Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wik" data-source="post: 6639692" data-attributes="member: 40177">[MENTION=57914]GameOgre[/MENTION] A little harsh, but I generally agree with the statement that GMs should be entertainers first and foremost, and that MO does seem to have it in for this player a little bit.&nbsp; Granted, the player's personality is not good at all.&nbsp; Rage quitting is never fun, and the few times I've seen it in a D&amp;D game, I've put a quick damper on it.&nbsp; It's just awful to be around.&nbsp; That being said, the GM has consistently mentioned his dislike of this person.&nbsp; I've GMed for players I'm not really friends with.&nbsp; I've GMed for a few people I don't even particularly like.&nbsp; But I've never GMed for people I actively dislike.&nbsp; What's the point?&nbsp; Continuing to do so, when you know you dislike the person, is a bad place to put yourself in, and it's one that's going to negatively affect your GMing position.&nbsp; It's hard to be impartial when you get frustrated with everything a person says.&nbsp; The plumbing is a good example.&nbsp; A lot of castles did have plumbing.&nbsp; The Romans certainly did.&nbsp; In my own game, a lot of buildings have plumbing.&nbsp; Now, if a player just said &quot;I'm going to go to the castle gate, say I'm the plumber, and get in there&quot;, it wouldn't work.&nbsp; But if he went through a few preparations, or had a skill in plumbing, I'd give it an honest shot.&nbsp; Maybe he paints a cart with the plumbing company moniker?&nbsp; Or he rounds up some pipes and tools?&nbsp; If he does one or two things, I'd suggest a few other things that might help (I figure once a player gets the ball rolling, the GM can and should help with logistical info that would occur to the PCs eventually).&nbsp; If this was a player who was smart, I might make the whole thing fairly hard.&nbsp; Castle guards poking through the gear, following the PC around once he gets in the castle, etc.&nbsp; But if it's a player who rarely floats a plan, or is maybe a bit slower?&nbsp; Ideally, I'd let it have at least some degree of success.&nbsp; But if I just disliked the guy?&nbsp; I think I'd be prone to saying &quot;nah, there's no plumbing in the castle.&nbsp; Try something else&quot;.&nbsp; And that's no fun.&nbsp; I once had a player I wasn't a huge fan of.&nbsp; No real reason - just didn't like the guy.&nbsp; He was kind of rude, I found, and in my little neck of Canada, being rude is sort of akin to being a smoker on a bus.&nbsp; Anyways, he went out of his way to make a sorcerer who was stuck in a deal with Pazuzu.&nbsp; So, as GM, I tried to make this a thing, by having Pazuzu offer all sorts of help if the PC would just do X.&nbsp; And he never bit - even when the gift was free, no strings attached.&nbsp; This frustrated me - &quot;why go out of your way to be a sorcerer of Pazuzu if you don't at all want to interact with him!?&quot;.&nbsp; So I started trying to force this issue.&nbsp; This was a bad tactic, because it lead to more clashes, and more bits where the player would say no.&nbsp; What I SHOULD have done was asked him what he was looking for, and either tried to make that goal work, or suggest something new.&nbsp; He really wanted to play a good guy who was forced into something he didn't like, and fight the temptation... but I assumed that he wanted to play a MOSTLY good guy who dipped a bit into temptation and then fought his way back.&nbsp; With most players, I could have caught on and adjusted my style.&nbsp; But with a guy I disliked?&nbsp; I assumed he was stupid for playing this sort of character, and didn't try to correct my own behaviour until it was almost too late.&nbsp; Anyways, my two cents.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wik, post: 6639692, member: 40177"] [MENTION=57914]GameOgre[/MENTION] A little harsh, but I generally agree with the statement that GMs should be entertainers first and foremost, and that MO does seem to have it in for this player a little bit. Granted, the player's personality is not good at all. Rage quitting is never fun, and the few times I've seen it in a D&D game, I've put a quick damper on it. It's just awful to be around. That being said, the GM has consistently mentioned his dislike of this person. I've GMed for players I'm not really friends with. I've GMed for a few people I don't even particularly like. But I've never GMed for people I actively dislike. What's the point? Continuing to do so, when you know you dislike the person, is a bad place to put yourself in, and it's one that's going to negatively affect your GMing position. It's hard to be impartial when you get frustrated with everything a person says. The plumbing is a good example. A lot of castles did have plumbing. The Romans certainly did. In my own game, a lot of buildings have plumbing. Now, if a player just said "I'm going to go to the castle gate, say I'm the plumber, and get in there", it wouldn't work. But if he went through a few preparations, or had a skill in plumbing, I'd give it an honest shot. Maybe he paints a cart with the plumbing company moniker? Or he rounds up some pipes and tools? If he does one or two things, I'd suggest a few other things that might help (I figure once a player gets the ball rolling, the GM can and should help with logistical info that would occur to the PCs eventually). If this was a player who was smart, I might make the whole thing fairly hard. Castle guards poking through the gear, following the PC around once he gets in the castle, etc. But if it's a player who rarely floats a plan, or is maybe a bit slower? Ideally, I'd let it have at least some degree of success. But if I just disliked the guy? I think I'd be prone to saying "nah, there's no plumbing in the castle. Try something else". And that's no fun. I once had a player I wasn't a huge fan of. No real reason - just didn't like the guy. He was kind of rude, I found, and in my little neck of Canada, being rude is sort of akin to being a smoker on a bus. Anyways, he went out of his way to make a sorcerer who was stuck in a deal with Pazuzu. So, as GM, I tried to make this a thing, by having Pazuzu offer all sorts of help if the PC would just do X. And he never bit - even when the gift was free, no strings attached. This frustrated me - "why go out of your way to be a sorcerer of Pazuzu if you don't at all want to interact with him!?". So I started trying to force this issue. This was a bad tactic, because it lead to more clashes, and more bits where the player would say no. What I SHOULD have done was asked him what he was looking for, and either tried to make that goal work, or suggest something new. He really wanted to play a good guy who was forced into something he didn't like, and fight the temptation... but I assumed that he wanted to play a MOSTLY good guy who dipped a bit into temptation and then fought his way back. With most players, I could have caught on and adjusted my style. But with a guy I disliked? I assumed he was stupid for playing this sort of character, and didn't try to correct my own behaviour until it was almost too late. Anyways, my two cents. [/QUOTE]

Verification