Who Was at Fault?

[D1Tremere]

This was done; what do you think of the GM's response to concerns being expressed?

Do you think Player B should also have spoken to Player A?

I think all the people involved can benefit from regular conversation about expectations, play styles, and any concerns they may have. The more that people communicate (not argue, but really communicate), the more they begin to work towards win/win scenarios. A person who is looking for THEIR moment to shine in the beginning can start to become more excited by helping OTHERS achieve a shining moment as they grow closer (self/other merging). If each person in a 5 person group is only looking for their moment, then each person may get one. If each person in a 5 person group is looking for another person's moment, then each person may get several. And by enabling another person's moment of happiness and success, they may experience those things themselves.
It is common for people to have communication issues, especially when they don't know each other very well. This can lead to framing effects such as looking for fault, or seeing a situation as win/lose only. Large amounts of open and honest communication helps a lot, even when those involved are relative strangers.

Having said that, my opinion is that the important questions here are: What does the group, including the GM, think of the GM's response? What does Player B think about the need to speak to Player A? It doesn't matter what any of us think, as these are the people who need to reach understanding with each other.

 

[aramis erak]

That really sounds like the GM didn't let the PC's be "awesome" like he's supposed to do.
Also, Double 6's are "Reroll and then awesome up the resulting success or failure bigtime"...

So that double-6 being a simply weird result (neither success nor failure) is clearly not RAW, and I doubt it's RAI, if it's described accurately.

In other words, the GM is to blame if the description is accurate.

He also isn't supposed to change the intent on the player, not even on a double-6. In 2E, it's explicit that a failed roll should almost never be a failed action, but an action without the desired result.

 

[5ekyu]

Last night, our group wrapped up a long-running Feng Shui game, and while it was mostly loads of fun, there was one odd moment that led to some bruised feelings. I was just an observer, not a participant, but I'd be interested in what the rest of you make of it.

We were in a multi-boss fight. Player A and Player B both targeted one of the bosses, which was some kind of eldritch abomination in the shape of a hound. Player A was trying to get the hound to chase his PC (PC-A), while Player B was trying to get her PC (PC-B) to grapple the hound. At one point, PC-A called out to PC-B to let the hound go because PC-A had a plan, and PC-B complied.

A round or two later, the hound attacked PC-B, and the GM rolled double sixes, which means something spectacular and unusual happens. The GM ruled that PC-B ended up standing in the hound's mouth, holding it open. Player B got very excited and said she knew exactly what she was going to do on her next attack (breathe fire into the hound's gullet).

However, Player A had a turn before that happened. He declared that he was having PC-A whack the hound on the nose and then attack it. He rolled really well, so the GM ruled that PC-A took PC-B's place in the hound's mouth, although this was not Player A's stated intention with the attack. Player B still got to make the breath attack on her next turn, but now she had to do it at a penalty to avoid hitting PC-A.

Afterward, Player B felt miffed about the whole thing. She said she felt like she had been a good sport by letting Player A have his moment earlier, and she hadn't been allowed to have her moment in return. She brought it up privately afterward with the GM via e-mail, and his response was "Try not to let other players' dice rolls spoil your fun."

(I've tried to give the minimum necessary amount of context for the story to make sense, but there are other interpersonal and game factors that might make a difference. I'll clarify if they seem to become relevant.)

So--what do you folks think? Was Player A too aggressive? Was Player B too sensitive? Did the GM handle it badly? If this situation came up at your table, what would you do?

I see this as the GM causing an issue with poor decisions.

One player let the other plan play out.
Then the other player did not try to screw with the mouth thing but the GM chose to do so... Using the good result as an opportunity.

Instead, the gm could have given some other big boon. (Hey, lets throw this barrel of black powder) that **helped** the upcoming fire gullet trick so that the ultimate outcome showed cooperative build up to biggest bang ever...

 

[Doug McCrae]

She brought it up privately afterward with the GM via e-mail, and his response was "Try not to let other players' dice rolls spoil your fun."

This here is the real problem imo. The GM's response to what I think is a legitimate complaint is to refuse to take responsibility for his actions ie to deny the reality of what happened.

 

[Les Moore]

IMO(JMHO,YMMV), Player A should have attacked some other portion of the monster, say, the legs.

Since the monster was distracted by the Player B in it's mouth, the DM could then have assigned a small
attack bonus to Player A, for Player B's "interaction". Then Player B could have had the possibility of attacking a stunned or
disabled monster on her turn, also possibly getting a bonus to her attack. But IMO, the poor co-ordination is the fault of
both A&B, who could have coordinated their attacks better, with a little co-operation, and had a much more effective result.