Worst Meta-gaming Experience Ever
Dr. Rich Staats
What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
I have had several all the way from folks physically burning party
contracts to people not talking to me (ever again), because they felt
that their characters "should have died" in a session and were
unjustly allowed to live. (Note, yes, that is correct as written.)
:-D
Dr. G.
Jon Purvis
> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
Nothing really bad for me. There's several people that I will no longer play with because of their
gaming styles (one guy will only play lesbians, two more guys prefer to remake every single male
comic book character into a female and rarely play males, and there are a couple that refuse to
roleplay in any shape of form - exp and gold are the only thing that matter). Luckily I don't live
near most of these, so it's not an issue.
I did have one time in an FRP setting where we were supposed to investigate why miners where
disappearing, and what was causing the weird noises and lights. Turns out it was a lost colony of
elves living underground, and when I sucker punched one in order to take her captive, another player
and the GM-controlled NPCs in the party attacked me. Turns out the elf was female, and I was
supposed to be on her side because 1) it was a female, and 2) it was a cute, young female. The fact
that we were hired to stop the killing of miners meant nothing to the player or GM. I had my hand
on the doorknob, ready to quit the campaign and group entirely, when we decided to talk it out.
They wanted social workers with swords, especially if the villian was female. I wanted Conan or
Sanctuary. I never quite forgave them, and when I noticed they acted the same way in a superhero
setting, I decided schoolwork was more important. That GM also had cats, and I ended up getting
flea bit because the house was never cleaned - this was another good reason to stop playing.
Jon
Mike Monaco
When I was very young (8 or so) I punched my brother (the DM) for
killing my character. I still think it was pretty unfair to sic
Hercules from D&DG on a 10th level fighter. :)
In highschool, there was a guy who always played Drow elves. When his
character (who had a very high charisma) was captured by Hobgoblins,
they raped him. (No, I wasn't the DM but I did laugh.) That player was
seriously pissed for a while and dropped out of the campaign but played
in others with the same DM.
forumite
In college, we used spell points house rules for spellcasting. Two
players were apoplectic upset that I, playing a lawful good cleric,
would dare cast spells other than Cure Light Wounds on a regular
basis. They were even outraged that I once swung my staff in melee
combat. They stopped being my friends. The GM, bless him, ignored
them and let me continue to play in his games.
Also in college, different group. Unknown to me a player just didn't
like me. I have no idea why. I didn't even really know him; he was
just the roommate of the GM and never saw him outside the game.
Because he didn't like me, his cleric refused to heal my character.
Naturally my character died. He was resurrected, and the GM
admonished the player.
Those of you who remember Gilbert know the story about Addepax.
Gilbert is my wholesome paladin. With GM permission he was a paladin
who didn't know he was one. He kissed booboos instead of laying on
hands. He gave hugs instead of curing disease, and other sappiness.
Addepax was a "Real Men" paladin. He's the paladin people expect when
they think of paladin. Addepax player had joined the group with the
game in progress; thus I was playing Gilbert as he is for awhile.
Addepex came in not quite understanding my character. Addepax
disliked Gilbert, a lot. The player then disliked me, a lot. When he
GMed, I played a cleric of the same god as Addepax in an attempt of a
truce. Didn't work. We argued. I left the gaming session. I was
not welcomed back.
Gerald Katz
Zenobia
Staats) wrote:
What about when actions "outside the game" negatively affected
things "in the game"? - as in the example below. That's a bad
meta-gaming experience too.
Just being pinicky - never had anything as bad as the stuff in
this thread - I'm such as likeable person.
Dr. Rich Staats
> Nothing really bad for me. There's several people that I will no longer play with because of their
> gaming styles (one guy will only play lesbians, two more guys prefer to remake every single male
> comic book character into a female and rarely play males, and there are a couple that refuse to
> roleplay in any shape of form - exp and gold are the only thing that matter). Luckily I don't live
> near most of these, so it's not an issue.
>
Some folks do seem to like a strong dose of social commentary with
their role-playing, and it can quickly become a "less than fun"
experience for all concerned. Folks get upset when their "sacred
cows" get gored.
> I did have one time in an FRP setting where we were supposed to investigate why miners where
> disappearing, and what was causing the weird noises and lights. Turns out it was a lost colony of
> elves living underground, and when I sucker punched one in order to take her captive, another player
> and the GM-controlled NPCs in the party attacked me. Turns out the elf was female, and I was
> supposed to be on her side because 1) it was a female, and 2) it was a cute, young female. The fact
> that we were hired to stop the killing of miners meant nothing to the player or GM. I had my hand
> on the doorknob, ready to quit the campaign and group entirely, when we decided to talk it out.
> They wanted social workers with swords, especially if the villian was female. I wanted Conan or
> Sanctuary. I never quite forgave them, and when I noticed they acted the same way in a superhero
> setting, I decided schoolwork was more important.
LoL This is a great story.
Might have been a mixed blessing if it allowed you to enhance your
studies. :-)
> That GM also had cats, and I ended up getting
> flea bit because the house was never cleaned - this was another good reason to stop playing.
>
This brings back some memories, ..., I played a few sessions with a GM
that was involved in an apparently difficult separation / divorce.
One of the sessions we helped her move out of her old house, but I
guess that her husband did not want pets. Once she, the GM, was
"free," she decided to get as many pets in as many varieties as
possible. Going to her house was an adventure. Seeing the birds
attack the free-range snakes and the cats attacking the spiders was
interesting. The whole place had a "unique redolence." I had an
easier time imagining the smell of Smaug in _the Hobbit_ after playing
in her group.
I also opted to quietly leave the group to focus on other areas.
In service,
Rich
Dr. Rich Staats
> Those of you who remember Gilbert know the story about Addepax.
> Gilbert is my wholesome paladin. With GM permission he was a paladin
> who didn't know he was one. He kissed booboos instead of laying on
> hands. He gave hugs instead of curing disease, and other sappiness.
> Addepax was a "Real Men" paladin. He's the paladin people expect when
> they think of paladin. Addepax player had joined the group with the
> game in progress; thus I was playing Gilbert as he is for awhile.
> Addepex came in not quite understanding my character. Addepax
> disliked Gilbert, a lot. The player then disliked me, a lot. When he
> GMed, I played a cleric of the same god as Addepax in an attempt of a
> truce. Didn't work. We argued. I left the gaming session. I was
> not welcomed back.
>
One of the more interesting characters that I've seen played over the
years was a healer that had decided to do some anti-violence, social
engineering. The player had recently undergone a conversion to a
religion that strictly adhered to rules of non-violence, but the
player loved role-playing. His compromise was to play a character
that absolutely would not engage in any violent act or encourage any
violent act. So, he chose to heal or not heal PCs based on their
violent tendencies. One time the entire party was captured or taken
down by an enemy force, the healer decided that it was better for him
to take a paralytic drug rather than be forced to violate his vow of
non-violence. He also reasoned that the bad guys would not do
anything bad to a helpless healer. While the bad guys did not kill
the healer, they did slay and loot the rest of the party, and then
they bound the healer as tightly as possible and left him alone out in
the wilderness, letting nature run its course.
The other players treated their party-mate oddly after this
experience, but my gut is that it had as much to do with his sermons
to them outside of sessions as it did with in-character play.
Dr. Rich Staats
> What about when actions "outside the game" negatively affected
> things "in the game"? - as in the example below. That's a bad
> meta-gaming experience too.
>
I missed the "below." Was there more to the message?
> Just being pinicky - never had anything as bad as the stuff in
> this thread - I'm such as likeable person.
LoL OK, *resists urge to make silly comment*
:-D
Dr. G.
Sanlos Institute
Would you care to expand that story of people being angry because
their characters survived? I have trouble picturing it. They must have
really taken the game seriously.
In a University gaming society I used to belong to, there was a couple
(that is, a mating pair of gamers of opposite genders). If they were
in a game together, he had to do everything in his power to help her
succeed, or else she would say 'Hmmf! You're not sleping at my place
tonight!' and act pissed off with him for the rest of the evening. So
naturally, wanting to get his oats, he would always do everything
possible to help her win. I thought it was outrageous behaviour and
the society should have stopped them from playing in the same games
unless she agreed to change her ways.
Having said that I did let them both play in my Paranoia game - but
then, there is no way to survive Paranoia. It's a game designed to let
sadistic GMs get their jollies by killing off player characters.
The Caretaker
The Sanlos Institute
www.geocities.com/sanlosinst
Geoff Watson
"Sanlos Institute" <sanlo...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8dd4ca0.04082...@posting.google.com...
> sta...@alum.mit.edu (Dr. Rich Staats) wrote in message
news:<b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Thought this might be an interesting topic, ...
> >
> > What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> > the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
> >
> > I have had several all the way from folks physically burning party
> > contracts to people not talking to me (ever again), because they felt
> > that their characters "should have died" in a session and were
> > unjustly allowed to live. (Note, yes, that is correct as written.)
>
> Would you care to expand that story of people being angry because
> their characters survived? I have trouble picturing it. They must have
> really taken the game seriously.
>
survive, no matter what', and others prefer 'live or die by the rules/dice'.
If the characters survived through some cheesy 'deus ex machina',
that could really annoy some players.
Geoff.
Tail Kinker
> Dr. Rich Staats wrote:
>> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
>> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
I had an argumentative rules-lawyer. But even that doesn't really sum up
this clown.
We're long-time GURPS players, the both of us, and he boasts of having the
most extensive and expensive GURPS library in the city. (It's not a big
city, so he could be right.) But he feels the need to argue points, even
when people agree with him. But the last straw, the final argument that
convinced me to *never* game with him again...
"A person with a Knack is treated as though he's a magical item, at Power
Level fifteen, since that's what he's gotta roll," argued my soon-to-be-ex
gamer.
"Yeah, but you've still gotta pay the mana cost to cast Flame Arrow,
whether or not it's a Knack," countered I.
"No, you don't, because a Power 15 effect gets its first mana free."
"Yes, you do, because the rule-book says so, right here."
"The rule-book is wrong."
That had me raise my eyebrows, as it was the (then) latest edition of
G:Magic.
"Well," continued I, "I also say that you have to pay the mana cost."
"You're wrong, too," shouted the rules lawyer.
Now, I take poorly to being shouted at, and I don't really care for being
told I'm wrong. I'll admit it, if I am wrong, but it still rankles.
Perhaps I'm too prideful. But in this case, as the GM making a rules
call, I was *by definition* right. And I still hated being shouted at.
I've not gamed with this individual since. And my last words to him,
which caused him to leave my game abruptly, were, "You may have the most
extensive GURPS library in this city, but mine serves more purpose than
just decoration."
mcv
> On 24 Aug 2004 13:55:07 -0700, sta...@alum.mit.edu (Dr. Rich
> Staats) wrote:
>
>>Thought this might be an interesting topic, ...
>>
>>What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
>>the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
>
> things "in the game"? - as in the example below. That's a bad
> meta-gaming experience too.
>
> Just being pinicky - never had anything as bad as the stuff in
> this thread - I'm such as likeable person.
I guess I'm pretty lucky that I'm in a pretty mature group. We have our
tensions, both in game and out, but we're pretty good at putting it
behind us.
I remember one particular one-shot where characters from different
settings were somehow transported to a wasteland where strange things
were happening. I was playing a mad scientist, and another player a
Clint Eastwood/Mad Max type of character. The third player played a
classic wizard, but he was completely overshadowed by the interaction
between the other two. I should point out that in other sessions and
even in real life, the biggest tension is usually between me and the
Mad Clint player, but fortunately we never let it get in the way of a
good game. This time it got really intense, however.
It started with normal classic in-game misunderstandings ("So you're
a doctor? Good to have a healer with us.), then different approaches
to situations and some unclarity about whether our different opinions
of what made sense and what would be logical was in-game or outside
the game, and it ended with him leaving me with broken legs and without
light in the underground lair of the bad guys, me firing a warning shot
at him, and him returning fire. My character then joined the bad guys
because at least they were men of science and appreciated superior
intelligence.
This description completely fails to capture the tension of the session,
but let me tell you, it was intense. I suppose other groups could have
broken after a session like that, but I'm glad we just bottled it up
and ruined lots more clever plots with intense differences between our
characters. The party would be a lot more effective if we cooperated
and communicated more, but it's a RPG, not just a tactical adventure
game, and this tension adds a whole new dimension to things.
In real life we're aso very different people, and if the group ever
broke up, we'd probably eventually lose contact, although we do share
a lot of common friends.
Another slightly similar case was in an online strategy game that I
hosted and in which another friend played. I won't bore you with the
details, but at some point there was a lot of tension, partly because
he left our aliance, joined the enemy and proceeded to kick my butt,
and after a certain rather upset email of mine he seemed to be afraid
that this could be the end of a friendship, but in the end I was the
one who congratulated him most with his clever and well-deserved
victory.
It's a point of pride for me to be able to play like this without
having it ruin friendships, and so far it seems to work. The tension
gets to me sometimes, though.
mcv.
mcv
The idea that your character could die certainly adds a certain tension
to the game, which I personally really enjoy. I don't want PCs to die,
but I do want them to be able to die, so when they really mess up,
having them saved by a deus ex machina would be a bit of a disappointment.
mcv.
James Stein
"Mike Monaco" <mmona...@Spam.neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:48SWc.226403$fv.1...@fe2.columbus.rr.com...
...Rape being one of those special topics... I'd side with the guy who got
pissed. Some lines the DM can not - or at least, should not - casually
cross.
Bryan J. Maloney
news:b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com:
> Thought this might be an interesting topic, ...
>
> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
The gamemaster blew a massive hole in his chest with a shotgun. Ended the
campaign.
Jay Knioum
There were several over the years, but the one that springs to mind is
the "Chasme Incident."
This was long ago; we were all high school freshmen or younger. I was
DM, with about three players. This was the climactic game in a
campaign where the PCs were trying to stop this archlich from
executing an evil ritual. The ritual was taking place in the lich's
sanctum, miles underground.
To reach it, the party first had to get through a massive cavern
chamber. The ceiling of the chamber was covered with about 1,000
chasme demons, all in hibernation. The floor was littered with
hundreds of larvae, but the party could pick a path through them if
they moved carefully, and they could avoid getting the chasmes'
attention if they moved quietly.
The key word here was "if." Two of the players decided that they
wanted to fight the chasme, and decided to dump a Fireball in the
midst of the torpid demons. I warned them that the explosion would
wake up all the demons, but they didn't see a problem with that (the
rest of the party was frantically trying to get to the other side of
the cavern as fast as possible).
So, they shot their Fireball, woke up the demons, and I promptly ruled
that those two PCs did not survive the battle, as the outcome would be
inevitable and I didn't want to waste time on it.
This resulted in the most heated screaming match I've ever been
involved in (romantic entanglements included). Things eventually
calmed down when the surviving PC and NPCs demonstrated that they
could Resurrect the fallen PCs, but I almost lost a couple of friends
over it.
We still talk about that. I haven't used chasme in a game since. :)
--
Jay Knioum
The Mad Afro
Peter Mork
>> their characters survived? I have trouble picturing it. They must have
>> really taken the game seriously.
>>
> It's just a conflict of gaming styles. Some gamers prefer the 'PCs always
> survive, no matter what', and others prefer 'live or die by the
> rules/dice'.
>
I have refused to play a character brought back from the dead. We were
playing AD&D, a game in which I've never made a successful resurrection
roll. My first character (Good, Jonathan Whellon Good, secret agent) met an
untimely end. His replacement survived only two sessions before a banshee
took him out. Once again, I failed the resurrection roll. The DM refused
to accept the roll; my next roll would have been successful. Thus, the
character was resurrected by DM fiat, but I promptly retired the character.
Peter
Chris Chandler
"Dr. Rich Staats" <sta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com...
We had a complete gaming group meltdown because of the 2e - 3e conversion.
We had a solid campaign going with a good bit of steam left in our party.
We, as players, wanted to finish our campaign. The DM didn't have a problem
with that, but he wanted to move to 3e the day the books came out, pretty
much. I personally did not have a problem with converting, and the rest of
the group just thought we could tie up the loose ends of this campaign, then
start a 3e campaign. However, we were never consulted. We were told,
"We're converting next week." First Strike.
The second strike came with the conversion process. I was playing a
single-classed druid. I got a power boost. I did not mind the conversion.
One friend was playing a F/M/T, all around level 5-6. While he could fight
and thieve about as well as before, he suddenly could not cast spells that
he could before, and, as he saw it, "I just lost 12 levels". I understood
what the conversion was doing a little better than he did at the time, but I
did disagree with the loss of spells. Strike two.
My wife was playing a wild mage, and the DM railroaded her into turning her
into a Sorcerer, going so far as suggesting that she just switch her 20 Int
and 14 Cha so that the character would be viable. Wife thought that was the
stupidest thing she'd ever heard, as her character was brilliant and
beautiful, but had a mean streak - she did not want a character with a great
Cha. Not to mention that the wild mage really didn't have any support in
3e, especially at the time. We'll call this a foul tip.
Then the DM, who does not have any kids, mandated that we were going to play
only at his house, because he was tired of travelling to everybody else's
houses. One player had a 18 month old. Our kid was less than 6 months old,
and we were still will to travel 2/3rds of our gaming sessions. We had been
alternating between all three households, and thought this was pretty fair.
This was another foul tip, believe it or not.
Another player, who had moved to take care of his family for about 2 years,
came back. He found out about 1/4 of the whole situation, then promptly
told the DM that he was screwing everything up. This was strike three. We
stopped that campaign cold, and went to alternating between GURPS with one
of the other players GMing, and a 2e campaign with me DMing.
Even now, when there is talk of a 4th ed. in the not-too-distant future, I
have had to really convince the group that 3e (3.5) is a more viable event
resolution system than kludgy 2e (which I still do like). My wife has even
told me that she won't play in my homegrown world (which she prefers to any
other campaign setting) if it's moved to 3e (which I'd done already, but
that's moot). We barely talk to the old DM any more, as he's a D&D purist,
and didn't like the setting we were in with the GURPS game (mismash of vamp,
werewolve, mage:TA, and a mess of others, but "Supernatural" would cover
it"). We, as a group, still get in shouting matches over 3e, and not
because of the system (well, wife *hates* how weapon profs are handled).
I'd say that qualifies...
Chris Chandler
Jay Knioum
>
> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
Then there was the guy in one of my college groups who was so obsessed
over the perceived wrongness of another player's character that he
sent me over a dozen lengthy emails on the topic, and even produced
charts and graphs at one session to support his argument. At the end
of the day, it didn't matter if he was right or not, nobody could
stand him.
Kind of like the Ross Perot of gaming, but without the personality. Or
the ears.
Charlton Wilbur
JK> Then there was the guy in one of my college groups who was so
JK> obsessed over the perceived wrongness of another player's
JK> character that he sent me over a dozen lengthy emails on the
JK> topic, and even produced charts and graphs at one session to
JK> support his argument. At the end of the day, it didn't matter
JK> if he was right or not, nobody could stand him.
This happened about 3 years ago. I had been playing with an RPG group
in grad school, which meant that I needed to be on the lookout for
people to add to the group because people were leaving as they got
their degree or their postdoc appointment or their adjunct contract
ended.
So we added E. She was a local gamer, with 20+ years of experience,
much of it GMing experience. We played GURPS Black Ops for about 3
months; that setting encourages characters to specialize in one of
(six?) departments, which serve roughly the same purpose in niche
protection as character classes. E was a science officer, but
insisted that things be done her way. Frequently she did not pay
attention and thus whatever she insisted on doing was the wrong thing,
but she had to get her way.
After about 3 months I ran some GURPS fantasy. This was a disaster.
She had her own ideas about how fantasy games worked, and despite
having a solid rules system and a rather well-described fantasy world
(I have about 10 years of notes on it, about 1/3 of which is in a
player-readable background document) she insisted on doing her own
thing all the time. After the first couple sessions I was essentially
running two games simultaneously - one for E and one for everyone
else. This couldn't last, and didn't.
So the last game: Call of Cthulhu. I laid out the scenario, and
before we started character creation I laid down the rule that all
characters had to have some connection to each other. I made it clear
that any player whose character did not have a reason to hang out with
the rest of the group would be invited to retire that character and
create a new one. So she decided that another player - C - was a
horrible munchkin and powergamer, and out to get her. After every
session I would get an email rant about all the things C did that
showed that he was out to get E and a bad roleplayer to boot.
Beyond that, E had a nasty attitude towards player secrets from each
other. She wanted to know everything about the other characters,
because keeping secrets is wrong; but anyone knowing a secret about
her character was interfering with her right to present the character
to the other players in the way she saw fit. Yes, this is a double
standard; no, that did not seem to bother her in the slightest.
The last straw was after one session where we added or were about to
add a new player - J, who is a published game author with as much
experience as E or I - when she sent me a lengthy email message about
all of the slights she perceived from C that session -- *and* warned
me, rather darkly, about how J would probably be a horrible gamer
and team up with C. So I, who had been reasonably tactful thus far,
let her have a piece of my mind, and that was about the end of the
gaming relationship.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Firelock
>
> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
Gaming back in high school - I was DM, one of the
players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
full draw because his ranger's signature item was
stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
and we decided that a short break from the campaign
was a good idea.
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
Peter Mork
>> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
>
> Gaming back in high school - I was DM, one of the
> players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
> full draw because his ranger's signature item was
> stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
> and we decided that a short break from the campaign
> was a good idea.
>
This reminded me of a player in high school that was in a Villians &
Vigilantes game I was running. One day (while making a snack run) he told
us to watch him "jump out and stop that oncoming car" (traveling at least 30
mph) just like his character. He was physically restrained, and that was it
for gaming!
Peter
James Stein
"Bryan J. Maloney" <cavag...@sbcglobal.not> wrote in message
news:Xns955056876C...@207.115.63.158...
I think that's an action outside the game, not inside the game.
Brian
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
In my experience, the worst meta-gaming situations come from one of two
categories:
1. Players who are "involved" (i.e. spouses), and one of them believes that
means their characters should be as well.
2. People who have a hard time separating reality from fantasy.
Dr. Rich Staats
>
> Would you care to expand that story of people being angry because
> their characters survived? I have trouble picturing it. They must have
> really taken the game seriously.
>
I would love to, but would rather do that via e-mail.
Dr. G.
Leon Workman
Two things come to mind:
The first of the two incidents was when a player who half of the
group was acquainted with from their other gaming group joined our
campaign halfway through. Of course, the other half of the group was
suspicious of "the new guy". Territorial pissings happened frequently
in our games back then, back when there were games...
In any event, the group of characters were likely about 7th
level, and the new guy joined as a 7th level half-elven sorcerer. The
characters had been nipping at the trail of Zhentarim activities for
nigh on 6 levels of game-time. They were now confronted within some
mile-deep caverns with a Zhent agent who had 6 drow fighter
bodyguards. The last session had left off with a cliffhanger, since
the revelation of this NPC's continued existence was a surprise. He
was supposed to have been dead (which was due to a false account of
this NPC's murder and burial by another NPC). In any event, the PC's
had pissed off this Zhentarim agent's higher-ups enough that they
wanted a one-on-one conference with the PC's. The ranger from Narfell
was chomping at the bit for a confrontation with the Zhents. This
Jinhar (that was the NPC Zhent agent's name...he was Mulhorandi),
offered to guide the PC's to his Zhent master, who was known only as
"Zeboim".
At this time, "the new guy", who I decided was hiding out in the
dark in the very same cavern after being the sole survivor of an
Underdark campaign gone wrong, decided that the drow were evil, so he
stood up and fireball'd all of the drow and the Zhent agent. They
were ash.
The player playing the barbaric Nar ranger just about blew a nut.
He stopped short of throwing his soda on the other player. Needless
to say, nobody from the half of the group that didn't know "the new
guy" before this incident ever liked him "out of game" afterwards.
That group slowly disintegrated in about three to four sessions due to
conflicting schedules and other personal issues between players.
The second incident was a conflict between myself (DM) and a player:
We started a brand new campaign in a homebrew world that I had
created. I had four players playing, and half of the group was
players from another gaming group that I had never played with before
(kinda funny how new people have been wrecking balls in the games that
I've played in). Immediately, they were pissing and moaning about my
character generation rules. They didn't like characters with scores
below 10. They didn't like characters unless they had at least a
minimum of a 16 in at least one score. They didn't like the fact that
on this metal-poor world, the barbarians were forced to fight with
bone, wood, and stone implements. They didn't think that it was fair
that I made barbaric characters illiterate. They were pissed when I
limited the party to having no more than one human character. They
didn't care for the increase in price for metal goods. They didn't
like starting at first level. They didn't like that I made them roll
for hit points and keep what they rolled. The list went on and on.
The game derailed slightly when they purposely set out to be at
odds with what I had planned for the evening's activities. Luckily, I
had lots of background material worked up, so I was able to "wing it."
My faults are often that I let negotiations go in favor of the
PCs. I'm easy to run over. Since the time of this particular game,
I've had to become a bit tougher. When the negotiations get to a
point where the NPC will not budge, I use my "out of game" voice to
tell the player that the NPC will not go any lower or higher. Take it
or leave it.
Getting back to the session in question, the evening's
entertainment became centered around one character bullying all of the
NPCs in the most obnoxious manner. He mistook his "neutral evil"
alignment for "neutral stupid" when he bullied the wealthiest merchant
in town (with physical threats to the merchant's life), and extorted a
higher sum for the caravan guard duty that he'd just performed.
I called it quits on the game right there. I made up my own mind
that the whole party was wiped out by 100 assassins with poisoned
crossbows surrounding the inn that the characters were staying in that
night. I figured it out and the 100 assassins were much cheaper to
pay than what the characters had extorted out of the most wealthy and
influential goblin merchant in the goblin capital city. A little
blood on the street would be a normal daily event in a goblin city
anyway.
I refuse to play with anyone from this group these days. When I
did allow two of them back into my home to roleplay, I found out that
they had drugs and other paraphernalia on them. I don't know how
others feel about drugs, but I have a job that requires a squeaky
clean criminal record. They put my job and the well-being of my wife
and children in jeopardy by bringing drugs into my home. It stills
pisses me off now.
Leon
Bill Leary
news:pan.2004.08.25....@contrabandent.com...
> I've not gamed with this individual since. And my last words to him,
> which caused him to leave my game abruptly, were, "You may have the most
> extensive GURPS library in this city, but mine serves more purpose than
> just decoration."
Nice closing line. I usually think of those on the drive home, or even the
next day.
- Bill
Dirk Collins
> Thought this might be an interesting topic, ...
>
> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
As a GM, I had to ask one player to leave a game some years ago on
account the player didn't like another player in the game and
would constantly create confrontations and other incidents, even
when they both had new characters and no reason for conflict. My
players actually requested that I drop the offending player from
the group.
As a player, I'm inclined to joining good games or campaigns and
rarely have trouble from the other players or the GM. Maybe
becuase I just have so little time to waste, so take extra time
and just observe for awhile, before joining a new game, or gaming
group.
As a convention GM for the last five years, I have been blessed so
far (knock on wood), in that no one attending my games have
deliberately sought to derail the game, or create a bad experience
for other players.
With Regards,
Dirk
Mike1
"Brian" <reply2me@thenewsgroup> wrote:
In my experience, the worst meta-gaming situations arise from players
who are, bluntly, stupid assholes whose assholiness was not known until
gaming was underway.
--
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
Twin City Strategy Gamer: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC_Strategy/
Drug smugglers and gun-runners are heroes of American capitalism.
-- Jeffrey Quick
SMT
"Leon Workman" <leonwork...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ad51673f.04082...@posting.google.com...
> sta...@alum.mit.edu (Dr. Rich Staats) wrote in message
news:<b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com>...
snip
>
> I refuse to play with anyone from this group these days. When I
> did allow two of them back into my home to roleplay, I found out that
> they had drugs and other paraphernalia on them. I don't know how
> others feel about drugs, but I have a job that requires a squeaky
> clean criminal record. They put my job and the well-being of my wife
> and children in jeopardy by bringing drugs into my home. It stills
> pisses me off now.
>
> Leon
Yeah, I always made a point of leaving my drugs in a locker at the train
station on the way to my DMs house, he never even asked this of me, but it's
common curtosey that you not take drugs into the house of someone who
doesn't do drugs.
Maybe not my worst meta-gaming experience but the oddest was this one guy
who, to cut a long story short, basically claimed that he was in fact (in
reality) Cain (Kaine?) from the Vampire games. Its alway a suprise to see
the dude, after that I figured it was only a matter of time before he'd be
institutionalised.
Jon Purvis
> Jon Purvis <jrpu...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:<AEQWc.36529$xi6....@fe2.texas.rr.com>...
>
>>Nothing really bad for me. There's several people that I will no longer play with because of their
>>gaming styles (one guy will only play lesbians, two more guys prefer to remake every single male
>>comic book character into a female and rarely play males, and there are a couple that refuse to
>>roleplay in any shape of form - exp and gold are the only thing that matter). Luckily I don't live
>>near most of these, so it's not an issue.
>>
> Some folks do seem to like a strong dose of social commentary with
> their role-playing, and it can quickly become a "less than fun"
> experience for all concerned. Folks get upset when their "sacred
> cows" get gored.
Social commentary can be fun, and I've been known to create a character that's different from
everyone else just to have fun. Not in these cases though. The player of lesbians did it because
it gave extra disad points when playing Hero or Fudge - no other reason. The two guys were simply
incapable of having relationships with women, and it seemed playing female characters was a partial
replacement to me. The non-roleplayers just didn't get roleplaying and though it was a waste of
time. They basically want a MUD, but with everyone in the same room.
Jon
Peter Knutsen
>>In highschool, there was a guy who always played Drow elves. When his
>>character (who had a very high charisma) was captured by Hobgoblins,
>>they raped him. (No, I wasn't the DM but I did laugh.) That player was
>>seriously pissed for a while and dropped out of the campaign but played
>>in others with the same DM.
I don't see why having a high Charisma increases the likelihood
of one getting raped. In fact, it should be the other way around.
> ...Rape being one of those special topics... I'd side with the guy who got
> pissed. Some lines the DM can not - or at least, should not - casually
> cross.
If a player knows that his or her character won't ever get
raped, and then has the character behave as if he or she knows
it, then the player is acting on metagame information.
And that *would* be a bad experience.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
In my experience, the number one problem is people who have
their characters act on out-of-character-knowledge, be it
"monster ability knowledge" (Werecreatures are harmed by silver,
in a setting where Weres are *very* rare), or the knowledge that
the GM won't let certain nasty things happen to them, such as
death, slavery or rape. Thereby threatening the willing
suspension of disblief of the other participants.
Number two includes your #1, but is broader: Any person who
takes out-of-game conflicts into the game (I like player A,
therefore my character develops a dislike for his character, and
I don't need any in-game justificatrion for it) or the other way
(player A's character did something wrong to my character,
therefore I now dislike player A).
I've never had problems with people incapable of seperating
reality from fantasy. On the contrary, it annoys me that lots of
people don't take their roleplaying gaming seriously, but
instead seem to be doing it just to kill time.
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Peter Knutsen
Mike1 wrote:
> In my experience, the worst meta-gaming situations arise from players
> who are, bluntly, stupid assholes whose assholiness was not known until
> gaming was underway.
What the fuck has that got to do with metagame pollution?
--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
Jay Knioum
> After about 3 months I ran some GURPS fantasy. This was a disaster.
> She had her own ideas about how fantasy games worked, and despite
> having a solid rules system and a rather well-described fantasy world
> (I have about 10 years of notes on it, about 1/3 of which is in a
> player-readable background document) she insisted on doing her own
> thing all the time. After the first couple sessions I was essentially
> running two games simultaneously - one for E and one for everyone
> else. This couldn't last, and didn't.
Had one of these in my 2nd-Ed D&D days. The guy was/is an old friend
and an entertaining player, but he found his own ideas and side
errands to be more interesting than what the group was up to.
Moreover, he was a master at making any given session completely about
his character. The guy's name is Steve, and the other players began to
refer to these sessions as "Stevenloft."
Fittingly, my most successful campaign that involved this player was
an urban fantasy intrigue-based setup where the PCs could either team
up or screw each other over as necessary. He was in his element, and
this time, everyone else could play, too.
>
> So the last game: Call of Cthulhu. I laid out the scenario, and
> before we started character creation I laid down the rule that all
> characters had to have some connection to each other. I made it clear
> that any player whose character did not have a reason to hang out with
> the rest of the group would be invited to retire that character and
> create a new one.
It's amazing what a hurdle this simple request is for some players.
How about "we all drink at the same bar every Thursday night?" It's
not rocket surgery, people!
James Stein
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@sagatafl.invalid> wrote in message
news:2p4rnjF...@uni-berlin.de...
>
> > ...Rape being one of those special topics... I'd side with the guy who
got
> > pissed. Some lines the DM can not - or at least, should not - casually
> > cross.
>
> If a player knows that his or her character won't ever get
> raped, and then has the character behave as if he or she knows
> it, then the player is acting on metagame information.
>
> And that *would* be a bad experience.
There is a point where the emotional comfort of the players overrides
concerns for suspension of disbelief. That point comes just before rape. I
don't care about the presence or absence of rape in my games one way or the
other, but given how many people have been emotionally involved with it -
either themselves or someone they know - I definitely wouldn't bring it up
in the game casually, certainly wouldn't push it if a player expressed
issues with it, and definitely wouldn't use it as a "let's fuck this player"
tool.
*Players* are more important than the *game* in this instance.
Christopher Adams
> Brian wrote:
>
>> 1. Players who are "involved" (i.e. spouses), and one of them believes
>> that means their characters should be as well.
>> 2. People who have a hard time separating reality from fantasy.
<snip>
> Number two includes your #1, but is broader: Any person who
> takes out-of-game conflicts into the game (I like player A,
> therefore my character develops a dislike for his character, and
> I don't need any in-game justificatrion for it) or the other way
> (player A's character did something wrong to my character,
> therefore I now dislike player A).
The two worst people I've ever gamed with were both like this, in a way.
One was a guy I played with in high school, who knew that the GM of our
Cyberpunk 2020 game really liked him and wanted to keep his friendship, so he
demanded to be allowed to start the game with a military-grade full-body
conversion, while the rest of us were standard starting characters. I will admit
that, being sixteen, I took petty revenge; the session started with someone
throwing a Molotov cocktail into the apartment this character and I shared, and
I left him there to burn, helpless as he was hooked into a recharging machine,
while I chased the guy down.
The second-worst player ever had a more negative impact on the games that we
played in together, but only because they lasted much longer (the Cyberpunk game
never had a second session, you see). Basically, she suffers from terribly low
self-esteem, and "manages" it through extreme defensiveness and
passive-aggressive behaviour. In a D&D game run by her then-boyfriend, she
entered the game after it had been running for a year with a character
completely unsuited to the established party (for which she can be partly
excused from blame, since the GM had helped her to design it), and proceeded to
loudly demand every session that he give the party something to do that she
cared about. The weird thing was her inability to evaluate herself; she
constantly complained that she had no reason to be in the party and helping us
with our goals, but never seemed to connect that fact to her character design.
She also suffered from the inability to distinguish between PCs' negative
reactions to her PC and players' negative reactions to her PC and to her as a
player for having created the PC in the first place. Her reaction to the
realisation that she wasn't very good at playing in-character was to flatly
refuse to even try. She chose to play a member of a specific species with a
distinctive appearance and then demanded that the DM allow her to retcon it to
something more attractive.
In another d20 campaign, her political-manipulator character (despite massively
specialising in social skills) wasn't performing to the standard she had
imagined it would, so she bullied the GM (with the aid of the GM from the
another game, who was playing this time) into allowing her to retcon her
character into another d20 class with bigger bonuses. She constantly and openly
cackled in glee at her ability to force NPCs to "give us the plot" without
wanting to actually play out conversations (a factor of her previous
determination to give up all pretense of actually roleplaying after deciding she
was no good at it).
I'm glad she decided that gaming didn't really suit her and quit entirely,
because, damn, she was annoying to play with.
--
Christopher Adams - Sydney, Australia
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you
understand?
http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/mhacdebhandia/prestigeclasslist.html
Christopher Adams
>
> Yeah, I always made a point of leaving my drugs in a locker at the train
> station on the way to my DMs house, he never even asked this of me, but
> it's common curtosey that you not take drugs into the house of someone
> who doesn't do drugs.
Heh. One of the best roleplayers I know - so this isn't an actual "problem
player" story, or anything - is a social pot smoker. The only problem with that
is that he often doesn't respect other people's objections to it - he'll bring
his weed to a party even though he *knows* that the girls who share the house
hate having drugs around.
Admittedly, it's not like he's bringing cocaine, and there sure is a lot of
alcohol at these parties, but I think it's just rude to ignore your hosts'
rules. Personally, I don't mind people bringing pot to my house when I have a
party but they're smoking outside and I'm not lending them anything to make the
job of sharing it out easier.
And now, creepily, there's a Wyclef Jean song about how marijuana is an OK drug
compared to LSD or cocaine playing.
Christopher Adams
> Dr. Rich Staats wrote:
>
>>> Nothing really bad for me. There's several people that I will no
>>> longer play with because of their gaming styles (one guy will only
>>> play lesbians, two more guys prefer to remake every single male comic
>>> book character into a female and rarely play males, and there are a
>>> couple that refuse to roleplay in any shape of form - exp and gold are
>>> the only thing that matter). Luckily I don't live near most of these,
>>> so it's not an issue.
>> Some folks do seem to like a strong dose of social commentary with
>> their role-playing, and it can quickly become a "less than fun"
>> experience for all concerned. Folks get upset when their "sacred
>> cows" get gored.
>
> Social commentary can be fun, and I've been known to create a character
> that's different from everyone else just to have fun. Not in these
> cases though. The player of lesbians did it because it gave extra disad
> points when playing Hero or Fudge - no other reason.
Heh. I once played a homosexual character in a short-lived Spycraft game as a
form of quiet protest against another player who claimed that her female PC, who
had high Charisma and some kind of "sexbomb" social trait, was too good-looking
for any man (including male PCs) to resist. So I said "Yeah, except Jake. He's
queer."
Hong Ooi
>
>We still talk about that. I haven't used chasme in a game since. :)
... OTOH, you've given me a great idea for use in the next dungeon.
--
Hong Ooi | "Well, that about WANGER up the
ho...@zipworld.com.au | WANGER of your WANGER, Hong.
http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/ | WANGER."
Sydney, Australia | -- MSB
Firelock
> There is a point where the emotional comfort of the players overrides
> concerns for suspension of disbelief. That point comes just before rape.
It's funny how you can stumble on points like that. I was running
a Shadowrun game, and I incorporated a bit from one of William
Gibson's cyberpunk novels - a corp used a device on prisoners that
induced a brain disorder, the prisoner couldn't turn short-term
memories into long-term ones. This was great for foiling escape
plans, since as far as the prisoner could tell they'd always been
incarcerated for about twenty minutes after they got there - they'd
never remember having learned anything about the prison, or meeting
other prisoners, or any preparations for escape they'd figured out.
One of the players got upset - real upset, close to "I'm leaving
and never coming back" style upset. It turned out their beloved
grandmother had lived in their house for the last decade of her
life, had developed just such a brain disorder, and the experience
was the most painful one in this player's life.
James Stein
"Firelock" <firel...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d98390c0.04082...@posting.google.com...
Hey, some things you can't help. You never know when a player is going to
have an issue with intestinal disorders, either. Everyone fucks up, it
happens. However... well, rape is one of those things that you've got /a
very good chance/ of pissing someone off with. It's not the sort of thing
that many people can stay completely unemotional about, and it's not the
sort of thing where you can easily find an entire player group unaffected by
it.
Hell, I know in a game I used to play in, my friend Josh and I turned around
and killed another PC because he was a rapist. Yes, it was blurring. Yes, it
was against the rules. Yes, he fit in IC. He'd also been warned that Josh
and I both had our issues concerning it, and if he ran with the PC, he'd be
writing up another character sheet before the session was out.
Jay Knioum
> This reminded me of a player in high school that was in a Villians &
> Vigilantes game I was running. One day (while making a snack run) he told
> us to watch him "jump out and stop that oncoming car" (traveling at least 30
> mph) just like his character. He was physically restrained, and that was it
> for gaming!
Gad, the memories! Once I had to chase after a pissed-off player who
ran out into the street and started throwing his dice everywhere while
screaming about how much he "hates this fucking game." Ten minutes
later, he was back at the table like nothing happened.
Dr. Rich Staats
> > the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
>
> campaign.
Wow!
Was this an accident, something self-inflicted, or something externally induced?
In service,
Rich
Dr. Rich Staats
> Gaming back in high school - I was DM, one of the
> players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
> full draw because his ranger's signature item was
> stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
> and we decided that a short break from the campaign
> was a good idea.
>
Indeed! How long of a break did you take? Did this gamer ever come back?
Dr. Rich Staats
> In my experience, the worst meta-gaming situations come from one of two
> categories:
>
> 1. Players who are "involved" (i.e. spouses), and one of them believes that
> means their characters should be as well.
I've been mostly lucky in avoiding this one. I did play in a group
where the GM obviously shared things with his spouse about difficult
encounters, traps, etc.
> 2. People who have a hard time separating reality from fantasy.
I wrote a story about this awhile back called "the Line."
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/9329/line.htm
In service,
Rich
Dr. Rich Staats
>
> I refuse to play with anyone from this group these days. When I
> did allow two of them back into my home to roleplay, I found out that
> they had drugs and other paraphernalia on them. I don't know how
> others feel about drugs, but I have a job that requires a squeaky
> clean criminal record. They put my job and the well-being of my wife
> and children in jeopardy by bringing drugs into my home. It stills
> pisses me off now.
>
That would greatly anger me too.
All things considered, I have been very lucky in this area. My
players know what my job requirements are, and they have gone as far
as to "warn me away" from certain groups and gatherings based on what
might be going on.
In service,
Rich
Dr. Rich Staats
>
> Maybe not my worst meta-gaming experience but the oddest was this one guy
> who, to cut a long story short, basically claimed that he was in fact (in
> reality) Cain (Kaine?) from the Vampire games. Its alway a suprise to see
> the dude, after that I figured it was only a matter of time before he'd be
> institutionalised.
Wow! How did his belief that he was an RPG character affect his in-game play?
In service,
Rich
JB
> Hell, I know in a game I used to play in, my friend Josh and I turned
around
> and killed another PC because he was a rapist. Yes, it was blurring.
Yes, it
> was against the rules. Yes, he fit in IC. He'd also been warned that
Josh
> and I both had our issues concerning it, and if he ran with the PC, he'd
be
> writing up another character sheet before the session was out.
Sounds like a *lot* of people in this thread and who are subjects of this
thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
Malachias Invictus
> We started a brand new campaign in a homebrew world that I had
> created. I had four players playing, and half of the group was
> players from another gaming group that I had never played with before
> (kinda funny how new people have been wrecking balls in the games that
> I've played in). Immediately, they were pissing and moaning about my
> character generation rules. They didn't like characters with scores
> below 10. They didn't like characters unless they had at least a
> minimum of a 16 in at least one score.
They likely should have bailed for another game. I am not particularly
interested in playing "Joe Average" either.
> The game derailed slightly when they purposely set out to be at
> odds with what I had planned for the evening's activities.
You mean, they actually dared to deviate from the plot you had created?
Shame!
> My faults are often that I let negotiations go in favor of the
> PCs. I'm easy to run over. Since the time of this particular game,
> I've had to become a bit tougher. When the negotiations get to a
> point where the NPC will not budge, I use my "out of game" voice to
> tell the player that the NPC will not go any lower or higher.
Is there some reason the NPC cannot say this?
> Getting back to the session in question, the evening's
> entertainment became centered around one character bullying all of the
> NPCs in the most obnoxious manner. He mistook his "neutral evil"
> alignment for "neutral stupid" when he bullied the wealthiest merchant
> in town (with physical threats to the merchant's life), and extorted a
> higher sum for the caravan guard duty that he'd just performed.
> I called it quits on the game right there.
It does not sound like you are a very effective GM. Simply play out the
logical consequences.
> I made up my own mind that the whole party was wiped out by 100
> assassins with poisoned crossbows surrounding the inn that the characters
> were staying in that night.
Serves them right for deviating from the plot, the bastards. They did not
even deserve to play it out.
--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.
from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
Malachias Invictus
> I don't care about the presence or absence of rape in my games one way or
the
> other, but....[I] definitely wouldn't use it as a "let's fuck this player"
> tool.
I am sure your players are quite relieved to know this. As a player, I
would prefer that I not be in danger of being forcibly penetrated during a
session.
Dan Childers
Put another way:
Some of us play games for *fun*. Rape is considered
an unfun topic by many people.
Jay Knioum
>
> There is a point where the emotional comfort of the players overrides
> concerns for suspension of disbelief. That point comes just before rape. I
> don't care about the presence or absence of rape in my games one way or the
> other, but given how many people have been emotionally involved with it -
> either themselves or someone they know - I definitely wouldn't bring it up
> in the game casually, certainly wouldn't push it if a player expressed
> issues with it, and definitely wouldn't use it as a "let's fuck this player"
> tool.
>
> *Players* are more important than the *game* in this instance.
Absolutely. It's kind of like having a "rating system" for your
games. If the group is comfortable on a PG-13 level, then you can make
with the blood and guts, but leave out the queasy bits that make the
game controversial instead of fun for that group. Themes like rape,
abortion, violence towards infants or young children (aside from
fairy-tale images of witches and trolls who put kids in a stewpot) are
things a GM should think carefully about before simply tossing them
into the game on the excuse that it's realistic.
Here's an example of how players can carry things away from a game. In
a recent D&D campaign I did, the PCs encountered a village that had
been decimated by a gnoll raiding party. I played up the descriptions
of stench, bodies covered in flies, ashes from burned crops, etc. The
only survivor in the village was a dog, starving to the point that it
was almost a skeleton, but too loyal to leave a farmhouse even though
his masters lay dead in the fields. I think we spent about two or
three minutes on the dog encounter. No big deal.
Next day, my girlfriend (one of the players) told me that she dreamed
about that dog for half the night. Now, if I had used something truly
disturbing, like infant skeletons in the firepit or the results of
gnollish ardor among the dead, I imagine she wouldn't have slept at
all (or I might have slept on the couch).
Anyway, there are *plenty* of other reasons for a typical PC to avoid
prison or solitary strolls down dark alleys without dumping a rape
scene on the table.
Jay Knioum
> Heh. I once played a homosexual character in a short-lived Spycraft game as a
> form of quiet protest against another player who claimed that her female PC, who
> had high Charisma and some kind of "sexbomb" social trait, was too good-looking
> for any man (including male PCs) to resist. So I said "Yeah, except Jake. He's
> queer."
Queer Eye for the Straight Spy? "The Walther is SO 1970s,
girlfriend."
It might have been fun to make Jake a transvestite, as well, and have
him "out-sexbomb" the female PC. :)
Jay Knioum
> In a University gaming society I used to belong to, there was a couple
> (that is, a mating pair of gamers of opposite genders). If they were
> in a game together, he had to do everything in his power to help her
> succeed, or else she would say 'Hmmf! You're not sleping at my place
> tonight!' and act pissed off with him for the rest of the evening. So
> naturally, wanting to get his oats, he would always do everything
> possible to help her win. I thought it was outrageous behaviour and
> the society should have stopped them from playing in the same games
> unless she agreed to change her ways.
This sort of thing can get ugly. In the college gaming club I was in,
there was a married couple that became embroiled in a bitter divorce
that had a large portion of the club choosing sides. Thankfully, this
blew up over a summer, so I got to miss out on the fun.
Later on, a female member was the victim of stalking by another
member. That one actually spilled into my group, as I had to eject the
stalker from the game so the female player (an actual friend of mine,
as opposed to just another gamer) would stay. I had additional reasons
for getting rid of the guy, he was very contentious and immature, but
the tension between these two made things really dicey for a while.
The guy was easily twice my size and ten years behind on emotional
intelligence, so the "get lost" conversation was a bit tense, as well.
James Stein
"JB" <jb...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:412dfb14$0$29905$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
And it sounds like there's a few people who forget that players are people,
and concern for players outweighs concern for The Game. The Game is supposed
to be fun; if you tread in territory that bothers a player, it /stops/ being
fun. That's bad GMing, above and beyond all else.
SMT
"Dr. Rich Staats" <sta...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com...
No he was a hapless chronic power gamer, I'd expect something much more
creative and subtle from biblical figure.
Peter Mork
> there was a married couple that became embroiled in a bitter divorce
> that had a large portion of the club choosing sides. Thankfully, this
> blew up over a summer, so I got to miss out on the fun.
>
> Jay Knioum
> The Mad Afro
Our college games club was nearly torn asunder when one member raped
another. There were three factions: those on his side, those on her side,
and some of us in the middle hated by both for not taking sides. Last I
heard, though, the club is still active.
Peter
SMT
Please do clarify if it was a PC on PC rape or a player on player rape
because that would be 2 entirely different issues/situations to comprehend
init.
Shalon Wood
> SMT wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, I always made a point of leaving my drugs in a locker at the train
>> station on the way to my DMs house, he never even asked this of me, but
>> it's common curtosey that you not take drugs into the house of someone
>> who doesn't do drugs.
>
> Heh. One of the best roleplayers I know - so this isn't an actual "problem
> player" story, or anything - is a social pot smoker. The only problem with that
> is that he often doesn't respect other people's objections to it - he'll bring
> his weed to a party even though he *knows* that the girls who share the house
> hate having drugs around.
>
> Admittedly, it's not like he's bringing cocaine, and there sure is a lot of
> alcohol at these parties, but I think it's just rude to ignore your hosts'
> rules. Personally, I don't mind people bringing pot to my house when I have a
> party but they're smoking outside and I'm not lending them anything to make the
> job of sharing it out easier.
I, personally, have no objection to drugs. I think they should be
legalized and taxed (cf the repeal of Prohibition).
And if one of my friends insisted on bringing pot into my house
after I told them to stop, they wouldn't be invited anymore -- and
they'd be warned that if they showed up to a party or something
uninvited, I'd call the cops. And let the cops know about their
tendency to carry pot.
I won't have illegal drugs in my house. It's simply too dangerous; I
have two children, and in our current political climate, I won't take
the risk.
And anyone who doesn't respect that isn't a friend.
Shalon Wood
--
Check out Strange Love -- an ezine of science fiction, fantasy, and
paranormal erotica. Only $2 for more than 20,000 words of fiction!
Charlton Wilbur
SMT> Maybe not my worst meta-gaming experience but the oddest was
SMT> this one guy who, to cut a long story short, basically
SMT> claimed that he was in fact (in reality) Cain (Kaine?) from
SMT> the Vampire games. Its alway a suprise to see the dude, after
SMT> that I figured it was only a matter of time before he'd be
SMT> institutionalised.
I was in a game with another player who introduced himself (out of
game) as his Vampire LARP character. It went downhill from there; his
character (in a modern-day game) turned out to be the worst sort of
male wish-fulfillment fantasy slut. He lasted about three sessions
before we collectively decided to rescind the invitation to play; the
GM was ready to do it after the first session.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Malachias Invictus
"Jay Knioum" <mad...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6f8dc278.04082...@posting.google.com...
> Later on, a female member was the victim of stalking by another
> member. That one actually spilled into my group, as I had to eject the
> stalker from the game so the female player (an actual friend of mine,
> as opposed to just another gamer) would stay. I had additional reasons
> for getting rid of the guy, he was very contentious and immature, but
> the tension between these two made things really dicey for a while.
> The guy was easily twice my size and ten years behind on emotional
> intelligence, so the "get lost" conversation was a bit tense, as well.
Did you kick him in the nuts?
Peter Meilinger
>"Leon Workman" <leonwork...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ad51673f.04082...@posting.google.com...
>> We started a brand new campaign in a homebrew world that I had
>> created. I had four players playing, and half of the group was
>> players from another gaming group that I had never played with before
>> (kinda funny how new people have been wrecking balls in the games that
>> I've played in). Immediately, they were pissing and moaning about my
>> character generation rules. They didn't like characters with scores
>> below 10. They didn't like characters unless they had at least a
>> minimum of a 16 in at least one score.
>They likely should have bailed for another game. I am not particularly
>interested in playing "Joe Average" either.
I don't mind either way, but some players definitely like a bit
of power, and some like to play Joe Average. I think discussion
before the game is the way to go. If the GM explains everything
to the players and they agree to play, they shouldn't complain
if the character creation system doesn't do exactly what they
want it to. If the GM springs everything on the players without
discussing it, he shouldn't complain if the players don't like
it and don't want to do things that way.
Of course, I'd say most cases probably fall somewhere in the
middle. A little bit of discussion before the game starts,
but not enough to handle all the possible complaints on both
sides of the screen.
>> The game derailed slightly when they purposely set out to be at
>> odds with what I had planned for the evening's activities.
>You mean, they actually dared to deviate from the plot you had created?
>Shame!
Of course, the flip side of this is the type of player who deliberately
tries to ruin the game by running headlong away from what is obviously
meant to be the storyline of the session. Just because a GM has a plot
in mind doesn't make them a railroader.
>> My faults are often that I let negotiations go in favor of the
>> PCs. I'm easy to run over. Since the time of this particular game,
>> I've had to become a bit tougher. When the negotiations get to a
>> point where the NPC will not budge, I use my "out of game" voice to
>> tell the player that the NPC will not go any lower or higher.
>Is there some reason the NPC cannot say this?
I've known a number of players who'd refuse to believe it if
the NPC said this. "He's bluffing, we can dicker him down some
more." Sometimes telling the players in the voice of the GM
is the only way to get the point across.
Pete
Malachias Invictus
> >> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> >> the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
> >
> > players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
> > full draw because his ranger's signature item was
> > stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
> > and we decided that a short break from the campaign
> > was a good idea.
> >
>
> Vigilantes game I was running. One day (while making a snack run) he told
> us to watch him "jump out and stop that oncoming car" (traveling at least
30
> mph) just like his character. He was physically restrained, and that was
it
> for gaming!
That guy is lucky he was not in my group.
Malachias Invictus
Brian Van Hoose!
Malachias Invictus
news:<b8b82bf5.04082...@posting.google.com>...
> > Thought this might be an interesting topic, ...
> >
> > What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions "in
> > the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
>
> Gaming back in high school - I was DM, one of the
> players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
> full draw because his ranger's signature item was
> stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
> and we decided that a short break from the campaign
> was a good idea.
A short break of his index and middle finger of the drawing hand sounds like
a good idea as well.
No 33 Secretary
news:2p6l34F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> "Jay Knioum" <mad...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:6f8dc278.04082...@posting.google.com...
>
>> Later on, a female member was the victim of stalking by another
>> member. That one actually spilled into my group, as I had to eject the
>> stalker from the game so the female player (an actual friend of mine,
>> as opposed to just another gamer) would stay. I had additional reasons
>> for getting rid of the guy, he was very contentious and immature, but
>> the tension between these two made things really dicey for a while.
>> The guy was easily twice my size and ten years behind on emotional
>> intelligence, so the "get lost" conversation was a bit tense, as well.
>
> Did you kick him in the nuts?
>
In a conversation like that in our group, size wouldn't matter nearly as
much as caliber.
But then, we've never, not once, needed to have a conversation like that.
I suspect those two facts are not unrelated.
This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God, people are
such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort of experience.
--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
No 33 Secretary
>
> "Peter Mork" <pm...@cs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:I30Mw...@beaver.cs.washington.edu...
>> >> What was the worst meta-gaming experience you had where actions
>> >> "in the game" negatively affected things "outside the game"?
>> >
>> > Gaming back in high school - I was DM, one of the
>> > players pointed a broadhead hunting arrow at me at
>> > full draw because his ranger's signature item was
>> > stolen. The other players and I talked him down,
>> > and we decided that a short break from the campaign
>> > was a good idea.
>> >
>>
>> This reminded me of a player in high school that was in a Villians &
>> Vigilantes game I was running. One day (while making a snack run) he
>> told us to watch him "jump out and stop that oncoming car" (traveling
>> at least
> 30
>> mph) just like his character. He was physically restrained, and that
>> was
> it
>> for gaming!
>
> That guy is lucky he was not in my group.
>
Heh. Yeah. I know people who would have pushed him.
No 33 Secretary
news:6f8dc278.04082...@posting.google.com:
> "Peter Mork" <pm...@cs.washington.edu> wrote in message
> news:<I30Mw...@beaver.cs.washington.edu>...
>
>> This reminded me of a player in high school that was in a Villians &
>> Vigilantes game I was running. One day (while making a snack run) he
>> told us to watch him "jump out and stop that oncoming car" (traveling
>> at least 30 mph) just like his character. He was physically
>> restrained, and that was it for gaming!
>
> Gad, the memories! Once I had to chase after a pissed-off player who
> ran out into the street and started throwing his dice everywhere while
> screaming about how much he "hates this fucking game." Ten minutes
> later, he was back at the table like nothing happened.
>
I know a guy who kept rolling crappy rolls all night in a miniatures game.
Finally took the worst pair of dice, and executed them with a hammer. But,
before he did, he lined up all the other dice in a row to watch.
Oddly enough, his luck with dice rolling improved rather dramatically at
that point.
Malachias Invictus
"Hong Ooi" <ho...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:4rjri09t532dg4f1g...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Aug 2004 07:16:51 -0700, mad...@sbcglobal.net (Jay Knioum) wrote:
>
> >
> >We still talk about that. I haven't used chasme in a game since. :)
>
> ... OTOH, you've given me a great idea for use in the next dungeon.
Yeah - that is a nifty idea.
Malachias Invictus
Slavers game. I told him the parameters (this game has a lot of
against-the-odds guerilla warfare, and is a bit gritty, but is mostly
Good-oriented, and has a tight party). He proceeded to make a Bard
character, which I reviewed briefly. I introduced his character by having
him running across the PCs, being chased by Kytons (part of a larger
storyline). He ran into their camp, seeking refuge, and then the Kytons
started attacking everyone. Once this happened, his character immediately
fled combat, yelling for the other characters to save him. He had the only
weapon that could penetrate their DR. When the (very difficult) combat was
nearly over, his character came running back to try to get the killing shots
in. Afterwards, his character began to arrogantly demand thanks from the
party for saving their asses. Everyone was just staring at the player in
disbelief. Eventually, he became so annoying (even threatening members of
the party and making racist comments about the Half-Orc) that the volatile
Half-Orc Barbarian jumped on him and killed him. Everyone was cool about
it, the players told each other "no hard feelings," etc. I talked with the
new player, told him that we all roleplay our characters faithfully, and
asked if he could make another character for the next session that would fit
in better. He said that he understood our game dynamic a bit better, and
would have a great character for the group next time. The next week rolled
around, and this guy showed up again. He gave me his character sheet, and
started with his description. The character was a Fighter/Rogue/Assassin,
equipped for killing PCs rather than adventuring, with a hatred of
Half-Orcs. I told him that I did not allow Evil characters in this game,
and gave him time to adjust some things. He changed the Assassin levels to
Rogue, and made the character Chaotic Neutral. Immediately upon being
introduced to the party, he began trying to pick a fight with the Half-Orc,
making fun of his race, etc. The Half-Orc's player just looked at me, and I
gave him "the nod." He then attacked the "assassin" and killed him (before
the "assassin" could even act once, too, due to 2 Great Axe crits). The
guy, once again, said "good game, no hard feelings," and left. I never
called him back for another one, but we still joke about it to this day.
David K. Lewis
>
> Please do clarify if it was a PC on PC rape or a player on player rape
> because that would be 2 entirely different issues/situations to comprehend
> init.
I think he was clear in that it was the later. The comments
gaming club and one member raped another are the key statments.
Dave.
Malachias Invictus
"No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95516CA3DCE62ta...@216.168.3.50...
> This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God, people are
> such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort of experience.
Heh.
Malachias Invictus
I would not have gone that far, but I think "You don't have the *balls*!"
would have slipped out.
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns95516CA3DCE62ta...@216.168.3.50...
>
>> This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God,
>> people are such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort of
>> experience.
>
> Heh.
>
Indeed. It explains why people are such idiots on Usenet. Because they
*are* idiots.
No 33 Secretary
I'd have offered to time it *just* right, to make certain the driver
couldn't possibly react in time.
On the other hand, none of my gaming buddies are that stupid to begin with.
Most of them have as much tolerance of idiocy as I do. That's why we hang
out together.
No 33 Secretary
On everything. And had the social skills of a chihuahua on crack. We put up
with him because nobody was willing to touch him long enough to throw him
out, and that was the only way to get rid of him.
I was in the FLGS, across the street from the college, one day, with
another one of the group. We were talking about this guy, but hadn't
mentioned his name. Someone neither of us had ever seen before walked up,
and asked us "Are you talking about a guy named xxxxxxx?" Floored us both.
Haven't seen him in years. Glad about it, too. His drooling on the floors
nearly got us thrown out more than once.
Peter Mork
>> another. There were three factions: those on his side, those on her
>> side, and some of us in the middle hated by both for not taking sides.
>> Last I heard, though, the club is still active.
>>
>> Peter
>
> Please do clarify if it was a PC on PC rape or a player on player rape
> because that would be 2 entirely different issues/situations to comprehend
> init.
>
It was, unfortunately, the latter. Charges were never pressed, which was
part of the problem. One group figured that in the absence of charges it
didn't happen, another believed the victim, and a few of us agreed that it
happened, but that in the absence of formal charges it was not our place to
kick him out of the club.
Peter
Dan Childers
> Mike1 wrote:
> > In my experience, the worst meta-gaming situations arise from players
> > who are, bluntly, stupid assholes whose assholiness was not known until
> > gaming was underway.
>
> What the fuck has that got to do with metagame pollution?
>
Whence the violent reaction?
Many times, a player who is a jerk will play nothing
but characters who are jerks, as a function of their
jerkosity. Even if the character jerkishness is
out of character, inappropriate or impossible in
the setting, etc.
Malachias Invictus
> No he was a hapless chronic power gamer, I'd expect something much more
> creative and subtle from biblical figure.
You obviously read a different bible than I did.
Malachias Invictus
> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:2p6ob0F...@uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> > "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns95516CA3DCE62ta...@216.168.3.50...
> >
> >> This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God,
> >> people are such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort of
> >> experience.
> >
> > Heh.
> >
> Indeed. It explains why people are such idiots on Usenet. Because they
> *are* idiots.
Everyone needs a hobby...
Firelock
> Sounds like a *lot* of people in this thread and who are subjects of this
> thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
> that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
Perhaps including the person who brings their "I need to explore
my rape fantasies" baggage along?
Walt Smith
Firelock on DALNet
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns955175B67B167ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:2p6ob0F...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> >
>> > "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns95516CA3DCE62ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> >
>> >> This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God,
>> >> people are such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort of
>> >> experience.
>> >
>> > Heh.
>> >
>> Indeed. It explains why people are such idiots on Usenet. Because they
>> *are* idiots.
>
> Everyone needs a hobby...
>
Yeah, but it's not normally recommended to have a hobby that involves self
mutilation.
Mike Monaco
> thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
> that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
>
>
Well, said character rape happened in a campaign where all the players
(and GM) were high-school age boys. I agree it is not appropriate to
toss rape around lightly in a game, and am not terribly proud of finding
it so funny back then -- especially as I've known people who have been
raped. Rape, torture, and other acts of sadism really shouldn't be
things players do or take lightly. Roleplaying such acts is downright
perverse. In the context of the game I mentioned, I think it was simply
mentioned that "Oh, and before they put you in the cell they bugger you"
or something like that.
I don't think it is quite right to dismiss such concerns as mere
"emotional, irrational baggage," and would instead recommend voicing
concerns about unconfortable situations _immediately_ rather than
stewing on it until you can't take it... I am assuming that the player
in the "forgetful prisoners" setting sat through at least part of the
session before exploding.
Peter Mork
>> creative and subtle from biblical figure.
>
> You obviously read a different bible than I did.
>
> --
Umm... Cain is a character in Genesis. He kills Abel. Fearing the answer,
what bible did you read?
Peter
James Stein
He may have been referring to the "creative and subtle" part, as ... pretty
much no one in the bible is.
Malachias Invictus
To each his own, I say. Let Darwin sort them out.
Malachias Invictus
> >> creative and subtle from biblical figure.
> >
> > You obviously read a different bible than I did.
> Umm... Cain is a character in Genesis.
Duh.
> He kills Abel.
Obvious propaganda against farmers perpetuated by shepherds.
> Fearing the answer, what bible did you read?
In what way was Cain creative and/or subtle?
No 33 Secretary
>
> "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns955185602F29Dta...@216.168.3.50...
>> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:2p6senF...@uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> >
>> > "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns955175B67B167ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> >> "Malachias Invictus" <capt_ma...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> >> news:2p6ob0F...@uni-berlin.de:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > "No 33 Secretary" <taustin...@hyperbooks.com> wrote in
>> >> > message
>> >> > news:Xns95516CA3DCE62ta...@216.168.3.50...
>> >> >
>> >> >> This thread has been a real experience to read. Mostly, a "God,
>> >> >> people are such *losers*, putting up with shit like that" sort
>> >> >> of experience.
>> >> >
>> >> > Heh.
>> >> >
>> >> Indeed. It explains why people are such idiots on Usenet. Because
>> >> they *are* idiots.
>> >
>> > Everyone needs a hobby...
>> >
>> Yeah, but it's not normally recommended to have a hobby that involves
>> self mutilation.
>
> To each his own, I say. Let Darwin sort them out.
>
Plus, there's the amusement value of watching (or helping) them self
destruct.
Dr. Rich Staats
> One of the players got upset - real upset, close to "I'm leaving
> and never coming back" style upset. It turned out their beloved
> grandmother had lived in their house for the last decade of her
> life, had developed just such a brain disorder, and the experience
> was the most painful one in this player's life.
>
Walt, I can relate. I've had similar experiences where something in
the game triggered something real life. It is a very uncomfortable,
humiliating experience as a GM. I don't know how to totally avoid
those kinds of situations though. :-\
In service,
Rich
Dr. Rich Staats
> thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
> that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
Hey JB, well, yes and no. We're all flawed human beings (except for
you and me of course ;-) ), and folks play RPGs for a variety of
reasons. I've known folks that were going through a hard time in life
that used RPGs as a catharsis for some of their emotional disraught.
That can be OK too.
I wrote the story, "the Line," as a way of processing the death of a
young, young friend of mine who left a family behind.
One of the trends I see in this thread is that troubles arise when
people are sitting around the gaming table for completely different
reasons. It is that whole dang management of expectations thing.
Dr. Rich Staats
>
> Gad, the memories! Once I had to chase after a pissed-off player who
> ran out into the street and started throwing his dice everywhere while
> screaming about how much he "hates this fucking game." Ten minutes
> later, he was back at the table like nothing happened.
I have seen this kind of thing happen with the younger crowd. How old
was the player when this happened?
Dr. Rich Staats
> On 25 Aug 2004 07:16:51 -0700, mad...@sbcglobal.net (Jay Knioum) wrote:
>
> >
> >We still talk about that. I haven't used chasme in a game since. :)
>
> ... OTOH, you've given me a great idea for use in the next dungeon.
*Laughs*
Hopefully your players are not reading the thread! ;-)
Rich
anxious triffid
>
> "Peter Mork" <pm...@cs.washington.edu> wrote in message
>
>> Fearing the answer, what bible did you read?
>
> In what way was Cain creative and/or subtle?
>
Inventing murder (and indeed fratricide) should get him a tick in the
column labelled 'creative'.
Peter Mork
>
> --
It was not apparent to me that that was the line to which you were
objecting. A danger with sarcasm is that it can be more difficult to elicit
the intended meaning.
Peter
JB
> "JB" <jb...@talk21.com> wrote in message
> news:412dfb14$0$29905$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
>
>>"James Stein" <NoSpamFo...@si.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:MElXc.1707$as.9...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>>
>>
>>>Hell, I know in a game I used to play in, my friend Josh and I turned
>>
>>around
>>
>>>and killed another PC because he was a rapist. Yes, it was blurring.
>>
>>Yes, it
>>
>>>was against the rules. Yes, he fit in IC. He'd also been warned that
>>
>>Josh
>>
>>>and I both had our issues concerning it, and if he ran with the PC, he'd
>>
>>be
>>
>>>writing up another character sheet before the session was out.
>>
>>Sounds like a *lot* of people in this thread and who are subjects of this
>>thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
>>that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
>
>
> And it sounds like there's a few people who forget that players are people,
> and concern for players outweighs concern for The Game. The Game is supposed
> to be fun; if you tread in territory that bothers a player, it /stops/ being
> fun. That's bad GMing, above and beyond all else.
It isn't the DM's job to cater to the whimsies of a player. If adult
topics cannot be handled in an adult way by both parties then one
shouldn't be there.
Having a PC kill another PC because the *player* has a moral issue with
the actions of the PC is a monument to emotional immaturity. Heaven help
you if you actually ever play a game based on history or real events.
JB
> "Christopher Adams" <mhacde...@yahoo.invalid> writes:
>
>
>>SMT wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah, I always made a point of leaving my drugs in a locker at the train
>>>station on the way to my DMs house, he never even asked this of me, but
>>>it's common curtosey that you not take drugs into the house of someone
>>>who doesn't do drugs.
>>
>>Heh. One of the best roleplayers I know - so this isn't an actual "problem
>>player" story, or anything - is a social pot smoker. The only problem with that
>>is that he often doesn't respect other people's objections to it - he'll bring
>>his weed to a party even though he *knows* that the girls who share the house
>>hate having drugs around.
>>
>>Admittedly, it's not like he's bringing cocaine, and there sure is a lot of
>>alcohol at these parties, but I think it's just rude to ignore your hosts'
>>rules. Personally, I don't mind people bringing pot to my house when I have a
>>party but they're smoking outside and I'm not lending them anything to make the
>>job of sharing it out easier.
>
>
> I, personally, have no objection to drugs. I think they should be
> legalized and taxed (cf the repeal of Prohibition).
>
> And if one of my friends insisted on bringing pot into my house
> after I told them to stop, they wouldn't be invited anymore
Quite right. As a pot smoker I'd agree that it is imperative that you
respect the rights of your host no matter what you think of the law.
JB
Quite. That is not the case here from the testimony we've heard so far
though.
JB
> "JB" <jb...@talk21.com> wrote in message news:<412dfb14$0$29905$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...
>
>>Sounds like a *lot* of people in this thread and who are subjects of this
>>thread need to remember that this is a make believe fantasy situation and
>>that they should leave their emotional, irrational baggage at the door.
>
>
> Hey JB, well, yes and no. We're all flawed human beings (except for
> you and me of course ;-) )
Naturally.
, and folks play RPGs for a variety of
> reasons. I've known folks that were going through a hard time in life
> that used RPGs as a catharsis for some of their emotional disraught.
> That can be OK too.
That's fine. What worries me is that so many of these stories are
proving the fundamentalist objectors correct. We've all seen that stupid
comic about the bird who commits suicide because her character dies.
Until now I didn't believe it had any basis in reality.
James Stein
"JB" <JB...@talk21.com> wrote in message
news:cglqb7$dk6$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Part of being adult is understanding perspectives other than one's own. It's
not difficult to understand that some topics *are* off-limits if the
player's express trepidation at bringing them into the game, and that's
their right. If you have a rape victim playing, and she (or he) says "I
don't want to cover rape IC; it makes me uncomfortable," then if the DM says
"Be an adult, this is just a game", the DM is not being mature, the DM is
being an insensitive prick.
> Having a PC kill another PC because the *player* has a moral issue with
> the actions of the PC is a monument to emotional immaturity. Heaven help
> you if you actually ever play a game based on history or real events.
When reasonable OOC discussion fails to garner results (and two of the four
players saying, "We do not want this guy running around doing graphic rape
scenes" is not unreasonable), then what options remain become reasonable by
virtue of the fact that no other options exist.