D&D 3E/3.5 Character in conflict with DM - RP question

[Imaculata]

I have in the past left a game where the DM was too railroady and negated all of our characters and choices completely. But I would only consider it after talking with the DM in question first, and the rest of the group.

So I would advise the latter. Discuss it openly and in a constructive manner with your whole group. In the end, you should all be able to agree on one thing: That having fun is the ultimate goal.

 

[Coroc]

The funny thing is that we've been playing shared campaigns for literally decades.

Well then I do not understand how your problem came up. Maybe this has totally different and unrelated reasons at all in the end?

 

[dave2008]

So I would advise the latter. Discuss it openly and in a constructive manner with your whole group. In the end, you should all be able to agree on one thing: That having fun is the ultimate goal.

@Greenfield I would stress the bold part above. You mentioned that you talked to the DM, but did you do it privately or with the whole group. Normally, I would speak with a DM privately, but this seems like a case were you need to talk it out as a group. It might help convince your DM that the way they are doing things is not the best.

 

[Greenfield]

Small confession: I suffer from recurring depression. That makes me think that playing an extremely bitter and unhappy character is a really bad idea. I mean, I play for the RP, the excapeism of being someone else.

If that "someone else" is as screwed up as I am...

So I'm thinking I have to change PCs, regardless of what comes from my DM dispute.

 

[The Green Hermit]

Small confession: I suffer from recurring depression. That makes me think that playing an extremely bitter and unhappy character is a really bad idea. I mean, I play for the RP, the excapeism of being someone else.

If that "someone else" is as screwed up as I am...

So I'm thinking I have to change PCs, regardless of what comes from my DM dispute.

That makes sense. This character could just be hitting too close to home for you, especially if you tend to immerse yourself in your role.

 

[Imaculata]

That makes sense. This character could just be hitting too close to home for you, especially if you tend to immerse yourself in your role.

This too would be a good thing to discuss with the group. It may be easier to get the DM on the same page, when he understands your reasoning.

 

[Greenfield]

Yeah, I guess "immersion" is a thing for me.

I've had times in games, particularly new systems, where I'll spend 90% of the character creation time coming up with the "person". Numbers and rules are a detail.

For example, we played Alternity, a SCI-Fi game. In that system you're critically short on skill points all the time (the average person has less than a 50% chance of surviving the drive to work, if you use the rules as written.)

You can get extra points, in 2, 4, or 6 point bites, if you take disadvantages. (Note that every PC, and over half of the NPCs I've encountered in that game had mental problems.)

So I'll list the character's limitations, and you tell me if you know this guy:

6 point mental limitation: Obsessed with explosives.
4 point professional limitation: Infamous in Military Intelligence circles.
2 point social limitation - Poor looks, defined as crazy eyes and a tendency to giggle hysterically.

With nothing other than the limitations, I have the person I'll be playing The rest is just numbers. (Oh, and he was fun!!)

That's how I like to create my characters.

 

[Eltab]

Small confession: I suffer from recurring depression. That makes me think that playing an extremely bitter and unhappy character is a really bad idea. I mean, I play for the RP, the escapism of being someone else.

If that "someone else" is as screwed up as I am...

So I'm thinking I have to change PCs, regardless of what comes from my DM dispute.

I agree. Playing a character with a "River of Pain" background is exacerbating your IRL weakness, not helping you build up a strength. How about a character with a positive goal in life - such as: someday I want to have the wherewithal to build my own home, almost a palace? (Druid wants a grove overflowing with fruits, supporting megafauna.)

I think the "You're welcome" slaying of your current character's ex-tormentor was a positive plot hook, unfortunately becoming wrapped in the bigger dispute. It might be something your future character hears about and eventually follows up on.

 

[Imaculata]

As a DM I would never change the backstory of my player's characters. I might involve their background in some way, but I would never make really big changes to who they are. If I do want to throw in some dramatic twist, I would always check with my players if they are okay with this.

 

[Nagol]

I agree. Playing a character with a "River of Pain" background is exacerbating your IRL weakness, not helping you build up a strength. How about a character with a positive goal in life - such as: someday I want to have the wherewithal to build my own home, almost a palace? (Druid wants a grove overflowing with fruits, supporting megafauna.)

I think the "You're welcome" slaying of your current character's ex-tormentor was a positive plot hook, unfortunately becoming wrapped in the bigger dispute. It might be something your future character hears about and eventually follows up on.

I would view the "You're welcome" slaying as a strong frame up and would probably immediately try to leave. Since the PCs can't leave because of plot and the frame up is based on using what was supposed to be background colour, I would be tempted, depending on the group dynamic and other campaign events, to retire the character.

From the description we've been given, the DM is taking a heavy-handed approach to try to get the players/PCs interested in some super-powerful NPC intrigue. That can have upsides if the players need a slap-against-the-head to notice anything. It can have downsides if the players are more observant or skittish.