tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395501958781740798.post7982345059484129142..comments2023-11-15T21:33:36.842-06:00Comments on The Old Dragoon's Blog: In Which I Muse About Younger Gamers...The Old Dragoonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11678101592407276732noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395501958781740798.post-25805411292052333792015-02-18T17:11:30.567-06:002015-02-18T17:11:30.567-06:00I have been that player. Allow me to share MY moti...I have been that player. Allow me to share MY motivation. It may match your situation, it may not, but I think you're 100% right it has to do with trust. <br /><br />In a lot of places, the ratio of GM to player is fairly low. This means that groups stick with GMs, bad or good because there is little other option. You guys mention that the new systems are an algorithm more than a game, and shitty GMs is why games are being designed that way. It helps make GMing easy for the new GM (raises the GM to player ratio) and helps give players concrete support when faced with a shitty GM, with whom they play or not at all. <br /><br />When you have a new GM (remember this guy didn't know you any more than you him) you're naturally a little distrustful, so you keep an eye on him. Will he be a good GM or not? Sometimes you catch a GM error that way and it's an honest mistake. Other times you catch errors and the GM attacks you with ethereal mummies. Your player that took over for you and told HBB that you assign XP and that's that instead of letting you show your math actually made this situation worse. Instead of showing HBB that you didn't make a mistake, you just took into account something HE missed, your player told him essentially "This GM is allowed to do whatever he wants. Suck it up." (Note I'm not blaming that player. He was helping and intended well, I'm just betting it ended up hurting more than helping) <br /><br />Once you know you're dealing with THAT sort of GM, you keep track of everything, because there's no telling where he'll decide to arbitrarily screw you over next and maybe you can win SOME of those fights (chances are if you can't win any of the fights, it will only take one or two questions or corrections before rocks fall and characters die, so if you get past the first couple challenges, you know you can win one now and again) so you keep track of everything and challenge everything. Maybe you just win a few, but MAYBE crappy GM notices you're on to his shit and, because you're policing the table stops trying to slip shit past everyone, or MAYBE, it's a long shot, but just MAYBE he'll realize what he's doing wrong and learn and then you don't HAVE to police him anymore. Regardless, once this fight has started you can't even quit and walk away because you're doing a service for the whole table. You're protecting all of them and any lessons the crappy GM learns benefit all of them.<br /><br />Note that you also don't help by ending the session early after you're so pissed that if you don't you'll flip the table. In his eyes that's because you can't take him being right and showing you up any more, so you're taking your ball and going home.<br /><br />And that's the mindset I've seen time and again, and done myself from time to time. So it IS a matter of trust, sometimes it's a lack of trust in your competence, sometimes a lack of trust in YOU, but in the eyes of the player, it's your random, unreliable fiat that's the problem. It helps if you think of the guy as a dog who's been kicked one time too many, so he stays in the corner far away from everyone, and growls if anyone gets too close to his food bowl.<br /><br />I think there IS hope for this kind of player beyond "Never play non algorithmic games again". I think that handled well they can see that (with SOME GMs) the loose style of play compliments the fun, not the over-inflated ego of the GM, but that's not really your job and it's not like you can accomplish it in a single session anyway.<br /><br />Anyway, like I said, YMMV. Maybe I'm reading WAY too much into it and he was just a dick and was being a dick for dick's sake. <br /><br />P.S. I know I'm what, 5 months late to the party, but you linked this on facebook so fair game in my book. :pMatt Nhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05827347419099892101noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5395501958781740798.post-15066179918261274072014-11-04T14:08:26.656-06:002014-11-04T14:08:26.656-06:00I really appreciate this write-up. Bad experience...I really appreciate this write-up. Bad experiences at the gaming table happen for lots and lots of reasons, and it's good to have a chance to examine one in such detail. I agree that the guy was probably a dick off the table too.<br /><br />But like you say, too - he came to the table expecting a different game. It's not just play style but expectations about what we are all settling down to do, because they former might mesh but if we disagree on the latter things can get broken. <br /><br />But the guy handled himself poorly by any interpretation, which sucks. It's one thing to tweak the DM and ask for the full value plus of the armor, but if the call is not then you walk away. It wouldn't be unreasonable for the GM to have said "Oh yeah, I guess you're right" and give him something.<br /><br />Because it IS important to meet people half way, to see what they are interested in and give it to them sometimes. Or to figure out what they think is important and take it away, only to give them a chance to earn it back.<br /><br />But my interpretation coincides with yours: This guy goes and plays in a game where the rules are adhered to strictly because the tables all have to be the same. We can follow that up with a good guess that part of the game for this guy was playing the game by the books, it was a challenge to challenge and correct the GM.tim hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17183259514061707097noreply@blogger.com