Player claims I show favortitism

[Boci]

In one of my online games a player appears to have rage quit. First the events of the session prior, (although I’m pretty sure this had little to do with it):

PCs are trying to track down these members of a star cult, slowly slaughtering their way up the hierarchy. Their current enemy is a very charismatic warrior with a limited ability of time manipulation called Bradin. This is the second time they fought him, and the first time my girlfriend’s character was in awe at Bradin’s speech and arguments, so she decided to switch sides at the next opportunity. I don’t think this was a problem, the party’s swift hunter even telling her out of character that he suspected her of such and was swapping her weapon for a replica and that he would return her real sword to her if his fears turned out to be ungrounded. She was fine with this and didn’t metagame on the knowledge. As soon as the fight began she switched sides, so two characters, the scout and the shugenja, concentrated on Bradin whilst the thug fighter dealt with my girlfriend’s character. Bradin saw it wasn’t going to be an easy victory and thus thought just long enough to get them trapped under the chandelier, by which time the thug was pretty badly beaten due to a series of unfortunate rolls. Bradin and his new ally retreated, making a detour to steal a power gem, before fleeing the scene.
Not wanting to dwell too much on this, I hurried the party members to (after a brief rest) the townhouse where three of Bradin monstrous ogre bodyguards where still wreaking havoc. Halfway through the fight my girlfriend’s new character joined and the party managed to kill the ogres, thus gaining some face after their defeat.

In an OOC break following this, the thug character, after learning some details of the new character (a binder/paladin/KotSS) complained that I always approved my girlfriend’s characters without any problems and showed her favortitism. I pointed out that she had learnt D&D from me and thus all her character’s would have been based off ones I showed her until she developed her own style but he refused to listen and I haven’t heard of him since. It’s been a day. What should I do?

[Zaq]

It's really, really hard to prove that you're not favoring a given player, and that's doubly true when the player in question is your significant other.

Have you ever not approved one of this fellow's characters or done anything similar which might make him skeptical? Saying you "always approve her characters without any problems" seems like a weird charge to level against you unless that's not the case for the whole party. Is there any background on that front which could give us any insights into this player's comments?

Overall, I think you're fighting a losing battle, which is unfortunate. As I said, it's nearly impossible to disprove favoritism, though if you can get specifics out of him, that'll at least give you something concrete to refute. Honestly, though, I don't think you're likely to convince him.

[Boci]

Have you ever not approved one of this fellow's characters or done anything similar which might make him skeptical? Saying you "always approve her characters without any problems" seems like a weird charge to level against you unless that's not the case for the whole party. Is there any background on that front which could give us any insights into this player's comments?

Shugenja wanted to elemental savant but I asked him not to, they agreed, swift hunter may have had some typoes in their initial character sheet and some patches in their background, maybe aligment, thug's character wanted to use some variant to give himself 4 exotic weapon proficiencies which I ruled against instead allowing him to spend a feat to gain proficiency with two, and their was previously an additional player who wanted to play a druid/master of many forms but I persuaded them to play something else and they settled on a shifter barbarian.

That's all I can think of.

[Godskook]

A case of "my optimization isn't allowed but your GF's is". Fun stuff. Thing is, I kinda understand his point in that:

1.It seems from your explanations that you were turning down RAW things.

2.He's playing a fighter, which is a tier 4-5 build, at best guess, while she's playing a binder, which is probably tier 3, and optimized by the GM.

3.Multiple desired proficiencies unbalance a game in the same way having a 5th car tire gives you extra traction.

4.You turned down a casting prestige class that's a +0 on Zeal's tier list *AND* loses two caster levels, so it looks gawdawful to a biased objector.

5.You talked a PC out of a Druid/MoMF, which is a tier 1 with a -1 prestige class into playing a barbarian, which is essentially a two-tier downgrade.

6.With the exception of the Shugenja, your GF is the second most powerful character, at present, assuming equal optimization.

All that said, none of this sounds like you're intentionally favoring your GF, and its quite possible that large amounts of relevant info hasn't been explained(such as why the Druid wound up playing a barbarian). So, in the end, I'm not really accusing you of anything myself, just merely playing devil's advocate to your friend.

[Coidzor]

Well, your girlfriend did betray the party without a moment's hesitation which is generally considered a sign of disrespect to the other players and her betrayal exacerbated a situation where the party got screwed. So that definitely sounds like it might've caused any other tensions to come to mind and for connections to be made.

And you should never assume that just because one player is okay with something that everyone else is. Indeed, one player coming out in support of something that breaks decorum usually just makes it so that those who object are more buffaloed into not saying anything in hopes that it won't be as bad as it could be.

[Boci]

A case of "my optimization isn't allowed but your GF's is". Fun stuff. Thing is, I kinda understand his point in that:

1.It seems from your explanations that you were turning down RAW things.

I'm not too sure the exotic fighter variant was applicable with the Thug and I had no way to confirm since I don't have the source material, but yes everything else was RAW.


2.He's playing a fighter, which is a tier 4-5 build, at best guess, while she's playing a binder, which is probably tier 3, and optimized by the GM.

I told him I was more than happy for him to roll a warblade but he didn't want to.


3.Multiple desired proficiencies unbalance a game in the same way having a 5th car tire gives you extra traction.

Its from dragon, which admittedly doesn't help, plus its not something I have access to, and it was apparantly more than just that, some alternative class featurees. Looking back I'm not actually sure why I didn't it.


4.You turned down a casting prestige class that's a +0 on Zeal's tier list *AND* loses two caster levels, so it looks gawdawful to a biased objector.

I turned it down because it sucks so much. I cannot believe Zeal gave that april fools joke a +0.


5.You talked a PC out of a Druid/MoMF, which is a tier 1 with a -1 prestige class into playing a barbarian, which is essentially a two-tier downgrade.

The barbarian was their suggestion, and I gave them some racial substitution levels to replace rage with weretouched master like abilities. The point was they just wanted to play a shapeshifter, and after I showed my hesitance at allow the master of many forms (I wasn't sure what to make of it), they came up with a completly new idea.
It doesn't really matter since they dropped out pretty soon.


6.With the exception of the Shugenja, your GF is the second most powerful character, at present, assuming equal optimization.

The group doesn't seem that interested in optimizing, but yes that seems to be accurate.


Well, your girlfriend did betray the party without a moment's hesitation which is generally considered a sign of disrespect to the other players and her betrayal exacerbated a situation where the party got screwed. So that definitely sounds like it might've caused any other tensions to come to mind and for connections to be made.

Possibly. Certainly the party would have had a good chance at winning if she hadn't betrayed them.


And you should never assume that just because one player is okay with something that everyone else is. Indeed, one player coming out in support of something that breaks decorum usually just makes it so that those who object are more buffaloed into not saying anything in hopes that it won't be as bad as it could be.

Maybe I shouldn't assume, but when the other players would have known about it for a while and don't say anything what else should I do?

[Godskook]

I'm not too sure the exotic fighter variant was applicable with the Thug and I had no way to confirm since I don't have the source material, but yes everything else was RAW.

Its from dragon, which admittedly doesn't help, plus its not something I have access to, and it was apparantly more than just that, some alternative class featurees. Looking back I'm not actually sure why I didn't it.

Dragon magazine is different from full-splat, and I can respect that you did not want to deal with it.


I told him I was more than happy for him to roll a warblade but he didn't want to.

Well chya, he probably was either repulsed or confused by the weebo fighting magics, as most people are the first time they open the book. Especially when they're used to the fighter class providing the 'fighter' archetype.


I turned it down because it sucks so much. I cannot believe Zeal gave that april fools joke a +0.

1.It still gets 9ths
2.It was originally a tier 1 class in a group that has tier 4s in it.

Turning that down is essentially micro-managing another player's fun.


The barbarian was their suggestion, and I gave them some racial substitution levels to replace rage with weretouched master like abilities. The point was they just wanted to play a shapeshifter, and after I showed my hesitance at allow the master of many forms (I wasn't sure what to make of it), they came up with a completly new idea.
It doesn't really matter since they dropped out pretty soon.

Since it is quite possible they dropped out due to your ruling, and that whole incident would've then colored this player's judgement of you, I'd say it matters a *LOT* to understand what happened.


The group doesn't seem that interested in optimizing, but yes that seems to be accurate.

See, you see:

"doesn't seem that interested in optimizing"

and I see

"wants to optimize but has two problems. 1)Don't know how to do it well and 2)DM gets in the way of our plans".

People who don't want to optimize will *NEVER* find a ACF in Dragon that allows them to have 4 exotic weapon proficiencies. They'll just take EWP 4 times and call it a day.

[Boci]

Dragon magazine is different from full-splat, and I can respect that you did not want to deal with it.

I do occassionally allow material from it, but I just double checked my notes and I haven't so far in this game.


Well chya, he probably was either repulsed or confused by the weebo fighting magics, as most people are the first time they open the book. Especially when they're used to the fighter class providing the 'fighter' archetype.

Maybe he was just being polite but it seems he didn't have a problem with the book, he just didn't want to use it.


1.It still gets 9ths
2.It was originally a tier 1 class in a group that has tier 4s in it.

Turning that down is essentially micro-managing another player's fun.

I turned it down because I wanted to be able to use monsters immune to a certain energy without feeling like I was putting their character at a great disadvantage.


Since it is quite possible they dropped out due to your ruling, and that whole incident would've then colored this player's judgement of you, I'd say it matters a *LOT* to understand what happened.

Process was something like:

Player: Can I play this?
Me: I'd rather you didn't use MoMF and instead went with straight druid or warrior of nature from Comeplete Warrior (I could tell they were not optimizers. No natural spell amougst feats)
Player: Okay, I'll think about. Actually I have a better idea. Can I play a shifter / barbarian?
Me: Sure, here's some rough outlines for racial substitution levels.
Player: Thanks, I'll use them.


See, you see:

"doesn't seem that interested in optimizing"

and I see

"wants to optimize but has two problems. 1)Don't know how to do it well and 2)DM gets in the way of our plans".

People who don't want to optimize will *NEVER* find a ACF in Dragon that allows them to have 4 exotic weapon proficiencies. They'll just take EWP 4 times and call it a day.

Possibly. I figured he just liked the flavour of the exotic weapons but had other plans for the feats.

[Godskook]

I turned it down because I wanted to be able to use monsters immune to a certain energy without feeling like I was putting their character at a great disadvantage.

Or, you could've said "take searing spell".


Process was something like:

Player: Can I play this?
Me: I'd rather you didn't use MoMF and instead went with straight druid or warrior of nature from Comeplete Warrior (I could tell they were not optimizers. No natural spell amougst feats)
Player: Okay, I'll think about. Actually I have a better idea. Can I play a shifter / barbarian?
Me: Sure, here's some rough outlines for racial substitution levels.
Player: Thanks, I'll use them.

Ah, nvrmind then.

[Boci]

Or, you could've said "take searing spell".

True, but its still +1 spell level for half damage.

[Luckmann]

[...]

What should I do?You should stop favoring your girlfriend, call the guy and vow to improve.

Not much else to do.

[Boci]

You should stop favoring your girlfriend, call the guy and vow to improve.

Not much else to do.

So you think I am favouring my girlfriend?

[Luckmann]

So you think I am favouring my girlfriend?Most people do. I would. Most do it without thinking they do. Not just at a table, but in everything.

The fact that you even have to ask suggests that you have doubts whether or not you are being entirely fair, which in turn suggests that you haven't taken active steps to avoid (conscious or unconscious) favoritism. This leads me to believe that yes, you are likely favoring her, whether you realize it or not.

:smalltongue:

[Amnestic]

Most people do. I would. Most do it without thinking they do. Not just at a table, but in everything.

The fact that you even have to ask suggests that you have doubts whether or not you are being entirely fair, which in turn suggests that you haven't taken active steps to avoid (conscious or unconscious) favoritism. This leads me to believe that yes, you are likely favoring her, whether you realize it or not.

:smalltongue:

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Someone telling you you're favouring someone and you then critically analysing whether you are or not is not an indication that you are indeed faovuring them.

[Luckmann]

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Someone telling you you're favouring someone and you then critically analysing whether you are or not is not an indication that you are indeed faovuring them.Could be.

But if you're analyzing yourself, you're just going to end up with the answers you want, not the answers you need.

[Coidzor]

What were the details that caused him to get upset anyway? Just the classes?

[Tanngrisnir]

You say the party gained face after their defeat, but really from a player perspective it looks like they were doing their own thing until the new character turned up out of no where and saved them.

Going straight from losing a fight because a player switched sides to winning a fight because that player's new character turned up would really ruin the night for me.

So yeah, I'd say that it can definitely be taken as a little favoritism. I would have had your girlfriend sit out a few fights and let the party naturally pick up a new team member in downtime.


Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Someone telling you you're favouring someone and you then critically analysing whether you are or not is not an indication that you are indeed faovuring them.

Of course, it goes both ways. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and when someone tells you you are showing favoritism, sometimes you just are.

[Amnestic]

Could be.

But if you're analyzing yourself, you're just going to end up with the answers you want, not the answers you need.

I disagree. People are perfectly able to analyse themselves and find faults they wouldn't want to see. Introspection is arguably harder than having others look at you, but most certainly not impossible.

[Taelas]

Ask the other players in the game whether he has a point.

[Boci]

You say the party gained face after their defeat, but really from a player perspective it looks like they were doing their own thing until the new character turned up out of no where and saved them.

My girlfriend's new character didn't save the others. She joined the fight halfway through by which point it was clear they were going to beat the ogres.


What were the details that caused him to get upset anyway? Just the classes?

I think general favortism, the classes was the only specific example offered.

[Tanngrisnir]

My girlfriend's new character didn't save the others. She joined the fight halfway through by which point it was clear they were going to beat the ogres.



I think general favortism, the classes was the only specific example offered.

Clear to you sure, maybe not clear to the other players. Also, I said I was looking at it from the player's perspective, and that it how it would have come across to me had I been a player. I'm not saying it's how it was, but you should be aware that it can easily be taken that way.

[Boci]

Clear to you sure, maybe not clear to the other players. Also, I said I was looking at it from the player's perspective, and that it how it would have come across to me had I been a player. I'm not saying it's how it was, but you should be aware that it can easily be taken that way.

That just sounds paranoid to me. When a character leaves the group a new one comes to replace them at the next most convinient moment, all players know that.

[Coidzor]

That just sounds paranoid to me. When a character leaves the group a new one comes to replace them at the next most convinient moment, all players know that.

I think it was more the nature of the fights. Leaving and screwing them over in the first fight and then joining during a "having to save face because we lost because she screwed us over" fight certainly seems like it could've made an impression on some. Or even her/you basically taunting them over needing her regardless of what character she is actually playing. This without really even taking into account how they'd be perceiving how the fight was going before she joined.... which if they were inclined to interpret it negatively they'd likely forget anyway after she joined in.

[Tanngrisnir]

I think it was more the nature of the fights. Leaving and screwing them over in the first fight and then joining during a "having to save face because we lost because she screwed us over" fight certainly seems like it could've made an impression on some. Or even her/you basically taunting them over needing her regardless of what character she is actually playing. This without really even taking into account how they'd be perceiving how the fight was going.

Exactly. You may not agree with it Boci, but people other than you certainly can, so it is a valid reason to be careful.

[Boci]

I think it was more the nature of the fights. Leaving and screwing them over in the first fight and then joining during a "having to save face because we lost because she screwed us over" fight certainly seems like it could've made an impression on some. Or even her/you basically taunting them over needing her regardless of what character she is actually playing. This without really even taking into account how they'd be perceiving how the fight was going before she joined.... which if they were inclined to interpret it negatively they'd likely forget anyway after she joined in.

As a knee jerk response I can understand that and it would explain the rage quit, but I am trying and failing to have sympathy for my players if they believe that to be true even after calming down and thinking about it in hindsight.

[Luckmann]

I disagree. People are perfectly able to analyse themselves and find faults they wouldn't want to see. Introspection is arguably harder than having others look at you, but most certainly not impossible.Not impossible. Just improbable.

[Tanngrisnir]

As a knee jerk response I can understand that and it would explain the rage quit, but I am trying and failing to have sympathy for my players if they believe that to be true even after calming down and thinking about it in hindsight.

I don't consider it a knee-jerk reaction, and If my DM basically just expected me to 'get over' an issue I had told him about I'd stop playing with them because it is clearly not an equal relationship.

But anyway, you've heard my advice, so i'll leave it at that.

[Boci]

I don't consider it a knee-jerk reaction, and If my DM basically just expected me to 'get over' an issue I had told him about I'd stop playing with them because it is clearly not an equal relationship.

I don't want players who think that me a placing character back into the game as soon as possible is proof of my evilness.

I'm taking the favoritism issue seriously, but I cannot do the same to characters thinking me and my girlfriend were taunting them by me allowing her to play the game.

[Coidzor]

I don't want players who think that me a placing character back into the game as soon as possible is proof of my evilness.

Reading into the opposite end of it, here, really. It's not about "introducing her back as soon as possible," at all, it's about the other aspects of how you introduced her and the circumstances surrounding it.

And you didn't introduce her as soon as possible, you waited until they were in a fight where they were having to "save face" because of her prior actions. I don't know if that's in character or out of character that they had to save face, but if it was out of character like what you've said has implied to me, well... That's not a good combination to put your players through as a DM if they're sensitive at all to the things the DM does not say.


I'm taking the favoritism issue seriously, but I cannot do the same to characters thinking me and my girlfriend were taunting them by me allowing her to play the game.

Players. All the issues here are on the player end, really. She decided, as a player, to make it that kind of game, which lead to an unpleasant experience for the rest of the group(or at least, this particular player), since she was new and your girlfriend and you apparently did not discourage this behavior pattern at all, they have no reason to believe that you guys won't pull this in the future if what they know is no better than what we know.

edit: Wait.

...Wait...

Why do the players in your game even know she's your girlfriend in an online game? :smallconfused:

[Amphetryon]

Could be.

But if you're analyzing yourself, you're just going to end up with the answers you want, not the answers you need.

So, rather than analyzing himself, he comes to the board as a neutral outside arbiter to analyze the situation, which you called an indicator that he must be showing favoritism.


The fact that you even have to ask suggests that you have doubts whether or not you are being entirely fair, which in turn suggests that you haven't taken active steps to avoid (conscious or unconscious) favoritism. This leads me to believe that yes, you are likely favoring her, whether you realize it or not.

That reads as both choices being wrong. What course could Boci have taken, once the accusation of favoritism surfaced, that you would not find indicative of his guilt in this matter?

[Boci]

Reading into the opposite end of it, here, really. It's not about "introducing her back as soon as possible," at all, it's about the other aspects of how you introduced her and the circumstances surrounding it.

And you didn't introduce her as soon as possible, you waited until they were in a fight where they were having to "save face" because of her prior actions. I don't know if that's in character or out of character that they had to save face, but if it was out of character like what you've said has implied to me, well... That's not a good combination to put your players through as a DM if they're sensitive at all to the things the DM does not say.

I didn't tell them the encounter was to save face, but that was the purpose, so that they could at least have a small victory. I waited until that fight because that seemed the most convenient since the area they were in was abandoned, plus I find introducing new characters works best in combat since fewer questions are asked if the newcommer is fighting the same enemies.


Players. All the issues here are on the player end, really. She decided, as a player, to make it that kind of game, which lead to an unpleasant experience for the rest of the group(or at least, this particular player), since she was new and your girlfriend and you apparently did not discourage this behavior pattern at all, they have no reason to believe that you guys won't pull this in the future if what they know is no better than what we know.

This I can understand, but at the same time is it too much to ask that she be granted the benefit of the doubt that not all her characters will betray the party? Do you think I should specifically address this OOC?


Wait.

...Wait...

Why do the players in your game even know she's your girlfriend in an online game? :smallconfused:

I always tell players when I personally know one of them, because I believe its only fair they know.

[Coidzor]

If the games are via text-only format, then that definitely increases the chance that what one says will be misinterpreted... or rather, the emotional state of the reader will determine very strongly what they perceive to be your emotional state and meaning in talking to them. At least, that's what I recall about such things, could be off on some/all. It does seem like whatever their emotional reception of the first fight was could have been coloring the entire tone of the rest of your correspondence with them during that period of time.

So it's possible that getting him after he's calmed down from it not being active in his mind and going through things slowly and calmly might reveal the heart of the issue so you could at least know whether the situation was unworkable

The online element does change things up. I somehow missed that in the first place, sorry. x.x


This I can understand, but at the same time is it too much to ask that she be granted the benefit of the doubt that not all her characters will betray the party? Do you think I should specifically address this OOC?

I think whether or not that sort of thing is possible at all should be part of the preliminary information before the game starts. But... to my point of view, and as far as I know of others, once PvP and party-betrayal is on the table, it's like pandora's box is open for that game, there's no getting rid of it without taking some kind of explicit measure.

Once someone reveals that they enjoy screwing over the characters of the people they play with, it changes the tone of the game if the game had not started out with that as a known and embraced element, in a way that I personally would not enjoy. I do not view it as an in-character decision at all, as the decision to make said character that would "naturally" do that is, after all, a direct result of what the player wanted to play in the first place.

[Luckmann]

So, rather than analyzing himself, he comes to the board as a neutral outside arbiter to analyze the situation, which you called an indicator that he must be showing favoritism.The odds of you being a neutral arbiter analyzing a situation in relation to your significant other is about as high as you being capable of being a neutral arbiter analyzing yourself.


That reads as both choices being wrong. What course could Boci have taken, once the accusation of favoritism surfaced, that you would not find indicative of his guilt in this matter?None. :smalltongue:

I mean, it's technically possible for him to be neutral in the matter. It's just highly unlikely. If you're not already taking steps to suppress that part of you that naturally favours your significant other, the odds are that you are without even thinking about it.

[Noneoyabizzness]

in session, no favoritism smarter players playing characters and acting right dice fell where they may

out of session-person comes to you and asks to play on concept largely based on druidic prestige class and you sign off on a barbarian. if a prc sucks or rocks I look at how much it impacts the story but try to keep closer to the core concept of what they are planning to build. if they don't like the result, they learn. if they find ways to tweak it and build to a concept it can be fun, to turn it down and nudge them in a direction that seems near opposite of original source, you did something bad. maybe not favoritism but let the players do their job and write the character,

and as far as elemental savant. yes it sucks in power, but power isn't the end goal story is. it's why almost everyone I know has played a monk and or a fighter.

apologize for some of your out of session behavior. vow to improve on considering their vision and artistic intent. then discuss the tricky wicket of will the gf roll new to fill the loss or will she co-dm the next leg of the adventure as her character is now in part involved with the rest of the party's bbeg and shaping it's offensive or defense.

of course that is going to be awesome how that revenge scenario can work. will she be in a standoff like a john carpenter movie with the players outside wearing down her defenses until the breach and slaughter? will she be able to cultivate allies elsewhere and turn forces against the pcs? it can build to something epically awesome

[danzibr]

Honestly, I'd just let my players do whatever the hell they wanted unless it's obvious Pun-Pun-type cheese. Assuming you're not playing a bunch of jerks they'll monitor themselves.

[Solaris]

Why do the players in your game even know she's your girlfriend in an online game? :smallconfused:

I used to frequent forums where we had interactions beyond the forum itself, typically on AIM. It was something of a transient group, but we had relationships somewhat deeper than is typical for GitP.

[Reverent-One]

The odds of you being a neutral arbiter analyzing a situation in relation to your significant other is about as high as you being capable of being a neutral arbiter analyzing yourself.

Which is why, unless I'm greatly mistaken, Amphetryon was talking about the board being a neutral outside arbiter.

[Luckmann]

Which is why, unless I'm greatly mistaken, Amphetryon was talking about the board being a neutral outside arbiter.Yeah, I probably completely misread that part.

[Darth Stabber]

The chaarge of favoritism is not one easily disproven true, however if you want to argue logically, and if your GF is the least experienced player a case could be made. I frequently make rulings to the aid of the newbish player. If this is the case you have due reason to give her more leeway in most rulings.

As far as proficiencies go, I am going to go out on a limb and say that if characters are being made at any level higher than 4, they can have any proficiency with every weapon, even if they are a wizard. The proficiency system is remarkably screwy, and even at low levels I would give any full bab class proficiency with any one exotic weapon for free, and I would give all clerics their deities favored weapon, and all rogues 1 martial weapon above their normal allotment.

[Boci]

Still nothing from the thug, so I'm going to assume thats the end of him. I'll NPC his character for a while before removing him from the story. Scout obviously had no problem with my girlfriends former character, shugenja was a bit annoyed at both her and the Scout for not telling the rest of the party, but said they were okay with it as long as it didn't happen again. On a side note neither thought I showed my girlfriend favoritism, but the scout said if they thought I did they wouldn't buy the "she learnt D&D from me" explanation which I found odd, but oh well. I guess it could be because she's new, I'll need to bear that in mind in case this issue comes up again.

Edit: Is it just me or has the reply counter mist a reply on this? Its says 38, but this is the 40th post.

[Luckmann]

[...] On a side note neither thought I showed my girlfriend favoritism [...]Would they tell you if they did? In my experience, people tend to avoid even the potential for possible conflict.


Edit: Is it just me or has the reply counter mist a reply on this? Its says 38, but this is the 40th post.

Probably my fault. Forums tends to ignore my posts.

:smalltongue:

[Boci]

Would they tell you if they did? In my experience, people tend to avoid even the potential for possible conflict.

I know, but short of hunting them down and confronting them face to face there is nothing I can do about that.

[Flame of Anor]

I know, but short of hunting them down and confronting them face to face there is nothing I can do about that.

Try Love's Pain.

[Archwizard]

I don't get why the betrayal thing is upsetting anyone. You said someone in the party suspected your GF was going to betray them and gave her a balloon sword while saying "I think you're going to be a dirty rotten traitor" OOC. And then your GF played the betrayal straight not using the OOC knowledge!

That read to me like good RP all around, the betrayal was in character enough that someone saw it coming, and she kept player v. character knowledge separate.

And I totally agree re: during combat is the easiest way to introduce a new character. If she had one made, why not bring her right back to the fray?

I'm not as versed with all the character creation stuff, so I can't really comment on that beside to say I virtually never veto character creation choices unless they just make no sense at all for the campaign world I've built.

[Coidzor]

I don't get why the betrayal thing is upsetting anyone. You said someone in the party suspected your GF was going to betray them and gave her a balloon sword while saying "I think you're going to be a dirty rotten traitor" OOC. And then your GF played the betrayal straight not using the OOC knowledge!

Only that player knew about it from what I've gathered from the further posts on the subject past the OP. And she's the DM's girlfriend which they knew in advance. Even if people did object, how likely are they going to see a tactful or safe way to do so? Especially considering it's a PbP game.

[Archwizard]

Only that player knew about it from what I've gathered from the further posts on the subject past the OP. And she's the DM's girlfriend which they knew in advance. Even if people did object, how likely are they going to see a tactful or safe way to do so? Especially considering it's a PbP game.

Sure, but not only did that one player know about it, but (s)he ACTED on it (c.f. balloon sword). If the player was worried about the whole DM's GF thing, I doubt (s)he would have acted upon the suspicion.

It's not the DM's or the GF's fault that player decided not to tell anyone else "Hey guys, I think the chick is going to totally flake on us!" Also not their fault only one person figured it out. Especially in a PbP game, where they should all have the same textual evidence to base it on.

[Jaraak]

1. Ask the other players if they feel the same way, apologise if you've given that impression.

2. When there is bias involved people will assume favouritism whether its there or not.

3. Do not give in to temper tantrum rage quiters. (Let them find a DM who will put up with their antics)

[DrDeth]

No, I see where the player is coming from. Betrayal is not nice at any time. But with a real fellow player, it is sometimes acceptable. After all, they know full well if they keep doing that, no one will want to play with them, or if they do so, the PC's will be constantly suspicuous.



But in this case, the players do not have the option of "well Bob, your PC always backstabs us, so we're not gonna play with you anymore".

So, the player is right, and the DM is wrong. Man up, apologize, and promise she won't do that anymore.

As far as Oking the PC, of course that's always going to be something the players are going to be a little leery of, even if it is really is fair. Esp if you nix other players builds, but never nix her builds. I can see why you'd rarely nix her builds, but still....

[Safety Sword]

I think I know where you went wrong:

Girlfriend and D&D... :smalltongue:

You were doomed from the beginning. :smallamused:

[Darth Stabber]

PC turncoats are a very risky plot device. The payout is good as the players feel a small bit of the sting of betrayal that their characters feel, and their encounter just got a lot harder (losing one member, enemy gaining 1, net -2)

[Archwizard]

I think I know where you went wrong:

Girlfriend and D&D... :smalltongue:

You were doomed from the beginning. :smallamused:

Bah, that's not true at all. My wife plays in my games all the time.

[PersonMan]

Bah, that's not true at all. My wife plays in my games all the time.

Wife =/= girlfriend. It's a completely different issue.

Seriously, everybody knows that.

:smallwink:

[Flame of Anor]

Wait...haha...I just realized how the exact spelling of the thread title was peculiarly relevant to favoring a girlfriend... :biggrin:

[Quietus]

My advice : Email the thug player. Ask him to enumerate why he thinks you're playing favorites, and promise to :

1) Read his response as neutrally as you can
2) Not reply immediately, wait an hour or three for the immediate kneejerk reaction to die off and read it again, with more neutral eyes
3) Honestly consider each point he's put forward
4) Vow to work on any good points he has

Something as simple as "I'm sorry, you're right, four exotic weapon proficiencies isn't a big deal. If you want to take that ACF, you can. My bad" can go a long way. Just keep in mind that arguing with him isn't going to solve anything. Don't try and convince him that you're not playing favorites; You'll be guaranteed to fail. SHOW him that you're not playing favorites. When you do reply to his email, don't fight against points he's raised that you don't agree with; point out the ones you think are valid, and thank him for bringing them up with you.

If he doesn't reply to this? Well, that's his loss, really. I'm a firm believer, however, in handling these situations with a diplomacy roll rather than a saving throw.

[Luckmann]

Wait...haha...I just realized how the exact spelling of the thread title was peculiarly relevant to favoring a girlfriend... :biggrin:

Badum-Tsssh.

favor-tit-ism

Wife =/= girlfriend. It's a completely different issue.

Seriously, everybody knows that.

:smallwink:'tis true! By the time a girlfriend is a wife, you should've developed a healthy rivalry. :smallwink:

[Archwizard]

Wife =/= girlfriend. It's a completely different issue.

Seriously, everybody knows that.

:smallwink:

She used to play when she was my girlfriend too, again with no issues at all.

[Amphetryon]

My advice : Email the thug player. Ask him to enumerate why he thinks you're playing favorites, and promise to :

1) Read his response as neutrally as you can
2) Not reply immediately, wait an hour or three for the immediate kneejerk reaction to die off and read it again, with more neutral eyes
3) Honestly consider each point he's put forward
4) Vow to work on any good points he has

Something as simple as "I'm sorry, you're right, four exotic weapon proficiencies isn't a big deal. If you want to take that ACF, you can. My bad" can go a long way. Just keep in mind that arguing with him isn't going to solve anything. Don't try and convince him that you're not playing favorites; You'll be guaranteed to fail. SHOW him that you're not playing favorites. When you do reply to his email, don't fight against points he's raised that you don't agree with; point out the ones you think are valid, and thank him for bringing them up with you.

If he doesn't reply to this? Well, that's his loss, really. I'm a firm believer, however, in handling these situations with a diplomacy roll rather than a saving throw.

This advice is contingent upon the thug player being mature and not a jerk. I've known plenty of people who would respond to this approach by considering the DM (or person in an analogous position in other contexts) to simply be a pushover and start trying to strongarm more changes for personal gain.