Would someone *please* tell me how basing the plot of an *entire frickin' game session* around a character equates to the GM "being antagonistic" and "punishing" his player?
My husband and I GM a Champions game at the local university gaming club about every other week during the school year. It's pretty much standard superhero fare - think Marvel's New York City and you'll have a good grasp of what our campaign city is like.
One of the players made up "Doctor Strange." That's right, the Marvel character. He pretty much took the character from the comics whole-cloth, secret identity (Dr. Stephen Strange, former neurosurgeon, now occult expert) and all, in a game where the other PCs were original characters. I had some misgivings, but I decided to give him a chance. Silly me.
Dr. Strange proceeded to spend the next several sessions refusing to associate with the other PCs, observing everything from a safe distance, and pretty much not participating in the game at all, except to make snarky comments about how stupid/inept the other PCs were when they made mistakes. My husband and I tried numerous times to get him involved in the game; each time, he continued to behave exactly as he had before.
Noticing that he had the Psychological Limitation "Hatred of Demons", we designed a scenario with some demonic antagonists that we felt would allow him to get involved and strut his stuff. No such luck. He spent the entire session *watching* the demons go about causing major property damage, and didn't lift a finger to stop them.
Yesterday, I got an angry e-mail from another player in the game, which chastised us for "punishing" and "antagonizing" the player of Dr. Strange. Again, how in the world is basing *an entire game session* around his character "antagonizing" or "punishing" him? Most players I've had would *jump* at the chance to have a plot revolve around their PC. As a friend of mine I told the story to stated, "That's not a punishment; it's a GIFT."
Maybe I'm just not getting something here...