props in his own personal story without giving any regard to their thoughts, feelings and actions, I feel that GMs should generally be given the kudos they deserve for putting together a game.

Irontruth wrote:
I've had people throw me birthday parties and get angry because I didn't say thank you or appreciate them enough for it... even though I didn't ask them to do it, and if they had asked me, I'd have told them not to do it.

Hold the phone. You didn't say "thank you" when someone worked hard to throw you a birthday party? So let me see if I got this straight...someone went out of their way to do something very nice for you and you did not show any appreciation for it even in the form of a "thank you"? You realize that friends and relatives do things for each other out of the kindness of their hearts without being asked, right? And the only thing they want in return is a "thanks, dude." to show that their effort was appreciated. Are you surprised they got angry? Or were you purposefully snubbing them in an effort to make them angry?

I'm sorry, but that seems to demonstrate a severe lack of empathy and lack of regard for other people's feelings. People who go around saying "Hey, I never asked you for this!" tend to come off as spoiled adolescent children who haven't developed a sense of empathy and only appreciate gestures of kindness if they are absolutely perfect according to their own specifications.

Irontruth wrote:
I also don't have sympathy for GM's, because often they're working harder, not smarter. There are a myriad of ways to reduce your prep time, many of them including shifting portions of the creative workload to your players.

Irontruth, I do not know you personally, so I don't think it would be right of me to gauge your personality by what you are putting in writing, but I really hope you are posting these comments on a bad day. Because if what you are posting is a sincere reflection of your thoughts and feelings, you don't seem to have any sense of empathy for the people who are working hard and spending a great deal of time, money and effort to try and make sure you have a good time. And if that is the case, I hope you work hard to overcome your lack of empathy, because it's a perfect way to lose friends forever and make enemies for life very fast in the real world.

Irontruth wrote:

"I worked so hard, carrying all these boxes by hand. You owe me."

"Why didn't you just use the dolly sitting right there?"

That analogy only works if you pointed out the dolly to them before they went to all the trouble to do the heavy lifting, but then they did it anyway.

Otherwise this is the equivalent of pointing out the dolly that was hidden under the stairwell only after they went to all the trouble.

101 to 150 of 256 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Player insults GM. What would you do as a GM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.