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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fagura" data-source="post: 6238599" data-attributes="member: 6762610">Thx for all the feedback. I agree with most saying the blame is on both sides. I do believe hooking characters properly is a big deal and all this would have been avoided if it had been done. IMO, although both have responsibility for the hook, most of it falls on the DM. As a party, we have played several modules in the past with the hooks altered / modified to fit our characters, it wouldnot have been the first time. The player could have gone along I guess or been open to more options. But in case, I believe adaptability is one of the primary traits a DM should demonstrate. If there are specific requirements when an adventure is run (ie rewards are only monetary), they should be communicated to the players in advance.The truth is the rest of us had realized that the player was frustrated, nevertheless he did not ruin the session, at least not at first. He did ruin it (both him and the DM) when they started arguing for a couple of hours about how this should have been resolved. Although I didn't like that the session was ruined, I believe in the long term we might have earned sth as a group (namely pay more attention to hooking and resolving such issues). Although both had responsibility for this, I believe the player has the main portion of the blame as he was the one that started the argument. Regarding the tests and the NPC, I am 100% on board with the player. It should have been ignored and modified. I believe the DM was not thoroughly prepared for these contingencies and misjudged the situation and given that we all have jobs and other things to do, I don't really blame him. It could happen to anyone although it should not happen often (which doesn't in his case).Removing the player or the DM is really not an option for us, we are friends and prefer more collaborating solutions. Disagreements have happened many times in the past, there are always ways to work around them if both parties are willing, which they are, so no problem there. Re-running the entire thing sounds like a very good idea, essentially a big roll-back with new hooks and modifications. The playing changing character is another option, but is on him. Changing adventure is a final option. The general question that comes out of this IMO though, is the following: The DM role is to facilitate people have fun, agreed. The DM has more 'obligations' though than the players in the sense that he must read the adventure, prepare many monster tactics, prepare for contingencies, battlegrids, keep in mind his players etc. For everyone in my group this is indeed a burden, since we do not have much free time and although we all like DMing, we like playing more (and this is why we are rotating the DM's chair). If there is a fine line after which the DM has so many obligations, that his own fun is ruined, should he decrease his obligations (in essence prepare less - improvise more), accept the obligations as part of his job and require that he changes soon or quit Dming?</blockquote>

Verification