Was I being a dick to do this.

[Nemesis Destiny]

I just love that as a concept, in general. It's way too easy to judge based on appearance.

I got my first real taste of that in my wife's campaign (that we now share) long before we were an item. I felt like a dork after running in terror from the gigantic green dragon at level 6 only to find out that he was an ally, and a powerful one at that. Just couldn't wrap my head around it at the time (and nobody told me about it beforehand).

I had never experienced anything different. There were campaigns where things that looked like good guys turned out to be evil of course, but nothing in those games that looked evil ever turned out to be good - it was always colour-coded dragon alignment and stab-all-orcs-and-gobbos-cause-they're-evil. Campaign after campaign of that gets pretty tiresome.

 

[Barastrondo]

Okay cool. So we can agree on that. What if the player is disadvantaged and numbers, levels, rules are relate-able but roleplay isn't? Is it still okay to treat the player in said way? If it's not, then why is it okay to treat others like this?

Because accountability comes with ability. You don't hold a two-year-old to the same standards as an adult -- and at the same time, you don't hold an adult to the same standards as a two-year-old. If I pitched a tantrum full of "don't wanna!" at my workplace, I'd get fired. Similarly, I expect my gaming group to be able to handle ideas like "bad decisions can result in bad consequences" more maturely than an eight-year-old would, so the consequences are more serious than they would be if I were running a game for eight-year-olds.

If the player is really that bad and you've made a number of attempts to reason and settle the issue through discourse then it's time to ask the player to leave your table, in hopes he can find another group that are on his level. You do not set up traps and then allow everybody at the table to treat the player or character in the way they did.

Can we agree on that at least?

See, where I come from it seems a lot like "in-character consequences will result from in-character decisions" is part of the language we have to reason with in RPGs. Demonstrations are how some people learn best. You don't just say "you don't want to do that, something bad will happen," then when they go and do it anyway say "you really don't want to do that, why don't we say you didn't do that?"

I think traps that force the player to behave in a way that the GM wants can definitely be a bad thing, but look at the history of the hobby. Adventures are full of things where careless decisions or foolish metagaming will get you in trouble, fast. Many of them are unfair, yes. But I don't believe they all are. Sometimes when a player says "I insult the ancient red dragon" it is more appropriate to have that dragon breathe fire on him than to call a time-out and explain again in exacting detail that ancient red dragons are powerful and angry and proud and maybe he doesn't want to do that.

That said, although I won't decry in-character consequences as part of the dialogue of RPGs, I do agree that if you've tried several times to talk to a player and he doesn't listen, yeah, it's time to amicably say "It's not working out."

However, it's okay to assert the might is right rule? Because if everybody disagrees then the other person must be wrong?

I certainly can't agree that if one guy's actions are making the game less enjoyable for everyone at the table, that the most reasonable thing to assume is they're the ones with the problem. It's entirely possible that everyone in that group is a mean-spirited person except the lone poor rebel, but I personally need the context to imply that before that's what I think is likely. After all, binding and gagging a fellow party member is pretty rough -- but it's arguably merciful compared to turning him over to the orcs, knocking him cold and rolling him back down the stairs into the dungeon, or just kicking him out of the party deep in humanoid territory, all of which would potentially put the group at less risk than continuing to adventure with this rogue would. At least given the context we've seen.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Because accountability comes with ability. You don't hold a two-year-old to the same standards as an adult -- and at the same time, you don't hold an adult to the same standards as a two-year-old. If I pitched a tantrum full of "don't wanna!" at my workplace, I'd get fired. Similarly, I expect my gaming group to be able to handle ideas like "bad decisions can result in bad consequences" more maturely than an eight-year-old would, so the consequences are more serious than they would be if I were running a game for eight-year-olds.

So what happens if the player doesn't volunteer that sort of information and this style of stunt is pulled on them?

I think traps that force the player to behave in a way that the GM wants can definitely be a bad thing, but look at the history of the hobby.

Cool, so we can agree then. I would also hope that we learn from our history and not just keep repeating it constantly.

I certainly can't agree that if one guy's actions are making the game less enjoyable...

You took this out of context. The guy was calling me a troll when I was responding to the rule of might is right.

But the funny thing is you still state that that is ostracizing him and blaming the DM and players for singling him out in that manner.

They game him a chance to finish the game, that I would not have let him lst that long. I am not that nice or tolerant.

Dude, the GM not only said his goal was to test but he also said he found it funny. The fault might be on all parties but the GM or the players are not exempt.

When you blamed the DM for singling ihm out, is where a lot of the argument with yo posts is coming from. The rogue character's player did that too himself.

I hope you understand now, MANY people think there was other ways, but blaming the DM isn't right because the DM wasn't the cause of the problem.

So, when a GM fails to keep the peace at the table, it's their fault. If an adventure is full of player restrictions, it's their fault. When they design a test for their players and it goes badly, it's not their fault?

That makes no sense.

 

[shadzar]

Dude, the GM not only said his goal was to test but he also said he found it funny. The fault might be on all parties but the GM or the players are not exempt.

So, when a GM fails to keep the peace at the table, it's their fault. If an adventure is full of player restrictions, it's their fault. When they design a test for their players and it goes badly, it's not their fault?

That makes no sense.

Because you are looking at it wrong. You are still setting out to blame the DM.

The players, none of them, were required to participate in the test. The rogue character's player FORCED the rest into it.

They should have left his butt to die on his own. It doesn't seem they needed the player, just the character. Let it die, everyone tell them they would rather game without him, and then find someone else or have one person play two characters or the whole group share the character needed in the future.

Just because a DM presents something doesn't mean the players have to access and engage it. They were warned not to.

Doesn't mater why a DM puts it in if he leaves it optional to engage with, as was done here.

Yeah, you are the same kind of person as this player from that next statement. You seem to be metagamer that thinks the pace of the game is set by the books.

The pace is set by the players. The rest of the group were content with taking the warnings given and waiting. The one, not unlike yourself, thought "The books say we are due for this".

Get your nose out of the books and listen to the other players. That was the players problem and where ALL the problems within that game lies.

Part of all tests in D&D is if the players accept them. Do you engage the enemy or retreat? Do you talk or fight? Do you open the door or not.

How you go about opening that door is up to the players, but the DM doesn't force you to do so.

The other players didnt want to engage but were forced to by that one player...that is where the fault lies. It wasn't the firt time this player did it to the group either.

I think the person was trying to play Belkar, and didn't understand that OOTS is a comic, not the real game of D&D but satire of it. That makes this player a bigger joke than ANY told in OOTS.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

stuff

A noble attempt, but some people just have a giant chip on their shoulder; this guy has already made up his mind that the rogue's player is the victim here, and nothing you do or say can point out to him the simple reality that each of us is personally responsible for our own actions.

I suggest you let it drop; it's clear that this argument is going nowhere fast.

 

[moxcamel]

I suggest you let it drop; it's clear that this argument is going nowhere fast.

Can I get an amen?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Can I get an amen?

I tried to, but the little green thumb wouldn't let me :/

 

[Barastrondo]

So what happens if the player doesn't volunteer that sort of information and this style of stunt is pulled on them?

This is veering real far into the hypothetical for me. If a player doesn't volunteer the information that they aren't capable of dealing with potential failures or responsibility more maturely than an eight-year-old, and nobody at the table can read them well enough to tell that this person is set so far back in their emotional maturity, all my advice would be centered on "salvage the situation and be careful." Seriously, an adult with that kind of emotional trouble and you don't notice? That person could be dangerous.

Cool, so we can agree then. I would also hope that we learn from our history and not just keep repeating it constantly.

You'll be disappointed, I fear, because this is a specific play style that appeals to a lot of people. It's a common game philosophy that actions should have notable consequences, and thinking in terms of what actions best suit the game and which actions go against the grain is the best way to navigate meaningful (and dangerous) choices.

I personally don't care for the "trap" thing much, but I absolutely believe in rewarding clever play and not handwaving consequences away when players deliberately do dangerous or out-of-genre things. If I'm running a swashbuckling game, players will be rewarded for deliberately putting themselves in peril for genre-appropriate reasons. Those who act like psychotics could be put down like mad dogs in-character.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Look, the player doesn't sound like he'd be the kind of guy I'd play with long-term.

However, this was still a dick move on the DM's part, specifically because he wanted to set up some sort of "hilarious" to himself trap for them. I just can't see any way to chortle to myself behind my DM screen over my players' inability to pass my "roleplaying test" without being casting myself as a dick.

As to the specifics, there's a reason that the Perversity Principle shows up in the Grand List of Console Roleplaying Game cliches:

Perversity Principle
If you're unsure about what to do next, ask all the townspeople nearby. They will either all strongly urge you to do something, in which case you must immediately go out and do that thing, or else they will all strongly warn you against doing something, in which case you must immediately go out and do that thing.

While, yes, it's tied to console games, there's not that much difference in the way most RPGs play out. A townsperson telling me, "No, don't go into the Tomb! No one's ever survived the trip!" usually translates as, "Hey - this is the DM's next adventure hook; I should bite, in the off-chance he doesn't have anything else planned for the evening." (EDIT: Or, at least, "Here's a neat little sidequest that I built into what would otherwise be a completely uneventful stop for the evening.")

After all - we're the adventurers. It's in our job description to go out and do the things that make the mundanes nervous, and come back covered in treasure and glory - or not at all.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Look, the player doesn't sound like he'd be the kind of guy I'd play with long-term.

However, this was still a dick move on the DM's part, specifically because he wanted to set up some sort of "hilarious" to himself trap for them. I just can't see any way to chortle to myself behind my DM screen over my players' inability to pass my "roleplaying test" without being casting myself as a dick.

As to the specifics, there's a reason that the Perversity Principle shows up in the Grand List of Console Roleplaying Game cliches:



While, yes, it's tied to console games, there's not that much difference in the way most RPGs play out. A townsperson telling me, "No, don't go into the Tomb! No one's ever survived the trip!" usually translates as, "Hey - this is the DM's next adventure hook; I should bite, in the off-chance he doesn't have anything else planned for the evening."

After all - we're the adventurers. It's in our job description to go out and do the things that make the mundanes nervous, and come back covered in treasure and glory - or not at all.

I disagree. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.