Golden Rule for all GMs
In my opinion, this is the MOST important thing for any GM/DM/ST/Judge/Whatever to keep in mind:
The game that you are running is an interactive story. This story is not about your NPCs, nor is it about any one player character. It's about -all- the player characters. It's not Blade, where one character is paramount and the others are just supporting characters. It's a team movie, and the story should center on that team. An individual character can have the focus be on him or her every now and then, but it's important to make sure that each character has his or her moment in the sun. Don't neglect any one player... they're all an important part of your game setting. Make them feel it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you had a bad experience with a DM. I think, at this point, it's important to remember the two things PLAYERS should never do:
1. Never forget that your DM is playing the game, too. S/he puts more effort into the story and campaign than any single player character, and as such deserves to have as much fun as the rest of the group.
2. Never play AGAINST your DM. Don't exploit a clever reading of a rule to make your character unbalancingly powerful, and never get angry when your DM tells you no for that very reason.
Well, those are two things a GOOD DM shouldn't do, sure. It's ass-hattery at its finest unless it has been stated before the game began that would be how they were going to run the game. Then it would be the player's fault for joining a bad game.
My 2 things are:
1) The DM should NEVER be allowed to pay for his meal when running the game.
2) The DM should NEVER eat the last slice of pizza without asking first. It's just rude.
Two things Everyone Should ALWAYS do:
1. Remember it is a group effort. I draw exception to the thought that somehow the DM has put more time into the game that I have. That's a very poor assumption to make. Likewise I should assume that the amount of time I put into it on either end somehow makes it more "Mine" than someone else's... this is by the group for the group.
2. When in doubt talk to the people involved. If you are a player and you think the DM might not like your choices and what you are looking at doing with them ask him his opinion before doing it... preferably well before game so he can think on it. When you are a DM and you aren't comfortable with a player's choices talk to them about it... could be a non issue because they are willing to make a change. As a DM tell your players if item creation feats are a bad idea or if the campaign is going to have a certain theme to it. This makes creating a character for your campaign easier on the players and they can settle into it easier without a bunch of people choosing undead hating rangers for your dragon campaign.
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?
Somebody's not reading what people posted...
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
RamboJesus, is that the way the DM would describe it? "I just killed off one of the PC's. No reason. Just felt like it." It sounds too much like a loaded question for some of us to blithely agree with you.
Do PC's run the risk of death? Yes. From bad luck, even if they're not being particularly stupid at the time? Depends on the GM's philosophy, but I'm of the camp that says, "Sometimes the dice speak things we'd rather not hear."
But, I sympathize that you're bummed out.
|
|
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?
Why not just post what happened instead of tip-toeing around a subject and posting venom? You obviously had a problem with someone so spill it and lets all discuss, otherwise you posted your opinion on 2 important rules for DMs and posters are doing the same. If you just want 34 posts saying variations of "you, RamboJesus, are right" than ask for that instead.
Be clear with what you want to discuss, sarcasm and emotions sometimes don't translate well over the net.
I may have missed the point of this discussion but...
Do we all not play for fun!
So the only rule should be, Have fun, but not at the expense of the others in your gaming group.
This applies to both DM's and players!
I may have missed the point of this discussion but...
Do we all not play for fun!
So the only rule should be, Have fun, but not at the expense of the others in your gaming group.
This applies to both DM's and players!
I'm very surprised anyone with the name "Turkina B" is interested in other people having fun. ;)
|
The top two things I believe a DM should never do are the following
1. Take control of the players characters, as a DM yeah you have all the power in the world literally... you created it. Just don't tell a player his character fought a cr 20 creature and died, when the player wasn't even allowed to have any say in it whatsoever.
2. Rule number two don't ever put your players in a situation that basically has no chance of survival, ESPECIALLY if they weren't doing anything stupid to deserve it. Like really?
Do you guys agree with me or what?
Also list some other things you think DMs should NEVER do.
I actually disagree with the second point.
It should say something like "never force your players into a situation that basically has no chance of survival".
Meaning that the GM should never railroad the PCs into a position where they will die unless the DM uses his Dues Ex Machina.
But if, for example, a party of 3rd level characters hears a rumor about an ancient red dragon living in the mountains, and goes looking for its lair with every intention of killing it and taking its stuff, the GM is obligated to give them exactly what they are asking for.
The top two things I believe a DM should never do are the following
1. Take control of the players characters, as a DM yeah you have all the power in the world literally... you created it. Just don't tell a player his character fought a cr 20 creature and died, when the player wasn't even allowed to have any say in it whatsoever.
2. Rule number two don't ever put your players in a situation that basically has no chance of survival, ESPECIALLY if they weren't doing anything stupid to deserve it. Like really?
Do you guys agree with me or what?
Also list some other things you think DMs should NEVER do.I actually disagree with the second point.
It should say something like "never force your players into a situation that basically has no chance of survival".
Meaning that the GM should never railroad the PCs into a position where they will die unless the DM uses his Dues Ex Machina.
But if, for example, a party of 3rd level characters hears a rumor about an ancient red dragon living in the mountains, and goes looking for its lair with every intention of killing it and taking its stuff, the GM is obligated to give them exactly what they are asking for.
I think that's covered under the 'if they weren't doing anything stupid to deserve it' part of the rule. If they go actively seeking out an ancient red dragon, they've obviously lost the protection of that clause.
I have no problem with others having fun before I blast 'em with paired Pulse Lasers! <grin>.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I do not believe that DMs should do the following:
1.) Allow crazy races/templates into a game unless ALL the players are playing crazy races/templates. I hate seeing tables with 2 humans, an elf, and a half-demon werewolf or some b~~*#&@! like that. I also hate it when some player INSISTS that he be allowed to play such b$!#~+*&, even though the DM has flatly stated 'No.'
2.) ...that was really my big one. I might come back to this. :)
I think the problem RamboJesus is having is not that a character died, but there was no dice rolled by the player
now I can only guess but it sorta sounds like the player might have been absent from the game at the time... I have had more than one character die while i was not there (as I am sure the dm ran my character differently than I would have) but I tend to think that although it really sucks... I wasn't there
|
|
My thoughts -
The players should develop an intersting character, know how to play them, research their spells and abilities, allow other players to shine, and have fun.
The DM should come prepared, be consistant and fair, know the rules to the best of his/her abilitiy, and create an enjoyable game environment so everyone will have fun.
That is just a partial list.
The DM is the story teller. They take/create a challenging storyline and give the players the opportunity to be a part of it and influence the outcome. True enough, each game the creatures the DM runs are expected to lose. As a DM, you have to get over that. Make it challenging, exciting, and then lose in the end. A DM is NOT a diety, cannot wave a hand and kill you, and should try not to take things personally. I never take control of a players character, even when they are being controlled by something or someone else. I give them a note or instructions on what they believe they must do (i.e. defend the bad guy from attacks) and then that player can fight his own buddies and I am removed somewhat from the bad feelings.
The players have to consider the incredible time investment that the DM puts into the adventure and try not to spend every game trying to derail the storyline, break the rules, or dominate the table.
As a DM, I don't like to have PC's die. Sometimes it just can't be avoided as a the barbarian with 3 hp streaks back into battle for a cherry pick kill, misses, and then is crit by a large great axe. I roll the attack dice in front of my players so they know I do not influence them. I roll behind the screen only for things that they would not have knowledge of and usually are not deadly. I would rather have the adventure conclude in a climatic battle where near the brink of destruction a player drops the big bad guy and the group cheers in excitement because they won. As a DM, that is cool.
|
|
I gree that the DM hascertain responsibiliti to the players, such as not killing them wthout cause or taking control of acharacter from a player if the events don't warrent it. Hopwever the player has some responsibilities too, such as being agood sport when his character gets mind controlld and turns against the party or being a man and sucking it up when they choose to throw a bottle of alchemists fire on the ground to clear away the tar that they are stuck in.
I do not believe that DMs should do the following:
1.) Allow crazy races/templates into a game unless ALL the players are playing crazy races/templates. I hate seeing tables with 2 humans, an elf, and a half-demon werewolf or some b*%%&@%& like that. I also hate it when some player INSISTS that he be allowed to play such b*%%&@%&, even though the DM has flatly stated 'No.'
2.) ...that was really my big one. I might come back to this. :)
Personally if someone wants a crazy race/template i give the other players abilities (or bonus levels) to compensate. If you find a way to keep the players even there is nothing wrong with the half-demon werewolf (though it will make some interesting roleplay situations on those moonlit nights).
Think about it the other way. What if the play has always wanted to play the werewolf half demon. The thinks it would be alot of fun, but either his group doesnt favor that kind of game (where everyone is a monster) or for whatever other reason he has never been allowed to play it. Eventually he has to 'insist' or he'll never get the opportunity.
The way I see it the most important thing a DM should remember is that he is the host of a party. It isnt about him, its about the group as a whole. He/she is part of that group, but the story should be about the party, and created accordingly. I believe alot of DM's get a certain sense of entitlement because they do the work to create the story. And I believe this is not the right attitude. You are ofcourse doing more work, but you should be doing it because you enjoy it (telling the story), and you want to create a fun experience for your friends. If that is not your reasoning for DMing, you are on the wrong side of the screen.
As to the first point, its too circumstancial for me to agree with. My GM often has writeups of what happens in downtime and what we are doing, usually getting our requests, but not always.
As to the second point, its something I have seen 2 new GMs do, and both times involved sending too high a CR monster at the party because they completely trounced an equal CR encounter earlier. They did not understand how preparedness and the non-scalar nature of the CR system* affected what a party could handle, and both ended in TPK. This was bad GMing, but not intentional, as both had reletively little experience in encounter design.
If you are instead refering to creating impossible death traps, there should always be a solution that the players can figure out, even if you haven't intentionally designed one in.
*multiple creatures of lower CR do not necessarily = 1 creature of that higher CR
So, what was the situation that brought this post up? Its obvious something happened that made you upset during a game.
The DM wouldn't let him apply a troll template to his PC.
I played in game where the DM killed the Character of player who wasn't there. This player of course only showed up one in every 5 or 6 game sessions and the DM was getting tired of having this PC character dragged through the dungeon as mindless NPC.
Now in all fairness the player should have been warned if they didn't show up this would happen. But really if you miss 5 sessions in row show up then miss 5 more should even be playing?
If taken to the absolute letter, I agree with the OP's first post.
The DM should never take control of the PC and then kill him for absolutely no reason at all.
That being said- the PC's 'no reason' and the DMs "no reason" are usually very different things.
As has been stated before- PC's doing stupid things can very often lead to feelings of "tHe DM killed my character for no reason" instead of the "I did something (really) stupid and the DM didn't pull punches, so I died."
If your idea of strategy is.. CHARGE! and of tactics.. CHARGE!.. then you can expect eventually to get your head handed to you.
That being said:
1)The DM should never orchestrate a challenge that the PC's are completely unable to overcome. This can include things vastly over the CR of the group, or "puzzle" monsters that have one unique way of killing them while giving PC's no way to figure that one way out aside from trial and error.
"well if you had used the cold iron arrows I gave you 3 (real) months ago then the monsters fast healing 20 and DR 30/- would have been negated."
2) Railroading is actually not a bad thing. All DM's do it to some extent or another. "your mission should you choose to accept it: save the princess from Bowzer" is in effect a railroad. Once you accept the mission, you have to do what is needed to get her back. You have little choice in it without just letting her get killed. (or sold off or whatever it is the DM has Bowzer doing to/with her).
Dungeons are classic examples of Railroads. However- while the DM must and will Railroad to some extent my pet peeve is the blatant railroad.
A classic actual example (i.e. this happened to me) was where the DM wanted us to go down a particular path in the forest and anytime we deviated from the path we found ourselves "on the path" heading in the direction he wanted us to go. Any direction was "you see the giant tree sized mushroom in front of you". While its quasi-classic, having been seen in some novels and such, its also highly annoying.
So, those are my highly wordy 2. lol
-S
When I DM, I have a houserule that I mention to players when we're creating characters.
Miss 1 session "without a good reason" and you get 1/2 experience for the session.
Miss 2 consecutive sessions "without a good reason" and your character catches a nasty disease + 1/2 experience for the session.
Miss 3 consecutive sessions "without a good reason" and said disease becomes fatal. We have never gotten to #3 in nearly 10 years of playing.
As an aside, we usually have the other players collectively play any missing PCs, but pick one of the PCs to monitor their hps and attack rolls, etc. Works well for us, and it doesn't require the DM (me) to have to keep track of the PC as well as run my combat.
Do DMs ever kill off PCs with no reason? Yes, I have been a victim of it myself once. I rolled up a low level druid to sit in on a pickup game when I was in college. I didn't know any of the players or the DM, although many of them already knew each other (and the group was quite large). Our first encounter...first encounter mind you...we were sneaking up through a wooded area to a hobgoblin encampment in the nearby hills and my character who was hiding next to a tree keeping lookout gets assassinated. Mind you, I had an entangle spell cast behind me to cover my rear approach. I never got to roll a save or a skill check or anything. Just got told I was dead. Three hours in and I never rolled a die. I never went back to that group I can tell you that.
I'm curious to know what brought on the OP's hue and cry as well. Maybe it wasn't as one-sided as it appeared at first glance. We won't know until we hear the story.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I played in game where the DM killed the Character of player who wasn't there. This player of course only showed up one in every 5 or 6 game sessions and the DM was getting tired of having this PC character dragged through the dungeon as mindless NPC.
Now in all fairness the player should have been warned if they didn't show up this would happen. But really if you miss 5 sessions in row show up then miss 5 more should even be playing?
I treat PCs with absent players like Kenny. They immediately die in a horrific and terrible way, but reappear the next adventure and no one comments on what happened in the last session.
If I'm not mistaken, that's even RAW.
Rule #16: Don't overdo the saucy wench bits. Creeeeepy.
*multiple creatures of lower CR do not necessarily = 1 creature of that higher CR
Damn right. Isn't the ratio like 24:1? >:)
Not everyone plays for a strategic challenge, so I question the 'stupid actions' philosophy.
On another board, I recently saw a list of things GMs should do. While I agree with most of the things that were on the list, I felt it really missed the basics - the all encompassing rules. It has been mentioned here and I feel it is more important than not controlling PCs or setting up unwinnable scenarios. It is possible there are even players who enjoy such situations.
The game is played for fun. Fun > everything else. The trick is to understand everyone's definition of fun. It should be obvious it is not always the same for everyone.
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?
Den: What if I don't?
Arn: Then you die, she dies, EVERYBODY DIES!
But seriously, if your DM is killing players because it's fun for him to do so, that may be a problem. If that's not so fun for the players, they probably shouldn't play with that person, or at least not give him the Big Chair. Let someone else DM and let the former DM know what it's like on the other side of the DM-screen. Often a player whose just been DMing for years tends to lose sight of the players' goals and how much thought and effort go into developing a long-term character. But seriously, how often does this really happen? Most Killer-DMs are by now an endangered species because players universally let those kind of DMs know that their game is no longer fun by simply not going to their games anymore. I haven't known a true Killer-DM since junior high school! If your DM is truly a Killer-DM, one who kills characters for sport rather than sustenance, then it's up to the players to call him out on it.
Then again, said the Devil to his Advocate, the game has hit points, damage, and rules on death, dying, and stabilization for a reason. Death is as much a part of the game as character creation, and sometimes bad things happen to good characters. (Sometimes bad things happen to BAD characters too, but that's usually more funny.) The point is that dealing with a character death is something that players have to expect from time to time, and sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and take it like a man... or otherwise gender-nonspecific adult. The game as written has tons of ways around death, including Raise Dead, Resurrection, Reincarnation, Breath of Life, and dozens of other healing and curative magics. A good DM will usually give the players an idea when they may be in over their heads, and then its up to the players if they want to take the challenge set before them, risking death (or worse) or instead back up and rethink a new strategy or approach. As the cliche goes, "Live to fight another day."
I do not believe that DMs should do the following:
1.) Allow crazy races/templates into a game unless ALL the players are playing crazy races/templates. I hate seeing tables with 2 humans, an elf, and a half-demon werewolf or some b@&**!@% like that. I also hate it when some player INSISTS that he be allowed to play such b@&**!@%, even though the DM has flatly stated 'No.'
2.) ...that was really my big one. I might come back to this. :)
I don't like this either... but it stopped bothering me a while back for some reason. In my campaigns, I imposed a "One Freak Limit" so only one person may play any non-Core race and only one may play a non-Core class. First come, first served, and I get full veto power based on whether I think it will be a good fit for the campaign. For example, my Rise of the Runelords campaign had two freaks at one time, a human Warlock (from the Complete Arcane or Mage or whatever) and a draenei Paladin (draenei from the World of Warcraft video game). The players have to submit a written proposal on what the class/race can do, and then I rewrite it to fit my campaign world and to make sure they are on equal footing with the other players.
Most players are fine with this. Players that INSIST they should get to play such things get sent home... I have a waiting list of players to take their seat as soon as it clears up.
|
|
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?
I am fine with it. In fact I once played in a campaign where the DM started out by saying, "Everyone dies, and then you wake up on the shores of an unfamiliar river." Totally awesome campaign by the way.
Not everyone plays for a strategic challenge, so I question the 'stupid actions' philosophy.
On another board, I recently saw a list of things GMs should do. While I agree with most of the things that were on the list, I felt it really missed the basics - the all encompassing rules. It has been mentioned here and I feel it is more important than not controlling PCs or setting up unwinnable scenarios. It is possible there are even players who enjoy such situations.
The game is played for fun. Fun > everything else. The trick is to understand everyone's definition of fun. It should be obvious it is not always the same for everyone.
Back in the 2E days we used run UnderMountain games where they were pretty much impossible. You just couldn't win. The fun part was seeing how long you'd last. We had this book back called Central Casting where you'd roll up Character Backgrounds. They'd give all sorts of extras like you could be of noble birth and start with more money, you could have a military background and all you equipment. It gave bonuses to proficiencies so you could end up with tons of skills. Sometimes you got magic items or followers. We'd each make 3 characters roll up a background.
Then we'd trudge into UnderMountain only to be slaughter by 12 trolls in the first encounter. So half the party would die right there and the rest would run. The traps would hit take out 1/2 the fleeing members and then it was like bad horror film as you tried to rest and defend yourself. I don't think we ever go more than a dozen rooms into that dungeon but it was a blast trying.
I also had DM that always through into what appeared to be impossible situations. There was always more than one way out. He'd usually think of one way but most times I found others. Those were fun too but you have to have a fair DM and you can't be afraid of PC death.
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?Den: What if I don't?
Arn: Then you die, she dies, EVERYBODY DIES!
But seriously, if your DM is killing players because it's fun for him to do so, that may be a problem. If that's not so fun for the players, they probably shouldn't play with that person, or at least not give him the Big Chair. Let someone else DM and let the former DM know what it's like on the other side of the DM-screen. Often a player whose just been DMing for years tends to lose sight of the players' goals and how much thought and effort go into developing a long-term character. But seriously, how often does this really happen? Most Killer-DMs are by now an endangered species because players universally let those kind of DMs know that their game is no longer fun by simply not going to their games anymore. I haven't known a true Killer-DM since junior high school! If your DM is truly a Killer-DM, one who kills characters for sport rather than sustenance, then it's up to the players to call him out on it.
Then again, said the Devil to his Advocate, the game has hit points, damage, and rules on death, dying, and stabilization for a reason. Death is as much a part of the game as character creation, and sometimes bad things happen to good characters. (Sometimes bad things happen to BAD characters too, but that's usually more funny.) The point is that dealing with a character death is something that players have to expect from time to time, and sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and take it like a man... or otherwise gender-nonspecific adult. The game as written has tons of ways around death, including Raise Dead, Resurrection, Reincarnation, Breath of Life, and dozens of other healing and curative magics. A good DM will usually give the players an idea when they may be in over their heads, and then its up to the players if they want to take the challenge set before...
I actually have a huge problem with DM's killing or even disabling players. As a DM i try very hard to avoid it. For one very big reason. Time. Real world time. For me at least, if my character doesnt get to be involved in the story (whether im dead, or kidnapped, or currently melting in some endless lava trap of horror), I am not having fun.
When I was younger I probably cared less. But as an adult in a gaming group with a wide variety of careers (try getting together people in the medical proffession, people with 9-5's and others with retail jobs in the same place at the same time, its not easy), time is precious. I dont have alot of free time anymore, and even less that overlaps with those in my gaming group. If I spend even just a couple hours at the session (which in our group is likely to be most of the session), dead, making a new character, or just paralyzed and uninvolved, I have lost precious leisure time, because I am not a part of the story, and in general not having a fun.
Fun is something no dm has the right to take away, and in fact should make every effort to do the opposite. So for me at least, players are protected by that same grace of fate and luck that guys like James Bond are. The villians never just shoot james bond when they capture him, why do they put him in the same old slow death traps he can escape from? Because he is the star, and to kill him kind of screws up the story. The same holds true for my players, and I will never use direct death affects against them, almost never use save or lose abilities, and rarely use save or suck abilities. The exception is when i give players ample warning so they can prepare appropriate counter measures (remove fear or paralysis for instance). So that the player is likely only incapacited for a round instead of the whole encounter.
Because even a player who is just paralyzed for the encounter has to sit there for an hour, hour and a half while the rest of us have fun playing the game. That is not right, and its something every dm should actively avoid.
|
|
I do not really have a problem with a DM killing toons. If I had really tight time constraints it might be more of an issue for me, but as it stands my group usually games for about 5-6 hours a week. I would have a severe issue with a DM killing my character off the screen (just saying I was dead and not letting the action or dice play out to prove it).
But PC death in and of itself is kind of part of the game for our groups. Sure it sucks when it happens. But some of my most memorable encounters in this game my character did not (or some of the other characters did not) in fact live through.
Thats the stuff heroism is made of: Taking a big risk for a big reason. Most of the time it works out, but sometimes someone has to pay the piper. My players are pretty serious about me not pulling punches. In fact some of the only real criticisms I receive from my group come if they realize I put on the kid gloves on a monster when things went badly. They like to win and win big, but they don't like to feel like there was no chance of failure.
So I don't usually pull punches. I tend to build up a list of actions for key encounters and try and roleplay the monsters as their intelligence and alignment dictates. I may stray from it for a unique encounter, but I typically have that deviance preplanned.
I would like to have the whole scenario from the OP about how his character was killed.
love,
malkav
So you guys are fine with a DM just simply killing off one (or more) of your characters in the group? just because they wanted to?I am fine with it. In fact I once played in a campaign where the DM started out by saying, "Everyone dies, and then you wake up on the shores of an unfamiliar river." Totally awesome campaign by the way.
Sounds like Riverworld.
I treat PCs with absent players like Kenny. They immediately die in a horrific and terrible way, but reappear the next adventure and no one comments on what happened in the last session.
If I'm not mistaken, that's even RAW.
It may nor may not be RAW, but I sure like it as a house rule.
Use "1000 Ways to Die" as inspiration for recurrent 'Kenny deaths'.
First time, meteor through the heart. Second time, poisonous viper bite to an artery. Third time, decapitation by getting stuck in a trap/door/driving drunk while playing mail box baseball. And so on. :)
Den: What if I don't?
Arn: Then you die, she dies, EVERYBODY DIES!
You quoted "Heavy Metal". You win the thread.
stuff about fun
Everyone's fun is not the same. I know my group would hate to play without a real danger element, and while the occasional dice fudge is accepted, it should remain occasional(for my group).
I do however understand you situation with a lack of free time to make new characters, or that is at least how I understood it.
So for me at least, players are protected by that same grace of fate and luck that guys like James Bond are.
I was beginning to feel I was the only one 'round these parts. :)
So for me at least, players are protected by that same grace of fate and luck that guys like James Bond are.I was beginning to feel I was the only one 'round these parts. :)
Does that mean your BBEGs pummel them in the 'nads mercilessly, knowing that they are doomed to die within a few minutes afterwards? ^_^
My GM often has writeups of what happens in downtime and what we are doing, usually getting our requests, but not always.
Now that, is something I would not abide in a game I were playing in.
My PC is my character, that means I choose what it does. If something I want to do during downtime isn't possible then I should be able to choose something else. If the GM said what I was doing during downtime without my input (or said something other than what I declared) and refused to negotiate with me (I can understand some things not being available, but it's my right to choose what I do from what things are available) then I would be walking away from that table, and not coming back unless somebody else took over the reigns (or the DM called me and apologized and gave his word not to control my PC again.)
Kyrt, usually we have enough time to flesh out the basics of what we want to do, and sometimes better details, but sometimes people don't get back to him or other things come up.
Our last campaign had a lot of downtime, with potentially months between adventures in a fast changing political landscape. I would tell the GM something like, "I spend my time courting these people" and he would have a 1/2 page writeup of the interaction before the next adventure so I knew how successful it was. This allowed the game to flow, as it removed a lot of 1on1 GM time durring the session, which already dragged the game down a lot in an intrigue game. It also gave us a better understanding of what was happening in the world arround us. I personally looked forward to reading how successful my endevors were.
