-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 3E/3.5 Character in conflict with DM - RP question
- Thread starter Greenfield
- Start date
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Yea, that's a bad sign. Railroad-y DM's don't usually stop railroading without getting their hands firmly slapped (and often not even then). If he isn't listening to deliberate feedback (and you're being explicit in the sense of "Listen, you're making my character do things I haven't agreed to, and that's not cool"), than you need to be directly oppositional in game, to make it clear that he's put you on a railroad. If that fails, you might need to have a group discussion about retaining him as a DM (and/or retaining your residence as a place to play).
I've seen shared campaigns before, and IME they only end well with clear rules established at the beginning. Obviously that's not the case here, so you need to talk with the group. Assuming you're the only one who's had another DM screw with their character, I'd suggest axing the character and starting again with another one from your same region. If others have the same problem, you might want to consider rebooting the entire campaign. I have no idea what the other DMs are thinking, but trying to have a cohesive character plot split among several DMs just won't work without collaboration, which is against the spirit of this type of campaign.
For this particular type of campaign, the best method I would suggest is the following:
For this particular type of campaign, the best method I would suggest is the following:
- Each Player/DM designs their own character and the region they're from.
- The DM uses their turn as DM to expand the background and story of their character to the others by exploring the region they're from.
- DM's may only expand the backstory of another PC after they've already run (so they have at least some understanding of the background), and only with the player's permission.
- They can have odd plot points occur after the background. The DM who had the wealthy family assassinated is perfectly fine, because presumably this is a plot point for the adventure (someone manipulating the party).
Sword of Spirit
Legend
#4, so much #4. Don't just retcon your character either. Think of a few "minor details" about those DM's characters to mess with exactly the way they did with yours.
Then, pause and ask them if this is how the game is supposed to go. Perhaps they smile and say "Yeah! Cool!" If so, they have a very different idea about the game, and you can decide together if you're all on board with it or want to change some stuff.
Probably though, they're going to be a bit unhappy. They now understand how you feel. Now you can tell them you have no intention of actually doing that to their characters, but it is exactly what you feel like they've done to yours. You don't want to be a jerk here, so use your DM powers for good and declare that you'd like the group to spend the rest of the session figuring out some clearer rules about who is allowed to define what about the campaign and other people's characters.
And do let us know how it goes. Hopefully it will work out, but if it doesn't you might want to politely ask to sit this particular campaign out. If you're playing with friends you still want to game with, let them know you are totally on board for the next one, but your assumptions about this one were different, and you don't think they mesh well with the reality.
Then, pause and ask them if this is how the game is supposed to go. Perhaps they smile and say "Yeah! Cool!" If so, they have a very different idea about the game, and you can decide together if you're all on board with it or want to change some stuff.
Probably though, they're going to be a bit unhappy. They now understand how you feel. Now you can tell them you have no intention of actually doing that to their characters, but it is exactly what you feel like they've done to yours. You don't want to be a jerk here, so use your DM powers for good and declare that you'd like the group to spend the rest of the session figuring out some clearer rules about who is allowed to define what about the campaign and other people's characters.
And do let us know how it goes. Hopefully it will work out, but if it doesn't you might want to politely ask to sit this particular campaign out. If you're playing with friends you still want to game with, let them know you are totally on board for the next one, but your assumptions about this one were different, and you don't think they mesh well with the reality.
Baldurs_Underdark
Hero
Some DMs should just write a book, rather than run a table.
Tbh, you better play several campaigns. Suggest to the smiling guy he convert the original DL Modules, so you can play a railroad campaign and get the other DM for your original story.
I do not want to take sides, there are always two parties in a conflict and both have their point of view.
But from what you told me, your main problem is a guy which is as open to a discussion of his DM style than a wall. You will never convince such people, just take him for the railroad DM he is, and maybe he is a nice guy in other aspects.
Do not escalate this, it will not help you. Even if the whole rest of the group decides to boot him, he still will feel in the right.
I do not like collaborate DMing, there is to much compromise going on, and even with the campaign being focused or heavy into Roleplaying, which I assume is very important for you since you created some extraordinary character with hefty quirks, there is always the danger that one of the DMs has back-knowledge he should not have as a player.
But for your special case it is extremely problematic, players never like to much meddling in their background, as DMs do prefer that players do accept the setting preconditions. A good deal of your characters (reasonable) development comes from some plot elements which imho, should not matter the slightest to the DM nor being taken by them as plot hooks of their own which they can mod as they like.
Killing of the abusive employer is fair game, also tracking the party by some means they not figure out (yet).
It is not ok to come up with things out of the blue to model the PCs Character to the DMs expectations.
I can preselect crunch and some fluff, e.g. system is 3.5.(crunch) and I allow or disallow some character classes (fluff) , and I can rule that e.g. druids learn their special language by a mentor when they reach 3rd level (fluff). But I cannot enforce the character to find that mentor or if he gets found to talk with him, if I want to play out such details, only the player can.
I do not want to take sides, there are always two parties in a conflict and both have their point of view.
But from what you told me, your main problem is a guy which is as open to a discussion of his DM style than a wall. You will never convince such people, just take him for the railroad DM he is, and maybe he is a nice guy in other aspects.
Do not escalate this, it will not help you. Even if the whole rest of the group decides to boot him, he still will feel in the right.
I do not like collaborate DMing, there is to much compromise going on, and even with the campaign being focused or heavy into Roleplaying, which I assume is very important for you since you created some extraordinary character with hefty quirks, there is always the danger that one of the DMs has back-knowledge he should not have as a player.
But for your special case it is extremely problematic, players never like to much meddling in their background, as DMs do prefer that players do accept the setting preconditions. A good deal of your characters (reasonable) development comes from some plot elements which imho, should not matter the slightest to the DM nor being taken by them as plot hooks of their own which they can mod as they like.
Killing of the abusive employer is fair game, also tracking the party by some means they not figure out (yet).
It is not ok to come up with things out of the blue to model the PCs Character to the DMs expectations.
I can preselect crunch and some fluff, e.g. system is 3.5.(crunch) and I allow or disallow some character classes (fluff) , and I can rule that e.g. druids learn their special language by a mentor when they reach 3rd level (fluff). But I cannot enforce the character to find that mentor or if he gets found to talk with him, if I want to play out such details, only the player can.
Greenfield
Adventurer
The funny thing is that we've been playing shared campaigns for literally decades. This is the first time it's gone off the rails.
Normally we talk about setting beforehand, and come to some agreement on house rules, which books are in use, campaign goals and so forth. This time, nothing. We're kind of working those things out in play, which makes it bloody hard to plan anything, in terms of our own characters.
So I don't know if it's the campaign setting or what but this is getting to the no-fun zone. I may not have to quit, but something should change.
Normally we talk about setting beforehand, and come to some agreement on house rules, which books are in use, campaign goals and so forth. This time, nothing. We're kind of working those things out in play, which makes it bloody hard to plan anything, in terms of our own characters.
So I don't know if it's the campaign setting or what but this is getting to the no-fun zone. I may not have to quit, but something should change.
I would feel similar pain as the OP.
The rational part of my brain would say "Talk it out, it's the adult thing to do". Everything else would say "Drop the PC, it's not worth continuing even if the other DMs agreed the situation went overboard."
Noting the two positions are not mutually exclusive, I'd retire the PC and tell people why if they asked. The next PC would be a young rogue / whatever with exactly zero potential hooks -- since the group has proven unable to handle them appropriately.
The rational part of my brain would say "Talk it out, it's the adult thing to do". Everything else would say "Drop the PC, it's not worth continuing even if the other DMs agreed the situation went overboard."
Noting the two positions are not mutually exclusive, I'd retire the PC and tell people why if they asked. The next PC would be a young rogue / whatever with exactly zero potential hooks -- since the group has proven unable to handle them appropriately.
The Green Hermit
Hero
In that case, I would ask for a group meeting at the next gaming session, postponing the game for a session (but not taking over the DM's turn). Let people know what your issues are beforehand, so they can have a chance to plan out their arguments as well.
Also, in this discussion, make sure to mention what you feel has worked in the past. If, as you have said, you guys have done this for decades, it should be a solvable situation.
dave2008
Legend
@Greenfield have you thought about how your going to proceed?
Similar Threads
