
Hiruma Kai |

Hiruma Kai wrote:There are different levels to consider. If a tactic is so obnoxious that using it could be considered retaliation when used by the GM as opposed to simply proper play, then why are the players using it in the first place? How do other players feel when one character is breaking the game.I think you misinterpret Ravingdork's comment. It's not the tactics at issue, it's the GM feeling he needs to "retaliate" against the player(s). It's the GM's attitude that he's commenting on.
I have to agree with Ravingdork's comment insofar as when I initially read the part of the post in question, I was thinking: "If this guy thinks he needs to retaliate against players, then this is not a GM I would want to play with."
But, to be fair, I suspect HWalsh probably just chose his words badly.
I think we're all in agreement here.
I'm just trying to say that that the equivalent retaliation desire is just as bad if its the players that have it. I wasn't clear enough, but I was trying to comment on the player's feeling that they need to use such a tactic to win despite any real life social cost or retaliate against the GM (as opposed to the situations presented in the game). As RavingDork points out, that smells of a power struggle between players as well as a power struggle between players and GM, when ideally everyone is on the same side, namely trying to have fun with a game.
I happen to believe it is not only the GM's role and responsibility to ensure everyone is having fun but it is also the responsibility of each player.
I think the best thing to do is step out of the game, and have everyone talk about what is and is not working in the campaign for everyone, and come to an agreement on how to play going forward. If they can't, then as you say, maybe that GM and that player don't want to play together.
Anyways, to swing around back on topic, I'm still interested in the 4th level party composition and builds. Is it just bad luck with rolls as someone suggested?