It's something so irrelevant to the game that it's not worth creating any sort of awkward social situation because of it.

It seems pretty important if it's happening live, in the session, which is what I believe the GM had a problem with in the first place. But yeah, nothin g that couldn't have been handled in 5 minutes outside game time.

Maybe it's my "benefit of the doubt" nature, but the impression that I got was one of someone who'd been tossing around the idea of retiring a character, but hadn't decided one way or the other yet. (There is that just-acquired Gambler spec, after all. Why buy a new spec if you're planning to retire the character?) But, a window of opportunity and inspiration popped up to make that decision.

It's something so irrelevant to the game that it's not worth creating any sort of awkward social situation because of it.

It seems pretty important if it's happening live, in the session, which is what I believe the GM had a problem with in the first place. But yeah, nothin g that couldn't have been handled in 5 minutes outside game time.

Maybe it's my "benefit of the doubt" nature, but the impression that I got was one of someone who'd been tossing around the idea of retiring a character, but hadn't decided one way or the other yet. (There is that just-acquired Gambler spec, after all. Why buy a new spec if you're planning to retire the character?) But, a window of opportunity and inspiration popped up to make that decision.

I could hazard a guess here but I figure that's best left for OP to say. It could be any number of things I could guess and equally any number I'd never guess!

Our EotE group has been pretty poor. They did some jobs for a Hutt who basically screwed them over and they got almost nothing out of it because they chose to allow the Hutt's workers to keep a living wage rather than rob them blind on his behalf when collecting his money, They fled to The Wheel with barely enough credits to pay docking fees in the worst dock and had to get day jobs to pay for things like food. It was fun doing job hunts for everyone, the combat folks took jobs as bouncers, the mechanic worked at a repair shop and the doctor worked in a clinic. It was a good "slice of life" but this was all done with the GM's permission and not sprung on him. He basically said, "You guys are broke so what are you going to do?"

The key is to chat with your GM and/or your group. You may not see each other face-to-face every day so just use email, that's how I do it. And I have to remind myself that I may have these cool ideas for what I want my character to do and how I want him to evolve but it does no good to throw it at people at the game table. We're in the 21st century so we have ample ways to connect with folks outside of the game.

Greg's tone simply reflects the degree to which this attitude can be a hassle at the table. It's part of the reason I used a similar tone earlier in the thread. Now, I'm guessing he's not getting spam reported for that post, nor do I think he should. But if the individuals insistent on target me aren't also reporting that post, it serves as perfect evidence of the hypocrisy and targeting I've been talking about.

I don't agree with Greg's tone, but yours wasn't "similar", it was over-the-top, order-of-magnitude worse. You keep flogging your victimhood, but it's ludicrous. What happened is entirely on you, nobody else.

Not that I disagree with you or Greg on points, you just said it better when you got back.

Hey, it's a game about telling stories and having fun doing it

Yeah, but in this case it wasn't the same as the rpg format of everyone working with the GM to tell a story, it was a player wanting a very specific bit of fluff for a character that wasn't even going to be part of things to follow.

Were I the GM, I wouldn't have said no, I'd have said, "If the character is leaving the game, do what you want, I don't care."

It's something that has no bearing on the game being used to drive a wedge into the group...if that's not pointless I don't know what is.

Hey, it's a game about telling stories and having fun doing it

Yeah, but in this case it wasn't the same as the rpg format of everyone working with the GM to tell a story ...

*Wouldn't you say the gm has more of a responsibility to keep the players engaged and invested in the game than the other way around? The story is supposed to be about the player characters after all.

*edited to clarify my meaning.

What about the GM working with the players to tell a story?

That's ... what this whole game is about. I guess this is REALLY SERIOUS BUSINESS and you had better not let what YOU consider fun to interfere with what other people mandate as fun. How dare them!

Hey, it's a game about telling stories and having fun doing it

Yeah, but in this case it wasn't the same as the rpg format of everyone working with the GM to tell a story ...

What about the GM working with the players to tell a story?

You're restating what I said and acting like there's a difference?

That's a weak argument tactic (distraction, and poorly done at that), even for you.

My point, as I thought was evident, is that what happens to one character, away from the game, after the point where that character has any impact whatsoever on the group... by definition has no impact on the group.

At that point, bogging down a group session for personal satisfaction is just taking away from the rest of the group's fun to satisfy one's own personal jollies. It's tantamount to bringing up their fantasy football team: it might be mildly interesting, but it's not subject to GM approval or disapproval (so why bother seeking it out?), and in the vast majority of cases nobody else cares .

The whole situation that brought the thread about smacks of histrionic display. It may not be the case, but it's telling that, even from the heavily biased view we're given, "the audience" is still highly divided.

Honestly, were I the OP's GM, they'd have probably made a similar post, as I'd have told them, "I don't care. Make up whatever story you want, but no, we're not wasting time on it here."

Or perhaps to avoid offending sensitive personalities, " Yes AND... that's something you should do on your own time, away from the group, the rest of whom want to get on with things that are of interest to everyone."

Even for me... No problem with tone or attitude here. Have a nice game, sir or maam

Edit: my point was that it's the gm's number one job to keep players happy and interested and not the players' jobs to please the gm and his story or railroad plan.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you meant.

To be fair, we have no idea how OP's table operates and we don't have insight into how everyone else at the table reacts to characters focusing on themselves for a time. Seems like something that would frequently happen in a game. I know it happens all the time and I've been at this for quite some time. As long as it's related to the game, e.g. not Fantasy Football, it's been my experience that this is perfectly fine at the table for a roleplaying game.

TBQH, some of these "asinine waste of time personal one-offs" have yielded some of the best off-the-cuff roleplaying and story building in my entire tenure in the hobby. I am more likely to not only allow it, but encourage it. Sure, I can see why some GMs want to keep everyone on the choo-choo and that's fine too, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not staying on the choo-choo.

To be fair, we have no idea how OP's table operates and we don't have insight into how everyone else at the table reacts to characters focusing on themselves for a time. Seems like something that would frequently happen in a game. I know it happens all the time and I've been at this for quite some time. As long as it's related to the game, e.g. not Fantasy Football, it's been my experience that this is perfectly fine at the table for a roleplaying game.

TBQH, some of these "asinine waste of time personal one-offs" have yielded some of the best off-the-cuff roleplaying and story building in my entire tenure in the hobby. I am more likely to not only allow it, but encourage it. Sure, I can see why some GMs want to keep everyone on the choo-choo and that's fine too, but there's nothing inherently wrong with not staying on the choo-choo.