Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 5389379">I've got one.&nbsp;In a game I played a few years back(early 4e), early into the game(2nd or 3rd session), the GM told a couple of us that we weren't playing our characters right.(insert foreboding music here) his assertation was that because we worshipped X gods, Pelor and something else, that we must destroy undead wherever we find it because the undead are an abomination to our respective gods(in the previous session, some tribespeople and their undead minions showed up(they did not attack first)). Having previous to that, just been introduced to both the story and those tribes, we were unsure that attacking those who did not attack us was such a great idea. Sure, we were both playing fairly religiousy types(paladin and cleric), converting people was part of our goal, but we didn't know if maybe these undead were the way those people respected their elders. In such a case, teaching them their error would be better than attacking.&nbsp;However, the DM said, quite firmly, that we should disregard such thoughts and just blow up the undead. It was good for a session or two, until the DM produced another &quot;suggestion&quot; for how we ought to play. After a couple months and more regular &quot;suggestions&quot;, the DM had defined who our characters were more than we had. We became so tired of his lack of direction in the story(we were given a world and basically told &quot;explore&quot;) and his fairly demanding definition of how characters should be played we left. &nbsp;It was really very much of we sat down, were given more &quot;suggestions&quot; and then just stood back up and walked out. Barely even took my hat off. Sadly, some people believe that &quot;fun&quot; is not &quot;fun&quot; unless it is their definition of it.&nbsp;On your question of how to help them improve, I can't say I have a good answer.&nbsp; We attempted to put it into his head that, as I said above, we weren't sure outright attacking them was a good idea, and he countermanded that with his idea of what our characters should be doing.&nbsp; Like any good relationship, communication is best, but communication is worthless when it's a one-way street.&nbsp;At the end of the day, some people are reasonable, some people are not.&nbsp; And really, unreasonable people are unlikely to be persuaded by a motley crew of RPers, especially when they have a sense of power and control.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 5389379"] I've got one. In a game I played a few years back(early 4e), early into the game(2nd or 3rd session), the GM told a couple of us that we weren't playing our characters right.(insert foreboding music here) his assertation was that because we worshipped X gods, Pelor and something else, that we must destroy undead wherever we find it because the undead are an abomination to our respective gods(in the previous session, some tribespeople and their undead minions showed up(they did not attack first)). Having previous to that, just been introduced to both the story and those tribes, we were unsure that attacking those who did not attack us was such a great idea. Sure, we were both playing fairly religiousy types(paladin and cleric), converting people was part of our goal, but we didn't know if maybe these undead were the way those people respected their elders. In such a case, teaching them their error would be better than attacking. However, the DM said, quite firmly, that we should disregard such thoughts and just blow up the undead. It was good for a session or two, until the DM produced another "suggestion" for how we ought to play. After a couple months and more regular "suggestions", the DM had defined who our characters were more than we had. We became so tired of his lack of direction in the story(we were given a world and basically told "explore") and his fairly demanding definition of how characters should be played we left. It was really very much of we sat down, were given more "suggestions" and then just stood back up and walked out. Barely even took my hat off. Sadly, some people believe that "fun" is not "fun" unless it is [I]their[/I] definition of it. On your question of how to help them improve, I can't say I have a good answer. We attempted to put it into his head that, as I said above, we weren't sure outright attacking them was a good idea, and he countermanded that with his idea of what our characters should be doing. Like any good relationship, communication is best, but communication is worthless when it's a one-way street. At the end of the day, some people are reasonable, some people are not. And really, unreasonable people are unlikely to be persuaded by a motley crew of RPers, especially when they have a sense of power and control. [/QUOTE]

Verification