Getting kicked out of the party

[Delwugor]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Sidmen]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

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

[Nikolaz72]

Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

Let's hope the 'game' works out, DED. 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]

Yup, our 'suspicions' are 'confirmed'.

Let's hope the 'game' works out, DED. 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]

I can't "help" it, I just "went" on a "binge" of "Darths And Droids". It's a "hilarious" "comic" and you "really" should "read" it if you "haven't" already.

[DarkEricDraven]

Oh, I "have". It's one of the "things" that got me into "roleplaying" in the "first place".

[Zorg]

By the sounds of things GM of the Rings would be a more approprite "comparison"...

[Cavelcade]

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]

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]

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]

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Nikolaz72]

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

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]

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]

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]

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.