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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BSF" data-source="post: 1560325" data-attributes="member: 13098">I currently play in a game once a week and run a seperate game, with a completely different group, 3 times a month.  I have actually enjoyed just playing and trying to build up a character based zone of influence.  It is a fun game.  With the group I run, I think most of them trust me pretty much.  In the last couple of years, I have had two players get mad at game events, but they weren't really mad at me, just the results of the situation.  I have made calls that some could construe as questionable, but never with an intent to penalize a PC or a player.  I do try to talk with my players often to gauge how they think the game is going and to give them a chance to discuss concerns, and I think that helps.  In the end, I am generally rooting for the PC's to win, but I will play the opposition realistically.  I think it also helps that I try to find ways to reward PC's with "odd" or "sub-optimal" development choices.  Right now, I have a PC in a my group that has a ton of points devoted to craft skills.  He keeps getting asked by one of the party's patrons to make stuff for him.  Since I use Rel's alternate experience system, the PC is gaining experience for using his craft skills.  Also, the patron will generally start off a request by asking the PC to craft an item to prove his skill.  If the item comes out well, the patron tells the PC that he does excellent work, keep the item, here is what he really wants.  So, the PC is slowly building up some masterwork items that he created for himself.  I know that a lot of players would think "craft skill, why take that", but my player trusted that he would be given opportunities to make that skill choice pay off.  I'm sure you are a fair DM.  Obviously, your other players have a lot of trust in you.  Either this player has a lack of trust, or a problem with a loss of control.  If that is the case, then not only should he feel comfortable leaving, he should leave so that the situation doesn't deteriorate.I design my encounters much the same way.  I know what the PC's can do.  Sometimes an encounter is a little more difficult than they anticipated.  Sometimes they have to fight a little harder, or be a little more clever to overcome a challenge.  This is the way it should be.  This isn't a static game, it is dynamic with parameters that can change.  Players should expect the unexpected.  My players have fun with the stuff that they can deal with normally.  But, they seem to really enjoy overcoming those situations that are just a little harder than they expected.  It is unfortunate that the PC missed the spot check by the difference of the situational modifier.  But, those are the breaks.  It doesn't mean you are out to get the PC's.  Instead, it drives home the fact that these draconians were a little different.  Maybe a little smarter or whatever.  I will go against the grain here and also confess that I have chosen situational modifiers that are not a +2.  +2 is a good number and I use it a lot, but I have been known to use a +3, or even a +5.  Heck, this last Friday I was putting all sorts of situational modifiers on spot checks in dense undergrowth of a dense forest in driving rain.  Ridiculously high DC's to spot the Trolls charging through the forest.  My players didn't even bat an eye, especially when some of the Trolls overshot where they were going as well.  It's all about trust.  My players knew I wasn't going to arbitrarily screw them.  The players need to trust the DM, and to a certain degree, the DM needs to trust the players as well.  Otherwise, you end up with bickering instead of gaming.</blockquote>

Verification