So I was more or less kicked out of my D&D group

[National Acrobat]

0.

we use "guarding the horses" quite a lot too. I have found that sending uninvolved people out of the room is also a good tactic, a lot of times when we get sent out of the room we end up staying with in character discussions about what we are going to do or what is going on, it makes for a more interesting session than just saying ok you guys don't know this only ________ does. We pass a lot of notes back and forth too.

Yeah, most of the time I have noticed that those who leave the room do stay in character and chat about what is coming up. We had to stop the note writing though, 'cause too many people started the "oh, well I go find__________, because I need to know what is happening." People started thinking they were missing things because of notes. After that started I also had to send players out of the room so folks could talk in character without the meta or OOC issue as well. This system works great.

 

[jdavis]

Wow, this thread is strange. I really wonder why there is so much disagreement. I don't get it. Then again, this is a D&D board...

DarkCrisis, I still think your DM sounds like a two-year-old.

Some hot topics got brought up and a lot of people have different views on just how bad some things are. THere are also a lot of raw feelings by people with past problems in this area. I think everybody has agreed on the fact that the DM was wrong, it's just a disagreement on how bad the things the PC did were. I think the big lesson to be learned here is that communication is vital between the DM and the players, problems should be discussed out of game to make sure everyone is on the same page as to what is expected.

I personally think you should've apologized for flaking out on a session, since he said that was an issue for him.

I have a question on this, I got the impression that the DM never said not showing up was a problem until after he told you not to come back, when you asked him what his problem was. If he said that it would be a problem when you called to cancel that would be different than if he said it was ok when you talked to him on the phone then said it was the problem after everything went down. I guess my question is: "when did he first say that missing a session was a problem?"

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

JDavis, and Drnuncheon, you both make some good points. It really isn't that big of a deal to me, personally. The DM in the example does sound like he is immature. It seems though like some have said, that there is blame to go around. Beyond this, however, it seems that deep down, the two having different playing styles and goals, and therefore clash.

Indeed though, while I don't have a full-blown barbecue every week for ten or twelve hours straight, in running a campaign, I do try and get everyone to commit to showing up on a regular weekly to every other week basis, or the campaign falls apart. I don't really run one-shot beer and pretzel games. My games tend to be story/action/roleplaying intensive, and if a person misses a game they've missed a lot. If they can only show up once a month, then they aren't going to be in the campaign. Nothing personal by any means--either they can show up for the game or they can't. If they can't, then I am certainly not going to build and plan a campaign around them. They can be relegated to the "Play casually whenever" category.

I'm not saying these are the specifics here, obviously, just discussing some of my general philosophy.

LOL! Hey Daniel, we agree entirely on something! Imagine that!

I hope DC finds a group that suits him better.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Janos Audron]

I've read through all of the replies here (I don't know how, but I did it)...

First, with all the facts that DC gave us, of course the DM is the one to blame and he is a jerk jadada. Let me say that again. With all the facts DC gave us, of course the DM is the one to blame. I do not think there can be any doubt about that.

Second, there might be another side to this story. But we don't know it, so it's all guessing and it doesn't really add anything...well, except discussion.

Third, DC, from what you told us, you weren't really enjoying yourself. OOC talk, a 'useless' character etc. so why *do* you refuse to let this end?

Finally, and this is what irritates me most, is that you keep whining throughout seven pages. Honestly, after four of your posts, I really did get the hint that the decicion was unfair and that the DM was a vengeful SOB. But you just go on and on and on portraying yourself as the victem, and that should stop sometime. Your fith and further posts just seemed like: "Look at me! I'm being wronged! Pity me!"

All that can be said has been said, don't you think: 1) I support you. The DM was a jerk. Good riddance. 2) Damn, that was a bad call of the DM. But if you still wanna play, maybe you should talk to him and reach a compromise? 3) You suck DC for ignoring the DM and skimming a book and calling off. The DM was soooooooo right to boot you!

IME on these boards there are always people who disagree with you. Guess why a discussion about piracy never lasted? Different values. Same here, some people, SHARK is the one I remember, think you should always pay attention, while other people, Sixchan I believe, are a bit more loose. I think you are never going to get everyone to agree with you, so why bother...

 

[mythago]

All that can be said has been said

Then...why are you posting?

If you have an opinion, great; share it. If you would rather not listen to everyone dissecting it, great; click on through to the other threads.

But it's rather silly to wander into a thread just to tell everyone to shut up already because you're tired of the subject. Is someone making you read the thread at gunpoint? Are you a moderator?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Actually Jan I was trying to Defend myself.

I actually am glad to be out of the game

 

[boschdevil]

If you have groups where people cancel on the fly just because they don't feel like it, expect people not to be at your sessions on a regular basis. If it is acceptable to read during your sessions, don't be surprised if very few people are paying attention when you DM. Your group is really what you all as a group make of it. However, my experience is that groups usually like to take in people who will be there at a regular basis and will pay attention to the game. D&D is different than barbeque or tea in the sense that you don't need other people to hold a barbeque or have tea. It is pretty hard to play D&D by yourself. For it to be an effective game, you really do need to depend on people showing up on a regular basis.

 

[jdavis]

Greetings!

JDavis, and Drnuncheon, you both make some good points. It really isn't that big of a deal to me, personally. The DM in the example does sound like he is immature. It seems though like some have said, that there is blame to go around. Beyond this, however, it seems that deep down, the two having different playing styles and goals, and therefore clash.

Indeed though, while I don't have a full-blown barbecue every week for ten or twelve hours straight, in running a campaign, I do try and get everyone to commit to showing up on a regular weekly to every other week basis, or the campaign falls apart. I don't really run one-shot beer and pretzel games. My games tend to be story/action/roleplaying intensive, and if a person misses a game they've missed a lot. If they can only show up once a month, then they aren't going to be in the campaign. Nothing personal by any means--either they can show up for the game or they can't. If they can't, then I am certainly not going to build and plan a campaign around them. They can be relegated to the "Play casually whenever" category.

I'm not saying these are the specifics here, obviously, just discussing some of my general philosophy.

LOL! Hey Daniel, we agree entirely on something! Imagine that!

I hope DC finds a group that suits him better.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I truly wish I could play in a serious campaign, it's funny but I wish I could take it serious and game a story rich setting where you can never miss or you will be missing out on something. I am in no way arguing against serious play I'm just keeping a open and wide view of things. Too many blanket statements were thrown around, I think that everybody agrees that D&D is played by a wide variety of people. It just seemed that there was a lot of personal problems to what is minor offenses (skimming a book once is a minor offense even in the most serious game it was only done once and it was apologized for. Missing a game once is a minor offense too heck it should be expected, if he missed regularly I would of not opened my mouth, but it only happened once and he even called ahead to cancel, that is a minor offense.) I view killing a character off while the player wasn't there a pretty serious offense by a DM and kicking somebody out is a major move to make, I know other people have had problems with other players before but I didn't see where you could place other bad players guilt into this situation, The worst thing you can apply to the actions of the PC was "gee why did you keep playing as long as you did?" I feel there is something we are missing here, but we won't get the DM's side to the story, I figure that he had a grudge for some reason, the only other reason I can think of for this is that he is a grade A jerk. I would never side with the DM regardless of what his side turned out to be due to the fact that he chose to solve his problems by abusing the power of a DM rather than talking about it, heck I would have more sympathy for the DM if he had asked to take it ouside and fight it out. I don't think it can be stated enough "people have to communicate with each other" this goes for outside of D&D too, but man how can you play D&D at all if you can't communicate with each other on any level beyond killing characters off.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Yeah, most of the time I have noticed that those who leave the room do stay in character and chat about what is coming up. We had to stop the note writing though, 'cause too many people started the "oh, well I go find__________, because I need to know what is happening." People started thinking they were missing things because of notes. After that started I also had to send players out of the room so folks could talk in character without the meta or OOC issue as well. This system works great.

Heh, in a game I played a dwarf and another dwarf was in the aprty. no one else spoke dwarf, we passed noted back and forth all the time when we spoke in dwarf. Mostly it was notes like,"people get antsy when you speak other languages aorund them, the jsut assume it was about them" return note"yeah its kind a funny, think of the paranoia we're causing"


It worked realy well since the game was focused around a more intrigue, murder mystery camaign where some of the party members were suspects. For some reason it sparked a level of suspician and distrust that I feel should be there given the campaign, and yet wouldn't of been without the note passing.

 

[jdavis]

Heh, in a game I played a dwarf and another dwarf was in the aprty. no one else spoke dwarf, we passed noted back and forth all the time when we spoke in dwarf. Mostly it was notes like,"people get antsy when you speak other languages aorund them, the jsut assume it was about them" return note"yeah its kind a funny, think of the paranoia we're causing"


It worked realy well since the game was focused around a more intrigue, murder mystery camaign where some of the party members were suspects. For some reason it sparked a level of suspician and distrust that I feel should be there given the campaign, and yet wouldn't of been without the note passing.

Yea there is nothing like getting a note that says "smile and nod your head like you know something the others don't." Notes work out fine for us most of the time as we are all used to them and know that they don't always mean anything at all. We only use notes for small things, anything that requires more than a line or two to cover is normally done with the DM taking the player out of the room or sending everybody not involved on a smoke break (even if you don't smoke).