Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lord Zardoz" data-source="post: 4046454" data-attributes="member: 704">Well, the post was half sarcasm.&nbsp; 'Less Mature' should be read as being anything but.&nbsp; As for the rest.I disagree.&nbsp; If neither if you will back down, this has the virtue of being very direct.&nbsp; Something about the game is a deal breaker for you.&nbsp; If it keeps happening, you do not play.&nbsp; For the player, you make your point, and everyone will know where you stand.&nbsp; For the DM, at least he is not dealing with a player who complains all the time and disrupts the game for the entire session.&nbsp; You do disrupt whatever is going on at that point, but the rest of the game will proceed just fine unless the game is too short handed to keep running.&nbsp; If the DM no longer wants you back, you do not come back.I assume by that point you have told the DM you do not like the presence of the DMPC.&nbsp; You told him you do not want it there.&nbsp; If the NPC wont leave, and your not prepared to leave the game, what other choices do you have?&nbsp; One of the things I learned early on as a DM is that you do not saddle your players with an NPC they do not want.&nbsp; Also, I am not suggesting a Coup-de-Grace on the NPC as it sleeps.&nbsp; You tell Mary Sue to pack her crap and leave, and then if she does not, you threaten violence.&nbsp; If she still wont go, time to throw down.&nbsp; If the DM refused to back down and your rolling initiative, then things are bad enough that no out of game conversation will fix it.&nbsp; At best, you will force a discussion at the table, and deal with it once and for all.&nbsp; At worst, you get the pleasure of at least attempting to kill the source of your annoyance, and know you ought to find a new game.&nbsp; Yes, it is.&nbsp; But by this point, you are unhappy and you have already either tried or ruled out probably every other mature option you have.&nbsp; Your not willing to take a walk, and you cannot get the DM to change his mind.&nbsp; This approach is essentially a desperate attempt to create some leverage so you can bargain with your DM.&nbsp; But at least this way, you are not disrupting the plot of the game, and you are staying within the rules of the game.&nbsp; I would say it is much less passive and a lot more aggressive.&nbsp; As above, if your at this point, your not really interested in being mature anyway.&nbsp; It does have a few benefits though.&nbsp; For one, you are at least creating your own fun.&nbsp; This is not something I would advocate unless you have the other players on board with you.&nbsp; Essentially, it is an outright player revolt handled in game.&nbsp; Done right, you basically run the train right off the rails, and force the DM to adapt to the players.&nbsp; At the worst case, you get a one or two games out of the DM that are fun, even if they are fun for the wrong reasons.&nbsp; The DM will no longer be having any fun himself (My beautiful, epic story, in ruins!), and then the game will come to an end when the DM gives up, allowing someone else to take over the DM'ing tasks.END COMMUNICATION</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lord Zardoz, post: 4046454, member: 704"] Well, the post was half sarcasm. 'Less Mature' should be read as being anything but. As for the rest. I disagree. If neither if you will back down, this has the virtue of being very direct. Something about the game is a deal breaker for you. If it keeps happening, you do not play. For the player, you make your point, and everyone will know where you stand. For the DM, at least he is not dealing with a player who complains all the time and disrupts the game for the entire session. You do disrupt whatever is going on at that point, but the rest of the game will proceed just fine unless the game is too short handed to keep running. If the DM no longer wants you back, you do not come back. I assume by that point you have told the DM you do not like the presence of the DMPC. You told him you do not want it there. If the NPC wont leave, and your not prepared to leave the game, what other choices do you have? One of the things I learned early on as a DM is that you do not saddle your players with an NPC they do not want. Also, I am not suggesting a Coup-de-Grace on the NPC as it sleeps. You tell Mary Sue to pack her crap and leave, and then if she does not, you threaten violence. If she still wont go, time to throw down. If the DM refused to back down and your rolling initiative, then things are bad enough that no out of game conversation will fix it. At best, you will force a discussion at the table, and deal with it once and for all. At worst, you get the pleasure of at least attempting to kill the source of your annoyance, and know you ought to find a new game. Yes, it is. But by this point, you are unhappy and you have already either tried or ruled out probably every other mature option you have. Your not willing to take a walk, and you cannot get the DM to change his mind. This approach is essentially a desperate attempt to create some leverage so you can bargain with your DM. But at least this way, you are not disrupting the plot of the game, and you are staying within the rules of the game. I would say it is much less passive and a lot more aggressive. As above, if your at this point, your not really interested in being mature anyway. It does have a few benefits though. For one, you are at least creating your own fun. This is not something I would advocate unless you have the other players on board with you. Essentially, it is an outright player revolt handled in game. Done right, you basically run the train right off the rails, and force the DM to adapt to the players. At the worst case, you get a one or two games out of the DM that are fun, even if they are fun for the wrong reasons. The DM will no longer be having any fun himself (My beautiful, epic story, in ruins!), and then the game will come to an end when the DM gives up, allowing someone else to take over the DM'ing tasks. END COMMUNICATION [/QUOTE]

Verification