Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9000416" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I would discuss the issue with them, with the exact approach depending on the nature and severity of their concerns.E.g., if they mention it privately rather than bringing it up during session, I would discuss it with them privately first, and if no resolution can be achieved there, bring it to the group's attention. Whenever possible, even for really non-issue things like "someone can't make it to session this week, so we are just not going to have one," I try to avoid explicitly naming people unless there's very good reason to do so (e.g., if someone is taking a leave for a few weeks, not just a one-off.) I find that that makes people more willing to come to me if there's an issue.As noted, the nature of the concern will affect my approach. Perhaps the criticism is, "It's not fair that their character gets to be rebuilt from the ground up, but not anyone else." That's a reasonable concern, and we can discuss possible fixes--for example, if they want to rebuild, we can work toward a quick but personal in-game solution for it. Or if they just want everyone to be offered the same opportunity, that can quite easily be arranged. Alternatively, maybe their concern is that this puts undue focus on just one character and their personal crisis of faith, at which point I would reassure the player that I take it extremely seriously to give every character opportunities for cool story; if they aren't happy with how things are currently going, I am more than happy to work with them to improve, perhaps introducing more story hooks, framing more scenes that address their interests, or coordinating with them to produce engaging personal narratives similar to such a "crisis of faith that it changes how I fight" kind of thing.I am, of course, assuming that the complaint is in good faith. If it is not in good faith, I will endeavor to be positive but push the player toward a healthier understanding of the situation. For example, if the player is opposed simply because "character rebuilds shouldn't be allowed," I would hear them out, and then present my case for why unjustified character rebuilds are certainly a problem, but this one is justified, and that this rebuild is pretty focused and constrained, rather than becoming a radically different person. There may be other examples, this is just one. Should that effort fail, and the player remain opposed for bad-faith reasons, well, that strongly implies that this player is a bad fit for my game, and I might end up having to ask them to leave, as they are being disruptive for reasons that seem petty and inappropriate.Of course, I try to keep an open dialogue with my players basically all the time, and (as I have said in many posts), I will bend over backwards to support genuine player enthusiasm, meaning the player being enthusiastic about something that is not abusive, coercive, or exploitative. As a result, by being even-handed, open, and supportive, I am usually not in a situation where a player really digs in their heels and says no--if anything, I'm more egging my players on, rather than having to persuade them to go with something.</blockquote>

Verification