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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 9585651" data-attributes="member: 2205">See, and that's the whole entire essence of my "hot take." That whole paradigm is what I call passive-aggressively punishing the players for not building the party that the GM thinks that they need to have in order to succeed. That's not a GM worth his salt. That's very, very, very bad GMing. So bad that I'd hesitate to even play with one who has that attitude. I've been part of groups for years at times in the past where someone had to suck it up and play the cleric even though nobody really wanted to play a cleric, because without one, the party wasn't expected to be successful, for instance, or someone had to play a trap-finding specialist rogue, because otherwise traps would threaten TPKs on a regular basis, etc. Either someone takes it on the chin and the game sucks for them because they're playing a character that they don't want to, or the game sucks for everyone because they're frustrated at constantly getting challenges that have nothing to do with the party, and the smug af GM tells them that it's their fault for not creating a balanced party with all of the traditional roles filled. I say absolutely and definitively screw that. You want me to go into a dungeon full of undead and stupid af traps when nobody's playing a cleric or trap-finding rogue? No. We'll either go find another dungeon, or skip the dungeons altogether and get involved in smuggling into the Free City with the local organized crime, or something else instead. Two can play at that "I don't care what you are bringing to the table" routine and if a GM plays like that, I'm ready to fight fire with fire as a player, or walk away completely and play with a better GM. It's not like its a high bar to clear or anything.</blockquote>

Verification