Attacked on introduction?

[Agent Oracle]

Wait, is this the group that you joined after you left the other one that had the over controlling DM?

Yes and no. It's another group. I'm currently in two groups. I DID get away from the evil, overcontrolling DM (From their messageboards, it looks like they're still about three months from level 11, even if he did start upping the EXP rewards after I left.)

When I was weighing my options about leaving that bad group, I met with a GM at a local game store and He told me that they would be having a game on saturday nights. Then, I met two other players in search of a GM who could play thursdays. So, I finalized my decision and dumped the bad group, and started playing with the new groups. The first one said that they were interested in Feng Shui, and played it a bit, but then changed their mind and decided they wanted to play Dragonstar (d20 in space) instead, So I came here looking for quick Sci-fi scoops and got them (thanks tons for that by the way)

I met with the other group for the first time last saturday night, where the above described event occured. So I'm a DM in one session, and a Player in another. Good times.

Hmmm... two back to back incidents with two separate groups where eveything that happened to you was everyone elses fault. I think I'm beginning to see a trend here.

(shrugs) Sometimes you have to kiss a few frogs... Honestly, you are only getting my side of the story. I could post confidential E-mails from the first group, but I'm not that kind of a gamer. I come here to kvetch about my problems because I know that I'm "Protected" by the anonynimity of the internet. Even if any player who has wronged me stumbled upon this, they would be free to justify themselves and accuse me of whatever I've done.

If it helps any, the group where I'm DMing has some real great players, and they are making up character backstories and details, and roleplaying in addition to seeking out adventure. I think they've hit the balance of combat and non-combat right on the nose. I'm quite proud of them, but really didn't want to be the GM for a group.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Many heroes have formed long-term friendships with those they first met in combat.

And how many times has that happened in a roleplaying game when PCs fought?

Over 28 years of gaming, I've seen about 20 infraparty combats. Of those I can recall, 2 resulted in a player leaving the group over hard feelings, 3 resulted in PC fatalities, 4 campaigns imploded due to non-game reasons, so the matter was unresolved.

The remaining 11 resolved into solid party dynamics, if not actual PC friendships.

A couple of years ago, I almost initiated one of my own- something I've only done once before (and that one was completely within character, scenario & genre). However the player running the PC I was going to attack ticked off the DM...who ended the campaign. (THAT one would have ended in PC fatality, one way or the other, though.)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

As somebody mentioned upthread D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game. The OP is both right and wrong in his reaction. He is right to be appalled by the immaturity, rules ignorance, and even rudeness of the other player. "Your character doesn't believe my character." That is a pathetic excuse - and it IS just an excuse - to initiatiate intra-party violence. There is no real justification for it. SO WHAT if you WANT your PC to be egotistical. The game is STILL one of cooperation. That means that YOU, the player, YOU are responsible, indeed OBLIGATED to attempt to find a less obnoxious means of having your character portray that egotism than simply attacking another PC. Moreso when the player has chosen an alignment (LG) that would suggest that there is VASTLY more substantial motivation required for such an action than "Your character superficially bruised my characters ego".

The OP's response is thus understandable. It was not, however, appropriate since the same rule still applies to HIM, despite the poor behavior on the part of the other player. The better response would be to ACTIVELY SEEK a way to encourage the other player to stop being a jerk and find a means of your two characters to reach an accomodation so that play can resume.

It's like choosing CE as your characters alignment when you know there is already a paladin or LG PC in the party. Do so and you're just being a jerk for no justifiable reason. You're roleplaying by ambush - attempting to artificially generate some form of disruptive amusement for oneself by baiting another player to have his PC react strongly - and then attempting to excuse it with "I was just roleplaying my character!" when the fault is ELECTING to not choose a compatible alignment in the first place knowing such disruption is inevitable. The game at this point (just beginning a new campaign) should NOT be about reflexively opposing other PC's but the exact opposite - reflexively COOPERATING with other PC's. If there is to be any genuine roleplaying-based PC vs. PC conflict let it be after play has MUCH better established the true personalities of all the characters and MEANINGFUL in-game opposition results and is NOT disruptive by being opposition for its own sake.

Furthermore the DM must be made aware of HIS failure. The offending player should have been cautioned by the DM regarding his unwarranted choice to be disruptive, as well as to grossly ignore his chosen alignment. Of course that assumes that the DM is particularly aware of his responsibilities in this regard and has an idea of both why such players must be made to toe the line and how to guide them to be better players, not just submissive ones. I applaud the OP's choice to take the high road, go back to the group and lead by example. Hope it works out for you. But don't think that taking the high road means you have to just tolerate that sort of crap.

 

[Keifer113]

.



Wow, that's harsh. I guess you don't like roleplayers. I'm going back to the group to see if I can take this kid in under my wing. Get him some familiarity with backstorys and roleplaying for it's own reward.

No offense, , don't take this as an attack or a start of a flamewar, but IMHO you are very inexperienced at role playing and gaming in general. I think his reaction was harsh. I think yours was somewhat appropriate.

But having gamed three sessions with you, I suggest you find another good game club and get alot more experience at playing and concentrating on your own RPGing skills before you try and take someone under your wing. You might bite off more then you can chew.

 

[Keifer113]

Yes and no. It's another group. I'm currently in two groups. I DID get away from the evil, overcontrolling DM (From their messageboards, it looks like they're still about three months from level 11, even if he did start upping the EXP rewards after I left.)



(shrugs) Sometimes you have to kiss a few frogs... Honestly, you are only getting my side of the story. I could post confidential E-mails from the first group, but I'm not that kind of a gamer. I come here to kvetch about my problems because I know that I'm "Protected" by the anonynimity of the internet. Even if any player who has wronged me stumbled upon this, they would be free to justify themselves and accuse me of whatever I've done.

If it helps any, the group where I'm DMing has some real great players, and they are making up character backstories and details, and roleplaying in addition to seeking out adventure. I think they've hit the balance of combat and non-combat right on the nose. I'm quite proud of them, but really didn't want to be the GM for a group.

May I ask why you are so keyed up on being able to level up quickly? You never replied to my statements about why I slowed down advancement. Is leveling up quickly that important to you? Do you feel that your character is not a good one even without magic items? Why is it important for you to be able to buy and pick your own magic items? Do you feel a DM owes you the items you want/need?

These are legitimate questions. I'd like to know to get some perspective on things.

If you don't answer on here, I'll probably run into you at the FLGS in Towson when I am up there with my other gaming buds.

Good luck.

 

[Yair]

As somebody mentioned upthread D&D is supposed to be a cooperative game. The OP is both right and wrong in his reaction. He is right to be appalled by the immaturity, rules ignorance, and even rudeness of the other player. "Your character doesn't believe my character." That is a pathetic excuse - and it IS just an excuse - to initiatiate intra-party violence. There is no real justification for it. SO WHAT if you WANT your PC to be egotistical. The game is STILL one of cooperation. That means that YOU, the player, YOU are responsible, indeed OBLIGATED to attempt to find a less obnoxious means of having your character portray that egotism than simply attacking another PC. Moreso when the player has chosen an alignment (LG) that would suggest that there is VASTLY more substantial motivation required for such an action than "Your character superficially bruised my characters ego".

The OP's response is thus understandable. It was not, however, appropriate since the same rule still applies to HIM, despite the poor behavior on the part of the other player. The better response would be to ACTIVELY SEEK a way to encourage the other player to stop being a jerk and find a means of your two characters to reach an accomodation so that play can resume.

It's like choosing CE as your characters alignment when you know there is already a paladin or LG PC in the party. Do so and you're just being a jerk for no justifiable reason. You're roleplaying by ambush - attempting to artificially generate some form of disruptive amusement for oneself by baiting another player to have his PC react strongly - and then attempting to excuse it with "I was just roleplaying my character!" when the fault is ELECTING to not choose a compatible alignment in the first place knowing such disruption is inevitable. The game at this point (just beginning a new campaign) should NOT be about reflexively opposing other PC's but the exact opposite - reflexively COOPERATING with other PC's. If there is to be any genuine roleplaying-based PC vs. PC conflict let it be after play has MUCH better established the true personalities of all the characters and MEANINGFUL in-game opposition results and is NOT disruptive by being opposition for its own sake.

Furthermore the DM must be made aware of HIS failure. The offending player should have been cautioned by the DM regarding his unwarranted choice to be disruptive, as well as to grossly ignore his chosen alignment. Of course that assumes that the DM is particularly aware of his responsibilities in this regard and has an idea of both why such players must be made to toe the line and how to guide them to be better players, not just submissive ones. I applaud the OP's choice to take the high road, go back to the group and lead by example. Hope it works out for you. But don't think that taking the high road means you have to just tolerate that sort of crap.

QFT

This is a metagame problem, and should have been handled on the metagame level. Unlike KB I would be happy to let the OP into my game, what he did wasn't offensive or annoying or anything. I just don't think it was the best way to handle the situation.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

So, the kid is frustrated because his character doesn't know what a questing beast is, and that makes it okay for him to try to go for the kill? What? How does that make sense? Ever? Do your characters attack other individuals if they have reasonably trivial information or beliefs that your character doesn't share?