GMing: "getting Even" vs "getting it right"

[jdrakeh]

If they use it a lot, then the NPCs will start also using the same or similar exploits against the PCs.

That's a valid way to handle things in play, I think - but I'm also pretty sure that this isn't what the initial poster was taslking about. It sounded, to me, like the initial poster was addressing the issue of GMs who deliberately screw over their players with fiat to make a point about what is technically an OOC issue.

That is, it sounded as though the initial complaint was about GMs who, rather than say "Hey, I know the rule says X, but you're clearly abusing it and I'd appreciate it if you cut back a bit" beat the character of the offending player down with a troll to make the point "See! If you do that, I'll !@# you hard!".

Sadly, I've seen more GMs who seek to avoid confrontation in the latter manner, rather by fixing the rules or applying them across the board (as you suggested). Ironically, using fiat (be it a forced TPK, individual character death, loss of levels, etc) to 'make a point' usually creates more conflict than addressing the situation directly would have

 

[swrushing]

Indeed, its the notion of Gming thru payback... it was literally references as if you were training dogs in one post.

but as for the "see the NPCs can do it too" two items...

First, in the game in question, only PCs have plot points so actually, this is a case where by the book, it cannot be done back to them.

Second, and more importantly., when did we all start believing "two bad scenes makes a good one" so that one player created bad scene is made Ok by the Gm creating one a little later? if a player "abuses" a rule at the session start and we get a crappy result is it somehow all made better when the NPC does similarly in the final scene of the session?

thats precisely the attitude I am working at discussing here. The "payback" method of handling problems.

why not fix the rule instead?

Lets go metaphorical...

did i do this already?

say my sidewalk (ruleset) has a loose stone (rule with a glitch) and while most people walk by fine, a few here and there trip over the loose stone and fall.

should i call my apt people to fix the stone (as GM correct the rule's glitch)?

or

should i rush up when someone falls and kick them several times in the ribs hoping that the pain i inflict will convince them to pay attention to where they walk in the future?

 

[jdrakeh]

should i rush up when someone falls and kick them several times in the ribs hoping that the pain i inflict will convince them to pay attention to where they walk in the future?

This is the option that I loathe and, I too, dislike seeing it advocated with zeal (but a lot of people do just that). This approach to GMing in all of its socially maladjusted glory reminds me very much of my very early RPG years, prior to my discovery of things such as fostering cooperation between players in the interest of having fun.

While I hate the stereotype of the socially inept gamer, GMs who espouse this style of play (i.e., !@#$ your players over and !@#$ 'em over often) do exist and are firmly convinced that their masterful ability to make their players miserable and/or end camapigns on a sour note is a quality to be admired.

You see a lot of this in threads about TPKs - where 'I killed all of the PCs and ruined the campaign!' is genuinely offered forth by some COB as a prideful boast. I hate the stereotype about socially maladjusted gamers but it is, sadly, one that I feel has been earned.

 

[shilsen]

I can't add much to what has already been said than to say that I agree completely with those saying that "getting even" is a really lousy way to DM. I'd never do that as a DM and if I was a player, whether I was the target or not, I think I'd quit.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

In each case, the character plot pointing in was more or less stealing the thunder, usually just not waiting for that other character to get to the place.

I'm going to suggest to you that if this is what your players are choosing to spend their precious "plot points" on, they don't need to have any. Just something to think about.

 

[Pbartender]

I am surprised by the notion that some have that, as a GM, its better to "get even" in game with a player who uses a rule the way you don't like rather than fixing the rule. For some, it seems preferable to have the Gm let the rule stay as is, let the player use it legally, but then later in the session or the game "get him back" for it by turning his success around on him or making a future scene go against him.

~~~

So... if there is a use of a rule which is, in your eyes for your game, out of whack and easily fixed, why would it be better to let the rule stand and simply punish players who use it by deliberately shafting their characters in a kind of passive/aggressive payback?

I agree. Typically, if something rolls around like that, I'll tell my players, "I'll let it slide this time, but I'll think up a better rule for this situation and let you guys know what I decide next week."

As for your specific situation...

I don't think the plot point skill bonuses are as bad as you think. Have you ever watched the Stargate SG-1 TV series? Every now and again, one character with have some sort of innocent, simple but key revelation outside of their usual field of expertise, that the usual expert overlooked. Everybody lokos at him dumbfounded. He makes an amusing but self-depreciating remark. Foreheads get smacked. He gets conrgatulated either disbelievingly or snidely. And the day is saved.

For example...

Daniel: I've been working on this tablet that is the key to saving mankind from alien invasion for hours, but I can't seem to translate these ancient hieroglyphs!

Jack: Maybe it's upside down?

Daniel:

Maybe the character blindly plugs in cables and simply gets lucky the first time. Maybe the character watched a Nova episode about it just last night. Maybe all those hours that character spent playing DOOM finalyl payed off.

When your players want to spend the points to let their characters do something they ordinarily wouldn't be good at, make them explain why and how they do it. Give them points for style and let them do it, if it sounds reasonable (or amusing). If not, help them explain it, so they can do a better job of it themselves next time.

 

[swrushing]

I'm going to suggest to you that if this is what your players are choosing to spend their precious "plot points" on, they don't need to have any. Just something to think about.

well see the use of plot points in the game upcoming is not a "precious" plot point mechanic. The recommendation was for them to flow like rain. and they are integral to many different elements, being the primary vehicle making PCs superior to NPCs. So cutting back on plot points doesn't seem all that likely to be an answer, at least not one that doesn't carry lots of other negative repercussions.

in the previous game, plot points were rare and the issue still happened. Honestly, what is BETTER in a player's eyes than being "the character who solved the problem" when problem solving is a valuable campaign element? he doesn't need plot points for most of the role play personal character stuff.

and, as i stated earlier, the loss of plot points will likely cost him down the road, but IMO having the combat grunt go down easy in combat due to having spent his plot points on massive engineering skill is just adding a second "bad scene" on top of the first... not fixing the problem. Some will disagree with me on that, of course.

 

[tetsujin28]

Me, too. Anybody has it within their capacity to browbeat their players for using broken rules as written. A truly exceptional few take it upon themselves to fix these rules and get on with the game. Or, at the very least, this has been my experience over the past ten years.

If we all agree it's broken, we just get along with the evening, and then the next session a fix is added to house rules. "Getting back" at players is immature and lame.

 

[KRT]

If we all agree it's broken, we just get along with the evening, and then the next session a fix is added to house rules. "Getting back" at players is immature and lame.

I think that the first thing you have to do is decide if you can drop the issue and move on. Only if you can should you even attempt to fix it. If you can't move on then YOU as DM have a problem. In the stargate examples it is easy to justify (having watched the show) when a seemingly unknowledgeable person suddenly comes up with the answer. Plain and simple they don't realize they have. They say something totally stupid which turns out to be totally correct and the knowledgeable experts all slap their forheads "of course, what were we thinking". The PC who made the role could still be ruled by the DM to not have a clue what they just did, only knowing that something they said held the solution the experts were looking for.

Now if the knowledge then unbalances the proposed encounter in such a way that it becomes no fun for anyone then as a DM you have to say that. "Sorry I can't allow you to even spend the points on the roll (that way none are wasted) as the whole point of this scenario is to see if you guys can find another way to make this thingy work and all the clues to do it are somewhere on this station."

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Usually I do it that way.

Fix it for my players....

But, every once in a while you get a rules-lawyer, munchkin, power gamer wanna-be that INSISTS a rule should

Such as the cleave feat and basing the entire interpretation on the word creature. Which to a complete rules lawyer prick means that cleave would be useless against constructs since a construct is not truly a creature.