SirThwack's page

I'm not sure why you want to talk to the other players. You aren't having fun. That is your problem. If they aren't having fun, they can deal with it, hopefully in a mature way.

You almost certainly are not going to change the GM. Even a total party agreement that this is bad, isn't going to change his style. Talking to the other players an organizing a player rebellion will probably just cause hurt feelings.

I don't know. I guess I'm not convinced that we couldn't influence him. You're probably right though, that the best solution is to either suck it up and try to have a good time or walk away if I can't.

The trouble is that I can't seem to think of a way to have fun with a character who doesn't in some way rebel against the system. The way I designed this character's personality, when he's under the command of an enemy soldier, he should be fighting tooth and nail against any orders and trying to kill said enemy soldier in his sleep. Suppose I drastically change his personality or roll a new character -- how do I make such an authoritarian campaign fun without rebelling against the GM?

I guess more and more it looks like I should just drop out and find a new group.

Fair points, fair points. I should definitely talk to the other players before taking any action. The ones who had the biggest problems with the GM's style did not return for this campaign, so I don't know where the rest of the players, both new and old, stand.

I'll agree that undermining the GM via in-game rebellion would count as childish, but killing a troublesome NPC? I have strong in-character reasons to want him dead. I'd be thinking about killing him even if I was completely satisfied with how the game was being run.

EDIT: To clarify, my character is a zealous, loyalty-obsessed Inquisitor from one of two empires. He's torturer on loan to this investigation. Honestly, my GM should expect me to try to kill this NPC just for being an enemy agent, and he stole jurisdiction over my case to boot.

Sorry--the quote button betrayed me.

On the subject of authoritarian settings, I ran a few sessions of Paranoia during the break. I think Paranoia makes that kind of setting work, because it's a game specifically about frustration and lack of freedom, and the game plays all that for comedy. That doesn't really hold for Pathfinder though. For one thing, you don't have five extra clones to work with...

Unlike your campaign the real world has no rails, you can choose anything. Personally though i hate all freedom and i refuse to play anything except on the rails pre-written adventures set in Cheliax supporting Chelish authority with only Lawful PCs allowed.

Can't quite tell if that was sarcasm, but I'd be more accepting of a pre-made campaign. Going in with the understanding that it's a boxed dungeon crawl and there wont' be much freedom is fine. It's this "looks like a sandbox, but it's actually linear. Go find the rails" situation that really bothers me.

Option 4 (from Christopher) is probably the most productive.

Thanks for the advice.

I'm currently two sessions into my second campaign with the same GM. To give a background to the real question, it's worth pointing out a few reasons the first campaign fell apart.

1. It used Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved, which is a seriously flawed rulebook

2. We were constantly expected to chase after the plot, but information was scarce. The main villains never tracked us down, and NPCs had no clues to give. Worse, the GM did not design this as a sandbox game, so it basically became a game of "find the rails."

3. Everywhere we went, we were surrounded by NPCs who were more powerful than us. The GM had a penchant for large pitched battles where our party were barely-contributing spectators.

4. The GM, for whatever reason, kept throwing high CR encounters at us because he wanted to make us run away.

Our solution to (3) and (4) was to recruit NPCs into our party. This led to a feedback loop where combat was balanced for the party + NPCs, so we kept recruiting more just to stay competitive. So our actual PCs were solidified as ancillary to the campaign. It didn't help that most of the table was disinterested in actual role-playing, so the characters had zero investment in the story. It also didn't help that many of our characters were a bunch of Bilbos; the characters tried to make the most rational decision (based on real world logic) and had little to no interest in adventuring for its own sake.

In the end, the campaign finally imploded due to player rebellion. We were one session away from the final battle. The villain revealed his master plan, stole the MacGuffin from us, and ran off toward the town we had been using as our home base. What ensued was a large argument within the party about whether or not to follow him. Because our characters were largely incompetent compared to everyone else in the world, one side thought the town could handle itself and that we should go find reinforcements somewhere. The argument lasted over an hour, the GM would have ended the campaign before he let us go off the rails, and the player arguing the hardest for finding reinforcements had his character leave the party permanently. Thus ended the campaign. I personally stayed out of the argument because my character was dead when it happened. The words, "Shut up, you're dead," did come up when I tried to voice my opinion.

We took almost two years to cool off, the most vocally angry players dropped out, and the GM just started a completely new and unconnected Pathfinder campaign. I was hesitant to join because of all the problems with the first campaign, but I wanted to give him another chance.

So here's where the new problems start. The new campaign is in a homebrew setting. Basically, there are two superpowers locked in a Cold War, with any actual fighting going on between satellite nations. Both factions are highly authoritarian military societies.

All the PCs are level 1 nobodies from both factions who have been drafted into a joint investigation regarding a destroyed embassy. There's a little tension due to the baked-in party schism, but that hasn't been too much of a problem so far.

So now we're in this society where every NPC both out-levels and out-ranks us, which means the PCs aren't in a position to refuse any demand an NPC makes of us. We're basically just being pushed around by superior officers from plot point to plot point. In the most recent session, we've been put under the direct command of an NPC soldier. We followed the plot to a city, and our permission to even be in that city is contingent on this NPC taking control of our actions. So somehow, the GM came to the conclusion that the problem with the first campaign is that we had too much freedom and we needed an NPC babysitter.

I don't want to be in a campaign where my character is a slave. I much prefer a game where the GM is flexible, willing to improvise, and capable of working with the players to find adventures that hook them, both in and out of character.

I see three ways to cope.

1. Quit. The GM has shown that he's probably not going to stop railroading, so I could give up and try to find a new group. Probably the sanest option, but I'd prefer to find a way to make this work because I don't have any other leads on an RPG group.

2. Kill the NPC. The vindictive side of me really, really wants to do this. Out-of-character, I see him as a shining example of what my GM is doing wrong. In-character, he's an enemy soldier who stole my investigation and made me his slave. I tried ditching him once, to no avail. He was badly injured when we first found him, but I passed up the chance to coup de gras him in his sleep. Killing him now would take coordination with the rest of the party, which is probably another campaign-ender.

3. Have my character turn into a rebel freedom fighter. Currently, he's a zealot in the service of one of the two major players. It could make sense for my character to be so disgusted at how this joint investigation deal worked out that he loses faith in his own side.

Is there a fourth option I'm missing? Does anyone have advice on how to find the fun in an authoritarian setting with an authoritarian GM?