StupidSmurf
First Post
Rel said:
What does THAT mean?
My guess is, he means that he actually participated in combat once (remembering that one of the complaints about Frank was his lack of interest/participation).
Unpolite and happy about it! UPDATED 11/04/05
- Thread starter Dougal DeKree
- Start date
My guess is, he means that he actually participated in combat once (remembering that one of the complaints about Frank was his lack of interest/participation).
SweeneyTodd
First Post
Dude, I read the original post, and I didn't see anything about you being impolite.
All I saw was, you stopped being a (deleted for Eric's grandma) doormat. Good for you.
All I saw was, you stopped being a (deleted for Eric's grandma) doormat. Good for you.
Dougal DeKree
First Post
Rel said:
Frank was playing the scientist of the group and usually noticed that there was a fight when the fight was over. Thus he only fired one shot in the12 sessions we had. Of course he is also playing too timid to do anything than complain about everything that happens. (as a shameless plug, the other players said that i capture that frightful playstyle well in the story hour (see below
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
))I guess now he wants to play the "it's your fault" card with the "you made me do it" joker...
I've got a simple response for mr. Frank's cryptic reply:
"Dear Mr Frank,
You have been ejected from my campaign because on several occasions you have exhibited anti-social behavior that is not conducive to the enjoyment of the group.
Specific instances are:
coming to a pot-luck BBQ and not contributing anything
taking food at said BBQ without asking
taking muffins made for the entire group and not sharing any of them
falling asleep during the game
being a rude guest
Frankly, Frank, your inability to understand why you've been kicked out, is precisely why you are being kicked out.
Have a nice day."
Now on the issue of the other GM's campaign and such, that's a touchy subject. You generally shouldn't discuss the nature of disagreements with outsiders, as a rule of good manners. In your own group, you should clearly communicate what action you took, and a summary explanation of why as well as on what authority (ex. it's your house, and your campaign). Beyond that, until you get back to another game with Frank that you don't run, nobody else in your gaming community needs to know all the details. You don't want to be seen as trying to give Frank a bad reputation. He'll be doing that on his own.
You are in your own right to say to the other GM (when the time comes) that you cannot play in the same game as Frank. If the GM asks why, you can clarify by stating that you had kicked him out of your group for his poor behavior and that you are standing by your decision to not have him in your company. You haven't asked the GM to do anything. He may (after reviewing his own evidence) decide he likes you and is annoyed at Frank as well and follow your example.
Remember, there are 6 billion people on the planet. You don't have to put up with jerks.
Janx
"Dear Mr Frank,
You have been ejected from my campaign because on several occasions you have exhibited anti-social behavior that is not conducive to the enjoyment of the group.
Specific instances are:
coming to a pot-luck BBQ and not contributing anything
taking food at said BBQ without asking
taking muffins made for the entire group and not sharing any of them
falling asleep during the game
being a rude guest
Frankly, Frank, your inability to understand why you've been kicked out, is precisely why you are being kicked out.
Have a nice day."
Now on the issue of the other GM's campaign and such, that's a touchy subject. You generally shouldn't discuss the nature of disagreements with outsiders, as a rule of good manners. In your own group, you should clearly communicate what action you took, and a summary explanation of why as well as on what authority (ex. it's your house, and your campaign). Beyond that, until you get back to another game with Frank that you don't run, nobody else in your gaming community needs to know all the details. You don't want to be seen as trying to give Frank a bad reputation. He'll be doing that on his own.
You are in your own right to say to the other GM (when the time comes) that you cannot play in the same game as Frank. If the GM asks why, you can clarify by stating that you had kicked him out of your group for his poor behavior and that you are standing by your decision to not have him in your company. You haven't asked the GM to do anything. He may (after reviewing his own evidence) decide he likes you and is annoyed at Frank as well and follow your example.
Remember, there are 6 billion people on the planet. You don't have to put up with jerks.
Janx
Delemental
First Post
Frank wants an explanation?
Send him a link to this thread.
It doesn't sound like Frank's willing to change. It sounds like he's wanting Dougal to roll over and let him back in. Don't do it, Dougal.
I'd disagree with the "one more shot" notion. In most other situations, where the problem is one of play style, I think another chance is justified. But Frank isn't just a bad gamer; he's a bad guest. He's there for the free food, not the game.
Send him a link to this thread.
Gnome said:
It doesn't sound like Frank's willing to change. It sounds like he's wanting Dougal to roll over and let him back in. Don't do it, Dougal.
I'd disagree with the "one more shot" notion. In most other situations, where the problem is one of play style, I think another chance is justified. But Frank isn't just a bad gamer; he's a bad guest. He's there for the free food, not the game.
StupidSmurf
First Post
You play games (like, oh, say D&D) to relax and enjoy yourself.
If someone comes along and threatens that enjoyment you have two options: Grin and bear it, thus getting less enjoyment (and perhaps others get less enjoyment too), or say something to the offending party.
If you say something to the offending party, they have two options: Change, or remain the same. If they change, conflict is over, everyone's happy, crisis averted. If they don't change, things remain the same.
If things remain the same and the offender refuses to change, you have two options: Grin and bear it, thus getting less enjoyment (and perhaps others get less enjoyment too), or toss the mofo out on his sorry posterior.
If someone comes along and threatens that enjoyment you have two options: Grin and bear it, thus getting less enjoyment (and perhaps others get less enjoyment too), or say something to the offending party.
If you say something to the offending party, they have two options: Change, or remain the same. If they change, conflict is over, everyone's happy, crisis averted. If they don't change, things remain the same.
If things remain the same and the offender refuses to change, you have two options: Grin and bear it, thus getting less enjoyment (and perhaps others get less enjoyment too), or toss the mofo out on his sorry posterior.
StupidSmurf
First Post
Oh, and that jerkward otherwise known as Frank doesn't need a second chance. He needs a gift certificate for free "How to act in polite society" lessons.
Similar Threads
