Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

Rule #1: Never reveal to your players which forums you hang out on and what identity you use if you plan to talk about game stuff

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

Hey, Ben, welcome to theRPGsite.  

Just to put in a word -- I started this thread to some degree asking about Kyle's campaign, so he was incited to talking about it.  The him smelling like roses part, not so much.  

Incidentally, I mentioned above, this is exactly what happened to me from the other side on the Harn GM forum last year.  Our GM, David, started up a thread on the Harn GM Forum called "Reining in the party" where he originally asked about how to deal with the problem of our "grossly unrealistic behavior" after we attacked a bunch of gypsies.  

A bit after he started, one of the players (Jim) came in on the thread, and then day or two later I joined in the discussion too.  It caused quite a hubbub, and a bunch of the HarnForum posters were opposed to the idea of players reading and posting in the GMing forum (though Jim was also a GM of this game).  

I think it ultimately worked out for the best, though, and our games have improved.  

And incidentally, I'd be very interested to hear about your side of things.

QuoteAnd incidentally, I'd be very interested to hear about your side of things.

Me too!

I'd be delighted to hear from Rugged Indoorsman.

In the past, I've found attempts at talking to this particular player (not RI) somewhat futile; feedback isn't accepted. That's why I was talking about these things with others, hoping they had useful insights. I thought that a better solution than simply booting out the offending player, which is the usual "solution" suggested by people.

I don't think I've presented myself as smelling like roses. But if you'd like to put some manure on those roses, I think that'd be very useful.

So come on, tell us the story.

From what I´ve read, I can sympathize with your player.

To insist on doing something is very often  a telltale for a session where it isn´t clear what options the player has, and how the game world works.
Using the game world then to limit the freedom of the payer is passive aggressive behaviour. Because the player at hand hasn´t subscribed to this gameworld.

And frankly, from the bits I gathered, I think you need to reconsider your way of communication. Love the player, do not subconciously wait for him to make another "mistake", which you then can "fight against" with game world reasons.

I´d say, play some reactive, mission based sessions. Where you can handle situations tactically instead of a free-form strategic meta-challenge.

Especially the Homunculus situation and the fact that you felt the need to show the picture is a clue to totall fuck-up in expectations.

Why in hell is the pic important?
Did you want to implant an emotion into the players?
Did you expect a reaction?
Seems so.
Frankly, I´d also try to destroy this cage.

Ahem,

Someone requested my side...

For the record, I'm the "Mary Sue" in JimBob's campaign, not Rugged Indoorsman. In general, this whole note strikes me as a big GM whine because JimBob and I do not get along terribly well, and he clearly does not enjoy gaming with me. I'm sure everyone can imagine at this stage that the feeling is mutual.

However, since I know the other players in my campaign read this about me (given that another of them is the one who pointed the thread out...) I'd like to take a moment to make a statement:

I don't dislike negative things happening to my character. In fact, I've only played with JimBob twice, and last time, my character died. I did not throw a fit over it or do anything at all other than take a few deep breaths and move on. In fact, JimBob is the one who ended that campaign, saying that he felt it was a good note for the story.

This is the perspective JimBob has not displayed: He wrote us an email saying our characters were probably going to go to jail. He said that the campaign would end at this stage because I, as a female, do not enjoy playing male characters, and prisons are not co-ed (this is actually a point that started off a previous debate long ago). Then he asked us what we thought were good ideas to do, implying that the campaign went to pot, and if we couldn't dig a way out, the game was over.

I suggested that we skip time because it seemed expedient, kept with JimBob's idea that we HAD to go to jail (despite failed suggestions of a mistrial, excellent lawyers, police errors, etc) and I thought everyone would be okay with the suggestion. It certainly wasn't self preservation of a figment of my imagination (ie, my character), despite JimBob's interpretation of said events.

I do find it interesting that "I kept doing what I wanted to do, despite being told next time, the NPC was going to do X to me" ... frankly, I read that as JimBob saying "if the other PCs hadn't stepped in, I planned to kill her." There's no option for any set of other things to happen to prevent that death, and certainly JimBob shows no intent himself to come up with a way to prevent it - instead he justifies it as natural consequences for your actions - antagonizing him. It has nothing to do with how you play your char or the story at large. Some GMs are like this, it just pays to know who they are and avoid 'em.

The moral of this story is that there's two sides to every complaint, and in general, GMs who go on complaining about players may want to consider if they just don't like the person they're playing with before they bother thinking up a dozen reasons why the player is a bad player. I knew walking into this game that JimBob and I don't get along - I should have just been wise enough to walk away instead of agreeing to play. That's how the cookie crumbles sometimes. /END rant and self defense

Setting JimBob aside, and trying to establish a meaningful discussion of players wanting to avoid the consequences of their actions - I personally think that's a complete bunk way for anyone to approach a game. There's no fun in a campaign with no risk, and there's nothing to lose if your character fails either, unless the GM or players get psyched out and want to end the story. Pragmatically speaking, anyone creative enough can turn a negative into a positive, and that's what both GMs and players ought to be doing.

That said, there are people who don't like bad things happening to their character - is there anything that can be done about that? I've noticed that it's a problem in a RP game that I run with our players. On one hand, I don't want to alienate them and ruin their fun by making bad things happen to them, but on the other hand, if nothing bad ever happens to anyone, there's no conflict. I just don't know how to ease players into a reasonable balance. Partly, we try by saying flat out "bad things happen to people here," but I don't feel the balance is right as of yet.

-E

Quote from: SettembriniTo insist on doing something is very often  a telltale for a session where it isn´t clear what options the player has, and how the game world works.

It was quite clear how the realistic part of the world worked; it was made clear in the campaign outline, and at each step during the game sessions. "I'll do X." "If you do X, probably Y or Z will happen."

How the "magickal" part of the game world worked wasn't known to the players; but this was the whole point of the campaign, discovering these unknown things.

Quote from: SettembriniUsing the game world then to limit the freedom of the payer is passive aggressive behaviour. Because the player at hand hasn´t subscribed to this gameworld.

Yes, they have - I outlined the campaign, told them the game system we'd be using - Unknown Armies - and they asked to join. I'd listed three campaigns I wanted to run this year, and they specifically asked to join that one, which I moved from being later in the year to being first up, just so they could join in.

They most certainly "subscribed to this gameworld." That one of them did not subscribe to the parts of the gameworld which disadvantaged them is simply plain old "sore loser." I've seen for example with other people playing D&D, they complain that hit points are unrealistic - when does this complaint come? When their character runs out of hit points. When it's a bunch of kobolds running out of hit points, they don't question the "realism" of it. Soon as it disadvantages them, suddenly they argue. That's called "sore loser."  

Quote from: SettembriniAnd frankly, from the bits I gathered, I think you need to reconsider your way of communication. Love the player, do not subconciously wait for him to make another "mistake", which you then can "fight against" with game world reasons.

Mate, if I were waiting for players to make a "mistake" so I could jump on them, their characters wouldn't have survived the first session.

If you actually read the campaign journals, you'll see that given that it was supposed to be a "realistic" setting, the PCs got cut a lot of slack.

Quote from: SettembriniEspecially the Homunculus situation and the fact that you felt the need to show the picture is a clue to totall fuck-up in expectations.

Why in hell is the pic important?
Did you want to implant an emotion into the players?
Did you expect a reaction?
Seems so.

I presented a picture for the usual purposes; an illustration, to bring the game world alive for people.

Absolutely I expected a reaction. I didn't present the pic during the session, though, only afterwards in the campaign journal. The reaction expected was horror; what action they took was up to them. Unknown Armies, especially the "street level" campaign, is about characters confronting the unnatural and how they react to it. It's the whole point of the campaign.

And I never said that to stomp the homunculus was the "wrong" thing to do. But it had the consequence that it upset the owner of the thing. So he started using his magic.

Note that the players did not think it unreasonable for him to be upset. So the homunculus was not the subject of any dispute. The disputes were to do with the police reaction to the PCs' actions.

Quote from: Rugged IndoorsmanThank you, Kyle...

Nice to see that you're more than content to talk about your players behind their backs to the world at large rather than discussing it with the people at the table, and to present one sided arguments that have you coming off smelling like roses.

Truly charming.

Regards,
Ben.

I don't think this thread would hold as much interest if Jimbob was in fact coming off smelling like roses

I'm interested in hearing your point of view, because I've read a lot about Jimbob's style of gming. He writes extensively about his campaigns - campaign outlines, ideas etc. It would be interesting to see how all of this actualy goes down with his players.

I've written about my players too, but clearly nothing as provocative as Jimbob. This merely means that the situation here is more useful to GMs. So, please give us your take on the whole thing.

Regards,
David R

Interesting post Paravox3 . Thanks for contributing.

Regards,
David R

As you can see from the timestamps, I cross-posted with ParaVox3.

I'm glad to have her posting and presenting her point of view. Mostly it's just different perspectives, but I'd just clarify one thing,

Quote from: ParaVox3This is the perspective JimBob has not displayed: He wrote us an email saying our characters were probably going to go to jail. He said that the campaign would end at this stage because I, as a female, do not enjoy playing male characters, and prisons are not co-ed (this is actually a point that started off a previous debate long ago). Then he asked us what we thought were good ideas to do, implying that the campaign went to pot, and if we couldn't dig a way out, the game was over.

I obviously wrote that email badly. My intention was to write it as, "shit, seems like it's going downhill! Is there some other way we can take? We can go any way you like, just be sure that's where you want it to go." I meant the message to be, "the options are open, but some of them don't look good," rather than, "we've reached a dead end."

I obviously expressed myself poorly.

Edit: oh, and

Quote from: ParaVox3and in general, GMs who go on complaining about players may want to consider if they just don't like the person they're playing with before they bother thinking up a dozen reasons why the player is a bad player.

I don't dislike this person. But I do dislike her style of play. That ain't the same thing. One of my closest friends I can't stand to game with, and my spouse doesn't even game at all

*scratched*

No, JimBob, why did you show the pic to us?
Answer yourself that question.

In regards to the group contract, I don´tactually know. Just wanted to shar what I thought when I read that.

There is a difference between agreeing to play dark and gritty (tactical-reactive) and dark and gritty (strategic-freeform). I dunno if that was made clear.

But alas, instead of guessing, I´ll just sit and learn what the real reaosns were.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, JimBob, why did you show the pic to us?
Answer yourself that question.

Because it's a funny picture. I was posting it up along with the journal of the latest campaign events on the wiki for it, and thought people would be amused to see it. You're hearing all about the stuff happening at the game table, why not hear about the stuff in the campaign itself?

Don't read too much into things, mate.

Welcome aboard Paravox3 and Rugged Indoorsman.  I hope that despite the circumstances of your registration, you'll stick around and post some more.  

Call me naive, JimBob, but I don't really buy that you don't like me, especially after reading this thread. All in all, I think it was pretty rude, and not a way you talk about someone you like or respect. Being nice and reasonable at this stage is like trying to shove the cow back in the barn.

Anyway, I have other things to be contenting my time with.

I'd like to thank those who read my side of the story, however.

-E