Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="swrushing" data-source="post: 2766232" data-attributes="member: 14140"></blockquote>really? yeah too much to hope for.again with the &quot;she was so stupid and deserves what she got cuz i played right...&quot; stuff.thats not relevent.it might have been relevent with rant one, or maybe rant two, but by rant three or rant seven the OBVIOUS disconnect between playing styles repeating the same thing &quot;PC make stupid blunder&quot; moves this away from &quot;how stupid is she&quot; to &quot;why hasn't the GM addressed this problem.&quot;you asked &quot;what to do about this problem?&quot; and the &quot;problem&quot; isn't HER any more. its the Gm keeping a player around as a de facto punching bag and letting the style mismatch keep her in a &quot;gonna die stupidly&quot; reapeat cycle followed by internet rants about how stupid she is.sowhat? it was your idea to put it into the campaign. What purpose was it to serve? How was it to be &quot;interesting?&quot; just because you read something in a book doesn't mean it has to appear in your next adventure without thought as to how it adds&nbsp; to the story. It really looks like a one way trap for a gilligan, in a game where you know you have a gilligan and without any notion of &quot;what next.&quot; but not empty. endless...sureburning...surenothing... nope.but hey, what if it was on the cover of USA TODAY.What did it add to the adventure?or with a little less bluster you could have had something be there and make &quot;falling into the not-a-trap&quot; seem like a clever thing the Gm stuck in for fun and cool sake.maybe i should spell it out like this...pentagram = PC gone = hassle coming up with new PC and integrating it into story and makes player look stupid yet again (or to some, makes Gm look less than skilled at having this occur again.)pentagram = PC in wierd land of new stuff = more fun with interesting story bits and perhaps clues or oddities recovered enabling PCs to do something heroic others could not which makes Gm look clever at adapting to player style to benefit campaign.or maybe with some more effort you could work this in a little more interestingly. make it look like part of a plan by a clever GM.That advice, when coupled with &quot;and even tho i know her style is different and its bound to keep these stup[di things coming&quot; leads to lather-rinse-repeat of the Gm sets stage - gilligan blunders - Gm rants online about woe is he... its the perfect recipe for &quot;fairly&quot; keeping the player around as punching bag rant fodder .Certainly, everyone has their own playstyle, but for me as a Gm, if I invite a player into my game who I know has such a style, to me its now my obligation to run a game appropriate to her and her character.&nbsp; if i don't think i can do that or wont do that whether out of a lack of ability on my part or out of a sense of &quot;fairness&quot; to others (assuming something guarantted to cause problems, to make it not as fun for her or even for you,&nbsp; is &quot;fair&quot; in any sense) then i have the guts to say &quot;sorry, this game isn't for you.&quot;But you seem reluctant to choose any suggestion which will actually interrupt the blunder-rant-reload cycle.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="swrushing, post: 2766232, member: 14140"] [/QUOTE] really? yeah too much to hope for. again with the "she was so stupid and deserves what she got cuz i played right..." stuff. thats not relevent. it might have been relevent with rant one, or maybe rant two, but by rant three or rant seven the OBVIOUS disconnect between playing styles repeating the same thing "PC make stupid blunder" moves this away from "how stupid is she" to "why hasn't the GM addressed this problem." you asked "what to do about this problem?" and the "problem" isn't HER any more. its the Gm keeping a player around as a de facto punching bag and letting the style mismatch keep her in a "gonna die stupidly" reapeat cycle followed by internet rants about how stupid she is. sowhat? it was your idea to put it into the campaign. What purpose was it to serve? How was it to be "interesting?" just because you read something in a book doesn't mean it has to appear in your next adventure without thought as to how it adds to the story. It really looks like a one way trap for a gilligan, in a game where you know you have a gilligan and without any notion of "what next." but not empty. endless...sure burning...sure nothing... nope. but hey, what if it was on the cover of USA TODAY. What did it add to the adventure? or with a little less bluster you could have had something be there and make "falling into the not-a-trap" seem like a clever thing the Gm stuck in for fun and cool sake. maybe i should spell it out like this... pentagram = PC gone = hassle coming up with new PC and integrating it into story and makes player look stupid yet again (or to some, makes Gm look less than skilled at having this occur again.) pentagram = PC in wierd land of new stuff = more fun with interesting story bits and perhaps clues or oddities recovered enabling PCs to do something heroic others could not which makes Gm look clever at adapting to player style to benefit campaign. or maybe with some more effort you could work this in a little more interestingly. make it look like part of a plan by a clever GM. That advice, when coupled with "and even tho i know her style is different and its bound to keep these stup[di things coming" leads to lather-rinse-repeat of the Gm sets stage - gilligan blunders - Gm rants online about woe is he... its the perfect recipe for "fairly" keeping the player around as punching bag rant fodder . Certainly, everyone has their own playstyle, but for me as a Gm, if I invite a player into my game who I know has such a style, to me its now my obligation to run a game appropriate to her and her character. if i don't think i can do that or wont do that whether out of a lack of ability on my part or out of a sense of "fairness" to others (assuming something guarantted to cause problems, to make it not as fun for her or even for you, is "fair" in any sense) then i have the guts to say "sorry, this game isn't for you." But you seem reluctant to choose any suggestion which will actually interrupt the blunder-rant-reload cycle. [/QUOTE]

Verification