I quit a 3.0 campaign 8 yrs ago for this main reasons. My character was pretty much created by the DM b/c it was my introduction to the new 3.0 rules after a long D&D hiatus. During one game we were battling and I used my color spray to max effect but at the same time affecting the DM's wife who was only going to be dazed for a round! She gave me the most evil look but the party agreed (meta gaming) that it would be great to cast the color spray.
After that encounter the DM a man who was atleast in his mid 40's at the time called me to ask me how my character would fit in with the party? The character he created! I can't believe we spent 1 hour on the phone talking about that and he still was not convinced how my character is helping the party dynamic in his campaign.
Basically the guy wanted me out of the game b/c his wife didn't like me, also in her mid 40's at the time. After that my PC was public enemy #1!
My own personal 'last straw' came from an Iron Kingdoms game I was running as DM. I think it went well really. Players were for the most part keen on role-playing and thought up some really good characters. It ended badly when I decided to wrap up the first session so I could reach Mass on time (I was and still am a practicing Roman Catholic).
One player decided to take it upon himself to personally enlighten me about my 'delusion' in 'fairy tales' and followed me the entire 2 km walk to the cathedral berating me about my belief in 'the old man in the sky'.
I was made uncomfortable enough to cancel subsequent games. Apparently he's subsequently been ostracized by most of the gaming community here for similar behavior.
I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).
|
<...>
I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).
On the old USENET newsgroup alt.folklore.urban they had two policies like that--the BoP (ban on politics) and the BoR (ban on religion). They're good policies to have if you have any sort of spectrum of opinions at the table.
Unfortunately, it sounds like what you really needed there was a 'complete jerks' taboo at your table.
|
|
My own personal 'last straw' came from an Iron Kingdoms game I was running as DM. I think it went well really. Players were for the most part keen on role-playing and thought up some really good characters. It ended badly when I decided to wrap up the first session so I could reach Mass on time (I was and still am a practicing Roman Catholic).
One player decided to take it upon himself to personally enlighten me about my 'delusion' in 'fairy tales' and followed me the entire 2 km walk to the cathedral berating me about my belief in 'the old man in the sky'.
I was made uncomfortable enough to cancel subsequent games. Apparently he's subsequently been ostracized by most of the gaming community here for similar behavior.
I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).
Speaking as an atheist who has several fundamental disagreements (to put it lightly) with the RCC, your player was being a douche. It sucks that you felt you had to cancel games because of this bozo. Really, you should have uninvited him and kept playing (though I understand this is often hard to do as well).
My best friend is Catholic, and while we do have some interesting conversations about religion, I would never berate him for making room in his schedule for his beliefs (okay, maybe jokingly, but not like you describe).
Most of the players in my home games share similar views on politics and religion, so I don't generally have to worry about any trouble. But when I run public games at our local game store, I do make a policy of no religious or political talk - we're there to game, not to get into philosophical arguments or debates. There are some people that I game with that I know are on the complete opposite end of the spectrum as me when it comes to politics and religion, and I don't want to make an enemy out of them because they are great gamers that I'd miss playing with. Likewise, there are some gamers that have views similar to mine that I avoid talking politics/religion with because we'd go on forever and never get any gaming done! As it is, we're lucky if we get started only one hour late...
|
My own personal 'last straw' came from an Iron Kingdoms game I was running as DM. I think it went well really. Players were for the most part keen on role-playing and thought up some really good characters. It ended badly when I decided to wrap up the first session so I could reach Mass on time (I was and still am a practicing Roman Catholic).
One player decided to take it upon himself to personally enlighten me about my 'delusion' in 'fairy tales' and followed me the entire 2 km walk to the cathedral berating me about my belief in 'the old man in the sky'.
I was made uncomfortable enough to cancel subsequent games. Apparently he's subsequently been ostracized by most of the gaming community here for similar behavior.
I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).
Augh. Absolutely could not game with someone that wore their personal beliefs/politics/philosphy on their sleeve and took a crusader mentality with it 24/7 when it's clear people around him simply aren't interested.
Reminds me of a recent horror story on another board where a PC was "taught a lesson" and maimed in a fight for defending the nobility in his setting from some communist/democratic(it wasn't very clear) Mary Sue NPC.
Thou shalt not proselytize on Game Night, dammit. Don't care who you are or what you believe.
Jerks'll be jerks regardless of what they believe, and they fall under Cirno's First Rule of Gaming.
<...>
I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).
On the old USENET newsgroup alt.folklore.urban they had two policies like that--the BoP (ban on politics) and the BoR (ban on religion). They're good policies to have if you have any sort of spectrum of opinions at the table.
Unfortunately, it sounds like what you really needed there was a 'complete jerks' taboo at your table.
Doesn't this Ban on Religion make it rather difficult to play clerics or paladins...? ;)
The only time I dropped out of a campaign, was when the GM had failed to tell me that it was a campaign that was planned. He had just asked if I would like to play an evening to try out 4ed. He would make the characters so we would save some time. Wanting to test the system, and playing a non-committing one-shot, I'm looking forward to it.
We play the session, and all is good (well not really it was 4ed) but we don't finish the scenario, so we schedule another day. I don't suspect anything, until we meet the next time, and by his descriptions it becomes clear to me that he actually had a whole campaign planned out for us.
Didn't realize I was coming off as so preachy, but I stand by what I wrote.Dude ... not at all. I was literally referring to the fact that, especially compared to me, you have the patience and beneficence of a saint. It was meant as a compliment.
For me, any day gaming is fun, and I'm willing to put up with a lot just to have those precious few hours each week. Walking away from a game seems extreme to me, in all but the most extreme cases.Not me. It needs to be a fairly engrossing experience to retain my loyalty, or even my attention. I've been involved in too many remarkable games to bother with an irredeemably crappy one.
Yours, however, ain't one of those. For me, a struggling DM needs help and support, not players walking away.I assure you that the type of support of which you speak would have been difficult, nigh impossible, in the atmosphere that already existed.
In addition, most of the other players were content with the job she was doing—in my opinion possessing absurdly low expectations of a campaign's quality (but to each their own). I, however, am incredibly difficult to please. No doubt that in some measure colors my evaluation of her work as a DM.
It's a tough job, and I have sympathy for anyone willing to take it on.Me, too, which is why I didn't give her a hard time in the least (and even intervened on her behalf once or thrice that evening, to her profound gratitude), but rather referred to an ongoing schedule conflict and withdrew gracefully and graciously as I could.
And it's a bit harsh to judge a storyline based on one 4-hour session.Ordinarily, I'd agree, but in this particular case ... no, it really isn't.
Trust me: Unless you attended the session (and audited others involving this group), you should probably defer to my judgment on it. :)
Fair enough. You were there and I wasn't, so I yield to your obviously superior knowledge of the situation.
You seem to have very specific likes and dislikes related to games, but you're aware of that and the implication that this could lead to you being less willing to tolerate less than optimal situations than I am. If it works for you, cool. I hope you always have enough games available to you that you can afford to pick and choose which are best, and don't get stuck sitting at home waiting for a game you like to come along.
I wish you good luck and good gaming!
P.S. I am far from saintly, my many faults just don't happen to lie in lack of tolerance in this particular area!
Of course, Laeral is also incredibly powerful, and in a position of authority within the city. Someone impersonating her would likely be viewed with extreme suspicion, to say the least.She's also a good judge of character. She'd have seen the good intention behind the deed and would not have been so harsh.
The Blackstaff, maybe, but Laeral is a caring woman. She'll be all for second chances.
After all, she never did anything much about her twin, except tell this wizard about it. A person who curses you to be nothing for something harmless like this (the guy didn't sully her name or anything, after all) would have done something about her sister long ago. Maybe a curse that she looks different or everyone knows who she is.
Still, if this curse were anything more than temporary, it would be an overreaction on her part, given her character.It's an overreaction even then. One I might forgive the GM if it wasn't permanent, but it would cause comment.
On the other hand, good thing it wasn't her husband, the Blackstaff, who discovered it. He likely would have just blasted the PC into nothingness on the spot for presuming to impersonate his wife. Not known for his patience with adventurers.Not known to break laws, either. He's unscrupulously lawful. He wouldn't kill anyone for this. Especially since he's not a misogynist and knows his wive can handle herself.
Plus, depending on how much that GM goes with canon, Khelben is stone dead forever.
Not to continue a digression relating to our interpretations of characters neither one of us created, but just a couple of points. Agree on the basically good nature of Laeral and second chances, which is why any punishment should be temporary. That said, the wizard character did something, with good intentions, that was pretty stupid, most likely illegal (impersonating a city official) and potentially dangerous for all involved (Laeral and all the sisters have a lot of enemies). There should be some consequences. A minor and temporary curse to teach him a lesson about presuming to act on her behalf and having the sheer chutzpah to try and impersonate someone as prominent and powerful as Laeral doesn't strike me as an overreaction. Making it permanent would. If you think it would, we'll have to disagree.
As to your other post, I have been accused of being a mean and nasty DM (usually by my wife and daughters), but never a player hater. After all, I'm not saying kick the player out of the group for making a mistake. I'm just saying poor in-game decisions have in-game consequences. Those should be measured and appropriate, and we can disagree on whether any particular DM ruling is, but surely you agree with that concept?
In general, on these boards I do confess that I find myself being a DM-defender more than a player defender. Probably because I do both regularly and recognize how much more difficult it is to do one well than the other, and because I see more DM-hate here than player-hate.
And I yield to your superior knowledge of the the current state of the FR universe on the fact of Khelben being dead, as I stopped playing in that setting and reading the source material and novels several years ago.
A minor and temporary curse to teach him a lesson about presuming to act on her behalf and having the sheer chutzpah to try and impersonate someone as prominent and powerful as Laeral doesn't strike me as an overreaction. Making it permanent would. If you think it would, we'll have to disagree.
It sounds like this was supposed to be permanent at first, and the GM changed her mind later.
But this was no minor curse. It robbed the character of most of his abilities, and had a potentially disastrous penalty for using the remaining abilities.
That's like hacking off a fighter's arms and making it impossible to heal him. It's like cutting out the tongue's bard. It's like killing the cleric's god.
It's everything but minor.
If you think that is minor, I'd like to hear what would be a major punishment? Kill the character, the player and his real-life family?
And his little dog too.
It's like cutting out the tongue's bard.But how will the tongue get its +2 competence bonus to saliva checks?!
The old fashioned way. The way the Puritans did it.
It'd EARN it.
/showingmyage
I had a friend I'd been gaming with for a while. He invited me to a new group. I go to the game, and find out the rest of the gaming group has taken the time and effort to create two character for me to choose from and play. They were thoughtfully titled "The B***H" (Paladin) and "The Slut" (can't remember what this character was).
Hrm. Okay. Strike One.
I pick the paladin, and begin going over the sheet. I got a bit of revenge right off the bat by going over the absolutely horrible build, and correcting it out loud. They forgot a feat, gave her bizarre (as in clueless, not just being jerks again) gear, and I made comments as I rebuilt her to not completely suck.
I am the only woman player, but there is a guy playing a sorceress. Who is (shockingly enough!) a slut. She makes constant offers to sleep with PCs and NPCs for favors and makes comments about how my paladin is boring and an ice queen.
::sigh:: Fine. Strike Two.
Then we're fighting some vampires or vampire spawn or something sunlight sensitive in a basement. My character had a steel mirror (you have to make sure you look good in your armor after all! I had a pound of soap too.), and was using it to reflect sunlight through a hole in the basement wall where the vampires were hiding out. Then it all started to hit the fan so I handed the mirror to the sorceress and fought.
After the battle, the sorceress' player refuses to give back the mirror. "Oh, you gave it to me. It's mine now." Thoroughly annoyed, I responded, "I refuse to associate with thieves. You have stolen that from me. You will return it, immediately, or I will have you arrested for theft." This was in character, but also out of character, if you get my drift. I was pretty pissed off at this point. The guys gave me this look as the sorceress's player agreed to return my mirror.
I thanked the group for allowing me to play...and left, and never came back. I told my friend that his friends were jerks, and I wouldn't be playing with them again. He...
We'd put together a pre-event to meet new, potential players.
There was one player who did not make the cut.
He was an older man who sat at the table and tried to show off the bondage figurines he'd painted.
He only attempted to show these to the women present.
He was not invited back.
[Thou shalt not proselytize on Game Night, dammit. Don't care who you are or what you believe.
This is a great policy! I can get my groups together for about 4 and 6 hours at a time, before the RW intrudes. If half the crew want to sit around and discuss the World Series, we can do that another night. I have 4 players that travel a combined 3 hours to play 4 hours every month and off board chatter has no place when you get to play less than a half a % of your life. I also ban cells, iPods, etc.
Jesus also said "The world will hate you because of Me" and "The wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnal minded". As a Christian, I expect to be rejected and disliked when I tell people about the Gospel. It goes with the territory. I pick my moments to bring it up when it is most appropriate though. Which rarely happens at fantasy RPG sessions. When I play fantasy games set in imaginary worlds like D&D or Star Wars, I prefer to leave real-world politics and religion at the door. If someone else at the table asks me something about Christianity or about some subject that is moral in nature (such as abortion, whether it's "good" or "evil" to lie or steal and stuff like that), then I'll share my beliefs. So, no I don't bring it up just because. At the same time, I'll never apologize for nor deny my beliefs either. I don't care if another person doesn't agree with them or like them. I don't expect them...
Thank you. This sums up very much how I feel as well.
|
Thank you. This sums up very much how I feel as well.Jesus also said "The world will hate you because of Me" and "The wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnal minded". As a Christian, I expect to be rejected and disliked when I tell people about the Gospel. It goes with the territory. I pick my moments to bring it up when it is most appropriate though. Which rarely happens at fantasy RPG sessions. When I play fantasy games set in imaginary worlds like D&D or Star Wars, I prefer to leave real-world politics and religion at the door. If someone else at the table asks me something about Christianity or about some subject that is moral in nature (such as abortion, whether it's "good" or "evil" to lie or steal and stuff like that), then I'll share my beliefs. So, no I don't bring it up just because. At the same time, I'll never apologize for nor deny my beliefs either. I don't care if another person doesn't agree with them or like them. I don't expect them...
+Z
+ZThank you. This sums up very much how I feel as well.Jesus also said "The world will hate you because of Me" and "The wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnal minded". As a Christian, I expect to be rejected and disliked when I tell people about the Gospel. It goes with the territory. I pick my moments to bring it up when it is most appropriate though. Which rarely happens at fantasy RPG sessions. When I play fantasy games set in imaginary worlds like D&D or Star Wars, I prefer to leave real-world politics and religion at the door. If someone else at the table asks me something about Christianity or about some subject that is moral in nature (such as abortion, whether it's "good" or "evil" to lie or steal and stuff like that), then I'll share my beliefs. So, no I don't bring it up just because. At the same time, I'll never apologize for nor deny my beliefs either. I don't care if another person doesn't agree with them or like them. I don't expect them...
+1
There is one thing that I hate the most about games and that's favoritism.
I've quit a number of games due to blatant favoritism from a DM to a specific player, like giving me better items, better stats, better services, better roleplay opportunities and so on and so on... This has lead to other players, including me, to take a back seat and/or getting the bigger share of trouble, compared to the other favored player. I've tried to explain to the DM the situation but didn't care for two bits.
So yeah, I've quit these games... and never looked back.
If I can give a tip to all DMs out there (as I am one right one), treat each player equally, without listening to any power trip they might get.
[Thou shalt not proselytize on Game Night, dammit. Don't care who you are or what you believe.This is a great policy!
It's only common courtesy! I mean, I think it's immensely unwise not to drive yourself mad with the certainties the Mythos brings, so you will be one of those who is eaten first, but when I play the game, I play the game. I won't try to save people some grief when I want to slaughter their characters! 8)
...they acted like I wasn't supposed to see their sheets. That kinda ticked me off because in other games I'd played, the DM was allowed to review players' sheets to make sure there characters were set up right. They just assured me that Character Builder program had told them their characters were "legal" and I was supposed to be satisfied with that.
That was your first error right there: The GM code dictates that for such a comment, one player is to be tortured to death. Not character. Player.
I don't know whether that's different for 4e DMs, the game being less aimed at an mature than others, but a savage beating with a seven-tailed scourge (or more) would at least be in order.
Even in 4e (I think - I do have a very low opinion of the game, but not as low as to think that DMs are powerless in that game), the DM makes the rules. If he wants to see the sheet, he'll see the sheet. If he gets impatient and sais a frozen cow drops out of the heavens to kill the offending players' characters, that's what will happen.
I mean you can safely assume the guy is cheating if the won't show the GM his sheet.
A DM horror story
Dude Mr. Fishy would like to introduce you to Tier Fishy.
Get a stick and hit a b@$++.
One DM's have a right to the players sheets. No sheet no character, period.
Two Kill one as an example.
Three ROCKS FALL EVERY ONE DIES. Roll new characters, that's not a request.
Don't let the players run you. Stomp a few as an example. Better to not run then to be ran.
Take the Good players and leave the table.
No rule comes to the table until the DM reads and OKs it. The next time the players start their BS Tier Fishy their asses. Running a game isn't disscussion time, the DM has finally say.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
I have basically been super blessed with players and GMs for most of the last 20 years. However, I have been made angry and straight up quit on two games:
At Gen Con one year, I was in a Vampire WoD game advertised as powerful PCs are trusted by an elite group of elders with a dangerous mission. We all brought our own NPCs, all of which were neutered down to mostly starting characters. I was told I could play an archon (bounty hunter and enforcer for the ruling body). Our neutered PCs were then trapped in a secret meeting where we were told the ruling body wasn't getting it done and they were taking over (remember, I represent said ruling body). We were attacked by the NPCs' rivals. We were told that no matter what our abilities, we didn't really stand a chance. He rolled a die and asked odd or even. If you guess wrong, you took 3 levels of damage with no ability to soak it. I was great at combat with high Fortitude ranks, and they only had guns.
After NPC team A scatered off NPC team B, we were moved to a secure hotel and told to use our recources to find out what was going on and what to do next. But we couldn't use cell phones or lap tops, cause they couldn't be vouched for. I said, okay...let me go talk to my people. I'm a nosferatu, we know a little about a lot, and are pretty neutral about the whole ruling body thing. Let me see what the sewer rats are saying and maybe there's a lead. I was told I couldn't call and couldn't make contact with the outside. So I said "How can you demand our loyalty, then demand our help, and not trust us to do what we do? You've taken away every option I've mentioned?" The leading NPC replies "I thought you were worthy of our time. I don't even know how you got here."
So I dropped out of character and told the "story teller" that I paid money for a freaking ticket. That's how I got there. I then asked if anyone wanted to play a game where the PCs were the point and could have an impact on the plot with no showboating NPCs, so several of us left dude's game and played our own.
Second really irritating game was a Vampire LARP. The group leading the reset game made several promises: the game would be plot driven. Every player would be vouched as a loyal Camarilla type with no immiediate dissolution of the shared game into twinkdom. I was elected prince, and one of the PC turned out to be a Ravnos (non-camarilla) who murdered cops in the streets. I demanded he be brought to me (not the same as a blood hunt), and he was. I have the title, I have several dots in an ability called Presence, and I won every test to coerce the guy to have some respect. The player is still a jackass and it turns out a good buddy of the story telling team. Later on, someone calls my phone to tell me they have news to tell me about what happened to my predecessor. I summon MY bodyguards, get into MY limo, and it turns out that a La Sombra (not Camarilla) PC has been hiding there. He unloads an uzi into me and my bodyguards look the other way. I have fair Fortitude, but more importantly I have an ability called Majesty that makes it extremely difficult for anyone in my scene to attack me personally. We don't even test against each other, he just unloads "before majesty can take effect (whatever that means - it's always on)", and I die. The story teller asks me what I might play next, and I tell his team that they are what makes LARPs unsustainable, and I'd never play another game associated with them. Big shock, that game folded within weeks.
These are opportunities for us to vent freustration, but they also make cautionary tales. Everyone who runs games ought to read this thread and be wary if they ever get even close to some of these behaviors.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Mr. Fishy, as a long time GM, and very fond of punishing players for their rules heresy and failure to foresee in-character consequences for in character actions, I am always refreshed and amused by your advice.
Get a stick, indeed. Make an example. Straight up kill a bad apple, zombify his junk, and then reward good players handsomely for putting the new zombie down. Hard.
Kill them. Kill their love interests. Make them work for their crap, and lead them into a cave full of advanced frost worms if they complain even a little.
But, you know, above all tell a great story. : }
Jesus also said "The world will hate you because of Me" and "The wisdom of God is foolishness to the carnal minded". As a Christian, I expect to be rejected and disliked when I tell people about the Gospel. It goes with the territory. I pick my moments to bring it up when it is most appropriate though. Which rarely happens at fantasy RPG sessions. When I play fantasy games set in imaginary worlds like D&D or Star Wars, I prefer to leave real-world politics and religion at the door. If someone else at the table asks me something about Christianity or about some subject that is moral in nature (such as abortion, whether it's "good" or "evil" to lie or steal and stuff like that), then I'll share my beliefs. So, no I don't bring it up just because. At the same time, I'll never apologize for nor deny my beliefs either. I don't care if another person doesn't agree with them or like them. I don't expect them...I've had a strict 'God and Religion' taboo at my table since then, for the benefit of all parties (religious or not).That's one I'm unable (and, admittedly, unwilling) to implement consistently, since many of my campaigns over the years have been either quasi-historical, or involved created worlds which had been touched by real-life religion. [I've always found manufactured deities more than a trifle boring.] Fortunately for me, the players with whom I've gamed have proven able to distinguish between contemporary issues and those of the game world, even when the latter involved matters of God, faith, the (Roman Catholic or Orthodox) Church, Islam, Judaism, various other faiths, etc. As a matter of fact, it's been my experience that most seem more invested in such characters.
[Thou shalt not proselytize on Game Night, dammit.]Agreed. Jesus said, "'Go ... and preach the Good News to everyone.'" He did not say, "Go forth and harass those who aren't interested, and do so at the most inappropriate times."
Unfortunately, gospel(-inspired) or not, this attitude leads to the occasionally unfair belief that those who don't toe the party line are being condescended to(or that the person who brings up such beliefs is being passive-aggressive in their conversion attempts), which leads to fistfights when relgion is brought up at the gaming table. Still, it's good that you pick and choose the time you discuss your beliefs and defend them when warranted, although I think it's unfortunate that you don't care for the opinions of others on it. Your thoughts on the person who gave out bonus experience to others for attending their church a few(dozen) posts back?
Screw the players! If they didn't want you to screw with them they wouldn't show up.
Mr. Fishy doesn't randomly slap players that would be abuse. That said there is a line... you will not cross.
Your thoughts on the person who gave out bonus experience to others for attending their church a few(dozen) posts back?
As I'm pretty sure Freehold is referring to my horror story way back on the first or second page, I, too, would like to know people's thoughts on that one.
Oh, Freehold... I'm searching around for some notes on that Problem Player With Only One Character Type so I can recount more stories of the things that he did that made people walk from games with him in them. I figure cautionary tales are always good.
I have two stories right now.
The group disbanded for two reasons. One because the DM's wife (who was not a real gamer but gamed because he did) could never remember what die to roll...we were playing D&D 3.5 and 4.0, yes the D20 system. Everytime she needed to roll init. she would ask what die and what to add. She did this for skill checks too. Of course she had to sit next to him every game and ask him what to do and what to ask and where to look for things. Basicaly he was playing through her. This was really annoying. Add in the fact that he was a stickler for the rules. They were not guidelines they were law. He was completely rigid on everything and the storyline was railroad tracks. If you missed a note from the flute player at the tavern three sessions ago you were done. Just not fun.
Same DM we were playing 4th Ed and I was a tiefling warlock who was unaligned. Our mission was to prevent the sacrifice of a child at a theater. We entered through the balcony making stealth checks and all of that. The rest of the party decides to decend to the stage floor to stop the evil doers, save for the dragonborn warlord who was also unaligned. He used the catwalk to get to the other side of the balcony. We rolled init. I went second to last and last up was the warlord. Everybody picked a bad guy to pummel and on my turn I said: "I'm attacking the child." The DM said no. I told him that I was using one of my encounter powers that requires no rolling and has no save. He still wouldn't let me do it. I figured that at the cost of one kid we could save the world it was worth doing for my character. The dragonborn player told him that he was using his breath weapon on the guy holding the kid. So we stopped playing when he wouldn't let our characters do things he didn't like.
Lead Fisted DM story.
That's not screwing the players that stepping on them. Mr. Fishy would have pointed out that killing a child is an evil act and may have a backlash but to disallow an action is heavy handed.
Disallowing an action is a big deal you need to have a reason. DM Fiat is meant to protect the game not to beat the players over the head. Though it is fun, Dance monkeys, dance!|
|
Your thoughts on the person who gave out bonus experience to others for attending their church a few(dozen) posts back?As I'm pretty sure Freehold is referring to my horror story way back on the first or second page, I, too, would like to know people's thoughts on that one.
Again, speaking as an atheist - if I was a player in a group of folks with mixed religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, and the GM offered bonus points for attending a religious service or for reading The God Delusion or whatever, I'd be very uncomfortable. That's worse than offering XP in exchange for bribes of food (which I've seen before and is mostly harmless).
It's one thing to ask if anyone would like to attend a service with you, but bribing people to participate in your religion...well, it's not a new concept, but it's distasteful as ever.
Same DM we were playing 4th Ed and I was a tiefling warlock who was unaligned. Our mission was to prevent the sacrifice of a child at a theater. We entered through the balcony making stealth checks and all of that. The rest of the party decides to decend to the stage floor to stop the evil doers, save for the dragonborn warlord who was also unaligned. He used the catwalk to get to the other side of the balcony. We rolled init. I went second to last and last up was the warlord. Everybody picked a bad guy to pummel and on my turn I said: "I'm attacking the child." The DM said no. I told him that I was using one of my encounter powers that requires no rolling and has no save. He still wouldn't let me do it. I figured that at the cost of one kid we could save the world it was worth doing for my character. The dragonborn player told him that he was using his breath weapon on the guy holding the kid. So we stopped playing when he wouldn't let our characters do things he didn't like.
Honestly, if I were another player, I'd be telling this same story as a reason some players need to leave.
Two Kill one as an example.
"execute one, educate a thousand"
Three little items made a certain campaign one of the worst I've ever played:
Our DM developed a metropolis called the Kingdom of Light; to everyone's surprise he only really developed an inn and castle. After our characters (started at level 12+) picked out their appropriate gear, the DM suddenly had us traveling into the northern mountains; no quick urban brawls, no chatting up the locals. The whole thing felt like we started up NWN1 and could only talk to people in the temple.
The second coffin nail involved our characters being suddenly captured after my character (human sor, necro focused) successfully wrecked the four groups of trolls that were intended as ambush encounters. At this time, I'd like to thank Necrotic Skull Bomb for its stellar performance.
Once everyone came to, we realized we were in seperate holding cells. I make a spellcraft check (was around upper 30s), no crazy auras; Detect Magic, no nonsensical dimensional lockdowns. Sounds easy for a lvl 12 sor with Dimensional Door right? Doesn't function. No reason was offered, just doesn't function. Fine, I think, I'll see where this is going. Once our rogue gets us out, we stumble into an arena holding a barely-chained adult white dragon. The DM allowed his friend to play some Stormborn race with cold-resistance (barbarian) so the dragon wasn't the threat it could be. Some mages and a major villain were stationed off to the side on an upper-level walkway. I position myself to dimensionally jump onto the walkway (spellcraft check again, same results) and cast the spell. I was teleported back to the jail cell. No explanations, nothing. My character was jailed while the DM's buddy and his girlfriend enjoy the melee. Then I was denied exp for not participating in the battle.I should have left then. During the session. I decided to give it another go. Several quests later, we were facing off against an orc army marching down a forest path. I decided to split the forces with a prismatic wall. With half their forces gone...
HAH! And I only ever joked about "A Red dragon lands on top of you" You actually had a GM do it!! Good call leaving.
Early days of High School I joined a D&D game and was surprised at how fast I got killed. I thought it was a bit harsh, but then watched half the rest of the party get creamed.
After my second character also got killed in the subsequent session I smelled a rat.
The DM was actually awarding himself XP based on the characters he had killed. Apparently he was excited as he had 'just levelled'.
|
|
Same DM we were playing 4th Ed and I was a tiefling warlock who was unaligned. Our mission was to prevent the sacrifice of a child at a theater. We entered through the balcony making stealth checks and all of that. The rest of the party decides to decend to the stage floor to stop the evil doers, save for the dragonborn warlord who was also unaligned. He used the catwalk to get to the other side of the balcony. We rolled init. I went second to last and last up was the warlord. Everybody picked a bad guy to pummel and on my turn I said: "I'm attacking the child." The DM said no. I told him that I was using one of my encounter powers that requires no rolling and has no save. He still wouldn't let me do it. I figured that at the cost of one kid we could save the world it was worth doing for my character. The dragonborn player told him that he was using his breath weapon on the guy holding the kid. So we stopped playing when he wouldn't let our characters do things he didn't like.Honestly, if I were another player, I'd be telling this same story as a reason some players need to leave.
Why? As far as I can tell, their job wasn't to bring the kid back alive, it was to stop the kid being sacrificed as the completion of some ritual that would end the world (or whatever). If the kid is dead, he can't very well be killed in whatever specific way the cultists needed. Also, perhaps the act would have moved their alignments toward evil, but, unless the DM had a "good characters only" rule, they weren't doing anything wrong.
They just figured out a solution to the problem that the DM hadn't anticipated, and his response was "you can't do that". There are at least a handful of ways I can think of off the top of my head to handle the situation without resorting to that.
Your thoughts on the person who gave out bonus experience to others for attending their church a few(dozen) posts back?As I'm pretty sure Freehold is referring to my horror story way back on the first or second page, I, too, would like to know people's thoughts on that one.Again, speaking as an atheist - if I was a player in a group of folks with mixed religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, and the GM offered bonus points for attending a religious service or for reading The God Delusion or whatever, I'd be very uncomfortable. That's worse than offering XP in exchange for bribes of food (which I've seen before and is mostly harmless).
It's one thing to ask if anyone would like to attend a service with you, but bribing people to participate in your religion...well, it's not a new concept, but it's distasteful as ever.
+1
"No actually, she likes it like that."
What a complete idiot! Dumb on so many levels...
GRU
Again, speaking as an atheist - if I was a player in a group of folks with mixed religious beliefs or nonbeliefs, and the GM offered bonus points for attending a religious service or for reading The God Delusion or whatever, I'd be very uncomfortable.
Uncomfortable? Instant deal breaker. What's next? Argumentum ad baculum at the table? "Convert to my stupid religion or your character dies?"
It's bad enough if a party cleric wants characters to convert in-game to receive healing, but this?
Doesn't matter what religion (or lack thereof) we're talking about, either. People like that give their religion a bad name.
Same DM we were playing 4th Ed and I was a tiefling warlock who was unaligned. Our mission was to prevent the sacrifice of a child at a theater. We entered through the balcony making stealth checks and all of that. The rest of the party decides to decend to the stage floor to stop the evil doers, save for the dragonborn warlord who was also unaligned. He used the catwalk to get to the other side of the balcony. We rolled init. I went second to last and last up was the warlord. Everybody picked a bad guy to pummel and on my turn I said: "I'm attacking the child." The DM said no. I told him that I was using one of my encounter powers that requires no rolling and has no save. He still wouldn't let me do it. I figured that at the cost of one kid we could save the world it was worth doing for my character. The dragonborn player told him that he was using his breath weapon on the guy holding the kid. So we stopped playing when he wouldn't let our characters do things he didn't like.Honestly, if I were another player, I'd be telling this same story as a reason some players need to leave.
Depends on what was agreed upon before.
In my games, there is not exactly an alignment restriction, but an "attitude restriction". The party must be able to work together, and there must not be any "plot sabotage". If they don't like the story, they can tell me.
Without knowing more about the circumstances, this could have been a case of bad GM or of bad players.
Why? As far as I can tell, their job wasn't to bring the kid back alive, it was to stop the kid being sacrificed as the completion of some ritual that would end the world (or whatever). If the kid is dead, he can't very well be killed in whatever specific way the cultists needed. Also, perhaps the act would have moved their alignments toward evil, but, unless the DM had a "good characters only" rule, they weren't doing anything wrong.
They just figured out a solution to the problem that the DM hadn't anticipated, and his response was "you can't do that". There are at least a handful of ways I can think of off the top of my head to handle the situation without resorting to that.
Heh. I'd have allowed you to kill the kid but rule that the murder, in those circumstances with the ritual already under way, would have completed the sacrifice. Killing the sacrificial lamb in the ritual location as an expedience is asking, nay, begging for trouble.
But then, I'm a rat-bastard DM/Keeper in situations like these.
Why? As far as I can tell, their job wasn't to bring the kid back alive, it was to stop the kid being sacrificed as the completion of some ritual that would end the world (or whatever). If the kid is dead, he can't very well be killed in whatever specific way the cultists needed. Also, perhaps the act would have moved their alignments toward evil, but, unless the DM had a "good characters only" rule, they weren't doing anything wrong.
They just figured out a solution to the problem that the DM hadn't anticipated, and his response was "you can't do that". There are at least a handful of ways I can think of off the top of my head to handle the situation without resorting to that.Heh. I'd have allowed you to kill the kid but rule that the murder, in those circumstances with the ritual already under way, would have completed the sacrifice. Killing the sacrificial lamb in the ritual location as an expedience is asking, nay, begging for trouble.
But then, I'm a rat-bastard DM/Keeper in situations like these.
Strange. I had the same thought and I don't consider myself a rat-bastard. Just the type of DM that tries to force his players to THINK.