PDA

View Full Version : Reaction to OOC GM Crimes



Rorrik
2013-03-11, 02:35 PM
I'm not speaking at all from personal experience, rather, I foresee myself possibly committing some of the crimes below. So, if you will, how would you react to any or all of the following:


After you have agreed to join a tabletop group, the time when the GM plans on hosting it changes, possibly with consideration for everyone's schedule.
After you agree to be a part of a party of X members, the GM changes it to a Y member party (Y!=X)
After rolling up your character using one method, the GM has other players roll up characters using another.


I can see how these actions could anger people, but my group is loosey-goosey enough that I worry about them happening. How against them should I be?

Brennan1214
2013-03-11, 02:43 PM
1. It depends on the specifics of the change.

2. Get player approval, then ok.

3. That is just bad.

Seerow
2013-03-11, 02:45 PM
1 is something that comes with the territory of playing a game that requires a group of people all being in the same place at the same time for a minimum of several hours. No problems there.

2 is similarly something I would not worry about unless it starts out as a small close group and suddenly there's 10 people in the party, or some similarly extreme shift. Adding or removing one or two players isn't a big deal in most cases.

3 is the only one that would be particularly irritating. I'd recommend giving all players the option to roll using the new system or keep their old system stats (and conversely give any new players the choice between the two), to avoid any accusations of bias/favoritism.

Kornaki
2013-03-11, 02:47 PM
If everyone can make the different time then I wouldn't care about the schedule change... if some people can't make it then I would be irritated if the change is arbitrary, but if the GM's schedule changed and it's impossible for everyone to meet, then I wouldn't throw a player's revolt over it (if someone else wants to GM and can accommodate more people schedule wise, though then that might happen)

If you're adding characters I don't think there's any cause for concern... if you're cutting someone out just because you don't like the size of the group.... well... only the gods can help you then. Also if you originally excluded someone only because of group size issues, then opened it up and didn't invite them back that would be a big problem for me

Different rollup methods shouldn't be a problem as long as they're about equal power. If you're going from 4d6b3 to 32 point buy it's no big deal I think... if you're making more drastic changes, I can't really imagine what it is. If you're just doing something like "4d6b3 was too weak, I'm giving 60 point buy instead", then I would want some sort of in game compensation if my character is stuck with the old stats

Rhynn
2013-03-11, 03:09 PM
In order:

Okay.

Sure.

Meh.

Why are these "Crimes" ?

Rorrik
2013-03-11, 03:19 PM
Couldn't think of a good word for it.

What I'm seeing is more or less what I thought:

Fine.

Wonderful.

Probably Not.

Edit: I guess I could have called it "Contract Violations"

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-11, 03:22 PM
1. Fine, if it also fits my schedule.
2. Okay if it's discussed at first and not just dumped on the players as a surprise.
3. Why would you even do that? Whats the reason? No, this is not ok.

Threadnaught
2013-03-11, 03:26 PM
1: Guilty. I don't think my players mind when I cancel a session, or put the whole game on standby because the timeslot was organized specifically to be convenient for everyone. New players would have to find a way to fit this slot into their scheduals though.

2: The more the merrier. As long as it's up to six players as far as I'm concerned as DM. Other DMs may have more or less, but as long as there's at least two players and everyone feels useful, I ask. "Where's the crime?"

3: This one depends on both a party's ability to survive what the DM throws at them and how often the DM wants their players to reroll characters. Say in a group of six, four players are constantly dying while the others die so rarely they still have their original characters. DM decides to change the rolls so the next character to die gets a better replacement. If the untouchables complain, the rest of the table should smack em upside the head. They obviously don't need the boost to be able to enjoy themselves.


I wouldn't really mind any of this if done for the right reason.

Amphetryon
2013-03-11, 03:41 PM
3. Why would you even do that? Whats the reason? No, this is not ok.
Only possibly okay rationale I can see for it is if everyone else is rolling up (for a 3.5 example) a Healer, a Swashbuckler, and a Lurk, while you're a) the most experienced in the system and b) rolling up a Specialist Wizard. In that circumstance, it might be justifiable to have your Character created under a stricter method or a lower point-buy.

Similarly, if you're the newbie who is creating a fun but underwhelming Character based on concept and everyone else is experienced and making powerful Characters, you might be given a more generous creation method without hard feelings from the others.

scurv
2013-03-11, 04:35 PM
Point 1 and 2 are always subjects for debate and open to change. And well crap happens Its life. And sometimes its a matter of making it as much fun for as many people as possible.

As for the mechanics of how chars are rolled. That one would irk me slightly. But If there is little significant difference in the stats generated I would bite my tongue. Although I was in a straight drop of 3d6 campaign that changed its roll policy to a liberal point buy when I had 20ish sessions invested. That one miffed me slighty and the other two players were less then amused as well.

<edit>
As a point of consideration though. And this is of the school of thought I am of, If players need to have an enhanced roll method to survive what a DM is doing. Then it is doubtful those extra stats will make the diffrence. Smart builds and tatics that work in synergy with your build tend to get you farther then leet stats

Libertad
2013-03-11, 09:47 PM
1. It all depends on the change. I understand when real-life stuff comes up, and don't have a problem if s/he communicates the change of plans ahead of time.

2. Depends upon how many people are removed/added. I don't do well in large groups when playing due to comfort and space issues.

3. I'd ask the GM why a new system was adopted. It smacks of favoritism.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-11, 09:55 PM
Only possibly okay rationale I can see for it is if everyone else is rolling up (for a 3.5 example) a Healer, a Swashbuckler, and a Lurk, while you're a) the most experienced in the system and b) rolling up a Specialist Wizard. In that circumstance, it might be justifiable to have your Character created under a stricter method or a lower point-buy.

Similarly, if you're the newbie who is creating a fun but underwhelming Character based on concept and everyone else is experienced and making powerful Characters, you might be given a more generous creation method without hard feelings from the others.

I'm not going to argue with the points you make because they are basically the only circumstances I'd be okay with it. Which is why I asked for justifications, but the way the OP wrote it it seemed like more of an "I felt like changing things up out of the blue" scenario, and then, no, absolutely not.

GnomeFighter
2013-03-12, 06:18 AM
For me:

1) Depends
2) Depends
3) Depends

1) If it is an occasional change of time, or easy to agree with the groop each week fine, but when you have someone who is busy and expects everyone else to fit in around them, or puts it at a lower priority than the rest of the group, then they should step aside.

I used to be part of a group where for 4 people it was our main social activity. For another guy it wasn't. He would, at very short notice, say he couldn't make that time as something else had come up, or block out weeks at a time as he had a play to rehearse for (Not professional, a local am-dram group). Very frustrating when he expected the rest of us to sit and wait until he was ready and the GM to work not knowing for sure how many would be in the group on any given week. I must admit, much to my shame, that i was not very nice to this guy towards the end.

Rather than discussing the problem I would moan and complain about him and be quite nasty. In the end I realised what I was doing, dicussed my frustration with the group, who agreed, and we politly told him that we felt his prioritys were diffrent and he was welcome to play, but that they way he was acting was a problem. He then left. Lesson learnt, talk to people rather than being childish :)

2) Depends on the group. Some may be happy with new players, some may not. More of a problem if it is a group of friends socialising and playing some games and the GM drops in someone noone else knows.

3) Depends on exactly what the change is and why.

Scorpier
2013-03-12, 07:15 AM
1. Scheduling can be a b***h. I know with my group it took us a good few months to align work and class schedules to figure out a day we could all play, and even then we still have scheduling conflicts.
2. It would depend on who gets brought in, really.
3. Situation dependent.
Exposition: I play with the same group of guys, we have about 3 different campaigns that we run (with different ones of us GMing). Most of us are pretty chill and we have fun, but one of us (there's ALWAYS one...) tends to fudge the rules a little bit. You know, "minor" things, like taking feats 2 levels early, getting unexplained buffs and adding things in randomly because "Oh, I have it but I didn't write it down." Most recent of such events was on a re-roll of a character (using 4d6b3) the ability scores were good. WAY too good. And of course, no one actually saw the player roll. I mean, not ONE ability score under +3? Point buy, it is.

tommhans
2013-03-12, 07:25 AM
1. We are trying to keep the same date but as it is the DM that does all the work we ofc respect his opinion and i do not complain if he changes date as long as i can play. We had to change DM because he got a job and just didnt have time to sit down and write the sessions, but we are keeping the same day in the week usually ^^

2. Its really not up to me but up to the dm, he is the one that has to control more players, but im not invinting anymore friends as we are 5-6 now which i find as a perfect amount of players.

3. Depends, but we got the choice between rolling or using the 27 buy system(its 27 now with dnd next/5e) , but we as players all agreed we jsut used 27 buy system as the characters would be more equal)

Jay R
2013-03-12, 09:32 AM
In all three cases, none of the information needed to have an opinion has been offered.

1. Did she move it because she just felt like it, or because she has to attend a family members funeral?

2. First, is the game online or at a table. Second, how well do we get along with the new person or people? Third, how much does it affect my involvement in the game?

3. What was the purpose? Who did it affect? But in general, if my character was fun to play before, nobody else's character can make it not fun.

Rorrik
2013-03-12, 02:30 PM
Thanks, Playground, for the feedback. Sorry for being vague, but I don't recall ever having specific issues with these conditions and one day got to thinking how people would feel about these things happening. Everyone's feedback has been very enlightening, especially situations that justified system changes for rolling characters. Thank you.

Chilingsworth
2013-03-12, 02:52 PM
1. It happens.

2. No problem, as long as the game can continue.

3. Request that either the new characters are made in the same fashion as the old, or (if I believe the new method is better than the old) that players of old characters be allowed to remake their characters using the new method or bring in new characters made with the new method without penalty.

If neither request is granted, summery execution (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution) by rulebook bombardment.

Fortunately, I've never had to go beyond the request stage. (Actually, our usual method is: Some form of rolling, if you dislike the results of your rolls, take 32pb. So I've never had cause for complaint on this score. The above is purely theoretical.)

dps
2013-03-12, 04:32 PM
1 is something that comes with the territory of playing a game that requires a group of people all being in the same place at the same time for a minimum of several hours. No problems there.

Yep.


2 is similarly something I would not worry about unless it starts out as a small close group and suddenly there's 10 people in the party, or some similarly extreme shift. Adding or removing one or two players isn't a big deal in most cases.

I agree, again. Going from 5 players to 6 or 7 or vice-versa isn't a big deal. Going from 3 to 12 might be a different matter.


3 is the only one that would be particularly irritating. I'd recommend giving all players the option to roll using the new system or keep their old system stats (and conversely give any new players the choice between the two), to avoid any accusations of bias/favoritism.

Yeah, changing character generation after some players have already gone through the process smacks of bias unless those who've already made characters are allowed to make changes based on the new system.

Jay R
2013-03-12, 06:26 PM
For the record, I always change character generation when players come in later. I'm not going to run a first level with a party of sixth levels.

mrzomby
2013-03-12, 08:19 PM
For the record, I always change character generation when players come in later. I'm not going to run a first level with a party of sixth levels.

I think they meant character STAT generation(or possibly books allowed?), for example:

first part of the group had to roll 3d6 and put those rolls in order of str, sta, dex, int, wis, cha, and then a month or two later someone joins the group and get 32 point buy.

NikitaDarkstar
2013-03-12, 10:03 PM
For the record, I always change character generation when players come in later. I'm not going to run a first level with a party of sixth levels.

Umm no. You generate the starting stats the same way (character generation) and then you LEVEL the character to the same level as the rest of the party/the level the DM wants you to be at.

But yes, a lvl 1 character in a lvl 6 party would be rather silly and highly fatal. :p

Jay R
2013-03-12, 11:27 PM
Umm no. You generate the starting stats the same way (character generation) and then you LEVEL the character to the same level as the rest of the party/the level the DM wants you to be at.

Not necessarily. If the stats of the party have risen significantly, or they have items or social rank that came from out of the game, then starting characters will have different starting options from the earlier ones.

In the game I'm currently playing, we all started as penniless vagrants joining a colonizing party. When we were well established at eighth level, as a knight, a Baroness, and two Earls, the cleric who joined us was well-established within the hierarchy. I don't know how his stats were determined, and I don't care. But all of us who started the game had had each stat increased by one by a magic item. If he started as we did, he'd be behind us considerably.

The new character should be given a reasonably fair starting position, which often requires a different approach to character generation.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 12:09 PM
Not necessarily. If the stats of the party have risen significantly, or they have items or social rank that came from out of the game, then starting characters will have different starting options from the earlier ones.

Why not just bring them in at the average party level and allow them WBL equal to (roughly) average party wealth? Then they can come in with similar magic items boosting their stats if they so choose.

Jay R
2013-03-13, 12:22 PM
Why not just bring them in at the average party level and allow them WBL equal to (roughly) average party wealth? Then they can come in with similar magic items boosting their stats if they so choose.

Actually, that's consistent with my point. Letting them come in with WBL of the average current party is a different character generation method than the original players used.

(Also, WBL, and coming in with magic items at all, are modern ideas not included in all games. For instance, I don't run games with magic items for sale.)

Rhynn
2013-03-13, 12:27 PM
Why not just bring them in at the average party level and allow them WBL equal to (roughly) average party wealth? Then they can come in with similar magic items boosting their stats if they so choose.

What if the game isn't D&D? :smallconfused: The OP does not specify a game or system, and uses the system-neutral "GM" rather than the D&D "DM".

If you're playing GURPS, started at 100 points, and everyone's gotten up to 200-250 points from experience - should a new character come in at 100?

If you're playing Artesia and everyone's gotten a few hundred Arcana points, should new PCs come in with standard starting skills & characteristics?

In both cases, the new PC would be behind at least as much as a 1st-level joining a party of 6th-8ths in D&D. Heck, in the GURPS example, that's probably more like 1st level to 12th-15th.

Slipperychicken
2013-03-13, 12:48 PM
What if the game isn't D&D? :smallconfused: The OP does not specify a game or system, and uses the system-neutral "GM" rather than the D&D "DM".


I mean starting at the level which the others are, at the time when the PC is brought in. A PC would be 6th level before joining a 6th level party (even if those other PCs started at level 1), and come in with the same amount of wealth the other PCs already have.


The same principle applies to all of these. Give the new PC the average quantity of character-building resources which the others currently possess. I guess in the point-based systems it would mean giving them the average of points. For example, for the party with 200-250 points per PC, the new guy would receive the party average (coming in at a number between 200 and 250, depending on the exact math). This way the new PC should have roughly the same power level as the others.

EDIT: The same principle goes for any other character-building resources, whether it's cash, respect-points, skillpoints, whatever.

TheCountAlucard
2013-03-13, 04:45 PM
3's okay depending on system and degree of difference. In Exalted, not only is there a big power disparity, that's a celebrated part of the game. Solars possess more mystic puissance than Lunars, who possess more than Dragon-Blooded, et cetera. That the ST would allow a Dragon-Blooded in a group of Solars is far less important than what they do from there.

Jarawara
2013-03-13, 05:43 PM
1) I can see that either way. DM says "I'm thinking of running a game saturday night. I'm looking for players, wanna join." DM comes back and says "I found 3 other players, but they can only play Friday night. Still wanna join?" Well, suck it up and play on Fridays, or bow out. DM tried to form a group, and Fridays ended up the magic day. But if the DM advertises a Saturday group and starts playing at regular local, and then suddenly switches to Friday to meet his own concerns. Well... I'm not sure if that's truly a "GMing Crime Against Humanity", but it would be no small wonder if half the group has to drop out.

Bottom line: Switching times might work better for your schedule, but it might not work for your player's. Expect to pay the price.


2) People come and go. It's inevitable. Y will not equal X eventually, so the DM adding people after a group has been established is not a serious problem, and is to be expected. Dropping people, for good reason and with consent of the group, is equally allowed.

Of course, the mix of people might prove unworkable, but that's a player to player issue more than it is a DM's breach of contract.

Edit: Actually, thinking this one over, I do need to amend my answer. I have specialized in DMing for one player at a time through of my years. If I agreed to run a one-on-one game for you, and then suddenly added someone else, you might have reasonably expected solo attention from me and now I'm splitting my attention with another. That *would* be a breach of contract, and thus is not ok unless approved by all involved.

Heh. "...solo attention...". Now I sound creepy.


3) Balance between the players is a big thing for me. I don't want to be outshadowed constantly by the guy next to me, night after night. So changing the way you make characters is not the problem, and in fact might be the solution to the problem.

Example: Everyone rolls up characters. I choose to play the big tough fighter for a change of pace (been wizard too many times). Tall, broody, a hint of mystery to him, quick of reactions. Guy next to me has a fighter too, and his is stronger than mine. And faster. And tougher. And taller. And so I rely on the broody mysteriousness to be different. First bar we reach, guy next to me slinks into the corner so that he cannot be seen except for a slight glow to his face whenever he smokes his pipe. Dammit, he even out-mysterious-ed me!!!

Moral: It was the way we rolled up the first time, not any future change, that was the problem!

Another example: We join a group, six of us. GM has pre-generated characters for us to choose from (about twelve to pick from, so there's flexibility of choice while maintaining the GM's intention of balance). Then GM meets Ben at a game convention and they become friends. Ben joins the group - bringing his character from the convention game.

Ben's character was rolled, and Ben was lucky! Or cheated. We witness him time and again cheating on the dice. (Dice were percentiles, 2D10, but for him, the higher die was always the first number!) His character also got two attacks per round. Then we found that magic Krull blade that could be hurled and would return to the thrower, and was fast so it could be used to double attacks. Ben argued that he can use it best.

We encounter Orcs. Six of us wade into the battle, swinging or slinging spells. 3 of us hit. 2 kill their opponent. Ben throws his Krull blade 4 times, hitting all four times, killing all four opponents. Next round. Six swings, 3 hits, 2 kills. Ben kills 4 more. Next round, same thing, lather, rinse, repeat.

Moral: Oh jeez, this one violated every GM Contract in the book!