Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7508637" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've already addressed this in a very recent post.As per the thread title, I gave three examples of when I had ditched a game because of poor GMing. One was of a game in which the culmination of three (or so?) sessions of play, which had as its sole narrative motivation collecting some MacGuffin for the PCs' patron, the patron betrayed the PCs. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] suggested (or asserted? I haven't gone back upthread to check) that I was wrong to say that this game sucked, and that I should have hung around for 10 or so sessions of nothing happening except the GM playing out his own story about a treacherous patronj as part of setting up a long-term villain.I expressed the view that that would have been a total waste of my time, which was I didn't do it.The idea that players would sit through 10 sessions of play watching the GM - in effect - play with him-/herself is absolutely ludicrous to me. But anyway, for some reason some poster or other decided that all patrons are warlock's supernatural patron's and decided to assert that, when it comes to a player playing a warlock, then the GM is absolutely entitled to play the game with him-/herself and the player just has to suck it up.I disagreed, along with soe others - the last many pages of this thread record the upshot of that.</blockquote>