NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6110748" data-attributes="member: 22779">Going back to N'raac's example of the fighter/cleric/wizard/thief conundrum.  Here's my four ways that the DM screwed up:1.  Two of the PC's have clear goals and two of the PC's don't.  That, right there, is probably the biggest failure and should have been nipped in the bud at character generation.  I've heard it called the Group Template and it's a very good idea.  The group should always have a clear reason for being together.  Different goals might compete for time, but they should never pull the group in opposite directions.  The wizard has no reason for returning home, so, he doesn't want to.  The other two players have clear reasons for going home - they have goals they want to further.  This situation should never have been allowed to rise in the first place.2.  The DM spends "several" sessions on this.  Are you kidding me?  Two of the players have flat out stated, in no uncertain terms, that they do not want to do this.  And now they have to spend several sessions doing what they don't want to do?  Wow.  That's just very poor DMing.  This should have been cut to half a session at most, if it was allowed at all.  3.  It wasn't mentioned in the example, but, I doubt there was any way the other players could have caught the wizard's lie.  I doubt there was even so much as a bluff check rolled in secret against the rest of the party's Take 10 Sense Motive (or Passive Insight depending on edition).  The wizard player floated the idea to the DM and the DM ran with it.  That's the DM taking sides.  Definite no-no.  Of course, the DM is probably choosing to side with the wizard because he has this nice adventure all laid out because he presumed that the players would want to explore.  When the wizard gives him a nice juicy way to make sure that that work doesn't go to waste, he jumps on it.4.  No mention was made of alternatives.  Why didn't the DM, knowing that the group didn't want to do this, pull the wizard player aside and suggest that they come back after they go home?  That way, the wizard player and the DM can spend some time getting the other players on board with the scenario.  Maybe drop some information about things - let the players make informed choices.  Instead, the DM simply assumed that a castle in the distance was enough of a hook for the group.  So, yeah, this is not the game I want to play.  This is exactly why I get "shirty" with DM's.  I mean, if I'm the fighter or the cleric player, I'm now being forced to endure several hours of play that I have zero interest in that is actually frustrating me from doing what I actually am interested in doing.  For what?  What is the benefit here?  The wizard player's only investment is that he's interested in the castle.  It's not furthering any of his goals.  It's just his curiousity.  And it's actively impeding me from furthering my goals.  So, N'raac, are you telling me that I should just sit back and shut up in this situation?  That it's okay that I have to play for ten or fifteen HOURS of being disengaged and bored?</blockquote>

Verification