> not. A DM should play their characters fairly and evenly. I am sorry to
> rant like this but I have seen too many players rant at DM's for hours
> cause they hadn't become supreme ruler in two turns.
I'm guilty of ranting (though not just because I haven't managed to become
supreme ruler), I admit. Players venting frustrations is not the same as
ruining the game. Nor is it out of line for a player to wonder about. .
.unusual occurances (a all out Gorgon invasion without any hint that it
might happen - considering the ramifications I think a player might have a
right to be. . .upset. . .about that.) Some players are better at rolling
with the punches than others. Some (like myself - and I admit this is a
flaw) need to vent for awhile to someone (sometimes it's been the DM,
especially in a couple PBeMs where I know the DM doesn't mind), or fellow
players (comisserating), before settling in and devising a response.
Leaving a game because you don't get your way is childish. However, I've
seen this happen, too: where a player has (IMO), a ligitimate concern about
how something is being handled in a game but the DM thinks the player is
merely whining about not getting their way. And you might respond "well, if
a player in a PBeM doesn't like what's going on, they should just leave."
IMO, that's not the solution either. At least not the first response. It
might annoy some DMs, but IMO the better thing to do is to discuss his (or
her) concerns with the DM. These "discussions" might get heated (the DM
thinks his style is under attack, and to a certain degree it is, and the
player is probably ill tempered already or he wouldn't have the concern to
begin with). Pointing the situation out isn't nessissarily a cry for
automatic success at everything instantaniously. But concerns about not
being able to have an impact on the course of the game irregardless of what
decision or action the player takes, or about how an event was handled and
could be handled in the future, etc - those are ligitimate things to bring
up. The player might go away learning something he didn't know, and the DM
might learn something as well.
Now it would be better all around if these things could always be handled
without emotion, but if the DM has succeeded at getting the player to care
about the fate of his character & realm, then the player is emotionally
engaged in the game - and it isn't nessissarily a slam at the DM if the
player responds emotionally (it's, IMO, somewhat of a backhanded
complement. The player who shows no concern or care when things go badly
and the enemy occupies his realm isn't exactly complimenting the game by
his indifference, is he?).
Now I've never managed to "take over the world" (the one time I got sort
of close, me and my allies anyhow, Ian got a new job and the game tanked
before we could win. . .or lose.). Me myself, though, I get very attached
to my characters, and my realm. There are situations where I would fight to
the end, and I doubt I'd ever "restart" in any PBeM where I "lost" (realm
got destroyed or Regent got assassinated). That isn't nessissarily a
"threat" to the DM to insure that I suceed, it's just a playing style. And,
as a player, I'm a bit uncomfortable when "eliminated" players are allowed
to resume play with another realm, with another character, because *some*
of them *occassionaly* use that as an oportunity not to role play a new
situation but to settle old scores that have nothing to do with their
current (new) charater & realm. So, if you're DMing and some player bets
the farm on something (is going to fight till either they eliminate their
foe or are eliminated), then let the chips fall where they may. Don't
eliminate them out of spite, but the point isn't letting them win because
they insist on a "final" outcome, either ("the outcomes final all right.")
In a particular game where the stakes were high but our foe offered us
fairly reasonable peace terms, I remember deciding to reject them and go
for it all (accepting the "fairly reasonable" peace terms would have, in
the opinion of my character, had been to our great long term disadvantage,
even though on the surface they looked almost generous at the time). I
still can't be sure what the outcome of that "all or nothing bet" would
have end, because the game ended in mid-Turn (we had just won a significant
battle after losing several, and were about to march into our foe's realm
to face his main army and whatever other surprises that Regent had in store
for us).
No player likes to lose. A player emotionally attached to his realm & his
character, and emotionally engaged in the game (I.E. one who gives a damn)
might not always be a happy camper when things go wrong (some players,
including myself, need to - and I think I have - work on their etiquette,
though). But the DM shouldn't assume all critiques or inquiries are based
upon players insisting on having their way, either.
There is however, a *huge* difference between insisting on being made
"Supreme Ruler of Anuire" in two turns (or whatever) and insisting on being
*able* to have an impact on the outcome of events (I've been in games where
it litterally almost didn't matter what decisions a player made, or how
much effort & creativity they put into plans - things proceeded according
to a grand story arc, and the main impact a player's realm would have would
be being willing to be there at the right time to fit the DM's plotline -
success wasn't based upon merits, but upon timing. The players who were "in
the right place at the right time" managed to get the carrot, whatever it
was, as fitted into the plan. That is my current biggest critique of modern
gaming.). Anyhow, I'm rambling on so I'll stop now. If the above doesn't
make any sense (and at 1 A.M. I'm betting it doesn't), then ask any
questions and I'll try and clarify.
To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com
with the line