(Update) DM Decision: Player mistake- what would you do

[Soel]

It was such a cliche dungeons and dragons trap.

There's your problem there...I expect she was calling you out for such a cheesy trap, or maybe hoping/expecting you to actually do something different here...

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

Just for simple plot reasons I'd object to any of my players reading this forum.

By this do you mean you wouldn't have an issue with her reading the non-plot posts about her play, her decisions, how stupid she is, called her your gilligan and such?

You seem to be assuming I don't put in elements that fit her playing style , and they are there.

Actually i am more assuming your focus is about the things you keep bringing up here.
how bad her decisiosn were.
How justified you are in keeping her at second class status.
How you are unwilling to deal with the style clash because you like her hubby and her snacks.

But, as others have also stated, I will not change other things in the campaign that fit others playing styles to appease hers. If she keeps going through characters, yes, I will definately be moving her backgrounds to second class character status and they won't play as much a factor in overlaying plots. Why? because its silly to spend my time on a character that is going to find a way to kill itself in two or three weeks.

its UNFAIR to keep a player around as a second class citizen because you like the other things you get from her. USING her to keep the hubby playing and keep hot snacks coming while at the same time behind her back lambasting her and refusing to...

you rally don't see the part thats wrong in all this beyond how she doesn't make the right decisions???

You also say that I am mad at her because she is not doing what i want her to do. Now, say I have a left, right and up direction and she goes left. Now, if i get mad that she didn't go up as i wanted, it would be fair to say that.

But, she had a multitude of options on that board. This was a huge map. The whole map was predrawn the minute hte pcs were put on the map and I didn't cover up anything. There were plenty of places to go and do.

and she chose the one you label stupid, for different reasons than you would have used, and so she becomes the "when she's not looking lets call her stupid on the internet" rant fodder cuz you want to keep her hubby and snacks?

I would think that its not asking for much from a pc if they play their characters cautiously.

thats a perfectly fine assumption for a PARTICULAR play style.
There are more than one style of play and more than one style of fantasy.
clearly, she isn't buying into the "treat the entire world as a danger" fantasy school.

have you ever read the dragonlance novels? the first couple.
ever here of kender?
main traits.. fearless, inquisitive, and prac5tically devoid of notions of privacy.
As such,they often would do things like you describe here. See glowing pattern on floor.. try it.
fortunately, that world was written "run by a dm" so that while dangerous kender tending to do these "not cautious" things tended to find something fantastic instead of "yet another instant dead thing just laying around."

One kender found a magic ring and put it on. he didn't get it idenfitifed. he didn't take it to a cleric for a remove curse first. he just said "its cool" and put it on. he immediately vanished. i think he used it to teleport several times before it went poof with him.

Now for some Gms, that could have been a "cursed ring of moron disintigration" and that would be the end of it and the author would now be on the internet defending how reasonable it was.

for other GMs, it would be a teleport ring that pops the user back to a reclusive mage who puts such things out into the world to bring people to him. Its kind of an inverse exploration thing. In that world with kenders, the choice of "and the odd item does something that provokes more story and fun" instead of "the odd item that just kills you, next character" is what makes that world one where kender are appropriate characters.

As you have observed, your choice could have been to make the trip down the rabbit hole interesting for your alice. it could have been the spawn for many different stories and plots and such. As i put it, it could have made you look clever and like it was a part of the plan. you could choose to run a game where kenders and other uncautious characters are appropriate as the stars, and not just rant fodder who are kept around cuz bring good hubby and snacks.

but the campaign is what it is

actually, the campaign is what you decide it to be. this is equivalent to saying "but i dont want to."

if you don't want to run a campaign appropriate to her, where her character is one of the stars, tell her and let her go. if thats too much to ask, then at least have the forthrightness to stop the internet rant fests about how stupid you think she is.

Would you at the game table, to her face, call her a gilligan?
if not, why is it Ok to do it here?

 

[DonTadow]

I am sorry. I think you need to understand my character a bit more. I come on here because my players aren't on here, as I don't have to bite my tongue on here as I do with players. I'm very politically motivated. Of course I woudln't say the things as harshly on here to her as I would to her. I doubt there are few people whom wear their heart on their sleeves and tells everyone what they really thinks. Now, I tell her these things in a nice "politically correct way".

Do I tell her my motivations. No. I didn't built my group with a bunch of long time friends. I interviewed and hand picked most of them. We don't go out partying on the weekend. Pretty much they play in a game I run on Sundays. I am closer to some than others, but the point is that Ib built a group and I do what I have to do to keep it together. That's my main goal. Making the players happy is a priority. But youcan't make everyone happy, so I include and run elements that make the majority of the people happy while inputting encoutners here and there to fit other players niches.

The other 4/5 players love her husbands play and he's a dynamic to the group so I appease some of her shananigans and come on here from time to time to rant and figure out how to deal with the latest situation. He's essentially a big ole pork chop in the group's eyes who has a moderate amount of fat. But it can't be trimmed else you'd take too much meat with you. So we all put up with it. The wife does have benefits. When her head is in the game she makes good decisions. I'd even go as far to say 75 percent of everything she does makes some sense. But the other quarter goes behind basic not maknig sense, sometimes its just plain ludicrous.

So far for me its afair balance.

You are right to say that her actions have a campaign home some world. Any campaign that would appease her antics would turn into a situation comedy as opposed to the dragon lance novels you speak of. I could see a warrior running fearlessly through a pentagram. But I don't see wa warrior saying "wheee" and jumping in the center of it. Maybe in "Dork Tower".

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

but the point is that Ib built a group and I do what I have to do to keep it together. That's my main goal. Making the players happy is a priority. But youcan't make everyone happy, so I include and run elements that make the majority of the people happy while inputting encoutners here and there to fit other players niches.

thats the main point of disagreement betwee us.
certainly, there are people i cannot ake happy in my games too, but that means to me "i don't have them in my games" not that i keep them around and put them into a "players i don't need to make happy" category. I cannot see keeping "the majority happy" as fulfilling my obligations.

You are right to say that her actions have a campaign home some world. Any campaign that would appease her antics would turn into a situation comedy as opposed to the dragon lance novels you speak of. I could see a warrior running fearlessly through a pentagram. But I don't see wa warrior saying "wheee" and jumping in the center of it. Maybe in "Dork Tower".

actually, IMX, when dealing with this type of player, i have found that with a little effort and a desire to find and use the right pulls and prods, you can script scenes which will draw her in without them being nonsensical. but the first step of that is for the Gm to accept that its not "stupid" but rather "differently motivated" and to work with those different motivations in mind rather than to just keep hoping she changes to your mindset. A Gm can construct scenarios nd scripts where "impulsive" doesn't lead to stupid, if he believes its worth bothering with.

 

[DonTadow]

thats the main point of disagreement betwee us.
certainly, there are people i cannot ake happy in my games too, but that means to me "i don't have them in my games" not that i keep them around and put them into a "players i don't need to make happy" category. I cannot see keeping "the majority happy" as fulfilling my obligations.




actually, IMX, when dealing with this type of player, i have found that with a little effort and a desire to find and use the right pulls and prods, you can script scenes which will draw her in without them being nonsensical. but the first step of that is for the Gm to accept that its not "stupid" but rather "differently motivated" and to work with those different motivations in mind rather than to just keep hoping she changes to your mindset. A Gm can construct scenarios nd scripts where "impulsive" doesn't lead to stupid, if he believes its worth bothering with.

But that's what you're missing. I keep saying that I put in encounters for her. As a matter of fact, in this very same session, there were two light hearted encounters featuring her character that she and the rest of the party enjoyed. But you can't turn your whole campaign into those types of shanigans.

I've read your other posts before swrushing, and it seems you put a lot in your characters and theri backgrounds. if a character is consistently making risky moves in a game and going through characters, do you really risk making that character a central parto f the story. I don't see any problem making sucha character a support player. Just as you say with a little effort you can make them a main character. I say with a little effort you can make support characters important without focusing on their history and background (as it will not last long).

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

The fundamental disconnect is really amazing.

I'll say this:

I had a group. It included three people who were very good friends who sort of moved "as a pack" and came as a whole or not at all, for the most part. Two of them were fantastic players ... involved in the game, in their characters, and in making the campaign alot of fun. They caught on to my every subtle clue, and even took things in directions I would often wish I'd thought of first.

One of them ... not. That person's play style was just very very "out there" compared to the tone and style of the game. If the adventure called for quiet infiltration, that person would bring fireballs and the shout spell to bear at the earliest encounter. The kind of player that thinks, since they looked up black powder on the internet last week, their character should be able to build a cannon and destroy a castle in the game ... even if their character is a street urchin from the wrong side of town or whatever. Just the kind of player that person was.

Made me want to pull my hair out. If I said: "JUMP!" that person would invariably duck under the table ... and think it was an okay maneuver because I'd probably said jump because of an incoming rocket and getting under the table was ALSO okay. They weren't stupid or unthinking ... we just didn't think of things in the same way.

So I had a decision. I either had to include elements that fit Player X, and do so pretty much every session, or I was going to have to cut the rest of that clique loose. So I sat down, and every adventure, and every session, I'd try to think of how Player X might see things ... if I figured the party would retreat from an encounter with heavily armed bugbears, well, Player X would probably charge them. So I'd place the bugbears in a position that couldn't be charged or I'd find another way to have the encounter. Did I have to change my entire game for one person?

Yup.

Did that ruin it?

Nope.

If it's the difference between coming upon a group of bugbears in a clearing or spying them from afar on the other side of a cliff, and one of those situations keeps it from turning into a suicide combat ... I chose B. It was still fun, I just had to think about it a little more. Even if I were running prepackaged modules ... if there was an obviously locked door that couldn't be picked, Player X would attempt to build C4 out of moss and Gelatinous Cube remains and I had to be ready for that. It was actually very creative ... just not what I wanted at all. But I had to grin and tilt my head to the side and figure out what the heck I'd do if Player X wanted to sled down The Perilous Mountainside of Doom on a tower shield instead of taking The Dwarven Tunnels as I'd planned.

I'd definately suggest grabbing the DMG II and giving the first chapter two or three read throughs. It's basically an essential primer on businessplace psychology with a gamer spin, and something I think all DMs should be handed with their first module.

--fje

 

[swrushing]

[/QUOTE]

But that's what you're missing. I keep saying that I put in encounters for her. As a matter of fact, in this very same session, there were two light hearted encounters featuring her character that she and the rest of the party enjoyed. But you can't turn your whole campaign into those types of shanigans.

you don't have to. but you do have to consider not using some things which are contrary to her style too.

three "throw her crumbs" flavor bits and one "ok so now she is dead" bit doesn't fit the bill.
thats why you keep ending up here with rants... your current approach isn't working as well as you would like.

I've read your other posts before swrushing, and it seems you put a lot in your characters and theri backgrounds.

absolutely.

if a character is consistently making risky moves in a game and going through characters, do you really risk making that character a central parto f the story.

I make EVERY PC a cetral part of the story.
if there is a disconnect between us thats creating over frequent PC death or other such problems I CHANGE MY DESIGN STYLE to address that and work with the player, not against her.

if, after all that, i find i cannot make it work, that due to my lack of Gming savvy or due to just irreconcilable differences in style I cannot keep that player with a character who is central to the story, THEN I LET THEM GO. I don't put them into "second class player" status and spend my time working on the players that i give a damn about.

I don't see any problem making sucha character a support player.

there are things such as support characters, but in my games there are not support players.

Just as you say with a little effort you can make them a main character. I say with a little effort you can make support characters important without focusing on their history and background (as it will not last long).

thats IMX fine for NPCs but not for PCs. INX players, maybe just the players i seek but i think its more broad than that, enjoy and deserve for their character to not be seen as disposable.

and again, if I cannot live up to that as a GM, I let them know and let them move on.

it seems a lot more upfront and forthright than to secretly drop them to second class status and rant about them when they are looking away.

 

[DonTadow]

I'd definately suggest grabbing the DMG II and giving the first chapter two or three read throughs. It's basically an essential primer on businessplace psychology with a gamer spin, and something I think all DMs should be handed with their first module.

--fje

I'm a big fan of that book (have two copies). It does not say change your campaign to fit one players style. What it says is make sure to include encounters to appease that player. As a matter of fact that theres an example where it states putting a whimisical encounter in there before a serious big battle so that the player can get it out their system.

Don't you feel like you weakened your dm'n style to appease that one player. I have a thing where i want to provide the best entertainment to the majroity of the players, not marginal entertainment to everyone. I'd rather 5 be happy and 1 sit there pouting because her character was disentegrated than having 6 people have mild fun, but in the back of MY mind I know i could have done better, but I lessoned what i wanted to do for that one player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonTadow
But that's what you're missing. I keep saying that I put in encounters for her. As a matter of fact, in this very same session, there were two light hearted encounters featuring her character that she and the rest of the party enjoyed. But you can't turn your whole campaign into those types of shanigans.

you don't have to. but you do have to consider not using some things which are contrary to her style too.

three "throw her crumbs" flavor bits and one "ok so now she is dead" bit doesn't fit the bill.
thats why you keep ending up here with rants... your current approach isn't working as well as you would like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonTadow
I've read your other posts before swrushing, and it seems you put a lot in your characters and theri backgrounds.

absolutely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonTadow
if a character is consistently making risky moves in a game and going through characters, do you really risk making that character a central parto f the story.

I make EVERY PC a cetral part of the story.
if there is a disconnect between us thats creating over frequent PC death or other such problems I CHANGE MY DESIGN STYLE to address that and work with the player, not against her.

if, after all that, i find i cannot make it work, that due to my lack of Gming savvy or due to just irreconcilable differences in style I cannot keep that player with a character who is central to the story, THEN I LET THEM GO. I don't put them into "second class player" status and spend my time working on the players that i give a damn about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonTadow
I don't see any problem making sucha character a support player.

there are things such as support characters, but in my games there are not support players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonTadow
Just as you say with a little effort you can make them a main character. I say with a little effort you can make support characters important without focusing on their history and background (as it will not last long).


thats IMX fine for NPCs but not for PCs. INX players, maybe just the players i seek but i think its more broad than that, enjoy and deserve for their character to not be seen as disposable.

and again, if I cannot live up to that as a GM, I let them know and let them move on.

it seems a lot more upfront and forthright than to secretly drop them to second class status and rant about them when they are looking away.

Sw... do you really have different reactions to encounters for every pc. This doesnt seem a bit fair and my players at least would resent hand holding particular players because they are more reckless. What you're suggesting is to instead make every encounter so that it is less dangerious for this player or create encoutners that react differently to each pc. One pc whom plays his character smart, its a deadly encounter. The other pc who plays it reckless its a bucket of monkeys encounter. I know my players at least woudl really hate (as they've already stated) this kind of favoritism. Danger should be equal to all pcs. There shouldn't be a handicapp on danger.

 

[BSF]

Sw... do you really have different reactions to encounters for every pc. This doesnt seem a bit fair and my players at least would resent hand holding particular players because they are more reckless. What you're suggesting is to instead make every encounter so that it is less dangerious for this player or create encoutners that react differently to each pc. One pc whom plays his character smart, its a deadly encounter. The other pc who plays it reckless its a bucket of monkeys encounter. I know my players at least woudl really hate (as they've already stated) this kind of favoritism. Danger should be equal to all pcs. There shouldn't be a handicapp on danger.

No, I think this is where SWRushing is advocating that you should cut the player loose. If you have one player that has a completely different style to everything about the game, then that person is likely not a good fit for the game, the group and the DM.

I run two different adventure paths in my current campaign world. One is for the general group. I try to keep things at a base level of fun for the entire group. The other group is very specific for tone and expectations. I only have three players in that one. One of those players does not participate in the game with the other 7 players due to time constraints. But I refuse to let the other players in on the limited campaign until they have built characters to my exacting specifications for the game. I have pointed out to them, explicitly, that the second campaign has a style and flavor that _won't_be_fun_for_them_ if they don't have the desire to build characters to fit that style. Nor will it be fun for me to run the game with them playing a marginally interested character.

Allow me to clarify. I have a total of 8 players. Five of them only play in one game, a more 'standard' game. One of them only plays in the variant game. Two of them cross-over between both games. Five of the players can cross over as well, if they are willing to play within a much more confined game as far as style and flavor go. But I won't allow them to do so without being very clear that this game is different and making them prove to me they want to play that style of game. Otherwise I won't have fun running it and they won't have fun playing it. They are OK with that because I have been up front and honest about it.

If you are running very clear good vs evil game and you have one player that wants to play a game with relative morality, you have a problem. It is better to cut one player loose if you refuse to adjust to that style.

If you are running a serious game and one player wants a lighthearted, comic game, you are better off cutting the player loose.

These are the points that SWRushing is trying to make. Either accomodate the play style of each player, or cut the player loose. Or in the least, don't consistently set the player up for failure and then complain about it.

Mind you, I don't think that is your intent. But it does seem to be the circumstance.

 

[swrushing]

still seeking answer BTW to this question...

again, since the disposal wasn't a trap, why didn't it have any sort of safety so that people wandering thru didn't just fall thru? A command word, a guard rail, a warning printed in common saying "dont step on the circle or you will die" or even "garbage disposal: proceed with caution" or perhaps a simple perpetual magic mouth spell?