Do you think that it's alright for a DM to do this?
- Thread starter blackshirt5
- Start date
Arthur Tealeaf
First Post
I rarely do things like that, but it happens...
Last session, I did it... The characters were just back from an incredibly taxing 3 day expedition into the swamp, all wounded, tired, hadn't gotten much rest. First thing that happens, before they even get to sit down, they discover they city is under siege by evil inquisitors and they have to break into a jail to rescue an important NPC. And then the storm breaks out. They are noe trying to find somewhere to stay, as their previous home is no longer safe from the inquisition. Now, they get through the city, to a possible hideout. The important NPC has to clear a few things up with the owner of the hideout, and asks the PCs to go relax in a tavern which is two minutes away, and he will come get them in a short while when things are settled. Now, the first thing one player tells me is this: He wants to walk through half the city, alone, in the storm, avoiding the inquisition, while wounded and tired, to visit a few stores! To buy a longbow, and find out if his weapon is magical! I said no. Why? Because he had no explanation at all to why his character would do it! He came up with "ehm...maybe I'll need the bow tonight", even though he already carried a shortbow! He also knew the shops he wanted to go to were probably all closed too, with the storm, and late time of day, but no, he persisted! I still don't understand why he wanted to do it, knowing he could do it next morning, and he also knew the important NPC would probably come get them before he was back! I saw it as bad roleplaying, and didn't allow it. It actually felt kind of good!
Last session, I did it... The characters were just back from an incredibly taxing 3 day expedition into the swamp, all wounded, tired, hadn't gotten much rest. First thing that happens, before they even get to sit down, they discover they city is under siege by evil inquisitors and they have to break into a jail to rescue an important NPC. And then the storm breaks out. They are noe trying to find somewhere to stay, as their previous home is no longer safe from the inquisition. Now, they get through the city, to a possible hideout. The important NPC has to clear a few things up with the owner of the hideout, and asks the PCs to go relax in a tavern which is two minutes away, and he will come get them in a short while when things are settled. Now, the first thing one player tells me is this: He wants to walk through half the city, alone, in the storm, avoiding the inquisition, while wounded and tired, to visit a few stores! To buy a longbow, and find out if his weapon is magical! I said no. Why? Because he had no explanation at all to why his character would do it! He came up with "ehm...maybe I'll need the bow tonight", even though he already carried a shortbow! He also knew the shops he wanted to go to were probably all closed too, with the storm, and late time of day, but no, he persisted! I still don't understand why he wanted to do it, knowing he could do it next morning, and he also knew the important NPC would probably come get them before he was back! I saw it as bad roleplaying, and didn't allow it. It actually felt kind of good!
David Argall
First Post
maybe..
This midnight wandering looks to be bad rollplay, but bad roleplay? On the evidence at hand, it could be entirely in character. The character would be impulsive, not very prone to thinking things out, into instant gradification over later rewards, and likely not too sane, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that describes the player too.
Now on rollplay grounds of not wanting to deal with a split party, you might justify forbidding the action, but it's not that easy to justify it on poor roleplay grounds.
[And the fact we disagree here is a good reason to be very careful about forbidding anything as out of character.]
This midnight wandering looks to be bad rollplay, but bad roleplay? On the evidence at hand, it could be entirely in character. The character would be impulsive, not very prone to thinking things out, into instant gradification over later rewards, and likely not too sane, but I wouldn't be too surprised if that describes the player too.
Now on rollplay grounds of not wanting to deal with a split party, you might justify forbidding the action, but it's not that easy to justify it on poor roleplay grounds.
[And the fact we disagree here is a good reason to be very careful about forbidding anything as out of character.]
Arthur Tealeaf
First Post
Re: maybe..
I totally agree! But the fact was, this character wasn't like that! And the player never came up with an exscuse like that either! He just insisted on doing it, and never gave any RP reasons, like the ones you came up with!
David Argall said:
I totally agree! But the fact was, this character wasn't like that! And the player never came up with an exscuse like that either! He just insisted on doing it, and never gave any RP reasons, like the ones you came up with!
Enceladus
First Post
One of my older players wanted a name like Dick Fitzwell for his character.
As a DM the answer was most definetly no. I do not tolerate silly, stupid names in my game. However if the name is tastefully humorous and lighthearted thats cool. Its one thing for the DM to be telling you what to do, thats wrong. But you have to be careful that your name or whatever isn't spitting in the face of the hard work the DM is doing to put together the adventure.
As a DM the answer was most definetly no. I do not tolerate silly, stupid names in my game. However if the name is tastefully humorous and lighthearted thats cool. Its one thing for the DM to be telling you what to do, thats wrong. But you have to be careful that your name or whatever isn't spitting in the face of the hard work the DM is doing to put together the adventure.
Pielorinho
Iron Fist of Pelor
Arthur, that's adifficult situation you describe, but I do think that I would've let the character go out if the player really, really wanted to. First I would've made sure the player understood what was going on:
"Uh, you can go out if you want. But all the stores you've passed have been boarded up, and there's a tremendous thunderstorm out, and there are these inquisitors wandering the street who seem to be looking for someone to imprison and torture, and even if you find a shop to purchase a bow, you don't know if you can get back to the tavern in time. Your character would give himself less than even odds of ending the night outside of prison. Are you sure you want to do this?"
If the player wants to do this after you've given him your best warning, go for it: character motivations are strange, and sometimes foolish choices lead to good scenes. You could give the character the opportunity to make several hide checks to avoid the inquisitors, and if he fails, you get a fun chase scene through the streets. If he gets captured, the other PCs have to figure out what happened and decide whether to risk a rescue attempt. If they don't risk a rescue attempt, you get to shrug apologetically at the player of the foolish character and hand him 3d6.
Daniel
"Uh, you can go out if you want. But all the stores you've passed have been boarded up, and there's a tremendous thunderstorm out, and there are these inquisitors wandering the street who seem to be looking for someone to imprison and torture, and even if you find a shop to purchase a bow, you don't know if you can get back to the tavern in time. Your character would give himself less than even odds of ending the night outside of prison. Are you sure you want to do this?"
If the player wants to do this after you've given him your best warning, go for it: character motivations are strange, and sometimes foolish choices lead to good scenes. You could give the character the opportunity to make several hide checks to avoid the inquisitors, and if he fails, you get a fun chase scene through the streets. If he gets captured, the other PCs have to figure out what happened and decide whether to risk a rescue attempt. If they don't risk a rescue attempt, you get to shrug apologetically at the player of the foolish character and hand him 3d6.
Daniel
Numion
First Post
Re: Re: Do you think that it's alright for a DM to do this?
So, in your opinion it would be ok for your character to invent, say, banking in his world, because you (as a player) know how it works but it hasn't been invented in his world? how about stock exchange? Steam engines? Even if your character had an int 6?
All those things are doable in fantasy worlds, but DMs might prefer not to change their worlds just because one character likes to use OOC knowledge. These examples are just to show that total control of the character is not with the player, necessarily.
Emiricol said:
So, in your opinion it would be ok for your character to invent, say, banking in his world, because you (as a player) know how it works but it hasn't been invented in his world? how about stock exchange? Steam engines? Even if your character had an int 6?
All those things are doable in fantasy worlds, but DMs might prefer not to change their worlds just because one character likes to use OOC knowledge. These examples are just to show that total control of the character is not with the player, necessarily.
Last edited:
Arthur Tealeaf
First Post
Pielorinho said:
He did get those warnings! And it might have worked if he had any strange motivations, but he didn't! But, when you put it like that, with the shrugging, and the 3d6... Well, I almost wish I let him do it... Well, at least now I didn't lose the flow in the game, and the next week or so (in game) there will be plenty of opportunities to do stupid things!
