The player who is the ride for Mr. Special Snowflake has a combination of legitimate and shady reasons for not being at the game. The legit reason? His mom has been hospitalized. And he is the sole care for her most of the time. That's legit and understandable. I went through a similar patch with my mom this year. So I more than understand that dimension of it.

However. About half the time he would blow off the group for LARP games. Which he puts at a higher priority. And which made his commitment to the game group shakey at the best of times. Which would often result in an outright cancellation of the game. Due to not having enough players.

But his latest excuse? He won't come to the game at all without Mr. Special Snowflake.

It was a hard decision. But the group has gone on without him.

Before all this happened. The GM had me and another player create extra characters. To fit roles in the party that frankly weren't being served. I ultimately agreed and made a second character.

My second character ended up having an interesting background. She ended up being the half-sister to one of the campaign's villains. Which opened up a whole lot of new vistas for the campaign.

The second session after the new characters were established. Mr. Special Snowflake showed back up in the group. Focused purely on nullifying the social position and role my new character had in the group. It was petty. It was shitty. And it definitely shredded much of the direction that the GM planned with that new character. But because I am stubborn. And because the group really needs that new character. I played on. Got the character established. And she has become a vital member of the PC group now. Because she can simply do things none of the other characters in the group can.

I'm saying all of this with the purpose of full disclosure. To show my personal biases with the situation.

Quote from: Darrin Kelley;1099110I'm saying all of this with the purpose of full disclosure. To show my personal biases with the situation.

I was gonna say man... There's a fine line between venting and obsessing.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1099113I was gonna say man... There's a fine line between venting and obsessing.

Needed to get all of this off my chest.

Oy vey. Yet again, the maxim is proven. No gaming is better than bad gaming.

I'm sympathetic Darrin because crapass gaming is substantially why I almost always GM and if necessary, I will control the table behavior. I've had great games with only 2 players so I'm happy to burn a table of 6 down to 2-3 if that's what maximizes our enjoyment.

I find it odd to be waiting for one player, especially for so long. We don't do that. The only time a session is missed is if the DM is absent... and even then often a player will offer a one-off.

The game must go on.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1099156I find it odd to be waiting for one player, especially for so long. We don't do that. The only time a session is missed is if the DM is absent... and even then often a player will offer a one-off.

The game must go on.

That's certainly my attitude - if I have 3+ players I will GM. I may GM for 2 players depending on the circumstances in-game and out. Tend to avoid solo games these days as they are less fun unless the player is great, I am totally comfy with them, and it's a high-roleplay campaign.

As well, because there's less discussion, shit-talking and dithering, 2 players tend to get more things done than 4-5 players, even if the absent players' characters are made into useless gimps in their absence. So then the 2 players report back to the absent ones on all the adventure, loot and XP had in that session, and the absent ones become more keen to show up next time.

Seems it is classic "dominant player" problem. That player is handling all of the adventure, you can just "roll" along (when needed). You can as well be NPC-s of the party.

I have experienced that and I didn't like it. I also couldn't handle it well. I made destructive decisions against this player's plans, then I got killed in the game since he chose to flee the battle. Proper dick move. I chose to quit after that.

I choose not to play RPGs with dominant players. (I would call this a GM fault, he should have given spotlight to other players more -- but it was very convenient for him to ignore that because the game was running so well between these two)

If the special snowflake insists on coming back, the GM should tell him his old character passed away, "But here's a pregen I prepared for you: Hodo the furry-footed burrower."

I am glad things are resolving for the best, Darrin! Go ahead and purge; best to cleanse the soul so you can enjoy the new growth with a lighter heart.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1099220I am glad things are resolving for the best, Darrin! Go ahead and purge; best to cleanse the soul so you can enjoy the new growth with a lighter heart.

The game has a real shot at being really good now. The characters are all working together. The players and GM get along well. It's all going good. And I'm looking forward to the next game session.

Prior to this. It was the good alignment characters who were involved in all of the backstabbing and betrayal.

I would personally enjoy a long Alignment conversation with this GM on how they define 'Good' for their setting. I love Alignment.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1099262I would personally enjoy a long Alignment conversation with this GM on how they define 'Good' for their setting. I love Alignment.

The GM is a science fantasy author. His view of Good characters is: That they tend to be very rigid and dogmatic. Even the Chaotic Good and Neutral Good characters. They are unwilling to compromise. Even when the situation is one that needs it.

He explained. That he needed at least one evil character. Because evil characters are willing to go to some really dark places when the situation is one that demands it.

He introduced a new monster called Shadow Knights. And there were very few things the characters had. And later it turned out that they were shadows stolen from their victims. And were still connected to their victims. And that the one discovered way of stopping them was: To kill the original owner of the shadow. Something that would be utterly repellant to a good aligned character.

So my main character found a clutch of prisoners who were the owners of the shadows. Several hundred of them. And even though she is lawful evil, she felt terrible about what she had to do. So she used one of her Necromancer spells to kill them all painlessly.

The Shadow Knights can't be attacked directly with necromancy. The true way to stop them without killing their originals was to use a very specific Enchanter spell to sever the connection between the original and the Shadow Knight. Something the group did finally discover and bind into a specific weapon. They could now eliminate the Shadow Knights without killing their originals.

The Shadow Knights are scarey. If one is made, they attack other shadows and create more of themselves. They are a fast moving plague.

We've had the adult conversations many times. With the GM and Mr. Special Snowflake. The GM listens and acts on how things are requested by the other players.

Mr. Special Snowflake doesn't. It always has to be all about him. And he even dominates the table talk with same stories over and over again about how great his characters were in past campaigns.

I'm not the only person to have complained. Pretty much every other player has too. They want to get on with having fun in the game. Creating our own fun and memories. Instead of being drug around by Mr. Special Snowflake's star of the show.