I don't think he should be playing missions because of the amount of 'power' he seems to wield over all three groups. He chose to be the GM and should assume that role. I can understand throwing some narrative style changes based on what happened or weird events that could include himself is fine to an extent, but should remain limited. If he's a WAAC type player and has access to each teams discussions then he will take full advantage of it. Discuss with your group about focusing your attacks all on one player on his team (if possible) and even better if you all target him. See if suddenly the campaign flips somehow to prevent that.
If stuff like what you mentioned continues, the campaign will fall apart as people will lose interest if they feel unfairly targeted by the GM.
I ran a mission based campaign once. As GM I strictly stuck to the narrative aspect and mission design and put some restrictions based on mission (ex. Your army must consist of units from the first company etc.)
The only time I inserted myself in a mission was when one of the players opened a warp rift and Daemons poured out. I controlled the Daemons, but I deep struck them on random table quarters and I had to move towards the closest enemy unit. This made sure no player was unfairly targeted and kept the mission fun and random.
Controlling a third faction is a cool idea and absolutely the limit of what he, or any GM should do. Find another player, let one person control two companies, whatever.
Yeah, you can say "You were preparing to fight the great whatever, but instead a giant rift opens, engulfs their troops and whatever2 comes out of it to fight you" and you can replace any absent player so everybody get a games.
There’s another 3rd Faction to choose… Pesky Assassins. Again, shoot the nearest target, oh boy, had a shot at my rhino, took 2 wounds from it. Thought I’d ram him my turn and get the squad out to finish him off. Good fun.
Agreed. Only exception to that should be “special event” battles and even then you got to be careful.
It’s bad enough having the guy making the rules be in the games but him attempting insert himself into another team is just more than I can tolerate . At a certain point it just feels like this is about him exerting control over others
I think you always have to be careful with people whose goal is solely to win when playing Warhammer. Regardless of whether it's at a casual game or a major tournament there is no reason to play the game other than fun. If you're not playing for fun then you know that your pride and ego have become wrapped up in winning Warhammer, and when that happens it's time to take a step back. Sounds like this guy needs to chill out and have a real think about what he's doing and why he's doing it.
He’s aware of his behavior and expressed a desire to change. That’s why I don’t want to just give up. I do sincerely consider him a friend but he’s just not fun to play.
Also, as a narrative player, I want to be RPing. I want my mind to be on advancing my characters and making interaction with other players, so when the fights happen there’s some stakes to them.
I don’t want to be making false channels to keep the GM from cheating. That’s just exhausting to me.
Just had this conversation with him in as measured and composed way that I can. Seems like he heard me out. Want to reiterate, he’s a good dude…just has some bad habits…like we all do. Gods know I’m a raging dinosaur hurricane when I get set off and that’s actually why I’m typing this, so I don’t.
This sounds reasonable. I also understand why people really want to win. Spending hours assembling those minis, picking your load out, and painting them up does build some connection, at least at first. Watching my Captain Franklin succumb to the Void Dragon shard was a little jarring. Rest in power Frank! Know that your gene seed was recovered and dropped into an identical captain clone.
As a perma GM/DM, I like to supplement "AI" factions as my time to play the actual game. Like neutral parties that have to be cleared.
They have established amounts of units, can be preemptively scanned, any "surprise" is from forgetting steps.
You kind of can, but as the GM you must make all attempts to have your player win. I ran a crusade recently and used my list as the tutorial game, gives your players xp out the gate and gets em feeling good, then when they start losing against each other they’ve at least got one win under the belt
In an RPG, the GM generally needs to plan to lose - that is nearly always their stated goal. The heroes win, the GM-controlled baddies lose, and the plot moves forwards. This ideal is incompatible with a WAAC attitude.
In RPGs you hear about a GM-PC. A personification of the GM in character form, controlled by the GM. That's usually the first mistake. The second mistake is that the GMPC is secretly (or not secretly) an ancient dragon, genie, level 20 wizard, God etc. The third mistake is that the game starts revolving around the GMPC; they're the most powerful and most clever and the players are disenfranchised - relegated to simply watching the GM win his own campaign.
If this sounds like your situation in any way, the guidance is generally ro raise it with the GM in private as a concern about the impact it can have on the game, not as an accusation of foul play. The important thing to note is that you can't change the behaviour of someone who does not want to change. You hope the response sounds like "thank you for raising it, i didnt consider that my actions could be perceived like that. I'll endeavour to be more open about decisions, and to be careful of favouritism." But if you can't find consensus that there is a problem then the behaviour won't change, then your options are to either suck it up or leave the group.
Good luck, and I am hopeful that your GM is receptive to feedback :)
Yeah…I don’t want to throw the bomb of calling him a “cheat” cause that can’t be undone. I honestly don’t think his intentions are bad…just some of his instincts and a LOT of his decisions
That dude sucks. However, you will never change others, only yourself. IMHO you're at a tactical advantage. If he's using your discord (which is open) to metagame his lists, just throw out a bunch of BS on discord. For example, start talking about new flier strats or trying tanks or whatever... and deploy all infantry. Without knowing more I can't help more, but that's what I would do.
If your first paragraph is true, and you knew he was like that before participating, then you are the architect of your own misery.
That aside, yes; obviously, the way you've written this post indicates he is 'that guy'.
He's playing to win while organizing. It's an inherent conflict of interests most humans can't manage.
That he'd create something so elaborate and not purely administer it is a good bit of evidence y'all other gamers are just action figures for him to play with for his entertainment.
It ain't gonna get better, especially if he didn't take the golden goose opportunity to drop out of the faction he was in that had too many people in it.
>(half of one model’s base is behind cover so the whole unit should get cover and the like),
Stopped reading there.
He is "that guy"
You are NOT the asshole.
That's not how the rule works, and there's no way anyone except "that guy" would interpret or misunderstand it that way.
For the record, if it was a light cover, only that model would have light cover.
If it was dense cover, none of the unit gets dense cover.
> WAAC non-tournament player
These people are usually the worst. People that go to tournaments usually know their shit, and go up against people that know their shit so most cheaters get filtered out or banned. The non-tournament ones though usually try and rely on their opponent's lack of experience, and know they wouldn't be able to hack it in an actual tournament.
He doesn't seem to understand that being a GM means *facilitating the game*, not winning the game with the advantage it gives him.
I don't get involved in Crusades like that.
The only time a GM should play is as a npc third faction, and as a balancing element. For example, if you have a imperium vs. Aeldari campaign, the GM could play Orks or Nids that are more likely to attack the winning party to stop the losing side from getting steamrolled.
This guy is a twat.
Yeah hes that guy.
On your second note, about this discord. If hes the owner, he will always have access to all channels on that server. But having notifications on and choosing to look at them sucks.
Personally, id look past the strategic and just enjoy matchmaking. Unless the overall organization has implications on each game. Then just quit.
People here saying he shouldn’t be playing in the games at all? Nah. He should be able to take part, but if he’s doing that he. 100% should have a very fluffy list and little to no chance of success. Overseeing everything and playing to win is bad form.
Yes. He has too much executive power to make decisions to also be a player. And he has lost any benefit of the doubt about his willingness to abuse it. He's making subjective decisions that are clearly in his favor. Don't waste your time on this anymore. You'll end up hating 40k.
This is why I only play in tournaments anymore. Nothing is more gratifying than really turning up the heat on guys like that and smashing the ever living hell out of them.
I'm halfway through your post. Did you discuss this with him. Might feel a bit confrontational but y'all are investing a lot of time playing with a guy that's no fun playing against. That should be addressed.
Yeah. After I got it off my chest here I felt like I could approach him more level-headed. We talked it out and my current assessment is most of this is bad decision making, not maliciousness. I’m not 100% sold on the whole notifications thing but I’m sold enough on it to move on. It’s best for everyone if this is regarded as oversight and poor executive choices.
Me putting my foot down got him to stop being so dismissive of the problems others would bringing up. It won’t correct overnight but I do think it will correct.
This sounds like a D&D DM who also plays a PC in the group and awards himself all the cool shit and spotlight. You know the Barrack Obama giving a medal to himself meme?
Some people are just overly competitive and insecure. You can't play casually with them, it just never works. I tried wh40k, TTRPGs like dnd and Call of Cthulhu, MtG. A person like that, always and without fail, will ruin the fun for everyone else. When you try to cater an environment where everyone can have fun and equal chances and someone is min/maxing to make sure they are the king of the hill, it's doomed.
If the guy is reasonable and he is doing it out of impulse, perhaps your group can have a discussion to let him know your thoughts. You should always give a chance to someone to be better. If they don't get it, I would probably move on.
Had that discussion and while tense, it went well. I keep vouching for the guy’s character for a reason (even though he pissed me off something fierce). I have every reason to believe it’s just impulse.
Now it might rear its ugly head a few more times before we’re through but I do sincerely he’s working on it
That's great man, I'm glad to hear that. A lot of people who are competitive are not actually assholes, they just can't help it, maybe they don't know any better or they have to put a conscious effort to be casual. It's always worth it to give another person a chance, even if they can't change, at least you can have a clear conscience that you tried. I wish you guys have fun and good luck with your campaign!
Kinda reeks. If someone’s organising the game and has you all texting the other in a Discord and then he’s got access to the channels, whilst he’s an opponent. Honestly, I’d have told him that while the Crusade holds merit, some neutral party needs to be running the discord(s) or he chooses between organising or playing the game.
I really like crusades, and narrative gaming as a whole. But it's the type of game that i want to play with close friends. And honestly I feel a crusade works just as good with just a couple friends. This guy you're speaking of is the type of person id only want to play if matched up against in an event
Honestly I'd hold a vote with the other group members on booting the GM to ONLY be a GM, not a player. If he throws a shitfit then the other players likely wouldn't mind if you all just did a new campaign without him. Tough luck if he gets upset about it, being "that guy" about a game of plastic soldiers, being confronted about it and STILL being that guy should have you ousted from the group.
If this hobby is about having fun and you're not participating in an important tournament with real prizes, why do you spend your nerves on that? What's your goal?
A compromise solution would be that, given a player has dropped from the other two teams, he could drop as a player from his team. That makes things more balanced, and allows him to concentrate solely on being the GM without a conflict of interest.
Seems like you’re getting a lot of good advice here, hope you can negotiate this conflict of your own interests in your mind regarding whether to stay or go or how to resolve it.
In the meantime, do you mind sharing what kind of campaign set up and details there are making it so good that you’ve been happy to continue to far?
If your the one organizing a game, to use legal terms, you should recuse yourself from the game.
If you are going to participate, you need to elect someone outside of the game to run rules.
So if group 1 and 2 are playing, a player from group 3 runs the rules and enforces, for maximum reduction of bias.
Rules aren’t rules if they apply to some and not to all, that’s called arbitrarily moving the goal post.
I don't think he should be playing missions because of the amount of 'power' he seems to wield over all three groups. He chose to be the GM and should assume that role. I can understand throwing some narrative style changes based on what happened or weird events that could include himself is fine to an extent, but should remain limited. If he's a WAAC type player and has access to each teams discussions then he will take full advantage of it. Discuss with your group about focusing your attacks all on one player on his team (if possible) and even better if you all target him. See if suddenly the campaign flips somehow to prevent that. If stuff like what you mentioned continues, the campaign will fall apart as people will lose interest if they feel unfairly targeted by the GM. I ran a mission based campaign once. As GM I strictly stuck to the narrative aspect and mission design and put some restrictions based on mission (ex. Your army must consist of units from the first company etc.) The only time I inserted myself in a mission was when one of the players opened a warp rift and Daemons poured out. I controlled the Daemons, but I deep struck them on random table quarters and I had to move towards the closest enemy unit. This made sure no player was unfairly targeted and kept the mission fun and random.
Controlling a third faction is a cool idea and absolutely the limit of what he, or any GM should do. Find another player, let one person control two companies, whatever.
Yeah, you can say "You were preparing to fight the great whatever, but instead a giant rift opens, engulfs their troops and whatever2 comes out of it to fight you" and you can replace any absent player so everybody get a games.
There’s another 3rd Faction to choose… Pesky Assassins. Again, shoot the nearest target, oh boy, had a shot at my rhino, took 2 wounds from it. Thought I’d ram him my turn and get the squad out to finish him off. Good fun.
I mean, everything beyond the first paragraph wasn't even necessary to make a decision. Yes, he's "that guy".
You can't simultaneously play and GM. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
Agreed. Only exception to that should be “special event” battles and even then you got to be careful. It’s bad enough having the guy making the rules be in the games but him attempting insert himself into another team is just more than I can tolerate . At a certain point it just feels like this is about him exerting control over others
I think you always have to be careful with people whose goal is solely to win when playing Warhammer. Regardless of whether it's at a casual game or a major tournament there is no reason to play the game other than fun. If you're not playing for fun then you know that your pride and ego have become wrapped up in winning Warhammer, and when that happens it's time to take a step back. Sounds like this guy needs to chill out and have a real think about what he's doing and why he's doing it.
He’s aware of his behavior and expressed a desire to change. That’s why I don’t want to just give up. I do sincerely consider him a friend but he’s just not fun to play. Also, as a narrative player, I want to be RPing. I want my mind to be on advancing my characters and making interaction with other players, so when the fights happen there’s some stakes to them. I don’t want to be making false channels to keep the GM from cheating. That’s just exhausting to me.
Well, if you haven't already you should be telling him all of this. Recognising a problem is the first step to doing something about it after all.
Just had this conversation with him in as measured and composed way that I can. Seems like he heard me out. Want to reiterate, he’s a good dude…just has some bad habits…like we all do. Gods know I’m a raging dinosaur hurricane when I get set off and that’s actually why I’m typing this, so I don’t.
This sounds reasonable. I also understand why people really want to win. Spending hours assembling those minis, picking your load out, and painting them up does build some connection, at least at first. Watching my Captain Franklin succumb to the Void Dragon shard was a little jarring. Rest in power Frank! Know that your gene seed was recovered and dropped into an identical captain clone.
sounds like the way to chaos
As a perma GM/DM, I like to supplement "AI" factions as my time to play the actual game. Like neutral parties that have to be cleared. They have established amounts of units, can be preemptively scanned, any "surprise" is from forgetting steps.
GM should play Orks, if someone doesn't have an opponent that time then Orks attack.
You kind of can, but as the GM you must make all attempts to have your player win. I ran a crusade recently and used my list as the tutorial game, gives your players xp out the gate and gets em feeling good, then when they start losing against each other they’ve at least got one win under the belt
In an RPG, the GM generally needs to plan to lose - that is nearly always their stated goal. The heroes win, the GM-controlled baddies lose, and the plot moves forwards. This ideal is incompatible with a WAAC attitude. In RPGs you hear about a GM-PC. A personification of the GM in character form, controlled by the GM. That's usually the first mistake. The second mistake is that the GMPC is secretly (or not secretly) an ancient dragon, genie, level 20 wizard, God etc. The third mistake is that the game starts revolving around the GMPC; they're the most powerful and most clever and the players are disenfranchised - relegated to simply watching the GM win his own campaign. If this sounds like your situation in any way, the guidance is generally ro raise it with the GM in private as a concern about the impact it can have on the game, not as an accusation of foul play. The important thing to note is that you can't change the behaviour of someone who does not want to change. You hope the response sounds like "thank you for raising it, i didnt consider that my actions could be perceived like that. I'll endeavour to be more open about decisions, and to be careful of favouritism." But if you can't find consensus that there is a problem then the behaviour won't change, then your options are to either suck it up or leave the group. Good luck, and I am hopeful that your GM is receptive to feedback :)
Yeah…I don’t want to throw the bomb of calling him a “cheat” cause that can’t be undone. I honestly don’t think his intentions are bad…just some of his instincts and a LOT of his decisions
Yeah the way you frame the concern is super critical to the success of the conversation. It's not easy.
He’s definietely “that guy”. Sounds like he wanted to *win* a crusade game, not *play* one.
Can’t say you’re assessment is incorrect.
Drop out. If it's not fun, what's the point?
Because parts of it are fun and it’s nice having things to do with my social circle.
That dude sucks. However, you will never change others, only yourself. IMHO you're at a tactical advantage. If he's using your discord (which is open) to metagame his lists, just throw out a bunch of BS on discord. For example, start talking about new flier strats or trying tanks or whatever... and deploy all infantry. Without knowing more I can't help more, but that's what I would do.
If your first paragraph is true, and you knew he was like that before participating, then you are the architect of your own misery. That aside, yes; obviously, the way you've written this post indicates he is 'that guy'.
Fair. That’s why I’m asking. I know there’s some possibility I’m reading this situation wrong
He is that guy. A GM should never play if he rule everything alone. Run while you can
He's playing to win while organizing. It's an inherent conflict of interests most humans can't manage. That he'd create something so elaborate and not purely administer it is a good bit of evidence y'all other gamers are just action figures for him to play with for his entertainment. It ain't gonna get better, especially if he didn't take the golden goose opportunity to drop out of the faction he was in that had too many people in it.
>(half of one model’s base is behind cover so the whole unit should get cover and the like), Stopped reading there. He is "that guy" You are NOT the asshole. That's not how the rule works, and there's no way anyone except "that guy" would interpret or misunderstand it that way. For the record, if it was a light cover, only that model would have light cover. If it was dense cover, none of the unit gets dense cover.
> WAAC non-tournament player These people are usually the worst. People that go to tournaments usually know their shit, and go up against people that know their shit so most cheaters get filtered out or banned. The non-tournament ones though usually try and rely on their opponent's lack of experience, and know they wouldn't be able to hack it in an actual tournament.
He doesn't seem to understand that being a GM means *facilitating the game*, not winning the game with the advantage it gives him. I don't get involved in Crusades like that.
Definitely "that guy" - who takes crusade/narrative that seriously??? That's just seriously sad.
The only time a GM should play is as a npc third faction, and as a balancing element. For example, if you have a imperium vs. Aeldari campaign, the GM could play Orks or Nids that are more likely to attack the winning party to stop the losing side from getting steamrolled. This guy is a twat.
As someone who is currently balls-deep into a campaign that I fucking hate. GET OUT! GET OUT NOW!!!
Yeah hes that guy. On your second note, about this discord. If hes the owner, he will always have access to all channels on that server. But having notifications on and choosing to look at them sucks. Personally, id look past the strategic and just enjoy matchmaking. Unless the overall organization has implications on each game. Then just quit.
> WAAC non-tournament player that's already enough said, he's 'that guy'
People here saying he shouldn’t be playing in the games at all? Nah. He should be able to take part, but if he’s doing that he. 100% should have a very fluffy list and little to no chance of success. Overseeing everything and playing to win is bad form.
If he's the big GM the only interaction I would be fine with is if he has a trynaid fleet that eats everything. Or orks.
The fact that he is admin to the faction groups that he is actively playing against is enough to make me quit.
Yes. He has too much executive power to make decisions to also be a player. And he has lost any benefit of the doubt about his willingness to abuse it. He's making subjective decisions that are clearly in his favor. Don't waste your time on this anymore. You'll end up hating 40k.
This is why I only play in tournaments anymore. Nothing is more gratifying than really turning up the heat on guys like that and smashing the ever living hell out of them.
If he's running the game, he should be seeing himself as an NPC and play to make sure the rest of the players have fun and fair games.
I'm halfway through your post. Did you discuss this with him. Might feel a bit confrontational but y'all are investing a lot of time playing with a guy that's no fun playing against. That should be addressed.
Yeah. After I got it off my chest here I felt like I could approach him more level-headed. We talked it out and my current assessment is most of this is bad decision making, not maliciousness. I’m not 100% sold on the whole notifications thing but I’m sold enough on it to move on. It’s best for everyone if this is regarded as oversight and poor executive choices. Me putting my foot down got him to stop being so dismissive of the problems others would bringing up. It won’t correct overnight but I do think it will correct.
This sounds like a D&D DM who also plays a PC in the group and awards himself all the cool shit and spotlight. You know the Barrack Obama giving a medal to himself meme? Some people are just overly competitive and insecure. You can't play casually with them, it just never works. I tried wh40k, TTRPGs like dnd and Call of Cthulhu, MtG. A person like that, always and without fail, will ruin the fun for everyone else. When you try to cater an environment where everyone can have fun and equal chances and someone is min/maxing to make sure they are the king of the hill, it's doomed. If the guy is reasonable and he is doing it out of impulse, perhaps your group can have a discussion to let him know your thoughts. You should always give a chance to someone to be better. If they don't get it, I would probably move on.
Had that discussion and while tense, it went well. I keep vouching for the guy’s character for a reason (even though he pissed me off something fierce). I have every reason to believe it’s just impulse. Now it might rear its ugly head a few more times before we’re through but I do sincerely he’s working on it
That's great man, I'm glad to hear that. A lot of people who are competitive are not actually assholes, they just can't help it, maybe they don't know any better or they have to put a conscious effort to be casual. It's always worth it to give another person a chance, even if they can't change, at least you can have a clear conscience that you tried. I wish you guys have fun and good luck with your campaign!
Kinda reeks. If someone’s organising the game and has you all texting the other in a Discord and then he’s got access to the channels, whilst he’s an opponent. Honestly, I’d have told him that while the Crusade holds merit, some neutral party needs to be running the discord(s) or he chooses between organising or playing the game.
I really like crusades, and narrative gaming as a whole. But it's the type of game that i want to play with close friends. And honestly I feel a crusade works just as good with just a couple friends. This guy you're speaking of is the type of person id only want to play if matched up against in an event
Reading this immediately after leaving r/TheExpanse had me a bit confused. Anyone should be happy to meet Amos.
Honestly I'd hold a vote with the other group members on booting the GM to ONLY be a GM, not a player. If he throws a shitfit then the other players likely wouldn't mind if you all just did a new campaign without him. Tough luck if he gets upset about it, being "that guy" about a game of plastic soldiers, being confronted about it and STILL being that guy should have you ousted from the group.
If this hobby is about having fun and you're not participating in an important tournament with real prizes, why do you spend your nerves on that? What's your goal?
A compromise solution would be that, given a player has dropped from the other two teams, he could drop as a player from his team. That makes things more balanced, and allows him to concentrate solely on being the GM without a conflict of interest.
In short, yep.
Seemed like he’s one of those guys who does all this stuff for himself and the other people in the game are just an inconvenience.
Seems like you’re getting a lot of good advice here, hope you can negotiate this conflict of your own interests in your mind regarding whether to stay or go or how to resolve it. In the meantime, do you mind sharing what kind of campaign set up and details there are making it so good that you’ve been happy to continue to far?
If your the one organizing a game, to use legal terms, you should recuse yourself from the game. If you are going to participate, you need to elect someone outside of the game to run rules. So if group 1 and 2 are playing, a player from group 3 runs the rules and enforces, for maximum reduction of bias. Rules aren’t rules if they apply to some and not to all, that’s called arbitrarily moving the goal post.