But it would be fair to try to wreck a game, and "out" the GM, simply because your personality does not mesh with his?  Because that's what you're talking about - a difference in personalities/play styles.
Not really.  If you are no longer in the game then you have no way to show those screen shots to the other players.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 13):

icosahedron152 is kinda summing up how I feel on the subject, as well as further backing up your point my tantrum would be royally pointless :p

I'm not saying I'd try and wreck the game, I would be removing my character from the game because I get attached to my characters and I don't want someone I don't like playing or passing on my stuff.

Situation is also completely diffirent to a clash in personality which I would just respectively back out. I'm on about when the GM is being deliberately unhelpful. I would go as far as to say OPs example is an example of the GM wrecking their own game out of laziness and/or being unknowable enough in their own game that they can't actually say how they're supposed to do it themselves.

I really want to reiterate the whole I would try to work things out, and the bit where my orginal comment (which I have now admitted would have been stupid) was my last resort if you won't work with me or try and help me when I'm being civil screw this. Irl, if I was working a job where my manager tried a stunt like that I would hand in my stuff and go.

"Out" the GM by the way? The screen shots would be my back up if they decided to be petty and shame me in public, because in the situation we're discussing they 1. Fail at their job 2. The character is removed by their owner and quits 3. Well that should be that
I'm not a name and shamer. I wouldn't bring it up inless they did, where I would then prove I was asking for help and left due to their unhelpfulness and lack of compassion, not just "lol me done haha wreck your game"

Geese you guys make me feel lucky. Most of the games I have left were because the gm closed them.

There are a couple of exceptions, but... it went well at least?

In reply to Merevel (msg # 15):

For the most part, I have had pretty helpful GM's. I have had a few that couldn't let anything but their own stuff go, and a few that have let anything under the sun go, and some that wouldn't have known realistic possibilities (which I get its a game, but let's not break the realms of possibility shall we?) when it reached up and bit them.
Also, with this site dedicated so much to backing GM's, rightly so I will add, I also wanted to point out that sometimes, GM calls notwithstanding, it was still a lousy thing.
:)

Not sure why you think we "dedicate so much to backing GMs"?  We don't back GMs at all.

Basically all we do is tell the GM, "Hey, we won't interfere in your game as long as you don't break these rules."

And players get exactly the same deal - "Don't break these rules, and you can do what you like in a game."

And these rules are the same in both cases.

What the individual players and GMs choose to do with this is up to them - just don't expect us to sort out the arguments, and don't bring those arguments into the public forums.

The only difference is that the GMs have more control over the mechanics of running their own game, including who has access to it.

          link to a message in another game

tldr: We don't really back GMs... we just don't back the players over them.
This message was last edited by the user at 06:11, Fri 06 May 2016.

Going back to the OP...

If a GM is being obtuse with you, it might be a good time to consider changing your mind about the game.  It's likely that the GM is just on autopilot...you asked a question that triggered a stock answer, without the GM thinking about what else you had said, and if that's the case, a gentle reminder that you will gladly follow the instructions given if someone will help you figure out how, should be enough to rectify the situation.

If, however, the GM is just being a jerk about things, and your request for clarification or more complete instructions yields no results, keep in mind that this individual is going to be running the game.  If they're unhelpful before you get into the game, it's not likely to improve much.  If you're already in the game and they're proving unhelpful...well, again, it's not likely to improve much.

My experience has been that the best games come out of a good chemistry between the GM and the players...if you get a combination that clicks, you can play almost anything and have a good time.  If that chemistry is lacking, no matter what you play, it's going to wind up feeling like some kind of trial of patience.  So, if the GM is already displaying 'bad' chemistry, I'd suggest leaving the game before things get worse.

It kind of depends on the specifics of the thing, but maybe it's a confusion between not knowing the OOC rules on something and not pulling the IC trigger on something?

For instance, say in a game you're playing a wizard but don't really know the rules very well.  There's a crime scene where magic might have been used.  If you say to the GM "I don't know how to check for magical residue", his response could reasonably "just check for magical residue".  This seems to be the kind of case that you're describing - but you, as the player, are speaking to the OOC and the GM is speaking to the IC action.

Often, GMs get frustrated with people standing around discussing options and not actually doing anything.  If the PC pulls the IC trigger on an action, the GM can then resolve it however that works.

---

Or not.

Eh, it was completely OOC, as there was no way for me to have been IC at that particular point. It was the ability to do something to begin with. IE, start a character, how to figure out attack roles, etc.

Okay, so recently I have come across a situation that I feel warrants a discussion.
I had a GM I was asking for some help with a character concept for a game, and they no kidding wouldn't listen to anything I said. I tried to tell them I was not arguing, and that it was entirely up to them what they did not want in their games. All they could say was "If you make it (when I had already said I wouldnt) then I will deny it.
I think potential players should have the same option of informing other players about GM's like that.
After all, if GM's have the "hey such and such a player tries to join your game, then watch out for (fill in thr blank)", then I believe a balance would be "hey if such and such a GM starts announcing for a game, then watch out for (fill in the blank)".

Now, as someone who is new to this site, but not to GMing, I get what your saying. If I have a horrible time with a player, I am going to warn people about those players. I have a specific person I WILL NOT play or run if they are in the group. No way, no how. But...this sword has to cut both ways.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 21):

Players already have that option.  But, as with the GM's option to warn each other about problem players, it has to be done entirely in private.  If anybody, GM or player, posts such warnings in public forums, then we remove the message and warn the person not to do it again.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 22):

Eh, I am going to have to disagree. Doesn't make me right, naturally, but I think the response that livember got perfectly illustrates my point.

I agree that not doing so publicly is important, but on the other hand...is it really any more reasonable or feasible to go to each and every player in that person's games and warn them about the bad experiences? Which is the alternative I see to a public statement.

In reply to Lord_Johnny (msg # 23):

What's wrong with sending an rMail to your friends, or posting warnings in games (with their GM's permission)?  That is exactly what a GM would have to do to warn others about a problem player.

And, as far as this site and its admins are concerned, it is far more reasonable than our having to deal with all the arguments, differences of opinion (after all, the GM's version of events is unlikely to match the player's), and outright lies in a public forum.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:11, Sun 08 May 2016.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 24):

Well, I don't think GM's would be too happy to have a random thread about another person in their game, I know I wouldn't.
As for the latter part of your message, I think I need to repeat what I said about agreeing that it shouldn't be done publicly.

Example: Lets look at the GM you mentioned above, the one who wouldn't listen.  Let's suppose, for the moment, that we did allow public reports of bad behaviour...

How would you feel if you came into Community Chat one day and found that the GM had posted, "That Lord_Johnny - I'll never let him in one of my games again.  All he wanted to do was create an uber-munchkin character, and he just kept rattling on about why I should let him, even after I told him NO about three times, and explained exactly why not."?

I guess that might damage your chances of getting into games, even ones run by people who don't know you.

Incidentally, have you noticed that we actually give players an advantage over GMs when it comes to signing up for games?  If you look at the bottom of the W-P ad, you can see the GM's history with games, go into them, take a look at how he runs them.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 26):

Well sir, now it's you who isn't listening, as this will be the third time I have stated I agree with not doing it publically.

While you say that you agree it shouldn't be done publicly, you also say, "is it really any more reasonable or feasible to go to each and every player in that person's games and warn them about the bad experiences? Which is the alternative I see to a public statement."

As noted above, that is exactly what a GM would have to do to warn his friends about a problem player.  That is the only option anybody on this site has when it comes to reporting what is, in all honesty, no more than a clash of personalities - player wants to do things one way, GM wants to do them another.

Neither of them is actually wrong.

EDit:
That's why I said to get his permission.  But who says it has to be a "random thread"?  You could, for example, just post your warning in the game's OOC thread, or send a PM to the other players.
This message was last edited by the user at 19:44, Sun 08 May 2016.

In reply to bigbadron (msg # 28):

But that doesn't make it necessarily feasible. A private communique to each possible GM, GM that is running, or has just gotten done with a game is a very time consuming task. Ergo, for the sake of discussion, I was attempting to point out the rather overbearing problem that doing so causes.

It doesn't mean I think it ought to be done publically.

Unfortunately, if it can't be done publicly, then doing it privately is the only other option.

I'm not sure why you feel you need to contact all of these GMs.

In RL I just take a deep breath and try and figure out how to do.  They don't like the result I remind them I told them I did not know how nor did they offer guidance or support.  If they do not like results then they should either find someone else or do it themselves.  Should they get nasty I refer them to Human Resources or a Union Rep, possibly both.

In a game I remind them that since I have immediate control over what my character can and cannot do I have final say about that reguardless if they are GM or not.  They are supposed to control the other aspects of their world.
A bad GM will tell you that you have to go though the door so he states you do, you have no control of your characters.  A good GM will let you decide if, when, and how you might go through a door.  A great GM will figure out how to make you think going through a door is your characters own brilliant idea.

I don't necessarily do feel that way. This isn't about me specifically but using a natural foci for the example.
On the other hand, if GM's are doing so about players, it is a natural comparison for doing so about GM's, in accordance to the quantity assumed that a GM would use in the same circumstances.

In reply to pitademon (msg # 31):

Indeed. I think you have the epitome of the thing. In real life we have to put up with these things and make do.
We shouldn't have to in a place dedicated to having fun. Its about relaxing not having to try and read someone else's mind.

I also want to make a couple of points, as the discussion proceeds.
1st, I have nothing against GM's. The overwhelming majority of the time, my experiences with GM's is positive, and I absolutely have a deep seated appreciation for those who become "the bad guy" for us gamers so we can play.
2nd, this is a discussion thread. I wanted to see other people's reactions to situations similar to mine, how they would handle it, and/or possibly discuss solutions to similar type situations.

Ah, I see.  You are assuming that there is some sort of "secret GM club" where the GMs are all passing information to each other.

Well, that isn't actually the case - the site currently has a little over 97,000 registered users, every one of whom is a potential GM.  At most a GM might contact a handful of his friends (if you have done something to seriously annoy him, otherwise he won't bother), and maybe post in his game's OOC something like, "Bob's player was acting like a jerk, so he won't be playing."


Personally, I would make a note of the GM's name, and would never apply to one of his games again.  I might mention to a few people that I had a bad experience with him (as in a handful of friends), but I wouldn't concern myself with trying to inform too many people.

Why not?  Because while the guy might be a terrible GM for me, he might be running incredibly successful and popular games for dozens of other people, all of whom consider him a veritable paragon of GMing.

Just as in RL, everything comes down to interpersonal relationships, which vary in every single case.

For all you (or anybody else) know, the GM who wouldn't listen to you might simply have been having a rough time and was just sort of "running on autopilot" to push things through - if you'd contacted him a week earlier, or later, he might have been a great GM.

Haha, that is all so true. Like the GM only I seemed to have a problem with. That kinda makes me wonder what people thought of my gming style when I did try to run a game.

Been watching this thread, and I'd like to vouch for the truth that one player's GM horror story can run successful, fun games for other people, where everyone involved has a ton of fun and a good time. There's a GM on this site I had a bad experience with very shortly after joining, and I have occasionally heard from other members that they have also had bad times with the same user, but s/he also has a couple of games that are so healthy and active, it's... I mean, it's awe-inspiring. It's such a rare thing, and to have more than one? Clearly there are players s/he clicks with on RPoL, and that's all that really matters.

Heck, one of my best friends RL? We're each other's GM and player horror stories. We both love RPGs to pieces, we'd play them all the time if we could, but we can never play in a game the other is running. We just clash. By all other accounts from our groups, we're both respectable game masters, but the best we can do is be players in the same game, and even then it has to be a system one or both of us hasn't played much of in the past.

There's no crunch in place to account for personal style in the RP world, but sweet hallelujah is it important! So best just to try to work things out when you clash, and stick to the high road with a polite exit when you can't (as I've recently come to terms with, per some wisdom from Ron over in the vents thread, actually!).
This message was last edited by the user at 02:56, Mon 09 May 2016.