|
I started another thread the other day (linked at the end of this post) about an incident between myself and a player at a PFS game I ran last Wednesday. To summarize, I made alterations in the mod to increase the difficulty. None of the PCs died as a result, but one of the players became very irate about it, to the point of screaming insults at me in public and seeming almost as if he might come to blows.
Since then, the player in question wrote me an extremely sportsman like, gentlemanly email apologizing for having been out of line with his behavior. I wrote back, apologizing for my own arrogance in changing the mod, and for denying him the experience he was entitled to from the game.
All's well that ends well. However, there are a few things I feel compelled to say in regards to this incident.
1.) Despite what has been alleged by Mr. Brock and others, I do NOT recommend that PFS GMs alter the mods. A careful reading of my posts shows that I never recommended any such thing in the thread in question. I do not recommend (nor have I ever done so) changing the rules so that GMs be allowed to alter the mods at will. If anything, my posts here have been repeated calls for various ORGANIZED ALTERNATIVES to such behavior. Because I do entirely sympathize with GMs that feel the desire to change things in the mods to suit their individual tables. At this point, however, my advice to them is: try to avoid it. In the end, it really can't work out well. I speak from experience.
If you absolutely feel you must make the scenarios harder (and, again, I fully empathize with this impulse), I suggest first limiting your table size to four, especially with regards to the Season 0-2 mods. If you still feel compelled to make alterations, I believe that it is imperative that you check with your players first and do not make said alterations if any of them objects. If all the players want a harder game, well, I really can't see the harm and I don't see why anyone would be opposed to it in that case. But even then, your players should not feel pressured to go along with this.
2.) That said, it is worth stating that shouting, insults and even the barest intimation of violence should never be tolerated at a PFS table, no matter the dispute. I feel this needs to be said unequivocally, since Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justified, but that I brought it on myself. Shockingly careless and unprofessional (not to mention condescending) speech from an actual Paizo employee. Read his post yourself if you don't believe me. Yes, they actually pay this man.
Anyhow, I felt the need to clarify these issues in light of the dangerous implications of Mr. Brock's post, as well as the way it misrepresented my point of view. I would have simply responded directly, but he also locked the thread. To the frustrated PFS GMs out there: let my experience be a lesson to you. Ultimately, it's just not worth the hassle to try to change things yourself. Keep coming on here and posting and letting them know your frustrations, but in the meantime keep playing by the rules if you must play at all. The mods and seasons really are getting better in a lot of ways. Oh, and let's keep lobbying for a hard mode to become standard practice! Waking Rune kicked ass!
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qocr&page=2?Sayonara-and-Some-Suggestions
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justified
Actually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.
Please don't misrepresent, especially when you yourself are complaining about being misrepresented.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justifiedActually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.
He specifically used the phrase "you brought it on yourself." Unacceptable. His tone in the post in general was condescending well beyond the line of professionalism. Even the beginning: "It takes a special kind of post to pull me from my vacation?" Seriously? Narcissistic, self involved and belittling. Again, all unacceptable from an employee.
Such speech from a position of power turns these threads into Mr. Brock's personal bully pulpit, and we should not have to tolerate it.
|
|
Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justifiedActually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.
He specifically used the phrase "you brought it on yourself." Unacceptable. His tone in the post in general was condescending well beyond the line of professionalism. Even the beginning: "It takes a special kind of post to pull me from my vacation?" Seriously? Narcissistic, self involved and belittling. Again, all unacceptable from an employee.
Such speech from a position of power turns these threads into Mr. Brock's personal bully pulpit, and we should not have to tolerate it.
And since you know perfectly well that he's on vacation, your decision to bring this up the next day, instead of waiting a week for people to settle down and for him to get back, demonstrates not only that you aren't interested in taking time to reflect, but that you're also either vindictive (you want him to respond when he's supposed to be on vacation) or craven (you want to pee all over the boards while he's away).
Or both, I guess.
|
|
And since you know perfectly well that he's on vacation, your decision to bring this up the next day, instead of waiting a week for people to settle down and for him to get back, demonstrates not only that you aren't interested in taking time to reflect, but that you're also either vindictive (you want him to respond when he's supposed to be on vacation) or craven (you want to pee all over the boards while he's away).
Or both, I guess.
Being on vacation didn't stop him from posting in the first place. He opened that door. Anyhow I am not looking for any kind of response from him. Short of an apology (which isn't likely), I could care less what he has to say about the matter at this point. I have had little patience for Mr. Brock's style of communication here since a few months ago when I intervened on behalf of another poster that he was bullying. His responses here are notably less professional in character than those of every other Paizo employee, and I'm tired of it.
|
|
Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justifiedActually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.
He specifically used the phrase "you brought it on yourself." Unacceptable. His tone in the post in general was condescending well beyond the line of professionalism. Even the beginning: "It takes a special kind of post to pull me from my vacation?" Seriously? Narcissistic, self involved and belittling. Again, all unacceptable from an employee.
Such speech from a position of power turns these threads into Mr. Brock's personal bully pulpit, and we should not have to tolerate it.
He's right though you know. The person got upset because you cheated. And everyone, including Mike know how he reacted was wrong, he's not here for us to address.
Your original post was condescending to the GM's and Player's of not only PFS but Pathfinder and your arrogance at wanting Mike to sugar coat things for you after you pretty much bragged about cheating a group of players is astonishing to me.
And Mike is not your employee, if you have a problem with his response they're way to address it with his employers.
And you don't have to tolerate it. PFS isn't for everyone. And frankly GM's are cheat are the worst of the worst to me.
|
|
Mr. Brock's post at the end of my previous thread not only implies that the behavior of the player at my table was justifiedActually, he said that the player had a right to be upset. How the player handled his feelings was neither stated nor implied to be okay.
He specifically used the phrase "you brought it on yourself." Unacceptable. His tone in the post in general was condescending well beyond the line of professionalism. Even the beginning: "It takes a special kind of post to pull me from my vacation?" Seriously? Narcissistic, self involved and belittling. Again, all unacceptable from an employee.
Such speech from a position of power turns these threads into Mr. Brock's personal bully pulpit, and we should not have to tolerate it.
He's right though you know. The person got upset because you cheated. And everyone, including Mike know how he reacted was wrong, he's not here for us to address.
Your original post was condescending to the GM's and Player's of not only PFS but Pathfinder and your arrogance at wanting Mike to sugar coat things for you after you pretty much bragged about cheating a group of players is astonishing to me.
And Mike is not your employee, if you have a problem with his response they're way to address it with his employers.
And you don't have to tolerate it. PFS isn't for everyone. And frankly GM's are cheat are the worst of the worst to me.
What is the value in calling my behavior arrogant after I have myself called it precisely the same thing? Yes, I should not have altered the mod. I have said so. I apologized to the player for doing so. I am specifically recommending that others not fall into the same trap of hubris that I fell into.
But saying I want him to "sugar coat" things? Absurd. There is an enormous difference between "sugar coating" anything and merely adhering to the barest levels of professionalism. And no he is not my employee and I never said he was. The point is not that he is my underling but exactly the opposite. His position of power should oblige him to adhere to a much, much higher standard of self expression than the rest of us.
|
|
What is the value in calling my behavior arrogant after I have myself called it precisely the same thing? Yes, I should not have altered the mod. I have said so. I apologized to the player for doing so. I am specifically recommending that others not fall into the same trap of hubris that I fell into.
But saying I want him to "sugar coat" things? Absurd. There is an enormous difference between "sugar coating" anything and merely adhering to the barest levels of professionalism. And no he is not my employee and I never said he was. The point is not that he is my underling but exactly the opposite. His position of power should oblige him to adhere to a much, much higher standard of self expression than the rest of us.
Because you called yourself arrogant by changing the scenario, I'm talking at your arrogance at the demands your making.
And what standard of professionalism are you achieving by posting what amounts to be nothing more then a "woe is me" post to explain yourself after your last thread on this topic was locked?
And Mike's a person, he has the ability to get annoyed just as much as everyone else. And maybe you should look at what you write, because it should be obviously that what your writing is getting under some people's skin.
