Slight correction there Brass Squire (based on my own opinion of course). Both players are in the wrong (the Cleric mostly for taking a threat too lightly I suppose) but the Undead Lord's done absolutely nothing wrong in character.
Having forgotten to reload or messing with him could work out pretty well, I did say this situation needed to be discussed between people at the table before anything happened in the story.
ok - my mistake :-). definitley disscus it with the players before altering the story, being the end of the gaming session it could simply have been that tensions were running high and it was just a misunderstanding that was blown out proportion (they seem to have been able to co-exist relativley peacefully for the first few sessions).
Yeah, you need to sit down and talk with people.
First, all of the players need to know that in your world, a person can raise undead and not be evil if it's done for noble purposes. They are likely going off of the default assumption that they have an evil party member in the group, when (at least for the undead lord) this isn't true.
Second, the group needs to be firmly told that PvP is simply not acceptable. If they have a big enough problem with something that their solution would be to kill another character, they need to bring it to you so you can mediate things out peacefully.
Third, Son of A needs to switch some things around with his character. You've already determined that you're uncomfortable with evil characters in a good party, or at least that it's a borderline concept. An adult with role playing experience and a non-evil concept is pushing the edges. A child playing a straight evil oracle? I doubt he's going to have the role playing experience and maturity required to keep group cohesion in mind. You're setting yourself up for problems later with this one.
Fourth, assign the new player in the group a mentor. Find an experienced player who is willing to do a lot of explaining on the side while the game continues, and make them the primary tutor of the new player. Mention to the mentor that you don't want the game rocking to a halt every time something new needs to be taught, and to try to keep things moving when it's the player's turn. Then come up with a really nice incentive for the mentor to reward them for their time. Maybe a nice magic item, or additional exp, or an out of game token of appreciation like their favorite food once in a while. Whatever works.
Fifth, the size of the group is a sticky problem. You don't want to kick anyone yet, but it may not be bad to announce your concern and put everyone 'on notice.' Something like "we have a lot of people in this group, and honestly we're too big by one. To make things go smoothly, I'm going to ask that all of you be on point about your duties as players. Come on time and prepared to play, or let me know as soon as you can if you're not going to make it."
Sixth, and as a corollary to fifth, this would be a good time to implement some house rules to speed up game play. How long are people taking in battle? There are lots of little tricks that you can use to keep things rolling during the action. Make sure the people have their dice ready, or that they've prerolled if you can trust them to do it. Try to get a character who has to roll a lot to roll all of their dice at once. Tell everyone to be thinking of what their character will do so that they'll be ready when it's their turn. Maybe institute a timer. "If you can't figure out what your character will do in 30 seconds, then it's safe to say that your character wouldn't be able to figure it out in 6."
Finally, I'd talk one on one with the gunslinger and get their point of view. You know what their character did, but why did they do it? Knowing the reasoning will help you know what to say when you talk to everyone about raising undead not necessarily being an evil act. And if it does end up being that their reasoning involved some metagaming, remind them not to metagame again. ;)
Hope that helps!
A couple quick tips for speeding up combat with large parties.
(1)When you, the GM, call on someone to act, hold up 6 fingers. Start counting down, losing 1 finger per second. Get to 0, and they haven't acted, call the next persons name.
You can make exceptions for the less experienced players in your group.
Players will learn quickly to have their plans ready once they start losing actions.
(2) Have your players use color coordinated dice, and roll to hit, damage, and miss percentages in one toss.
(3) Use an adjustable initiative tracker. Paizo makes one, there are several on iOS/Android platforms, or use a dry erase board.
Having said all that, banning players is a sign of weakness. It means you were unable to prevent your authority from being undermined, or unable to steer people in the direction you wanted them to go.
At first I laughed at this, thinking it was a joke.
Then I realized you might actually be serious.Outside of the Off-Topic Boards, this may be the most WTF-worthy statement I've ever read on these boards.
Short list of reasons I've had to ban players or cease inviting them to the game over the last 20-25 years: restraining orders, theft, assault, assault with a deadly weapon, being high, trying to get high at the gaming table, sexual harassment of other players, spontanious games of MtG during tabletop RPG game play, police investigations (into the other player, not the group), religious paranoia / evangelical diatribes, disruptive inebriation, repeatedly bringing illegal fully automatic weapons to a game (forgot it was in the same bag when referring to a submachine gun is an excuse that wore thin rapidly), and regularly missing scheduled sessions.
In short, banning players is a sign of experience (and sometimes sanity), not weakness. Some folks just don't mix well with others.
-TimD
P.S. On topic, it sounds like the gunslinger player is being an asshat and will likely not be a loss. I'd recommend speaking with the players who aren't involved in the drama between games and getting recommendations from them, but don't be afraid to kick from the group.
Wow TimD, that's quite the list. I'm thankful that in my 25 years (or so) of gaming we've always managed to avoid that kind of people. Guess we filter ahead of time a bit more carefully. There's never a blanket assumption that random strangers are welcome at the table. We prefer prevention over banning, I guess. I wholeheartedly agree that some mixtures of people just won't gel all that easily, and that forcing square pegs into round holes isn't a solution.
Whether or not the gunslinger, or anyone for that matters, 'knows' if undead are evil or not; is irrelevant.
1) Perception is perception and anyone can think or believe undead is/are evil
2) The Characters havent SEEN any undead yet, at least not sourced from the cleric.
there for anything the gun tank made a decision on, is out of game knowledge.
lastly, as GM, you can just have the Guntank misfire.
The undead lord hasnt done anything wrong, i dont know what you are mad at him.
You could have told him no, dont play that, but you let him, and he hasnt done anything weird/disruptive.
alternatively, if you regret having allowed it to begin with, let the gunshot go through, let the PvP occur, after it has played out, have some nice cookies ready, apologize to the group, tell them you will never let that happen again; and because of that, in order to prevent it again, there will be no more evil characters, no worshipping of evil Gods, and no calling zombies, demons devils or the like to be servants, those powers and alignments are reserved for villains.
Yeah, you need to sit down and talk with people.
First, all of the players need to know that in your world, a person can raise undead and not be evil if it's done for noble purposes. They are likely going off of the default assumption that they have an evil party member in the group, when (at least for the undead lord) this isn't true.
Second, the group needs to be firmly told that PvP is simply not acceptable. If they have a big enough problem with something that their solution would be to kill another character, they need to bring it to you so you can mediate things out peacefully.
Third, Son of A needs to switch some things around with his character. You've already determined that you're uncomfortable with evil characters in a good party, or at least that it's a borderline concept. An adult with role playing experience and a non-evil concept is pushing the edges. A child playing a straight evil oracle? I doubt he's going to have the role playing experience and maturity required to keep group cohesion in mind. You're setting yourself up for problems later with this one.
Fourth, assign the new player in the group a mentor. Find an experienced player who is willing to do a lot of explaining on the side while the game continues, and make them the primary tutor of the new player. Mention to the mentor that you don't want the game rocking to a halt every time something new needs to be taught, and to try to keep things moving when it's the player's turn. Then come up with a really nice incentive for the mentor to reward them for their time. Maybe a nice magic item, or additional exp, or an out of game token of appreciation like their favorite food once in a while. Whatever works.
Fifth, the size of the group is a sticky problem. You don't want to kick anyone yet, but it may not be bad to announce your concern and put everyone 'on notice.' Something like "we have a lot of people in this group, and honestly we're too big by one. To make things go smoothly, I'm going to ask that all of you be on...
1 - I plan on making a speech to this effect at the start of the next session.
2 - A modified version of this will also be part of said speech.
3 - Done. I emailed the kid last night and he conceded to my polite request that he not be evil and pick a mystery power other than raising the dead.
4 - This actually took care of itself. Player, uh D, took new guy under his wing and invited him to D's house pre-game (D lives two blocks from me) to give him a crash course on fundamentals. The item reward is a good idea.
5 - One player is moving away after next session. I'm going to try and smooth things over; I suspect that either A and Son or B are going to drop out within a month anyway. Not so much from hard feelings; in a group of six, somebody's going to drop out. (and A has a history of consecutive last minute no-shows from time to time)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My ADVICE as an experienced GM: When the game begins the next week, Change the BOOM to a reflected shot at himself. The diety of the praying player turned the bullet around in their face. If they survive, they can consider it a warning not to mess with a praying cleric.
Nice!
Erm wow TimD where do you find your players? I have never had any problems like that!
GA.
Most of those happened 15-20+ years ago, back when gaming was still a relatively secretive thing. Gaming in the 80's & early 90's was different than now. It was much more of a subculture and you ended up with a lot higher percentage of crazy. The fact that most games themselves were designed for 6-8 players rather than 4 also meant that you often (at least thought that) you needed more people to play as well. Players also tended to "clump" a lot more than I've seen them do lately, so if you wanted to game with two of them, the third would sort of come along as an accepted default. MMO's made fantasy gaming much more mainstream, so now the misanthropes are a bit more of a minority.
Do wonder about the SMG guy from time to time, though. He was a good guy, just a bit paranoid.
TL;DR - working in game stores meant I met a lot of gamers. Some had more issues than others.
OP/ Joey, you seem to have this one well in hand. Good gaming to you, sir.
-TimD
The fact that most games themselves were designed for 6-8 players rather than 4 also meant that you often (at least thought that) you needed more people to play as well. Players also tended to "clump" a lot more than I've seen them do lately, so if you wanted to game with two of them, the third would sort of come along as an accepted default.Four players still doesn't feel right to me. Six has always seemed like the right number at a table.
You are right about the "clumping" back in the 80's.
I don't think it is a matter of age, but I enjoyed the play style a lot more back then.
Of course no one wants to put up with crazy people. I've met people who were hard to get along with, but none of the stuff the guy above mentioned.
Playing with booze is a whole other matter. I heartily recommend it, if you don't actually have to get much accomplished or finish anything. Not something you want to do every week, but it's fun every once in a while.
Doesn't seem to last as long as other games either.
I was in high school/college in the 80s ,young adult/army for the 90s
some of my old school chums still play, some don't. one I facebooked recently WOULD play but can't find anyone TO play with.
The other is one of those late 30s perpetual students (har har) and plays twice a week just like we used to when we were in school.
One of my old playing buddies still does 2nd edition and wont touch anything else.
In those earlier days, there was definitely 'clumping' and even gaming groups seemed to ostracize outsiders.
I floated between two groups and elements of one, wouldn't play with the other, but there were more cross overs than just me.
I have old army friends that STILL make fun of me for playing DnD... I was like dude, what did you do with YOUR spare time, locked in the barracks with no place to go and nothing to do?
oh drink beer and play cards....YAY. Somehow in their minds... that was/is 'cooler'.
as an adult, its really hard to find players where I have lived in the last.... 10 years or so.
the ones I do find are often younger and SEVERAL of them are, if not completely off the social scale of normal, 'crazy' in one way or another.
Many of the payers end of being the type of people you would see in the grocery store, and turn to your spouse or friend and say, woah did you see that person?
I think it's probably just a way of expressing the need for attention rather than true 'craziness', but it definitely comes off that way.
So I totally feel Tim D's gaming table, I have had occasions like that in the past myself.
If the number of players is a problem just tell player B that you need to cut the numbers down and unluckily for him, he's the first to go.
Just by-pass what happened in the session, no need to add insult if he's out anyway.
