Games gone awry

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> How utterly arrogant of you. If a DM is "fair" (a term for which only your

> personal definition applies, I'm sure),

 

Next time, read the post. In the example given, the only person who *didn't* hate Dave's ass was the guy Dave was showing massive favoritism to.

 

You know, word /do/ mean things, and other people besides you are smart enough to what things they mean. I find it sickly amusing that you'd upbraid somebody for alleged 'arrogance' in the same breath that you act like you're the only person smart enough to know what 'fair' really means.

 

> you "reward" him by assuming he needs your advice, wants your advice,

> and will take your advice.

 

What was that advice I was giving Jeff about, again?

 

Oh yes -- advice on how to kick my character's ass.

 

... you know, most DM's I've met are happy when a player slips them a note "You know, this is a perfect chance to take advantage of my Psych Lim" or "You are aware that I have a Susceptibility that applies here, right?".

 

(Then again, we are playing by Internet chat, which makes note-passing *way* easier than on tabletop.)

 

> No doubt

 

Do you /always/ argue by arrogant assumption instead of waiting or asking to find out first? N/m, rhetorical question.

 

Shit, dude, my current DM is in this thread. If you *really* want to know, send him a PM and ask, don't pose on top of Mount Olympus.

 

> if he refuses your advice (by, for example, telling you to sit down,

> shut up, and let him run his own goddamned game), he's suddenly being

> "unfair".

 

*snorts* Arguing against people who didn't actually bother to read what you wrote, and are instead reacting only to what they assumed you wrote, might be annoying as hell -- but it's also a lot easier.

 

And BTW, what exactly is so wrong with players who are interested with and engaged with the game, the plot, and the campaign? I mean, I /could/ just sit there like a lump on a log and speak only when I'm spoken to, but somehow, I doubt that would be contributing *more* to the game than if I actually spoke up.

 

> Had you pulled your shit in my game, I would have tossed you out of my

> house ass-first and your name would have been mud in the local gaming

> community.

 

Why is the guy who warns me not to act arrogant suddenly puffing out his chest and talking like he's a cross between Arnold Schwarzenegger and the God of Gaming? Oh, because he's massively *projecting*, that's why.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Actually, what I find most entertaining about this whole "debate" is the sheer amusement value.

 

"We destroyed his campaign/world", for example.

 

What was destroyed? From your own description, Chuck, all the players save one were ready to quit anyway. There was no campaign.

 

The game world? Well, I expect the GM still has all the details. Nothing forces him to actually leave a permanent gate under his capital city. In fact, an ending like that in many campaigns would likely be followed with "What a great end to the campaign. Well, guys, what type of game do you want to run next? I plan on continuing to use my world, minus the Gate." Continuity from one campaign to another is hardly essential. The Forgotten Realms don't get quickly updated because some gamers in Alabama "killed Elminster".

 

Now, what I liked about your post was how much it read like a Knights of the Dinner Table strip. "Well, BA, if you refer to the Book of Vile Darkness, page xxx, para 7, you'll find the fact that the Dark Elves were exterminated here makes this a place of Great Evil. Refering to para 2 on Page yyy, you'll find that evil magics are prevented from being dispelled in such locales."

 

And the easy answer, of course, would be as follows:

 

(a) How did your character(s) learn this "law of physics"? They didn't pay a sage, to my knowledge. And all the sages are NPC's, so you'd think I'd know that.

 

( What makes you think I've adopted that option in my campaign?

 

and/or

 

© You didn't exterminate a race. The Dark Elves are only a sub-race of Elvenkind.

 

Now, it doesn't sound from your description that the DM in question would necessarily have been coming up with these ideas, and I'm not going to assess whether you or he were in the right - I wasn't there, and I have your word only. But your belief that you have somehow "taken righteous revenge" by "destroting his game" really makes me laugh.

 

No oiffense intended - this is more my perception of the argument itself than any perception of the actual game itself. And I've certainly met some people whose only sense of self-worth comes from a game, so I can believe there's a DM out there to whom this would be a crushing, soul-destroying defeat. But I'm more inclined to pity anyone whose self-esteem is that fragile than to game with them at all, much less "exact my terrible vengeance" by "destroying their world".

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Games gone awry

 

... you know, most DM's I've met are happy when a player slips them a note "You know, this is a perfect chance to take advantage of my Psych Lim" or "You are aware that I have a Susceptibility that applies here, right?".

 

(Then again, we are playing by Internet chat, which makes note-passing *way* easier than on tabletop.)

 

My answer to the above situations isn't to slip into gamespeak.

 

With respect to the psych limit, it's to role play my psych limit. My assumption would be that the GM was well aware of my disadvantages when he put the scenario together. Whether he was or not, it's my job to role play the character. Depending on how it came up, I might ask after the game whether that was deliberate or accidental.

 

ASIDE: It always bugs me when players start talking about psych lims. "Well, guys, I have to play it this way because my character is mysterious and secretive, and highly protective of his family, and Madame Misfortune is actually his sister" rather than just role playing the results and letting the other characters draw their own conclusions.

 

I always have this vision of Batman turning to some bystander and saying "I must go, because although I am the mysterious and obsessed Grim Avenger of the Night, by day I am Bruce Wayne, millionaire, and I have an 8 AM tee time for a charioty golf turnament. Farewell, citizen".

 

As for the susceptibility, I'd simply be asking the GM to roll the dice for my suisceptibility (if it's obvious) or asking whether this is triggering my susceptibility (if there's a judgement call there). Whether I did that aloud or by note would depoend on whether the other characters know about the susceptibility. If we've established that the player rolls his own dice, I'd just roll it and mark off the damage. The character's personality would dictate what, if anything, I tell my fellow PC's (might pass a note to the GM to say "I just took 15 STUN from my susc. to carbonated beverages - maybe the others should get a PER roll to see me wince").

[The Watcher]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Oh, bullshit.

 

She's not saying "A GM can do anything he wants and all a player can do is take it". She's saying "Treating another human being like shit is a bad thing to do, and you two treated this guy like shit."

Perhaps, but the GM in question treated all the players but one like shit first. Courtesy is only obligatory to those who are courteous to you. Anything else is optional.

 

Climb down off your high-horse, sport. You have no standing to act morally superior.

If I'm on a high-horse, it's only because others climbed up on theirs first and insisted on a horse race.

 

So get off your own and leave the track if you don't want this to continue.

[The Watcher]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Had you pulled your shit in my game' date=' I would have tossed you out of my house ass-first and your name would have been mud in the local gaming community.[/quote']Hey, if you pulled the shit the GM did in the campaign in question, you wouldn't have had a game long enough to throw anyone else out and your name would be shit in the local gaming community.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> What was destroyed? From your own description, Chuck, all the players

> save one were ready to quit anyway. There was no campaign.

 

Point. But we left having fully succeeded in our goals (beyond most of our wildest dreams, in fact) -- not in mid-game. That was pleasant.

 

[snip]

> ?(a) How did your character(s) learn this "law of physics"? They didn't pay

> a sage, to my knowledge. And all the sages are NPC's, so you'd think I'd

> know that.

 

One of the two PCs involved was the High Priest of Ahriman for that planet, and his Knowledge(Religion) was maxed out. IOW, it was professional knowledge he already had.

 

You might as well ask a character with 21 ranks in Knowledge(War) 'How did you figure out that a wide, soft berm will trap cannonballs? Your character didn't consult the sage Vaubon.'

 

> ( What makes you think I've adopted that option in my campaign?

 

The fact that he'd already been using BoVD... and already using that option, at its lower levels.

 

> © You didn't exterminate a race. The Dark Elves are only a sub-race of

> Elvenkind.

 

And this *was* one of the 'several ways' I referred to, that Dave didn't think of. Fortunately for us.

 

> But your belief that you have somehow "taken righteous revenge"

 

Hugh, when you put quote marks around something, try to make sure that it's something I actually said.

 

> by "destroying his game" really makes me laugh.

 

*shrugs*

 

At worst, it's still astoundingly successful role-play of a villain PC to end human civilization as we know it, from a cold standing start, in under a month.

 

> No oiffense intended -

 

 

What world do you live in, that you can laugh at someone and call their ideas silly and not intend to offend them? You're either laughing with someone, or at them. 'At' is offensive, and trust me, it sure didn't feel like 'with'.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> My answer to the above situations isn't to slip into gamespeak.

 

That's why I'm passing the note, instead of using gamespeak 'across the table ' and ruining the mood.

 

> With respect to the psych limit, it's to role play my psych limit. My

> assumption would be that the GM was well aware of my disadvantages

> when he put the scenario together.

 

I have learned through painful experience *never* to assume that the GM knows something. Even with the best will in the world, we all forget things from time to time. Lord knows I do.

 

> Whether he was or not, it's my job to role play the character. Depending

> on how it came up, I might ask after the game whether that was deliberate

> or accidental.

 

> ASIDE: It always bugs me when players start talking about psych lims.

> "Well, guys, I have to play it this way because my character is mysterious

> and secretive, and highly protective of his family, and Madame Misfortune is

> actually his sister" rather than just role playing the results and letting the

> other characters draw their own conclusions.

 

... again, this is why I'm talking about *passing the GM a note*.

[zornwil]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> What was destroyed? From your own description, Chuck, all the players

> save one were ready to quit anyway. There was no campaign.

 

Point. But we left having fully succeeded in our goals (beyond most of our wildest dreams, in fact) -- not in mid-game. That was pleasant.

 

[snip]

> ?(a) How did your character(s) learn this "law of physics"? They didn't pay

> a sage, to my knowledge. And all the sages are NPC's, so you'd think I'd

> know that.

 

One of the two PCs involved was the High Priest of Ahriman for that planet, and his Knowledge(Religion) was maxed out. IOW, it was professional knowledge he already had.

 

You might as well ask a character with 21 ranks in Knowledge(War) 'How did you figure out that a wide, soft berm will trap cannonballs? Your character didn't consult the sage Vaubon.'

 

> ( What makes you think I've adopted that option in my campaign?

 

The fact that he'd already been using BoVD... and already using that option, at its lower levels.

 

> © You didn't exterminate a race. The Dark Elves are only a sub-race of

> Elvenkind.

 

And this *was* one of the 'several ways' I referred to, that Dave didn't think of. Fortunately for us.

 

> But your belief that you have somehow "taken righteous revenge"

 

Hugh, when you put quote marks around something, try to make sure that it's something I actually said.

 

> by "destroying his game" really makes me laugh.

 

*shrugs*

 

At worst, it's still astoundingly successful role-play of a villain PC to end human civilization as we know it, from a cold standing start, in under a month.

 

> No oiffense intended -

 

 

What world do you live in, that you can laugh at someone and call their ideas silly and not intend to offend them? You're either laughing with someone, or at them. 'At' is offensive, and trust me, it sure didn't feel like 'with'.

Well, chuckg, as I do find your approach on this issue to be offensive and your commentary implies that stating such an opinion gives offense, then let me say that if I'm offending you here...so be it.

 

I think it's pretty crappy to screw with a GM's game rather than walk out - regardless of the reason. The purpose is to have fun. If you don't like it and the GM doesn't want to change after a reasoned conversation, leave the game. And gloating over "ruining" someone's campaign world is...well certainly more offensive - literally - than any invective I've seen posted on these boards in quite some time.

 

And, yes, I have played with a horrible, ego-obsessed, GM before. The solution was simply not to play with him, not to try to rub his nose in his issues. And let me say, it was a roommate that the rest of us grew to intensely hate, more than most of us had ever hated another person. I still think that stomping on his game world is not only silly but downright, well, to repeat the word, offensive.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: Games gone awry

 

I still think that stomping on his game world is not only silly but downright' date=' well, to repeat the word, offensive.[/quote']

 

 

I got a buck says he comes back with some variation of "He started it". It seems to be Chuck's answer to everything. "I can do no wrong... if there's a problem its because other people are not responding correctly to my actions, which by definition are always right."

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> Well, chuckg, as I do find your approach on this issue to be offensive and

> your commentary implies that stating such an opinion gives offense, then

> let me say that if I'm offending you here...so be it.

 

Thank you.

 

Really. Sincere opposition can still be annoying at times, but it's *much* less nauseating than insincere pretenses at neutrality.

 

> I think it's pretty crappy to screw with a GM's game rather than walk out -

> regardless of the reason. The purpose is to have fun.

 

We did have a lot of fun bringing about the dominion of Ahriman, now that you mention it.

 

> If you don't like it and the GM doesn't want to change after a reasoned

> conversation, leave the game. And gloating over "ruining" someone's

> campaign world is...well certainly more offensive - literally - than any

> invective I've seen posted on these boards in quite some time.

 

Whatever. At worst, we RP'ed some really successful supervillains. At best, a world-class lousy DM was given a reason to gulp back gallons of stomach acid. Either way, I'm happy with the results.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

I got a buck says he comes back with some variation of "He started it". It seems to be Chuck's answer to everything. "I can do no wrong... if there's a problem its because other people are not responding correctly to my actions' date=' which by definition are always right."[/quote']

 

I'll take "Should Have Been A PM" for a thousand, Alex.

[Ben Seeman]

Re: Games gone awry

 

This thread was reported to me. Should I close it? What do the parties involved think?

[Blue]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Haven't been in here in days because they were bickering so much over ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. (But when I saw Ben's name in there I had to see)

 

I hate to say it but I think it's outlived it's usefulness. I think it was a worthwile and entertaining topic, but this could be a poster child for "When Good Threads go Bad!" (Tonight, on Fox!)

 

Kill it. We will not miss the thread, only it's potential for good.

[beauxdeigh]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Kill it. We will not miss the thread' date=' only it's potential for good.[/quote']

 

Yep...it had a few posts where it was getting back on track, but now it's totally mired in stupidity. Put it out of our misery.