The story of West March GM bullies players with vampire DMPC

[cthulhucthulhu1453]

In a West March server with three GMs and over 20 players (around 10 active), we all played adventurers staying in a shared town. Over time, the active players split into two circles:

• Circle A: Composed mostly of clerics and paladins, roleplaying "good" or morally upright characters.
• Circle B: Led by a ranger, whose personal goal was to form her own party. She valued her teammates more than the other adventurers in town.

Tensions between these groups gradually built up, both in-character and out-of-character.

--The "Vampire" Incident​

In one of GM-1's stories, a sentient undead creature, referred to as "the vampire," was introduced. He was an edgy, arrogant lone-wolf type, the last of his kind from a fallen undead empire. As expected, the vampire didn’t understand or respect the laws of a living town.

During an adventure, the ranger somehow earned the vampire’s trust. He decided to stay with her, and she brought him back to the tavern where all the adventurers gathered.

This caused immediate friction with Circle A, especially for characters like the druid, who was bound by her role to destroy undead. The ranger didn’t bother to explain the situation, merely asked her roommate to switch rooms so the vampire could stay with her. The roommate, sensing the tension, agreed.

Instead of diffusing the tension, the ranger escalated things. She left a provocative message on the tavern’s noticeboard: “If anyone has a problem with my new teammate, come talk to me.” This message felt more like a challenge than an attempt at resolution.

--Rising Tensions​

Most of Circle A chose to avoid the vampire, going out of their way to prevent encounters with him in roleplay. My druid, however, decided to follow the ranger’s message and talk things through.

Instead of offering any explanation or reassurance, the ranger mocked my character and raised her hostility. This made the situation worse.

Later, my druid ran into the vampire in person. When I stared at him, he immediately drew his sword, escalating the situation into a near-fight. The ranger stepped in to back up the vampire, forcing my druid to retreat. Circle B players mocked me out of character for being a "coward."

From their perspective, this moment solidified the ranger's bond with the vampire, possibly setting the stage for a romantic subplot. However, it left Circle A feeling alienated. Me , and circle A become the obstacles between ranger and vampire s forbidden love.

--Out-of-Character Remarks​

The player of the ranger said out-of-game that she would prioritize protecting her team over anyone else in town. She even seriously told me , she would lurk my druid outside the town and killed her. Thats completely against the spirit of the West March setting. I didn’t expect PvP conflicts in this kind of game.

At this point, it was clear that GM-1 had a bias toward the ranger. It seemed GM-1 wanted romantic roleplay between the ranger and the vampire, disregarding how the rest of us felt. This was frustrating, especially since Circle A already had prior conflicts with GM-1.

--The Fallout​

Despite the ranger claiming to prioritize her team, she failed to take responsibility as a leader. A simple explanation to the town about why the vampire was an ally could have diffused most of the tension.

This would have protected the vampire from Circle A’s paladins, who could have easily tried to kill him. Instead, her actions provoked more conflict and left the situation unresolved. If ranger really values her team member , why not just explain things to others?

Looking back, it seems the GM was unlikely to let the vampire face any real threat since he was clearly a DMPC . Still, the way the ranger handled the situation felt like a betrayal of the collaborative spirit of the game.

I invested a lot of emotional energy into this server, only for it to end in an ugly mess. While I understand GM-1's favoritism and bias, I still can’t make sense of the ranger’s choices. A responsible leader would have tried to de-escalate the conflict for the sake of their team and the town.

In the end, the server shut down, leaving many unresolved tensions and a bitter taste for those who cared deeply about the game.

 

[John Dallman]

I'm surprised at the reaction of the Circle A characters. The obvious deduction from the ranger's behaviour is that she's been charmed by the vampire and the player has taken that on as a roleplaying challenge. Making a plan to restrain the ranger and destroy the vampire seems like a sensible in-game response.

 

[cthulhucthulhu1453]

I'm surprised at the reaction of the Circle A characters. The obvious deduction from the ranger's behaviour is that she's been charmed by the vampire and the player has taken that on as a roleplaying challenge. Making a plan to restrain the ranger and destroy the vampire seems like a sensible in-game response.

The problem is ..... even in-game thinking , we are not sure if the vampire had basic right or allowed in the town.

the vampire is not really a vampire , just a nick name. He looks like undead with rotten face , a homebrew race by the GM.
since he looks undead enoght thats why Cirlce A is triggered. If thats a actually vampire we can pretend we didnt realise thats a vampire.

And ....... killing the vampire will seems like sparking a war between the two circles.

 

[aco175]

The classic, "That is what my character would do." vs being a player and trying to find a way for different PCs to play together.

In a book story or a 'real' situation like this, group A would likely think the Vampire was a vampire and something evil that needing to be killed. The ranger might be under a spell. The town needs saving. Etc. The ranger wants to sneak attack the druid out of town and might get away with it, or the druid escapes and gets the paladins to help track the 'outlaws' down.

But when players are all trying to play a character and some want to play more on the edge, conflict happens. The rules of no conflict between PCs makes it hard to play your character that way you think it should. Add in other players doing the same or being more jerky and games fall apart.

 

[Blue]

First, I'm sorry to hear your West Marches server shut down. After putting effort into it that sounds like a rather unhappy result.

Tensions between these groups gradually built up, both in-character and out-of-character.

But reading this, it was likely inevitable. In-characters rivalries and tensions can be just fine. Player tensions with other players needed to be addressed and dealt with early. This West March campaign was already doomed, what you mention below was just the catalyst.

Instead of diffusing the tension, the ranger escalated things. She left a provocative message on the tavern’s noticeboard: “If anyone has a problem with my new teammate, come talk to me.” This message felt more like a challenge than an attempt at resolution.

Frankly, that doesn't seem escalating or provocative at all. Was there other context that made it so? Or is this a back-feel because of how it went when your druid did go talk to the ranger?

Later, my druid ran into the vampire in person. When I stared at him, he immediately drew his sword, escalating the situation into a near-fight. The ranger stepped in to back up the vampire, forcing my druid to retreat. Circle B players mocked me out of character for being a "coward."

Again, players mocking other players -- this campaign was already doomed. Both that they would do it, and that they would feel free to do it publicly and without fear of backlash against whatever informal code of conduct the server held to.

--Out-of-Character Remarks​

The player of the ranger said out-of-game that she would prioritize protecting her team over anyone else in town. She even seriously told me , she would lurk my druid outside the town and killed her. Thats completely against the spirit of the West March setting. I didn’t expect PvP conflicts in this kind of game.

More of the same.

--The Fallout​

Despite the ranger claiming to prioritize her team, she failed to take responsibility as a leader. A simple explanation to the town about why the vampire was an ally could have diffused most of the tension.

This is conjecture - what you feel would have helped defuse it. I understand tensions are running high, but this isn't a "failure to take responsibility as a leader". Especially as they effectively did this exact thing from a different approach telling people to talk to them.

Looking back, it seems the GM was unlikely to let the vampire face any real threat since he was clearly a DMPC . Still, the way the ranger handled the situation felt like a betrayal of the collaborative spirit of the game.

DMPCs in a West March game? You know what, there are so many red flags going on here that while I'm sorry for you that it got here, I'm also happy for you that it's ended. There was no good path. Between hostile players and a DM favoring a player and running a DMPC (which is doubly bad in a West March game), be glad this didn't linger.

 

[payn]

Doesn't sound like anything is an issue in character and in game. I mean, the character at issue isnt a vampire, just called vampire. Nor are they actually undead, just fugly I guess? Your Druid is an absolutist about taking out undead and rolls up doing the "we dont take kindly to your type routine" and the ranger decides to tell them to step off. I dont see any problems here.

However, them mocking you the person is awful. If nobody else on the server backed you up, thats just grounds to get out of there. Blessing in disguise.

 

[cthulhucthulhu1453]

The classic, "That is what my character would do." vs being a player and trying to find a way for different PCs to play together.

In a book story or a 'real' situation like this, group A would likely think the Vampire was a vampire and something evil that needing to be killed. The ranger might be under a spell. The town needs saving. Etc. The ranger wants to sneak attack the druid out of town and might get away with it, or the druid escapes and gets the paladins to help track the 'outlaws' down.

But when players are all trying to play a character and some want to play more on the edge, conflict happens. The rules of no conflict between PCs makes it hard to play your character that way you think it should. Add in other players doing the same or being more jerky and games fall apart.

I think it is even worse than "That is what my character would do." . Obviously using in-game character behavior to bully other player.
To be honest , there was some conflict between circle A and GM-1 , before the vampire event.

I mean , in-game speaking. Bringing an obviously undead creature in to town can cause a lot of problem.
In-game solution can be :
1. talk to the mayor of the town , asking for an approval and ranger assure the vampire.
2. Clearly explain to everyone in tavern , the vampire is an ally , but he is not used to living with others , please forget his weird behavior if there is any.
3. Just ask the vampire to stay somewhere outside the town and ranger can spend most of the time outside the town anyway.

I have no idea , why ranger choose to escalate the situation as this can be solved smoothly.

 

[cthulhucthulhu1453]

Doesn't sound like anything is an issue in character and in game. I mean, the character at issue isnt a vampire, just called vampire. Nor are they actually undead, just fugly I guess? Your Druid is an absolutist about taking out undead and rolls up doing the "we dont take kindly to your type routine" and the ranger decides to tell them to step off. I dont see any problems here.

However, them mocking you the person is awful. If nobody else on the server backed you up, thats just grounds to get out of there. Blessing in disguise.

it looks clearly like an undead creature , rotten face that you can see the bones.
My approach was more gentle , asking is your new team member an undead ?

Ranger is just like telling me thats none of your buisness ( despite she made a public notice. )

 

[payn]

I think it is even worse than "That is what my character would do." . Obviously using in-game character behavior to bully other player.
To be honest , there was some conflict between circle A and GM-1 , before the vampire event.

I mean , in-game speaking. Bringing an obviously undead creature in to town can cause a lot of problem.
In-game solution can be :
1. talk to the mayor of the town , asking for an approval and ranger assure the vampire.
2. Clearly explain to everyone in tavern , the vampire is an ally , but he is not used to living with others , please forget his weird behavior if there is any.
3. Just ask the vampire to stay somewhere outside the town and ranger can spend most of the time outside the town anyway.

I have no idea , why ranger choose to escalate the situation as this can be solved smoothly.

it looks clearly like an undead creature , rotten face that you can see the bones.
My approach was more gentle , asking is your new team member an undead ?

Ranger is just like telling me thats none of your buisness ( despite she made a public notice. )

Sometimes roll play is rough, there is no right way to do it. While you are free to disagree with how the player handled their character, I dont think there is a right or wrong way to play it.

Everything that happened out of game is uncalled for. Nobody should be insulted or belittled for their play. Though, some of that may have arisen from disagreements about the in game play. It seems enough so, that the game collapsed as a result.

 

[Committed Hero]

In a West Marches game the home base is supposed to be a safe haven. I think this example shows why