Thomas Shey
Legend
I didn't read "upset" at all. I read hostile, which is much more than just "upset."
We're having a semantic/communication issue here, then. I don't read them as particularly different in practice.
I didn't read "upset" at all. I read hostile, which is much more than just "upset."
Asking players to make suboptimal characters? Yeah, there's a whole lot o' tables where that ain't gonna fly.
If the GM is planning a big change at some point in the campaign right from square one, perhaps the best pitch might be something like "It'll start out as generic medieval fantasy and after that, who knows?".
We're having a semantic/communication issue here, then. I don't read them as particularly different in practice.
I'll be frank; if someone offers me a game of one type and then plays the "surprise, we're actually playing X" and X is something I actively dislike, I'm going to be pretty hostile about it too. And if I did it to someone else, I wouldn't be even faintly surprised to get some of the same.
I agree with most of that. I do think that there are times when getting upset is a valid response to the situation. I don't think that outright hostility is ever an appropriate response.Well you did state
Not sure how people are supposed to read "pretty hostile" as anything but being pretty hostile.
In any case if someone got to the point where they were pretty hostile in objecting to something I did as part of a game, even if I as DM had royally screwed up, I would tell them to leave and never invite them back. Everybody makes mistakes, there's no reason to get upset.
And I have seen both. Fortunately it was not directed at me but an other player. He was pretty obnoxious and was in a divorce procedure (but we were not aware). It took all my diplomatic skill not to have a fight at my table between that player and two others. When we learned that he was in divorce procedure we understood his attitude and invited him back at the table. (We had not replaced him yet). He came back and he's been more than ok ever since.I agree with most of that. I do think that there are times when getting upset is a valid response to the situation. I don't think that outright hostility is ever an appropriate response.
And I have seen both. Fortunately it was not directed at me but an other player. He was pretty obnoxious and was in a divorce procedure (but we were not aware). It took all my diplomatic skill not to have a fight at my table between that player and two others. When we learned that he was in divorce procedure we understood his attitude and invited him back at the table. (We had not replaced him yet). He came back and he's been more than ok ever since.
All that to say that sometimes, even after such an episode, giving a chance to someone to explain himself might go a long way to heal hurted ego.
Well you did state
Not sure how people are supposed to read "pretty hostile" as anything but being pretty hostile.
In any case if someone got to the point where they were pretty hostile in objecting to something I did as part of a game, even if I as DM had royally screwed up, I would tell them to leave and never invite them back. Everybody makes mistakes, there's no reason to get upset.
I agree with most of that. I do think that there are times when getting upset is a valid response to the situation. I don't think that outright hostility is ever an appropriate response.
As does most people's mileage. You don't go into "upset" territory when you enter enemy lands. You enter hostile territory. You don't cease "upsetness" when there is a cease fire during war. You cease hostilities.As I said, I don't consider them radically different statements. YMM (and obviously does) V.