Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Noctem" data-source="post: 6827487" data-attributes="member: 6801315">The DM here is using a guy being on his cell as justification for screwing over an entire group of people after they stated their intentions to only sell the armor and not the magical gauntlet and ring they specifically were interested in.&nbsp; The DM then sets them up to fail, doesn't give them the information needed to make sound decisions, uses an NPC to passive aggressively vent his frustration and finally is surprised that the group of people he plays with are unhappy by his bs?I think that if this DM is frustrated enough by a guy being on his cell phone, to the point that he feels justified breaking Wheaton's Law at a table filled with his &quot;best friends&quot;, he needs to take a step back and get a different point of view on things.&nbsp; Clearly his actions are becoming malicious.&nbsp; Take a break, regroup and later come back and try DM'ing again.&nbsp; Maybe then a guy being on his cell won't bother you.Maybe someone else in the group wants to give DM'ing a shot and will have just seen a great example of what NOT TO DO to guide him.Oh and of course, the more the DM posts, the more it becomes obvious that he was maliciously setting up the group to fail:&nbsp; Now we know that the Ranger actually asked to get the armor set appraised in value and rolled well.&nbsp; Meaning that the DM had a responsibility at that point to properly transmit information to the player about what the worth of the set was.&nbsp; So if the DM had actually been working WITH the party instead of AGAINST it, he should have stated:&nbsp; The armor is worth X or around that, the gauntlet is worth x or around that and the ring is worth x or around that.&nbsp; Since they were effectively 3 different items.&nbsp; The DM knew the intentions of the party and took every opportunity to set them up to fail and then was surprised they were upset.&nbsp; Terrible DM'ing, he failed them at every turn.&nbsp; And he consciously did so ON PURPOSE!&nbsp; And his justification:&nbsp; There's a guy on his cell phone and it's bothering me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Noctem, post: 6827487, member: 6801315"] The DM here is using a guy being on his cell as justification for screwing over an entire group of people after they stated their intentions to only sell the armor and not the magical gauntlet and ring they specifically were interested in. The DM then sets them up to fail, doesn't give them the information needed to make sound decisions, uses an NPC to passive aggressively vent his frustration and finally is surprised that the group of people he plays with are unhappy by his bs? I think that if this DM is frustrated enough by a guy being on his cell phone, to the point that he feels justified breaking Wheaton's Law at a table filled with his "best friends", he needs to take a step back and get a different point of view on things. Clearly his actions are becoming malicious. Take a break, regroup and later come back and try DM'ing again. Maybe then a guy being on his cell won't bother you. Maybe someone else in the group wants to give DM'ing a shot and will have just seen a great example of what NOT TO DO to guide him. Oh and of course, the more the DM posts, the more it becomes obvious that he was maliciously setting up the group to fail: Now we know that the Ranger actually asked to get the armor set appraised in value and rolled well. Meaning that the DM had a responsibility at that point to properly transmit information to the player about what the worth of the set was. So if the DM had actually been working WITH the party instead of AGAINST it, he should have stated: The armor is worth X or around that, the gauntlet is worth x or around that and the ring is worth x or around that. Since they were effectively 3 different items. The DM knew the intentions of the party and took every opportunity to set them up to fail and then was surprised they were upset. Terrible DM'ing, he failed them at every turn. And he consciously did so ON PURPOSE! And his justification: There's a guy on his cell phone and it's bothering me. [/QUOTE]

Verification