So, I was in this game... (Gosh, how many begin like that?)
- Thread starter Afgncaapvaljean
- Start date
Afgncaapvaljean
First Post
hong said:
I was indeed quite pleased that I was let back in, and in a number of ways, he was very good to me. It was the rather arbitrary way of getting rid of me that pissed me off. If I was bothering him that much, he shoulda told me.
Let's be civil....
What exactly do posters like Hardhead think they're adding to the conversation by simply calling the DM a moron? As I said before, it DOES make sense that the DM has a plan for this campaign and it is possible that the rest of the group is enjoying it.
Let's look at it from the perspective of the DM, or even the other players. You've been a member of the group. You were not happy about the concept, but did agree to grudgingly go along with it for the sake of the game. The DM compensated by eliminating the multiclass penalty in acknowledgement of your dislike for your character's new direction. Then you vanish for a while and the game, I'm assuming, hums merrilly along. When you come back you revisit the rogue issue that the DM thinks has been resolved and take an action that may drastically alter the course of his planned campaign and ruin what could have been hours of his work. Granted it would have been better fo the DM to handle this less confrontationally, but I can see his annoyance - at least in principle. I wholeheartedly agree that he should have had a better means of expressing his displeasure than the seemingly arbitrary column of fire, but the player should also have done a better job of discussing his issues with the campaign's direction.
I guess my take is that if the DM insists on running a campaign centered around a thieves' guild and the player doesn't want to play one then the player should find a new game and the DM should recruit new players. Please leave the namecalling out of it. After all, we ARE supposed to be having fun.
What exactly do posters like Hardhead think they're adding to the conversation by simply calling the DM a moron? As I said before, it DOES make sense that the DM has a plan for this campaign and it is possible that the rest of the group is enjoying it.
Let's look at it from the perspective of the DM, or even the other players. You've been a member of the group. You were not happy about the concept, but did agree to grudgingly go along with it for the sake of the game. The DM compensated by eliminating the multiclass penalty in acknowledgement of your dislike for your character's new direction. Then you vanish for a while and the game, I'm assuming, hums merrilly along. When you come back you revisit the rogue issue that the DM thinks has been resolved and take an action that may drastically alter the course of his planned campaign and ruin what could have been hours of his work. Granted it would have been better fo the DM to handle this less confrontationally, but I can see his annoyance - at least in principle. I wholeheartedly agree that he should have had a better means of expressing his displeasure than the seemingly arbitrary column of fire, but the player should also have done a better job of discussing his issues with the campaign's direction.
I guess my take is that if the DM insists on running a campaign centered around a thieves' guild and the player doesn't want to play one then the player should find a new game and the DM should recruit new players. Please leave the namecalling out of it. After all, we ARE supposed to be having fun.
Krail Stromquism
First Post
So, that is sweet!!
Not only does he not come up with a personal connection for your character to even be interested in a theives guild but he kills you when your PC does what they would really do!! I love it!
If your DM cant engage their PCs into doing stuff or 'following' a storyline, then you know what? They shouldnt be a DM!
no seriously, how is this person? Im guessing not a day over 13. Thats just a guess. Im just wondering.
Seriously how old are they?
Real consequences are more appropriate for dealing with PCs. Im against the Flame Strikes and Platinum Dragons taking them out. Do it by the book. Hunt them down, drag them back to the city dungeon and let them rot. A fantastic end is abrupt and still 'fantastic'. does that make any sense?
anyhow
Not only does he not come up with a personal connection for your character to even be interested in a theives guild but he kills you when your PC does what they would really do!! I love it!
If your DM cant engage their PCs into doing stuff or 'following' a storyline, then you know what? They shouldnt be a DM!
no seriously, how is this person? Im guessing not a day over 13. Thats just a guess. Im just wondering.
Seriously how old are they?
Real consequences are more appropriate for dealing with PCs. Im against the Flame Strikes and Platinum Dragons taking them out. Do it by the book. Hunt them down, drag them back to the city dungeon and let them rot. A fantastic end is abrupt and still 'fantastic'. does that make any sense?
anyhow
Last edited:
BSF
Explorer
Czhorat said:
I agree with you to an extent. However, this appears to be a case where the DM introduced that element after the campaign was underway.
As a player, I would have to think real hard about the DM dictating to me that I must take a level of Rogue if I am already a Druid. I would probably offer to swap characters out for one that fits the campaign style better, if I was interested in staying in the game. Of course, I might also decide that I need to find a new group.
Ad a DM, I would stop and think real hard before I dictated how an established character should be developed. If I knew the campaign was going in a specific direction, and I could see that a particular character might not fit very well, I would probably discuss it with the player. I would let them know that I am getting ready to move in that direction, offer my thoughts on why the character might be less fun to play under those circumstances, offer any thoughts I have on how we could refactor the character, or allow a new character to be brought in.
And if I sensed that there might be problems with several characters, I would either hold off on that idea, or discuss it with all the players. I try to keep all my players happy and having fun. I don't bow to their every desire, but I will work with them to try to make the game fun for everyone involved.
heimdall
Dwarven Guardian
I agree that the manner in which he geeked your character was uncalled for.
I have run themed games on occasion but I have always made it a point to inform potential players right up front. For instance, under 2E I ran a game where all members of the group were wizards... a bunch of apprentices who had just been released into the world by their mentors. We had a great time, but the players knew up front the kind of character they'd have to build. We even had a player who usually played nothing but a fighter or ranger join in and he loved playing a full-blown spellcaster for the first time. I can imagine how he would have reacted if I hadn't told him. But because I did he was willing to give it a chance and I know he was glad he did.
I'd say shrug it off, don't let it bother you any more. Find a new DM or perhaps start a game yourself. As others have said, he probably worked very hard on his theme and he either doesn't know how to or doesn't want to drift from it. If it's the former hopefully he'll learn and if it is the latter then you probably didn't want to stick around anyway.
I have run themed games on occasion but I have always made it a point to inform potential players right up front. For instance, under 2E I ran a game where all members of the group were wizards... a bunch of apprentices who had just been released into the world by their mentors. We had a great time, but the players knew up front the kind of character they'd have to build. We even had a player who usually played nothing but a fighter or ranger join in and he loved playing a full-blown spellcaster for the first time. I can imagine how he would have reacted if I hadn't told him. But because I did he was willing to give it a chance and I know he was glad he did.
I'd say shrug it off, don't let it bother you any more. Find a new DM or perhaps start a game yourself. As others have said, he probably worked very hard on his theme and he either doesn't know how to or doesn't want to drift from it. If it's the former hopefully he'll learn and if it is the latter then you probably didn't want to stick around anyway.
Last edited:
Well, at this point, the best bet would probably be to leave the game. It's what he wants (but won't tell you), and it gives you the opportunity to find another DM who won't screw you around. You could try to repair the relationship, but that would take a lot of work and you don't have any guarantee he'll listen.Afgncaapvaljean said:
coyote6
Adventurer
Is this DM a friend, or just "the guy that GMs"? If he's a friend, it might be worth talking to him. Otherwise, I'd say look for a new group.
And, if/when you find one, try to make a character that fits in easily with the group, and try learning the rules that are particularly important for your particular character.
And, if/when you find one, try to make a character that fits in easily with the group, and try learning the rules that are particularly important for your particular character.
Kastil
Explorer
Perhaps another thing that could have been done, assuming this game was fun before the 'incident', is ask to roll another character for this stage of the game. No player should have to conform their character in a manner they have not chosen. The druid goes home to hug a few trees and enter naughty rogue type.
::shrugs::
I certainly wouldn't 'force' my players to take a level of anything. In fact, I always let them play what they want. Granted, I don't map my campaign front to back because 'The Law of the Monkey Wrench' has happened to many times. A plan B is always an option when I DM. Telling the players 'they can't do that!' or just tossing a keg of oil of their characters and making smores isn't the way to have game harmony.
I think game harmony should run both ways. After all, we're all gamers out to have fun, right? If it's no fun then it's time to get the hell out of Dodge.
Note to self> proof read, you git!
::shrugs::
I certainly wouldn't 'force' my players to take a level of anything. In fact, I always let them play what they want. Granted, I don't map my campaign front to back because 'The Law of the Monkey Wrench' has happened to many times. A plan B is always an option when I DM. Telling the players 'they can't do that!' or just tossing a keg of oil of their characters and making smores isn't the way to have game harmony.
I think game harmony should run both ways. After all, we're all gamers out to have fun, right? If it's no fun then it's time to get the hell out of Dodge.
Note to self> proof read, you git!
Last edited:
Similar Threads
