When the DM goes crazy

[kigmatzomat]

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

I have no idea. It sounds like you were fairly hands off, while I would have given the party a quick ride on the DM railroad to get the setup I needed.

 

[CronoDekar]

In regards to the bluff, personally I put it in my "house clarifications" section (because I wouldn't classify it as a "house rule" per se) that any attempts to deceive -- not just lie -- call for a Bluff check. Even if what someone is telling is completely truthful, if he's not honest then he has an alternate motive which can be sensed. Discern Lies and Zone of Truth don't pick up deceptive truths though, which makes Sense Motive more useful in detecting those (in Discern Lies's advantage though, it can pick up the exact lie while Sense Motive can only pick up the gist of the conversation).

I think there's plenty of good advice in this thread, particularly letting your players know beforehand that a player wants to change his PC to a different PC, preferably telling them what the new PC would be too. That way, when it came up in-session then they'd be more likely to meta their actions out a little. A little metaing never hurts, especially when it's to enhance player fun.

Personally, I think they may have been over-roleplaying their character, or in essence, roleplaying themselves as they believed their character would act "realistically." Or it's quite legitimately possible that they may have missed that it was a plot hook. Either way, it might be because they were bored, tired, and/or irritated -- particularly if they don't miss a hook often. Of course, that's entirely speculative since I'm not in your campaign. Regardless, it'd probably be good to talk to the players and share what everyone was thinking (in a civil manner, of course).

And don't beat yourself up over it -- just learn from the situation and move on.

 

[SweeneyTodd]

Okay, that's fair. How would you apply that advice to the particular situation in this thread? Should the player of the dwarf have provided in-character hints that something was amiss?

The player wanted to create a situation that had some metagame elements (switching characters). The other players wanted to wash their hands of the situation, because that was what their characters would do. How could this situation be resolved purely through the players expressing in-character interactions? I'm sure it's possible, but I don't see how, which is why I'm asking.

 

[Quasqueton]

Should the player of the dwarf have provided in-character hints that something was amiss?

For the record, the Player did give many hints. Over the past couple weeks (in game travel time), he had begun draining enemies rather than just fighting and killing them. He even began taking captives for the sole purpose of using his drain. The night before they reached the town (they knew they'd arrive the next day) he completely emptied his bag of tricks by draining every creature in it.

After the game session, the other Players mentioned how they had noticed him getting a bit "hungrier" recently. They noticed him empty his "bag of snacks". The halfling PC even had his undead bodyguard keep a close eye on the dwarf because he seemed to be getting dangerously hungry.

[The bag of tricks merely sated his hunger each night, but it didn't give him temp hit points like draining a "real" victim.]

Quasqueton

 

[Templeton580]

*

 

[The Shaman]

So...you and one player decided what all the other players would do, and when they didn't you got mad. I'm not passing any judgments here, since I think the word "railroading" means different things to different people. But I will say that your planning doesn't seem to be of the sort that would best facilitate the game your players want to play. Apparently they'd like to "act in character" without their chosen actions being "right" or "wrong."...To me, one "correct" plot hook is railroading, while two or three separare-but-equal plot hooks are not.

Well-said, Cutter XXIII.

 

[TheGM]

To me, one "correct" plot hook is railroading, while two or three separare-but-equal plot hooks are not.

It could be, but not necessarily. In this case, Q. rolled with the punches to make situation meet plan pretty well until they started doing things that by that time they knew would exclude a player. There has to be a line to draw somewhere, that's not railroading in my book because they went to the inn, things happened somewhat as planned, but they didn't want to let the new character into the group.

There's a social contract here that does not put all of the responsibility on the GM. If the character was horrendously ugly or something there might be valid reason to resist them "in character", but arguing against the Bluff was just downright rude.

 

[iwatt]

To me, one "correct" plot hook is railroading, while two or three separare-but-equal plot hooks are not.

This easier said than done. DMs already have a lot on their hands to also have to present 5 different options so that nones freedom is coerced.

It's a game.

You agreed to play the game. So sometimes you just have to agree to have your choices "coerced".

By the way, it's almost impossible to introduce a new PC without some collusion (sp?) between players and DMs. Quasqetons apprach of "surprising" his other PCs backfired on him, but seemed to me an intersting idea: Hunt down the feral monk...

 

[ForceUser]

Communicating to the other players prior to the session that Jimbo was going to retire his dwarf and start a new character would have worked wonders here. Furthermore, we're lacking some information: is the new cleric good? If so, why in the world would he or the other PCs choose to associate? I'm all for interesting and individualistic PCs, with the caveat that players not make characters that are diametrically opposed on important issues (such as alignment). Finally, as I said earlier, you can't control what the other players do, and you certainly shouldn't get angry because they're not acting according to your plans. A good DM is flexible, sets up the story hook, and lets the PCs choose to bite or not bite. If they don't bite, the onus for enjoyment of the game is on them--after all, you set up an adventure, and it's not your responsibility if they choose not to follow it. That said, don't be vindictive if they don't do as expected; simply adapt to the new direction and let the game flow from there. If they sit around in the bar bored for a few hours, perhaps the PCs will take it upon themselves to seek out adventure instead of waiting for the DM to hand it to them on a silver platter.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Well, I can understand you losing it over a player trying to argue semantics against a Bluff check that was obviously well justified, and insisting on his argument that his character didn't know it was a "vampire" vs. "an undead". I'm sorry, but that's the point where a game stops being D&D and starts being Silly Buggers.

From what I get from Q's description, it sounds, to me, like the rest of the players were aware that something was going on with the dwarven character, but didn't have a clue what, and simply were reluctant to play along because they were left out of "the secret", either bored because they weren't included, or pouting. As I said, just my impression.

And from personal experience, I know how easy it is to "roleplay" your character to the last dot in its background just to annoy the DM for one reason or another, and then feign innocence, and "just playing my character's motivations". Did so myself often enough years back, wouldn't do it again, and don't think it's funny. More like childish sandlot behaviour, and not belonging in a game.Just my 2 cents.

As an addendum, I am convinced that not EVERYthing is the concern of all players all the times. A roleplaying game is not a democracy in that every player has a say in everything every time, and some things only concern the DM and another player, like a change of character. Noone can expect the others to follow a scripted path, but this wasn't the case. But you can expect them not to openly block another player "just because".