It was not a mistake to air the issues, as such. It was a mistake to talk about them at length, and in nasty detail. However, given the nature of forums, once something is brought up, if it's at all interesting, it'll be talked about at length and in nasty detail; people will start other threads on issue brought up, and someone will challenge you, and in defending your point of view, you'll end up giving more details. So then it becomes a mistake to air the issues - because of what it'll lead to.

Certainly discussing things in a forum can bring in good ideas to help you with play; but many people will be offended at those discussions. So then you end up with the players leaving, and those issues are then irrelevant.

Sometimes you have some problems, and don't know the solutions, and find discussing them with the people involved unproductive. What do you do then? I don't know. Obviously this wasn't the thing to do.

That's why I said it was a mistake, and said that I was sorry. Of course the players are not going to forgive me, but when you fuck up, you should say sorry whether you're going to be forgiven or not.

I've more people to game with, and can have a full group next week. But people are not disposable like kleenex, and I'll regret their absence, which is mostly my own fault.

Quote from: Consonant DudeIf you feel JimBob misrepresented the situation, I can understand being pissed off. But I'm actually glad that he shared the story with us and even more glad that we got your side as well.

Threads like these can be pretty beneficial for every GM and player.

JimBob's only mistake here (aside from possibly misrepresenting certain facts) was to get caught by his players.

I agree that these threads can be useful, though in my experience they are even more useful when the players participate -- so I don't see how it was a mistake to get caught by the players.  

If there was a mistake, it would be in what he said about them.  Then again, it could well be that there wasn't a mistake -- i.e. the result of the group splitting apart was better than continuing in the fashion that it had been.  

My HarnMaster campaign went through a very similar GM-caught-complaining-debacle last year, and I think that being caught by the players was ultimately very helpful to the campaign and sparked a lot of useful discussion.  I think the difference is that the GM didn't cross a line of saying anything too nasty about the players.  He did originally say that our role-playing was grossly unrealistic and needed reining in, but he was open to discussion on that once we joined.  Really, I talk about my games online all the time, and while I'll sometimes say something embarrassing, I don't consider it a mistake getting caught by my players.

It's not a mistake to air issues, and the truth wouldn't embarrass me. It's certainly not bad to post about your games, as it helps other people deal with the same issues and so on. That's presuming, of course, that what is posted is the truth. Afterall, the feedback based on fallicy is probably faulty itself.

In this case, I don't feel that JimBob was truthful, however, in either the facts he presented (from anything about my resume down to what happened with the homonculus) or his interpretation of my motivations. It's my full belief that he was simply saying awful things to justify his position. His first post was relatively innocuous. It's only when others began to say "I dunno, it seems like the player was just acting like a player" that OOC and personal things (not remotely true, imho) were added to give weight to his argument that I'm a bad apple. Slander's the reason this topic went bad and some of his players are picking up their toys and going home, not a belief that no one should talk about gaming. Heck, Rugged Indoorsman loves to read RPG forums, hence his discovery of JimBob's comments in the first place.

What it comes down to is this:  when what you're saying is slander, it's rude and inappropriate, whether it's said in a web forum for gaming or shouted on a street corner. Getting caught is just inevitable if it a consistent enough part of your modus operandi.

Quote from: Consonant DudeThreads like these can be pretty beneficial for every GM and player.

For me it emphasizes the importance of considering all the players at the table as equals, whether they're the GM or playing a PC.  It also reinforces my preference for a more oldschool approach to RPGs, and avoid meta-plotting, railroading, etc.

Once the dust settles it'll be interesting to hear from JimBobOz/Kyle about what he'd do differently in the future.  Besides bringing more Cheetos.

QuoteIt also reinforces my preference for a more oldschool approach to RPGs, and avoid meta-plotting, railroading, etc.

Yay for challenge based Adventure Gaming!:haw:

Down with re-enacting TV shows!:mad:

I think my slowly growing impression from the previous threads is getting stronger. In this case, despite the player input at the start and everything else, Jimmy came into this game with really strong impressions of how it should work, and the players didn't cooperate with his vision.

Friction started there and moved quickly to antagonism between the players and the GM, than erupted here.


And when we tried to point out that he was perhaps being less flexible, Jimbo got defensive, rather than take a step back and look at it. Maybe he did take that step and look, and didn't see it.

Hindsight: In my RQ game one of my players got increasingly disruptive when the players couldn't find the Seneschal at the house.  I can't just boot her, not only would it end the game (three players is already pretty small for my tastes), but the repercussions from that would follow me home for a week or more.  

Now, while handing the players every clue they need is hardly good GMing, I could have changed my mind and suggested that someone knew something. I didn't, and there was a brief 'airing of laundry' at the game table... which I think got everyone cooled off.

So when the players chose to stake out hte mansion waiting for him to come back, I could have decided he was 'really busy moving the stolen ring' and wouldn't be back... ever, or I could let them follow him and feel like they accomplished something.  So, I let them follow him.  All is well, and no one decided not to come back next week.


Now, Jules, I don't know what exactly happens at your table. I can read what you write, sure... but I'm not there. The impression I get is that your players, or some of them (just like only some of mine were frustrated) were feeling like they weren't getting anywhere, and that everything they did was getting them punished.  Now, to you, you were just being 'realistic' or 'in canon' for the game.  Pointing out that 'the book says the game should play like this' is a bad sign. The book isn't running your game, you are.  I use a book for signs of when to roll dice, numbers and things like that. The players are my guide to how to actually run the game.  You should know this, you are the 'Cheetoist Guy'...

Quote from: ParaVox3In this case, I don't feel that JimBob was truthful, however, in either the facts he presented (from anything about my resume down to what happened with the homonculus) or his interpretation of my motivations. It's my full belief that he was simply saying awful things to justify his position. His first post was relatively innocuous. It's only when others began to say "I dunno, it seems like the player was just acting like a player" that OOC and personal things (not remotely true, imho) were added to give weight to his argument that I'm a bad apple.

It's not my place to discuss the truth or otherwise of what you or JimBob said here, because I have no way of knowing precisely what happened at your sessions - all the information I'm getting is obviously filtered through the perceptions of JimBob, yerself, and the other players.

What I will say is that my opinion of JimBob changed for the worse when the accusations started. The tone of the thread shifted from "How do I salvage this?" to "Look at what the players have done, they're fools, fools!" Not cool.

Bottom line: GMs need to remember that there is a limit to GM omnipotence: you don't know what your world and what your campaign looks like from the player's-eye-view. Situations which seem to hold a wealth of possibilities from the comfortable seat of omnipotence might seem very different if you're actually playing them.

It's always a mistake to post about your players online, particularly criticisms.  I only ever do it when for comedy purposes I intend them to read it.  

Generally, if things go south though, we're usually all a bit at fault.  One player may be too passive or too gung-ho or doing dumb stuff, but the odds are I'm not giving him or her a chance to shine or giving them the wrong plot signals or running something that isn't engaging them.  It's rarely a one way street.

Quote from: ParaVox3That 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

I think it's a hard balance to ever strike, some otherwise great players dislike bad stuff happening to their character.  Striking a balance between that and the need for conflict to have consequences is never entirely easy, I think any balance tends to be dynamic, flexing one way and the other as time goes on.

At the end of the day, we all muddle along as best we can, and if people are overall having fun then we're doing ok.

I think, this was not a game problem, but a people problem. I suspect the hostility evident in some of the posts on this thread, was there way before the events in the campaign took place. I could be wrong, but I think folks who are on friendly terms don't engage with each other in this manner.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: SettembriniYay for challenge based Adventure Gaming!

And flag-based Thematic Gaming!

And opposition based trollery!

Wait, what?

Ironically, if I remember the history of this campaign correctly it was another gamer entirely that had jimbo worried before any of this even occured, the guy who had stared evil in the face and went yellow...

Quote from: StuartOnce the dust settles it'll be interesting to hear from JimBobOz/Kyle about what he'd do differently in the future.  Besides bringing more Cheetos.

In future, I'll try to game only with people who like me as a person, and who enjoy my company.

In one previous group, after each session we'd wander out to the car and have a chat, half an hour, an hour, usually about gaming of course, but often about our lives, our spouses and so on.

In another group, though we met to game at 7pm, we rarely started before 8pm, and once not till 8:45pm, and still another time never gamed - just chatted all evening.

In the game groups which had the best gaming, we got along well even without the dice and cheetos. That put us in a relaxed mood for the gaming, and gave us an attitude of open and free communication, and if there were any gaming troubles, it was easier to sort them out, and we were more motivated to sort them out, because of the non-gaming bond.

Whereas in this group, we had one player who only came for the game session, never a minute early or late, almost no discussion of anything beyond the game, and another player who when they arrived, sat down on the couch in the loungeroom (while I was preparing dinner in the kitchen) and cracked open a book, and always left straight after the end of the session, whether it was five minutes till the train or twenty.

In short, they were people who didn't enjoy my company, or were at best indifferent to it, they were only there for the gaming and the food.

Now, certainly I don't expect that everyone will like me or enjoy my company. I have many faults as a person, and even if I were fautless, well there's no accounting for taste and all that. But I'd thought, "well, you don't enjoy the company of everyone at work or in your sports team, but you still get along and get things done well enough, should be the same with gaming." And of course I was wrong. I'd forgotten the thing I'm always saying, that roleplaying is a social creative hobby, and the "social" part is a prerequisite, a foundation for the "creative" part.

There may be more "professional" sorts of gamers out there, professional in their attitudes towards gaming, who can game well with people regardless of their personal feelings about each-other. But I'm not one of them.

So what did I learn? Game with people whose company you enjoy and like, and who enjoy your company and like you. If any of the people begin by disliking you and not wanting to talk to you much, well there's not much hope. Of course I'd hoped that a period of good gaming would change the attitudes; but the good gaming can't happen with that negative or indifferent attitude.

They just plain didn't like me much or enjoy my company.

I feel extra-foolish because as I noted in the "I feel like a jerk" thread, when I accepted these people, I had to reject some others. And those others are rather warmer to me.

Quote from: JimBobOzThey just plain didn't like me much or enjoy my company.

That's rich. I hope it keeps you warm come gaming nights.

If I wrote a tenth of the stuff about you that you wrote about me on this forum, you wouldn't like me much either, and that's if I was telling the truth. You pretend like we never came over and had a nice discussion, or invited you to our wedding, or offered to go places and do things with you outside of gaming. Instead, you sieze on little things, exaggerate them to big things, then build an interesting and flagrantly false reality around them.

Flat out, you LIED about me several times in this thread, and even knowing that I am monitoring it, you STILL lie. Whatever your deal is, it's whacked. I mean, I've met people who lie online about their age, gender, and whatnot, but this really takes the cake.