[Rant] Oh. My. God. He said no!

[Maggan]

Why leave it to the group?

Bob sounds like an ass -- I'm not sure why some folks on here (a minority, to be sure) are encouraging you to "leave it up to the group" or "give him another chance". He sounds like 100% wanker -- at best, a stern talking-to is going to reduce that to 50% wanker. At best.

Boot 'im!

Why leave it to the group?

Well, I don't know how you run your games, but I run it together with a group of people, all having input into how the game is played.

This is, for me, never only a DM decision. If the group prefers "Bobs" style of play, then let them have it, and then decide whether or not you want to play that way yourself.

Because, unless you get the group to agree on what goes, and just tries to force feed them what you think is right, you'll lose the group sooner or later, because you're not giving them what they want.

Also, it is an effective way of putting pressure on Bob, beause the way I read it, the group will most probably agree with the DM (they were already rolling up new characters when Bob acted up).

Bringing it up with the group is basically a simple case of manipulation. If the cards are played well, you as a DM is not alone facing the wrath of Bob, but you are a group deciding how to play the game. Unless it turns to a p****** contenst, that is.

That is why you should bring it up with the group.

Maggan

 

[bondetamp]

I think Bob just needs an encounter with the Redneck Tree.

 

[FraserRonald]

"NO, NOT BLACK LEAF! NO, NO! I'M GOING TO DIE! Please don't make me quit the game! Please don't! Somebody save me! You can't do this!"

"Bob, get out of here. YOU'RE DEAD! You don't exist any more."

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0046/0046_01.asp

I made the mistake of reading some of the 'articles' linked through this (unintentionally) hilarious cartoon.

These people really need to look in the mirror when they are talking about psychotics. I mean, honestly, these are the people saying that the Necronomicon is real and that magic works. Honestly, pot, kettle, black.

 

[Forrester]

Re: Why leave it to the group?

Why leave it to the group?

Well, I don't know how you run your games, but I run it together with a group of people, all having input into how the game is played.

This is, for me, never only a DM decision. If the group prefers "Bobs" style of play, then let them have it, and then decide whether or not you want to play that way yourself.

In my experience, the DM does 70%-90% of the work in the campaign. Thus, the DM should have 70%-90% of the say in how the campaign is structured. If you've got a sucker DM that's willing to do all the work while you just throw out orders to him, then hey, good for you.

But with me . . . well, once Bob decided that he was actually the DM ("No, they're not dead. No one is dead. I refuse to play until their characters come back") the issue would have been resolved pretty f'ing fast. Either I'm the DM, and Bob is OUT, or someone else can DM. No way in hell I'm going to put 80% of the work into the campaign and then have my decisions countermanded by some little tin dictator.

Because, unless you get the group to agree on what goes, and just tries to force feed them what you think is right, you'll lose the group sooner or later, because you're not giving them what they want.

Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven. Or something like that. DM'ing isn't a "privilege" that snotty players grant to you, conditioned on whether their every whim gets met. DM'ing is a helluva lot of work. The prep-time can be staggering. And frankly, most players are grateful -- they wouldn't want to invest the time you do.

Obviously, the group could side with Bob . . . which would mean IMO that someone else can DM. But there is NO excuse for Bob's behavior -- you don't demand that the DM hit the reset button or refuse to continue to play, after metagaming the party back into a fatal combat. Talk about a complete lack of respect.

Bob's got some serious issues, as far as I can tell, and I see little point in giving him another chance as a player unless this is all a tight-knit group of friends. Like I said before, he's 100% wanker. If you're lucky, he'll drop down to 50%. Do you want to game with a 50% wanker? Why?

Also, it is an effective way of putting pressure on Bob, beause the way I read it, the group will most probably agree with the DM (they were already rolling up new characters when Bob acted up).

Bringing it up with the group is basically a simple case of manipulation. If the cards are played well, you as a DM is not alone facing the wrath of Bob, but you are a group deciding how to play the game. Unless it turns to a p****** contenst, that is.

That is why you should bring it up with the group.

I can't disagree with this, though . . . unless it ends up keeping Bob in the group, putting the DM at further risk of Bob's wankerosity. The DM should have 80% of the power. Making it seem like you care about the opinions of the players, though . . . well, there's nothing wrong with that .

 

[Maggan]

Running a tight ship

Obviously, the group could side with Bob . . . which would mean IMO that someone else can DM.

Exactly my point. And I think having the group take the responsibility for that decision is smarter than having it be the result of a fallout between a player and a DM.

And don't get me wrong. When I DM, I run a tight ship, and have an amusing house rule to fix situations like this:

If a player throws rules at me to prevent something from happening, I allow the change. Then, two minutes later the PC dies in a horrible and random and totally pointless encounter (like spontaneous combustion, or very accurate dragonbreath attacks, or a peasant with a grudge and a scythe, or anything humiliating. And unrelated to the adventure).

That way the player gets the satisfaction of changing the game as he wishes, and gets to feel a little bit smug about it, and then his PC dies. Horribly. Makes the shock all the greater.



Player: "But... I... I..."
DM Maggan: "Yes, do you want to call another ruling?"
Player: "Erm... actually no. Never again."

Works wonders at conventions. But not what I would recommend someone who hasn't got plenty of DM experience with a lot of different groups to back him up.

But the real point of this story is that the group is informed of this before play begins (well not always, sometimes I just do it to cut down rules lawyers to size). If they object, they can pick another DM. But it's their decision.

I'm not willing to risk all my DM time (and I always DM) on a group that are not in synch with my way of playing the game. And the sooner I find out, the better. And then the PCs die.

So my advice is still, take it up with the group. Saves a lot of time in the end.

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Geoff Watson]

Re: Running a tight ship

If a player throws rules at me to prevent something from happening, I allow the change. Then, two minutes later the PC dies in a horrible and random and totally pointless encounter (like spontaneous combustion, or very accurate dragonbreath attacks, or a peasant with a grudge and a scythe, or anything humiliating. And unrelated to the adventure).

Thats so stupid.

So you never make a mistake, or forget things, ever?

What a power-tripping arrogant ********!

I'm surprised you have any players.

Geoff.

 

[WizarDru]

Mark this date. Hell has officially frozen over.

I agree (for the most part) with Forrester.

 

[Guillaume]

I think there is a fine line between voicing a different opinion or interpretation of a rule than the DM's and being a total twit and trying to control the game instead of playing it. I disagree with the opinion that seems to have been stated by some that, the second a DM has ruled something the player must shut up, fess up and accept it without saying a word. After all, it is the DM's world and he is god, isn't he ?

As a DM and as a person, I'm the type of person that want to hear the opinion of others and will take it under consideration before ruling or making a decision. I think that in a game that is suppose to be fun and entertaining, ruling over all the player like a dictator is never going to be so.

That said, I think Bob crossed the aforementionned thin line. He wasn't looking to voice dissent or propose a different interpretation of a rule, he was clearly trying to control the game instead of building it as a team effort.

What should be the consequence of such actions, I honestly do not know. I have a lot of difficulties with the "throwing out" of an individual. I have generally gamed with close friends, maybe those difficulties stem from this fact. However, getting the opinion (and the help) from the group, having a long and hard discussion with Bob, standing your ground on the precise issue of the PC deaths all seems good rational options to me.

See ya,

Guillaume

 

[Guillaume]

Mark this date. Hell has officially frozen over.

I agree (for the most part) with Forrester.

So that's why it's so cold up hear in Rimouski !

 

[Tewligan]

Unfortunately I'd missed all of this since these same players lived in another town and would drive in to game, role-playing and filking among themselves on the car trip and stuff like that -- the only time I got to socialize with these guys was on game nights. So again I simply didn't know I had a roomful of "real role-players" although I did find out the hard way.

The worst part though is that most of them broke of their friendships with me over this, and that also caught me by complete surprise. I had never gamed with people like that before, and I didn't have any kind of experience with that kind of drama over some low-level AD&D characters.

Geez, your old group sounds pretty filkin' sensitive!