Queen_Dopplepopolis
First Post
Hand of Evil said:
Profound, Hand of Evil. Profound AND true.
*swipes line, places in signature*
Don't hate the playa, hate the game
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
Profound, Hand of Evil. Profound AND true.
*swipes line, places in signature*
LostSoul
Adventurer
Quasqueton said:
If the game didn't make sense to you - whose fault is that? The DM should have dropped some hints: "Yes, that was very strange. How did they find you so easily?" Instead, you took it at face value, and from that perspective it was a poorly designed adventure.
But what reason did the DM give you to think about it?
If you want the players to go on board with you when you don't give them anything, you've got to have their trust already. When you've played together for a while and the players know what to expect, they'll give you some more slack.
But that doesn't mean you should rely on it.
If you want the players to get something out of the adventure, you should give it to them. In your example, you didn't get anything from the DM that would lead you to believe that the adventure was nothing less than a ham-fisted plot.
Of course, a good player will take what he sees as a poor adventure and try and make it good. He wonders aloud why the King sends 1st-level characters on an important mission. Then maybe the DM will retroactively make some kind of change to the adventure.
diaglo
Adventurer
Darkness said:
not all that stange really.
i know most people can. but some really can't.
they think the DM or the other player is just out to get them.
Ryan (Angelsboi) had a hard time turning off his roleplay. And had to ask other players sometimes if it was too much or making them uncomfortable.
it was interesting when we had a new player, Sean (biorph), join the campaign and the tables turned. Ryan didn't know when Sean was roleplaying or speaking OoC.
to me, it really depends on how immersed the campaign is run.
our current OD&D campaign has some bumps due to some of the players taking it too personally.
Last edited:
Zappo
Explorer
I keep a clear distinction in my mind between the playa and the game... but sometimes, you have to admit that the problem is indeed with the playa. After the 10th time you've got geased into adventure, or after the 10th kleptomaniac rogue made by the same player, one would be justified in having a talk with the player or DM in question.
Kae'Yoss
First Post
Quasqueton said:
Yes, I do. And it works both ways
Well, primarily at the Fire Giant, but the DM might draw some of the fire, too, if he did it for the wrong reasons.
Again, primarily the Priest, but when the DM uses it for pure railroading reasons, and ignores all the aspects of this spell just to get us to do what he wants, I'm angry at the DM. For example, one DM seems to "forget" that the spell has a really long casting time. He was told that it isn't so in the past, but always tries it agian.
That's a good and believable tactic, and the DM might be a rat bastard for it, but they're all supposed to be rat bastards from time to time. No DM fault here.
Depends on the Charakter. If he's the selfish cleptomaniac, I blame the PC. If the PC doesn't have any selfish streaks, or isn't supposed to (because he's an Exalted character, for example), I'm mad at the Player.
No, it isn't a myth. I keep them apart, if the players/DM behave the part, too.
We have the player who wanted to play an exalted character, with the Vow of Poverty (ooo, all those nice bonuses). Later, the character asked me whether I would buy him some spell that could get rid of strength damage and pay his expanses for transcribing it into his spellbook. When I stated that we have two clerics who could cast lesser restoration, he said, it would always be good to have another to do that, and me as the fighter should be interested in keeping my strength up.
I didn't buy it (was saving for some important piece of equipment at the time), but said I was thinking it over.
Later he casually mentioned that he had that exalted spell that he had to sacrifice some of his strength for. It became apparent that he wanted to have that spell to cure himself. So he lied. If it were a CG character with roguish streak without Sacred Vow, I wouldn't have had big problems with it, beside calling the character a weasel. But this came from a supposedly LG Exalted wizard. So I wasn't only angry at the char, but also at the player, who was ignoring his character to get the best deal for him.
Or one of our DMs in a recent game. We were playing evil Ravenloft (not the best idea anyway), and had gestalt characters (offset by a really low distribution of equipment). He apparently found that he coulnd't challenge us, even when he gave the enemies pseudo-equipment and the like. And then, there came one session that was full of railroading and metagaming on the DM's part, all aimed at crippling us and screwing us up:
First, we were to enter a city, and they searched everyone. As I was asking how they did it, planning to use illusions and the like to avoid my weapons being taken away (they weren't of any practical use to my mage/rogue, but they were his family weapons, and no filthy human should touch them, except maybe the pointy end, with his throat), the procedure evolved before my every eyes, as he tried to foil my character's possible attempts to keep the weapons. I might have been too paranoid about that one, but it was only the tip of the iceberg.
Later, we had to get something from a secret headquarter of a secret service-like organization, which was in the basement of a tavern. Our plan was to make the wizard/sorcerer invisible and let him have a look around. As he entered the door, he became visible. We found out pretty quick why that was: The whole building was covered - very neatly - with permanent antimagic fields. No dead-magic zone or something, but antimagic fields. Now you might think that this is a really expensive way to guard your premises - even if AF would be an official choice for permanency (it isn't), this would cost copious amounts of XP - just to keep magical intrusion out. I might add at this point that all but one character relied almost exclusively on magic - druid/cleric, wizard/sorcerer, mage/rogue, psion/something, only the werecat fighter/rogue wasn't overly hampered.
We later also discovered that the field extanded underground as well, so magical intrusion was just impossible.
While we hatched the plan to set the building on fire, we discovered that there was a total of 700ml (around 23 oz) of lamp oil to be had in the whole town. We resolved to go to the forest to rest there and then try something the following day.
In the night, I was having first watch, and saw some big boars wandering around, apparently looking for food. I woke the druid, and he looked at them, he even walked over to talk about them.
At this point he was suddenly subject of a geas/quest spell - out of the blue - that ordered him to go kill our domain lord. The caster apparently could be not only invicible, but also evade our detection (I have spot and listen maxed out and get the elven bonuses - well, it is of no use if I'm not getting to make a check). Also, that command was clearly suicidal (attacking an evil domain lord...), the geas apparently took hold.
Then the boars changed shape - they were giant dire were boars. Of course, not even the druid could get any check or something to even notice that they were no ordinary (dire) animals.
And then, there's the question on how they knew why we are here and what we were about to do (the DM stated that this was a preemptive strike against our attack the following day). Again, none of us got so much as a check to notice someone.
After the fight, which we won despite the odds, the DM just said he doesn't want to play this campaign any more. Now we're starting a new, non-evil campaign, with relatively weak PB and below-average wealth levels, and I'm still not sure whether I still want to play there.
Well I have to admit I did get annoyed with people on the last time I played D&D (actually second session in this campaign) especially after a drawn out argument between players about what we should do. However after thinking about it calmly afterwards I realise this is daft and I won't let it happen again. 
It's easy to mistake characters action and words for the person playing them if their character is basically them in disguise though.
It's easy to mistake characters action and words for the person playing them if their character is basically them in disguise though.
TheEvil
Explorer
I do think trust is the primary issue with most of the PVP and PVGM issues. The character of a trusted friend could steal items out from under the party nose and I wouldn't be overly bothered. If the character of a player I didn't particularly like or trust did the same thing, my blood pressure would rise. For a more extreme example, if said friend's PC hit on my wife's character, no problem. If the guy who hit on my wife had his PC do so....
As far as the GM goes, without the trust of the players, there is nothing. The best example from my experience invovled a GM who was a good storyteller, had interesting NPCs and was good at ad hoc reactions to unexpected PC behavior. He was not well versed in the rules. On the very first session, upon discovering that you could draw a weapon as part of a move, he house ruled that you couldn't because it made the Quickdraw feat worthless. His wife's PC had the Quickdraw feat. She was the only one. I almost decided to quick after that night, but decided to give him another shot. It did make it hard to take him as even handed, and my wife had a particularly hard time trusting his motivations. In the end, I do think he was not being even handed. When my wife's PC was transformed into a lesser vampire spawn, he levied a -4 Dex penalty on her character. This was shortly after his wife commented on how her character with Improved Initiative and 10 dex sometimes had a lower initiative then my wife's 18 dex character.
The point of all this long winded rambling is that players need to base their actions on the level of relationship they have with the other players. GMs need to make sure that the things that happen in the game are within the bounds of the player's trust in him/her. Also, it is probably worthwhile to talk with the players about trusting your calls and that things do actually make sense.
As far as the GM goes, without the trust of the players, there is nothing. The best example from my experience invovled a GM who was a good storyteller, had interesting NPCs and was good at ad hoc reactions to unexpected PC behavior. He was not well versed in the rules. On the very first session, upon discovering that you could draw a weapon as part of a move, he house ruled that you couldn't because it made the Quickdraw feat worthless. His wife's PC had the Quickdraw feat. She was the only one. I almost decided to quick after that night, but decided to give him another shot. It did make it hard to take him as even handed, and my wife had a particularly hard time trusting his motivations. In the end, I do think he was not being even handed. When my wife's PC was transformed into a lesser vampire spawn, he levied a -4 Dex penalty on her character. This was shortly after his wife commented on how her character with Improved Initiative and 10 dex sometimes had a lower initiative then my wife's 18 dex character.
The point of all this long winded rambling is that players need to base their actions on the level of relationship they have with the other players. GMs need to make sure that the things that happen in the game are within the bounds of the player's trust in him/her. Also, it is probably worthwhile to talk with the players about trusting your calls and that things do actually make sense.
Tauric
First Post
Do you differentiate between the DM and the NPCs/monsters/world/plots/etc.?
Yes
Do you differentiate between the Player and the player character?
Yes
Do you get mad at the DM when he breaks your favorite magic sword? Or do you get mad at the fire giant that sundered your character's favorite magic sword?
The giant, unless it happens to every sword.
Do you get mad at the DM when he uses a geas on you to make you go on an adventure? Or do you get mad at the high priest who used a geas on your character to make him go on the adventure?
The DM with this one, because using a spell to compel players to follow your plans is just, well, poor planning.
Do you get mad at the DM when he ambushes you in the night when you aren't prepared? Or do you get mad at the assassin's guild who jumped your character in the night when he/she wasn't prepared?
The assassin's guild, unless it happens every night.
Do you get mad at the Player when he steals the gems from the treasure chest before you could get to it? Or do you get mad at the PC who stole the gems before your character could get to it?
The character, unless it happens with every character of that player.
I try to give others in the group the benefit of the doubt, and not take things personally unless there is a pattern of abuse from DM or players.
Yes
Do you differentiate between the Player and the player character?
Yes
Do you get mad at the DM when he breaks your favorite magic sword? Or do you get mad at the fire giant that sundered your character's favorite magic sword?
The giant, unless it happens to every sword.
Do you get mad at the DM when he uses a geas on you to make you go on an adventure? Or do you get mad at the high priest who used a geas on your character to make him go on the adventure?
The DM with this one, because using a spell to compel players to follow your plans is just, well, poor planning.
Do you get mad at the DM when he ambushes you in the night when you aren't prepared? Or do you get mad at the assassin's guild who jumped your character in the night when he/she wasn't prepared?
The assassin's guild, unless it happens every night.
Do you get mad at the Player when he steals the gems from the treasure chest before you could get to it? Or do you get mad at the PC who stole the gems before your character could get to it?
The character, unless it happens with every character of that player.
I try to give others in the group the benefit of the doubt, and not take things personally unless there is a pattern of abuse from DM or players.
Henry
Autoexreginated
Our group is pretty good about it; our characters may be cursing the gods and wanting to do harm to their sources of vexation, but we are applauding the DM for a turn of events that get us worked up like that.
One minor villain in a D&D game I'm playing is a 13-year-old BOY. The little so-and-so played off our sympathies (well, my character's, specifically), aided and abetted some kidnappers, led us into an ambush, left us to die, and took off as the apprentice to some pirate captain. In-character, I keep threatening to find the little punk, and torture him in ways that would be quite evil. Out of character, I thank the DM for giving me a character worthy of wanting to slap around.
One minor villain in a D&D game I'm playing is a 13-year-old BOY. The little so-and-so played off our sympathies (well, my character's, specifically), aided and abetted some kidnappers, led us into an ambush, left us to die, and took off as the apprentice to some pirate captain. In-character, I keep threatening to find the little punk, and torture him in ways that would be quite evil. Out of character, I thank the DM for giving me a character worthy of wanting to slap around.
Similar Threads
