I killed our campaign

[Elder-Basilisk]

From the sounds of things, the problem is allowing PCs to play non-standard races without properly considering how their abilities will impact the dungeon. Given a pixie with Otto's Irresistable Dance, and a wereboar cohort in the party (natural rather than afflicted, I presume), single monsters will never be a threat to the party unless they are somehow immune to compulsions (undead, constructs, spell resistance, mind blank, or special ability) and no creature that deals melee damage will operate at its normal threat rating either (doubly so if it does lots of attacks rather than one big attack). DR 10/silver is FAR more useful for a PC/cohort than for a monster.

Allowing any combo of WotC classes and feats probably plays a role too, but from the get go, a pixie using Otto's irresistable dance is going to knock the campaign out of whack.

Anyone who tries to tell me how to play my character or run my game gets turfed fast.

As for the chimera fight...wtf?!?
I assume you're talking about Anguish. He is normally a tough fight, but not a fatal kind of critter. Now his twin, Madness, is nastier.

But even 9th level characters not even breaking a sweat?!

Did your DM just hand you magic left and right? Were you allowed to use every d20 book in ever printed?

Eh, doesn't matter. Just so long as you have more fun than not.

As for the rest of it, I have to say, I sympathize with the rest of the players and think you came off like a jerk even in your retelling of the story. I mean come on, you manage call "Shenanigans" on another player because their character doesn't have the Int to come up with something and then tell HIM to stop playing other peoples' characters in the same breath! It sounds like you're the one who's trying to play someone else's character to me. I'm sure there's a long and sad story about what went on before this and how this put you over the edge, but saying "your character doesn't have the int to think of that... hey, play your own character" could be in the dictionary under hypocrisy.

And using my God's name as a swear word--even if abbreviated--doesn't exactly help your case either.

The PC's INT was not that high and he played his character as a very dim-witted farmer boy turned cleric. I called "Shenanigans!" on him because it was also very out of character for his PC to do something like that (make a deal with someone and then suddenly look for a way out of it). As I said above, when I pointed out that his PC was not smart enough to think of the logic, he just said, "But his PC is" (pointing to another player)--which is an entirely different problem (running someone else's PC). That led to my outburst. I mean, JFC, if he wants to run every ing PC, just let me know and I won't bother showing up.

 

[BASHMAN]

Wow.. There is a great article in Issue #2 of the Crusader Magazine that might help. It is now required reading at my gaming table for any new player to join.

The gist is that metagaming and table-talk can ruin a good thing. Spending 5 minutes discussing every action you take with other players whose characters may not even be in the room really takes away from the experience, and slows down play to a snail's crawl.

Likewise, persistently arguing with the DM over every petty little thing totally derails the game. If we let rules lawyers take over our game, we are essentially giving up the right to use things as a plot device. If we cannot use plot devices, we are switching from role-playing to roll-playing, and I would rather just play a videogame if that be the case (at least then you don't ruin the fun by arguing with a computer that doesn't talk back).

Honestly, the title of this post should not be "I killed our campaign" it should be "rules lawyering and bickering killed our campaign". Or, a more optimistic spin may have been, "I Euthanized our campaign" because you just saved yourself, the DM, and everyone at that table who was there to have fun (not just to win or argue like it was their job) a lot of time and frustration.

Something that might help would be if DMs were more firm with whining players. If someone has a rules-lawyery issue for me, that is fine- pass me a note, or talk to me after game, but don't you dare take my game hostage or you will be shown the door. An attitude like that might prevent future breakdowns.

Since you are the Dm next time, I recomend that you first bring these issues up with the other players BEFORE even making characters. Make sure that these policies are well known before. That way, if a player starts causing a problem, you can just say, "please feel free to play with us as long as you are not causing a problem with the flow of the story".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean come on, you manage call "Shenanigans" on another player because their character doesn't have the Int to come up with something and then tell HIM to stop playing other peoples' characters in the same breath!

Hey, in my game group, that's fair.

If you (the player) are doing something with your PC that your PC can't do, ANYONE can point this out, not just the DM.

In the case of something involving INT like this, it could be that lucky flash of insight that anyone can have- as when Kirk (not Spock) asked "Why does God need a starship?" or the like. If so, then the DM usually lets it go or has the player make some kind of roll to see if that PC actually did have this momentary flash of brilliance.

If not, usually, that chance of a "flash" goes to another PC.

However, if the PC is totally dimwitted, and the player is going all "Sherlock Holmes, Genius Detective" in his proof, then AT BEST, the PC gets a "funny feeling" - not a grand reveal.

As for talking about how the other player runs everyone else's PCs- that depends on the nature of the behavior you're discussing. Is he telling players to do things like a leader would ("Go over there and provide covering fire"), or is he correcting them out of game ("C'mon- despite the description, we all know its a Troll- you KNOW Wiglaf should do cast Flaming Sphere, so do it!")?

The first is allowable, the latter is not.

If he has a problem with being smart and playing a dumb PC while someone not as crafty is playing a super genius, one way to handle it is to have the DM step in and consider whether that smarter PC might have suspicions based on the logic of the situation. Another way we've handled ultra-smart PCs in the past is to allow metagaming tabletalk to reflect the Genius PC's thought processes when such a situation arises.

But I have NO problem with telling someone who is playing a certain character type that he's not being true to the PC. It has real in-game consequences, like potential alignment drift or possibly the first sign of a doppelganger in the party.

 

[Graf]

If you have freaky bad players you just need to work them out of the group. They will be bad in any setting till they get their psycological issues under control.

 

[KRT]

The power of the character is not the problem. The DMing is not a problem. The problem is that one player is doing something that makes at least one other player's experience not enjoyable. Calling that player Cheese Weasil does not properly address the problem, in fact frames it more in the sense of a joke. It may actually encourage even greater levels of that behaviour. He may strive for Lord of the Cheese weasils. I think that even his behaviour was not the only issue, just the most annoying one. You need to talk to the DM and then he needs to talk to the players about the challenge level of the campaign. Does the party want a campaign that is more dangerous and that contains very real risk to the characters, or not? Once this is determined then each player needs to decide if this is the kind of campaign that they want to play in. If not they need to find a more suited campaign. The second problem is the challenging the DM in regards to rules. The DM has final say, even when its clearly against a rule. The DM has final say and bears responsibility for it. If its a campaign ender then so be it. Forcing a DM to follow a ruleslawyering will not fix anything but the momentary situation and makes for a bad precedent.

I tend to be a bit of a rules lawyer myself, however I give my interpretations of a ruling and support it with whatever sources I know and then let the DM decide ("this is my interpretation of rule X and its supported by such and such an article on the WoTC site, however it doesn't mean its the only possible way to run this situation. I will follow whatever your ruling is."). So cheese weasil needs to tone it down or learn to back off once he's had his moment and the DM rules on it. He needs to be told his behaviour is not welcome by both DM and players. And it needs to be done in a way that doesn't provoke defensiveness and resentment.

I saw a similar thing on this thread with the interchange between you and Doomed Battalions. And if this was a campaign and group I wanted to stay with I would have addressed Doomed Battalions about easing up a bit and trying to be a bit more helpful/constructive in the situation.

 

[D_Sinclair]

*latest example: In the WLD game, we have a bowl of water elemental summoning. You get better monsters with salt water. He claims we should be able to put a piece of food (e.g., beef jerky) in the water and have salt water (since the jerky is salty) and, thus, be able to conjure a much stronger elemental. The DM said no. I (player of the PC with the bowl) said no. And he whined so much that the DM finally said, "Yes" (just to shut him up). But I still refused to do it.

Hmmm... a new d20M monster... a beef bowl elemental, conjured by a mage utilizing a big bowl of beef ramen ordered from the lunch specials menu of the nearest ramen shop... Coming to wreak havoc on an inner city shopping district near you!