Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="wrabbit37" data-source="post: 1267660" data-attributes="member: 865">I've run into similar problems before.  While I agree it is disrespectful, you need to take a step back from how much it hurt you and realize why they did it.  As Jeph and woolybearundertaker were talking about, they did it because they were at the game to have fun.  Sitting around while the GM and another player go off and have a few private conversations is pretty boring.The GM shouldn't have to worry that private conversations are being listened to, but neither should the players feel like in order to do something for a half hour out of the six hour game they came to play, they have to listen in on conversations. In my campaign, I've decided to try to limit all private encounters.  Even when the group splits up, we generally run them in front of all the players.  That way they get to see what's going on and have fun watching encounters unfold.If I have something private I need to tell a player and it's short, I write it down on a slip of paper and pass it along.  Easy, short, doesn't stop the flow of the game.If I find I do need to have a private conversation with a player, I engineer a situation where he is seperate from the rest of the group, then I engineer it so the rest of the group has something to talk about.  I watch over the conversation for a minute or so to make sure they're on topic and the like, then I say something like "While you guys are discussing this, I have to have a quick word with Player 2.  We'll be back in a minute."  Of course, my players are mature enough to keep on topic and in game without me around to supervise for a little while.  I never let those encounters run past 5 or 10 minutes, though.  It's unfair to the others who came around to play too and now must wait for me to return to do anything.</blockquote>

Verification