PDA

View Full Version : Gamer Drama My group just splintered: Looking for perspectives



Stuebi
2018-09-21, 07:27 AM
Hello there everybody. I just had the Ragnarok of PnP-Fights, and I would like some other perspectives on it. I'm gonna try to be as honest and open as possible, and I encourage everybody to be blunt if I was actually in the wrong here.

5 People, 2 of which are long time friends, the other 3, including the GM, I've known for a few months now, and frankly I don't have a particular attachment to them.

System is Rogue Trader (40k).

The first 3 sessions went fine, with a total playtime of somewhere around 12 -14 hours. Everybody except me and the DM is new to both the system and 40k in general, so it was supposed to be a toned down "just for fun" kind of start, so the newbies had some time to adjust. We roll up characters, I end up playing a Voidmaster (Ship experts, very used to life in space).

We do some basic exploring, have a couple easy encounters. We had agreed the Rogue Trader would be played by an NPC, with us being officers and advisors. I was initially skeptical, but the GM kept the ball rolling nicely, and managed to retain player agency. Often decisions came down to majority votes, and the RT would end up either agreeing with the majority, or in case of a draw, picking the side that fit his character best. It was good fun, plenty of jokes, the Newbies liked the Lore, which the GM was good at presenting. Banter was friendly, friendships were beginning to form. We got some loot, made some money and overall I was very much looking forward to each session.

On session 3 it went bad. We had a combat encounter, and as it happens sometimes, the dicegods had a bad day. Failures, some rolls on ciritcal tables, and soon our party was forced to retreat. At this point, 2 out of 4 characters were KiA, with me and the groups Arch Militant getting out barely alive, since we were the only ones who had saved up our Fate Points to avoid such a scenario. (The other players had been warned that you should really save at least 1 point up in case the metaphorical rock falls, but they had burnt them nonetheless). I could tell that most of the players were miffed, we had beaten the previous encounters with relative ease, which made some of the players a little too bold. 40k RPGs are pretty high lethality, even if you do tone them down.

So we call the session, and about a week before our 4th one I get messaged on Discord. The campaign will be restarted, to give people a chance to roll up better characters with the benefit of hindsight and more information now that they had played a bit. I was a little dissapointed, but I could deal. I know how frustrating it can be when you realize that you rolled something subpar, due to a lack of information. What I was NOT okay with, was the fact that one of the Newbies (One of the 3 I hadnt known for long) was now gonna play the Rogue Trader. And that I was not allowed to just reuse my Voidmaster.

I brought it up, the RT gets the final say on basically everything, and is thus usually a role for somebody who actually knows his stuff, and that I thought it would be too much for somebody new. There was a back and forth that at the time at least, didn't come off as hostile to me, but maybe "You don't have enough experience to play this." came off as too harsh. Either way, I was overruled by majority. Same thing for "Why can't I just reuse my Voidmaster?", because somebody else wanted to play one, and as the "pro" I should give the newbies space.

Fine, whatever. But then I'm also not allowed to roll Arch-Militant or Explorator, because we have one of each already and having something twice is a no-no. Missionary was denied to the GM not wanting to deal with one. Okay... so I pick Seneschall.

"Why don't you play a Navigator? We really need one."
"I'd rather not, don't like playing psykers."

Another back and forth. At this point, I'm two steps away from just stepping out. Restart the campaign if you want, get a newbie Rogue Trader if you want. But the least amount of decisionmaking I'd REALLY like, is what the howdy-diddly-doodly kind of character I get to friggin play. Okay? I stay calm, I explain it another couple times, and eventually people back off. I get my Seneschall and the GM makes an NPC to be the Navigator. So far, everything is civil, I'm annoyed, but I don't want to be "THAT guy", so I suck it up and see whether we can just play on and maybe the 4th session is gonna be fun.

Boy howdy was it not.

Now, the Seneschall's job is to keep an eye out for money. Generally you're supposed to provide advice to the RT, manage contacts, sales, and generally just try to keep the cashflow going. I've played enough RPG's to know that many player find that sort of stuff boring, and delegate it to the sidelines. So luckily all classes in Rogue Trader still get to be useful in a fight. We do our intial exploration, we land, we loot, we fight. When I was playing the Voidmaster, I had a def. niche in being the only guy being able to drive/fly regular vehicles. And even beyond that, Iw as handy enough with a gun that my presence in any combat scenario would not be questioned. With the Seneschall it was the complete opposite.

Nobody cared about the money. The way it's handled in RT, it's very easy to "fire and forget" chashflow, which works early on, but can get you in trouble later on. I was trying to engage over and over, offering to handle the important parts myself if the others found the whole thing boring. No chance. The RT wanted any and all decisions to go through him, but would then blow me off right away when I even curved the topic of finances. Somewhere in session 5 I just tried to do stuff on my own, which lead to being chewed out and made fun off by most of the party (Which to them, was good fun. To me, it was the cherry on top of 6-7 hours of literally being ignored). The GM tried valiantly to side with me here and there, but he's a shy guy appearantly, and did not want to rock this boat too hard. In combat, I was "Moneyman" and thus would be frequently left in the far back, participation being minimal. In retrospect, maybe I did really ruffle some feathers with my comment early on, and the RT was now getting back at me.

At the end of session 5, I talk about this over Discord. I mention how I might as well drop out, that I feel like I'm being sidelined on purpose. And that I would like to know why. No real answers, although the RT and the Arch-Militant are quick to deny any such thing happening, and that in their opinion, I was just playing it wrong. "Come up with something that my character agrees with or finds interesting." and "Stop trying to hog the spotlight.". I say that I might as well leave then. Lots of backpedaling, but not quite enough to stop being passive-aggressive. My friends try to calm the waves a bit, and I eventually relent.

At this point, the cap is coming off. I attended Session 6 and turned on "Ego-Mode", meaning that my PC was now out for himself. I funded some stuff out of my own pocket, got some profits off selling intel, got some nice pieces of loot out of the winnings, and naturally rubbed it into the faces of my "comrades", namely the ones who had shunned and belittled my character before. Maybe now, I thought, Captain Knowitall would maybe see the benefit of listening to me sometimes. And we can both be richer, and have fun again. No such luck, instead I got ordered to share the wealth. So I continued my endeavours in secret, and at this point I could tell RT was getting actually angry.

It was getting awkward at the table, which my friend pointed out during the break. According to him, RT was fuming. I can be childish when angry, so that gave me a feeling of satisfaction at first. Which showed, which in turn got RT to yell and cuss. And at that point I got up and walked.

It has been two weeks. I have since apologized for antagonizing the guy. But appearantly they want me to apologize for a whole lot of other things, like not "Just playing the stupid Navigator, and being an elitist.". The final word being something like "If you value our relationship, you're gonna apologize!"

As stated before, I only really care about my two actual friends in this group, and both of them are fine, if a little awkward about the whole thing. So I told the other gents I had nothing more to apologize for, and if they thought that their "friendship" meant enough to me to be taken hostage, they were very wrong. Again, probably childish, but I do actually think these are people I don't want to interact with. The one exception is the GM, and I do actually feel sorry that my prsence caused so much drama for him.

So, any thoughts? Did I dig this hole myself and should switch over to building a ladder?

DeTess
2018-09-21, 07:39 AM
I think I'd really need to have been there to form a proper opinion, so maybe send this post to the other players to explain from your perspective why you feel like you do?

From what I can tell, you definitely played a role in escalating the issue(going full ego mode), but the blame isn't just on you, as there seems to have been a general breakdown in communication that caused a number of egos to get bruised.

KillingTime
2018-09-21, 07:54 AM
That all sounds pretty rubbish.

It's definitely easy to behave in a petulant manner when you feel like you're being hard done by, and it seems like you're definitely being hard done by.
The whole thing boils down to a few key problems.

Firstly, Rogue Trader is a very tricky system to play well, and certainly not one I'd choose to play with a group of newbie players.
I love the 40k line of RPGs, but I think pretty much any of the others would be more suitable to play than RT. Having an RT in the party leads to grit because someone gets to be the boss and this can annoy other players (especialy if someone else wanted to be one). On the other hand NOT having an RT in the party leads to loss of agency for the players.
The whole thing has the feel of a star trek away team, where there is seldom any real reason for such high ranking characters to be doing the grunt work. Additonally, many of the roles assigned to the various character classes just feel like contrived make-work.
Don't get me wrong - I actually like the system, but if anything was going to go wrong in your game, this was likely to be a contributing factor.

Secondly, feeling like you're being forced to play a specific character against your wishes is pretty much grounds for leaving a group.
It's one thing for a GM to have pre-written characters that are assigned to all the players (particularly in a starter campaign), but it's quite another to let everyone else pick and then tell the last-player-in that they have to play the cleric/navigator/tech priest/ whatever just because everyone else feels it's a role that has to be filled. If it was so damned important why don't they offer to play it? Oh that's right - because they didn't think it looked fun either!

Thirdly - it sounds like the guy playing the RT is a pain, and the GM is too weak to police the table properly.
Another good reason to just leave the group.
It certainly sounds like you've probably contributed your fair share of stress to the table, but if your story is an accurate portrayal of events then it does appear that your behaviour has been a reaction to some pretty poor behaviour elsewhere.

Lastly - If you do feel like staying in this group, might I suggest that you re-work your Seneschal a little?
I played a seneschal in our game of RT and I ran him as a tricksy spymaster. He was certainly useful in a fight and definitely not someone to get on the wrong side of.
He's not at all confined to being a weak chinned money man.

Rhedyn
2018-09-21, 07:54 AM
Your groups sounds dysfunctional. I rarely agree with the guy complaining on the forums, but it sounds like the rest of the party got mad because you found a way to have fun and they really did not want you to have any fun.

They should analogize to you. Including the GM for letting his friend be treated in such way.

Yeah I see how you were egging them on. But you having any amount of fun or contributing was what made them mad.

The part where you said the noob shouldn't play the RT was probably where you came off the worse, but he responded by making what you said 100% correct.

It sounds to me like they tried to handle OOC conflict IC while you behaved the worst OOC (and tried to air out all grievances there) and were relatively fine IC. Which means they were the ones not being mature.

Quertus
2018-09-21, 07:55 AM
You need to restart the campaign again. That player is not allowed to be RT again. And certainly not the money man*. Maybe you can even play as your original character.

* Talk to the GM ahead of time. Get the GM to agree that, if the RT chooses to take this role, and opens with "ego mode", kick him.

Lapak
2018-09-21, 08:01 AM
You cannot get definitive answers on this when we have only your perspective, but from what you describe I see two things happening:

- this group was not a good fit for you. Perhaps because you were coming in with expectations for prior play, possibly because there wasn't a "session 0" to set expectations, but whatever the reason there was a disconnect about what kind of game various people wanted to play.

- there was bad behavior on several parts.

- you almost certainly had a substantial role in making things worse. Aside from where you know and admit you acted badly (ego mode, taking pleasure in someone else's unhappiness) much of what you did after they put someone else in the RT slot looks like you're maneuvering to control the game from another angle. Given that everyone worked as a team the first time, I am not sure why you expected the newbie RT to go full dictator on the group, but the way you present it feels like that was what you expected, and you reacted by trying to get in position to take control yourself instead. And did so using a sub set of the game mechanics (economics) that no one else at the table had an interest in making a major part of the campaign.

I don't think you should try to rejoin the table or reassemble the group, because of the first point - it sounds like the new folks just plain wanted a different focus in their game than you did. I don't think you are the only one to blame, either - your description indicates that they treated you shabbily as well. But yeah, if it wasn't doomed to start with? The way you tried to game the table to get what you wanted rather than just having that discussion with everyone else could not have led to any other outcome.

Stuebi
2018-09-21, 08:10 AM
You cannot get definitive answers on this when we have only your perspective, but from what you describe I see two things happening:

- this group was not a good fit for you. Perhaps because you were coming in with expectations for prior play, possibly because there wasn't a "session 0" to set expectations, but whatever the reason there was a disconnect about what kind of game various people wanted to play.

- there was bad behavior on several parts.

- you almost certainly had a substantial role in making things worse. Aside from where you know and admit you acted badly (ego mode, taking pleasure in someone else's unhappiness) much of what you did after they put someone else in the RT slot looks like you're maneuvering to control the game from another angle. Given that everyone worked as a team the first time, I am not sure why you expected the newbie RT to go full dictator on the group, but the way you present it feels like that was what you expected, and you reacted by trying to get in position to take control yourself instead. And did so using a sub set of the game mechanics (economics) that no one else at the table had an interest in making a major part of the campaign.

I don't think you should try to rejoin the table or reassemble the group, because of the first point - it sounds like the new folks just plain wanted a different focus in their game than you did. I don't think you are the only one to blame, either - your description indicates that they treated you shabbily as well. But yeah, if it wasn't doomed to start with? The way you tried to game the table to get what you wanted rather than just having that discussion with everyone else could not have led to any other outcome.

The first attempt went fine, back when the RT was just an NPC, which gave the GM the tools to steer a bit and ensure everybody got to do at least something.

I did not try to take over anything. We would have "strategy meetings" where the guy playing RT asked for input. Everybody got their turn, Arch-Militant would talk military, Explorator would talk ship and mechanics, Voidmaster would talk crew and potential sites to explore. And then I would _try_ to talk about seeling some stuff, or maybe we could privateer or whatever. I was shut down every time, as written above. Which meant everytime the GM would do the rounds and ask people what they were doing, I was basically doing nothing.

After Ego-Mode took effect, I stopped providing input entirely, and instead would wait around for the GM to ask what people were doing, I would state the stuff I did in private, roll dice where needed, and then we moved on. Which in my opinion, was the only spot RT had left me.

That does not really constitute taking anything away, as far as I can tell. The issue I admitted to here was only in the last parts of the last session, after things actually got hostile and I strated firing back. That does probably constitute "trying to underminde your captain", but at that point the guy had frankly asked for it. The part where I do believe I was wrong was more on the "How to communicate that you are unhappy, instead of provoking." side, and less me actively trying to sabotage.

Pelle
2018-09-21, 08:33 AM
After Ego-Mode took effect, I stopped providing input entirely, and instead would wait around for the GM to ask what people were doing, I would state the stuff I did in private, roll dice where needed, and then we moved on. Which in my opinion, was the only spot RT had left me.


Here you could have just told everyone you were not having fun anymore and (threat to) bow out of the game, instead of being passive agressive about it. You can't expect them to read your mind. If you don't tell them explicitly that you are not enjoying the game and why, they don't get the opportunity to adjust their behaviour.



The part where I do believe I was wrong was more on the "How to communicate that you are unhappy, instead of provoking." side, and less me actively trying to sabotage.

Yes.

Rhedyn
2018-09-21, 08:50 AM
Here you could have just told everyone you were not having fun anymore and (threat to) bow out of the game... In his post he did that. It didn't help.

Lapak
2018-09-21, 08:52 AM
The first attempt went fine, back when the RT was just an NPC, which gave the GM the tools to steer a bit and ensure everybody got to do at least something.

I did not try to take over anything. We would have "strategy meetings" where the guy playing RT asked for input. Everybody got their turn, Arch-Militant would talk military, Explorator would talk ship and mechanics, Voidmaster would talk crew and potential sites to explore. And then I would _try_ to talk about seeling some stuff, or maybe we could privateer or whatever. I was shut down every time, as written above. Which meant everytime the GM would do the rounds and ask people what they were doing, I was basically doing nothing.

After Ego-Mode took effect, I stopped providing input entirely, and instead would wait around for the GM to ask what people were doing, I would state the stuff I did in private, roll dice where needed, and then we moved on. Which in my opinion, was the only spot RT had left me.

That does not really constitute taking anything away, as far as I can tell. The issue I admitted to here was only in the last parts of the last session, after things actually got hostile and I strated firing back. That does probably constitute "trying to underminde your captain", but at that point the guy had frankly asked for it. The part where I do believe I was wrong was more on the "How to communicate that you are unhappy, instead of provoking." side, and less me actively trying to sabotage.It's entirely possible my own prior experiences are coloring my judgment here; there were several things in your description that are red flags to me but might be entirely innocuous. For example, where you offered to take care of an aspect of the game if the other players didn't want to engage with it. That may absolutely have been a good-faith effort to find an enjoyable niche for your character, but in my experience in the GM seat that's always a "stop the game and talk to the player" moment because if it ISN'T that it is an attempt to redirect the group and type of play by leveraging a system that others are unfamiliar with.

It is one place among several where the GM carries a heavier weight of blame, because that was an opportunity to address a growing problem there and they muffed it. But like I said, I think it's more a fundamental 'bad fit' issue than it was your fault outright -which was the GM's role to address if anyone could, and they did not- I just think you did make things worse in the end, however understandable your frustration was.

Delta
2018-09-21, 09:02 AM
- you almost certainly had a substantial role in making things worse. Aside from where you know and admit you acted badly (ego mode, taking pleasure in someone else's unhappiness) much of what you did after they put someone else in the RT slot looks like you're maneuvering to control the game from another angle. Given that everyone worked as a team the first time, I am not sure why you expected the newbie RT to go full dictator on the group, but the way you present it feels like that was what you expected, and you reacted by trying to get in position to take control yourself instead. And did so using a sub set of the game mechanics (economics) that no one else at the table had an interest in making a major part of the campaign.

This.

That is not to say the other players aren't at fault, they most certainly are. But your reaction at some point surely didn't help either (I guess you already know that judging from your own comments), trying to solve an OOC problem through IC measures can easily backfire as it did here. Doing stuff in secret and rubbing it in afterwards will lead to bad blood in the majority of groups where it isn't clear that this is expected and accepted behavior (I've had Vampire games that ran quite well like that, because everyone knew to expect the other PCs to be backstabbing bastards)

The problem is, you felt slighted because of being left out and tried to lash back at them, while they didn't feel they did anything wrong so they saw your actions as an unprovoked "attack", and most people react to that by getting defensive, as they did, and from there things usually escalate.

My suggestion would be the usual: Talk to them, apologize for your mistakes (you did make some, after all), explain your situation (much as you would in a "relationship talk", use "I" statements instead of "you" statements, "I felt ignored" instead of "you ignored me") and if you want to stay in the group, try to have a calm conversation about how to make it work. Make it clear that you accept your part of the blame and don't try to blame anyone else, arguing about who should apologize over what to whom doesn't help. Don't make specific demands of other players ("You need to stop being the RT!") but be constructive, offer options or ask them straight up what they think would work best.

kyoryu
2018-09-21, 03:31 PM
And did so using a sub set of the game mechanics (economics) that no one else at the table had an interest in making a major part of the campaign.

While you're not wrong, and I agree with your comment as a whole, I'd like to point out that the GM made a mistake by allowing a Seneschal in the game and then ignoring the campaign finance bits.

ExLibrisMortis
2018-09-21, 05:36 PM
I wouldn't do the following things:
(1) Tell people not to play class X for any of the reasons given.
(2) Restart a campaign because of character deaths.
(3) Give a newbie authority over a group of that isn't all long-term friends.
(4) Ignore the focus of class Y at a strategy meeting where each class reports on their focus.
(5) Apologize for not playing class X.
(6) Apologize for being an "elitist". Given (1) to (5), I have to ask: What kind of bull**** is that, anyway? Were you supposed to stop knowing how the system works, stop playing what you like, and just roll over and submit to the RT?

I think you were right to walk.

Quertus
2018-09-21, 08:20 PM
OK, full disclosure: when I made my first post, I was rather ticked. Now, someone having willfully hurt a 70-year-old friend of mine, I'm even less reasonable. So, it may be that the most value you'll get out of my posts is a counterexample, something where others say "don't do that".

You need to have a serious discussion with the group regarding the perception that you were hogging the spotlight vs your perception that you weren't getting to do anything. And you need to listen - really listen - to what they have to say.

Ask them how they expected you to do anything when the RT was shooting your demonstrably (and demonstrated to be) good ideas down.

You need to have a serious discussion with the group about what everyone wants. How you don't enjoy certain types of characters, how it feels like they didn't care about your enjoyment of the game, etc. Everyone needs to express what they intended, and what they liked and didn't like about both games.

So, it sounds like the RT failed abysmally. Like, you're the player with the most experience, your character had good ideas, and he consistently shoot you down. When you demonstrated that your ideas were sound (and his character was a fool), rather than have his character learn from the experience, he doubled down on being a fool.

IMO, you need someone else - probably the GM - to explain this to him. And tell him that he either needs to play a RT wise enough to listen to reason and follow your lead, or not play a RT.

However, to play devil's advocate, perhaps this was intentional. Perhaps, since you are experienced with RT, the group intentionally (and foolishly) tried to give you a handicap to try to "balance" the party. Perhaps they intentionally tried to make your minigame "sync with the RT" rather than "use your superior skill to dominate the game". Or something.

But, yeah, I recommend trying to find out just what they thought that they were doing, explain exactly how poorly that went over with you, and listen very carefully to their ideas.

Hopefully, someone in a better frame of mind can make something useful out of this.

DeTess
2018-09-22, 05:00 AM
*Snip*

Despite your current state of mind this is very sound advise.

Mastikator
2018-09-22, 08:34 AM
I think this part:

At the end of session 5, I talk about this over Discord. I mention how I might as well drop out, that I feel like I'm being sidelined on purpose. And that I would like to know why. No real answers, although the RT and the Arch-Militant are quick to deny any such thing happening, and that in their opinion, I was just playing it wrong. "Come up with something that my character agrees with or finds interesting." and "Stop trying to hog the spotlight.". I say that I might as well leave then. Lots of backpedaling, but not quite enough to stop being passive-aggressive. My friends try to calm the waves a bit, and I eventually relent.
Exonerates you.
You tried to deal with this OOC and they didn't even consider that your unhappiness actually mattered.

Your fault was relenting at this point. You should have understood that if they don't apologize they will also not change how they act. (apologizing is not a guarantee, but as far as I am concerned NOT apologizing IS a guarantee that things will only get worse).

You were wrong to forgive them after they refused to apologize for their appalling behavior. You were wrong to stay after session 5.
They were all wrong for being bad people. Now they're ganging up and actively bullying you. Why are you trying to save these dysfunctional relationships?

The Glyphstone
2018-09-22, 01:13 PM
While it's a tiny point and unrelated to the matter of your game group being awful people who you shouldn't associate with, I did notice one thing early on, that two of the players were perma-dead because they spent all their Fate. The 40K games distinguish between Spent Fate points and Burnt Fate points, so the ones who spent all of theirs would still have been able to Burn (permanently reduce total by 1) a point and survive the encounter via plot.

Probably wouldn't have helped the dysfunctionality, but something to remember if you ever build a new group.

And yeah, Seneschals are very narrowly useful in combat (sniper or pistol gunslinger), but out of combat - specifically when making Acquisitions - they are invaluable. A group with a Seneschal throwing gigantic Commerce check bonuses to everyone's Acquisition rolls will be decked out in the best top-end gear, which indirectly can go a long way towards smoothing out effectiveness. Smart players protect their Seneschal to keep the goodies flowing.

Hurske
2018-09-23, 10:37 AM
As a GM for most games, I don't really have anything that others haven't already said, but one thing does bug the hell out of me.

You mentioned that you had to roll another character because another player wanted your class. But if they just strait took it without asking you if you would be willing to let another player play it, as the gm only had the one unique class rule. I would be freaking fuming.

Mr Beer
2018-09-23, 06:43 PM
I'm going to reply without reading the rest of the thread in order not to bias my responses.

We're only seeing one side of the story but it's pretty clear that you escalated the disagreement.

That said, having to give up your (still alive) character is BS and being told what you had to play instead is BS and getting sidelined by another player is BS. Personally, I would have declined to give up my character and walked at that point if still getting pressured to cave to that ludicrous demand.

There's zero chance I'd be apologising to everyone for ruining everything (which is apparently what you're being told to do) when it's clear you have legitimate gripes of your own. So I'd spend my energy finding or building another group and I'd also try to collect your 2 friends for that group.

I also feel like you're being blamed for all the player dissatisfaction but in fact your absence won't actually resolve the problem, this seems like one of those situations where one or more players aren't happy but they don't know why and you're getting the flack for it. So seems like not a great group to stay in anyway.

dps
2018-09-24, 09:29 PM
I have to largely agree with Mr Beer. You were basically forced into giving up a character you wanted to play and play a character you didn't want to play, and that's not right. But you did escalate the situation.

Stuebi
2018-09-24, 11:16 PM
While it's a tiny point and unrelated to the matter of your game group being awful people who you shouldn't associate with, I did notice one thing early on, that two of the players were perma-dead because they spent all their Fate. The 40K games distinguish between Spent Fate points and Burnt Fate points, so the ones who spent all of theirs would still have been able to Burn (permanently reduce total by 1) a point and survive the encounter via plot.

Probably wouldn't have helped the dysfunctionality, but something to remember if you ever build a new group.

And yeah, Seneschals are very narrowly useful in combat (sniper or pistol gunslinger), but out of combat - specifically when making Acquisitions - they are invaluable. A group with a Seneschal throwing gigantic Commerce check bonuses to everyone's Acquisition rolls will be decked out in the best top-end gear, which indirectly can go a long way towards smoothing out effectiveness. Smart players protect their Seneschal to keep the goodies flowing.

The whole "You can burn FP" thing is something I consistently forget about. Mostly because I offer my players an out even if they don't have any on hand (Which happens rarely, most Newbies get into that situation once and then wise up on keeping at least one FP handy), instead we usually go along with grievous injuries or other losses. I feel stupid for not mentioning that when they decided on restarting that campaign. But honestly it sounded like they had made up their mind even disregarding the state of the party.


I have to largely agree with Mr Beer. You were basically forced into giving up a character you wanted to play and play a character you didn't want to play, and that's not right. But you did escalate the situation.

Yes, I did. As you and others have pointed out.

The better solution would've been to just walk out completely way earlier, probably around the time the tune of "You'll play what we want you to play" started cropping up. But as I mentioned in my first post, I can be childish when somebody gets me frustrated, to the point that I'd rather stab back than just leave. Which is a habit I'm trying to get out of.


Bottom line: Thank you all for the responses. I've basically cut contact with the three I didn't know that well, and my two friends are still with the group and the last session without me went fine. So no harm done, especially since I actually got a group lined up with people I'm close-knitted with.