| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in many games where other people drink to excess, but they are not jerks or do exceptionally stupid things. Don't let this person use the excuse that he was drunk. He did it because he wanted to be a jerk (or role play being a jerk).
That said, this is a role playing game, and just play it out and try to have fun with it. Obviously there will be consequences to his actions, but that can be fun in its own way.
I guess it depends on the player's intent. Was he trying to derail the game and ruin the fun for the others? Or was he just trying to have some off the wall fun?
Apologies, that slipped my radar this time.
No worries. I really shouldn't have said anything - not on this thread at least. As keenly a pet peeve as it is, I'm aware that its my problem and not the game's.
I guess its applicable to the OP mainly because it represents another clash of playing styles... for some people a tabletop RPG is a chance to get together and build an epic story, to lose themselves in a little suspension of disbelief and create something greater as a group than any of them could have alone. For others, its a chance to get drunk, rape a few virgins, pillage a few towns without worrying about the consequences of their actions. Neither are technically 'wrong' ways to play, but if both sorts of players are in the same group, its going to be miserable for everyone.
Tengu's have 1d3 natural attacks.
So he really has to max out both his normal damage and his sneak attack damage unless he has a higher str bonus or other feats that help him in this situation.
But it is possible that he killed the commoner with one hit even if the GM did everything according to raw.Which was the only thing I wanted to show.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Funny how you simply assume me and other people to be powergamers just because we find Core races boring.
Wiggz, stop trying to say that someone is having "badwrongfun" just because you have a differing opinion about this.
Yes, I should make the point that this is all just my opinion and that there is no right or wrong way to play the game so long as everyone is having fun...
Oh, wait - I already did.
...when I see parties like that, I feel like I'm looking at a pick-up group of strangers on WoW or something.
Again, that's just me, and I've always believed that, at the end of the day, there is absolutely no right or wrong way to play Pathfinder so long as everyone is enjoying themselves.
I believe the confusion comes up because every one of your posts on the subject includes a phrase like "you can work with this if you're powergaming your races and don't care about the story". The comments about "this is just me though" feel very tacked on for the purposes of giving yourself an out.
I personally think more settings need racial options that aren't "tall skinny pointy-eared human", "short stocky human", "big burly bestial human", "tiny human", and "small pudgy human". Give me actual fantastical creatures to play in my fantasy settings, not just variant human knockoffs.
There is definitely something to be said for unusual characters. I feel that the motley crew has been an important part of fantasy ever since The Wonderful Wizard of Oz. (Admittedly, L. Frank Baum always included at least ONE normal human character in the main party of his every book*, but what if no one wants to play one in a game?)
This may be reaching, but putting unusual characters into an adventuring party goes back thousands of years. In the myth of Jason, the Argonauts included several half-gods, one with exaggerated supernatural strength and another with the ability to walk on water, and a couple of winged Boreads.
* EDIT: I just thought of an exception. The party in John Dough and the Cherub by Baum is entirely unusual characters.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just amused that odd races get accused of being powergamey, when the vast majority of powergamers picking races almost always say "go human for the extra feat and skills".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A fellow PC calling himself an alchemist(tengu ninja) killed an NPC in mid speech as he was showing us on a map where to go for our quest. The other members of the group, me (aasimar ocacle) and the other guy (oread druid) were not giving the chance to stop him. The NPC was dead before I could heal him. The player controlling the tengu ninja was drunk and laughing through it all. We told him that was the wrong thing to do. We were conflicted with what to do and everyone took off without waiting for the group. We ended game hiding out in the nearby forest away from town. The GM said there was likely to be a bounty, and trial once we were captured. Seeing that people saw us earlier as newcomers and later, townsfolk viewed us fleeing from town, I'm think I need to turn myself in. Accept whatever small town justice comes my way and roll up another character. I doubt the "alchemist" will get out of this once captured, he's level 1. Knowing some insight about our GM, I think we will all have to roll up new characters. Any thoughts on any of this?
Boot the lush. Redact everything that happened as a Patrick Duffy/Bobby Ewing event.
Dallas?
... I didn't really mean it as an assumption. Every time we've played as a group we always get together and design the characters together, with common backstories and regional ties... its just a preference. We tend to view it as an epic story that's unfolding - one that needs a beginning just as much as it needs a middle and an end ...
I wish my group would do this. Whenever I try to bring up the subject, they look at me like I'm insane. Most of our group has their next PC build decided, designed, and assembled about the time the current campaing reaches the halfway point. Rarely is conversation with others or the next campaign background taken into consideration.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
... I didn't really mean it as an assumption. Every time we've played as a group we always get together and design the characters together, with common backstories and regional ties... its just a preference. We tend to view it as an epic story that's unfolding - one that needs a beginning just as much as it needs a middle and an end ...I wish my group would do this. Whenever I try to bring up the subject, they look at me like I'm insane. Most of our group has their next PC build decided, designed, and assembled about the time the current campaing reaches the halfway point. Rarely is conversation with others or the next campaign background taken into consideration.
Its just two different approaches to gaming - I feel the one you describe is more appropriate for MMO's and online gaming, wanting to 'build up' your character and seeing how he stacks up in combat against various threats and how he compares in capability to other characters. If I (or we) were seeking those things, that's where we would seek it, with 'teamspeak' on and stat blasters to keep track of our DPS... sometimes that IS what I'm actually in the mood for, but when it is, I don't look to Pathfinder or any other tabletop for it.
For me, role-playing is more about roles than rolls.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While a 'motley crew' might be unusual, maybe that is a good justification for why they'd be in a party. Most areas are populated by core races, which, as has been said, are all 'human knock offs.' Even tieflings and aasimirs are described as often finding odd sense of shared experience in the fluff. Heck, ignoring the discussion about mythology, most monster movies you grew up with as a kid probably had a 'motley' group of vampires, werewolves, mummies and such. Heck, most of the enemies you face in a dungeon have little to no reason to be together a lot of the time. Why question it when the PCs do it too? Sometimes you want to roleplay something that can't be reproduced with a set of Spock ears or a fake beard.
Ah, random note. Tengus can have up to three natural attacks if they abandon the racial trait that lets them use most swords. Might seem like a bad deal, doing that for another two 1d3 attacks, but hey, works well for rogues/ninjas, since that would be three full attacks at full BAB. Hard to overcome that until mid levels and a few TWF feats for rogues. If he was within five feat, it would have been easy to take out the commoner at level 1. I could see a drunk guy picking the one that can rip people's faces off.
Finally, I think I'll leave this thread alone from now on. I cannot see myself resisting the urge to go on these tangents. Interesting topics in their own right, but over all not helpful to the op. Overall, I think we have done all we can for him. Just try to keep yourself from getting killed off the bat, and hope your diplomacy holds out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dallas?
And the Lady wins herself a prize!
This seems like a lot of discussion for a situation where someone got liquored up and did something silly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Welcome to the Internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Find a better GM?
Your inability to act in a situation created because one your players can't handle their adult drink reflects more on the GM than it does on the lightweight you were playing with.... or was the GM high / off their meds / half asleep / drunk as well?
Situational modifiers on the GM while GM'ing rarely bode well for a game.
-TimD
Whoah, whoah, whoah. This seems really out of line. You can't throw it back on the GM if a player is able to mess this up. For all we know the group regularly enjoys a beer or two during a game and this was the first time someone got truly drunk. Also, it may have been the first time the player ever acted out. There's probably a good chance that this player has some out of game stuff going on and the GM is just trying to preserve the continuity of the story for all the players, despite one screwing it up for them all.
All we do know is that a first level character acted entirely within the rules and committed murder. It's not unreasonable at all to believe that a first level ninja would be able to act in the surprise round (before anyone else could respond) and kill a commoner in a single blow.
As other posters have suggested I think the best course of action is to attempt to turn your ninja into the authorities. If this was just a really poor choice on a friend of yours (out-of-game) let him suffer the consequences in game and move on. I'm sure he realizes how much of an ass he was once he's sobered up. If this is how he regularly is I'd look at getting him out of the group.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, it's funny that a situation exactly like this happened in a game I GMed once. Oddly enough, nobody came to the conclusion that was true for me.
I, as the GMed, PLANNED this outcome. The player was instructed by me in secret to assassination a critical NPC when he was just about to deliver a plot point. It was the first gaming session and he already had his REAL character made, who was going to be introduced later. Using a PC as a secret accomplice GM can be a fun way to introduce a plot element.
Now, my players know me and none of them were upset. They were shocked, and then recovered with a "Why you son of a-" glance at me when they realized, but you need to have players that are willing to not let events like this ruin their fun. In fact, it was memorable and considered to be one of the most interesting first sessions to date.
Not saying this necessarily is happening here, and I would add that if the player in question is upset enough to create this thread, then perhaps this was not the right group to perform this trick on anyway.
|
Tengu's have 1d3 natural attacks.So he really has to max out both his normal damage and his sneak attack damage unless he has a higher str bonus or other feats that help him in this situation.
But it is possible that he killed the commoner with one hit even if the GM did everything according to raw.
Which was the only thing I wanted to show.
Yes, it is possible, but it would probably take a crit. It would definitely take a crit if he used a natural weapon, unless he has a major damage-boosting ability. It's also possible he won an initiative roll after the surprise round and finished the commoner off. (His odds of the latter are about 55% if we assume that his initiative is 2-6 points higher than the other PCs.) We don't know - the OP's post didn't say.
In general, however, the GM should not allow one player's actions to ruin a game for the other two without giving the other two players ample opportunity to affect the situation. The GM should have given the players any reasonable means to stop the killing. This might mean following RAW for surprise attacks or otherwise allowing an opposed roll. (Again, we don't have enough info to say whether the GM erred here.) I would not assume that if the players don't unprompted say "I jump in and do X" then they take no action. They have two conflicts they're dealing with, both IC and OOC, and if they are distracted by OOC conflict ("Come on man, you're drunk, this is stupid") their character isn't necessarily standing by in dumb shock.
Given that the characters either failed to prevent or did not have opportunity to prevent the murder, they should absolutely be given some sort of an "out" after the fact. It doesn't have to be easy, but they shouldn't be forced to roll up new characters because one guy got drunk (OOC) and violent (IC).
Thanks everyone for all of the suggestions and further insight on potential paths of interest.
Because of our unique races, we were outcasts of the small town at the beginning of the game. We were on a quest to save people who were mysteriously becoming ill, in doing so, perhaps we would be redeemed by those who shunned us. :/ DOH!
|
It sounds like a common situation: one player suddenly does X, and the GM handles the timing rules poorly. Sometimes that means that all other players win initiative, and react to player 1 before he even did anything. Sometimes it means that the deed is already done before the other players get any chance to react. In the case of attacks on NPCs, the GM sometimes bypasses NPC negative HP and pronounces them dead too soon.
It doesn't even have to involve drunks or jerks. One player may have a legitimate RP reason to attack the NPC (he killed my family! he's trying to Charm the other PCs!) mid-exposition, or toss a ring into a volcano or something, while the other players don't want it to happen.
A GM who's fuzzy on timing rules here can turn a legitimate situation (PCs want different things) into an unfair one (someone got screwed by the rules and didn't get a fair chance to do/stop something).
So it's useful to talk with the GM about how to handle these situations even-handedly in the future.
---
If someone's not a fun drunk, don't play with the guy when he's drunk. Insist that he lays off the heavy drinking on playing nights, and deny access if he does. Plenty of people are fun while sober, but not while drunk.
Whoah, whoah, whoah. This seems really out of line. You can't throw it back on the GM if a player is able to mess this up. For all we know the group regularly enjoys a beer or two during a game and this was the first time someone got truly drunk.
&
All we do know is that a first level character acted entirely within the rules and committed murder.
I would respectfully disagree with both of these statements, based on what the OP originally stated in their first post. Note the bolded part below.
How is this the gm's fault?
I dont understand how you look at this situations and think 'oh, the gm is a jerk, and totally wrong' when it is the 'player' that chose to play drunk, and everyone including the OP Obviously chose to allow it. If your going to blame the gm, then you need to blame the players equally.
I disagree with this statement as well.
The other members of the group, me (aasimar ocacle) and the other guy (oread druid) were not giving the chance to stop him. The NPC was dead before I could heal him.
The original statement indicated not that perception checks and initiative rolls were failed and that combat was done in a fair manner despite the inebriation of the tengu player, but that "they were not given the chance to stop him".
This is 100% on the GM.
While I suggested finding a better GM, that was not to say they are a jerk. They may be inexperienced, they may have been drinking as well, for all I know they could be someone I know and respect, but I can only assess what was written in the orignal post.
-TimD
P.S. On a lighter note - this is what happens when ninjas try to drink like pirates :)
This might seem a bit topic but how does a player stop another from acting in what I assume to be a surprise round?
This might seem a bit topic but how does a player stop another from acting in what I assume to be a surprise round?
Well if he was using a weapon, the surprise round is his drawing a weapon. Then they'd get to roll initiative to try and stop him.
Well if he was using a weapon, the surprise round is his drawing a weapon. Then they'd get to roll initiative to try and stop him.This might seem a bit topic but how does a player stop another from acting in what I assume to be a surprise round?
And if he had the weapon drawn, had quick draw, or used a natural attack? I'm not trying to argue just trying to understand how this might work.
Even if that happened in the surprise round, the chances of him knocking the NPC all the way to negative CON - while possible - are pretty slim. The Oracle still should have been able to get a healing spell in on the first round, which the GM apparently did not allow.
Actually, I don't even think there would be a surprise round. All it takes to ruin someone's surprise round is to be aware of them, and in this case the other players were probably aware of the tengu. So, as soon as he started acting (drawing a weapon or moving in to attack,) they would have seen it and been able to roll initiative, possibly even getting to act before he did.
Yeah but we don't know what happened so we can assume that rules were followed until other information is available. It is very possible that the tengu either got a surprise round and/or won initiative, it is very possible that it had quickdraw or spring-loaded wrist sheaths (the 6gp investment that everyone should have) and if nothing else it has natural attacks. We don't know if they had any ability to magically heal the target (could be inflict oracle), so even if it just got to negative hit points it might have bled to death through failed heal attempts.
It could have had a surprise round to draw a greatsword and won init to smash the commoners face for 3d6+3 or so damage.
It could have had springloaded wrist-sheaths to draw double daggers and attack for 1d4+1d6+2 and if it won initiative an additional 2d4+2d6+3.
The commoner could have had an uncommonly low constitution score or be already hurt.
There are a plethora of reasons why the tengu could have killed the target so we should assume that it was within the rules since nothing else has been said.
I've had drunk people around my table as a DM in the past (doesn't happen nowadays) and they can be disruptive. When they try to do something disruptive in my game I will give them some leeway but I won't let their actions ruin the fun of the rest of the table. The problem with drunk players is they can be fine one minute and obnoxious as hell the next. I'm glad those days are behind our gaming group, personally.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading the OP, the GM should have allowed the rest of the party to react if it was at all feasible to do -- if the ninja was stealthy and trying to get something off in a surprise round, the party at least should have gotten to make Perception checks to notice what he was up to.
This does not itself excuse what the player did, but I actually agree with some other posters, again based on what I read in the first post, that the GM did not handle the situation very well or very fairly. He's also punishing the entire party for the actions of a single, drunken player, which doesn't strike me as cool.
I think both the GM and the player need to be talked to about the situation before any in game solution is met. These are problems caused by power issues that both the GM and the player have each in their own contribution to the situation, not by an in-game dilemma, and thus appropriately need to be dealt with out of game.
For the GM, discussion of initiative and surprise rounds is in order, as well as fairness.
For the player, a discussion that the game is cooperative, not competitive.
Depending on the situation, he might also be asked not to drink at the table. We have booze at our games sometimes, but no one drinks to excess and apart from some over the top roleplaying at times, no harm is done. This is the kind of thing that needs to be assessed from group to group.
|
|
I've been in many games where other people drink to excess, but they are not jerks or do exceptionally stupid things. Don't let this person use the excuse that he was drunk. He did it because he wanted to be a jerk (or role play being a jerk).
That said, this is a role playing game, and just play it out and try to have fun with it. Obviously there will be consequences to his actions, but that can be fun in its own way.
I guess it depends on the player's intent. Was he trying to derail the game and ruin the fun for the others? Or was he just trying to have some off the wall fun?
Agreed, I've played whilst drunk many a time and I've never derailed an adventure or got characters in trouble because I was drunk.
I guess this all comes back to my number-one GM rule: everyone has to play Good characters. It saves so much unnecessary hassle.
|
This is 100% on the GM.
Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a combat scenario? I don't see any combat here. I see one guy killing another guy, that's all. We're not talking about something that will fight back, and likely doesn't have the ability to fight back. The NPC here is functionally identical to an inanimate object. The GM does not call for initiative or involve a surprise round when one player wants to break an inanimate object.
Now, if the other players were to suddenly jump up and shout "wait a minute! I want to stop him!" the GM provide them a chance to try, but isn't obligated to. The rules assume all the PCs are on the same side of any conflict, and the GM is likely under the same assumption unless given cause to think otherwise. It's not just plausible, but highly likely the tengu acted in a way that came as such a surprise no one was aware of what happened until it was already over. That's fair, and the rules don't require the GM to treat this situation any differently.
(Also, sorry TimD, didn't mean to call you out on this, just the general idea killing a guy equals combat.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will not play with inebriated players. Not even a little bit.
The stoners just eat and gab and talk until everybody decides to go do something "less boring."
The drinkers cause chaos (which is occasionally - read: rarely - fun for a little while, depending on the nature of the campaign), but eventually they start passing out, usually during battles, on somebody else's turn. You have to shake them awake to get them to roll the dice, and then they rarely announce what they are actually rolling the dice for.
I imagine that all of this might be fun for other players/GMs who are either drunk or stoned themselves. I am not, so this is simply not appealing.
|
For most surprise situations, it's either spot vs. hide or listen vs. move silently.
It also could be (and would be appropriate in this case) sense motive (to realise what the tengu was about) vs. bluff (to disguise his intentions).
This sense motive vs. bluff represents situations where each creature is aware of the other but has no reason to expect a sudden attack, at least until the body language clues you into the fact that something's up!
This is 100% on the GM.Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a combat scenario? I don't see any combat here. I see one guy killing another guy, that's all. We're not talking about something that will fight back, and likely doesn't have the ability to fight back. The NPC here is functionally identical to an inanimate object. The GM does not call for initiative or involve a surprise round when one player wants to break an inanimate object.
Now, if the other players were to suddenly jump up and shout "wait a minute! I want to stop him!" the GM provide them a chance to try, but isn't obligated to. The rules assume all the PCs are on the same side of any conflict, and the GM is likely under the same assumption unless given cause to think otherwise. It's not just plausible, but highly likely the tengu acted in a way that came as such a surprise no one was aware of what happened until it was already over. That's fair, and the rules don't require the GM to treat this situation any differently.
(Also, sorry TimD, didn't mean to call you out on this, just the general idea killing a guy equals combat.)
I think if you step back and read the whole thread back to the beginning you'll find that most people are not putting it on the GM as a matter of whether this was a combat situation and the other players got an Initiative check. If they are (and I admit I have not read the last few posts before yours), then as a GM of 32 years allow me to retort.
The drunk player is not in charge of the outcome of his attack. The GM is. The GM is not obligated to simply allow the attack to happen without mitigating circumstances. If it were me, and believe me, you wish I were your GM, I would have allowed one of the other - or BOTH of the other PCs - Sense Motive checks to sense the attitude or impending actions of the attacker.
Note: Sense Motive does not need to be activated by a suspicious player. It is well within the purview of the GM to roll in secret, and let the other PCs know, optimally as description of events, what they are seeing/sensing. As an alternative, how about Spot checks to see the knife coming out? A thoughtful GM can work this without spelling it out for them, but at least would be giving them a say in what happens, before some dumbass can ruin the whole campaign for them.
Which brings us to the real reason the GM is at fault. He allowed the ruining of the campaign to take place, not only by not having the forethought to ask the other guy to sit this one out while he sobered up, not only for not being in the moment enough to mitigate the action, but then in not doing anything to slow the quick unravelling of the enjoyment of the game for the two non-enebriated folks, who are now scratching their heads, wondering how to get the game back on track to something they feel they can reasonably play.
This might seem a bit topic but how does a player stop another from acting in what I assume to be a surprise round?
They don't, unless another player has higher initiative and a special ability which allows them to act in the surprise round regardless of awareness.
What should have been possible for them was to let the rogue get his one standard action surprise round attack, and then everyone rolls initiative (i.e. surprise round is over, people are now aware that there's a combat happening directly in front of them and have a chance to react to it if their initiative is high enough.
Assuming one of the other PCs, or the commoner manages to beat the rogues initiative they attempt to grapple/trip/subdue the rogue (or run from him in the commoner's case). If the rogue has won initiative then it's fairly likely that he'll have successfully killed the commoner by all the rules of the game. From the sound of it however, he either did more damage than likely/possible in one shot and dropped the commoner from full hp to negative CON, or the other PCs were given no chance to attempt to roll initiative and stop him after the surprise round (which sounds likely to be what happened).
"Blame" lies with no one person in particular, just perhaps with the group as a whole. Having people play while that drunk is generally a bad idea, unless everyone else is that drunk too.
The GM may have made an unfortunate mistake in handling surprise round rules. That's not something to point blame at the GM for, mistakes happen after all and not everyone has every nuance of the rules memorized. It's certainly a reason for the GM to consider being lenient on the PCs when/if the companions of the murderer attempt to redeem themselves in the eyes of the townsfolk though.
This is 100% on the GM.Am I the only one who doesn't see this as a combat scenario? I don't see any combat here. I see one guy killing another guy, that's all. We're not talking about something that will fight back, and likely doesn't have the ability to fight back. The NPC here is functionally identical to an inanimate object. The GM does not call for initiative or involve a surprise round when one player wants to break an inanimate object.
Now, if the other players were to suddenly jump up and shout "wait a minute! I want to stop him!" the GM provide them a chance to try, but isn't obligated to. The rules assume all the PCs are on the same side of any conflict, and the GM is likely under the same assumption unless given cause to think otherwise. It's not just plausible, but highly likely the tengu acted in a way that came as such a surprise no one was aware of what happened until it was already over. That's fair, and the rules don't require the GM to treat this situation any differently.
(Also, sorry TimD, didn't mean to call you out on this, just the general idea killing a guy equals combat.)
I think if you step back and read the whole thread back to the beginning you'll find that most people are not putting it on the GM as a matter of whether this was a combat situation and the other players got an Initiative check. If they are (and I admit I have not read the last few posts before yours), then as a GM of 32 years allow me to retort.
The drunk player is not in charge of the outcome of his attack. The GM is. The GM is not obligated to simply allow the attack to happen without mitigating circumstances. If it were me, and believe me, you wish I were your GM, I would have allowed one of the other - or BOTH of the other PCs - Sense Motive checks to sense the attitude or impending actions of the attacker.
Note: Sense Motive does not need to be activated by a suspicious player. It is well within the purview of the GM to roll in secret, and let the...
But the DM is never wrong or at fault!! You're just an evil entitled player!! /sarcasm
Sarcasm aside, Bruunwald here demonstrated a case of DM incompetence, which I tend to talk (rant) about on occasion.
|
|
I think if you step back and read the whole thread back to the beginning you'll find that most people are not putting it on the GM as a matter of whether this was a combat situation and the other players got an Initiative check. If they are (and I admit I have not read the last few posts before yours), then as a GM of 32 years allow me to retort.
I have read the thread, every post. I've even posted earlier up. My most recent post was referencing a number of posts preceding it concerning the treatment of this encounter as a combat encounter, and applying the rules for combat to it. My point was that it was not combat, and thus the rules for adjudicating combat did not apply.
The drunk player is not in charge of the outcome of his attack. The GM is. The GM is not obligated to simply allow the attack to happen without mitigating circumstances. If it were me, and believe me, you wish I were your GM, I would have allowed one of the other - or BOTH of the other PCs - Sense Motive checks to sense the attitude or impending actions of the attacker.
Correct. However, the GM is also not prohibited. Allowing a sense motive check would be fair. Not asking for one is also fair.
Which brings us to the real reason the GM is at fault. He allowed the ruining of the campaign to take place, not only by not having the forethought to ask the other guy to sit this one out while he sobered up, not only for not being in the moment enough to mitigate the action, but then in not doing anything to slow the quick unravelling of the enjoyment of the game for the two non-enebriated folks, who are now scratching their heads, wondering how to get the game back on track to something they feel they can reasonably play.
I disagree. While the GM has a responsibility to his players to provide a fun and entertaining game, the players share in that responsibility by providing the GM with feedback. I'm not seeing that here. I'm seeing the players playing along and rolling with what happened, and only commenting on the events in retrospect. Hell, the only thing we actually have here is one player's side of the story, no perspective from the GM or the other players, and evidence the player posted to get advice from us before talking with his GM about it.
The GM may very well be at fault, but there is no evidence of it.
Hi all!
I have a problem. Some nights ago, we were having a gaming session, and I was a bit drunk... I asked the DM if I could play and he said "only if you can keep to your character and manage your rolls" and I was like okay i can do that.
So i roll up this tengu ninja, because you know, tengu ninjas are cool. We start talking with some random guy, and I'm all like, "i'm gonna flip out and kill this guy!" because that's what ninjas do when they're not flying.
So my party gets sense motive checks and realize what I'm up to so we roll initiative. my DM is that kinda DM that rolls everything upfront and never fudge because that's like cheating, so we roll as normal. since I've got like +5 init and they've got like +2 dex I get to start, then the guy then the others.
So i'm like drawing my dagger with my springloaded wristsheath and attack with my +4/-1 routine against his flatfooted AC and got a bit lucky and hit with both attacks so i dealt 1d3+1d4+2d6+6 damage and splattered the guy all over the place since he was a commoner lol that was fun i thought but then they all looked mad at me and I was like "hey that was totally in character AM A NINJA BAYBEE!"
But then i sobered and now I realize that was maybe a little bit stupid but i really think it's the DM's fault I mean he could have just told me i couldn't play, he shouldn't have trusted me and shouldn't have settled for asking me to be able to play my character and managing my mechanics... I mean i didn't even lie i did manage it! And he should also have fudged the rolls despite never doing that...
Yeah he's totally an incompetent DM. that's the issue.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's a good compromise if you ask me.
Both the player and the DM are partly to blame.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My PHB doesn't include any instructions for saying another player is drunk. Do I need a feat to do that? Does it require a Diplomacy check? RAW provides no mechanism, so it is impossible. Therefore the GM is the worst GM ever and you should never play with them again.
|
|
So my party gets sense motive checks and realize what I'm up to so we roll initiative. my DM is that kinda DM that rolls everything upfront and never fudge because that's like cheating, so we roll as normal. since I've got like +5 init and they've got like +2 dex I get to start, then the guy then the others.
So i'm like drawing my dagger with my springloaded wristsheath and attack with my +4/-1 routine against his flatfooted AC and got a bit lucky and hit with both attacks so i dealt 1d3+1d4+2d6+6 damage and splattered the guy all over the place since he was a commoner lol that was fun i thought but then they all looked mad at me and I was like "hey that was totally in character AM A NINJA BAYBEE!"
And if that's how it happened, and if the GM provides an opportunity for at least the other characters to get out of this mess, he'll have done fine. We do not know how it happened. Several people noticed the OP's statement that they "had no chance" to stop the guy, which suggests to some that the other players did not make any sort of opposed roll.
If it's a combat encounter (and stabbing someone probably should be) and the other participants are surprised, surprise round rules should apply.
If it's a combat encounter and not a surprise round, straight to initiative.
If it's not a combat encounter, Bluff vs Sense Motive or Stealth vs Perception should apply.
Whenever one character wants to so something and another character wants to stop them and is even remotely in a position to do so, some sort of opposed roll is in order. If there was no opposed roll of any sort, the other players may rightly feel frustrated and powerless. I don't think this is DM incompetence, just possible GM error, depending on how the GM actually handled the situation.
My PHB doesn't include any instructions for saying another player is drunk. Do I need a feat to do that? Does it require a Diplomacy check? RAW provides no mechanism, so it is impossible. Therefore the GM is the worst GM ever and you should never play with them again.
I'm not one to insist that the GM always follow RAW. I do believe that you should know RAW so that you can make informed decisions about which rules you want to relax or ignore. I also believe that in PvP situations it's extra-important to be fair. Following RAW more closely in those situations and calling for opposed rolls where appropriate is one way to encourage fairness.
Here's a good compromise if you ask me.
Both the player and the DM are partly to blame.
+1
I...I...agree with Icyshadow.