Brutal GM'ing, aka, Am I evil, or just Misunderstood? Options

[Narmio]

[Ravor]

Well personally I fall into the "it's the character's skills that count, not the player's" camp, meaning that I wholehearty agree that the ( Strength 1 ) Sammy got what was coming to him, but I very strongly disagree with the Technomancer example, his character knew what going into full-VR meant, so the player should have been told. Of course, if the player had still said yes then all bets are off. :cyber:

Of course, the usual disclaimer of as long as everyone at the table is enjoying themselves then no "bad-fun" is going on, ect, ect...

[Tarantula]

I still like the fact that he kept the lesson in game, made it slightly annoying, but not problematic for the player. Keeping things in game tends to help keep everyone at the table in game, which helps the feel of the world overall.

[fistandantilus4....]

[tisoz]

[Heimdalol]

In all the years I've been gaming the biggest disagreements that have come up at the table were all based on when a player and a GM were understanding a world differently. Both were using their common sense and when there's a disconnect feelings end up getting hurt.

I really don't like GMs that will bruise characters (even if it's just egos.) For saying the wrong thing. I've never walked from a game because of this but only because I game with RL friends.

We have enough fun and jokes at the table , humiliating players (even slightly) when you're not both on the same wavelength is just plain wrong IMO. One of the jobs of the GM is to interpret what the players are saying and weave it into the game world. That takes a little bit of understanding ( "hear what I mean , not what I say")

I'm glad you and your players are all having fun but I think this is one area where a lot of GMs can improve if they are looking for everyone to have even more fun.

[Talia Invierno]

Whenever I see a thread like this, I wonder how many of the diehard opponents and proponents have stable, long-term games of which they are a part. (Wouldn't that make for an interesting discussion, if each person had to precede their post with a statement not only of years of experience playing, but of how long their longest campaign lasted?)

[Solomon Greene]

Oh god, please no, Talia. It would devolve into the boards of MMORPGs; "What you say! You're not a max levelled character, your opinion is MEANINGLESS!"

[Talia Invierno]

Which could be an interesting statement, if so many max-levelled MMORPG PCs hadn't been shopped out to eastern Europe or India for professional levelling.

But, as to how things might apply here:

I don't reply to firearms threads, as my experience with firearms is so comparatively minimal as to make any contribution I could make worse than minimal.

Outside SR3 rules questions I don't reply to vehicle pimping threads, as my experience with vehicle engines falls far short of many here: and so I learn far more than I would be capable of adding.

Why shouldn't experience in maintaining a long-term, stable campaign be a valid and even expected self-limiter for posting in a thread critiquing GMing style of a long-term GM? What is that advice worth, otherwise?

[Rotbart van Dain...]

You know the saying 'Yeah, I know the game is rigged - but it's the only game in town.'?

It doesn't really matter how much experience someone claims to have - only if he is able to avoid mistakes.
And if someone is posting a pretty basic GM mistake (the clown railroad) as an example and asks for opinion, it doesn't matter how much experience the person pointing it out has - the fact that it was pointed out means: enough.

[Talia Invierno]

Someone capable of sustaining a long-term, stable campaign is obviously already capable of avoiding the fatal mistakes of GMing.

To opine otherwise smacks of frustrated wish fulfilment.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Talia Invierno]

You didn't catch the mocking irony of the first post?

[Rotbart van Dain...]

I caught the failed try of irony. It hurt.

[Talia Invierno]

Failed, in this case, may lie in the eye of the beholder :P

[fistandantilus4....]

[fistandantilus4....]

Which reminds me ...

[Nerf'd]

Fairly early on I realized that if I stayed involved, it was going to turn into a pissing match - so I stepped back and just watched. I realize that everyone is not going to agree with my style, but I thought that the very fact that I still have the vast majority of my players would have counted for something.

Apparently not.

That being said, most of the the posters (with a few glaring exceptions) have been able to give me good feedback as to things I might change. I probably won't pull a trick like the TM rolling down a roof again, but that's a moot point - the player learned from the experience, and went on to play much better. Everyone laughed, everyone understood the lesson, and everyone went on. I never had to remind any of that group about being aware of their surroundings again - which, to me, is really the point.

So, to most of you, thank you for being forthright in your opinions, and forthcoming with your suggestions. I have and will take them into account.

To those who un-named folks who got all hot under the collar about the rules - chill out. Funny thing about being GM, I seem to remember being told that I'm the ultimate arbiter of the rules, as long I'm not outright breaking them and making my players unhappy.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

As this seems to be a general misunderstanding elaborated further in another thread:

[tweak]

The reason why I play is to have a good time. If the GM doesn't get that concept, then I'm not interested in playing.

Now, the Shadowrun book does provide for different types of play. But the players have to agree that they will have a good time playing a detailed game like the OP runs.

[tisoz]

I waited a while to see what the majority was going to decide before I ventured an opinion...

Not really. I just didn't care that much and I didn't have much to contribute until now.

From your intial post, I was leaning toward you were mistaken and not really a brutal GM but a jerk. But then when some people offered some criticism and you followed up with a post or so giving further details, especially the rooftop explanation, I thought you were being pretty fair.

It works that way a lot around here. Someone posts the bare parts of the story. They get smacked around. More of the story gets revealed. The new details put an entirely different slant on the story.

That's why I was so patient before offering an opinion.

[starkebn]

[Wounded Ronin]

[eidolon]

Okay. That's enough trolling and baiting for one thread. If you can manage to make this constructive in any way in the next few posts, it stays open. Otherwise, it's getting closed.

[Shinobi Killfist]