Topic: Taking responsibility in GM'ing duties any comments?
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:A fundamental problem between the players and the player-GM BurningEgo appears to be these:
-A general feeling of animosity and genuine grevance agisnt Ego's Ego.
-The 2 pages of posts between Ego and Daniel which I hope i being resolved peacefuly over ICQ.
These issues sadden me greatl because I as much as anyone else want a fun game where we can all play within a framework of rules to allow fair but realistic gaming over a game that spans 400 years. There will be disputes, there will be fights, and there are of course wars, grim trigger or otherwise and some players get a little roused up, especially newbs (politie non demeaning term) but given time and practice and experiance theyll evolve to veteran players who are a contriution to the strategy RTS community in this game Paradox Ineractive with the God Johan looking out for us.
The issues listed above concern me, coGM in our Troika very deeply and I wish to resolve it so as such i want all parties to contact me on icq and we'll arrange a time over ICQ where we can discuss this civilized over isntant messgaing and solve this once and for all I'll moderate this and hopefully we can continue on to play without hard feelings between any of us and pretend this bump in the road never happened.
This dispute while seems now to b game breaking will in fact strengthen us all we need to do is see past our differences and play on, play well, and play friendly. But in G-d's name not playing nice.
In a forum where me and othe rplayers organize games of EU2 I started up a game and as such became GM and a number of players joined. However some fellow gamers also started a game for the same day so we agreed that having 2 games would cripple both mutually so we agreed to merge.
Games were merged and 3 of us became Co-GMs.
Because of the geographical conditions of my start location I was isolated from everyone else and because of technical issues een ocmmunicated via ingame chat was limited so m ability to observe current events was restricted and even then I would not be bale to hear diputes with any degree of accuracy since ild hav to rely on the host to tell me what happened.
My efforts to uphold my GMing duties decreases as well after the first sessin (which I had to mis but thankfully was subbed)
I read the game logs as is my right as GM and I find myself being mocked behind m back =( so Im reluctant to do anything but just play next several sessions.
Finally we get a posibly game ending dispute where the player and GM "BurningEgo" pisses off some people and many and threatening to quit as they are pissed off ironically enough with his Ego.
(An Ego that got him banned in previous games and got him to quit another game where I was GM to the pleasure and releif of everyone else but me )
So I posted this cuz' damnit all to hell I need my fix so I'm taking a stand as GM I want to fix this issue so I can get back to playing.
Am I doing my duties as GM as trying to resolve this and have anyone else encounted similar problems as a GM in any other game? D&D etc.
IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was going to be a thread on the problems at General Motors, and their possibly Alliance with Nissan/Renault, or their plans to move factories to China.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I've ever seen a successful, smooth campain with more than one GM.
How does more than one GM work anyway? The game isn't just what's documented in a manual, but based on the GM's interpretation, imagination and storytelling. Any idiot can do a walk-thru of a campaign, but what the single GM brings to to the table is what makes it different.
Especially in an online environment, where all of the storytelling is done in written form. Having more than one GM leads to more than one style of writing and presentation, which can damage the experience.
Of course, this might be different for the "stat junkies", who don't give a damn about the story but want to plow through the campaign as if they're taking a physics test, mathematically calculating how far until their next level or stat increase. To those that don't know what the "RP" stands for in "RPG", it doesn't matter who's GM-ing; a die roll is a die roll, and the rules are set in stone no matter who's in charge.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
the purpose of having multiple GMs (we're playng an RTS grand strategy game set in the colonial era 1419-1819 but role playing is encouaged) in this case 3, Me (as Sid Meier), Absulute, and BurningEgo is that the GM wont be able to abuse his position if there are 2 other GMs watching him.
Being a strategy game times can get tense especially when someone breaks a non agression pact and stabs you in the back.
In my other game "The History Channel" Im the only GM plus a "CoGM" but hes mainly a helper someone to do edits and watch things for me since I can't see Europe.
As for rules there's the game "engine" but that is kinda poor for playing an indeph multiplayer game so we of th PDox community create our own custom rules to make things more fair and remove exploits aka using looopholes in the game engine to yuor own diabolical ends.
We create these rules but sometimes people get conused or react badly to them giving way to disputes this time a player called a particular rule stupid and asked for its deletion. Ego took this as a personal attack and a flame war ensues.
We revised the rule so i wasnt stupidly written and finally after some intense negotiations we manged to get Ego to publicly apologize for his actions, sorted out the misunderstanding and all the players agreed to come back.
A harrowing experiance indeed. Although some of the player have no doubt an even lower opinion of Ego and will unlikely play any future games wih him as GM.
IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I would just exclude Ego from any game I was GMing. The guy chose his nick extremely well. The only reason I can see for playing with him is to gather an alliance of other people he's pissed off, and royally gangbang his ass. That would be fun, providing you were able to ignore the three pages of whining that would inevitably follow.
So to answer your question : No, you were not doing your job right, you should have kicked Ego out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
GMs can never resort to flaming. A player has got to be able to trust the GM's neutrality.
If you think removing him is too big for you, bring it up to the group as a whole. If the players don't want him there either, then he needs to go.
Unfortunately, your other option would be to start a new game and not worry about what everyone else is doing. Somehow, I doubt you'll find that satisfying.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
Eh. I should have kicked him out too, before he poisoned the Great Game. I think we lost, what, three players to his attitude? I want Trav back. Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Indeed I tried contacting Trav after trav quit and go no responce.
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
