[Rant] Oh. My. God. He said no!

[Fenes 2]

Can't stress that too much: Talk about what you expect from your game, both as a player and a DM. Tell the DM what kind of game, and what kind of adventures you like and dislike - nothing worse than constructing a dungeon crawl for a group that - like me - does prefer court intrigue and comedy, or preparing a grand battle for a group that would prefer to solve all battles with a couple of rolls and narrative.

 

[Moe Ronalds]

Kill him, take his stuff.

--Sam L-L

You don't happen to be an adventurer do you?

 

[jasper]

gee Bob sounds like the mature players I used to play with when I was twenty. Sounds like some of people I currently play with.
If you can Boot Bob after talking to him. It does not matter if Bob brought in 3 great players and introduce you to your wife.

I recently told my players the kid gloves are off. After playing for over two years once a month I assume they have read the PHB, and I allow raises to be purchased from the local cleric.

Jasper, I appreciate the attempt at humor, but this crosses the line a little too far for these forums. Please e-mail me if you wish to discuss. - Henry

 

[WizarDru]

As always, tales such as these need to be considered with an obvious grain of salt. That said, Pardoxish has commented several times, and has not come across as a poor DM. His level of concern about the events of the game indicate to me that he's a fairly considerate DM.

His description of his player's behavior certainly seems to illustrate a lack of maturity. This has nothing to do with his age, although he may grow more mature with time. To me, one of the most telling pieces of information is this:

Originally posted by Paradoxish:
He refused to play until I brought their characters back, even though they were already making new characters and just wanted to get on with the game.

In other words, "Bob" was more upset at the deaths of the other characters than their players were. We can infer from the discussion that this was either (a) a low-magic game or (b) a relativley low level game; this from the fact that death is considered so permanent. It also sounds like "Bob" is more upset that he was wrong than he is at the turn of events...most likely taking the situation as either an affront to him personally or assuming that Paradoxish set out to spite him, after he told the others that they 'couldn't die'.

How culpable Paradoxish is depends on the cirumstances we don't know, such as how the game has run in the past, what the player's expectations were and their previous experience. It's a DM's job to compensate for situations, to present the players with a generally fair experience. This doesn't mean always presenting them with a winnable battle...it means giving them the chance to realize they're outclassed, and pull out. With 3E, one can no longer assume that all kobolds are weak, pathetic creatures. Is it an ogre...or an half-dragon ogre zombie with three levels of barbarian? Personally, I wouldn't want to play in a game where the dice are fudged more than once in a while. Character death should be a part of the game...especially in 3E, where death has little lasting effects. If there's no risk, we might as well be playing 'Once upon a time' (a good game, btw).

It's quite possible that "Bob" made assumptions that were valid, but we can't know either way. What we can know is that "Bob" has a history of telling the DM that he disagrees with his rulings, and that "Bob" is more concerned about having his way than playing the game. If the other players, who arguably would have been more aggreived, are perfectly ready to create new characters and dive right in, what exactly is "Bob" protesting? Bob appears to have or perceive an adverserial relationship with the DM.

What can you do about it? That depends on you, "Bob", and the other players. First step? Discuss the situation with the other players. See if you WERE in the wrong. How did they percieve this situation. Even if you didn't intend to, they may also believe you acted out of spite, and not just that they were outmatched. If they didn't, then you know the problem may be with "Bob" alone.

DON'T be afraid to change the timeline, if you think that the game will benefit. This doesn't require a complete reversal...but a few simple changes could make it more palatable. Perhaps the victors didn't actually kill the fallen characters...and then decide to crucify them as an example, allowing them to be rescued. Perhaps they strip the characters and release them to be hunted by their wolves, and the others need to save them.

On the other hand, if the guy's a jackass: let him know that, as DM, you're trying to make the game fun for everyone, and if he doesn't enjoy the game, he needs to decide for himself what to do. For your part, you have to decide what makes the game fun for you and ALL the players, not just him. If his only role is creating malcontent within the game, ask him to leave or buck up like the other players. Nothing wakes a party up like the firm knowledge that death is a very real possibility. If he thinks that the party has script immunity, then he needs to realize that isn't the case, or find a game that feels the same way he does. If he really wants that kind of game, he needs to go find one of his own. A different play style is fine, but it won't mesh with your game.

 

[Shadow64]

Edited. -Henry

I don't know whether to be scared or save that plan for my own group...

 

[Voadam]

Fifteen minutes later the party is almost completely wasted. No one is dead or at 0 hit points, but they're all very close. They decide it's time to run, but "Bob" (in an amazingly blatant act of metagaming) convinces the rest of the group that I'd never let them die here and they turn back into the fight. In a few rounds two of them are dead, Bob runs, and the two who are left take off after him. The two who are dead obviously blame Bob and they get into an argument and finally Bob turns to me and tells me that their characters aren't dead, they can't be, it's not their fault. I told him that if he wanted to trade places with them he could (sacrificing his character for theirs). His answer?

"No. And they're not dead either. Nobody's dead."

It was the most immature moment I've ever seen in an RPG session. He refused to play until I brought their characters back, even though they were already making new characters and just wanted to get on with the game. I had to end the game there because of this - all I could say is that we needed to take a break and we'll resolve it next time. And it's not even like "Bob" is a particularly young gamer... he's not, he's twenty.

At the point where Bob said that you'd never let them die, that was your cue to say "Bob, that is incorrect, characters can die in this game." I would have been doubled over laughing if a PC said to another one that I wouldn't "let" them die.

I think it was a mistake to offer to sacrifice his character for theirs, how is that going to happen in game? Divine intervention? Time reversal.

His response of "Nobody's dead." should have been met with "Yes they are. That's the end of it."

Talk to these other players and have them make new characters before the next game so you can play again wasting as little game time as possible getting them back in the game.

If arguments come up in game again state: "I'm the DM, This is my ruling now, if you need to argue with me we can talk after the game."

I wouldn't boot Bob, I'd state what the situation is, end the argument, and get back to the game. If Bob keeps arguing, keep telling him to save it for after the game, then talk to him after the game.

 

[Forrester]

Bob sounds like an ass -- I'm not sure why some folks on here (a minority, to be sure) are encouraging you to "leave it up to the group" or "give him another chance". He sounds like 100% wanker -- at best, a stern talking-to is going to reduce that to 50% wanker. At best.

Boot 'im!

 

[Numion]

As I play with a group of friends, booting is never an option for me, and neither would I recommend it to anyone else. People can change. Rather discuss with this player, in the groups presence, about what this game is about. Characters can die.

While this guy seemingly has no excuse for being an ass, you probably shouldn't have offered him to exchange places with the two deceased PCs. That just opened the door to reversing incidents within the game. You don't want that with that ass.

 

[Leopold]

The two who are dead obviously blame Bob and they get into an argument and finally Bob turns to me and tells me that their characters aren't dead, they can't be, it's not their fault

I SO love it when players accuse the DM of killing their PC's. I laugh so hard it makes me cry, I weep sometimes with the pain as I laugh. With everytime they say that I say "No I don't kill your PC's YOU kill your PC's!" and then i continue cackling.

The sad part is thus: You have options, you have choices, you DONT HAVE TO KILL EVERYTHING THAT MOVES!!!! I've finnally gotten that across some of my players and forced them to run away several times, it paid off for them, they survived while the foolish stood and fell. Such is life, such is why the gods gave them brains to use them...

 

[Dinkeldog]

*snip*If I've got a point it's this: ever since then I've tried to work very closely with any players I've got to establish, up front and at the very beginning of the campaign, just what kind of game it is that we're playing. That way there can't be any misunderstandings. It's something you may have to do from now on as well...

Just wanted to put this through again as it says exactly what I would.