PDA

View Full Version : Getting kicked out of the party



DarkEricDraven
2012-01-28, 06:31 PM
No. Not your game group, I mean, in character. My halfling and her love interest were kicked out of the party for arguing with the NPC party leader, a paladin who was taking us to a city. He, among other things, rushed ahead and nearly got us murdered by a Druid/Cleric centaur, and kept talking about how women shouldn't be fighting. Not to mention he was just so smarmy and acted so superior to our normal party paladin, who was actually a nice guy but a rank below him.

So, me and the other player, a rogue who was also at odds with him, were in a long argument with him after the centaur incident. He finally dismissed us, so we have to take the caravan to the town and arrive two weeks late.

Has anything like this happened to any you? I'm still fairly new to the game, and I have no idea if that will set us back badly. Or maybe it is a common thing. Whatever the case, it was pretty funny.

Reluctance
2012-01-28, 06:38 PM
Option one: The paladin is a DMPC for a real slime of a human being, and a warning that you should avoid the person. If horrible things happen to you for not following the shining protagonist, that's your excuse to leave the table.

Option two, and thankfully the more likely one: The DM is setting this guy up to be a jerkwad so you well and truly hate him by the time the Heel Face Turn comes about. It's a semi-common way to make you really want the bad guy to go down, as opposed to simply seeing him as an opponent to be stopped.

Siegel
2012-01-28, 06:38 PM
Seems like a good result of an conflict a bit hard maybe but well, did any dice get rolled?
What did the other PCs do?

The question you need to ask you right now is what do you want to do? Come into the party with a new char? Follow the group sneakingly and save them in an awesome moment to earn your place in the group back?

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-28, 06:54 PM
Option one: The paladin is a DMPC for a real slime of a human being, and a warning that you should avoid the person. If horrible things happen to you for not following the shining protagonist, that's your excuse to leave the table.

Option two, and thankfully the more likely one: The DM is setting this guy up to be a jerkwad so you well and truly hate him by the time the Heel Face Turn comes about. It's a semi-common way to make you really want the bad guy to go down, as opposed to simply seeing him as an opponent to be stopped.

I doubt both of them, actually. I think the DM is just using him as an excuse to get us to the town and really only knows how to write paladins like Miko. He isn't being used as a "hero", and the DM only had him charge the centaur after we were taking a while talking her out of slitting our sorcerers throat. Despite this, he insists *we* were wrong for arguing with the guy(whom my halfling nicknamed "Sir Prick").

Seems like a good result of an conflict a bit hard maybe but well, did any dice get rolled?
What did the other PCs do?

The question you need to ask you right now is what do you want to do? Come into the party with a new char? Follow the group sneakingly and save them in an awesome moment to earn your place in the group back?

Well, the cleric wasn't there, so the DM was controlling his character in combat. He and the good paladin were under orders to follow him, so they had to. The ranger, on the other hand...just never said anything. See, it was over Skype in combination with Maptool. It said "(Ranger) is typing", but she never spoke up in the last minutes of the argument. I suspect she was AFK. The sorcerer was definitely AFK, having left a bit before that. So it was just me and the rogue, sadly. But good, in a way. Me and her player have been setting up a relationship between the two, and two weeks alone away from the main party will probably result in good character development to make up for missed XP.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-28, 07:10 PM
I doubt both of them, actually. I think the DM is just using him as an excuse to get us to the town and really only knows how to write paladins like Miko. He isn't being used as a "hero", and the DM only had him charge the centaur after we were taking a while talking her out of slitting our sorcerers throat. Despite this, he insists *we* were wrong for arguing with the guy(whom my halfling nicknamed "Sir Prick").

Sounds like "option 1" to me.

Odds are that whatever is going to happen in that town Sir Prick is taking you to, it will probably involve Sir Prick being placed in command of the party to do some quest, i.e. the NPC gets the quest, and the players are graciously allowed to help.

If this is the case, my advice is to tell the king/lord/mayor that you kindly refuse, as Sir Prick clearly does not appreciate your help. If the DM then gives you an ultimatum along the lines of "Do you want to have an adventure or not?", then I would advise that your answer be along the lines of "If it involves being bossed around by Sir Prick, then no, because I'm not having fun doing that."

Also, be aware of another warning sign. Suppose that the DM is actually giving the two of you less game time, experience or loot as "punishment" for being rude to Sir Prick. If this is the case, then the game is more about Sir Prick than about the players. This is a cue to bow out, as the players' fun is not important to the DM in that case.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-28, 07:41 PM
Sounds like "option 1" to me.

Odds are that whatever is going to happen in that town Sir Prick is taking you to, it will probably involve Sir Prick being placed in command of the party to do some quest, i.e. the NPC gets the quest, and the players are graciously allowed to help.

If this is the case, my advice is to tell the king/lord/mayor that you kindly refuse, as Sir Prick clearly does not appreciate your help. If the DM then gives you an ultimatum along the lines of "Do you want to have an adventure or not?", then I would advise that your answer be along the lines of "If it involves being bossed around by Sir Prick, then no, because I'm not having fun doing that."


Well, I probably won't have a say anyway since my character won't be there. At any rate, Sir Prick won't just go away, I'm sure. He took the paladin aside and said something something about him(Sir Prick) being forced into a marriage to a person from some other order as a political thing, but I tried not to read that bit as I was elsewhere, setting up the tent. I'm not sure if that's supposed to be a part of the main plot or not. *shrugs* Hopefully he will have gotten eaten by an ogre between now and when I and the rogue return.

Dimers
2012-01-29, 12:10 AM
Has anything like this happened to any you?

Nnnnooooo ... no, I'd have to say that I often get forced into parties, but I don't recall ever being forced out of one.

DM might've been reading Dragonlance recently. Several of the Solamnic Knights are like your description of Sir Prick.

tahu88810
2012-01-29, 12:44 AM
As a DM, I have done something like this. However, it wasn't caused by an NPC party leader but instead by a sandstorm which split the party of four into teams of two.

It was...interesting. I had to send two of the players into a separate room, and basically ended up running back and forth for most of the day until they finally met back up.

How it will effect you really depends on how the GM runs it. Since it's over maptools, there's a really good chance he could give you guys a side-quest while you wait to rejoin the party which would mean there's no real mechanical hit from it.
However, Sir Prick does strike me as a DMPC of the worst kind (there are good types). Here's hoping he's being set-up to turn into an antagonist of some kind, eh?

Sidmen
2012-01-29, 01:09 AM
I can't say I've ever been forced out of the party by an NPC before... I have been in conversations with the other PCs which ended with "why are you traveling with us? We don't care about you, and you don't care about us" after which I, or another player's character left the group - we then came back with a more cooperative character.

That said, you should send an email to the GM and make sure this isn't going to be a constant thing - dealing with an asshat all the time for no reason is not fun. Ask him if the Pally is going to be around all the time, and if he is going to stay an annoying character.

Soylent Dave
2012-01-29, 02:21 AM
That said, you should send an email to the GM and make sure this isn't going to be a constant thing - dealing with an asshat all the time for no reason is not fun. Ask him if the Pally is going to be around all the time, and if he is going to stay an annoying character.

This is the best thing to do.

As has been suggested, your GM may have some good ideas involved your party conflicting with an NPC (Sir Prick) who was previously an ally - which could lead to interesting roleplay - it's also always interesting to have an antagonist who isn't evil, which a paladin wouldn't be (but he could still very easily be an enemy).

BUT if the GM is using the paladin as 'his' character, and if that character is equally (or even <i>more</i>) important to the story than the PCs - which includes the other PCs, of course, not just you - then you're probably going to end up resenting the character and ultimately the GM for forcing you to deal with him.

If you feel like you're being forced to associate with this NPC, that he's dictating what the party does, and it's the sort of thing your character wouldn't do - then you need to talk to your GM about it.

If there's a problem with PC motivations and characters not meshing, then it's often worth finding a compromise. If there's a problem with NPC characters not working well with a PC, then it's usually best to just get rid of the NPC.

NPCs are basically extras...

Toofey
2012-01-29, 02:57 AM
Did the play follow you guys, or were you cut out of the game as a result? If you were cut out, this is probably not a great DM, as others have said. If this was incorporated into the play, it could be fine.

Another important question: were you still having fun? Also have you asked the DM about it?

Belril Duskwalk
2012-01-29, 08:48 AM
I have seen something like this happen, but for very different reasons. In my situation our party's other rogue, who had previously chafed under the restrictions of working for a Mercenary captain finally snapped. He decided to quit working for the company and he managed to resign in one of the more offensive ways he could imagine short of actual violence. The captain told the rest of the party (who were still employed with him) that he was going to hire someone to assassinate him (the captain had revealed some vital secrets about his past that he couldn't afford being spread). He also said that if he found out we were sheltering him thereafter he would have the rest of us killed too.

So, we left to continue our mission, occasionally having to remind our second rogue that he was endangering our lives by hanging around, asking him to camp further away, etc. He ended up accompanying us through every major task we had afterwards except for any further negotiations with our company contacts.

Is it common? I have no idea. Will this be a setback? That depends a lot on your DM. Speed of Plot is a funny thing. If he decides that neither the rest of the party, nor you, encounter anything of interest on your independent trips to the town then the delay will mean nothing. If Sir Prick and the PCs with him have several gainful encounters on the way to town and while waiting for you at town and you guys encounter nothing on the same trip, then yeah, this has a potential to be a big setback.

Only way to tell which is likely before it happens is to talk to the DM. Ask him if the next session will focus majorly on Sir Prick and company or if your PCs are going to get their share of play time till you catch up. I don't know your situation, the DM may be able to run a session for the people with the Paladin, then a separate session for those not with him to catch you guys up without having to force each half of the party to sit idle waiting for others play.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 10:26 AM
Did the play follow you guys, or were you cut out of the game as a result? If you were cut out, this is probably not a great DM, as others have said. If this was incorporated into the play, it could be fine.

Another important question: were you still having fun? Also have you asked the DM about it?

Well, it'd be a lot more fun to bash the paladin over the head :smallsmile: I don't know if he is planning on sub games to follow our characters while the others were with Sir Prick. He said "See you in two weeks", so I assume not. *shrugs*



This is the best thing to do.

As has been suggested, your GM may have some good ideas involved your party conflicting with an NPC (Sir Prick) who was previously an ally - which could lead to interesting roleplay -

The thing about that is...everyone hates him. I mean, he EARNED the name "Sir Prick". He goes out of his way to be a jerk. No one, and I mean NO ONE, will be sad to see him try to kill us. Because then we can kill him. And the Forgotten Realms will be a better place.

Delwugor
2012-01-29, 10:33 AM
NPC (or GMPC) leading Party is a warning sign of a bad GM.
NPC kicking characters out of the party is confirmation of bad GM.

Send him an email explaining that you joined to play your character in the party and having an NPC kick him is not appreciated. Mention that you expect the game to be about the player and their characters not this NPC who dictates to everyone. Finally let him know that allowing characters more freedom ends up with better games which everyone enjoys, while tight control leads to boredom.

If you get a favorable response and he adjusts then most likely he made a bad mistake, will correct it and everything will get back on the proper track.
If not then leave immediately, it is not worth the frustration. There are better games and GMs out there.

Techsmart
2012-01-29, 11:16 AM
To me? no
To a party member I dm'ed for? yes.
In our case, we had a chaotic neutral bard who decided to tell the town's leader (who happened to be a bbeg) that two members of the party were going to try to blackmail him. The leader then struck a deal with the bard, making her an evil minion in exchange for not torturing her when the rest of the party was captured (and to avoid jail-time for other transgressions). Party found out about the same time that 15 guards were standing around them with spears all pointed at their throats. Obviously... the bard was no longer a welcome addition to the party. It was rather sad, actually, since that campaign was going so well, and then it had to end because of school schedules.

As others have said, the fact that you are essentially being punished for not sucking it up and following the dm's lead by the nose is a bad sign. If this is a consistent issue, I would recommend bringing it up to the dm. It is a game, after all. If it were a job where he was paying you, then dismissal would be okay, but everybody should have fun, not just the dm. The DM needs the players to be around to have fun just as the players need the dm.

Bagelson
2012-01-29, 12:39 PM
Wait, so the result of your disagreement is that you two don't get to play the next session? That, I would say, is a blinking red light and the harsh burnt smell of rails.

It's one thing if getting kicked from the party leads to new plot developments and story hooks, but if it is an actual punishment (not getting to play, falling behind on the exp curve, missing plot involvement) your GM is failing on the one paramount goal of all roleplaying: "Everyone has fun".

I seem to be of the same opinion as the previous posters; the GM has his mind set on a particular plot and the paladin is his GMPC. In 97% of all cases, a GMPC is a detriment to the game - it's the GM using his world defining authority to make his own brain baby look good at the cost of everyone else's spotlight.

If that is not the case and the abrasive paladin will eventually lead into a plot, you may want to explain to him that if he wants the PC's to be the kind of characters who would hide their fist in their pocket and go along with the words of a certified twit, he needs to clarify this during character creation.

mcv
2012-01-29, 03:36 PM
Is that DM a fool? He voluntarily splits a beginning party where half of the party does not really have a reason to follow the other half? That's likely going to be the end of either his campaign or his sanity.

How is the coherence within the party? Do the outcast characters and the paladin-followers like each others? The followers didn't speak up when they were kicked out, so what do they really expect? Is there really a good reason for your character to follow them and rejoin them later? Because if there isn't, then what exactly does the DM think is going to happen?

I'd be inclined to just try to find my own adventure. That's never going to work, of course, but it might be worth it to check with the DM whether there is actually still anything salvageable about the campaign. And if the players of the outcasts drop out, won't he be stuck with the least active players? That'd be almost as if he really prefers playing on his own.

But I might be reading way too much into this. Talk to the DM. What is his plan exactly? Voice your concerns. Maybe he has a very good plan. Maybe he's an idiot. Try to find out which.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 04:04 PM
So, I spoke to the GM, first about why the two kicked members would wish to rejoin the party at all, considering nothing world shattering had happened yet, and second about Sir Prick. I'm going to talk to the rogue, and if he decides his girl wouldn't join, neither would mine.

About the paladin, he said that he'll lead the party for as long as he sees fit. Which somewhat worries me, but if my halfling doesn't rejoin, my backup character has a personality that shouldn't clash so much.

mcv
2012-01-29, 04:28 PM
Are you sure you really want to play at all under a controlling DMPC? You don't have to continue playing with this DM, you know.

INDYSTAR188
2012-01-29, 04:38 PM
So, I spoke to the GM, first about why the two kicked members would wish to rejoin the party at all, considering nothing world shattering had happened yet, and second about Sir Prick. I'm going to talk to the rogue, and if he decides his girl wouldn't join, neither would mine.

About the paladin, he said that he'll lead the party for as long as he sees fit. Which somewhat worries me, but if my halfling doesn't rejoin, my backup character has a personality that shouldn't clash so much.

It stinks that you should have to worry about clashing at all, really. That said, I can see that you want to play in the group. I'm sure they're all your friends and you want to play DnD with friends opposed to at a game shop or something. If you talked to him about it and he said the Paladin was going to keep on anyway, then I can see two possible outcomes:

1. The DMPC serves some story device, like he'll sacrifice himself for your group (or some other noble cause) and hope that spurns your group to continue on.

2. He just want's to play too and the DMPC is around permanently. I hope that's not the case, because everyone at the table should have fun and not have to lean on their 'back up' character.

I was wondering if you guys considered following the Paladins group from a distance and helping them in way's they might not notice and saving their bacon one time to get back into the mix, prove your worth, and hopefully take the high and mighty out of Sir Prick.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 04:43 PM
Are you sure you really want to play at all under a controlling DMPC? You don't have to continue playing with this DM, you know.

Well...even if, by some miracle, I was able to find another game, I am really, really, really bad with the all the numbers that goes into Dungeons and Dragons. I really doubt I'll be able to find another DM as patient as he has been when it comes to helping us build our characters.




I was wondering if you guys considered following the Paladins group from a distance and helping them in way's they might not notice and saving their bacon one time to get back into the mix, prove your worth, and hopefully take the high and mighty out of Sir Prick.

Yeah, I asked, DM said no. :smallsigh:

Randomatic
2012-01-29, 05:28 PM
Well...even if, by some miracle, I was able to find another game, I am really, really, really bad with the all the numbers that goes into Dungeons and Dragons. I really doubt I'll be able to find another DM as patient as he has been when it comes to helping us build our characters.

You've found the GITP forums. I'm sure if you need help with the numbers for character creation a polite post here asking for assistance will get you more help than you'll ever need. The forums as a whole should also have more patience than any one person. :smallwink:

It also sounds like this is a warning from your DM. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you've been told to stop attending the games for 2 weeks as a player, before your character rejoins the party, which seems a bit harsh.

I have a feeling that if you don't fall in line with this DM and his NPC that he'll end up following up this warning with kicking you out of the group completely.

In any case, hopefully this is all a bit of a misunderstanding, and you'll have many fun games. :smallsmile:

RandomNPC
2012-01-29, 07:43 PM
At a table I'd call BS, hand the DM my character, and start DMing a story that branches from where the current story was. Online that's a bit harder, but if you can't find a way to drive of the jerk you need to ask yourself what it's worth, and how good friends you want to remain. Here's a few options.

1: backup character
2: current character, offer a hollow apology, and be subtly disruptive.
3: current character, tell dm of disruptive plans and hollow apology.
4: current character, stand up to DMPC of Doom and hope the party rallies behind you. (Your previous posts indicate a few AFK people who may have acted differently.)

The difference between 2 and 3 is if you go 3 and the guy calls you on it, you get to call out the DM for being a horrible mettagamer.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-29, 08:23 PM
No. Not your game group, I mean, in character. My halfling and her love interest were kicked out of the party for arguing with the NPC party leader, a paladin who was taking us to a city. He, among other things, rushed ahead and nearly got us murdered by a Druid/Cleric centaur, and kept talking about how women shouldn't be fighting. Not to mention he was just so smarmy and acted so superior to our normal party paladin, who was actually a nice guy but a rank below him.

So, me and the other player, a rogue who was also at odds with him, were in a long argument with him after the centaur incident. He finally dismissed us, so we have to take the caravan to the town and arrive two weeks late.

Has anything like this happened to any you? I'm still fairly new to the game, and I have no idea if that will set us back badly. Or maybe it is a common thing. Whatever the case, it was pretty funny.

This is a really, really bad char. This might mean that you've got a really terrible DM, or it might be intentionally just a terrible char. I'd reserve judgement until I knew more.

Either way, stabbing the hell out of the char is entirely reasonable.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 08:32 PM
Either way, stabbing the hell out of the char is entirely reasonable.

Hm. Maybe I could roll up a Chaotic Neutral/Evil character. "No, no, taking his head off and spitting on his entrails was totally in character! The rest of his order turns on me now? Oh, look, my halfling just got back..."

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-29, 08:38 PM
About the paladin, he said that he'll lead the party for as long as he sees fit. Which somewhat worries me, but if my halfling doesn't rejoin, my backup character has a personality that shouldn't clash so much.


Yeah, I asked, DM said no. :smallsigh:

You know what this means, right? This is the DM saying:

"This is MY game, and you have to do what I say. My heroic paladin is your boss, or you don't play at all. Don't you all love how arrogant he is? Don't you think I'm a great roleplayer for playing such a great paladin?"

Here's how it will go from here, if you decide to stay:
- Sir Prick will get all the quests, the players are there to help him. Meaning you don't get to be the heroes, but the servants.
- Sir Prick can't die. Ever. All the monsters will totally ignore him and only attack players. If a player actually dares to attack Sir Prick, the DM will fly into a rage, and likely expel the player immediately.
- Sir Prick is the boss. Disagreeing with Sir Prick means that, by definition, you are wrong, and the DM will make sure to prove it to you by punishing your character in some way.
- Sir Prick decides how the loot is divided. Also, if the loot ever includes magical items, there will always be one item that is tailor-made for Sir Prick. Also, it will never work for any of the players (if they even manage to get their hands on it), because only Sir Prick is worthy enough for the magic to work.
- If there actually is an enemy or monster that Sir Prick will fight, the players will either be left out of the fight, or the enemy will be so strong that only Sir Prick's magical sword will be able to hurt it. Typically, this is the great confrontation at the end of a quest. At best, the players will get to fight the evil boss' bodyguards.

My guess is also that Sir Prick currently is several levels above the players, and/or has superior equipment. If not, he will acquire it along the way.

My advice:
- Tell the DM that you don't have fun with Sir Prick around, and since Sir Prick is there to stay, you are not. No hard feelings, but just no fun for you.
- Chance are there are more players who feel the same way. Ask if any one of them (with more D&D experience than you have) is willing to DM for a new campaign. Perhaps your current DM is even willing to be a player.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-29, 08:42 PM
Hm. Maybe I could roll up a Chaotic Neutral/Evil character. "No, no, taking his head off and spitting on his entrails was totally in character! The rest of his order turns on me now? Oh, look, my halfling just got back..."

No need. If he's doing terrible things, you don't have to be evil to end up killing him. Or, talk to the rest of the party, and inform him that due to his actions, he's been voted out of the party. If he reacts by violence/forcing you to follow him, he's shown you that he is evil at heart, and killing him in any way necessary(and avoiding mention of this to the order) is entirely understandable.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-29, 08:50 PM
After writing my previous post, I considered I may be a bit harsh towards this DM.

It could very well be that Sir Prick is intended as a chaperone (or a drill sergeant) for the party, who will do the following:
- Bail out the party if they threaten to die in combat.
- Make sure the players follow the (railroad tracks of the) story.
- Make all the decisions that the DM wants the players to take.

If this is the case, the DM has planted the NPC in the middle of the players as an insurance that everything goes as he has planned, at least until he can trust the players to do so on their own. Perhaps he even intends to have the players "graduate" from Sir Prick's guidance at some point during the campaign. As soon as they're ready, of course.

Perhaps the condescending attitude is even meant to motivate the players to put effort into not needing him any more, so he can go his own separate way.

However, he is making a fatal mistake. Because roleplaying does NOT mean that the DM gets to tell the players what to do and say; if that's what he wants, he should get into drama, not roleplaying. Which, unfortunately, means that the DM will never trust the players enough to retire Sir Prick.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 09:22 PM
You know what this means, right? This is the DM saying:

"This is MY game, and you have to do what I say. My heroic paladin is your boss, or you don't play at all. Don't you all love how arrogant he is? Don't you think I'm a great roleplayer for playing such a great paladin?"


Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."


No need. If he's doing terrible things, you don't have to be evil to end up killing him. Or, talk to the rest of the party, and inform him that due to his actions, he's been voted out of the party. If he reacts by violence/forcing you to follow him, he's shown you that he is evil at heart, and killing him in any way necessary(and avoiding mention of this to the order) is entirely understandable.
He hasn't done anything TERRIBLE yet, just stuff like "I am better then you, you, you, you, especially YOU, you, you..."

And he is a ridiculous sexist, too, so there is that. And I don't think it is Neutral Good to behead people for saying women suck at holding swords.

...Heh, holding swords. :smallbiggrin:

Bearpunch
2012-01-29, 09:48 PM
Dude, seriously, get a new DM, join a PBP on the forums, they'll help you learn the ropes, everyone sreally nice here. Your DM is treating the game as his, instead of al of yours, and that just spells no fun.

Delwugor
2012-01-29, 10:47 PM
Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."

He hasn't done anything TERRIBLE yet, just stuff like "I am better then you, you, you, you, especially YOU, you, you..."

And he is a ridiculous sexist, too, so there is that. And I don't think it is Neutral Good to behead people for saying women suck at holding swords.

...Heh, holding swords. :smallbiggrin:
Get out now!
Absolutely no good can come out of a game ran with that kind of attitude.

Look at some of the PbP games here see if you can get in one. Check other forums for local or nearby games. Chances are there is a good gaming group near you, you just need to know about them.

Don't worry about not being very experienced in D&D. You are actually on one of the best forums about D&D, IMO. There are alot of people here with absolutely tons of knowledge and experience. And being one of the most friendly and helpful forums around, many people will answer any questions patiently and respectfully. This is a good place for learning so take advantage of it.

navar100
2012-01-29, 11:02 PM
What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go too.

GO!

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-29, 11:11 PM
I'll wait till the game after the next(when I and the rogue rejoin), see how it goes, and if it gets worse I will talk it over with the others. This is also the first time he has ever DM'd.

VanBuren
2012-01-29, 11:34 PM
I'll wait till the game after the next(when I and the rogue rejoin), see how it goes, and if it gets worse I will talk it over with the others. This is also the first time he has ever DM'd.

And it should probably be his last. At least for a while.

Delvin Darkwood
2012-01-29, 11:41 PM
for the love of your dnd carrer, do not wait, heed the advice of the playground and do something! leave, take a stand, but don't let yourself get trampled on and bossed around.

Because thats not fun for anyone.

El Dorado
2012-01-29, 11:46 PM
I haven't had a character kicked out yet but the topic has recently come up. My current character drew the Enmity card from a Deck of Many Things. As a result, my character is on some demon's hit list and our group has been attacked twice by vrocks and dretches. There's been some concern that my presence now puts everyone at risk because the attacks will keep happening until either the demon or my character is dead.

Circle of Life
2012-01-29, 11:48 PM
First time DMs have a tendency to be excessively controlling, believing that they need an iron-fisted grip on the game to hold it together. With some, this manifests in ultra-rigid campaigns (choo-choo, here's the train, get onboard), and with others there is a DMPC that makes sure the party stays in line. Your current DM unfortunately falls into the latter category.

Most DMs very quickly learn that this is a poor way to run a game, and rapidly change their style when people stop having fun. Your DM, after having been expressly told that his DMPC was ruining your fun, told you to suck it up and kiss his feet.

Leave. Find a better game. I understand that you're hesitant to do so, but continuing this game will only sour your view of D&D as a whole, and the internet will have one more horror story of DMPCs and "der Führer DM".

Delwugor
2012-01-30, 12:15 AM
I'll wait till the game after the next(when I and the rogue rejoin), see how it goes, and if it gets worse I will talk it over with the others. This is also the first time he has ever DM'd.
Inexperience is not the problem it is his attitude!
It sounds like he didn't even attempt to explain his reasons, he just said "I'M THE GM DO AS I SAY!"

You can find much better than that!

Fhaolan
2012-01-30, 12:22 AM
I'll wait till the game after the next(when I and the rogue rejoin), see how it goes, and if it gets worse I will talk it over with the others. This is also the first time he has ever DM'd.

If everything is as you described, don't wait, until the next session, just leave now. There is nothing to be gained. It may not get *worse* simply because it is already pretty darn bad, and suffering during this game will not make you a better player. Realizing that this is a bad game, and learning to cut your losses will.

Where are you living? There are lots of people here from all over the world. It's possible that you might be able to find another gaming group in your area by asking *here*.

Telok
2012-01-30, 05:32 AM
I haven't had a character kicked out yet but the topic has recently come up. My current character drew the Enmity card from a Deck of Many Things. As a result, my character is on some demon's hit list and our group has been attacked twice by vrocks and dretches. There's been some concern that my presence now puts everyone at risk because the attacks will keep happening until either the demon or my character is dead.

This is not a bad thing, it is free xp. Invest in some bane weapons/ammunition and rake in the power.


For the OP:
I would be willing to play two more sessions in that game under one condition. Meet your fellow players out of game and conspire to murder this and any other DMPCs you ever meet. The first session is for preparation (not planning, plan outside of game) and to keep casting Detect <alignment> spells on the DMPC. The second session is where you try to murderize the scum.

Note that one reason I'd be willing to go along for another session or two is because the DM may be setting up the NPC as a major villain. If the NPC is plotted to fall or never really was a paladin then that's a possible explanation for his actions. This would be to see if the DM is awkward about NPC character development.

One more thing

And I don't think it is Neutral Good to behead people for saying women suck at holding swords.
That is not a good aligned action.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-30, 06:39 AM
I'll wait till the game after the next(when I and the rogue rejoin), see how it goes, and if it gets worse I will talk it over with the others. This is also the first time he has ever DM'd.

The DM could decide that the rogue and you have to do some "punishment" to earn back Sir Prick's trust, preferably without help from the other players. This does not have to be a bad thing, because it is an opportunity to make up for lost XP, and could be an interesting side quest in itself. (e.g. "You must find and kill the disgusting, slimy monster that has been a nuisance to this town for weeks." This is a good sign, as long as it puts everyone back onto a roughly even footing.

However, it could just as well be a bad thing, if it is an uphill battle (e.g. "You're a rogue, you have to fight some undead."), or just plain chores (e.g. "You have to sweep the streets. Make a skill check. Oh, that's too low. That means you have to come back tomorrow to finish up.") This is a bad sign. My advice would be to quit after the session.

Also, it is very well possible that the DM just pays no further attention to the entire suspension, and continues where the previous session ended, leaving it up to the rest of the players to fill the two of you in on what you missed. (e.g. "Before you leave on Sir Prick's next quest, don't forget to stop by the treasury for your reward for escorting Sir Prick to the town, and the other thing you did after arriving. No, not you two! You didn't do anything to deserve a reward.") This is a sign of no improvement. My advice would be to quit after the session.

Finally, it is also possible that the DM treats the session you missed as explicit punishment for the two of you not doing what you're told, and even hams it up further. (e.g. "Remember to wear your magical amulets of "Get Into Boss Fight" on this next quest. Oh, you two didn't get any? Well, Sir Prick carries some extras, and he may give them to you later on, if you behave from now on.") This is a very bad sign. My advice would be to quit immediately, without waiting for the session to end.

---

EDIT:
You already posted that you told your DM that you don't enjoy having to endure Sir Prick all the time. But have you also told him that it's so bad that you're doubting whether you even want to be in the game? (It helps if the rogue player does the same thing.) This should drive the point home to the DM that there is a problem, and he can't ignore it.

If he responds by promising to do something about it, like toning down Sir Prick or keeping him around as a questgiver rather than the party leader ("I'm still your boss, but I can't be bothered to babysit you people all the time. Now go do this quest while I meet with the king."), you should take him up on this token of goodwill, and give the game another shot.

However, if he gets angry at you for failing to appreciate his grand creative vision, and perhaps even tells you not to bother coming back, you know the game cannot be salvaged for you, because the DM does not take you or your input seriously. Don't forget to notify the other players that you will not be back, because some of them may agree with you and would be willing to find/start a new game with you. Besides, if the DM is unreasonable, he might not represent your reasons for leaving all that accurately to them.

Soylent Dave
2012-01-30, 06:52 AM
he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."

The DM is in charge of the game - but it should never be 'whether you like it or not'.

He's supposed to be making it fun for everyone... sounds like he's making it fun for himself, by going off on a power trip (which happens).

Some of the DM's problem is certainly inexperience - many novice DMs overcompensate for lack of competence by steamrolling their players. But that doesn't excuse his actions, even if it partially explains them - and it doesn't mean you should continue to put up with it.

You've spoken to the DM, with not much luck - might be worth speaking to the other players and see what they think. If they aren't enjoying things, and the DMPC in particular, then you might have more luck approaching him collectively.

(I once had a campaign where the players (ultimately) got together and told the DM that we were sick of his glory-hogging DMPC and that we didn't want the DMPC to show up any more... and it worked, so it can happen.

If your DM is less reasonable, then you might still be able to keep a relationship with some of the players and set up a different game with the same people (but a different DM))


Well...even if, by some miracle, I was able to find another game, I am really, really, really bad with the all the numbers that goes into Dungeons and Dragons. I really doubt I'll be able to find another DM as patient as he has been when it comes to helping us build our characters.

A little secret for you: you'll be hard-pressed to find a DM who doesn't have to help his players with 'all the numbers' (or hasn't in the past).

The DM is usually the guy who knows the rules best, and that's also often the guy who's best at maths.

Any DM who has a player new to D&D will pretty much expect that player to need help with the rules. It goes with the job, don't worry about it.

As long as you're willing to learn, no-one reasonable will mind helping you.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-30, 08:19 AM
You've spoken to the DM, with not much luck - might be worth speaking to the other players and see what they think. If they aren't enjoying things, and the DMPC in particular, then you might have more luck approaching him collectively.


That's a good idea. I'll show the others this thread and see what they have to say.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-30, 09:24 AM
Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."


He hasn't done anything TERRIBLE yet, just stuff like "I am better then you, you, you, you, especially YOU, you, you..."

And he is a ridiculous sexist, too, so there is that. And I don't think it is Neutral Good to behead people for saying women suck at holding swords.

...Heh, holding swords. :smallbiggrin:

Oh? Yeah, run. This guy sounds terrible. Not the char, the GM. This game sounds like his personal power fantasy, not a fun thing where everyone gets to, yknow, actually play.

The whole "I'm in charge" thing is a bit ridiculous. If that's your only reason as a GM for justifying things, you're probably doing it wrong. And if he's got no players, well, he can be in charge of playing with himself.

Bagelson
2012-01-30, 09:54 AM
Admittedly most GMs start out pretty bad. They grow with experience and if you can give him a few years he might* manage better. That said, you guys may want to try having someone else run the next adventure.

*Bagel Inc. does not offer extended guarantee policy on predictions or prophesies. Attempts to establish life status on the cat voids warranty.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-30, 09:55 AM
The whole "I'm in charge" thing is a bit ridiculous. If that's your only reason as a GM for justifying things, you're probably doing it wrong. And if he's got no players, well, he can be in charge of playing with himself.

What he's doing is writing a book, instead of playing a game. He doesn't need other people do that; he just doesn't realize it yet.

Autolykos
2012-01-30, 11:41 AM
Sounds to me like an inexperienced and insecure GM. He has already noticed that players will always try to derail his finely crafted plot, but hasn't learned yet that they will only try harder if he does anything to prevent it, and that the only fun way to deal with it is being ready to improvise (or with some groups, kindly asking them out of character to follow the plot here). Most GMs go through this phase, and some will eventually get better. This doesn't mean you should continue to let them run the game - they can learn while being a player as well. My advice would be to get another player to run the game (if they are just as pissed as you are, this should be easy), or even learn the rules and DM yourself. It isn't that hard, and having to look up some rules now and then (or improvising something on the spot and looking it up later) is perfectly OK - even the best GMs do it occasionally.

mcv
2012-01-30, 12:07 PM
It sounds like you're the audience in his solo adventure.

That said, many GMs start out bad. It's a skill you have to learn. I've probably also done plenty of attrocious things in my games, and not even as a first-time GM. That said, rejecting player input will make it very hard for him to learn.

Perhaps you should direct the GM to this forum, so he can get some good suggestions here. Or try to discuss it a bit more with him. Or just run. It's not impossible that it will improve, but there are a lot, a lot of bad signs here. And for an online game with strangers, instead of a game with good friends, it might not be worth the investment.

But if he wants to improve, there's really one vital GM lesson that he needs to learn. Perhaps the most important rule of all: the PCs are the protagonists of the story. They need to shine. The GM only does the supporting cast.

Shorkan
2012-01-30, 02:18 PM
Buy him a DM-guide. It seems he makes a lot classic and unforgivable mistakes, and refuses to acknowledge he is wrong. D&D simply does not work that way, it's about the players, and everyone with even the tiniest bit of DM experience should know this.
I think I would ask the other players to start a new campaign with you(I can't imagine they are having fun either). Let the DM join as a player if he's not too pissed. If one of your players is an experienced DM, let him be DM and ask your current DM to watch and learn.

Jay R
2012-01-30, 03:27 PM
Find a fun game. That's what you're playing for.

If this isn't the fun game, then keep looking.

Sipex
2012-01-30, 04:02 PM
You mentioned your DM is new, this is important. It's likely he's trying to attain authority over the group, he wants to avoid being taken advantage of and bossed around by his players. Many new DMs struggle with this because if you don't have authority there are be players who will make it hard to run a game (intentionally or otherwise).

I wouldn't worry about the NPC too much, it sounds like he's simply there for story reasons (of which the DM seems very attached to). I'd keep a wary eye on what happens (ie: see if the Paladin does anything unfair) but if the only real problem is the Paladin is a jerk then you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you'll likely get to kill him later so it's a bonus.

I mean, if my players threatened to quit every time an NPC wasn't nice to them I'd have no players.

Also, don't go plotting to kill any DMPC, that's meta gaming and very bad meta gaming at that.

MDR
2012-01-30, 04:21 PM
If the pally doesn't show himself to be the protagonist soon, or in some other way leaves you alone, I too suggest you leave sooner rather than later. Give it a couple more sessions, and make the final call. Long term exposure to this type of DMing might sour you on rollplaying in general, and that would be a shame.

You might want to start preliminary probes in your community now, just to see what is out there. Are you playing by Skype because these people are your friends and live far apart, or out of neccesity due to your location?

Your curent DM sounds, well, young. A sign of maturity is the ability to admit a mistake, swallow your pride a bit, and take corrective actions. You absolutely should contact the other players and ask what their feelings are.

Question: Is he your only DM? Or do you all take turns DMing? My group of four takes turns, switching every few months, and we all have vastly different ways of DMing. But on the end, we all ask each other, 'What did you like, not like, and what would you change?' Not that we always listen to what is said, but we always ask...:smallwink:

Knaight
2012-01-30, 04:25 PM
Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."

It's probably a good time for a new GM. If you'd received an answer like "This guy is only going to be around until all the PCs get out, at which point he is likely to become an antagonist. It depends on what you guys choose to do." there would be hope for the game. "Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game." is a gigantic red flag.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-30, 04:28 PM
but if the only real problem is the Paladin is a jerk then you have nothing to worry about.

The Paladin being a jerk is not the real issue here.

The issue is that the Paladin NPC (who is also the party leader) expelled two PCs from the party for arguing with him. Also, the players don't get to play on the next session, since the Paladin NPC will not allow their characters anywhere near the party. The DM specifically disallowed the players to have their characters secretly follow the party to let them help out against the next dangerous encounter.
They are only welcome on the session after that, since that is when the current quest will have ended. Also, the NPC Paladin will still be around for the next adventure, and will still be acting as the party leader.

At least, that is how I read the original poster's various comments in this thread.

MDR
2012-01-30, 04:32 PM
You mentioned your DM is new, this is important. It's likely he's trying to attain authority over the group, he wants to avoid being taken advantage of and bossed around by his players. Many new DMs struggle with this because if you don't have authority there are be players who will make it hard to run a game (intentionally or otherwise).

I wouldn't worry about the NPC too much, it sounds like he's simply there for story reasons (of which the DM seems very attached to). I'd keep a wary eye on what happens (ie: see if the Paladin does anything unfair) but if the only real problem is the Paladin is a jerk then you have nothing to worry about. In fact, you'll likely get to kill him later so it's a bonus.

I mean, if my players threatened to quit every time an NPC wasn't nice to them I'd have no players.

Also, don't go plotting to kill any DMPC, that's meta gaming and very bad meta gaming at that.

I dunno. It seems to me the problem lies more in how the DM responded to the OP's questions than the fact that an NPC is bossing the PCs around. It probably is, as you say, based on the fact he is new to DMing, and thus is perhaps scared/concerned/paranoid about how the adventure will proceed without a babysitter, but if this doesn't get taken care of soon...well, what is the point in playing a game that is not enjoyable? If going to the table feels more like a chore than like you are on your way to have a good time, and the person responsible is not open to change....

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-30, 04:34 PM
If the pally doesn't show himself to be the protagonist soon, or in some other way leaves you alone, I too suggest you leave sooner rather than later. Give it a couple more sessions, and make the final call. Long term exposure to this type of DMing might sour you on rollplaying in general, and that would be a shame.

You might want to start preliminary probes in your community now, just to see what is out there. Are you playing by Skype because these people are your friends and live far apart, or out of neccesity due to your location?

Your curent DM sounds, well, young. A sign of maturity is the ability to admit a mistake, swallow your pride a bit, and take corrective actions. You absolutely should contact the other players and ask what their feelings are.

Question: Is he your only DM? Or do you all take turns DMing? My group of four takes turns, switching every few months, and we all have vastly different ways of DMing. But on the end, we all ask each other, 'What did you like, not like, and what would you change?' Not that we always listen to what is said, but we always ask...:smallwink:
It's on Skype because the only person I knew with even a vague interest, my older cousin, moved quite a ways from me. Besides, this is mostly free. No minis! And yes, he is the only DM.



The Paladin being a jerk is not the real issue here.

The issue is that the Paladin NPC (who is also the party leader) expelled two PCs from the party for arguing with him. Also, the players don't get to play on the next session, since the Paladin NPC will not allow their characters anywhere near the party. The DM specifically disallowed the players to have their characters secretly follow the party to let them help out against the next dangerous encounter.
They are only welcome on the session after that, since that is when the current quest will have ended. Also, the NPC Paladin will still be around for the next adventure, and will still be acting as the party leader.

At least, that is how I read the original poster's various comments in this thread.

That is correct, yes, though I do not know for sure how long the Paladin will stay. Also, the "the quest" we're missing out on isn't technically important (we just get to the city we are going to later, missing out on any XP and such gained in between now and then).

Also, now that I think about it, that doesn't make any sense. Sir Prick said(more or less) "You are evil and disruptive and I can not associate with you so go by caravan"(the DM's basis for evil was my character snickering when the cleric was hit by a fireball, but I think he had me confused with the ranger or somebody). So...why are we allowed to rejoin AT ALL? The punishment was just making us late. In universe, it makes no sense! That would just be a determent to his own goals if he wants us along for the whole ride. I mean, maybe Sir Prick just won't be around, but if that was the case, why didn't the DM say so when I asked?

*is confused*

Dr. Yes
2012-01-30, 07:17 PM
Basically everything you've said about the game and your interactions with the DM point to him being a huge douche. The only reason this could possibly be a hard decision would be if you had no other realistic choices for games or gaming groups...but that's not true. Find another Skype game, or start your own! Join a PbP! Link up through a local gaming shop! If you don't make a decision, the situation will only get worse. Your bad DM isn't going to fix himself, and you're already on his poop list.

d13
2012-01-30, 08:02 PM
Get out of there, and get out of there quickly.

Your DM is, basically, telling you "you don't do as I say, so you can't have "fun" ".
Everybody was new at some point, and we all made (and still make) mistakes, but the red flag this kind of attitude towards players should trigger, is the size of the Empire State (minimum)

The Glyphstone
2012-01-30, 08:29 PM
Leave now. Please, we're begging you. This isn't a red flag, the flag is red because it's on fire screaming with the agony of a thousand tortured souls who decided to give an awful DM 'a second chance'. Bail out of the game with the rogue, tell the other players explicitly why - probably privately or via email, so the DM can't interrupt.

Arraxis
2012-01-30, 08:50 PM
Have you asked the DM why he wants to use Sir Prick for an indefinite amount of time? How he feels that he is adding to the game? He seems to be particularly attached to the character, and I wonder just what he sees in him. Although, I agree with everyone else that you should leave. I'm sure there are lots of people here on the LFG forums who would love to have a player as patient and tolerant as you join their game.

chadmeister
2012-01-30, 09:44 PM
Well, after I asked how long he would be around, he did say "Drop it. He's going to be leading the party for however long I see fit. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game. Sorry."



Just tell him your characters are going to a different town and seek out whatever goals your character have. Refuse to follow the paladin.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-30, 09:58 PM
Leave now. Please, we're begging you. This isn't a red flag, the flag is red because it's on fire screaming with the agony of a thousand tortured souls who decided to give an awful DM 'a second chance'. Bail out of the game with the rogue, tell the other players explicitly why - probably privately or via email, so the DM can't interrupt.

I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.


Just tell him your characters are going to a different town and seek out whatever goals your character have. Refuse to follow the paladin.

Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

MukkTB
2012-01-30, 10:06 PM
Leave the DM. Its totally ok for him to boot you out of the 'official' party. Its totally not ok to refuse to let you run parallel to the other party after HE HIMSELF BOOTED YOU FROM THE MAIN GROUP. Go find someoen else to play with.

Edit - Punishing you for being obstinate by not letting you play should be returned in kind. Don't play with him.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-01-30, 10:17 PM
Hope I'm not too late to the party.

E-mail or call the other players. Tell them what the DM told you. And remember the golden rules.
Rule 00 - The GM is Always Right: If he changes the RAW to negate tricks, that's that.
Rule 000 - ...But no Players Means no Game: But just because the DM holds the most power doesn't mean he can be a tyrant. It is well within the group's rights for everyone else to leave and start their own game.

chadmeister
2012-01-30, 10:49 PM
Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

That's when you insist on telling him what your characters are doing whether the DM is listening to you or not.

Or you just stop playing with him.

I'll agree with the others who have said you don't have to worry about inexperience. If a new DM doesn't have time to teach you, there will be players who will.

Fiery Diamond
2012-01-30, 10:56 PM
I'm gonna say: Talk to the other players and show them this thread. If they're on your side, confront the DM together. It's possible that a show of unity from all the players will get him to reconsider things.

If they decide they don't want to confront the DM with you and don't feel it's worth it or if the DM doesn't change his attitude after being confronted by the whole group: leave the game.

Friv
2012-01-30, 11:01 PM
I've got to say, this is a little mind-boggling to me. If I was playing in a game and someone else's player got kicked out of the party for not doing what the main character wanted, and then they were told not to bother showing up next week while they were given a time-out, that would be it. I would drop the game, and offer to run a game for the players who'd been kicked out myself. And I'd extend the invitation to everyone, even the DM, so that he could see how badly he'd dropped the ball.

Because that - I have literally never heard of anything like this before. I've heard of DMs flipping their crap and throwing another player out of the group, but imposing a one-session timeout for not following the plot? That is... :smallannoyed::smallmad::smallfurious:

And I ran that game where I had to run an entire session for just one guy after the party temporarily kicked him out.

ZakRenning
2012-01-31, 12:10 AM
If all the diplomatic approaches fail, and you do have to leave the group.
I feel like offering some "murderhobo" advice:

Ahem. When you regroup, with the rest of the party, wait until nightfall. Then get you party together and kill Sir Prick in his sleep. When the DM argues stand up and say "Nah that's fine, I'm gonna go do something fun. Later." And leave.

Elm11
2012-01-31, 06:17 AM
If all the diplomatic approaches fail, and you do have to leave the group.
I feel like offering some "murderhobo" advice:

Ahem. When you regroup, with the rest of the party, wait until nightfall. Then get you party together and kill Sir Prick in his sleep. When the DM argues stand up and say "Nah that's fine, I'm gonna go do something fun. Later." And leave.

I don't think being spiteful will achieve anything other than make him seem immature. It's a real sign of maturity to be able to confront someone like the DM without raising a fuss, and leaving with your head held high, rather than a childish parting blow that may come across as a tantrum, rather than any kind of tangible revenge. If revenge is what the OP is really after, then his course of action still shouldn't change: Whether or not he plans it, talking to the other players many permanently remove said players from the group, both saving them from a rotten DM, and ensuring that said DM realises that being an over controlling rail-roader won't fly. If you consider teaching him that lesson revenge, then whatever floats your boat.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-31, 08:40 AM
It's on Skype because the only person I knew with even a vague interest, my older cousin, moved quite a ways from me. Besides, this is mostly free. No minis! And yes, he is the only DM.

Mostly free is standard for D&D...typically, munchies are the biggest expense.

Lots of people play online. If you're playing online anyhow, may as well find a good game. If you do, take your player friends with you! Alternatively, find a good local game.

The DM is not always right. In this particular case, his action are definitely wrong, as they will invariably lead to some players not having a good time. And honestly, having fun together is the reason to play.

Sipex
2012-01-31, 09:01 AM
The Paladin being a jerk is not the real issue here.

The issue is that the Paladin NPC (who is also the party leader) expelled two PCs from the party for arguing with him. Also, the players don't get to play on the next session, since the Paladin NPC will not allow their characters anywhere near the party. The DM specifically disallowed the players to have their characters secretly follow the party to let them help out against the next dangerous encounter.
They are only welcome on the session after that, since that is when the current quest will have ended. Also, the NPC Paladin will still be around for the next adventure, and will still be acting as the party leader.

At least, that is how I read the original poster's various comments in this thread.

Hrm, this does sound bad but not bad enough not to give the guy a chance. I'd talk to him about not getting to play and ask if he might be planning a separate session in the future for the OP and the rogue first. This could just be the DM being creative with the structure of the session, you don't want to rush to conclusions.

I only suggest this since the OP didn't seem all too offended by the fact that he missed a session at first so it would be worth for him to give his DM a chance.


I dunno. It seems to me the problem lies more in how the DM responded to the OP's questions than the fact that an NPC is bossing the PCs around. It probably is, as you say, based on the fact he is new to DMing, and thus is perhaps scared/concerned/paranoid about how the adventure will proceed without a babysitter, but if this doesn't get taken care of soon...well, what is the point in playing a game that is not enjoyable? If going to the table feels more like a chore than like you are on your way to have a good time, and the person responsible is not open to change....

I'm not saying the OP should stick around indefinitely. Just give it two more sessions to see if things improve. It could be the DM was having a bad day when the OP asked that question or he might change his mind with a chance to reflect on what the OP asked.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-31, 09:14 AM
Hrm, this does sound bad but not bad enough not to give the guy a chance. I'd talk to him about not getting to play and ask if he might be planning a separate session in the future for the OP and the rogue first. This could just be the DM being creative with the structure of the session, you don't want to rush to conclusions.


I don't think he is planning on something like that.

Me: Are they going to have a XP boost to catch them up when they rejoin?

DM: No.

Me: Cool. What if we followed from a distance, and helped the main party in ways they wouldn't notice? Or if Leeko[me] and Viana[rogue] dealt with her father[who sent ninjas after us last game] while the others were in the city?

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

Saph
2012-01-31, 09:21 AM
DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that

I'm going to join the chorus of all the other posters and say "get out".

(And I'm usually the one who argues for talking to the DM, being patient, and giving him a chance. But even I can't see a reason not to bail out in this case.)

Delwugor
2012-01-31, 09:22 AM
DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that
Me: "No I don't have to accept that nor do I need to accept you as a GM!"

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-31, 09:25 AM
I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.

Perhaps you could ask him this:
"If we're not welcome to participate in the next session, what reason do we have to feel welcome after that?"
Then let him do the talking. One major thing to look out for is whether or not he apologizes for making you feel unwelcome.

Also, I recommend to make the other players (i.e. sorcerer, ranger, whoever else is part of the group) aware of the issue in an open and friendly way that is in no way offensive to the DM. In fact, if some of them were not AFK when the expulsion happened (one of them even unannounced), they would have already been informed.
I assume it will be best to wait until after this final conversation with the DM, since you will have made a decision by that point. However, you should not delay any longer than that, especially if you decide to quit the group. If you don't, you run the risk of the DM telling them a different version of the story than you would deem fair.
(e.g. "Those other two will not be back, because they got all mad over last game, and they ganged up on me afterwards to force me to change what happened to their characters." Or something similarly biased.)

Nachtritter
2012-01-31, 10:32 AM
I still haven't talked to him with the others. I showed the rogue this thread, and he said he would confront the DM over it, but he wasn't online today. We'll both talk to him tomorrow, and I'll base leaving the game on how that discussion goes.



Pretty sure he would just go on without them.

Good for you, but be prepared for it not to work. There are DMs out there who are so ... for lack of a better term that doesn't involve numerous cursewords, "set in their ways" that they refuse to consider the player's ideas because, well, they're just the players and don't really matter.

Hopefully, he'll listen to you and change things up.

If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly.

Circle of Life
2012-01-31, 10:34 AM
If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly. leave in a mature fashion after calmly explaining your grievances, potentially showing the other players the error of the DM's ways in doing so.

Fixed that for you.

Delwugor
2012-01-31, 10:55 AM
If not, however, you must do all in your power to destroy the campaign. Utterly.
This is the worst thing anyone can do when leaving. It sounds gratifying but it doesn't do anything except cause resentment and reflects poorly on the person doing it.

Studoku
2012-01-31, 11:25 AM
This is the worst thing anyone can do when leaving. It sounds gratifying but it doesn't do anything except cause resentment and reflects poorly on the person doing it.

Destroying the campaign in game isn't ok but there's nothing wrong with taking all the players with you when you leave. Chances are, at least some of them dislike the GM as much as you- start your own group (blackjack and hookers are optional).

Alejandro
2012-01-31, 01:17 PM
Here's one alternate suggestion, if you stick with the group.

Retire your current PC, and make a bard. Have this bard be fixated on the idea that Sir Prick is going to be the next Odysseus of the world, and have said bard follow Sir Prick at all times, loudly extolling his virtues. Make sure to have said bard wear garish, bright, extravagant clothing, and have some sort of hilarious speech impediment.

Never accept anything other than everyone's complete idolization of Sir Prick, and only agree to do anything that proclaims the greatness of Sir Prick upon the world. Safety and tactics do not apply. Even if the approaching enemy is a huge dragon, loudly announce the presence of Sir Prick and order the dragon to immediately compose a sonnet in Sir Prick's honor.

The GM will stop it, or stab you, in a fairly short time.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 02:31 PM
I.. Initially didnt want to respond to this thread, I am honestly a bit shocked that it would be made but I will be brief, with a few points. First of all, im a fan of the comics here, and I used theese very forums as reference guide to creating my game. So it is not as if I disagree with the people in here, if I came in here not knowing the game I would agree with Eric. However, I dont.

There are more reasons for giving him and the rogues a week suspension than just the paladin dismissing them IC. And the paladins reasons are just that, IC. The OOC reasons I shall refrain from posting since this is a largely in-group issue. Caused by two of my players going behind my back and posting with other players, and on forums... While I can control the group when its the other players, going onto forums is a different matter. I think personally what he did here was very rude, but that is my opinion.

I hope he does not read this, but I guess it doesnt matter if he does now. The NPC is meant to be a superior of two characters in the group, he has lead the group for no more than last session, and that was supposed to be the -only- session. As I hate leading groups with NPC's, as I dislike having groups lead by NPC's myself.

I guess, some of this was caused by the event with the centaur. I guess I will post my side in a very brief manner. It also explains the reason the paladin dismissed them ICly.

-Centaur Attacks party, binds 3 humans. Strangles one, is about to cut the throat of the other-

Ehem... The rogue and the bards reaction? Try to recruit the centaur, because youknow. She is powerful. I had the paladin break free and end it as I could not draw the centaur killing her caught victims off for more than an hour 'yes it took them that long to act' And theese two seemed to be cheering it on to kill off the cleric and the paladin. I decided that after having the paladin being constantly cussed at for the whole journey, once assaulted by the rogue. And this time almost had two of the people of the party he is tempoarily responsible of and himself almost killed for their hesitation. Dismiss them from the group.

I told them that they would take a session off and consider reading up on something called (Cause and Effect) The NPC's in the world arent bricks. And while treating players with respect I do not wish to make a world where NPC's either ignore the players existance and their wrongdoings, or a world where the NPC's only answer to wrongdoings is attacking the PC's (This is a nonviolent solution afterall)

Their reaction? As said. One of them went to a forum and in my opinion strongly misrepresented the case. Ofcourse it will be one-sided and biased as it is a human writing it, but I would have wanted to keep this inside our group. I guess he disagreed, I will probably come back to check answers but I just wished to drop this here to have you people know that I think.

-Going behind the DM and posting complaints about the DM's game on a forum before talking to the DM is rude. And should not be done, especcialy if the forum is one that the DM has not registered on but still frequents-

Despite what he might have you believe, two people in the group disagree's with my decision. Both of them were those who I suspended to take some time off to consider why they were punished icly. As I DM for quite a large group (6 Players) I needed to strike down a bit harsher than I usually do to show them that I do control the game, because if I dont I would not be able to manage them, theese two speccifically have been quite a bit of trouble for me since the start, but I have not kicked them from the game as I was the one who invited them, and they seem to be enjoying it most of the time.

It was asked what their reason would be to support theese people, well. If they looked at our last couple of sessions they would find plenty of reason, if they looked at our last session and read what was written by the Paladin aswell as what was said by myself, they would have known that his reign of terror would last for 'one' session only. As I really hate it when people cant realize something themself, I had refrained from telling him directly. I want people to figure out this stuff themself and it was his and the rogues fault for fooling around with eachother rather than looking at what was actually going on.

I guess, thats what I can write for now. Whenever you disagree or not on this forum, I can safely say that I wont care a whole lot, I have run the session as I wanted and till now where I dropped the hammer on some people I thought were acting out of line. It has been going pretty well, I appreciate your time for those whom have participated in aiding one of my players and giving their thoughts to the scenario which he has produced. But I would ask that you consider that the person his going behind the back of -is- human. And he could do the sensible thing and just talk if he had complaints, at least say before he does something like this.

*argh* ended up being a rant. Oh well. Hope you guys understand.

Alejandro
2012-01-31, 02:36 PM
Telling the actual players not to play (giving them a time-out) doesn't solve anything, though. All responses should have been entirely in game, unless a player is a criminal or physical threat to the others. That's the time to actually physically remove the player.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 02:40 PM
Telling the actual players not to play (giving them a time-out) doesn't solve anything, though. All responses should have been entirely in game, unless a player is a criminal or physical threat to the others. That's the time to actually physically remove the player.

The Paladin was currently leading the group and the Paladin considered them a threat, giving them a time-out gives them time to think of why the NPC decided to throw them out, maybe consider that their ingame actions have consequences. I also made sure that the session which they are missing does not include XP, nor loot. And is mostly plot progression for the other characters, as so they have little to complain about. But even if I had not managed it 'so' They still need to learn to respect the DM. And respect other people, I guess you are the type that disagrees with this, I can only say that we must then agree to disagree.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-31, 02:41 PM
There are more reasons for giving him and the rogues a week suspension than just the paladin dismissing them IC. And the paladins reasons are just that, IC. The OOC reasons I shall refrain from posting since this is a largely in-group issue. Caused by two of my players going behind my back and posting with other players, and on forums... While I can control the group when its the other players, going onto forums is a different matter. I think personally what he did here was very rude, but that is my opinion.

I take it you're the DM in question?

So...you didn't let the players play for IC reasons? This seems ridiculous, and I can't see how the IC reasons are relevant.

OOC problems are a different matter, but some ambiguous reference to them, along with some sort of accusations of them "going behind your back" by talking on a public forum, does nothing to explain your actions, and your phrasing(control the group?) seems poorly chosen.


-Centaur Attacks party, binds 3 humans. Strangles one, is about to cut the throat of the other-

Ehem... The rogue and the bards reaction? Try to recruit the centaur, because youknow. She is powerful. I had the paladin break free and end it as I could not draw the centaur killing her caught victims off for more than an hour 'yes it took them that long to act' And theese two seemed to be cheering it on to kill off the cleric and the paladin. I decided that after having the paladin being constantly cussed at for the whole journey, once assaulted by the rogue. And this time almost had two of the people and himself almost killed for their hesitation. Dismiss them from the group.

All I'm seeing here is a giant pile of fiat. Also, it seems that you only have four chars mentioned, one of which(the paladin) is an NPC. Is this the entire party, or are we missing part of the story?

Also, attempting diplomacy is not a ridiculous measure, especially on someone who already captured half the party.


Their reaction? As said. One of them went to a forum and in my opinion strongly misrepresented the case. Ofcourse it will be one-sided and biased as it is a human writing it, but I would have wanted to keep this inside our group. I guess he disagreed, I will probably come back to check answers but I just wished to drop this here to have you people know that I think.

-Going behind the DM and posting complaints about the DM's game on a forum before talking to the DM is rude. And should not be done, especcialy if the forum is one that the DM has not registered on but still frequents-

Talking about a game on a forum is not inherently rude. The OP's post was not particularly complaining, and indeed, he viewed it much less negatively that did most responding posters. I feel like you taking offense at such a mild mannered post only furthers the viewpoint that you have something to hide. After all, if there's nothing wrong, why the worry over posting?


Despite what he might have you believe, two people in the group disagree's with my decision. Both of them were those who I suspended to take some time off to consider why they were punished icly. As I DM for quite a large group (6 Players) I needed to strike down a bit harsher than I usually do to show them that I do control the game, because if I dont I would not be able to manage them, theese two speccifically have been quite a bit of trouble for me since the start, but I have not kicked them from the game as I was the one who invited them, and they seem to be enjoying it most of the time. That is all.

OP? This bit here is the warning sign. Run. Gaming is about having fun together, not about showing off control.

Alejandro
2012-01-31, 02:45 PM
The Paladin was currently leading the group and the Paladin considered them a threat, giving them a time-out gives them time to think of why the NPC decided to throw them out, maybe consider that their ingame actions have consequences. I also made sure that the session which they are missing does not include XP, nor loot. And is mostly plot progression for the other characters, as so they have little to complain about. But even if I had not managed it 'so' They still need to learn to respect the DM. And respect other people, I guess you are the type that disagrees with this, I can only say that we must then agree to disagree.

I'm not sure how old you are or what kind of life you have led, but let me give this unasked-for advice: You will never gain anyone's respect by ordering them out of your presence until they have learned their lesson, in D&D or a real life issue. Respect comes from compromise and mutual kindness (or fairness.)

If the players told you to go away and come back in a week, so you could learn to respect them, would you like it? No. Neither do they. The way to get real respect is to say "What should I do, that would satisfy all of us as much as possible?" and then listen, and then follow through.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 02:48 PM
I take it you're the DM in question?

So...you didn't let the players play for IC reasons? This seems ridiculous, and I can't see how the IC reasons are relevant.

OOC problems are a different matter, but some ambiguous reference to them, along with some sort of accusations of them "going behind your back" by talking on a public forum, does nothing to explain your actions, and your phrasing(control the group?) seems poorly chosen.



All I'm seeing here is a giant pile of fiat. Also, it seems that you only have four chars mentioned, one of which(the paladin) is an NPC. Is this the entire party, or are we missing part of the story?

Also, attempting diplomacy is not a ridiculous measure, especially on someone who already captured half the party.



Talking about a game on a forum is not inherently rude. The OP's post was not particularly complaining, and indeed, he viewed it much less negatively that did most responding posters. I feel like you taking offense at such a mild mannered post only furthers the viewpoint that you have something to hide. After all, if there's nothing wrong, why the worry over posting?



OP? This bit here is the warning sign. Run. Gaming is about having fun together, not about showing off control.

*Sigh* I guess I choose my words poorly. No, I am not worried, I can explain the remaining characters.

Aasimar - Trying to convince them to attack, not really working.
Tiefling - Not interrested in the others safety, but will follow the Paladin if manages to convince the rest to attack.
Sorcerer - The third human captured. The one about to get his throat cut.

I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story which the session after the one he was complaining about would serve as character developement of two of the characters in the party. I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.


I'm not sure how old you are or what kind of life you have led, but let me give this unasked-for advice: You will never gain anyone's respect by ordering them out of your presence until they have learned their lesson, in D&D or a real life issue. Respect comes from compromise and mutual kindness (or fairness.)

If the players told you to go away and come back in a week, so you could learn to respect them, would you like it? No. Neither do they. The way to get real respect is to say "What should I do, that would satisfy all of us as much as possible?" and then listen, and then follow through.

I gave them warnings before doing so, if you dont feel thats enough. Well, thats your opinion. I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything. I feel it as a small and fitting punishment for prolonging them game for the 3 others present that day.

That is to say I have explained them what it is they were doing that was gonna end up getting them in trouble and they ignored it. I say it again and they keep ignoring it. I do not kick people from the group instantly for such things, but I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

Nyarai
2012-01-31, 02:53 PM
If the centaur took half the party hostage, why would you expect the players to attack it, especially when one of the hostages was in mortal peril? :smallconfused:

The paladin still seems to have reacted brashly and put the lives of his subordinates in jeopardy. I don't know since you sorta broad-brushed the encounter.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 02:57 PM
If the centaur took half the party hostage, why would you expect the players to attack it, especially when one of the hostages was in mortal peril? :smallconfused:

The paladin still seems to have reacted brashly and put the lives of his subordinates in jeopardy. I don't know since you sorta broad-brushed the encounter.

It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

Friv
2012-01-31, 02:57 PM
*argh* ended up being a rant. Oh well. Hope you guys understand.

First off, thanks for coming onto the thread and posting your side of things - once people start picking up steam like this, that can be hard to do.

With that in mind... I'm sorry, but you are the one in the wrong.

You can't solve problems by laying down temporary bans and then walking away. If you had a problem with the players' actions, you should have waited until after the game, contacted them both, and had a long discussion with them about why you felt that they were being actively disruptive to the game, with examples of what those problems were. From there, you could have had a constructive discussion, possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move.

Handing out a time-out, on the other hand, is the most patronizing thing you could have done. It tells the players that you think that they are children who need to sit in the corner, rather than equals and peers, and it can have no possible outcome but escalation.

On top of that, the OP's question on the forum was a totally innocent, very restrained one, and the fact that you take it as a personal attack suggests to me that you're not actually going to read anything I type, and why am I bothering anyway. Mostly I am bothering because I'm hoping that I am wrong, and that you might consider this.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-31, 03:03 PM
It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

Well, me and the rogue(and I think the ranger, I'm not sure) WHERE Neutral. We still weren't cheering it on, though. We did say if they were killed she would have a place with us, but that was after a long series of bad dice rolls in attempting to persuade it to let them go.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 03:04 PM
First off, thanks for coming onto the thread and posting your side of things - once people start picking up steam like this, that can be hard to do.

With that in mind... I'm sorry, but you are the one in the wrong.

You can't solve problems by laying down temporary bans and then walking away. If you had a problem with the players' actions, you should have waited until after the game, contacted them both, and had a long discussion with them about why you felt that they were being actively disruptive to the game, with examples of what those problems were. From there, you could have had a constructive discussion, possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move.

Handing out a time-out, on the other hand, is the most patronizing thing you could have done. It tells the players that you think that they are children who need to sit in the corner, rather than equals and peers, and it can have no possible outcome but escalation.

On top of that, the OP's question on the forum was a totally innocent, very restrained one, and the fact that you take it as a personal attack suggests to me that you're not actually going to read anything I type, and why am I bothering anyway. Mostly I am bothering because I'm hoping that I am wrong, and that you might consider this.

Thing is in this whole event they really seem to avoid talking to me entirely. They talk to eachother, and they go onto a forum but they dont confront me until all this is done. I guess I am a bit intimidated by the welcome on this forum. Im a bit happy to see not everyone is on the attack.

"possibly ending with them making new characters more in line with the paladin NPC, since that's what the OP had suggested was going to be his next move. "

I only intended to use him for that one session, making a new character to suit such a small-time NPC seems a bit like a waste to me. Since the game was delayed I have to have him in the party next session aswell, I just dont want it to end too badly so I thought it would be better if they took a caravan instead of travelling with the paladins.

Alejandro
2012-01-31, 03:08 PM
but I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

We aren't talking about their PCs. We're talking about the players. PCs should suffer consequences of their choices, that's what a role playing game is. But punishing the players themselves is immature and uncalled for.

Alejandro
2012-01-31, 03:12 PM
Double post, sorry.

Nyarai
2012-01-31, 03:18 PM
It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it and rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

All right. What kind of snare are we talking about? That determines what options the bard/rogue have available to them. I also wonder if the two players were entirely serious in their remarks, or if they were part of a bargaining/delaying tactic. What was keeping the other bystander from acting?

Sipex
2012-01-31, 03:28 PM
So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

DarkEricDraven
2012-01-31, 03:30 PM
You did say the things you said though, Nik, and you could have just told me the NPC wouldn't be leading us in the first place instead of "however long I want"(in so many words). It was, at worst, a miscommunication. So don't worry about it.


So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

My thoughts exactly, Sipex.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 03:37 PM
All right. What kind of snare are we talking about? That determines what options the bard/rogue have available to them. I also wonder if the two players were entirely serious in their remarks, or if they were part of a bargaining/delaying tactic. What was keeping the other bystander from acting?

Lets see, the wall of thorns is a costum spell. Which was preventing them from actually making any contact with the centaur unless they broke through. So most attempts at diplomacy would either have to be made after they broke through, or from the inside. The Sorcerer on the inside seems to be socially awkward as all he could conjure up was ehm and uhh. The Paladin I had captured has a soddy charisma and an intelligence of a smart chicken. And the Cleric, well... Was gone for the day, but I had it roleplayed that he was getting strangled so that it made sense he wasnt talking. It was, I guess. A summon-spell? Summoning a living plant that grapples people and holds them, the Centaur in question was a Cleric/Druid multiclass. We have been quite liberal about the game and have costum feats-skills-races-classes-spells (And all that stuff if approved by me) And I do change the abilities of some creatures as I see fit if it improves player-experience. I was in the wrong here, I do admit... But I guess I was angry at their OOC and IC actions and gave them a punishment I found fitting, but according to people on theese forums are quite harsh for such a thing. I apologize for having done something that have brought one of my players in such a mood as to come here and post. And I hope it will not be needed in the future.

Nyarai
2012-01-31, 03:41 PM
So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

Thirded. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone
2012-01-31, 03:56 PM
But I guess I was angry at their OOC and IC actions and gave them a punishment I found fitting, but according to people on theese forums are quite harsh for such a thing.


As seen here, we're harsh when the line between OOC and IC gets blurred or forgotten, which is what happened as far as anyone can or could tell. Now that you're here, we can just as happily mediate a fair and equitable solution for everyone.

A good start point is the idea that 'you control the group'. Nonsense. The DM arbitrates and facilitates the story, but the instant you become convinced you're better than the players or that your will somehow automatically overrides theirs for no reason other than being the DM, that's the first step on the road to being a DM without players.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-31, 04:00 PM
*Sigh* I guess I choose my words poorly. No, I am not worried, I can explain the remaining characters.

Aasimar - Trying to convince them to attack, not really working.
Tiefling - Not interrested in the others safety, but will follow the Paladin if manages to convince the rest to attack.
Sorcerer - The third human captured. The one about to get his throat cut.

I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story which the session after the one he was complaining about would serve as character developement of two of the characters in the party. I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.


I've never actually run a game that was nothing but char development for only two chars of a six char group. That seems...really rough on the other players. Not to mention strangely episodic. I prefer my char development spread throughout the campaign.

Also, punishing them for not using your preferred solution is the very definition of railroading. Additionally, anything powerful enough to capture half the party can reasonably be considered a bit of a problem for the other half, no? Jumping into stabbity mode at that point would be something I'd consider risky at best. Diplomacy first is a very good policy wherever situations allow.

Also, you had a centaur with a Wall of Thorns? That's what, fifth level? Yeah, I'd assume he could utterly crush me. Centaur Cleric/Druid multiclass casting fifth level spells is a fairly high level encounter, especially if he's already made preparations. I would suggest reading the rules a lot closer and following them more to mitigate some of these railroading problems. As it stands, my advice to the OP is still to avoid the game.

Nikolaz72
2012-01-31, 04:26 PM
I've never actually run a game that was nothing but char development for only two chars of a six char group. That seems...really rough on the other players. Not to mention strangely episodic. I prefer my char development spread throughout the campaign.

Also, punishing them for not using your preferred solution is the very definition of railroading. Additionally, anything powerful enough to capture half the party can reasonably be considered a bit of a problem for the other half, no? Jumping into stabbity mode at that point would be something I'd consider risky at best. Diplomacy first is a very good policy wherever situations allow.

Also, you had a centaur with a Wall of Thorns? That's what, fifth level? Yeah, I'd assume he could utterly crush me. Centaur Cleric/Druid multiclass casting fifth level spells is a fairly high level encounter, especially if he's already made preparations. I would suggest reading the rules a lot closer and following them more to mitigate some of these railroading problems. As it stands, my advice to the OP is still to avoid the game.

We have sessions once a week so dedicating one session for character developement for two characters and setting up a main villian seems time well spent to me. I said I was Liberal with spells its not the actual spell Wall of Thorns. It was just 'a' Wall of Thorns. It was a wall build of thorns, not much different from a barbed wire fence. Anyway, the issue has been resolved.

They are 6x level 3 1x level 4 and I had them meet a Level 1 Druid/5 Cleric with some custom spells.


As seen here, we're harsh when the line between OOC and IC gets blurred or forgotten, which is what happened as far as anyone can or could tell. Now that you're here, we can just as happily mediate a fair and equitable solution for everyone.

A good start point is the idea that 'you control the group'. Nonsense. The DM arbitrates and facilitates the story, but the instant you become convinced you're better than the players or that your will somehow automatically overrides theirs for no reason other than being the DM, that's the first step on the road to being a DM without players.

I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group. The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

Tyndmyr
2012-01-31, 04:31 PM
We have sessions once a week so dedicating one session for character developement for two characters and setting up a main villian seems time well spent to me. I said I was Liberal with spells its not the actual spell Wall of Thorns. It was just 'a' Wall of Thorns. It was a wall build of thorns, not much different from a barbed wire fence. Anyway, the issue has been resolved.

They are 6x level 3 1x level 4 and I had them meet a Level 1 Druid/5 Cleric with some custom spells.

I see no particular reason why diplomacy could not happen through the equivalent of a barbed wire fence.

Additionally, excluding players from a session in which you intend to set up a main villain seems counterproductive.

raxies94
2012-01-31, 04:49 PM
Kind of getting in on the tail-end of discussion, but feel like I should throw in my two cents.

@Nikolaz: As another very inexperienced DM, I can understand where you are coming from. You don't want the players to just go crazy and start stabbing people and such, so you feel like you need consequences. But consequences than extend outside the game table are wrong. In-character consequences are just fine. Once, one of my players shot a messenger in the knee (Skyrim lol) and the guards threw him in jail for a week. He doesn't know it yet, but he's also being sued in the future. Things like that are what you want to do, not a "time out" for the actual player.

Also, this focusing on character development for a whole session seems like a bit much. Why not break it up a bit, so you have some development, some action each session?

Also, on control: From my experience, there really doesn't seem an easy way to accomplish this. Railroading is bad, and if you do it, your players feel like they have no choices in-game, which they enjoy having. But railroading also pretty much allows you to plan everything out ahead of time. You won't be hit by curveballs. On the other hand, if you allow them freedom, some players will just go crazy and shoot people in the knee. And you can't really plan anything out, as you don't really know what will happen. A medium is probably the best solution; one in which you plan out more than one path, but allow the players to decide which one to pursue. Of course, you'll probably still have to improvise no matter what.

All of this being said, I feel pretty confident in proposing that we aren't really getting the full story from either side, so we might never know who's truly in the right. However, I do know that Eric has been very polite, and I don't think it was rude of him to ask around on the forums when he ran into some trouble.

Soylent Dave
2012-01-31, 05:03 PM
I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story

This is part of the problem:

Your players are the story. If you feel like your players - any of your players - are getting in the way of your story, then you're Doing It Wrong.

The DM might have the original ideas about what is going to happen, but the players must be allowed to affect it (which may well include 'hindering') - that's what roleplaying is; your characters get to do stuff.

You, as the DM, get to decide and adjudicate those effects.

Often the hardest thing to do as a novice (or not-so-novice) DM is say 'yes' to a player, especially when they've come up with an idea that you didn't consider when you were planning the adventure.

But it's usually a lot more fun to figure out a way to say "Yes", and at least let them TRY to do it. Because they can't break, or hinder the game - whatever they're doing IS the game (it just might not turn out the way you expected when you started out - but that makes it more interesting for you)


I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

It's fitting that their characters suffer the consequences of their IC actions - as I said up there, that's basically 'roleplaying'; your characters do stuff and then the DM adjudicates what happens next.

Punishing the character for something the player does doesn't make any sense, and punishing the player for something the character does (which is actually what you did here - the players miss a game) is, well... it's bizarre.


I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

Which makes some sense - but at least one player (two?) came to you with a problem about your game.

If something bothers a player enough for him to come and talk to you about it, outside the game (and for him to start a thread on a forum about it), then dismissing it probably isn't the best solution.

You don't have to jump to your players' every demand, but you do want the game to be fun for everyone, and if something is making the game Not Fun for some of your players, it's usually pretty trivial to change it, or help the player find a compromise.

Jornophelanthas
2012-01-31, 09:13 PM
@Nikolaz72:
I apologize for my failed attempts to interpret your position from incomplete information. Apparently, your position is a lot closer to how Sipex guessed it to be than my own guesses.

Having said that, I can only second what has already been said by several posters before me:
Taking OOC measures for IC issues does not work.
Sending away two players from your game for the way they play their characters is not a good way to go, as this creates resentment with the players. ("Are you punishing me because my character made a bad decision? But he has low Wisdom!")
Taking IC measures for OOC issues also does not work.
Giving characters less XP or story opportunities because of OOC issues with the players (which you do not elaborate on, but which you hinted at as being present) is also not a good way to go, since this gives of an impression of unfairness. ("My character worked just as hard as the other party members, but I get less rewards. I bet the DM doesn't like me.")
Communication is key.
If you have IC issues and OOC issues that you both feel need to be addressed, you should do so separately, and make extra sure that the relevant players know that these are two separate issues.
E.g. "Because if IC issue X, your character is getting less XP. Because of OOC issue Y, I would like to have a serious talk with you. But please understand that I'm only giving less XP because of X. That has nothing to do with Y."
Even if you meant to do it this way, you have (apparently) not communicated this to the players clearly enough, since DarkEricDraven clearly presented it as a single issue on this forum.

Having said that, expelling a player from a session for misbehaviour seems an excessively harsh and seemingly condescending action, which I would personally only reserve for grossly inappropriate behaviour towards other players or yourself, such as an explosive argument. I'm not saying it can't be justified, but rather that it NEEDS to be justified to not just the expelled player, but to all players. And perhaps most importantly, this justification needs to be done in advance, since the measure should be supported by (nearly) everyone in the game.

RedWarlock
2012-01-31, 11:15 PM
But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.

And this right here is where I have a BIG problem with this. I've played in a game like this, where the NPCs wind up being more important than the actual players. The players are the ones who need to enjoy the game, if an NPC is making their game less enjoyable, and they address the DM OOC about the situation, then that is a sign to the DM that this NPC needs to change or go. The PC might need to address the NPC in-character, but the player may not know how to effect that kind of change, and this kind of OOC conversation is your chance to offer advice for the player to help achieve what they need to do.

ZakRenning
2012-02-01, 03:06 AM
I don't think being spiteful will achieve anything other than make him seem immature. It's a real sign of maturity to be able to confront someone like the DM without raising a fuss, and leaving with your head held high, rather than a childish parting blow that may come across as a tantrum, rather than any kind of tangible revenge. If revenge is what the OP is really after, then his course of action still shouldn't change: Whether or not he plans it, talking to the other players many permanently remove said players from the group, both saving them from a rotten DM, and ensuring that said DM realises that being an over controlling rail-roader won't fly. If you consider teaching him that lesson revenge, then whatever floats your boat.

Well for the record my take was sarcastic but this darn text can't portray it... at all... haha

chadmeister
2012-02-01, 09:08 AM
Me: Cool. What if we followed from a distance, and helped the main party in ways they wouldn't notice? Or if Leeko[me] and Viana[rogue] dealt with her father[who sent ninjas after us last game] while the others were in the city?

DM: Ehm... You are just out for a session. You will have to accept that


It would even be justifiable if he wanted to say that for some reason your characters were going to be unavailable for that session.

But the game is for everyone to have fun, so if you can't play your characters, he should provide SOMETHING for you to do if you still want to attend the session.

You can play these mercenaries Sir Prick hired to help take the place of the missing characters.

You can help run the monsters when there's a fight.

Even, you can play the druid's animal companion for a session.

But, "Don't bother coming" is an unacceptable solution.

mcv
2012-02-01, 09:58 AM
It was an empowered snare ability, they were meant to try and resolve it
You had this planned in advance? It's rather risky to do, threatening to kill several PCs (were these unexperienced players, early in the campaign?), unless another player comes up with the solution to a seemingly unsolvable situation. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "try an resolve it", but it sounds a bit like "guess what solution the DM had in mind".


rather than doing so two of them (The ones whom I have sitting out for a week) were cheering it on to get on with the killing, there was only really one person not captured who wanted to go help, and he was unable to (Other than the NPC)

Well, me and the rogue(and I think the ranger, I'm not sure) WHERE Neutral. We still weren't cheering it on, though. We did say if they were killed she would have a place with us, but that was after a long series of bad dice rolls in attempting to persuade it to let them go.
I don't quite understand your party dynamics. What were these PCs supposed to have in common? Even if the rest of the group survived, it sounds incredibly unlikely that they would ever trust the traitors who switched sides as soon as the rest of the party was in trouble.

Because that's what this sounds like. Someone captures most of the group, and you say: "After you're done killing them, do you want to work together with us?" That's not the kind of person you're going to trust with your life.

Whichever way I turn this, I don't understand the 1 session suspension. Kicking the players out because their play style clearly conflicts with that of the rest of the group, might be reasonable.
Kicking out their characters would be a given (killing them might seem a bit harsh and personal, though it would be justifiable IC, it seems). Why even have the option of letting the traitors back in?

Best way to handle this, would be to discuss it with the players, and if everybody can agree on whether or not this sort of backstabbery is acceptable, have the two players make new characters and figure out some way to have them join the group as soon as possible.

Some further advice on how to DM: create situations where it's okay if the players don't do what you planned. Allow them to mess up, derail your plot, and then improvise something even cooler out of the wreckage. That sort of thing is generally way more fun than keeping tight control on a railroaded game.

And also: try to get the players to handle the differences between their characters. What did the other characters think of these turncoats? Make the kicking-out a dramatic roleplay scene for everybody. Or discuss with the whole table how best to resolve this, that can be great too, because everybody gets their say, and afterward, everybody understands each other's motivations much better.

And finally: "I'm Neutral so I betray my group" is a stupid argument. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Neutral. Though I admit whether this is valid criticism depends a lot on the details of the situation, and to what extent the DM was able to communicate those details. If it really looks certain that the party is dead, then for the survivors all bets are off. If there is good reason to believe that a deal with the enemy is the only way out, then it's definitely possible that someone will do just that. In other words: make really clear what the situation is. If there seems to be a misunderstanding, clear it up.
But more importantly: as long as DM and players don't really have a good handle on the game and each other, better stay away from these kind of insane gambits.

chadmeister
2012-02-01, 10:09 AM
You had this planned in advance? It's rather risky to do, threatening to kill several PCs (were these unexperienced players, early in the campaign?), unless comes up with the solution to a seemingly unsolvable situation. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "try an resolve it", but it sounds a bit like "guess what solution the DM had in mind".

And negotiation, possibly with a bit of deception involved, sounds like an acceptable attempt to resolve it. Maybe not an effective one, maybe not one the paladin would approve of (or the characters who were apparently being abandoned).

Usually you have the opposite problem, where players attack the things you'd rather they try to negotiate with.

mcv
2012-02-01, 10:30 AM
I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group.
That's not any better, you know? "The group", that's the PCs. It's the players' prerogative to control their own characters. It might be acceptable to railroad them temporarily at the start of the game because you've got this really neat setup, and please bear with me, and it's only for a session or so, etc. But make that clear. It's not your job to control the group, that's their job. If they have trouble doing that, you can mediate and help solve any problems they're having, but you don't just turn the leading roles into supporting cast. Explain why you're doing it, and confirm if they're okay with it. In a group with a lot of trust, you might not need that, but it doesn't sound like you have that level of trust.


The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.
When a player asks you something very specific like that, it's probably because it's ruining his fun. If your answer sounds like "I don't care about your fun", then you're doing it wrong. Discuss it and be honest. It would have been incredibly easy for you to just say: "Don't worry, he'll be gone by the time the group gets back together again." Instead, your answer sounded like: "He might stay forever," and that could have cost you one or two players. Or at the very least, it would have caused the players to create new characters that are more compatible with the Paladin, which you just said you didn't want. Your lack of clear communication is messing up your game.

Communicate, man. Communicate!

mcv
2012-02-01, 10:34 AM
Additionally, excluding players from a session in which you intend to set up a main villain seems counterproductive.

Definitely. Do you have any idea what I would give to have all my players present during every exposition? I would give anything to get them involved with anything at all. And I've learned by now that if they get involved in something other than what I had in mind, I should drop everything and run with that.

Nothing in the world beats satisfied and involved players.

Dimers
2012-02-01, 10:36 AM
Usually you have the opposite problem, where players attack the things you'd rather they try to negotiate with.

"You'd rather they try ..." That is, I think, a large part of the DM's failing. The DM is allowed to prefer a particular solution, but the gameworld is not. It's domineering to defend your preferred solution to a problem with punishments and nigh-unbeatable situations (like an overleveled enemy in an extremely defensible position using unfamiliar homebrewed abilities) if the players find a different way of interacting with the problem. Therefore, it's a bad idea to put the PCs into nigh-unbeatable situations in the first place. If they do it to themselves, sure -- "You just got breath-weaponed to death because you've been hunting an ancient dragon's hoard for four levels". But creating mega-problems yourself with exactly one 'right' solution that the PCs might not achieve if they happen to roll low? Not a healthy way to game.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-01, 11:09 AM
I don't quite understand your party dynamics. What were these PCs supposed to have in common? Even if the rest of the group survived, it sounds incredibly unlikely that they would ever trust the traitors who switched sides as soon as the rest of the party was in trouble.

Because that's what this sounds like. Someone captures most of the group, and you say: "After you're done killing them, do you want to work together with us?" That's not the kind of person you're going to trust with your life.

Whichever way I turn this, I don't understand the 1 session suspension. Kicking the players out because their play style clearly conflicts with that of the rest of the group, might be reasonable.
Kicking out their characters would be a given (killing them might seem a bit harsh and personal, though it would be justifiable IC, it seems). Why even have the option of letting the traitors back in?

Best way to handle this, would be to discuss it with the players, and if everybody can agree on whether or not this sort of backstabbery is acceptable, have the two players make new characters and figure out some way to have them join the group as soon as possible.

Some further advice on how to DM: create situations where it's okay if the players don't do what you planned. Allow them to mess up, derail your plot, and then improvise something even cooler out of the wreckage. That sort of thing is generally way more fun than keeping tight control on a railroaded game.

And also: try to get the players to handle the differences between their characters. What did the other characters think of these turncoats? Make the kicking-out a dramatic roleplay scene for everybody. Or discuss with the whole table how best to resolve this, that can be great too, because everybody gets their say, and afterward, everybody understands each other's motivations much better.

And finally: "I'm Neutral so I betray my group" is a stupid argument. That's Chaotic Stupid, not Neutral. Though I admit whether this is valid criticism depends a lot on the details of the situation, and to what extent the DM was able to communicate those details. If it really looks certain that the party is dead, then for the survivors all bets are off. If there is good reason to believe that a deal with the enemy is the only way out, then it's definitely possible that someone will do just that. In other words: make really clear what the situation is. If there seems to be a misunderstanding, clear it up.
But more importantly: as long as DM and players don't really have a good handle on the game and each other, better stay away from these kind of insane gambits.

Well, like I said, that was only after we failed to negotiate ourselves. The Maptools dice program is waging a campaign of it's own: Murder all the players in the worst ways possible.

Besides, the DM said she couldn't hear us at that point. I think. Maybe that was afterwards. I don't really remember. Not that it mattered, because the sorcerer was awful at trying to get her to release him. Looking at it from where we were, the sorcerer was dead as a doornail, and considering she hadn't taken a lick of damage through out the whole event, getting her on our side would have been a good alternative to attacking her for killing our teammates.

Thialfi
2012-02-01, 11:58 AM
Dude, seriously, get a new DM, join a PBP on the forums, they'll help you learn the ropes, everyone sreally nice here. Your DM is treating the game as his, instead of al of yours, and that just spells no fun.

As a DM, if you have an NPC that you really want around, you really need to be careful with the players.

I remember back to when we did the Time of Troubles dungeons for the Forgotten Realms campaign. The DM portrayed Kelemvor as such a collosal douchebag that the party unanimously voted him out of the party. We told him to leave and that if our paths ever crossed again, he would be treated as an enemy. We never saw him again and we had to adjust our campaign to account for the fact that he never achieved his intended divine status.

Talakeal
2012-02-01, 09:38 PM
As a DM you have no right to punish other players. If they are acting out in character warn them of the consequences then follow through with the logical IC consequences. If they are acting out out of character simply don't invite them to the game anymore.
You are not an authority figure, and you are meeting other players in a casual social activity. If you are running or hosting the game you do of course have the right to decide who to invite and who not to invite, but no right to punish the players.

On the other hand, as a PC, you need to trust and respect the Game Master, and not flip out over things. I have had numerous players either quit a game or passively lose interest because they felt something the GM was doing was "unfair", usually a snap judgment made before they had all the information. If it is a onetime thing, just chill out and see how it plays out before going on strike.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-01, 09:42 PM
I don't think the OP and his friend are using the alignment "neutral" correctly...

On the other hand, making them skip a session AND forcing their characters to obey the orders of someone they don't even like? Yeah, that's not good DMing.

SilverClawShift
2012-02-02, 10:06 AM
I gave them warnings before doing so, if you dont feel thats enough. Well, thats your opinion. I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything. I feel it as a small and fitting punishment for prolonging them game for the 3 others present that day.


I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything.


they are not missing out on anything

They're missing out on having fun with their friends and playing the game. Which is literally the only reason you play D&D. Your gold can't buy you anything real, and your XP can't teach you any spells. You play because you want to play.
To suggest that they're not missing out on anything is to completely miss the point. By that logic, they could never play D&D again and continue to not miss out on anything.

Being a DM is not a dictatorship. It's a responsibility you take on to make sure everyone has a good time (yes, that includes your self). It doesn't make you the grand deity of the group, who deserves worship and praise and subservience from the peons underneath you.




I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group.

I'm trying to think of a way to put this delicately, but I can't.

That is just flat out awful.

the fact that an NPC is controlling the group means your players aren't even playing a game. There's really no point for them to be there other than to roll some dice and report to your paladin what the numbers were.
Having an NPC control your group basically turns roleplaying into a job you don't get paid for. You're reporting in to someone who's in charge of what you're doing. And apparently, if you don't report in with what the paladin wants, you'll get 'punished' for it.

If I was playing a game, and the DM told I couldn't attack someone, or that my vote didn't count because his character had a plan for us, or anything similar to what happened in your session, I would flat out walk away and wish the DM luck on the story he was writing, because my input there is obviously superficial. I'd find a new group.

The fact that DarkEricDraven wants to continue playing with you means they're much more patient than I am. And much more patient than they should have to be.


So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides

I strongly disagree.

DarkEric & Co did nothing that could be construed as a mistake. At worst, they made an odd decision. Saying that everyone is wrong here is like a teacher punishing the whole class because one student threw a book out the window. "Well they were all being rowdy!!!"

Doesn't matter. The DM is still the one giving someone over the age of 5 a 'time out' because they didn't do what he wanted.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-02, 11:44 AM
I don't think the OP and his friend are using the alignment "neutral" correctly...


We tried persuading her, we really did. The dice were not with us. It was after using every option we could think of(aside from ZERG RUSH! as demonstrated by Sir Prick) that we tried to get her on our side, because then, we didn't know how she was going down.

Sipex
2012-02-03, 11:22 AM
I strongly disagree.

DarkEric & Co did nothing that could be construed as a mistake. At worst, they made an odd decision. Saying that everyone is wrong here is like a teacher punishing the whole class because one student threw a book out the window. "Well they were all being rowdy!!!"

Doesn't matter. The DM is still the one giving someone over the age of 5 a 'time out' because they didn't do what he wanted.

First off, you make good points about the time being the most important part of what the players are missing, just want to make sure that's there.

Now. While we don't see what they did as a mistake (because it's very minor after all) it still is because it's something which is important to the DM. We don't get to make the rules on what is and isn't a good move in an interpersonal relationship, those boundaries are set by the participants. The DM is upset by what they did (and they're upset by what he did) so it's something both parties need to work together if they want to resolve this.

I mean, if I was upset about something and my friends didn't see it as important so they tried to blow it off then I would be completely pissed. Just because something isn't important to them doesn't mean it should automatically be unimportant to me.

If the OP and his friend don't acknowledge this their DM is going to be completely uncooperative (after all, he doesn't see what he did as wrong either so why should he change?)

TriForce
2012-02-03, 12:56 PM
as a pretty longtime DM who has had his share of bad, good, average, crazy, awesome, crazy awesome, and just plain old disruptive players and DM's, id like to toss in my 5 cents, and possibly give the dm in question a bit of help.

normally when you start a campaign as a dm, you have a idea for a story where you would like the players to be in, nothing wrong with that, and many a great sessions have been created that way. however, with new(ish) players, and especially as a new DM, that wont happen. things will happen you cant predict, players will do things you didnt see comming, and sometimes the story itself just doesnt seem as workable as you tought in the start.

the important part in all of this is that the players not only decide what to do in the story, they ARE the story. if your story will only progress when the players meet a certain person, and they simply go a different way, thats a hint that they dont consider the current storyline too important. the best thiong to do imho is to just improvise and try to either adjust the story to captivate the interest of the players, or just create a new story on the fly. the players themselves have been the inspiration for some of my greatest stories without knowing it themselves.

imho, your fun as DM comes from challenging the players, both in encounters as in roleplay, and the fun for the players comes from overcomming the obstacles and getting a fitting reward, again, both in items as in a new piece of the story they themselves are part of. that last bit is important, your players NEED to be part of the story. even if 2 players are on a totally different plane for 10 sessions, i would STILL have them play all together, if for no other reason that they are your friends and its about having fun.

simply put, a Roleplay session is a gathering of friends, be it in your home or over the internet. and a DM simply has no right to tell anyone not to come, since a DM is, as a person in a game, equal to everyone else.

at the moment ooc stuff gets in the way of the game, hold the game for a bit for everyone until its worked out, and never let ooc stuff influence anything ic.

anyway, im starting to trail off. a suggestion id like to make for you as DM would be to inform the players about the setting a little when they make the characters, and ask them to put their character idea into 2-3 lines so you know what kinda chars you will be dealing with. dont be afraid to ask things like "player x has a paladin, so could you please not make a lich player y?" it will help make the party a whole.

once the party is complete, decide if they really need a DM npc, most of the time, the awnser will be no. now that doesnt mean you CANT make a dm npc, but if you do, keep him a little low profile so he doesnt steal the spotlight, and try not to make him a boss of any player until your a bit more experienced.

finally, i advise you to toss a LOT of small quests at the players, all different kinds of quests, and some small strange events too. things like "the furniture in a house all become animated suddenly" or "bandits have been kidnapping people with green eyes" get the interest of your players, and at the moment they themselves WANT to know more about it, create some more of your world, with several possibilities of why the things happen like they do. pick the best ones each time and youll get a great story, thats the players helped create.

big teej
2012-02-03, 01:50 PM
I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-03, 01:52 PM
I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

I'm sure everything will be alright from now on :smallsmile:

Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

SilverClawShift
2012-02-03, 07:21 PM
I mean, if I was upset about something and my friends didn't see it as important so they tried to blow it off then I would be completely pissed. Just because something isn't important to them doesn't mean it should automatically be unimportant to me.

I completely agree.

If my friends did something I didn't like, I would be upset with them.

If the specific EVENT I didn't like was "disobeying my commands" then I'm still completely wrong, angry or not. And punishing them for their disobedience as if they were puppies I was trying to housebreak would make me even more wrong.

No disrespect intended. I do see where you're coming from. But I think saying that "the players are also wrong because the DM was upset too" is dangerously clinical and stripping out some very important facts.

Vknight
2012-02-04, 03:06 AM
So at this point it seems mistakes were made on both sides, which is the norm for a situation like this and most of it is caused by communication issues (surprise).

I would say both sides are in the wrong and they need to work together to resolve this properly.

Ahh thank you Sipex
Both parties involved made mistakes. Both need to admit this and move on.

The Op's etc staying back almost lead to the death of 2PC's and a NPC because the Op did not want to fight. If he cheered the Centaur on does not matter but there seems to be a disagreement on that.

The Dm having the Paladin break free was a misstep but one so 2players did not lose there characters 1who was to get major role playing in the next scenario.

The groups getting upset at each other in the case of the Paladin for a minor reason and the Op being a jerk to the Paladin just because he's a Paladin.

Also people stop being mean to Dm's players misrepresent so do Dm's.

Finally I think it is perfectly fair to give a player a time out. Either play the game like a big boy which does not mean riding the rails but respect or get off at conjunction junction.
You know tell them to go off and leave the group alone for some time. Now making the miss a complete session is a little extreme depending on session length.
My sessions run 6hours. So I'd probably only kick a player out for at max 2. and I've only ever had to kick out one player who just needed to go

VanBuren
2012-02-04, 10:30 PM
Also people stop being mean to Dm's players misrepresent so do Dm's.

I have no idea what this sentence means.

Sidmen
2012-02-05, 12:25 AM
I have no idea what this sentence means.

Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

Vknight
2012-02-05, 01:51 AM
Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

Also it was 3am for me...

VanBuren
2012-02-05, 09:36 PM
Translation: People, please stop being mean to Dungeon Masters that Players misrepresent; and remember Dungeon Masters misrepresent players too.

The last part of the sentence seems to have been a quickly slapped on reference to alleviate him from people going "dur dur, DMs aren't perfect either" and really destroyed the sentence.

OK. That's kind of what I thought he was going for, but I wasn't sure.

Solaris
2012-02-06, 04:26 PM
I cut out a lot of stuff that basically boils down to me trying get across that the plot is not the point. I say again for emphasis, the plot is not the point.
Also, there was some laughing at the idea of going behind someone's back by posting on a forum.


Despite what he might have you believe, two people in the group disagree's with my decision. Both of them were those who I suspended to take some time off to consider why they were punished icly. As I DM for quite a large group (6 Players) I needed to strike down a bit harsher than I usually do to show them that I do control the game, because if I dont I would not be able to manage them, theese two speccifically have been quite a bit of trouble for me since the start, but I have not kicked them from the game as I was the one who invited them, and they seem to be enjoying it most of the time.
... Darnit, I could have fun with this. Instead, I'm going instead to be uncharacteristically nice and attempt to explain to you why the bolded portions are truly and deeply wrong.

I've run a game with thirteen players (two characters apiece, it was almost a platoon in there and it was awesome) and felt zero need to discipline anyone. Some folks on this forum have run larger games, and I'm fairly certain you'll find that none of them feel the need to discipline increasing with the size of the group. Know why? If the game's fun and the players want to be there, they'll cooperate and y'all can have fun playing. If it's not and they don't, they won't and you won't. If one-third of your small group (it is, kid, don't get excited about six players) doesn't like what you're doing with the game, maybe you ought to reconsider the story you're trying to tell. Pack it away, save it for another group, and look for a different story.

This is speaking as someone who has way more control over his subordinates' lives than most civilians could ever dream of (of the 'they go to prison on my word' level, it's rather frightening to think about, to say nothing of the fact that my actions pretty much whether or not my soldiers live or die if we get into kinetic festivities). You're doing pretty much exactly what you're not supposed to do. You cannot motivate with punishments. Punishments will get someone to adhere only to the standards enough to avoid punishment. That's the root of the joke "The beatings will continue until morale improves". You can't actually get much discipline out of a unit by abusing them. You can, however, get it by earning their respect, confidence, and admiration. This is not an easy task. Honest, it's not. You're not going to do it by being petty and domineering, though, which is exactly how you're behaving.

Now, a better method of achieving results is to take them to task directly. Training people is a lot like training dogs, y'see. You can't punish a dog by throwing it outside. All it knows is that it misses you and wants to be back inside, it doesn't really connect the isolation with what it did wrong. Same with people. The player's not going to connect your issues with his behavior because you kick him out of a game. Instead, talk to him after the session, hand out no OOC punishments, and tell him to knock it off. If he doesn't, he's not interested in playing and invite him to pick a vastly different character or simply not come back. You do need to be open to the possibility that what you're doing is too un-fun for the two problem children to outweigh the benefits of the fun for the good children, reconsider, and look for a happy medium. So what if the player doesn't bring up a problem with Sir Prick IC, but instead directly to you? If you're looking for the player to respond, you need to at least appear responsive. If you're an Iron Tower of Absolute Convictions, he's not going to see you as someone he can work with and - it looks like he's the passive aggressive type, if what you say is true - will snark the campaign to death.


I guess, thats what I can write for now. Whenever you disagree or not on this forum, I can safely say that I wont care a whole lot, I have run the session as I wanted and till now where I dropped the hammer on some people I thought were acting out of line. It has been going pretty well, I appreciate your time for those whom have participated in aiding one of my players and giving their thoughts to the scenario which he has produced. But I would ask that you consider that the person his going behind the back of -is- human. And he could do the sensible thing and just talk if he had complaints, at least say before he does something like this.
>_<
God, I'd hate to play with you. Don't you realize that the players are playing because they want to, not because they have to?


I am not removing them from the game permantently. Nor am I keeping them out of something important to their characters, they would only serve to hinder the story which the session after the one he was complaining about would serve as character developement of two of the characters in the party.
And the two you suspended? Do they at least get an adventure of their own to make up for it, or are you that stuck on being able to control other people that you insist on punishing your so-called friends because they wouldn't ride the rails?
Or would you have put it a different way?


I plan for having this game running for quite a while and I guess you are not really one to show kindness to strangers.
To the contrary, Tyndmyr is a quite decent chap. You should see the advice and help he doles out in the homebrew forums.
I, on the other hand, am decidedly unkind to strangers. Or people I know. Or anyone, really.


I gave them warnings before doing so, if you dont feel thats enough. Well, thats your opinion. I think the warnings I gave were plenty, and as they are not missing out on anything. I feel it as a small and fitting punishment for prolonging them game for the 3 others present that day.

That is to say I have explained them what it is they were doing that was gonna end up getting them in trouble and they ignored it. I say it again and they keep ignoring it. I do not kick people from the group instantly for such things, but I do think it is fitting that their characters take consequence for their IC and OOC actions.

The characters didn't, though. The players did. See, characters don't actually exist, so you can't punish them by keeping them out of a game. You can, however, punish a player by keeping him out of a game (though I do have to wonder how much of a punishment it is to be kept out of that game).


If the OP and his friend don't acknowledge this their DM is going to be completely uncooperative (after all, he doesn't see what he did as wrong either so why should he change?)

Ugh, logic fail. One being wrong has nothing to do with the other being wrong. In this case, while the characters may or may not have been douchenoodlers (it's hard to tell, and frankly I don't care), the DM stepped over the line with nine-league boots. In this case, the DM overreached spectacularly because of assumed responsibility of command. You can't be in charge and act like a petty tyrant. It ends poorly.

I have strived to maintain a relatively civil tone through this, and I do apologize for any excesses of offense. Insults weren't my primary purpose for posting this. I take a dim view of DMs who confuse themselves for having any measure of power beyond that of the game itself.

shockeroo
2012-02-06, 04:39 PM
Email him a link to this thread, and ask him what he thinks. [/Chaotic Neutral]


Oh wait, too late. :)

shockeroo
2012-02-06, 04:54 PM
I'm probably just echoing other people now but...

Nikolaz; it's not the DM's place to punish. As DM you're not superior to the players, just different. If they're doing something that's causing you problems and in danger of spoiling the game, you need to tell them what the problem is and ask them to change their behaviour accordingly. Exiling them is no good at all.

Re the paladin, NPCs leading the party even for 5 minutes is bad, for a whole game is horrid and for more than one game is a disaster - especially if it was supposed to be only for one game "before the players messed it up." It's a very common mistake so there's no shame in it, but you should really avoid that kind of thing - it spoils the game for the players. It's their fantasy - and if their fantasy was being pushed about like that then they'd get a crappy job with a small-minded boss, not play D&D.

Knaight
2012-02-06, 10:47 PM
To the contrary, Tyndmyr is a quite decent chap. You should see the advice and help he doles out in the homebrew forums.
I, on the other hand, am decidedly unkind to strangers. Or people I know. Or anyone, really.

I'm just going to second the first half of this. If Tyndmyr, of all people, comes down hard on something you are doing, you might want to reevaluate those actions.

Which reminds me: OP, I'm going to reiterate yet again much of the advice from this thread. "Run. Run away, and never return."

Jay R
2012-02-07, 12:15 PM
Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

There are 28 players in the D&D Arkansas Players Group.

http://community.wizards.com/arkansas

Sipex
2012-02-07, 12:30 PM
I completely agree.

If my friends did something I didn't like, I would be upset with them.

If the specific EVENT I didn't like was "disobeying my commands" then I'm still completely wrong, angry or not. And punishing them for their disobedience as if they were puppies I was trying to housebreak would make me even more wrong.

No disrespect intended. I do see where you're coming from. But I think saying that "the players are also wrong because the DM was upset too" is dangerously clinical and stripping out some very important facts.


Ugh, logic fail. One being wrong has nothing to do with the other being wrong. In this case, while the characters may or may not have been douchenoodlers (it's hard to tell, and frankly I don't care), the DM stepped over the line with nine-league boots. In this case, the DM overreached spectacularly because of assumed responsibility of command. You can't be in charge and act like a petty tyrant. It ends poorly.

I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

Spacewolf
2012-02-07, 12:31 PM
So have we had any updates about how this game has gone from here?




I was going to reply a bit more in depth... but by page 2 I realized it was not needful.


what is needful and I feel obligated to do is ask a question

that question being

"My dear fellow gamer, where are you? so that we may find you a decent game to play in."

How do you find games for people then?

Solaris
2012-02-07, 01:06 PM
I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

I'm familiar with the negotiating technique. I dislike it for the reason I stated earlier. It slides neatly in with "Two wrongs make a right" by acknowledging that the DM had cause for his misuse of perceived power - when he didn't.

Knaight
2012-02-07, 01:14 PM
I think you both may misunderstand but I'm not condoning the DM's actions by any means, I'm just stating that if the two players wish to resolve this issue civilly with their DM they'll need to give a little as well. They can't just say "Nope, you're the only one in the wrong because you did the worst of the two things, fix it." because, despite what we think, the DM won't respond well to that.

If they don't care about being civil or resolving this issue then this is moot.

How about "You're the only one in the wrong because you are the only one who did anything wrong at all"? There are plenty of situations where all the blame lies on one person, this is one of them. Besides, bailing out and not coming back is the best resolution method anyways.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-08, 06:20 PM
There are 28 players in the D&D Arkansas Players Group.

http://community.wizards.com/arkansas

Huh. Though, of course, I don't have a car, and I would doubt that there are any players in my town. I should still probably check, though.


So have we had any updates about how this game has gone from here?


Oh, yeah, he let us back in, but the rogue was at a friends house because he didn't get the memo, sadly.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-08, 06:59 PM
That solves the immediate issue, but what about the bigger issues regarding the paladin and the DM's overall tin-god attitude?

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-08, 07:19 PM
That solves the immediate issue, but what about the bigger issues regarding the paladin and the DM's overall tin-god attitude?

Haven't seen'em. Though we do have a 14 year old paladin girl who isn't that much of a bitch tagging along. *shrug*

Soylent Dave
2012-02-08, 10:12 PM
Finally I think it is perfectly fair to give a player a time out. Either play the game like a big boy which does not mean riding the rails but respect or get off at conjunction junction.

See - this is the sort of attitude which causes conflict.

DM doesn't mean 'Dad'; you don't set punishments for your players (or give them detention or 'time outs'). You don't dictate their behaviour in or out of character.

The DM describes the world and the NPCs in it, and how all that reacts to the actions of the PCs.

That's it.

It often means a bit of world creation and a lot of character creation, and quite often means you're doing the most preparation work for each gaming session. But that doesn't mean you're "in charge" - it just means you're the guy who's describing the world of the game (and you do that extra work because you want to, anyway!)

(that's not to say that players won't sometimes do annoying things - in or out of character - but your response should be to discuss any issues with your players as equals, not to lay punishments and decrees down like a parent or a teacher)

I think a lot of people see things like "The DM's decision is final" and think it applies to more than just rules interpretation...


Being a DM is not a dictatorship. It's a responsibility you take on to make sure everyone has a good time (yes, that includes your self). It doesn't make you the grand deity of the group, who deserves worship and praise and subservience from the peons underneath you.

That.

ZeroSpace9000
2012-02-09, 12:11 AM
I guess I misworded it, but I control the group was a bad way of putting, I control the NPC that controls the group. The NPC is gonna 'was' gonna be there for one session. But I wanted to tell him that even if the NPC had stayed for more than one session, OOC complaining wasnt gonna net him much, it would have to have been brought up ICly. I wont have my players change NPC's OOCly, rather I want them to confront said characters about their faults ICly.


Unfortunately, Mr.DM, the bolded text, in my opinion, is merely you attempting to deflect responsibility from yourself. You seem to want to say 'Don't blame me, I just control the NPC, he controls you', while what you're really saying is 'I control you through this character I control'. And this is simply using your DM powers to punish the players for not conforming with your expectations for the game simply because you can.

It has been stated that you are a new DM. I can sympathize with you on this. I've got about 6 or so years of experience to my name, and I still have troubles wrangling players from time to time. That doesn't give you any right to mete out Iron-Fisted Punishment when your players goof off a little. And if you're having problems with 6 characters, well then cut the DMPC. The only reason I would even consider such a move is to add to a smaller group, and with most of the people I play with, I'd likely just go without anyway.

I'm not denying that the players in question acted rudely and/or immaturely. The thing is, that comes with wearing the DM hat. I'm also not denying that there may have been call for some intervention on your part. Sadly, you seriously overreacted on suspending players. For what was done, I would talk with the players to see their side of things before making any sort of judgement.

As for fixing the situation, I have a few ideas. However, you need to realize that your group will have lost a lot of faith over how you handled this. The first thing is to flat-out apologize to the wronged players for your actions. Second, remove the DMPC Paladin, if you have not already done so. The temptation to do things you shouldn't through him/her are too great. Third and last, give the two players xp credit for the sessions they were forced to skip. They've already lost out on the most worthwhile aspect of the session missed, which is the session itself. If anything, I would suggest giving them xp above and beyond what they should have received.

So yeah, man up, make amends, and you might still be able to salvage the game. From a DM who has made lots of mistakes before, I hope you can save the game. And remember, without players, you're just reading (likely) bad fanfiction to yourself. :smallwink:

Sebastrd
2012-02-09, 11:15 AM
I'm sure everything will be alright from now on :smallsmile:

Though it would be nice to get a game going in RL. No one wants to play in Arkansas. It's all grits and incest where I am. Alas.

Then why on earth are you wasting time playing D&D?

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-09, 03:01 PM
Then why on earth are you wasting time playing D&D?

No sisters, and all my female cousins are taken by their brothers.

d13
2012-02-10, 10:51 AM
Haven't seen'em. Though we do have a Irrelevant details about an NPC tagging along. *shrug*

That's... Not exactly a change. I don't know how things work in your group, but you should tell your DM that, if he wants to be a player, he should ask someone else to DM.

Chances are this is the same DMPC, with really slight differences.

Sebastrd
2012-02-10, 11:38 AM
No sisters, and all my female cousins are taken by their brothers.

Well, I guess your mom or a hot aunt is always available as a back-up. That's the great thing about family - someone's always there for you.

Lucid Inebriate
2012-02-10, 06:16 PM
I hate to put it so curtly, but Sipex is simply wrong. The DM was narcissistic and chose to respond to a conflict (which he himself was responsible for) in an infantile manner. He got upset in a situation where he had no right to be upset; he then displayed delusional paranoia by attempting to frame an innocent question in an open forum as some sort of betrayal. This does not automatically mean that the players now have to apologize for imagined slights.

The DM openly admits that his motives were to 'control' his players, which he repeatedly emphasizes as if to say that his desire for control is a justification for anything. The players should leave, and this would-be dictator should seek some family counseling immediately. In essence, the DM found that he had neither the intellect nor social graces required to manipulate people as he wished, and therefore saw fit to throw a tantrum.

ZeroSpace9000
2012-02-10, 07:05 PM
I think you do have a point there, Lucid. Given that the dm just showed up to make his side known, then disappeared, tells me you're, at the least, on the right track. My last post was assuming that he was merely a bad dm, and genuinely interested in improving. Given what we're hearing, sounds like that's not the case.

Cavelcade
2012-02-10, 08:13 PM
As far as I can tell, Siptex wasn't talking about the DM's in game actions at all but rather being upset that a thread like this was posted. It's perfectly reasonable not to want have your dirty laundry aired in public - although I think it's an overreaction in this case, given the polite and rather discrete tone of the op.

That is where a player can acknowledge being wrong - saying he handled it sub-optimally by going about it like this. It probably could have been handled better and I hope the OP learns from it too, there are always new things to learn each time we deal with a situation. By admitting this flaw it's easier to then get the DM to admit his, which, as he let them join in this week he seems to mostly have done. It's hard to say whether he's internalised the advice, only time will tell with that, but at least he's taken the first step towards doing so.

Of course sometimes people refuse to compromise or understand why they were wrong - there's no dealing with some asshats.

Delwugor
2012-02-10, 08:21 PM
Oh, yeah, he let us back in, but the rogue was at a friends house because he didn't get the memo, sadly.
A step in the right direction.


Haven't seen'em. Though we do have a 14 year old paladin girl who isn't that much of a bitch tagging along. *shrug*
*shakes head*

Personally I thought the only purpose of his posts was to defend his own control, not to figure out what went wrong. But it sounds like your thread did have an impact, hopefully for the good of you and the players.

Just remember that you have the right to say "hell no and goodbye" if things get bad again.

ZeroSpace9000
2012-02-10, 10:28 PM
I suppose it's possible that the DM has changed. However, given that there is still an active DMPC in the group, I putting my money on 'not'. I'll take a wait-and-see approach, but then I'm just curious about the results. The OP will be the one to live through the 'change'.

Here's hoping the change is legit.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-10, 11:38 PM
A step in the right direction.


*shakes head*

Personally I thought the only purpose of his posts was to defend his own control, not to figure out what went wrong. But it sounds like your thread did have an impact, hopefully for the good of you and the players.

Just remember that you have the right to say "hell no and goodbye" if things get bad again.

I don't really care that there is an NPC as long as she isn't Sir Prick. Next game is tomorrow, so I'll see how it works. I'm sure he has a plan.

Knaight
2012-02-11, 02:28 AM
As far as I can tell, Siptex wasn't talking about the DM's in game actions at all but rather being upset that a thread like this was posted. It's perfectly reasonable not to want have your dirty laundry aired in public - although I think it's an overreaction in this case, given the polite and rather discrete tone of the op.

That it is polite and discrete are somewhat less relevant than it being completely anonymous. This isn't the equivalent of having your dirty laundry aired in public, it is the equivalent of having unidentifiable dirty laundry aired in public, then pointing at it and yelling "That's mine!".

Sith_Happens
2012-02-11, 05:08 AM
I don't really care that there is an NPC as long as she isn't Sir Prick. Next game is tomorrow, so I'll see how it works. I'm sure he has a plan.

Actually, from a plot standpoint I'm weirded out by the paladin suddenly being someone completely different. Obviously the first one was problematic, but if his completely disappearing wasn't on the table yet then it would make a lot more sense to just change his personality rather than his age and gender.:smalleek:

Sidmen
2012-02-11, 06:00 AM
Actually, from a plot standpoint I'm weirded out by the paladin suddenly being someone completely different. Obviously the first one was problematic, but if his completely disappearing wasn't on the table yet then it would make a lot more sense to just change his personality rather than his age and gender.:smalleek:

They had a game, and Sir Prick was only supposed to be around till they got where they're going. Logic suggests that they got another tag-along in their last session and its not the same character whatsoever.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-11, 07:27 AM
Here again, noticed the thread is still alive (Is his plan really to update events as they go on?)

Anyway, to make it clear. I had intended to drop the NPC after -one- session of him ordering them around, although I dont really see a reason to tell players what is and what is not going to happend in the future, Eric has made it clear himself that he doesnt want plot spoiled so I cannot comment when he asks me whenever an NPC is gonna tag along or not.

The NPC travelling with them is 20 years old.

The NPC travelling with them is doing so after being taken in by the two assigned party leaders (A Cleric and a Paladin) So she is by no way a replacement to Adrian as she has an entirely different purpose in the plot than he does. And yea, I do have a story planned out for next game Eric (Did you really expect I didnt?)

But this thread seems to have become -talkaboutwhatshapenninginsidethegame thread- I believe it has outlived its original purpose. Which, even if it wasnt -complain about the DM time- A lot of people here sure made it into one.

Uec
2012-02-11, 08:34 AM
Here again, noticed the thread is still alive (Is his plan really to update events as they go on?)

Anyway, to make it clear. I had intended to drop the NPC after -one- session of him ordering them around, although I dont really see a reason to tell players what is and what is not going to happend in the future, Eric has made it clear himself that he doesnt want plot spoiled so I cannot comment when he asks me whenever an NPC is gonna tag along or not.

That's a horrible approach though.

When a player talks with his GM/DM/ST and expresses that they are not enjoying the way the game is going, you shouldn't say "No. Deal with it." - because really, roleplaying is about enjoying the game - it's literally the only point of doing this make-believe that we all here spends hours on.

And it's very easy to talk about the game without spoilering it. Phrases like "I understand what you are saying and will be taking it into consideration" and "your concerns have been noted" are quite useful, and doesn't leave a player wondering whether it's worth coming back to the game.

Ideally the conversation should probably have gone something like:

OP: *stuff about how Sir Prick is an insufferable jerkass that makes the game unejoyable*
DM: Yeah, I noticed that some of you really didn't like where this was going, I'm sorry about that, I'll be doing something about it next session - I know I'm asking for a lot, but please accept this for the moment. And again, I'll be dealing with it.
OP: Sounds reasonable, I'll be looking forward to it.
DM: Nice, see you next thursday.


When people are participating in a game, solely based on them enjoying said game, don't dismiss (quite rudely too!) them when they tell you that they are not enjoying said game.

Your plot shouldn't be set in stone, because then it's not a game, it's you narrating. If a NPC is making players actively dislike the game, change the plot - preferably in a way that lets the players smoke his ass.

Taking that paladin and turning him into a story arc about how good doesn't mean nice, and being a paladin doesn't make one a decent person would have been a good move. It would have been interesting to have him become a long term antagonist - a paladin that remains good only on the technicality that the races he torture and murder are [subtype evil], and is generally a pretty awful sexist, racist, condescending bastard.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-11, 09:25 AM
That's a horrible approach though.

When a player talks with his GM/DM/ST and expresses that they are not enjoying the way the game is going, you shouldn't say "No. Deal with it." - because really, roleplaying is about enjoying the game - it's literally the only point of doing this make-believe that we all here spends hours on.

And it's very easy to talk about the game without spoilering it. Phrases like "I understand what you are saying and will be taking it into consideration" and "your concerns have been noted" are quite useful, and doesn't leave a player wondering whether it's worth coming back to the game.

Ideally the conversation should probably have gone something like:

OP: *stuff about how Sir Prick is an insufferable jerkass that makes the game unejoyable*
DM: Yeah, I noticed that some of you really didn't like where this was going, I'm sorry about that, I'll be doing something about it next session - I know I'm asking for a lot, but please accept this for the moment. And again, I'll be dealing with it.
OP: Sounds reasonable, I'll be looking forward to it.
DM: Nice, see you next thursday.


When people are participating in a game, solely based on them enjoying said game, don't dismiss (quite rudely too!) them when they tell you that they are not enjoying said game.

Your plot shouldn't be set in stone, because then it's not a game, it's you narrating. If a NPC is making players actively dislike the game, change the plot - preferably in a way that lets the players smoke his ass.

Taking that paladin and turning him into a story arc about how good doesn't mean nice, and being a paladin doesn't make one a decent person would have been a good move. It would have been interesting to have him become a long term antagonist - a paladin that remains good only on the technicality that the races he torture and murder are [subtype evil], and is generally a pretty awful sexist, racist, condescending bastard.

You dont understand, his question was (How long is this guy gonna stick around) Its a direct question that can only be answered or not answered, if i go around saying -Oh I guess you didnt like him, I'll do something about it next session- Ofcourse he will know the person is for some reason going away next session. The paladin himself isnt a storyarc, and he was a minor character. He stuck with them for -one- session. And I still dont see the big deal on Eric's side, he told me not to spoil anything in the game for him and as such I cannot inform him of when NPC's will come or go. And which NPC's will come and go.

The paladin is not a big part of any main plot, he is not a protagonist, not an ally. Not an antagonist. My plot is 'not' set in stone but I cant remove an NPC because players didnt like him, if players dont like an NPC they can convince eachother to ditch him, however if the assigned party leaders (People I had to assign because two of our neutral players are more along the lines of border-line evil/chaotic on some issues)

We agreed that I would be watching which players were the most responsible and then assign them the role of the ones who ultimately decides where the party goes, this was something agreed upon on the first couple of sessions and till now has worked pretty decently. They are supposed to take into account the opinions of other players, but I would find it painful if I had to deal with half the group wanting to go one way and the other half wanting to go the other way, or as in this case (4 people wanting to go paladin-town and 2 people wanting to go to pirate-ville) So I combined the two and there is, as of now. No complaints. No I did not take this piece of forum into a consideration as well, my way of doing this is just my way of doing things. If players have complaints about me they can suggest something to me personally, not link me to manuals or forums as I find that very well, unpersonally. Very cold and proffesional, im consider myself as someone that has more than just -the once a week session- with my players. I talk to them outside the sessions aswell and I work with them pretty closely at creating the plot, as such the plot is not just a product of my narrating, but a product of where the playercharacters wishes to go, what the players want to meet. And what I personally find would be interresting for the group.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-11, 09:28 AM
And yet you don't seem to even begin to understand why anyone is so concerned or why we're 'hating on the DM' in the first place. That's why our red flags are still up, because you appear to have retired the offending NPC without doing anything internally or externally to address the actual problems.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-11, 10:21 AM
And yet you don't seem to even begin to understand why anyone is so concerned or why we're 'hating on the DM' in the first place. That's why our red flags are still up, because you appear to have retired the offending NPC without doing anything internally or externally to address the actual problems.

He isnt 'retired' and he wasnt 'offending' There is no 'problem' and therefor there is nothing to 'address'

To put it in a longer answer.

The players are satisfied and entertained, the problem, which never was there. Was resolved when I explained to Eric what I had planned, he said his apologies, I said mine. And therefor I do not see a reason for the thread to keep going.

I believe this forum is just set in some kind of -one way to do things- and arent open to the possibility of anyone doing stuff differently because that is sure to end in abselute failure, and if someone is doing stuff differently and his players are satisfied his players have a problem or just arent saying that they are unsatisfied. I find it quite disheartening.

And I have Erics support in this <--.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-11, 10:29 AM
To be fair, the last game was pretty fun. I only really disliked that I was told that day that I was back in, because for various reasons(changing characters before the first game, not being able to work maptools the second, and still trying to find my character's voice in the third) I had put off fine tuning how I wanted to roleplay. Lucky for me, that should be cleared up today. I think after last session, I have a concrete idea of what I want to do.

But anyway, I trust Nik completely.




The NPC travelling with them is 20 years old.


Huh? Do you mean Sir Prick, or the girl that is traveling with us now? I thought she was 14? No, wait, she's half elven, so twenty is like fourteen...*can't remember what happened one week ago*

The Glyphstone
2012-02-11, 10:42 AM
Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

Let's hope the 'game' works out, DED.:smallsmile: If it doesn't, you got a lot of good 'advice' here and you can always come back for 'more'.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-11, 10:48 AM
Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

Let's hope the 'game' works out, DED.:smallsmile: If it doesn't, you got a lot of good 'advice' here and you can always come back for 'more'.

That sounds 'good' I will do 'that' if I ever find 'time'. I 'would' have done it for 'this' session, but I 'figured' that the 'puzzle' I had planned was 'decent'. I 'hope' this forum doesnt only have help to those that 'failed'.

Edit: DED?

Edit2: Ah, Darkericdraven, so wait. I cant get advice? Darnit...

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-11, 11:15 AM
Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

Let's hope the 'game' works out, DED.:smallsmile: If it doesn't, you got a lot of good 'advice' here and you can always come back for 'more'.



That sounds 'good' I will do 'that' if I ever find 'time'. I 'would' have done it for 'this' session, but I 'figured' that the 'puzzle' I had planned was 'decent'. I 'hope' this forum doesnt only have help to those that 'failed'.

"It" "must" "be" "really" "hard" "for" "you" "to" "type" "because" "I'm" "imagining" "you" "guys" "as" "doing" "a" "lot" "of" "finger quotes" "."

The Glyphstone
2012-02-11, 11:23 AM
I can't "help" it, I just "went" on a "binge" of "Darths And Droid (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0685.html)s". It's a "hilarious" "comic" and you "really" should "read" it if you "haven't" already.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-11, 11:30 AM
Oh, I "have". It's one of the "things" that got me into "roleplaying" in the "first place".

Zorg
2012-02-11, 11:42 AM
By the sounds of things GM of the Rings would be a more approprite "comparison"...

Cavelcade
2012-02-11, 04:19 PM
That it is polite and discrete are somewhat less relevant than it being completely anonymous. This isn't the equivalent of having your dirty laundry aired in public, it is the equivalent of having unidentifiable dirty laundry aired in public, then pointing at it and yelling "That's mine!".

That's how you or I would feel about but not how the DM feels about it and that, I think, is what Septix was talking about. Just because we wouldn't feel upset by it doesn't mean that we can dismiss the fact that another is. Also I have nothing to add to the advice of others on the game, other than I agree that red flags should be raised. Also also: really hard not to engage in 'air quotes'.

Solaris
2012-02-11, 05:52 PM
That's how you or I would feel about but not how the DM feels about it and that, I think, is what Septix was talking about. Just because we wouldn't feel upset by it doesn't mean that we can dismiss the fact that another is.

That doesn't stop him from being wrong when he thinks that. See, I can think you're offending me by having two 'C's in your handle, and I can believe it completely, but that doesn't make me right (or terribly sane, for that matter). Likewise, Nik there isn't right for getting upset over one anonymous person asking a bunch of other anonymous people for help on a problem. So yes, I can - and will - dismiss that someone else is upset because they have no right to be.


The players are satisfied and entertained, the problem, which never was there. Was resolved when I explained to Eric what I had planned, he said his apologies, I said mine. And therefor I do not see a reason for the thread to keep going.
This is GitP, having derailed and left the topic behind four pages ago never stopped us before.


I believe this forum is just set in some kind of -one way to do things- and arent open to the possibility of anyone doing stuff differently because that is sure to end in abselute failure, and if someone is doing stuff differently and his players are satisfied his players have a problem or just arent saying that they are unsatisfied. I find it quite disheartening.
You're... uh, you're rather mistaken on that. In fact, I'd say it's simply that the majority of those posting are quite adverse to dictatorial DM styles. I, for one, would not be coming back if the DM told me I was suspended from play (I've already stated my reasons for that, we don't need to beat the dead horse). There are otherwise a tremendous variety of other styles, other ways of doing things on this forum. For example, the question of DMPCs. Some are for 'em, some against 'em, some insist on definitions nobody else uses, and some will kill any NPC who has a character sheet. Then there's levels of optimization and roleplaying versus roll-playing. So, given that there are a wide, wide variety of gamers on this forum and so many of them are criticizing what you're doing... well, it couldn't hurt to take a look at your TTPs. At the very least, commo's an issue.

VanBuren
2012-02-11, 08:04 PM
He isnt 'retired' and he wasnt 'offending' There is no 'problem' and therefor there is nothing to 'address'

And like that, you've lost me.

Jornophelanthas
2012-02-11, 08:40 PM
@Nikolaz72:
As a DM who believes that the way players experience my setting and story is important, I must voice my polite but vehement disagreement about this thing you said.

IF a player says he is unhappy about an NPC,
AND IF (unknown to the player) that NPC is not designed to stay around for long,
THEN simply playing out your design so that the NPC disappears as planned, does NOT mean that there never was a problem.

At best, there was a short-lived problem. But denying that there was a problem at all shows a (to me) disturbing disregard for your players' concerns, and (in my opinion) insufficient respect for the things they bring to the (virtual) table.

Yes, there is no problem to your story and your preparations. But if anyone in the gaming group experiences something as a problem, then there exists a problem.

---

Thankfully, both you and the player in question agree that there is no problem at this time. I hope this happy state may continue for a long time.

Talakeal
2012-02-11, 09:51 PM
A lot of players, and posters on this forum (which is extremely PC centric imo) have a very short sighted nature. If they are not having fun 100% of the time they are miserable and rebellious, and will complain.

Like in anything, gaming has its ups and its downs, and the ups and the downs enforce one another. A defeat is an opportunity to learn and to grow, and will make your eventual come back all the sweeter. An NPC who the party hates will be much more satisfying when he gets his comeuppance. A party of underdogs who did what everyone thought they couldn't has a lot more to celebrate than a group of super heroes who routinely trounce everything that dares oppose them.

In short, people really, really, need to develop patience and trust in the GM, and learn to accept that nothing, even gaming, can be all sunshine and rainbows at all times, and that without evil there can be no good, it is always darkest before the dawn, etc. etc.

navar100
2012-02-11, 10:59 PM
A lot of players, and posters on this forum (which is extremely PC centric imo) have a very short sighted nature. If they are not having fun 100% of the time they are miserable and rebellious, and will complain.

Like in anything, gaming has its ups and its downs, and the ups and the downs enforce one another. A defeat is an opportunity to learn and to grow, and will make your eventual come back all the sweeter. An NPC who the party hates will be much more satisfying when he gets his comeuppance. A party of underdogs who did what everyone thought they couldn't has a lot more to celebrate than a group of super heroes who routinely trounce everything that dares oppose them.

In short, people really, really, need to develop patience and trust in the GM, and learn to accept that nothing, even gaming, can be all sunshine and rainbows at all times, and that without evil there can be no good, it is always darkest before the dawn, etc. etc.

There's nothing wrong with an NPC the players hate. There is something wrong when the DM tells the player not to come to a game because said player hates the NPC.

Talakeal
2012-02-11, 11:36 PM
There's nothing wrong with an NPC the players hate. There is something wrong when the DM tells the player not to come to a game because said player hates the NPC.

Absolutely. I already stated in my previous post that the DM has no authority to punish players. However, most posters are saying that if a player isn't having fun, even for a moment, there is a problem with the game, and I am saying that just isn't always true.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-11, 11:57 PM
Absolutely. I already stated in my previous post that the DM has no authority to punish players. However, most posters are saying that if a player isn't having fun, even for a moment, there is a problem with the game, and I am saying that just isn't always true.

True. If my halfling dies, it wouldn't be fun, but that's Dungeons and Dragons. :smalltongue:

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 03:36 AM
True. If my halfling dies, it wouldn't be fun, but that's Dungeons and Dragons. :smalltongue:

Yea, If we went by the fun-rule I think Shabbizle might have quit the moment he figured out the first bad guys were the undead. I wish we could have seen his face.

Anyway, dictatorial DM? I think it was sort of part-the-story. The NPC might only have controlled the group for one-session. But if a player screwed up in a way that the NPC would have thrown him out in one-session. The player would have to take the consequences.

The group could choose to commit mutiny, overthrow this oppresive 'and mind you temporary' leader. Or they could have used a diplomacy check to convince him 'not' to do it. However nothing was done and this gives me the picture that out of the 7 people present, 5 didnt oppose ingame. And as a group of roleplayers game sometimes has to take a backseat to story, I regretted my actions pretty quickly as I hate to make anyone sad, and as such my second session became a -dubblesession- countin both for the storysession I had planned for the paladin and the cleric but also for the introduction of the main-plot. A reason for the Rogue and the Bard to wanna join. And some new important characters.

Heck, they even chose to just follow the group, so they could have shown themself right from the beginning but then 'Sir-Prick' might have used his superior rank to tell the guardsmen not to let them in, while waiting. Let them come in later once 'Sir-Prick' was gone and bluff their way past.

Also to the guy saying that many gamers take issue- It was also said I should not be concerned with what they say because they are all anonymous. Why would I have to listen to them just because they are many? I mean, Anon are many. But sometimes they are also wrong. And as I can see my game up till now being good, I dont see a reason to change it. I had planned to come on to this forum to get advice in times of need as I have lurked for a while, but after this thread im starting to get my doubts. I think the only advice I would get is one piece of advice repeated by twenty or so people.

What I dont understand (Or rather, I do understand. Im starting to see what people populate this forum) Is the insistance that this thread is merely a -askforadvice- OP might have started that way, some forumers might have responded that way. But I must say that a good decent majority quickly yelled in Chorus, 'abandon ship'. Now, as a DM and a player. I must ask, if someone is having fun with a game, why do they have to follow the advice written by anonymous to abandon the game they are having fun in? Because as I said before, and as I will say again. A lot of the people here seems to be set in one way, and if this one way is obstructed somehow then it is impossible to have fun, and the game -will- fail. Which gives me all the more satisfaction when I have another session that becomes a success.

Dimers
2012-02-12, 04:33 AM
if someone is having fun with a game, why do they have to follow the advice written by anonymous to abandon the game they are having fun in?

Heh. Once I had a girlfriend who was a true masochist; she honestly believed that she should be subjugated and she wasn't happy unless she was in pain or severely threatened. We only stayed together a few months because I don't have what she needed. She found herself a dominant and, last I heard, was pretty satisfied in that relationship. But if she asked a therapist whether she should keep harming her life, the answer would be "no".

Similarly, if you ask most gamers "should a player keep gaming with a DM who punishes out-of-character and thinks the game is his to control", the answer will be "no". It looks like DarkEricDraven gets something out of the game, and that's fine -- he's a consenting adult and he's allowed to find fun in ways other people don't, if that's his way. Doesn't change the consensus answer, though.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 06:54 AM
Heh. Once I had a girlfriend who was a true masochist; she honestly believed that she should be subjugated and she wasn't happy unless she was in pain or severely threatened. We only stayed together a few months because I don't have what she needed. She found herself a dominant and, last I heard, was pretty satisfied in that relationship. But if she asked a therapist whether she should keep harming her life, the answer would be "no".

Similarly, if you ask most gamers "should a player keep gaming with a DM who punishes out-of-character and thinks the game is his to control", the answer will be "no". It looks like DarkEricDraven gets something out of the game, and that's fine -- he's a consenting adult and he's allowed to find fun in ways other people don't, if that's his way. Doesn't change the consensus answer, though.

I dont think you read what I wrote, in the end I have the control of the game as the DM. But the game itself is something that I have created with my players, and from session to session, I talk to them about what they want and what they expect, what they like and what they dont like. As Adrian was only supposed to be there for one session, I couldnt remove him on the whim of a player because they didnt like him, because he was gonna get removed. I cannot remove something before it gets removed if its gonna get removed so soon. *I think its a little hard to explain for me*

In the end I think the story is more important than for all the players to have fun all the time, because if it ends up having holes and breaking immersion, it will be a less fun experience overall, and you can choose to agree or disagree on that, but I have 'my' players behind me on it and I believe thats what matters. Because as long as we are all having fun I see no reason to change our way of doing things.

Letting players completely off the leash of plot means their time will be split half/half between burning orphanages and going on brothels/starting barfights. *Exaggerated for humourous purposes*

Cavelcade
2012-02-12, 07:27 AM
That doesn't stop him from being wrong when he thinks that. See, I can think you're offending me by having two 'C's in your handle, and I can believe it completely, but that doesn't make me right (or terribly sane, for that matter). Likewise, Nik there isn't right for getting upset over one anonymous person asking a bunch of other anonymous people for help on a problem. So yes, I can - and will - dismiss that someone else is upset because they have no right to be.

That is a completely facetious and unhelpful comparison between two completely different reactions. Having two Cs in my name is something passive - certainly when you see it you could take offence but it's much more rational to assume that I just have them in my name and happened to post on the forum by coincidence.

The person who posted this thread was an active party in posting something negative about the GM. There is no way of confusing his intent - he definitely was posting about a specific individual and situation that he wanted advice on how to deal with and that he disliked. Certain people are sensitive to such actions and are not wrong to be so, even if they can't be identified. Taking such a dismissive attitude in no way aids to resolve the situation and is basically counterproductive in every way.



I dont think you read what I wrote, in the end I have the control of the game as the DM.

No, they're reading exactly what you wrote and disagreeing with it. They don't think you should have control of the game, only the NPCs and to a degree what they encounter.

What people choose to do with their characters is their choice and punishing the players is what people object to. If a character does something dumb and gets killed - well, such is life. If a character does something dumb and the player gets sent away like a small child - well, a majority of people dislike that on this forum. Not everyone, everywhere and if you're players are happy, well, hurray for them.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 07:40 AM
That is a completely facetious and unhelpful comparison between two completely different reactions. Having two Cs in my name is something passive - certainly when you see it you could take offence but it's much more rational to assume that I just have them in my name and happened to post on the forum by coincidence.

The person who posted this thread was an active party in posting something negative about the GM. There is no way of confusing his intent - he definitely was posting about a specific individual and situation that he wanted advice on how to deal with and that he disliked. Certain people are sensitive to such actions and are not wrong to be so, even if they can't be identified. Taking such a dismissive attitude in no way aids to resolve the situation and is basically counterproductive in every way.




No, they're reading exactly what you wrote and disagreeing with it. They don't think you should have control of the game, only the NPCs and to a degree what they encounter.

What people choose to do with their characters is their choice and punishing the players is what people object to. If a character does something dumb and gets killed - well, such is life. If a character does something dumb and the player gets sent away like a small child - well, a majority of people dislike that on this forum. Not everyone, everywhere and if you're players are happy, well, hurray for them.

Wait, so people here thinks its better for a paladin to kill someone for almost getting some groupmembers killed 'inhiseyes' than it is just dismissing them. So you say people here prefer having their characters killed to having to miss out on part of the plot for a one-two days ingame time. Manipulating the words isnt gonna do you much good, that is essentialy what was said. I dont agree with that I think in terms of Eric he would be hurt more by having his character taken away entirely for this than to have to miss out on one-two ingame days.

I think this is the difference between players who focus on Roleplay and Story, and players who focus on the gameplay itself. I mean, our mechanics took a backseat to roleplay and story quite a while ago. I guess people here would take issue with that, but as I said before. Aslong as my players are having fun I dont have to change anything because of what Anon said.

Cavelcade
2012-02-12, 08:23 AM
Wait, so people here thinks its better for a paladin to kill someone for almost getting some groupmembers killed 'inhiseyes' than it is just dismissing them. So you say people here prefer having their characters killed to having to miss out on part of the plot for a one-two days ingame time. Manipulating the words isnt gonna do you much good, that is essentialy what was said. I dont agree with that I think in terms of Eric he would be hurt more by having his character taken away entirely for this than to have to miss out on one-two ingame days.

They really aren't saying that. It is perfectly acceptable for the paladin to dismiss the characters from the party for a few days - but there's no reason to then punish the players in the same way. Multiple solutions were suggested - having the players follow at a distance and saving the group to regain their trust, giving those characters some other little adventure of their own, or even just skipping the travel and going straight to the down! It's in no way being put forward as the dichotomy you're suggesting.



I think this is the difference between players who focus on Roleplay and Story, and players who focus on the gameplay itself. I mean, our mechanics took a backseat to roleplay and story quite a while ago. I guess people here would take issue with that, but as I said before. Aslong as my players are having fun I dont have to change anything because of what Anon said.


As for the mechanics thing, I don't have too much of an issue with it. The main reason the rules are the way they are is so that disputes can be resolved without breaking down into a contest of wills - if the answer is there, that's just how it is. Of course, give how some of them phrased there's still arguments but they at least make the effort.

I do freestyle rping with some of my friends and it works perfectly well, most of the time. I think saying that's the problem is missing the point.

The Glyphstone
2012-02-12, 09:30 AM
Aslong as my players are having fun I dont have to change anything because of what Anon said.

So you think DED posted this thread in the first place because he thought getting thrown out of the party out-of-game by a obnoxious NPC was FUN? Man, you have some really, really warped ideas of what fun is.

That fact that he did, you saw this, and Sir Prick is no longer there (and the two people thrown out are back in) means you did change something because of what Anon said, after the player who wasn't having fun tried to talk to you, got shut down, and came to us for help.Congratulations, you have taken the first step on the road of recovery to Good DMing. Further milestones will include not immediately using your new NPC exactly the same as Sir Prick, and making him/her/it a different person, maybe a nicer one; finding the distinction between IC and OOC when it comes to punishments for actions; and eventually, disabusing yourself of the notion that DMing means the power of tyranny and thus having any need to punish anyone at all. When you reach that last step, do come back here, for you will have achieved enlightenment and we will have much to offer you.

Arcane_Snowman
2012-02-12, 10:23 AM
Let's go out on a limb, and take a look at some different reasons as to why a player would actually persist through an un-fun campaign:

Socializing:
People like to socialize, and can't always socialize with the people they want to, when they want to, and roleplaying games are a nice "excuse" to get some people together and talk, granted this is more applicable to tabletop sessions but there is also an odd kind of companionship attainable through the in-character interactions of players who know one another well.

Scarcity:
Roleplaying games, despite being prolific on the interwebs, are generally a lot more decentralized than other forms of group activities, as proven prior in this thread with the subsequent reveal of how many people actually play in Arkensas. People always like to have someone with which they share something in common, and as such with something as seemingly rare as roleplaying, people have a tendency to cling to those they can find who share this interest. And of this number of people, there are generally fewer who are willing to DM, so many people have a tendency to hang onto who they can find.

Obligation:
The player is playing with friends, the DM is a person they care about or is in their social periphery, not many people have the desire to alienate themselves from their friends or hurt their feelings by walking out of a session or tell someone that they're not having fun.

Self-Delusion:
Now the title of this one is a bit negative, but basically people can convince themselves of the weirdest things, including that they're having fun when they really aren't. Largely this includes people rationalizing that whatever situation isn't that bad, because of such and such thing hasn't happened or been taken away etc.

I'm rather tired, so there's probably a whole lot I've glossed over, but these were some of the things that would make a person stick to an abusive DM, despite not having any kind of fun at all. Although I'm not saying that it is the case in this very specific instance, here on the Playground, we see a lot of situations where this is truly the case, and as such many are quick to cry "abandon ship" because there isn't anything to gain from such a relationship other than more grief. And many people simply are of the opinion that bad roleplay trumps no roleplay, which doesn't help.


As long as my players are having fun I don't have to change anything because of what Anon said. Except there was an instance of un-fun, it may have been brief but it was there nonetheless. If the players had no problems at all, then this post shouldn't have been here in the first place. People lie, to themselves and to others, through rationalization and/or guilt etc., don't take their word for it, read into their actions, and the particular actions of these events seems like a clear indicator of un-fun taking place. To me at the very least. Nothing earth-shattering, but it definitely something that should be taken note of.

Stasis is stagnation, if you think that there's nothing you can change to improve your game, then you're dead wrong. I'm not saying you're a bad DM, but there's always room for improvement.

But in the end, this is supposed to be about having fun so if you're all having fun then there's nothing to worry about. Each to their own. Even if I disagree with your methods as so many others.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-02-12, 11:46 AM
You seem to be using statements that support our arguments yet you think aren't. Things like "I don't control the party, I control someone who controls the party" and "I don't control the players, I control the game, and the players are part of the game".

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 11:52 AM
So you think DED posted this thread in the first place because he thought getting thrown out of the party out-of-game by a obnoxious NPC was FUN? Man, you have some really, really warped ideas of what fun is.

That fact that he did, you saw this, and Sir Prick is no longer there (and the two people thrown out are back in) means you did change something because of what Anon said, after the player who wasn't having fun tried to talk to you, got shut down, and came to us for help.Congratulations, you have taken the first step on the road of recovery to Good DMing. Further milestones will include not immediately using your new NPC exactly the same as Sir Prick, and making him/her/it a different person, maybe a nicer one; finding the distinction between IC and OOC when it comes to punishments for actions; and eventually, disabusing yourself of the notion that DMing means the power of tyranny and thus having any need to punish anyone at all. When you reach that last step, do come back here, for you will have achieved enlightenment and we will have much to offer you.

Alright, first'o'all. By Anon I mean people here, and I have really cared nothing for their feelings as the only people I care about as of now is the players of my group.

Second- I stated it was the overall fun, Immersion and all that. Not fun in-the-moment. And as for the paladin murdering the halfling, 'whuuuah?' And as for the halfling travelling a distance behind the party 'She did'.

Adrian was not replaced by a better Adrian. And its not just one NPC that has joined them its about -three- and the reason we can manage it is because its mainly RP driven and my NPC's have a set initiative from the beginning of the game and we fight in tight corridores so its more JRPG fighting than anything.

Eric, even if he missed the session. Seems to be doing alright, and so are the others. And as such I do not understand such a great need for concern, for someone to change if they, and those around them. Are satisfied, I do not like for Eric to be compared to a sadistic masochist either O_o. . That is sorta rude.

No matter how many disagree with my methods, as long as they arent in my game. And as long as Eric doesnt come to me personally saying his really, really. Unhappy with the direction this game is taking, then I shall keep on using my current way of DM'ing. Thank you all for taking your time to advice Eric and I. It is much appreciated, and I will be sure to come back if I ever believe my game has taken a wrong turn, gone down the drain, or need help with setting up a session. 'waves'

Uec
2012-02-12, 12:15 PM
Aslong as my players are having fun I dont have to change anything because of what Anon said.

Sure. As long as they are having fun.

They weren't. As evidenced by two players being really fed up and taking the matter up. Which was then shut down with a "**** your fun, that's my rules" by you.


You keep insisting that you 'had to do this' or 'it was that, or kill them'. But seriously, what your NPC's do is your choice, exactly like the comment "but that's what my character would do!" is a bad excuse for being an arse. What your NPC's do is your choice, and if that choice isn't centred around making the players have fun, it's a bad choice.

There's a thousand ways you could have had this paladin act that didn't spoil the fun for your players, but you choose the one that did spoil their fun, as evidenced



but I cant remove an NPC because players didnt like him, if players dont like an NPC

Give me one single coherent reason for this, that isn't "because that ruins the finely crafted story i want to tell my players". Just one.

Yes you can, and yes you should. If the players find that a certain element makes the game significantly less fun - and there isn't a significant long term reason that will improve the fun - you can, and should remove said element*.

Of course you don't have to listen to us, but there's a reason that so many in here decry your reasoning, because they have a lot of experience, and knows that changing your playstyle would make it a lot more fun for everyone involved.

But hey, I get to play in two campaigns (one as a ST) where we regularly have open, mature and respectful discussions about how to make the campaigns more satisfactory for everyone involved, the hell do I know about RPG's?



*Keeping in mind that short-term fun can be sacrificed if the long-term gains are big enough, but doing so should always be a concious choice, and when approached on the matter, it should always be honest - saying "I'm aware that I'm sacrificing short term fun, but trust me a bit on this, it'll be worth it" not "Drop it. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game."

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-12, 02:11 PM
Sure. As long as they are having fun.

They weren't. As evidenced by two players being really fed up and taking the matter up. Which was then shut down with a "**** your fun, that's my rules" by you.


You keep insisting that you 'had to do this' or 'it was that, or kill them'. But seriously, what your NPC's do is your choice, exactly like the comment "but that's what my character would do!" is a bad excuse for being an arse. What your NPC's do is your choice, and if that choice isn't centred around making the players have fun, it's a bad choice.

There's a thousand ways you could have had this paladin act that didn't spoil the fun for your players, but you choose the one that did spoil their fun, as evidenced




Give me one single coherent reason for this, that isn't "because that ruins the finely crafted story i want to tell my players". Just one.

Yes you can, and yes you should. If the players find that a certain element makes the game significantly less fun - and there isn't a significant long term reason that will improve the fun - you can, and should remove said element*.

Of course you don't have to listen to us, but there's a reason that so many in here decry your reasoning, because they have a lot of experience, and knows that changing your playstyle would make it a lot more fun for everyone involved.

But hey, I get to play in two campaigns (one as a ST) where we regularly have open, mature and respectful discussions about how to make the campaigns more satisfactory for everyone involved, the hell do I know about RPG's?



*Keeping in mind that short-term fun can be sacrificed if the long-term gains are big enough, but doing so should always be a concious choice, and when approached on the matter, it should always be honest - saying "I'm aware that I'm sacrificing short term fun, but trust me a bit on this, it'll be worth it" not "Drop it. Whether you like it or not, I'm in charge of this game."

Sir Prick took some of the fun out of the first session he lead the party, but the game after it was pretty swell(I wasn't there yesterday due to, again, technical difficulties)

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 02:20 PM
{{Scrubbed}}

Cavelcade
2012-02-12, 03:06 PM
Nikolaz72, I really think you're missing the point they're actually trying to make as the most important one by getting distracted by the small details. We don't know enough to comment on a lot of the precise details of the story and how it works, only to be somewhat worried.

What we do know is how you handled this event and that is what people are really concerned about. The way in which you handled it clearly did cause consternation - and rightly so. They are saying that statements such as 'It's my story, deal with it' and 'He'll be around for however long I want' are not helpful to the situation. They are dismissive and authoritarian which is not a good way to deal with a group of people.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 03:37 PM
Nikolaz72, I really think you're missing the point they're actually trying to make as the most important one by getting distracted by the small details. We don't know enough to comment on a lot of the precise details of the story and how it works, only to be somewhat worried.

What we do know is how you handled this event and that is what people are really concerned about. The way in which you handled it clearly did cause consternation - and rightly so. They are saying that statements such as 'It's my story, deal with it' and 'He'll be around for however long I want' are not helpful to the situation. They are dismissive and authoritarian which is not a good way to deal with a group of people.

Some -different- points were made, im gonna go out on a limb here and say you mean those that could resemble a reasonable piece of advice. Im gonna say that yea, when I came here I was dismissive. And when I first talked to Eric the same night I was angry with him, and therefor those answers were dismissive aswell. In the time after we talked it out, but that doesnt mean I had much patience with people on this forum as what I got was a very cold welcome, understandable if I am an evil dictator in their eyes, but not the most civilized way to greet someone regardless.

As for a good way to deal with a group of people, we are talking about dealing with one person. Eric. And he was concerned that Adrian would stick around for long, but he also does not like spoilers and therefor for his own sake I did not want to comment on the matter. Beyond that he would stick along as long as I saw fit which is, well. The truth. And I dunno about other people here but it seems the main piece of advise which wasnt -scrap the character- was merely, -revise your statement to something else that means the same but sounds better-. But I believe my statement at the time was perfectly honest, if a little misleading. Although as the issue is now put behind us I find it but a little frustrating to still have to argue with people who dismiss my thoughts because I am an -evil authoritarian dictator- I would like to consider my game as one that is run on a railroad build by players, it is generally agreed upon in our group that the DM should be able to plan further ahead than 10 minutes and as such I (Ultimately) have the reigns of where the game goes, I decide where it goes based on what players we have in the group and till now it seems people have not been against it (Youknow, apart the people on this forum). Its hard for you to say that everyone here is arguing the same thing though, but im gonna say that I disagree when you say that people were just concerned, not everyone were just -concerned-

mcv
2012-02-12, 04:16 PM
You dont understand, his question was (How long is this guy gonna stick around) Its a direct question that can only be answered or not answered,
Or you could have probed into the real reasons for his question, and gave him the assurance he was looking for.


if i go around saying -Oh I guess you didnt like him, I'll do something about it next session- Ofcourse he will know the person is for some reason going away next session. The paladin himself isnt a storyarc, and he was a minor character. He stuck with them for -one- session. And I still dont see the big deal on Eric's side, he told me not to spoil anything in the game for him and as such I cannot inform him of when NPC's will come or go. And which NPC's will come and go.
You don't have to spoil the plot. But if a player fears he's going to stay forever, and that will make him retire his character or leave the game, then "He's staying for as long as I want. Deal with it." might be spoiling a lot more than the plot.

How hard is it to say: "Don't worry, the paladin won't stay for long." or perhaps: "Don't leave or retire your character because of the paladin. He's really not going to be that big a deal. Your current character is fine for this campaign."

You have an extremely black and white view on communication. Answers don't always have to be yes or no. Instead of a short-sighted direct answer, you can also decide to give a real, meaningful response to the issue underlying the question. Communicate!

Nikolaz72
2012-02-12, 04:24 PM
Or you could have probed into the real reasons for his question, and gave him the assurance he was looking for.


You don't have to spoil the plot. But if a player fears he's going to stay forever, and that will make him retire his character or leave the game, then "He's staying for as long as I want. Deal with it." might be spoiling a lot more than the plot.

How hard is it to say: "Don't worry, the paladin won't stay for long." or perhaps: "Don't leave or retire your character because of the paladin. He's really not going to be that big a deal. Your current character is fine for this campaign."

You have an extremely black and white view on communication. Answers don't always have to be yes or no. Instead of a short-sighted direct answer, you can also decide to give a real, meaningful response to the issue underlying the question. Communicate!

And you misuse the word -extreme- The paladin will stick around for long, although being a part of the game odesnt mean a part of the party, he is gonna be a big deal, although not for the next many sessions. I never gave him the picture that he should leave the campaign and he never wanted to leave and as such I didnt have to convince him not to leave? Im generally confident in my players ability to read what I have planned for the next 10 minutes and whenever -I gotta go- means an AFK or Logging Off. Its not that I know the players closely, but again. We do talk outside the sessions, sometimes on a daily basis. And as such there is a little more to it than just the weekly game. I gave a longer more complex answer the next day when Eric asked me not to spoil the plot so there you have it? I guess I dont need to post our lengthy skype-conversation here although it might shut up a few people. Who still misunderstand the situation.

Coidzor
2012-02-12, 04:40 PM
First of all, dont take that tone with me. (And expect for me to reply in a more gentlemanly manner)

I'm going to share with you a bit of advice. Saying things like this right here is even worse than what you were replying to and shows poorly on you.

Especially since you seem to actually think you have a chance of convincing the thread to change the negative-leaning opinion of yourself that you've managed to generate.


Second of all, it was -one- player who brought this up. You can only take his word for how hurt the other player was, the other player comming the day after and apologizing for his behavior.

If we can't trust his word because he's only one person, then we cannot trust your word as you are only one person.


Third- You only know how I responded on this forum, I had a lengthy chat with him over a private-chat about this and you know what? You can take your experience and shove it up where the sun dont bloody shine because in terms of others games it can just aswell count for naught,

See, that right here? That's just a bad attitude. You're not some special snowflake who is exempt from any and all general good practices.


I do not need to hear about your experiences.

If you're new to DMing, lord knows you don't have any experiences to really draw upon for yourself, so in general, yes, you could stand to benefit from the experience and wisdom of others.

Rejecting the idea out of hand is a bad sign that reflects poorly upon your character and ability to learn to do the job or accept peer feedback.


-Nobody objected OOCly, and majority didnt object ICly-

Oh, yes, cowing the party with a sudden blindsidedly rude thing is a great way to gauge whether something is a good idea. Please, try to come up with something a bit more convincing.


One guy went onto this forum to look for advice

Yeah, the fact that he didn't feel able to just talk to you about it? Bad sign of how approachable you are and how reasonable you seemed about it to begin with.

The fact that he went for help and advice? Not something you should dismiss as lightly as you are doing.


geeks

Right. If you're going to call people geeks for playing the game then you are calling yourself a geek for playing the game. And there's no sense in insulting people for something that you do yourself.


There are different ways to do things and as such, if I do something so differently that you cannot comprehend it, your experience in terms of what im doing, is around little to nothing at all.

If you're doing something that is outside the bounds of good taste in the eyes of a wide variety of people who come from all walks of life and have seen a great variety of games, well, that right there is a consensus.

It is not the message that "I'm different, so of course no one can relate to me" that you seem to be taking away from this.

Ziegander
2012-02-12, 05:03 PM
I was wondering if you guys considered following the Paladins group from a distance and helping them in way's they might not notice and saving their bacon one time to get back into the mix, prove your worth, and hopefully take the high and mighty out of Sir Prick.


Yeah, I asked, DM said no. :smallsigh:

I haven't read the rest of the thread yet, though I intend to, but this is unacceptable behavior for a DM. You don't need to ask the DM if you can make a choice about what you want your character to do. Further, the DM does not have the right to tell you what your character can or cannot do like that. It's 100% your choice if you wanted to have your characters follow the party around.

Now, since it's a skype game, that makes it much harder to do private actions between different players, or to split the group and play out different scenarios in different locations. Unfortunately, this essentially means that by kicking you out of the party he's kicked you out of the game. Which is completely uncalled for. If he was going to lead the PCs around with a Lawful Stupid DMPC he should have asked the players before the game started if that was okay, and then if they agreed he should have told the players to create characters that would work well under the leadership of a Lawful Stupid DMPC.

Cavelcade
2012-02-12, 05:21 PM
Beyond that he would stick along as long as I saw fit which is, well. The truth.

This is where the other problem lies that people are trying to point out, other than communication skills which as a DM you should probably consider vital.

If a player is really not enjoying something as important as the NPC who's leading the party and has no reason to think he's going away, which he definitely didn't, then it is a problem.

Note: the next section assume you had planned to keep the paladin around. Statements like 'he'll be leading the party for a while. Deal with it' indicate that he would be - either make it clear that it won't be very long without telling him exactly when, or just say that since it's such a big problem you'll find a way to deal with it. It's not lying - you'll deal with it exactly as planned by having him lead next session but it spoils nothing.

If you want him to stay, there are a thousand ways to deal with this which are constructive and which will get players to react positively. Since the problem is the character and not that he's the leader - have him get called away and have a different paladin take over. Have him get called away and leave instructions with the party leaders, or some way to communicate with them. Any variation on this is fine.

Hell, you control the NPC - consider what attributes were so offensive to the player and just change them. Say the Paladin was having a bad day, have him apologise for his behaviour and continue the campaign changing no other thing.

Since D&D is a co-operative medium, which you acknowledge, all of these options are more team friendly than dismissed concerns.

Arcran
2012-02-12, 05:40 PM
What I have learned is that players will make the game. As a GM you are the narrator. It is your job to catalog the player's adventure, not to run it. Sure, as the DM is is technically your game, but the players make it fun.

Example: In a Pokemon Tabletop game I am running (yes, laugh all you want), I gave them two baby Pokemon that happened to be sibilings. One made a run for it and ran towards the most injured character in the party. I had expected that they would attempt to catch it in my foolish GM mind. What did they actually do? She turned it into a crisp with her Pokemon. Unexpected? Yes. Not what I wanted? Yes. Does it make a hell of a lot better of a story? Yes.

It will be the crazy things the players do that they remember. Instead of them saying, "Remember when we recruited the crazy Centaur? Ya, that was fun," they'll be saying "Hey, remember when that prick of a Paladin stopped us from recruiting that Centaur? That sucked."

Jornophelanthas
2012-02-12, 05:55 PM
I know this type of person from personal experience. I used to work for one, and it did not end well.

- This type of person discounts the opinions of others, because he/she believes himself/herself to be much better at knowing other people's opinions (and what's good for them) than those other people do themselves.

- If someone disagrees with him/her, he/she believes that this person simply does not comprehend the his/her brilliant vision.

- People who will persist in disagreeing with him/her, are perceived as destructive forces who actively seek to harm or discredit him/her.

- This type of person tends to be preoccupied with status.

- He/she considers himself/herself an authority on absolutely everything. (e.g. "I don't need to listen to the doctor's advice, because I know my own body a lot better.") It's one-way communication, all sending and no receiving.

- He/she seeks to surround himself/herself with yes-men, who look up to him/her and agree with everything he/she says. If any of these followers stop agreeing, he/she considers them "a disappointment", and tends to cut off contact with them.

- The more you try to convince such a person of anything, the less likely this person is to take the advice. Because being convinced by someone else runs counter to their own self-image as someone who always knows best.

- He/she believes he/she never makes mistakes. If something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault. This person will NEVER admit being wrong about anything.

- Despite all these negative traits, such a person usually has above-average charisma and social skills, and is quite capable of attracting people to his/her vision.

This is the narcissist.

Narcissists tend to like the DM role for all the wrong reason: telling players what to believe, what the world looks like, and how to behave in the world they made up. With the sincere belief that those players want nothing more than to have their creative freedom replaced by the creative freedom of the narcissist.
The typical warning sign that someone is a narcissist is them asking you to come up with something (a thought, idea or opinion), where the only correct answer will be the thing that they already thought of for you, without any valid alternatives. Clues are not provided, because they believe they know how your mind should work better than you do. If you fail to come up with that specific pre-generated idea, they will be disappointed in you.
For a DM, this is not just railroading, but dictating how players should play their characters, and telling players what to like.

My reason for starting this rant is that any further attempts to convince this DM that he did not handle the situation perfectly, will be fruitless. Because once he decided that we are all rude-people-who-are-wrong, there is no possibility to change his mind. Because he never second-guesses his own judgments (except to confirm them), so in his mind there is no way that rude-people-who-are-wrong can ever be right.

Soylent Dave
2012-02-12, 08:29 PM
Anyway, dictatorial DM? I think it was sort of part-the-story. The NPC might only have controlled the group for one-session. But if a player screwed up in a way that the NPC would have thrown him out in one-session. The player would have to take the consequences.

You're not a dictatorial DM because of anything your NPC did or was (even if he was a prick who your players hated).

The bit you don't seem to get is that part I've bolded: you're punishing players for the actions of their characters.

That's wrong. It's something we can be objective about, because it doesn't matter what was happening in the game: you decided that a character's actions deserved consequences (which is your job as DM).

But then you decided that those consequences should fall on the player (you made him miss a game).

It's not appropriate. It's the D&D equivalent of taking your ball and going home because the other team are winning.

You stopped somebody else playing as a punishment for something his character did in-game.

If you can't see that this is just flat wrong, you're not just a bad DM, you're a bad gamer.

You just don't get to punish your players in real life - that's not what being a DM means. You aren't their Dad!

Solaris
2012-02-12, 10:03 PM
That is a completely facetious and unhelpful comparison between two completely different reactions. Having two Cs in my name is something passive - certainly when you see it you could take offence but it's much more rational to assume that I just have them in my name and happened to post on the forum by coincidence.

The person who posted this thread was an active party in posting something negative about the GM. There is no way of confusing his intent - he definitely was posting about a specific individual and situation that he wanted advice on how to deal with and that he disliked. Certain people are sensitive to such actions and are not wrong to be so, even if they can't be identified. Taking such a dismissive attitude in no way aids to resolve the situation and is basically counterproductive in every way.
Quite deliberately so, and meant to be thoroughly dismissive of the possibility that Nik has a right to be offended, much less that we ought to respect that he (she?) is offended because a player in his game asked for advice on a forum and he doesn't like what we're saying. DED really didn't say anything terribly negative about the GM or the game. We, the other posters, did (I do believe I was one of the ones who said "Bail out now", and if I didn't I am now).
Would you prefer the example that I could claim his arrogance in dismissing our concerns and experiences as being intrinsically without worth because they disagree with what he has to say offends me? It doesn't, 'cause I'm honestly really hard to offend, but it's still pretty batty.


...Arent scholars of everything right and wrong. There are different ways to do things and as such, if I do something so differently that you cannot comprehend it, your experience in terms of what im doing, is around little to nothing at all.
Clearly you haven't seen an alignment discussion thread here.
Hombre, you're pretty damn arrogant. Comically so. I comprehend just fine what you're doing. It's not so different from my experience as you might think. I have actual real-world experience, you see, and you rather remind me of a sergeant major I've had the joy of working under. My dad's boss, too (they refer to him as Him, as speaking his name invites the evils of his attention). They're both of the mindset of "I am always right and can do no wrong." You can't seem to admit the possibility that you handled the player's reaction to this paladin spectacularly poorly, and that's what has me concerned.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-13, 12:11 AM
This is where the other problem lies that people are trying to point out, other than communication skills which as a DM you should probably consider vital.

If a player is really not enjoying something as important as the NPC who's leading the party and has no reason to think he's going away, which he definitely didn't, then it is a problem.

Note: the next section assume you had planned to keep the paladin around. Statements like 'he'll be leading the party for a while. Deal with it' indicate that he would be - either make it clear that it won't be very long without telling him exactly when, or just say that since it's such a big problem you'll find a way to deal with it. It's not lying - you'll deal with it exactly as planned by having him lead next session but it spoils nothing.

If you want him to stay, there are a thousand ways to deal with this which are constructive and which will get players to react positively. Since the problem is the character and not that he's the leader - have him get called away and have a different paladin take over. Have him get called away and leave instructions with the party leaders, or some way to communicate with them. Any variation on this is fine.

Hell, you control the NPC - consider what attributes were so offensive to the player and just change them. Say the Paladin was having a bad day, have him apologise for his behaviour and continue the campaign changing no other thing.

Since D&D is a co-operative medium, which you acknowledge, all of these options are more team friendly than dismissed concerns.

I think its hard following your advice as, well.. Its already been done, most of it anyway. As I explained before I've been generally dismissive on this forum but as Eric (Although he tends to keep his posts quite short)can tell you I've had several lenghty chats with him over skype and I generally do talk to my players a lot, I feel as if this thread has outlived its purpose though, a moderator tried to explain that threads here live long past its date but when people go and read the first page and then reply based on what happened 3 weeks ago this could go on forever, on five different notes.

To that other person that replied to my post, heres the thing. If a person edits a post within the first 5 minutes of posting, and you reply over an hour afterwards. Going out of the way to change the content back to what it was before editing is almost as bad as changing the content to something that was never there. As such you do not really warrant a reply as its general bad forum conduct.

To the guy in the black-helmet-thing. I have admitted my actions with the paladin was wrong and changed my behavior the day afterwards by having a lenghty chat with Eric over skype, discussing what he wanted from the game and how the paladin was gonna work. Which caused Eric to post in this very thread that he is now satisfied with the game. So theres that, but you can choose to ignore that.

To the brassdragon: Theese are two people in the group we are talking about, if the whole group was evil well, I might have considered letting them recruit the centaur. But the neutral option here was not going along with they wanted, it was going along with what the majority wanted and 5 people in the group did not want a centaur who were trying to kill half the group travelling with them.

To the rest of you, you are replying to a 3week-month old topic on an issue that has long been resolved, this thread has derailed and is about something else entirely, if you wish to partake with anything meaningfull do read the last page or so.

"This is the narcissist."

Youknow, I dont really think this warrants much of a reply. That was a smirky insult disguised as advice. You cannot just insult someone then take a step back and give them advice, in the same was as you cant insult someone and then give them a hug, its wierd. And if somebody doesnt take your advice after insulting them, you should probably consider not insulting them.

: Reason im still here.

Youknow, I sorta wondered about that myself. I guess its because I lurked the forum and used it as inspiration for the campaign in the first place, and because I would have liked to come here for advice in the future.

By now most o my players are just telling me to bail the thread as replying to it for three weeks, while having changed something in the minds of some. Only serves for the thing to get resurfaced and people to post based on the first page or so, on an issue that has far ago turned into something different.

As I stated before, Eric might have had a complaint. But had he known the topic would turn into this he wouldnt have created it in the first place, so as of now you have nothing to defend. Infact you are attacking a person, the second you realize that we might get a proper arguement going on. You arent arguing for Eric anymore, if anything I believe I am. Or he will argue for himself. He is satisfied with the game as it is, so are my five-six other players. And therefor I see no reason for them to bail and you have yet to really give them much of a reason either. I take back what I said about experience, ofcourse I will accept advice, but I usually dont do it from people either treatin' me like something to be looked down upon. Or someone insulting me. Which a lot of people here just seem to outright expect.

"You're an evil fascist authoritarian dictator, here take this friendly advice"

That sentence. . . doesnt really work. I cannot explain why but it doesnt. I mean if you really 'thought' that someone was a narcissist who cannot ever be swayed by anyone, or Stalin-reincarnate. Would you even 'try' to give him advice on his DnD game? really? And if not then 'do' drop the insults. If anything keep them inside your head it makes everything seem a tad bit more civil. If you gotta insult anyone just insult yourself and get it over with, that way it doesnt have to be directed at anyone.

Still, nobody's really gonna be impressed with a nerd being able to argue on for a small month about something, I mean other. Lesser debates has gone on for years before.


The thing that makes me keep opening this thread isn't the original issue, but your (entertaining for the wrong reason) responses, Nik, and at this point it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to imagine the person writing your responses having a drastic knee jerk at the slightest hint of a threat to authority.

Do try to conjure up something that is slightly helpful, like say. Explaining things that might not be obvious at first to everyone instead of putting it into shortened sentences as if expecting everyone to understand. Infact, im gonna go as far as to say you ignored more posts in this thread than I have, and you dont have half the reason I do.

busterswd
2012-02-13, 12:40 AM
The thing that makes me keep opening this thread isn't the original issue, but your (entertaining for the wrong reason) responses, Nik, and at this point it's not a huge stretch of the imagination to imagine the person writing your responses having a drastic knee jerk at the slightest hint of a threat to authority.

If you and your group are happy, keep on trucking the way you've been DMing. No sarcasm. At some point, though, you'll probably find people less tolerant than those you're dealing with, and that may be the point for introspection.

I've read through all of your posts as well as the responses. Unfortunately, there's so much inflammatory material in there and so little worth discussing civilly that anything lengthier than a metaphorical pat on the head accompanied by a "good luck" is difficult to write.

If your group is hard enough up on a DM to need you for a session, more power to you. Unfortunately you're basically showing in spades good justification for the pages of people screaming "Find a new DM!"

Coidzor
2012-02-13, 01:51 AM
Still, nobody's really gonna be impressed with a nerd being able to argue on for a small month about something, I mean other. Lesser debates has gone on for years before.

Why, exactly, are you trying to use nerd as an insult when you're talking about your peers and fellows and so the accusation would fall back upon yourself?


Infact, im gonna go as far as to say you ignored more posts in this thread than I have, and you dont have half the reason I do.

You have no reason to ignore posts in this thread save for a desire to avoid looking into the mirror and considering the veracity of what has been said, and, indeed, every reason to pay as much attention as you can and learn from this experience rather than repeatedly say that you're just fine the way you are while this thread looks you in the eye and replies "on the contrary..."

Nikolaz72
2012-02-13, 02:51 AM
Why, exactly, are you trying to use nerd as an insult when you're talking about your peers and fellows and so the accusation would fall back upon yourself?



You have no reason to ignore posts in this thread save for a desire to avoid looking into the mirror and considering the veracity of what has been said, and, indeed, every reason to pay as much attention as you can and learn from this experience rather than repeatedly say that you're just fine the way you are while this thread looks you in the eye and replies "on the contrary..."

1: Who said it was directed at others? That one was about myself.

2: Yes, I will ignore insults. Just as any sensible person should as those who use insults are petty human beings. As I said before, aslong as my players find nothing wrong with me why should I care what you (The posts im ignoring) are saying if there is so much inflammatory material in there and so little worth discussing civilly.

I've taken advice from several posts in this thread, and a dozen posts on this forum. But certain posts, like 'yours' are not worth the consideration. As you are merely running a repeat arguement and bending my posts as you see fit. Like say, your previous posts. Or the first two sentences of this one.



If your group is hard enough up on a DM to need you for a session, more power to you. Unfortunately you're basically showing in spades good justification for the pages of people screaming "Find a new DM!"

No, for pages people have been misinterpreting my posts and replying to what they saw in said posts /although its not like expecting anything more is reasonable/ and then building on that arguement since page-one /ignoring the opinions of the people actually in the roleplay/. My attempts to mend the situation only serving to give them more posts to bend and use the bended posts to strengthen their aruement. But youknow, we started with -everyone- telling him to get a new DM. And now its only -some-. I think thats a vast improvement whenever you like to recognize it or not.

Knaight
2012-02-13, 02:56 AM
2: Yes, I will ignore insults. Just as any sensible person should as those who use insults are petty human beings. As I said before, aslong as my players find nothing wrong with me why should I care what you (The posts im ignoring) are saying if there is so much inflammatory material in there and so little worth discussing civilly.
Insults and criticism are not synonymous, particularly when the criticism is aimed at an action and the insults towards a person. Moreover, there is a difference between a civil discussion and an echo chamber, and it centers primarily around civil discussions actually including criticism of ideas and actions.

Cavelcade
2012-02-13, 02:58 AM
Quite deliberately so, and meant to be thoroughly dismissive of the possibility that Nik has a right to be offended, much less that we ought to respect that he (she?) is offended because a player in his game asked for advice on a forum and he doesn't like what we're saying. DED really didn't say anything terribly negative about the GM or the game. We, the other posters, did (I do believe I was one of the ones who said "Bail out now", and if I didn't I am now).
Would you prefer the example that I could claim his arrogance in dismissing our concerns and experiences as being intrinsically without worth because they disagree with what he has to say offends me? It doesn't, 'cause I'm honestly really hard to offend, but it's still pretty batty.


Oh, don't get me wrong, their (to avoid any gendered pronouns) dismissal of advice offered in a friendly way and even that offered in a not so friendly way is pretty arrogant. I'm not in favour of the DM on that point.

I don't think that the problem, at least as stated, is that the advice received was negative towards the DM but that the problem was posted here at all, in a public forum. I actually do believe them when they say they dislike that and I do think that isn't unreasonable, though it's also not unreasonable for DED to seek advice from a large group of experience players. It's just a ground on which to make it seem like you're not just saying I'm right you're wrong neener neener neener, which does make negotiation easier.



Clearly you haven't seen an alignment discussion thread here.


Just lol.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-13, 03:17 AM
Oh, don't get me wrong, their (to avoid any gendered pronouns) dismissal of advice offered in a friendly way and even that offered in a not so friendly way--

Understatement of the year, advice delivered in a hostile-way should expect to be dismissed. Advice given in a friendly manner I have taken to heart. But people should not expect someone to be arrogant just because he doesnt change his position completely based on a small group of people on a single forum, who while having experience. Have very likeminded opinions which is probably the reason they are gathered on the same forum to begin with.

If we had to divide it into 4 equal group its something like this.

Friendly Advice (25%)
Slightly Less Friendly Advice (25%)
Unfriendly Advice (25%)
Insult then Advice (25%) (Amongst theese those who dont give advice at all)

Its easy for the first group to be drowned by the others, and its unlikely that the friendly group is even that large, that is sort of the benefit of the doubt for those who were neutral.

Jornophelanthas
2012-02-13, 06:46 AM
"This is the narcissist."

Youknow, I dont really think this warrants much of a reply. That was a smirky insult disguised as advice. You cannot just insult someone then take a step back and give them advice, in the same was as you cant insult someone and then give them a hug, its wierd. And if somebody doesnt take your advice after insulting them, you should probably consider not insulting them.
@Nikolaz72:
This advice was not directed at you, but at the rest of the thread, so I don't expect you to take it. My point to the other posters: It's useless to continue this argument, because nobody will convince anyone of anything. In this, I actually agree with you. It's not meant to insult you, but to dismiss the entire discussion you (and others) keep continuing.

@The rest:
I believe that the main reason Nikolaz72 keeps coming back is to try to change our minds about him, to convince us that it is our fault for deliberately misunderstanding his (flawless) DM-ing vision, and possibly even to wring a collective apology out of this forum. He is turning this thread into a discussion about him, instead of DarkEricDraven's concerns or even his DM-ing style.

@DarkEricDraven:
If you say that the problems have been solved, and you are now enjoying yourself, there is no reason to stop playing in the group. Personally, I would not play with him, but that's in no way an advice for others to do the same.
However, be aware that different people have different styles, so the way Nikolaz72 is playing D&D is not the only way (or even necessarily the best way) people can (and do) play D&D. Perhaps you will like other styles, too, if and when you get around to roleplay with other people. Keep an open mind.

---

This is where I get out of this discussion.

Nikolaz72
2012-02-13, 06:59 AM
@Nikolaz72:
This advice was not directed at you, but at the rest of the thread, so I don't expect you to take it. My point to the other posters: It's useless to continue this argument, because nobody will convince anyone of anything. In this, I actually agree with you. It's not meant to insult you, but to dismiss the entire discussion you (and others) keep continuing.

@The rest:
I believe that the main reason Nikolaz72 keeps coming back is to try to change our minds about him, to convince us that it is our fault for deliberately misunderstanding his (flawless) DM-ing vision, and possibly even to wring a collective apology out of this forum. He is turning this thread into a discussion about him, instead of DarkEricDraven's concerns or even his DM-ing style.

@DarkEricDraven:
If you say that the problems have been solved, and you are now enjoying yourself, there is no reason to stop playing in the group. Personally, I would not play with him, but that's in no way an advice for others to do the same.
However, be aware that different people have different styles, so the way Nikolaz72 is playing D&D is not the only way (or even necessarily the best way) people can (and do) play D&D. Perhaps you will like other styles, too, if and when you get around to roleplay with other people. Keep an open mind.

---

This is where I get out of this discussion.

"(flawless) DM-ing vision" Youknow, the one I tried to argue that people here didnt have, I am saying that I should be able to use another method not because it was flawless but simply because it works, and I wouldnt change it completely just because others saw flaws with it.

"Nikolaz72 is playing D&D is not the only way" Because that is what he has been arguing all along. Actually I had been arguing the opposite but as of now I should just get used to people changing my posts into something else.

Overall I wrote my reason for comming back here, and you know what? You're wrong. Its to convince people that im not a bad person, its because I hate random people on the internet disliking me. Its not because my method of DMing is flawless (Im changing it as I go along, but im not gonna change it on command. And people's 'opinions' and 'suggestions' here are more a 'my way or the highway' than a friendly suggestion or optimistic advice) its simply because I dont want people to see me as a bad person for using another type of DMing. It seems the one who is trying to make me surrender all my opinions and write an apology is them, not I. Because anything less than changing my stance completely would in their eyes be wrong.

Overall: Like a lot of people here you are merely changing what I said to support your arguement, I really dont know what else to say as you abandoned the thread, wish I could do the same really.

Arcran
2012-02-13, 09:16 AM
But nobody would have known who you were if you hadn't posted here, you would have just been "that GM."

The Glyphstone
2012-02-13, 09:35 AM
Overall: Like a lot of people here you are merely changing what I said to support your arguement, I really dont know what else to say as you abandoned the thread, wish I could do the same really.

Why can't you abandon the thread? Every post you make just alienates people further, you've already stated that the RL situation has resolved itself amicably, and you've insistently repeated that you couldn't care even one tiny bit what random people on the internet think about you, so why keep returning to try and sway us?

Tyndmyr
2012-02-13, 09:56 AM
They had a game, and Sir Prick was only supposed to be around till they got where they're going. Logic suggests that they got another tag-along in their last session and its not the same character whatsoever.

That's what my assumption was. I admit, the possibility of the second tag-along being equally bad does exist, and I'm a bit biased towards expecting it based on the first one being bad...but it's not guaranteed to be the same, of course.


Here again, noticed the thread is still alive (Is his plan really to update events as they go on?)

Anyway, to make it clear. I had intended to drop the NPC after -one- session of him ordering them around, although I dont really see a reason to tell players what is and what is not going to happend in the future, Eric has made it clear himself that he doesnt want plot spoiled so I cannot comment when he asks me whenever an NPC is gonna tag along or not.

The NPC travelling with them is 20 years old.

The NPC travelling with them is doing so after being taken in by the two assigned party leaders (A Cleric and a Paladin) So she is by no way a replacement to Adrian as she has an entirely different purpose in the plot than he does. And yea, I do have a story planned out for next game Eric (Did you really expect I didnt?)

But this thread seems to have become -talkaboutwhatshapenninginsidethegame thread- I believe it has outlived its original purpose. Which, even if it wasnt -complain about the DM time- A lot of people here sure made it into one.

I suggest looking at plot as something much less prescriptive. There seems to be fairly little player direction taking place in the plot.

As an example, one of my current groups managed to finagle a squad of gnolls into working for them. This was entirely unplanned, and was a result of them
A. Going through a dungeon in a different order than originally intended(multiple entrances/exits).
B. Killing the gnolls boss before encountering the gnolls.
C. Managing to safely talk with the gnolls.
D. Bribing the hell out of them.

Now, the gnolls have since been the source of much hilarity and RP, but a small squad of henchmen was something never really written into the plot, and if I'd constrained player actions and directed them along what I considered the proper path to be, such unexpected benefits would never have happened.

It's true that there's a bit more work required to enable this, but the payoff is definitely worthwhile. The same is true of adjusting the game to suit player preferences. Fun, happy players make for a vastly more enjoyable game for you, and they will contribute much better things to the plot. After all, if you wanted to write a plot entirely by yourself, you'd just write a book, right? The entire point of getting a group together is the collaboration. Everyone's a part of the plot.

(also, thanks, all of you, for the kind words)

Edited to add in the following response.

I know this type of person from personal experience. I used to work for one, and it did not end well.

- This type of person discounts the opinions of others, because he/she believes himself/herself to be much better at knowing other people's opinions (and what's good for them) than those other people do themselves.

- If someone disagrees with him/her, he/she believes that this person simply does not comprehend the his/her brilliant vision.

- People who will persist in disagreeing with him/her, are perceived as destructive forces who actively seek to harm or discredit him/her.

- This type of person tends to be preoccupied with status.

- He/she considers himself/herself an authority on absolutely everything. (e.g. "I don't need to listen to the doctor's advice, because I know my own body a lot better.") It's one-way communication, all sending and no receiving.

- He/she seeks to surround himself/herself with yes-men, who look up to him/her and agree with everything he/she says. If any of these followers stop agreeing, he/she considers them "a disappointment", and tends to cut off contact with them.

- The more you try to convince such a person of anything, the less likely this person is to take the advice. Because being convinced by someone else runs counter to their own self-image as someone who always knows best.

- He/she believes he/she never makes mistakes. If something goes wrong, it's always someone else's fault. This person will NEVER admit being wrong about anything.

- Despite all these negative traits, such a person usually has above-average charisma and social skills, and is quite capable of attracting people to his/her vision.

This is the narcissist.

This isn't really narcissistic as such, though there's a certain correlation. You're looking at sociopathy, there. I hesitate to bring up the term, because of all the connotations, but that's the label you're looking for. That said, I'm certainly not qualified to diagnose people, most definitely not based on forum posts over the internet, but if our DM here is interested in a few tips on things like being more approachable, it wouldn't go amiss. It is...unusual to have people in this forum so strongly fall on one side of any disagreement. Usually, someone can posts that monks beat up wizards, and at least a few people will happily jump on the topic, at least for a good argument.

If virtually everyone is disagreeing with you, it's a good sign that either you are in fact wrong, or at a minimum, are not stating your argument well.

DarkEricDraven
2012-02-13, 12:01 PM
So, Nik said he's gonna leave the thread. I think it's for the best. He's a little hurt by the insults, and I feel bad about that, especially considering that he doesn't come off bad to me. I think you guys both are equally wrong or right. I consider him a friend, and see the issue that led to this thread as a miscommunication. I have confidence Nik will be a great DM in time.

Fallbot
2012-02-13, 01:46 PM
My love of a good forum drama aside, that's probably for the best.

Were he to return with a different attitude, I'm sure he'd be welcomed back and find the Playground an invaluable resource for a new GM. Or any GM come to that.

mcv
2012-02-14, 11:11 AM
And you misuse the word -extreme- The paladin will stick around for long, although being a part of the game odesnt mean a part of the party, he is gonna be a big deal, although not for the next many sessions. I never gave him the picture that he should leave the campaign and he never wanted to leave and as such I didnt have to convince him not to leave?
Here's a quote from Eric early in this thread:

So, I spoke to the GM, first about why the two kicked members would wish to rejoin the party at all, considering nothing world shattering had happened yet, and second about Sir Prick. I'm going to talk to the rogue, and if he decides his girl wouldn't join, neither would mine.

About the paladin, he said that he'll lead the party for as long as he sees fit. Which somewhat worries me, but if my halfling doesn't rejoin, my backup character has a personality that shouldn't clash so much.
Sounds to me like he's seriously considering making a new character, because his current character has little reason to rejoin the other characters, and doesn't want to ever deal with that paladin again.


Im generally confident in my players ability to read what I have planned for the next 10 minutes
But are you able to read what they want from the game? Is it your story or is it their story? I still haven't seen anything that suggests the PCs are anything more than supporting cast. I hope that's just a misunderstanding on my part.

But it looks like you and Eric talked it out and he's happy to be in the group again, so I guess the problem has been solved. I hope the rest of the campaign goes well, and I wish both of you a lot of unexpected cool plot twists.