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

[Hama]

You mean people tend to behave like adolescent children when denied their favorite treat?

[Josh M.]

Jaelithe wrote:

Josh M. wrote:

Since we're talking about awkward surprise parties, I think I have a funny story.

** spoiler omitted **...

Does your wife know how you feel about this? Perhaps your next surprise could be coordinating this game.

Yeah, we talked about it the next day. It was super awkward, since she did put a lot of thought and effort into organizing 15+ people without my knowing, just to wind up bumming me out. I was extremely grateful for the effort, regardless.

She had another go at the surprise idea this year, and it worked out much better. Instead of baiting me into a situation, she gathered everyone on a Saturday that I was not busy and had nothing planned. My friends picked me up and took me out to this brand new arcade-bar in town; they have 50+ arcade games, all set to free play, and a fully stocked bar. We had a blast!

[Louis Lyons]

My2Copper wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

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 would be better than to just tell the player no, without a reason given.

I don't think so, because shooting down a player's character concept with a straight "No" and nothing further can be rather rude and hurtful. Personally, I think it shows a lack of respect for the players to do that (but it depends on the group).

I think it's better to couch it by saying "That particular build/character class/race/archetype choice just won't work as a player-controlled class in the campaign I'm running." and leave it at that. You still do not have to give the ultimate reason as to why you won't allow it, i.e., you are planning an NPC adversary along a similar concept, and you are not being rude and dismissive.

[Hama]

And you didn't read what the poster said. He said that saying why he is refusing the concept is better then a flat out no.

[Louis Lyons]

Hama wrote:

And you didn't read what the poster said. He said that saying why he is refusing the concept is better then a flat out no.

You're right, I misread it. My bad.

[phantom1592]

My2Copper wrote:

Kryzbyn wrote:

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 would be better than to just tell the player no, without a reason given.

I disagree. I don't WANT spoilers to the campaign. If I want to play a skinchanging Lycanthrope.... and the DM says 'Nah that doesn't work, Chapter 3 is all about werewolves I want you to look surprised...

I would personally be annoyed. A simple 'no, not for THIS campaign' would have been just fine.