When the DM goes crazy

[Mark Causey]

Whenever I have a situation where I think the player should use bluff, and they insist that they aren't lying, I resort to one of two fixes:

a) I roll a Sense Motive anyway, meaning that the player gets no defense from the NPCs belief that they are lying, or

b) I offer to let them roll a Diplomacy or Intimidate roll to get the NPC to leave them alone.

Hope that helps a little.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I can sympathize.

I think that the players taking up the DM's plot hooks is one of the unwritten parts of the D&D social contract. It goes something like this: the DM works hard to come up with interesting adventures, ideally tailoring them to the PCs. The players should follow those leads, because otherwise, they all end up sitting around doing nothing.

I think that in my next campaign, I will make the following of my plot hooks a written part of the campaign packet.

 

[sniffles]

I was just wondering, did the other players know the dwarf's player was unhappy and planning to change characters? It always seems to me that roleplaying is a balance between doing what you think your character would do, and doing what will progress the shared story. If the other players knew the character change was planned they might have done more to make it a smooth transition. A group I'm in ran into a similar situation a few months ago. Our PCs would probably have been more reluctant to let the new PC join, but the players knew the unhappy player wanted a change, so we went along with it to keep the gaming flowing.

 

[Quasqueton]

I'm rather surprised at some comments here. Where, exactly, was I railroading?

Quasqueton

 

[The Shaman]

My plea to all GMs: If you feel like telling a story, take a a creative writing class through the Learning Annex - don't inflict it on the players of the game.

The GM creates the world - the players tell the story though their actions. You're the location manager and the set dresser - you're not the writer or the director.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

I'm rather surprised at some comments here. Where, exactly, was I railroading?

Interesting, isn't it? I can't figure it out either.

You were trying to set up a particular situation, yes, but I don't think that's railroading any more than dangling any plot hook is.

I think a lot of people cry railroad any time the GM's hand is visible, which I don't get -- it's kinda difficult to have a GM if they're not allowed to inject situations into the game.

But again, I think giving the players (not the characters) a heads up that you wanted a scene with the PCs dealing with something happening with the dwarf at the inn was the way to go. When you make the GM's hand completely visible, and get the players in on it, then nobody's going to think it's even possibly a railroading issue.

 

[Joshua Randall]

The GM creates the world - the players tell the story though their actions.

A common belief, but a wrong one, in my opinion.

The players tell the story within the confines of the DM's game world, and by interacting with the DM's plot hooks (in the form of NPCs, locations, events, items, and so on).

If the players want to tell a completely freeform story, then it's the players who need to take creative writing classes.

 

[TheGM]

I'm rather surprised at some comments here. Where, exactly, was I railroading?

Quasqueton

I was wondering that same thing. You went out of your way to help a player get his new character involved, and somehow you're railroading... Someone is setting the direction of the game, I don't get how doing so without a heavy hand is railroading.

But anyway, yeah, the Bluff check thing would have gotten to me too. The other stuff happens, but when you get to the point that they're arguing with you not to take the poor guy's new PC in, that just sucks.

I'd have said "great, he doesn't believe you. No Bluff check needed."

 

[SweeneyTodd]

The GM creates the world - the players tell the story though their actions.

Did you miss the part where this whole situation was about the GM trying to help the player set up a scene that accomplished something they wanted to do (retire the character and bring in a new one)?

Besides, this is an oversimplification. Everybody at the table should have creative input. I think that's easier to do when people give each other an OOC "heads up", but that's just me.

 

[The Shaman]

Did you miss the part where this whole situation was about the GM trying to help the player set up a scene that accomplished something they wanted to do (retire the character and bring in a new one)?

I wasn't really speaking to the particular situation, to be honest - it's just something that comes to mind when I read threads where everyone is trying to figure out the "story."

Besides, this is an oversimplification.

I disagree - it is succinct. (At least it's meant to be.)

Everybody at the table should have creative input. I think that's easier to do when people give each other an OOC "heads up", but that's just me.

From what you've described of your roleplay style, I can definitely see where you would take that view.

I think everyone does have creative input - for me that creativity is applied to different areas of the game. The GM's creativity is expressed in creating places and people - the players' creativity is expressed in how they interact with those places and people.