You're not wrong.
I would not consider him within his rights.
I would not bother playing this game.
This is some textbook horrible GMing.
I would have a sit down conversation with the DM about the situation and be honest. If you had won the duel would you have left your adventuring party to go be a student at the tower? Probably not.
In situations like that when you know the DM doesn't want you to do something for fear that it is going to derail the campaign just ask for a sidebar with him and explain your case telling him that you have no intentions of actually throwing the campaign for a loop.
That way you don't put anymore strain on the DM than necessary, and make sure that if the wizards in his game use spells then you should be able to get access to them as well.
Oh and punch that other wizard you dueled with...spitting isn't nice.
He was certainly in his rights to say that you can't join as an apprentice without spending 2 years doing so. That's entirely reasonable. They can set their own membership requirements. Stringing you along just to stymie you in the end is a bad job.
|
I think he pretty much didn't want you to join. When you used rules to argue otherwise, he made up a farce to beat you with them. This was his way of showing you his decisions are final. I think it was handled poorly.
On the other hand, just because you felt your character was above apprentice level, doesn't mean the wiz tower has to take you on. The apprentice session might be a traditional requirement of any member. I am curious if there was any answer you would have accepted that denied you membership? If so I would discuss that with the GM try and make it a learning experience for everyone.
He was certainly in his rights to say that you can't join as an apprentice without spending 2 years doing so. That's entirely reasonable. They can set their own membership requirements. Stringing you along just to stymie you in the end is a bad job.
Agreed here - the GM really would have been better off just having the NPC reply "Sorry, the two-year apprenticeship is a fixed requirement, there's no way around it.", or even by ignoring the other tests and going straight to "The wizard waves his hand nonchalantly, and you are frozen in place. 'Looks like you lose,' he smirks, 'return when you know how to counter that'"
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what really happened is that the GM used game-code-speak to tell you, "Hey, it's really important for the game that you not do this," and you said, "Ha, screw that--I'm doing it any way and my stats are good enough that you can't say no!" so he responded with, "Alright, a random meteor strikes you directly in the nutsack. Stop being a douche."
The problem here is with both of you. He should have just said flat out, "hey, joining this group would really mess up the game, sorry." Instead, he tried to handle it in game, poorly. You either did not pick up on his desire or didn't care, so he moved on to more severe measures.
That was wrong--he should not have thrown GM weight around, he should have just been firm and said no--but you have to see it from his perspective. He's obviously not the best GM, so you have to be willing to "just go with it" some times or else the game is going to fall apart. Wait until you play with a better GM, or he gets the xp and levels up into one before you try something like that again.
I agree with mplindustries. Both you, OP, and your GM handled the situation poorly. The GM tried to handle what he probably viewed as a derailment to the game with a reasonable, if heavy handed requirement of a 2 year apprenticeship at wizards tower. While that certainly wouldn't accommodate the campaign or your character to participate it is actually reasonable in a game world. Without knowing who you are, and with you being only slightly more powerful than their normal apprentices it could be (from the perspective of an NPC) a test to see your commitment to order and acceptance of their training and willing to submit yourself to the will of the tower. If that is a valid view for the NPC mages to have, then you failed miserably and made it worse when you resented this position and tried to force your way in.
However, the DM dropped the ball after this point very horribly. Rather than handling it in an appropriate manner within the game, or an appropriate manner by speaking to you outside the game, he instead made a farce and then broke the normal rules of the game to make you lose and enforce his will. His method was very heavy handed, and he added insulting rp to add insult to injury.
For many young people dming is their firdt chance to have authority. The problem in msny cases is they either lack the maturity or social skills to handle things and feel the need to show they are in charge. That they also often plsy with people who don't know when to back off probably confoundd things. Finally if they are inexperienced at dming they lack the flexibility to handle the fact that controlling playerd is like hearding cats.
Both the op and the dm made a lot of mistakes. At the end of the day the dm always wins and when the em wins the game is over.
To the op. I woukd work it out with your dm see if you can settle things. If you cannot then find a new group.
The sad thing is reading the exsmple I coukd think of dozens of ways to use the desire to join the mages guild to advsnce a plot or add new ones. But I guess in the heat of things dms can get blinders if they feel they are being challenged.
There was no intention of leaving the adventuring party and that was made quite clear.
Then what would you have gained by joining?
The Mage Tower was presented as the sole collective of wizards and such a desirable and logical group to join.
He was clearly hesitant to let you in, and since he is clearly not a great GM, you should have been able to read into that and let it go. What if the mage collective ends up a villainous group, or he intends them to be destroyed, or any number of other things that would be awkward if you were in the group?
He should have said no outright if he didn't want me to join.
Realize, I never defended him. He apparently should have been more blunt, but the initial "Well, it'd take 2 years" should have been obvious enough. He did not want you to join and it's hard not to see that. Now, after you persisted, yes, he should have just said "no," but again, he's not a great GM, obviously.
Losing a fair fight would have been one thing and I happily would have accepted that but pairing me against someone alma it double my level was just mean spirited.
If it had been a fair fight, you might not have lost, and then he would not have been able to handle the issue "in game" as he clearly wanted to (though again, it was not the "good GM" way to handle it).
I was in no way being a douche.
Except from his perspective, you were, because you wouldn't back down from something he dropped repeated hints about not wanting you to do. You can see how upset he was with you in the duel encounter where he arbitrarily rofl stomped you and then spit on you to boot. People don't do that to people they think have treated them fairly.
I simply role played my character as a logical and intelligent problem solver as she is.
The story you told was one of the GM unreasonably not wanting you to join an organization and you unreasonably refusing to let it go. You were both wrong--nobody is absolving the GM, but you have a share in this, too.
It sounds to me like you were being persistent in an area the GM did not wish to explore (you call it "logic," but whatever your argument and however sound, it was NOT one the GM wanted to have). The GM likely has other plans for the adventure. He probably did not intend to spend as much time with the Mage Tower as you seem to wish to. It likely was just a small, passing thing for him, on his way to the actual meat of whatever he had planned.
By insisting on making the tower a major part of your character's life, you are insisting the GM change his plans to suit you, and in essence, to rearrange his world and the story he is trying to guide, to suit as well.
Now, on the one hand, I understand how frustrating it can be when a player wants to go off on a tangent. I have, for many years, played off and on with a player who has a history of becoming really disinterested in whatever it is the rest of the party wants to do, and tries to run off in some random direction, and drag everyone with him. He especially loved to do this when he sensed that a particular area of the world had not yet been fleshed out. I pride myself on making very detailed worlds where the PCs can head off and explore randomly. I try to make as big a sandbox as possible, in addition to the various plots and stories available. But this guy seemed to sense whenever I had not yet done the work for an area, and then INSISTED on going there, throwing all the rest of the work I had already done out the window.
Now, in my player's case, he did it on purpose to bother me. He can be a very adversarial person in that regard. I don't think you did anything purposefully to throw off your GM, but you mention you did understand that he was trying to guide you away from this character direction, yet you insisted.
It does help to keep in mind that many GMs put gigantic amounts of energy and work into their worlds, and sometimes when players focus on random little elements, and will not let them go, no matter how much the GM hints that whatever the player wants is simply not going to happen... well, that can be irksome.
ON THE OTHER HAND...
I think this GM handled this poorly and a bit childishly. Clearly, you were not going to take a hint in-game. That's fine. The best thing for the GM to do would then be to simply ask you if you would mind talking about the tower after the session, and could you continue with the quest at this time. Afterwards, he could inform you that the tower is not a major element in the game that he intends to flesh out or pursue.
It is the story of your character, as well, of course. It's no fun sometimes to have limitations on where you can go and what you can do in-world. But on the other hand, the GM has limited time and resources, and so do the rest of the players (it's THEIR story, too!), so sometimes you have to bite the bullet and play a little more cooperatively, story-wise.
Otherwise, depending on how much freedom you want and expect, you may have to find a GM who is willing to run a more sandboxy, more PC-centric campaign. Believe me, they are out there. And you will have more fun with one of those - and more success - than you will trying to force your will on a GM whose style does not match your own.
It sounds to me like you were being persistent in an area the GM did not wish to explore (you call it "logic," but whatever your argument and however sound, it was NOT one the GM wanted to have). The GM likely has other plans for the adventure. He probably did not intend to spend as much time with the Mage Tower as you seem to wish to. It likely was just a small, passing thing for him, on his way to the actual meat of whatever he had planned.
By insisting on making the tower a major part of your character's life, you are insisting the GM change his plans to suit you, and in essence, to rearrange his world and the story he is trying to guide, to suit as well.
Now, on the one hand, I understand how frustrating it can be when a player wants to go off on a tangent. I have, for many years, played off and on with a player who has a history of becoming really disinterested in whatever it is the rest of the party wants to do, and tries to run off in some random direction, and drag everyone with him. He especially loved to do this when he sensed that a particular area of the world had not yet been fleshed out. I pride myself on making very detailed worlds where the PCs can head off and explore randomly. I try to make as big a sandbox as possible, in addition to the various plots and stories available. But this guy seemed to sense whenever I had not yet done the work for an area, and then INSISTED on going there, throwing all the rest of the work I had already done out the window.
Now, in my player's case, he did it on purpose to bother me. He can be a very adversarial person in that regard. I don't think you did anything purposefully to throw off your GM, but you mention you did understand that he was trying to guide you away from this character direction, yet you insisted.
It does help to keep in mind that many GMs put gigantic amounts of energy and work into their worlds, and sometimes when players focus on random little elements, and will not let them go, no matter how much the GM hints that whatever the...
To add to this was it really worth it for the rest of the group for you to do this?
What did they do?
I'm willing to bet they went off to do other things while you wasted their game time on this.
You argued your logic, made your rolls, and then got roflstomped in a combat you could not win. That was probably an hour of the night wasted on a venture you had no real incentive to work on anyway.
Again, not defending the GM, my response to the logic that you were better then the apprentices would either be a clear poker faced retail smile followed by "I'm sorry but it is ancient tradition that apprentices complete two years here at the tower." Or. "Yes, two years, long enough to instill in you a sense of humility, which you have clearly not mastered."
So really I can't say you were being punished for "doing well" you were being punished for wasting people's time by taking the hint and then discarding it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel there is a lot missing from this story, namely the DM's actual side of things.
There is a Mage Guild, you want to join, the DM gives you a feasible reason why your character would logically not want to join.
You decided that it is your right to do it anyway, and the DM used a fail safe to prevent you from completely derailing the game, you literally walked into it.
There is no better way to have this happen 'in-game' than by having one of their strong wizards knock down some cocky punk that walks up to their door and starts smack talking their disciples, sorry but the DM was just role playing same as you.
If you really wanted to join the Mage Guild, you should have been willing to relinquish the character sheet, and ask the DM what kinds of boons you could get from sidelining the character for 2 years in game, and what the trade-offs would be, rather than demanding he just give you things because you want them and you're the player therefor you are entitled to getting things that you want.
Honestly I feel the DM handled this fine, was your character killed and did the DM tax you with paying to be resurrected? It is completely in his power to do so.
Did this super powerful wizard that you were fighting have a custom spell that the DM made up on the fly that he, let's say, invented himself for this kind of situation (which I feel is something a member of a prestigious Mage Guild would do)?
DM's purposely breaking rules is one thing, but in game, you should not have even known that it was burning hands that he used unless you bothered to Spellcraft it or Metagamed which is breaking the rules. Why can you break the rules but he can't? Is that something else put in place to protect the player?
I understand that the DM interprets the rules to run his game as he sees best but what happens when he is inconsistent, changing them on the fly to enforce his wishes. As a player aren't the rules there to protect us? Isn't it our story too?
My party recently returned to the Mage Tower, the solitary establishment of its type, in hopes of obtaining a potion for a quest. While there my character a level 4 Wizard asked if she could join the Mage Tower. The initial answer was that she would have to undertake a two year apprenticeship which was obviously the DMs way of saying no as that time period was unfeasable for both my party and our current quest line. So knowing from our previous experience that all the other apprentices were very young and inexperienced with access to only the most basic of spells I argued logically that I was beyond an apprenticeship in terms of power and experience. He conceded that they could test me which consisted of first a written exam which was simulated with three knowledge rolls. I did very well with a spellcraft 27 planes 28 and nature 28. The second was a duel. Now based on doing well he determined that my opponent for the duel. A wizard who had access to level 4 spells and was at least 3 levels my superior. He started with Lesser Globe of Invulnerability which completely invalidated anything my level 4 wizard could do. He then followed by altering spells to suit his needs eg he cast Burning Hands and when I pointed out I was in its area of effect he replied with "oh well its a line then, you're getting hit". While I was able to prolong the duel with invisibility I, obviously, inevitably lost. To top it off the wizard spat on me after beating me.
Losing is one thing but why bother with a farce of a duel when he had obviously already made up his mind that I couldn't win and/or join the Mage Tower. A house rule eliminating a spell is one thing but making them do whatever he wants whenever he wants I feel violates the rules that are in place to protect the player and...
No the GM was wrong, not just for rules reasons, but for how he handled the situation.
I am sure he has his story reasons, but he could have listed "hidden" requirements with the game to explain why only certain people were allowed to join.
I still don't see why he didn't just say 'yeah, that makes sense' and let you in.
|
It was ill handled, i would need more information before i started laying blame on the player first though. I mean, do the other players have chances to interact with orginazations in thier world? Is this a straight dungeon crawl or something. I would be upset if i were running a game and my players only seemed to want to gather loot and not do anything else besides level and gear. But to each their own i suppose.
Did the other gamers at your table get upset that you wanted to join said tower? Ask them. From the light information provided the only thing i guess at is the gm was being a bit mean spirited, but then again, maybe the mage in the tower was a jerk to everyone as well. I dont know, like i said before i simply dont have enough details to help too much, you sound like the sort of player i would hope for however so keep your chin up and all that good stuff
I agree wanting to join a group with makes sense. If you were running a game in post-cataclysm Krynn and I was playing a honorable fighter trying to keep lawlessness and evil at bay. I'm gonna want to join the Solomanic Knights. And honestly you should straight up tell me when I ask if its a no and why not.
I still don't see why he didn't just say 'yeah, that makes sense' and let you in.
Because he didn't want to tell the story of the apprentice to the Mage Tower, or he didn't plan for it and so wasn't able to do it.
Or he simply wasn't interested in that particular story.
Not every GM runs a sandbox game.
I still don't see why he didn't just say 'yeah, that makes sense' and let you in.Because he didn't want to tell the story of the apprentice to the Mage Tower, or he didn't plan for it and so wasn't able to do it.
Or he simply wasn't interested in that particular story.
Not every GM runs a sandbox game.
It sounded more like the PC just wanted into a club that could possibly provide some benefits further down the line before continuing on with what they were doing. Nothing really derailing story-wise there.
It sounded more like the PC just wanted into a club that could possibly provide some benefits further down the line before continuing on with what they were doing. Nothing really derailing story-wise there.I still don't see why he didn't just say 'yeah, that makes sense' and let you in.Because he didn't want to tell the story of the apprentice to the Mage Tower, or he didn't plan for it and so wasn't able to do it.
Or he simply wasn't interested in that particular story.
Not every GM runs a sandbox game.
For all we know, the Tower was meant to be a future nemesis. Could be a cabal of necromancers or somesuch. It would also explain the nasty behaviour during the duel. Why assume that the GM was acting randomly and childish?
Just because a player comes to the forums to complain about his GM (instead of dealing with it face to face) doesn't mean that said player is actually automatically in the right of things. Of course, the opposite isn't automatically true, either, but let's not overlook "plot" as a reason.
|
|
The cleric, monk and inquisitor have all had extremely high levels of involvement with their respective churches with those quest lines making up almost all out content up untill now. They also have all been rewarded extremely expensive items front their church (Mithral breastplate, magic weapons) due to their association to the church whereas my character has received nothing other than a masterwork bow in the way of treasure other than gp which we all split equally. My party was supportive and it was also our method of entry into the tower. We had discussed it in the week preceding the session. We are a heavy role play style game with battles maybe only occurring every second or third session. I honestly thought that the Mage Tower connection would benefit us as a party, give us access to magic scrolls/services and provide quest opportunities. I thought the DM was making it a challenge to join. I didn't realise until after he smirked and threw a much stronger opponent at me that he was actually being mean spirited and not in fact offering me a legitimate opportunity to succeed on my own merits.It was ill handled, i would need more information before i started laying blame on the player first though. I mean, do the other players have chances to interact with orginazations in thier world? Is this a straight dungeon crawl or something. I would be upset if i were running a game and my players only seemed to want to gather loot and not do anything else besides level and gear. But to each their own i suppose.
Did the other gamers at your table get upset that you wanted to join said tower? Ask them. From the light information provided the only thing i guess at is the gm was being a bit mean spirited, but then again, maybe the mage in the tower was a jerk to everyone as well. I dont know, like i said before i simply dont have enough details to help too much, you sound like the sort of player i would hope for however so keep your chin up and all that good stuff
Yup then he was being a big meaniehead and not very nice... sorry for your luck. I would (being a bit of a stubborn ass at times) would make sure that every single place we stopped i would see if there was some group to join... be it the local woodcarving guild, or the local pta or the we dont say tomato the proper way club for a session or five just to be slightly spiteful then drop it... oh or be a drag to things and like multclass at yournext level into some form of cleric and if asked why brign up that you thought it was okay for charectors to get invovled in churches and the like instead of mage towers. Or nothing, I cant fault your venting and in truth i am far too laid back to get very angry about anything for more than a moment or two
If your character some day turns evil, have her burn down the Tower as revenge for denying you.
But seriously, if your fellow players are on your side, you should team up and call the DM out on this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess ultimately I just wanted some validation for my frustration but it's also hard to hold on to so I'm sure by next week it will all be water under the bridge. It is a thing our DM does on occasion but that's a concession I make to play with a group I enjoy very much. Better preparation and knowledge of the rules would benefit him but that's an opinion that while meant constructively would create only bad blood. I suppose I should mull on it lol
Unlike a lot of the responders here, I take a more hardline view and think you are kind of coming off as being kind of whiney for not getting your way, then coming here to bemoan your situation when the DM you painted into a corner responded with the Hand of GOD (Game Operations Director).
Sure, it sounds like he didn't do the best job of handling it, but then that is from your, admittedly, frustrated point of view and recounting. I won't say he was completely in the right, but nor was he totally in the wrong. The truth of the matter is probably somewhere in the middle.
As for validation, meh, if you are coming to a bunch of anonymous strangers for validation... You are correct in that your best bet is to let it go, water under the bridge and all that, and only concern yourself with it if it seems to become a recurring issue.
I would strongly suggest not hinting, suggesting or in any other way "being constructive" in telling your DM that he needs "better preparation and understanding of the rules". That line right there coupled with your monumentally arrogant and thread title (Huge difference between "being punished for performing well"-your opinion on how it all went down, and "being told no, then forcing the issue and having to be told no "harder") support my idea that you are being self entitled and butt hurt because you didn't get your way, no matter how "reasonably" you present your side of the story. And that is all it is, your side, not the truth just your interpretation of events and the situation. I have had my share of pushy players over the years, hell I have BEEN that pushy player time to time, but if I ever had one was being pushy and trying to force resolutions (which is what you did by trying to argue against the set entrance guidelines), and then they had the nerve to tell me I need to prepare more or know the rules better... I would cordially tell him to ensure that the door did not hit them on the way out. He is putting in the extra effort and it is HIS game to run, not yours. The players are enjoying the fruits of his labor... something that often seems grossly forgotten on these forums.
Sometimes the DM knows or plans or does things that the players just can't or shouldn't know, nor circumvent, for the sake of the story... and forcing the issue runs the risk of upsetting the applecart for everyone involved. Unless he is making a habit out of circumventing rules to stymie you, he is not "punishing you", he made an on the spot correction that ran contrary to your desires, there is a vast difference.
Suck it up, let your frustration go (it is a pretendy fun time game, after all) and move on. And if you absolutely feel like it is a problem, talk to him before the next session and ask if there was a problem with what you did to see if it was something that bothered him and if so, then discuss it and explain your side, without suggesting any shortcomings on his part, and work it out. Better not to let something fester.
The Mage Tower was presented as the sole collective of wizards and such a desirable and logical group to join.He was clearly hesitant to let you in, and since he is clearly not a great GM, you should have been able to read into that and let it go.
Not everyone could read into it, besides.
What if the mage collective ends up a villainous group, or he intends them to be destroyed, or any number of other things that would be awkward if you were in the group?
Hmmmm. Even if, I only see opportunities to expand the play with all genre of plot twists. Seems to me that the DM is a "railroad model".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if the mage collective ends up a villainous group, or he intends them to be destroyed, or any number of other things that would be awkward if you were in the group?Hmmmm. Even if, I only see opportunities to expand the play with all genre of plot twists. Seems to me that the DM is a "railroad model".
I never said he was a good GM (though being a "railroad model" GM isn't automatically bad if the players like it).
Nobody has excused the GM's lousiness, but many would like the original poster to accept some share of this responsibility, too, as even with a biased account, it comes across as both being equally problematic.
Your DM sounds like an ass.
You probably could have joined the mages guild in some facility, but be set as one of the mages who actively explores the world and such. They could have given you some sort of scrying device that allowed them to scry on you all the time.
If they turned out to be the villains, then they would know all of your movies if you didn't know they were the villains.
Could have been a really useful and cool way to do it, but instead he just decided to handle it poorly. Basically there are very few situations where you should punish a player for good roleplaying, and all of said situations are in situations where it screws over the rest of the party so badly that it makes the other players leave or not want to play with him ever again.
Your situation was nothing like this. The DM was just saying "no" and when you persisted he said "no" again, but then you passed his test which was supposed to stop you, so he invented some sort of contrived means by which to "win" because he probably suffers from smallusdickius.
I feel the mentality that the dm always wins is ultimately detrimental. I enjoy my group on most occasions the dm is fine but I feel he is prone to not allowing us as characters to make our way. His characters are usually not open to any discussion, argument or logic and he often uses the because I said so line of logic. I am fine with failing on my own merits but why set up an experience that punishes me for role playing my character and is designed to be unbeatable. A simple no would have been sufficient. Why have me go through the farce simply to humiliate me. That seems malicious to me. I was punished for being my character. Wizard joins wizard tower. Unthinkable. It all just seemed unnecessary to meFor many young people dming is their firdt chance to have authority. The problem in msny cases is they either lack the maturity or social skills to handle things and feel the need to show they are in charge. That they also often plsy with people who don't know when to back off probably confoundd things. Finally if they are inexperienced at dming they lack the flexibility to handle the fact that controlling playerd is like hearding cats.
Both the op and the dm made a lot of mistakes. At the end of the day the dm always wins and when the em wins the game is over.
To the op. I woukd work it out with your dm see if you can settle things. If you cannot then find a new group.
The sad thing is reading the exsmple I coukd think of dozens of ways to use the desire to join the mages guild to advsnce a plot or add new ones. But I guess in the heat of things dms can get blinders if they feel they are being challenged.
Please dont get me wrong, your DM behaved in a totally demeaning and immature manner. He basically, Did something that if done outside of Dming he might get punched or a friendship could end Ie be belittled and demeaned you.
What I mean by the DM always wins, is he is lord and master of his domain, he has absolute power. He is the head commissioner for a major sports league. In an experienced and or mature Dm this is never an issue.
But if a DM is new or does not know how to handle whats perceived as a player confrontation well, Then they suddenly need to show they are in charge. In the old days this could int he worst case result in someone getting blue bolted, or more recently ive heard it as referred to as 'rocks fall' Its horribly immature. Ive played these games for 30's years and while i do not encounter it at all anymore when I was a teenager. The DM who i played with when i was in my teens frequently did this stuff and he was my best friend.
The 'lesser' version of this (though honestly i think its probably worse really) is when instead of being told 'oh your character is dead' the Dm instead goes into some detail what the ogres actually did to your character before he was eaten.
Ultimately, this is why if the DM ever has to do a 'show of force' to prove hes in charge then everyone looses. Learning to socially interact and know when to back off is also a big part of the learning curve of being a player.
None of your confrontation had to happen, the DM should have just used your wanting to Join the Guild as a way to further the Main story. This sort of thing is /really/ easy to do on the fly. The player gets a feeling of prestige and the Dm gets a way to manipulate the player into doing what he wants because the guild makes requests of them.
Im sure you did nothing wrong, though it is likely the signs of annoyance and bodylanguage were there to show the Dm really didnt want you to join the guild. I suggest taking note of them and using the experience to avoid things int he future if you keep playing with him.
The Mage Tower was presented as the sole collective of wizards and such a desirable and logical group to join.He was clearly hesitant to let you in, and since he is clearly not a great GM, you should have been able to read into that and let it go.
Not everyone could read into it, besides.
What if the mage collective ends up a villainous group, or he intends them to be destroyed, or any number of other things that would be awkward if you were in the group?Hmmmm. Even if, I only see opportunities to expand the play with all genre of plot twists. Seems to me that the DM is a "railroad model".
Same here. "Wait, this guy wants to join my group of bad guys? Oh, this is gonna be PRICELESS!"
What I mean by the DM always wins, is he is lord and master of his domain, he has absolute power.
Not so. A DM has no power to stop his players from ceasing to play with him, and a DM with no players is a DM no more. Even Charlie Sheen wouldn't call that 'winning'.
Not so. A DM has no power to stop his players from ceasing to play with him, and a DM with no players is a DM no more. Even Charlie Sheen wouldn't call that 'winning'.
What I mean by the DM always wins, is he is lord and master of his domain, he has absolute power.
No no, Charlie Sheen would think that since the PCs stopped playing that they gave up, and therefore he'd think it was winning.
As some people seem to be so intent on calling me pushy and whiny maybe you should consider that the whole point of pathfinder is to overcome adversity and that you expect a no up front in most situations. Dragon says no that's my treasure. Evil wizard says no you can't have this cure. Mayor says I won't let you into the crypt it's too dangerous. So all the players who circumvented those situations are whiny and pushy? No they are playing the game. I asked once! Then presented one logical argument. Which he accepted. All he had to say was no. He lead me to believe that it was a possible avenue of play which my whole party supported. They offered to wait the two years and I said I wouldn't expect that at all. There was absolutely no derailment of the quest. The Mage Tower was our quest. Joining was both logical and furthered the parties needs. Instead the DM wasted all of our time with a ridiculous farce of a battle which he literally said was a result of me doing 'so well' in the written exams. So yes I was punished for performing. And since I was allowed in to the guild at the end of that play session for basically completing our task there it obviously had no impact at all and he took that opportunity to humiliate my character in a public space as if to say 'think you are good? Well you're not' and then spat on me in game just to make sure I got the message. If he actually cared about me joining and said no firmly I would have been more than happy but the joining was apparently not even an issue so yes he did punish me for role playing a solution and then for performing well in knowledge checks.
Also perhaps I didn't put enough information or people are just very selective readers but I said I was happy to move on as my group in general are great and that hopefully he has that out of his system. The real issue of this thread is, to me anyway, is that as facilitators of a game I think the DM too should be bound by the rules for fairness of game. Don't enter events only to cheat blatantly. If you have...
Honestly, a better DM would have offered you a quest to join the guild, but I really don't see why you are so upset still, you RPed yourself as being better than everyone there and more deserving of a spot, so he tested you in a situation where your character needed to learn his place. As the DM he doesn't always have to let you win, and you need to recognize that.
And remember you were smack talking their apprentices, it was totally in character for them to spit on you, because you were spitting on them.
As some people seem to be so intent on calling me pushy and whiny
Don't take it to heart. On these forums, in pretty much any thread about a conflict between a player and a DM, you will find people taking the DM's side and assuming the player is badwrong, no matter the context. It doesn't say anything about you or what kind of roleplayer you are that you got this kind of reaction.
(I'm sure someone will point out that you will also find people who take the player's side and assume the DM is badwrong. They are probably right.)
If a DM wants to tell a story with no room for any choice for the players then he would be better of spending his time alone writing a novel.
Well said.
And since I was allowed in to the guild at the end of that play session for basically completing our task there it obviously had no impact at all and he took that opportunity to humiliate my character in a public space as if to say 'think you are good? Well you're not' and then spat on me in game just to make sure I got the message.
Everyone agrees that the GM was a jerk. The problem is that you failed to take a hint and are acting as if you're blameless.
This right here--that you joined the group anyway after finishing your quest--should tell you what happened.
The GM intended for you to join the group at the end of the quest. You tried to join it earlier, thus, in his perception, bypassing the quest. He said no, you pushed him, so he pushed back with GM strength.
He did the wrong thing. So did you. Both of you are at fault. Just because he's douchey doesn't mean you can't be even the least bit responsible.
He's a railroading GM. I wouldn't like that, but that's what he's doing, and you messed with the tracks.
As some people seem to be so intent on calling me pushy and whinyDon't take it to heart. On these forums, in pretty much any thread about a conflict between a player and a DM, you will find people taking the DM's side and assuming the player is badwrong, no matter the context. It doesn't say anything about you or what kind of roleplayer you are that you got this kind of reaction.
(I'm sure someone will point out that you will also find people who take the player's side and assume the DM is badwrong. They are probably right.)
Yeah. Whenever the forum gets bored of arguing over class balance, alignment, and WBL/Magic items, we go back to the classic "Does becoming a GM turn ordinary gamers into infallible god-kings, or can they actually make mistakes?"
While I do believe this was handled poorly on both sides it would seem that the GM (knowing he planned to let the player join after the quest anyway) should have just said "while we normally have a 2 year apprenticeship period before admitting new fellows to our illustrious society, we have been having an issue with [insert planned quest here] recently. If you and your friends could take care of that for us we would be prepared to accept an accelerated application process."
Honestly, a better DM would have offered you a quest to join the guild, but I really don't see why you are so upset still, you RPed yourself as being better than everyone there and more deserving of a spot, so he tested you in a situation where your character needed to learn his place. As the DM he doesn't always have to let you win, and you need to recognize that.
And remember you were smack talking their apprentices, it was totally in character for them to spit on you, because you were spitting on them.
Don't worry OP,
One day you can return when you are bigger and stronger. You can find all of these mages and murder all of them, and their families, and everyone they ever held dear, and everyone they might have known, and everyone those people might have known, and then, with your revenge complete go do something else. Like kick dogs or something.
What if the mage collective ends up a villainous group, or he intends them to be destroyed, or any number of other things that would be awkward if you were in the group?Hmmmm. Even if, I only see opportunities to expand the play with all genre of plot twists. Seems to me that the DM is a "railroad model".
I never said he was a good GM (though being a "railroad model" GM isn't automatically bad if the players like it).
I didn't mean that :)
I taken your phrase to point out that I still cannot see reasons to deny the access with a munchkinism.
Nobody has excused the GM's lousiness, but many would like the original poster to accept some share of this responsibility, too, as even with a biased account, it comes across as both being equally problematic.
Sure I unterstand both sides. Still seems to me that the GM seems to be too closed mind. The player, from his side, should be a bit more flexible too.