Attacked on introduction?

[Land Outcast]

BTW: my opinion:

Stick with the group, but look out for the kid's attitude.

Be warned: Given that here where I live groups are almost impossible to come across I would think long and through before leaving a group.
Only one gamestore linked somehow with RPGs... (no, no rocket propelled grenades, we are talking about Vampire: The Masquerade mostly) in the city, principal city of the country... start getting the picture?

 

[librarius_arcana]

Some of you guys are pretty kind hearted. I'd like to be as well but if some player has their character attack mine, I'd forget the dice and attack the player - verbally of course.

Na, if he wants to do something stupid in the game, let him deal with it in the game


it will give him more to think about,

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I understand what you're saying, but where I sit the character is a conduit to the player. If my character is getting stick from another character I'm either dealing with a player that made a uncooperative character or the player has it in for my character's player (me). Either way the player is at fault and my response is to short cut past the character to the source. It's been my experience that forcing a 'discussion' on disruptive play immediately rectifies the situation pronto either way.

 

[MarkB]

The nit-picky rules stuff:

Pet NPC grapples him. I can't attack a hempless foe, so I tell the NPC to let the wizard go, since he insulted my honor and attacked my person. The DM botches his next opposed grapple roll, and the wizard gets free, and

A grappled character is not considered Helpless by game-mechanics rules. Even a pinned character is not Helpless. Since the knight's code works off game mechanics, you can attack him without penalty. I believe you could still have attacked him non-lethally even if he were helpless, but I can understand your reluctance to use non-lethal damage against such a character.

He draws a wand of magic missiles, and then casts mage armor on himself. (which, I just realized is two standard actions)

Actually, retrieving a stored item is a move action, but it does provoke an AoO unless the item is easily accessible (such as in a belt sheath).

I ask if he will yeild. He casts Sleep on me. Knights have great will saves, so I pass mine easily.

An oft-overlooked limitation of sleep is its one round casting time. You'd have been able to attack him again before he completed the spell just before his next initiative, forcing a Concentration check.

And I guess the only real lesson to be taken away here, apart from "playing with strangers can be frustrating", is that if someone's banned from the local gaming store, it's worth having a quiet word with the proprietor to find out why before you consider letting him into the game.

 

[librarius_arcana]

I understand what you're saying, but where I sit the character is a conduit to the player. If my character is getting stick from another character I'm either dealing with a player that made a uncooperative character or the player has it in for my character's player (me). Either way the player is at fault and my response is to short cut past the character to the source. It's been my experience that forcing a 'discussion' on disruptive play immediately rectifies the situation pronto either way.

I understand that completely,

and it can be tough not to react that way, but if he wronged you within the game, it's only fair and with your rights to address that balance within the game,

I think that long term it would give him far more to ponder

 

[boolean]

-If seperated from him, it poofs back into his hands.

And if his hands are separated from him?

 

[Kahuna Burger]

While the kid seems immature, he is, well, a kid. So that's to be expected. What I can't figure is why everyone is holding the OP blameless in the situation.

I mean his character concept is that he gullible, a lunatic or a gullible lunatic. Dressed in aurthurian myth or not the core of his character concept is that he suffers from a delusion. He doesn't bother to explain this to any of the other players, apparently because he prides himself on his roleplaying. When he reveals his delusion, the DM asks for a know nature check. (not know history, sense motive, know nobility or anything that might allow him to give the other player some hint of what is going on.) His character defends his delusion, becoming more extremely delusional, rather than give the kid a break and step out of character for a moment to explain what is going on in the conversation. No, "the fine art of staying in character" requires that he continue to act in a completely irrational manner.

Wow, what a shock that the kid got frustrated and just went for PVP. :\

I wouldn't have either the kid or the OP at my table based on this story.

 

[Henry]

...I'm just sorry most of our game time was taken up by a poorly-concieved player.

Hey, leave his parents' motivations out of it!

 

[librarius_arcana]

While the kid seems immature, he is, well, a kid. So that's to be expected. What I can't figure is why everyone is holding the OP blameless in the situation.

I mean his character concept is that he gullible, a lunatic or a gullible lunatic. Dressed in aurthurian myth or not the core of his character concept is that he suffers from a delusion. He doesn't bother to explain this to any of the other players, apparently because he prides himself on his roleplaying. When he reveals his delusion, the DM asks for a know nature check. (not know history, sense motive, know nobility or anything that might allow him to give the other player some hint of what is going on.) His character defends his delusion, becoming more extremely delusional, rather than give the kid a break and step out of character for a moment to explain what is going on in the conversation. No, "the fine art of staying in character" requires that he continue to act in a completely irrational manner.

Wow, what a shock that the kid got frustrated and just went for PVP. :\

I wouldn't have either the kid or the OP at my table based on this story.

What? dude did we read the same post?

That nut job (mister gotocheckyououtwhileyougo ) attacked him....

And hey theirs no shame in "the fine art of staying in character" I think he was more than mercful in letting his character live

 

[Yair]

What? dude did we read the same post?

That nut job (mister gotocheckyououtwhileyougo ) attacked him....

And hey theirs no shame in "the fine art of staying in character" I think he was more than mercful in letting his character live

So you think it is an adult and conductive response to remain in character and engage in intra-party conflict? Without discussing such matters in advance, or taking a time-off for a metagame discussion?

I don't. I agree that the OP could have handled the problem better.