I’ve recently taken up the mantle of running for three longtime DMs and six longtime gaming buddies total. They’ve been playing together for years, I’m a fairly new edition, but the DMs are burning out and we recently had two games fold out of the blue, as one of the DMs doesn’t think they’ll be able to run again, and and another is left managing the two of theirs’ joint world on their own for the first time in twenty years.
The DMs run things like Exalted (1st and 2nd editions), Vampire (1st edition), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, GURPS—very story-heavy, mechanics-complicated in some cases, and entrenched with long-running world narratives that they were privy to behind the scenes. Very cool games, I like them a lot and appreciate the style; but after some discussion with the other players behind the scenes, not their favorites, as the games tend to devolve into a mechanics race if anyone is so inclined and one DM (the same who can’t run anymore) tends to fixate on their own NPCs to move the plots instead of entrusting information to the players. It doesn’t feel like our story lately, it’s their story and we are sidekicks.
Example: Their former PC from decades ago is a quest giver—has established a team of super-cyborgs in Cyberpunk (the current PCs). Ensures that the team is filled with experts in their fields. However, actively interferes with the team doing their jobs by either showing them up (in case of the solos), reprimanding them for doing their jobs (in the case of the netrunner), steering them into a corner with little room for deviation (in case of the techies), or actively inhibiting from doing their job (in case of the pilot). Before the game dissolved, the story focused on this NPC’s disappearance and implied death at the hands of enemies—but the DM was confused as to why the PCs felt demotivated from even trying to find her when they had clearly shown she was superior to all of them in every way, could do all of their jobs better, and was STILL taken out in less than a heartbeat. We were excited for this game regardless, but it was canceled shortly after this scene.
Another example: In Exalted, this same DM was a player—except not really. Their PC was the spawn of two of their former characters, gods and godkillers, and was objectively superior to everyone in every way. Smarter, faster, prettier, leader of every information network, personally connected to all of the plot relevant gods, savant in everything, knows every charm and actively inhibits other PCs from trying to learn some of the more nebulous ones. Favorite of one of the overgods, explicitly. Further reinforced by their PC being able to do things outside of space and time that the other PCs didn’t have a chance to react to. Within the first three weeks, the players came to the conclusion that she was, once again, an in-house quest giver disguised as everyone’s boss, and the PCs were taught to do what everyone else could do—but never to the level she could. Instead of information being shared to the group, the DM would give information to this PC who would filter and manipulate what the rest of the PCs know. Any attempts to circumvent this were ignored or lambasted, in game, as negligence of their position.
I proposed, once a couple of games dissolved, that I run in a system no one else has played before in a world no one else has seen before. I’ve got a lot of experience playing and running DnD 5E, it’s light enough for newcomers to pick up, and there won’t be any prior connections or information filtering because none of the PCs are pre-established superheroes or political figures. Cut off the pre-conceived notions of worlds with too much history by literally destroying those worlds in canon; disrupt any pre-conceived notions of how DnD is supposed to work by blanket explaining that magic works differently now (one of the players played Advanced for a couple sessions, one of the players runs a very janky 3.5 game), and to leave any lore-based biases at the door, elves are not The Best, goblins and orcs are not Villains, and notions of fiends, celestials, outsiders, and undead are not as clear-cut as previous games’ alignment-heavy suppositions would presume. I helped everyone build their characters to feel enmeshed in the world, asked for backstories to reflect that.
But we’re a few weeks in and some seams are starting to show. I think I’ve made a mistake.
It is very clear that the Storyteller system runners are not used to NOT being privy to every piece of lore they can get their hands on. I am drip feeding information and clues to keep up pacing and tension. This is particularly foreign to the same person who is listed in the prior two examples. The first thing they did was make a character that existed before the World Turned, which I agreed to with the explicit emphasis that this gives you no knowledge of what happened or why, nor any sort of power or advantage over any PCs. They stated they understood and wanted to play an anachronism. Cool—I can work with that.
I am drafting encounters and painting minis, do not have a dedicated play room to do this, and live with half of the players—so keeping things fully hidden is a challenge. Included among this number are this particular player who can’t DM anymore, who takes one look at the minis drying off on my desk and ask what they are. I ask why they want to know, they respond: “Well, I want to know if my character knows anything about them, so I don’t make a fool of myself.” They’ve already made presumption that their PC knows about mindflayers, which I was fine with because anachronism—in their day, that information was accurate. It is not anymore; but they haven’t been outside to see any changes.
To which I point out no, you don’t, and emphasize that these sorts of questions will not be answered outside of game, trust me to provide context and character-specific knowledge in-session.
My reasons for this are multifold.
1) It sucks being aware that conspiracy happened between the DM and a PC that drives the story, without being given any context because neither will tell the rest of the party WHY something is happening. This has happened regularly in the other games.
2) Half of the players are not given the same opportunity for insider knowledge, because they live elsewhere. In the interest of fairness, no one gets information that isn’t contextually tied to their backstory (that is, “you have been to these parts of the world and are aware of these cultural dynamics”) outside of game.
3) I do not want this game to be focused around this particular player as the previous two have been. It has been stifling for the other players to not be able to fulfill their roles or feel like they have narrative weight, and this is a collaborative game; if the PCs feel like they have to compete for spotlight, I am doing something wrong.
4) I want to have fun too. Part of my fun is setting up cool encounters to get the players’ minds spinning, social, explorative, or otherwise, to engage in the world building they’ve carved for their characters and offer some surprises along the way. That doesn’t work if any player know what will happen ahead of time. You can’t metagame, even accidentally, with information you don’t have.
I guess I am caught off guard by it because, as a player, I go out of my way to assume I don’t know anything unless the DM says so, and ask and engage for clues in the moment. It is a courtesy I extend to avoid metagaming or preconceiving how a module or encounter should work, in case I’ve read it before. It feels like standard player etiquette.
Is this a system mismatch? Is there a supposition of foreknowledge in Exalted that isn’t there in DnD? It almost feels like this person doesn’t know how to be a player, and I don’t want to fall into the same problems as before of the story centralizing on them. To the point that I’ve written up this first act to focus on two players who were regularly shunted out of the spotlight in previous games.
I’m wondering if anyone has any advice on how to deal with this. How can I better guide this person on becoming more of a team player outside of game?
If I'm correct in understanding what I read, this is the fundamental problem you're having and asking about: A player is playing a character that has existed since essentially the beginning of time and because of this expects to know certain things ahead of time. Because of this they use outside knowledge and, because they live with you, they see certain things you'd prefer to keep hidden, in order to be fair and fun for all, and ask you to give them knowledge in order to fit this character.
I don't know anything about Exalted, but I have played several systems. This is both not unusual and unusual and the same time. Note that the following is guesses and surmises based on what I'm reading. I don't know this person and can't give you the best answer, but hopefully, I can give you enough to think through to the best answer. Just putting this in case, I don't know you either, or your relationship with this person, so I'm trying to be safe with this forewarning: None of this is attempting to insult, so don't take anything personal.
I don't think that this person's actions are motivated by an attempt to roleplay their character. Rather, I think their character is developed from their desires and what pleases them about roleplaying. Not all players gain pleasure from roleplaying for the same reason, but generally what pleases a player about roleplaying will influence their character creation. This player's primary pleasure sounds like gaining and using knowledge, which, though similar, is not the same as pleasure from figuring out something. This person is pleased by the end result not the process, pleased by the control not the struggle. If they only started doing this after playing, my guess is that, there may be more struggle for that knowledge and control than this person is happy with. They may feel they aren't getting rewarded (not with in-game treasures, but with knowledge and control) enough or frequently enough. If they started with it initially, then they likely have a personality that has a focus on control or knowing everything, and they feel not in control enough or don't know what they want or feel like they need to know, or they are just doing it because it's in their nature. Once again, I don't know this person and can't say for certain. However, based on the examples, I think they are primarily concerned with control, they want to be in control and not being in control may make them feel helpless or frustrated. I can certainly be like that sometimes, and I think everyone is to some extent.
I can't quite help you with solving this in a structured story. I'm not much of a story-focused DM, my solution to metagaming is improvisation (can't undo a plan that doesn't exist) and rolling with what players do. So, this is a problem that I can only offer some basic advice about engaging in dialogue with the other person. Ultimately, the usually best solution for any problem is when all members involved can sit together, and openly and honestly discuss their problems, desires, and expectations. I know, this is the kind of Communications Class, Active Listening shit that doesn't usually fly in real life because people don't listen and don't have time, but it really does work if people are willing to and are careful with their word choice. After reading your post, I think your willing to listen to them. If they're willing to listen to you, you should be able to solve this. Of course, if you present the conversation the wrong way it could also backfire on you.
Don't use what I put here as your full solution, I'm not a participant in this, so I'm limited in my ability to present solutions. Get advice from other people, talk with other members of the group, avoid gossiping and back-biting, and think on it careful.
It seems that you have had a session 0 and painted boarders on the character knowledge. That is helpful. It seems that the players are less receptive to this however. It seems that while the previous DMs have been burned out from their games they still seem to want to have a similar type of control in your game.
It may be beneficial for you to out line the bounds of knowledge as you have before. This time stress that you are the DM and they, the player, needs to sit back and enjoy the ride. If they are unhappy with that turn of events they can resume the DM throne.
The quest for knowledge should be encouraged at the gaming table. Outside of that venue it is metagaming. You may want to ask them how they dealt with metagaming situations when they had the chair. Asking for their advise and then taking it will help them follow along.
Showing the players a well known monster that they may be familiar with and then changing some aspect of that monster should clue them in that the standard reading of the monster manual will not lead to an understanding that they had hoped for. Take trolls for instance, use the troll but change the things that halt regeneration from fire and acid to radiant and cold, or alcohol and oil or water. make a point of saying that in this world things may be radically different from what they are used to. Spin tales in the tavern that all true dragons are green. Any big lizard that isn't green isn't a dragon. Maybe it's true maybe it isn't.
Also make libraries a thing. Any town of any size has a library. Make the research cost something small but regular. Allow them to find information on the monsters you want and none on the monsters you don't. Make knowledge a currency in your game. Trade bits of lore for other info. Make it a plot hook about the sheriff hearing of an unusual kind of this that he needs more info on. This should allow your PC who wants to know have a way to find out.
This is not directed at the OP specifically, rather at the situation that others may find themselves in:
The above two posts are both good recommendations, though I don't recommend just changing up stats in an attempt to trip up players, people take notes, if you contradict yourself later, good chance someone can recall that and call your fairness into question.
Expectation of knowledge: In any game system, it's reasonable to assume that any character has knowledge about the world they are in, if they have spent any time there, laws - customs - common items - common creatures. I'd recommend not being too concerned with it, if you feel a PC is acting on OOC information, ask for the appropriate proficiency/skill check to see if their the character is aware of it, and if they aren't communicate that to the player. Keep in mind that due to the number of DM rulings, even veteran players of D&D can feel like they are playing an entirely alien game with a new DM at the head of the table.
Regarding the rest of the post: The number one thing about situations like this: talking to any group "behind the scenes" without including everyone is never going to go well. It sounds like exclusion of specific individuals. If there are issues to be aired - it's best do it publicly, were everyone has a chance to speak.
It is, perhaps unfortunately, something that goes with being the referee / DM / ST / GM, sometimes conflict management is part of the role.
Established groups have been doing something right, or they wouldn't still be a group. Gaming groups can and do fall apart frequently, if you are invited to run for an established group it was a sign of trust. You'd be a lot better off asking the group as a whole what they are looking for individually (in a group setting) what they are looking for out of a game then polling people behind the scenes. Speaking with the people that have been running the games about what challenges they've had engaging specific players, that's valid. A good ST / DM / ST is always trying to deliver a fun experience for their players, what that entails for a specific group, and for a specific individual group can vary wildly. Some folks are easy to please, others can be hard to engage, and which players will be which will vary from GM to GM. Anyone that has been filling that role for for a few years understands that while it can be very rewarding at times, when you don't feel like you're hitting marks for what your group and the individual players in it are enjoying - it can be very difficult.
Putting up a laundry list of issues in a public forum, where the people that have been excluded from those discussions can find them is just going to cause drama (and may be perceived as the intent of doing so in the first place).
It's never about the system, it's about the people. You can't take perceived conflict and enter resolution without getting everyone involved.
Full disclosure: I'm likely the storyteller the OP had the largest issue with, and there's a lot of things said that I feel are taken out of context, or mispresented. Even so, there's always something to be learned and that too is part of being a ST / GM / DM - you're going to take criticism, and sometimes it's not going to feel like it's deserved, but there's still probably something in there to learn from.
Hi, all! Apologies in advance for the length.
I’ve recently taken up the mantle of running for three longtime DMs and six longtime gaming buddies total. They’ve been playing together for years, I’m a fairly new edition, but the DMs are burning out and we recently had two games fold out of the blue, as one of the DMs doesn’t think they’ll be able to run again, and and another is left managing the two of theirs’ joint world on their own for the first time in twenty years.
The DMs run things like Exalted (1st and 2nd editions), Vampire (1st edition), Shadowrun, Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0, GURPS—very story-heavy, mechanics-complicated in some cases, and entrenched with long-running world narratives that they were privy to behind the scenes. Very cool games, I like them a lot and appreciate the style; but after some discussion with the other players behind the scenes, not their favorites, as the games tend to devolve into a mechanics race if anyone is so inclined and one DM (the same who can’t run anymore) tends to fixate on their own NPCs to move the plots instead of entrusting information to the players. It doesn’t feel like our story lately, it’s their story and we are sidekicks.
Example: Their former PC from decades ago is a quest giver—has established a team of super-cyborgs in Cyberpunk (the current PCs). Ensures that the team is filled with experts in their fields. However, actively interferes with the team doing their jobs by either showing them up (in case of the solos), reprimanding them for doing their jobs (in the case of the netrunner), steering them into a corner with little room for deviation (in case of the techies), or actively inhibiting from doing their job (in case of the pilot). Before the game dissolved, the story focused on this NPC’s disappearance and implied death at the hands of enemies—but the DM was confused as to why the PCs felt demotivated from even trying to find her when they had clearly shown she was superior to all of them in every way, could do all of their jobs better, and was STILL taken out in less than a heartbeat. We were excited for this game regardless, but it was canceled shortly after this scene.
Another example: In Exalted, this same DM was a player—except not really. Their PC was the spawn of two of their former characters, gods and godkillers, and was objectively superior to everyone in every way. Smarter, faster, prettier, leader of every information network, personally connected to all of the plot relevant gods, savant in everything, knows every charm and actively inhibits other PCs from trying to learn some of the more nebulous ones. Favorite of one of the overgods, explicitly. Further reinforced by their PC being able to do things outside of space and time that the other PCs didn’t have a chance to react to. Within the first three weeks, the players came to the conclusion that she was, once again, an in-house quest giver disguised as everyone’s boss, and the PCs were taught to do what everyone else could do—but never to the level she could. Instead of information being shared to the group, the DM would give information to this PC who would filter and manipulate what the rest of the PCs know. Any attempts to circumvent this were ignored or lambasted, in game, as negligence of their position.
I proposed, once a couple of games dissolved, that I run in a system no one else has played before in a world no one else has seen before. I’ve got a lot of experience playing and running DnD 5E, it’s light enough for newcomers to pick up, and there won’t be any prior connections or information filtering because none of the PCs are pre-established superheroes or political figures. Cut off the pre-conceived notions of worlds with too much history by literally destroying those worlds in canon; disrupt any pre-conceived notions of how DnD is supposed to work by blanket explaining that magic works differently now (one of the players played Advanced for a couple sessions, one of the players runs a very janky 3.5 game), and to leave any lore-based biases at the door, elves are not The Best, goblins and orcs are not Villains, and notions of fiends, celestials, outsiders, and undead are not as clear-cut as previous games’ alignment-heavy suppositions would presume. I helped everyone build their characters to feel enmeshed in the world, asked for backstories to reflect that.
But we’re a few weeks in and some seams are starting to show. I think I’ve made a mistake.
It is very clear that the Storyteller system runners are not used to NOT being privy to every piece of lore they can get their hands on. I am drip feeding information and clues to keep up pacing and tension. This is particularly foreign to the same person who is listed in the prior two examples. The first thing they did was make a character that existed before the World Turned, which I agreed to with the explicit emphasis that this gives you no knowledge of what happened or why, nor any sort of power or advantage over any PCs. They stated they understood and wanted to play an anachronism. Cool—I can work with that.
I am drafting encounters and painting minis, do not have a dedicated play room to do this, and live with half of the players—so keeping things fully hidden is a challenge. Included among this number are this particular player who can’t DM anymore, who takes one look at the minis drying off on my desk and ask what they are. I ask why they want to know, they respond: “Well, I want to know if my character knows anything about them, so I don’t make a fool of myself.” They’ve already made presumption that their PC knows about mindflayers, which I was fine with because anachronism—in their day, that information was accurate. It is not anymore; but they haven’t been outside to see any changes.
To which I point out no, you don’t, and emphasize that these sorts of questions will not be answered outside of game, trust me to provide context and character-specific knowledge in-session.
My reasons for this are multifold.
1) It sucks being aware that conspiracy happened between the DM and a PC that drives the story, without being given any context because neither will tell the rest of the party WHY something is happening. This has happened regularly in the other games.
2) Half of the players are not given the same opportunity for insider knowledge, because they live elsewhere. In the interest of fairness, no one gets information that isn’t contextually tied to their backstory (that is, “you have been to these parts of the world and are aware of these cultural dynamics”) outside of game.
3) I do not want this game to be focused around this particular player as the previous two have been. It has been stifling for the other players to not be able to fulfill their roles or feel like they have narrative weight, and this is a collaborative game; if the PCs feel like they have to compete for spotlight, I am doing something wrong.
4) I want to have fun too. Part of my fun is setting up cool encounters to get the players’ minds spinning, social, explorative, or otherwise, to engage in the world building they’ve carved for their characters and offer some surprises along the way. That doesn’t work if any player know what will happen ahead of time. You can’t metagame, even accidentally, with information you don’t have.
I guess I am caught off guard by it because, as a player, I go out of my way to assume I don’t know anything unless the DM says so, and ask and engage for clues in the moment. It is a courtesy I extend to avoid metagaming or preconceiving how a module or encounter should work, in case I’ve read it before. It feels like standard player etiquette.
Is this a system mismatch? Is there a supposition of foreknowledge in Exalted that isn’t there in DnD? It almost feels like this person doesn’t know how to be a player, and I don’t want to fall into the same problems as before of the story centralizing on them. To the point that I’ve written up this first act to focus on two players who were regularly shunted out of the spotlight in previous games.
I’m wondering if anyone has any advice on how to deal with this. How can I better guide this person on becoming more of a team player outside of game?
If I'm correct in understanding what I read, this is the fundamental problem you're having and asking about: A player is playing a character that has existed since essentially the beginning of time and because of this expects to know certain things ahead of time. Because of this they use outside knowledge and, because they live with you, they see certain things you'd prefer to keep hidden, in order to be fair and fun for all, and ask you to give them knowledge in order to fit this character.
I don't know anything about Exalted, but I have played several systems. This is both not unusual and unusual and the same time. Note that the following is guesses and surmises based on what I'm reading. I don't know this person and can't give you the best answer, but hopefully, I can give you enough to think through to the best answer. Just putting this in case, I don't know you either, or your relationship with this person, so I'm trying to be safe with this forewarning: None of this is attempting to insult, so don't take anything personal.
I don't think that this person's actions are motivated by an attempt to roleplay their character. Rather, I think their character is developed from their desires and what pleases them about roleplaying. Not all players gain pleasure from roleplaying for the same reason, but generally what pleases a player about roleplaying will influence their character creation. This player's primary pleasure sounds like gaining and using knowledge, which, though similar, is not the same as pleasure from figuring out something. This person is pleased by the end result not the process, pleased by the control not the struggle. If they only started doing this after playing, my guess is that, there may be more struggle for that knowledge and control than this person is happy with. They may feel they aren't getting rewarded (not with in-game treasures, but with knowledge and control) enough or frequently enough. If they started with it initially, then they likely have a personality that has a focus on control or knowing everything, and they feel not in control enough or don't know what they want or feel like they need to know, or they are just doing it because it's in their nature. Once again, I don't know this person and can't say for certain. However, based on the examples, I think they are primarily concerned with control, they want to be in control and not being in control may make them feel helpless or frustrated. I can certainly be like that sometimes, and I think everyone is to some extent.
I can't quite help you with solving this in a structured story. I'm not much of a story-focused DM, my solution to metagaming is improvisation (can't undo a plan that doesn't exist) and rolling with what players do. So, this is a problem that I can only offer some basic advice about engaging in dialogue with the other person. Ultimately, the usually best solution for any problem is when all members involved can sit together, and openly and honestly discuss their problems, desires, and expectations. I know, this is the kind of Communications Class, Active Listening shit that doesn't usually fly in real life because people don't listen and don't have time, but it really does work if people are willing to and are careful with their word choice. After reading your post, I think your willing to listen to them. If they're willing to listen to you, you should be able to solve this. Of course, if you present the conversation the wrong way it could also backfire on you.
Don't use what I put here as your full solution, I'm not a participant in this, so I'm limited in my ability to present solutions. Get advice from other people, talk with other members of the group, avoid gossiping and back-biting, and think on it careful.
I can understand your frustration.
There are a few things that leap to mind.
It seems that you have had a session 0 and painted boarders on the character knowledge. That is helpful. It seems that the players are less receptive to this however. It seems that while the previous DMs have been burned out from their games they still seem to want to have a similar type of control in your game.
It may be beneficial for you to out line the bounds of knowledge as you have before. This time stress that you are the DM and they, the player, needs to sit back and enjoy the ride. If they are unhappy with that turn of events they can resume the DM throne.
The quest for knowledge should be encouraged at the gaming table. Outside of that venue it is metagaming. You may want to ask them how they dealt with metagaming situations when they had the chair. Asking for their advise and then taking it will help them follow along.
Showing the players a well known monster that they may be familiar with and then changing some aspect of that monster should clue them in that the standard reading of the monster manual will not lead to an understanding that they had hoped for. Take trolls for instance, use the troll but change the things that halt regeneration from fire and acid to radiant and cold, or alcohol and oil or water. make a point of saying that in this world things may be radically different from what they are used to. Spin tales in the tavern that all true dragons are green. Any big lizard that isn't green isn't a dragon. Maybe it's true maybe it isn't.
Also make libraries a thing. Any town of any size has a library. Make the research cost something small but regular. Allow them to find information on the monsters you want and none on the monsters you don't. Make knowledge a currency in your game. Trade bits of lore for other info. Make it a plot hook about the sheriff hearing of an unusual kind of this that he needs more info on. This should allow your PC who wants to know have a way to find out.
Good Luck and have fun.
This is not directed at the OP specifically, rather at the situation that others may find themselves in:
The above two posts are both good recommendations, though I don't recommend just changing up stats in an attempt to trip up players, people take notes, if you contradict yourself later, good chance someone can recall that and call your fairness into question.
Expectation of knowledge:
In any game system, it's reasonable to assume that any character has knowledge about the world they are in, if they have spent any time there, laws - customs - common items - common creatures. I'd recommend not being too concerned with it, if you feel a PC is acting on OOC information, ask for the appropriate proficiency/skill check to see if their the character is aware of it, and if they aren't communicate that to the player. Keep in mind that due to the number of DM rulings, even veteran players of D&D can feel like they are playing an entirely alien game with a new DM at the head of the table.
Regarding the rest of the post:
The number one thing about situations like this: talking to any group "behind the scenes" without including everyone is never going to go well. It sounds like exclusion of specific individuals. If there are issues to be aired - it's best do it publicly, were everyone has a chance to speak.
It is, perhaps unfortunately, something that goes with being the referee / DM / ST / GM, sometimes conflict management is part of the role.
Established groups have been doing something right, or they wouldn't still be a group. Gaming groups can and do fall apart frequently, if you are invited to run for an established group it was a sign of trust. You'd be a lot better off asking the group as a whole what they are looking for individually (in a group setting) what they are looking for out of a game then polling people behind the scenes. Speaking with the people that have been running the games about what challenges they've had engaging specific players, that's valid. A good ST / DM / ST is always trying to deliver a fun experience for their players, what that entails for a specific group, and for a specific individual group can vary wildly. Some folks are easy to please, others can be hard to engage, and which players will be which will vary from GM to GM. Anyone that has been filling that role for for a few years understands that while it can be very rewarding at times, when you don't feel like you're hitting marks for what your group and the individual players in it are enjoying - it can be very difficult.
Putting up a laundry list of issues in a public forum, where the people that have been excluded from those discussions can find them is just going to cause drama (and may be perceived as the intent of doing so in the first place).
It's never about the system, it's about the people. You can't take perceived conflict and enter resolution without getting everyone involved.
Full disclosure: I'm likely the storyteller the OP had the largest issue with, and there's a lot of things said that I feel are taken out of context, or mispresented. Even so, there's always something to be learned and that too is part of being a ST / GM / DM - you're going to take criticism, and sometimes it's not going to feel like it's deserved, but there's still probably something in there to learn from.