So I was more or less kicked out of my D&D group

[drnuncheon]

but originally posted by me:

Well, also posted by you, and much more recently:

"But you're saying you don't believe the DM on this score, right? That other players could miss sessions and you couldn't? So what's the difference?"

"But I know that you're engaging in behaviors that I'd find inappropriate were I running the game, so I'm guessing that that's the basis for his problem."

"I'm inclined to believe that you ran up against some very reasonable expectations of behavior in civil, respectful company."

"That means you must have been doing something -- something you're not admitting, to yourself or to us -- that was above and beyond what the other players were doing."

From everything DC has said, it doesn't sound like his actions are out of line with those of the other players. Are the Warlord players paying attention to the game when they're chatting about their CCG? Does the DM show any signs that ditching a session is bad when other players do it?

If the answer to both of those is 'no' - which it seems to be - then how can DC be at fault? If you never tell someone the unwritten rules, and you never punish other people for breaking them, how do you expect that person to learn those rules?

All through this thread you've been saying "The GM handled it poorly but it's your fault for making him handle it at all." That's what I was referring to in the post that confused you.

J

 

[jdavis]

Well, also posted by you, and much more recently:

"But you're saying you don't believe the DM on this score, right? That other players could miss sessions and you couldn't? So what's the difference?"

"But I know that you're engaging in behaviors that I'd find inappropriate were I running the game, so I'm guessing that that's the basis for his problem."

"I'm inclined to believe that you ran up against some very reasonable expectations of behavior in civil, respectful company."

"That means you must have been doing something -- something you're not admitting, to yourself or to us -- that was above and beyond what the other players were doing."

From everything DC has said, it doesn't sound like his actions are out of line with those of the other players. Are the Warlord players paying attention to the game when they're chatting about their CCG? Does the DM show any signs that ditching a session is bad when other players do it?

If the answer to both of those is 'no' - which it seems to be - then how can DC be at fault? If you never tell someone the unwritten rules, and you never punish other people for breaking them, how do you expect that person to learn those rules?

All through this thread you've been saying "The GM handled it poorly but it's your fault for making him handle it at all." That's what I was referring to in the post that confused you.

J

It almost sounds like you are digging to find a reason to take the DM's side in this arguement. I'll pick on this quote:

"I'm inclined to believe that you ran up against some very reasonable expectations of behavior in civil, respectful company."

Do you mean the part where he apologized for the book readingor the part where he called and gave notice and explained why he was missing instead of just ditching for several weeks at a time with out any given reason. "civil, respectful company????" Even if you say that 50% of the posted story is a outright lie where do you get "civil, respectful company." As far as "reasonable expectations of behavior" he was behaving much like a huge portion of gamers act, not everybody pays 100% attention during the game, not everybodies game is a must attend event, not everybody is that darn touchy that skimming a book once and apologizing about it is a offense worth being removed from the group over. You are working very very hard to justify this DM's actions, the guy looked through a book once and apologized, he missed once and called ahead to let the DM know, when did these become hanging offenses. Where did he act outside of the norm for this group. Yes there was something else going on in this DM's head but why does it have to be something this guy did to intentionally make the DM angry. You are taking a very extreme view of things and are working very hard to justify the DM's actions. The DM killed his character while he wasn't there, then ran him out of the group, even people who play very serious and strict campaigns can agree that that was well over the line for the offense of once skimming a book during the game or missing the game once for personal reasons.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Okay, everyone, let's take a nice deep cleansing breath. The thread's getting a little warm. Remember: I've got a picture of a kitten and I'm not afraid to use it.

 

[National Acrobat]

Sounds like the guy was a jerk. Plain and simple, however I know that there are those that feel both ways about this. I came up with a few of my own rules regarding PC's who have down time, etc. simply because as a Player, I know how much it sucks when you don't get to do something for extended periods of time. It also sucks when you don't get to make a session and your character doesn't survive.

When there are things going on that don't involve all of the PC's at that time, those who are not involved are to leave the room. That way they can go talk, take smoke breaks, get snacks, plan strategy, etc. without looking bored or disrupting those who are currently playing. This also has the added effect of eliminating metagaming and out of character knowledge. I have also seen an increase in role playing and creativity out of players when they get together in the smaller groups or don't necessarily know what was discussed when they are out of the room.

Also, when a player is to be absent, they have the choice of having their character "guard the horses" or they can designate someone to run their character. That has worked rather well because players generally choose the people that would play the same type of character the same way.

 

[jdavis]

Sounds like the guy was a jerk. Plain and simple, however I know that there are those that feel both ways about this. I came up with a few of my own rules regarding PC's who have down time, etc. simply because as a Player, I know how much it sucks when you don't get to do something for extended periods of time. It also sucks when you don't get to make a session and your character doesn't survive.

When there are things going on that don't involve all of the PC's at that time, those who are not involved are to leave the room. That way they can go talk, take smoke breaks, get snacks, plan strategy, etc. without looking bored or disrupting those who are currently playing. This also has the added effect of eliminating metagaming and out of character knowledge. I have also seen an increase in role playing and creativity out of players when they get together in the smaller groups or don't necessarily know what was discussed when they are out of the room.

Also, when a player is to be absent, they have the choice of having their character "guard the horses" or they can designate someone to run their character. That has worked rather well because players generally choose the people that would play the same type of character the same way.

0.

we use "guarding the horses" quite a lot too. I have found that sending uninvolved people out of the room is also a good tactic, a lot of times when we get sent out of the room we end up staying with in character discussions about what we are going to do or what is going on, it makes for a more interesting session than just saying ok you guys don't know this only ________ does. We pass a lot of notes back and forth too.

 

[Mistwell]

DarkCrisis: I know you said that your DM can't really come in here and give his oipinion on the matter, but perhaps one of your fellow players might be able to? I think it would help all of us to hear from a third party who was there for these events you have described.

 

[Pielorinho]

All through this thread you've been saying "The GM handled it poorly but it's your fault for making him handle it at all." That's what I was referring to in the post that confused you.

J

Well, sure, I think that's an accurate summary of what I'm saying. I was confused when you said I was laying all the blame on DC: I'm clearly not doing so. If I inadvertently sneeze on you, I've been rude to you; if you deck me for it, you've responded very poorly to my rudeness. Just because I started it in no way makes you blameless.

Obviously, different groups have different expectations for behavior within the group. ACCORDING TO DC, his DM told him that the not-showing-up was unacceptable, and that the not-paying-attention was unacceptable. DC has apologized to his DM for not paying attention, that's true -- and he behaved correctly in doing so. But he doesn't seem very apologetic about it here, and he doesn't seem to recognize that the DM has a valid complaint about his not showing up.

Again, if the DM didn't find these behaviors unacceptable, we wouldn't have this thread. Saying that the behaviors are acceptable in some groups doesn't cut it.

Did other players do the same thing? Possibly, but given the DM's wildly different responses to other folks and to DC, I'm guessing that the DM perceived DC's behavior differently. DC hasn't provided any explanation for why the DM perceived his behavior differently.

In any case, I've said my piece in this thread. Either DC will give more weight to his social commitments in the future, or not; either he'll pay more attention in future gaming sessions, or not. Opinions are like knees in the land of the one-legged: everybody's got one.

I get the impression that DC would hate my game, and that I'd not be happy with him as a player. That, too, is fine; fortunately, we'll never need to play with one another. I do wish you luck, DC, with your new group, and hopefully they'll be a group that enjoys a more casual approach to gaming, in keeping with your preferences.

Daniel

 

[DarkCrisis]

Thats just it I CAN"T explain why I was treated differnt. I asked him why I was treated differnt nd he said I shouldnt have missed the game/been reading. I don't know why i was singled out.


And you say that we would hate playing with each other? You make my 2 instances of rreading/missing gmae as if thats all i do in a game. AS I said there was no RPing or anything. Are your games dungeon crawl after dungeon crawl or do the players ACTUALLY have stuff to do? Parts to play? etc?

You make it sound like I'm just an awful D&D player. You are making vry rude assumptions about me on 2 instances I posted about.

You want good things Ive done?

I always showed up even when sick except for once.

I always tried to make good interesting characters not monster slayers (which is really what was needed in his dungeon crawls)

I always had books for references when he did not.

I picked up other players when they needed rides.

I would help by food/drinks for the others

I would loan money to other players so they could get new books etc

I picked up a WarHammer armmy so the DM and I would have another game to play (although he was no fin to play)

I have been nothing but nice and compliant in the games

Yet I read one book and not show up once and suddenly Im the bad player. If those 2 things make me a bad player than I guess your right, Pie.

 

[Pielorinho]

Yet I read one book and not show up once and suddenly Im the bad player. If those 2 things make me a bad player than I guess your right, Pie.

I don't know that you're a bad playerI know that in your OP, you described two behaviors that peeve me in my game. If these are really the exceptions, then maybe I wrote too quickly when I said we'd not get along as gamers, and for that, I apologize.

And to some degree, I'm projecting. I've got a good group now, but in the past, I had really bad experiences with folks who would often cancel the game at the very last minute, for reasons that I didn't think were very good. (If you want to cancel because you're having a really busy week at school, fine -- just give me a few days' advance notice so that I can plan around you.) And I had a couple of players who wouldn't pay attention to my descriptions because they were goofing off, and during tense, fast-paced scenes, they'd want me to repeat all the details for them when it came to their turn. Grrr. . . . When you described doing these two things and passed them off as if they weren't any big deal, my first (and second and third) reaction was, "Yes they are a big deal!"

I'm glad you apologized to him for reading during the game. I personally think you should've apologized for flaking out on a session, since he said that was an issue for him. I can't say why he's holding you to a different standard than other players; I still think you must have behaved differently in some way or else he wouldn't be treating you differently. But I wasn't there. Maybe he's just crazy. Certainly from your description he sounds petty and vindictive: although the behaviors you described would've annoyed me, I would've dealt with it by sending you an email asking you to give me more notice when you couldn't show up for a game, and to try to pay attention during the game. I certainly wouldn't have punished your character for it in any sense.

Best of luck in your new group.
Daniel

 

[LostSoul]

Wow, this thread is strange. I really wonder why there is so much disagreement. I don't get it. Then again, this is a D&D board...

DarkCrisis, I still think your DM sounds like a two-year-old.