Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 4964694" data-attributes="member: 40177">Yeah.&nbsp; I've been saying this from the start, and your points sum it up pretty clearly - you're not getting what you want, and you're trying to browbeat your GM.&nbsp; If the GM says no, and you keep pushing, it's not cool.&nbsp; It ruins the fun of the game.there have been times where I've said &quot;no&quot;, and players have gotten ticked at me.&nbsp; I made a few &quot;no&quot; callings even though my rulings went directly against the rules.&nbsp; In all of those cases, the players made their case, I listened, and I said &quot;no&quot;.&nbsp; Not once did they come online and post a case against me.&nbsp; At least, to the best of my knowledge.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":P" title="Stick out tongue&nbsp; &nbsp; :P"&nbsp; data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":P" />Sometimes, they have come back with negotiations... and I've either said &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;no&quot; to those.&nbsp; The thing is, when I say &quot;no&quot; as a GM, I mean it, and my players respect it.&nbsp; Even if they feel it is unfair towards them directly.And the same has applied as a player.&nbsp; There has only been ONE time, ever, where I've come online and complained about a GM's behaviour... and that was more to vent after a very poor session (and poor behaviour on the part of the GM, outside of the game's parameters).&nbsp; And, before that event, when that awful GM said &quot;no&quot; to something, I accepted it, and went with it.The GM said &quot;yes&quot; to one PC, and &quot;no&quot; to you.&nbsp; That is a little messed up.&nbsp; However, in the context of the characters, it makes sense.&nbsp; You described your character - a loner, misanthropic scholar - and that became your vision of things.&nbsp; In the GM's mind, that does not jive well with &quot;leadership&quot; - I'd agree with him.&nbsp; My personal favourite bit of your posts is the fact that you act like you are not a powergamer, that you just want a small henchman... and then you turn around and point out how you've already worked out that you're going to get the maximum level cohort possible, through manipulation of the rules.&nbsp; And that reminds me of this player I had, once, who would roll the d20 when making an attack, and not even announce the result.&nbsp; &quot;I hit&quot;, he'd say.&nbsp; and then he'd roll damage - he figured he knew everything, and didn't really listen to me as the GM.There were plenty of times where I'd stop play, ask him what his roll was, and even though it was actually a hit... I'd smile and say &quot;Sorry, that was a miss.&quot;My point there being, there have been plenty of little hints in your post that suggest that the GM has just had enough of being browbeaten, and is making a stand.&nbsp; And I want to applaud him.He isn't being the best GM by limiting the feat from you... but you're not being the fairest player by how you're seemingly treating him from the comments you've made in this thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 4964694, member: 40177"] Yeah. I've been saying this from the start, and your points sum it up pretty clearly - you're not getting what you want, and you're trying to browbeat your GM. If the GM says no, and you keep pushing, it's not cool. It ruins the fun of the game. there have been times where I've said "no", and players have gotten ticked at me. I made a few "no" callings even though my rulings went directly against the rules. In all of those cases, the players made their case, I listened, and I said "no". Not once did they come online and post a case against me. At least, to the best of my knowledge. :P Sometimes, they have come back with negotiations... and I've either said "yes" or "no" to those. The thing is, when I say "no" as a GM, I mean it, and my players respect it. Even if they feel it is unfair towards them directly. And the same has applied as a player. There has only been ONE time, ever, where I've come online and complained about a GM's behaviour... and that was more to vent after a very poor session (and poor behaviour on the part of the GM, outside of the game's parameters). And, before that event, when that awful GM said "no" to something, I accepted it, and went with it. The GM said "yes" to one PC, and "no" to you. That is a little messed up. However, in the context of the characters, it makes sense. You described your character - a loner, misanthropic scholar - and that became your vision of things. In the GM's mind, that does not jive well with "leadership" - I'd agree with him. My personal favourite bit of your posts is the fact that you act like you are not a powergamer, that you just want a small henchman... and then you turn around and point out how you've already worked out that you're going to get the maximum level cohort possible, through manipulation of the rules. And that reminds me of this player I had, once, who would roll the d20 when making an attack, and not even announce the result. "I hit", he'd say. and then he'd roll damage - he figured he knew everything, and didn't really listen to me as the GM. There were plenty of times where I'd stop play, ask him what his roll was, and even though it was actually a hit... I'd smile and say [i]"Sorry, that was a miss."[/i] My point there being, there have been plenty of little hints in your post that suggest that the GM has just had enough of being browbeaten, and is making a stand. And I want to applaud him. He isn't being the best GM by limiting the feat from you... but you're not being the fairest player by how you're seemingly treating him from the comments you've made in this thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification