NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8006063" data-attributes="member: 7016699">That's not unreasonable, though as with TRPGs it might depend on table culture, things like how chatty the players are, how well they know the game, the extent to which the game is an excuse to socialize. Some players just play more slowly than others, too. In a competitive game, there might be some gamesmanship involved in pacing your play, as well, though how acceptable that is seems like a table convention (probably not formal enough to be a rule).So, that DM was clearly a bad DM. I don't get the feeling the OP is. Should you stick in a campaign that is as stifling as you describe? Probably not. Should you allow your fellow players to finish a scene, even if you think it's maybe running a little long? Probably--if there's a pacing problem, or if the campaign is focusing too much on an aspect of the game you don't enjoy, you should take it up with the GM (and maybe your fellow players), before crapping on their fun. Courtesy is a form of thoughtfulness; the player's discourtesy is why I described this play as "thoughtless" above.Per the OP:I do not know the adventure any better than you do. Nor do I know how the OP went about conveying that to the PCs. I don't know what the intent of the PCs who were negotiating was. The OP says it was going pretty well--which implies progress was happening, at least in some direction--before the "probably bored" player started insulting the ruler. I don't see anything about "severely punished dissent" that implies "tolerates being insulted." Frankly, he sounds as though he's the sort of weak ruler who'd overreact to any little thing--and even if being insulted is a little thing, being physically assaulted is not.Maybe the OP misunderstood the adventure; maybe not. I don't get the feeling the OP was invested in the setting in the way "setting solitaire play" implies.As to the GM sticking to an image formed in his mind ... isn't that a big part of what the GM is supposed to do, at least in a game like D&D? Isn't the DM supposed to have the scene in his mind and convey that to the players? Isn't the DM supposed to have the NPCs in his head and convey those to the players, and have them react to the PCs according to their natures (shaped by whatever mechanics come into play)? If the players don't understand something, that's on the DM, sure, but I don't see why trying to have the world behave at least plausibly is going to interfere with the players playing their characters, following and eventually achieving their goals.I'm not sure having a character behave according to his nature can fairly be described as "resorting to violence."Yes, getting players to surrender is hard. The player who attacked the ruler when he called for the guards at least wasn't behaving unreasonably, and it sounds as though there were some interesting and tense moments as the other two players talked their way out of the ruler's chambers. And the king's guards didn't kill anyone in that moment--that wouldn't have been an execution. There were two players looking at execution, and two that weren't.I guess it seems to me as though you're willing to throw the GM under the bus, here, while I figure the players (or at least one specific player) to be more the problem, in this specific instance; and that the problem is probably more among the players than between the players and the GM.</blockquote>

Verification