|
In a campaign I'm in the GM has been very railroady from the start and done a lot to mess with all the characters. All the original characters but mine had either dead or left the party. We are level 9 and I missed the last session. I get a text from the GM telling me that my character did two things that are very out of character for him and when I told him that he undid one of them, the lesser divergence from his character, but wouldn't the one that really was against character. I'm pretty pissed to the point where part of me wants to make a new mechanical character that I'm not invested in and just do everything I can to mess with GM. A lot of my friends are in the group and this GM is only running one of the several games the group plays.
I prefer the limbo approach to absent PCs or some other suitably thematic explanation!... Leads to far fewer arguments!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could it be your GM just made a poor choice for your character, rather than intentionally messed with the character? By default you're going to play your character best, and anyone else playing him/her is likely to make out of character choices just from lack of understanding the character as well. That said, the GM should not be making a lot of role playing choices for your character while you're gone; I usually try to repeat tactics I've seen the character use in the past, and stay out of conversation and decision making as much as possible.
I would have a chat with the GM about this rather than making an "F U" character. Explain why it's out of character and why it sets up future problems with your character and his/her relationship with the party. Personally, I go with the "limbo" approach to absent PCs when I GM. It may have been unintentional, but playing your character and playing him WRONG was kind of a jerk move by the GM.
Talk it over, express your issues with the GM and the group. If you can't come to an amicable decision leave the group.
No gaming is better than bad gaming.
|
|
Ok some additional background information. My character is a half orc inquisitor of Gorum. And there have been a few instances where he as use intimidation to talk through combat. And almost every time shortly after an ally dies. He is the only remaining original character in the party and feels that every one that has died in his company is his fault, mostly done by other things the GM has done.
He started out as a fairly easy going or at least as much as an inquisitor of Gorum could be. But after his best friend in the party was brutally murdered in front of him he has kind of going to a dark place. And is now looking for someone strong enought to kill him. And as such he is going to fight every fight to the death. (and I have told the GM that this is his way of thinking after the last time he forced me to stop a fight before the enemy of my character were down).
So I missed the last session and I get a text from the GM that my character fought the guy to a draw and then got drunk with him to celebrate a good fight with a worthy opponent. And at level 1that might well have been what happened. But now with his only goal to die honorably in combat he would not fight to a draw and then go drinking with the guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, it could be worse. Even warhammer slayers, who are pretty much what your character is, go out drinking. Because most people can't be depressed all the time...or if they are then they'll do things which make them momentarily forget the pain. If your character isn't like that, then that's your call. But I get where the GM was coming from.
That said, this is an example of why when a person can't make it to a session they should be put in limbo. Anything from being 'sent back as a messenger to report to the boss on what is happening' to 'getting supplies' or 'he's too sick to fight.'
|
|
Well most of his attitude at this point is that the Gods hate him and he hates them back. Even Gorum and he aren't on great terms at the moment. He is very much a broody, angry and intimidating. And he had never been much of a drinker and he sure as hell wouldn't going drinking with someone he even a little see as an enemy which this guy is more than a little, as he was a servent of the one being that my character has sworn to kill or die trying. The GM sighted a worthy opponent as a reason to celebrate but in his mind the only worthy opponent is the one that can kill him. And again the GM knows how the character feels because I have explained it to him.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah not to play devil's advocate here, but this isn't really all that bad. I mean, when people talk about GMs making bad choices for their Characters, it is normally to the tune of a Paladin Character falling, or a Wizard losing his Spellbook or some other "we threw your guy under the buss for the plot cause you weren't there." What happened to your character is just a bit out of the ordinary, and I can think of three explanations:
1.) You GM misunderstands WHY you are such a grumpy cat right now, and thinks you'd come out of your funk for a suitable challenge, orc style.
2.) The GM is introducing a new NPC that is plot important, and hijacked your character's ennui to introduce them.
3.) The GM is tired of your Character's fatalistic homicide wish, and maybe the other Players are too. Ask around to see how everyone feels, and then explain to the GM that your Character wouldn't be this way if he could ever catch a damn break.
Of and 4.) That's actually an Avatar of Gorum or something suitably ridiculous here as an in-game nod towards whatever the GM wants.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cerwin, you say that you have a character who is looking for someone strong enough to kill him AND he will always fight to the death...and then you don't show up for the game! If the GM did what you seam to want, your character probably should have been killed during that session. Are you saying that would have made you happier?
Cerwin: "So, how did the session go?"
GM: "Oh, your character died in a really epic duel to the death. It was pretty cool."
Cerwin: "What! But I wasn't even there?!?!"
GM: "Well, I did play the character how I thought you would want it. He called out the toughest opponent and didn't back down an inch."
Cerwin: "Ah. OK. It's all good then."
I think you are being very unreasonable. It's your character. If you want him to be run 'correctly', then be at the game. Don't put that responsibility on anyone else.
It's my understanding that a GM makes few, if any, role-playing choices for player characters. Most GMs seem to use the limbo method of handling the characters of absent players. Perhaps he had his reasons for doing this? Speak with your GM and calmly explain your position on these OOC actions. NEVER create a FU character. It'll only cause hard feelings and this is just a game (can't believe I just said that).
|
|
Well he should have done like he has for every other character in the game when the player wasn't there and just not do anything with him. That is how he has treated every other player throughout the game.
But yes I would have been happier if he had died that way. It is what he has been working towards. It would still have been a dick move by the GM to give my character the epic story ending that he has been going for while the player isn't there.
Also the reason I missed the game is I had a family emergency at the last minute. And I informed the GM I would miss as soon as I knew.
And there are two pieces of information that clarify the situation.
You have a character that is trying to die? That makes it hard on any game for both the GM and other players. This just screams problem, really the GM has minimal options. With the attitude you seem to have towards him, would it have been better if he just killed your character when you were not there? Was that NPC needed for the plot to evolve? You have issues with how the character was Roleplayed, but you were not there, without a "limbo", someone has to make that call. Now if he had your paladin murder a group of children for J-walking, then I might have an issue. I would suggest retiring that character or have it get over the death wish concept, it is bound to hurt the party as is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, you are.
This is not a major thing, and it could have been a lot worse.
|
|
He isn't just looking for someone to stick a knife in him he is looking for someone good enough to defeat him. We are level 10 and he has never gone down in combat, the only real difference in how he is played is that he is not willing to talk through something if fight will work. Also he has literally watched every friend he has ever had die our abandon him. So he is clearly a little messed up in the head.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is usually a bad idea to take a development, however logical, to the point where it becomes bad for the game - whether unfun for others or likely to lead the party into trouble (like not retreating when it makes sense to for example).
I'd suggest finding an alternative, more party friendly way to express his trauma.
At it's core this is a co-operative social game.
(not saying it is at that point, but just be aware of it)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have a character that is trying to die? That makes it hard on any game for both the GM and other players. This just screams problem, really the GM has minimal options. With the attitude you seem to have towards him, would it have been better if he just killed your character when you were not there? Was that NPC needed for the plot to evolve? You have issues with how the character was Roleplayed, but you were not there, without a "limbo", someone has to make that call. Now if he had your paladin murder a group of children for J-walking, then I might have an issue. I would suggest retiring that character or have it get over the death wish concept, it is bound to hurt the party as is.
I have to disagree with this. I've run characters that wanted to die before. Dwarf slayers for those familiar with the concept. Playing such a character is the same challenge as playing a paladin.
You have your code, and your goal...you just have to make sure that you don't force the group to follow it. The trick for a suicidal character is the need to die an honorable death, the desire to be remembered, and to be selfless.
Why is this important?
(1) The honorable death means that you can't do something stupid to die. You have to die with honor. If you get all your friends killed you died a selfish death, not an honorable one.
(2) You want to be remembered. This is the second trick to playing a suicidal character. Not only do you need someone around to witness your death, but you have to make sure that your death was worth remembering. Charging into a group of goblins? That's...well, something. Sure. Jumping onto the back of a dragon, plunging your axe into the back of its head, and riding the corpse down the cliff onto a regiment of orcs? Yeah, that's pretty damn cool.
(3) Being selfless. You are going to die, you know it. So put your companions over yourself. Splitting the loot? Only take what is needed and let them have the rest. A dead man walking doesn't need to save. Big artifact of OMG drops and everyone wants it? Say that you don't want the enemy taking it off your corpse, so it'd be better for someone else to have it.
But try not to be gloomy about it all the time. Gallows humor goes off better than sulkiness.
Keep things three things in mind and you have someone who is suicidal without acting suicidal all the time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He started out as a fairly easy going or at least as much as an inquisitor of Gorum could be. But after his best friend in the party was brutally murdered in front of him he has kind of going to a dark place. And is now looking for someone strong enought to kill him. And as such he is going to fight every fight to the death. (and I have told the GM that this is his way of thinking after the last time he forced me to stop a fight before the enemy of my character were down).
So I missed the last session and I get a text from the GM that my character fought the guy to a draw and then got drunk with him to celebrate a good fight with a worthy opponent. And at level 1that might well have been what happened. But now with his only goal to die honorably in combat he would not fight to a draw and then go drinking with the guy.
That's pretty small potatoes.
and your stated goal is not very campaign friendly. Maybe you should rethink it. Just mellow it some. Good character, other than that.
I can understand your frustration, and while this is only a mild violation of your character, it's still a violation. That said, it might also be a bit of an overreaction on your part.
Best advice is to try and talk with your GM again when you're less frustrated, and consider even pointing him towards this thread.
Running a character for a player while they're missing is risky. We tend to really get into "roleplaying" each other's characters during our regular sessions, so we kind of hive mind running an absent character if it becomes necessary rather than leaving it to one person.
The GM could/should make it a fey shapeshifter or doppelganger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's his character. It got highjacked. The GM did not treat it the same way he treats the other characters when the player is away. Personally I would keep saying, at the next game whenever anyone says your character did it, "No I didn't. I never did that." And keep fighting that your character did anything like that because it is your character, and the GM treated yours differently than the others. If the GM argues say "Is this my character, or yours? Cause if it is not mine, here is the sheet." And hand it to him right there and change the name of the player from yours to his.That's a massive over reaction for what's essentially a trivial matter.
I think this was a minor issue and the OP blew it out of proportion. It wasn't as bad as it was first made to seem. A simple note to the GM on how you'd act in some situations would be better.
Triviality is in the eye of the beholder.
Personally, I agree that it isn't a huge problem but it would definitely irk me if something like that happened. Sometimes it doesn't have to be a world-ending crisis, just a stupid little thing that gets on your nerves.
That said, it seems to be me like there are bigger issues with this game that need to be discussed. It definitely sounds like the OP just isn't very happy with the campaign's current direction, and is acting out on that with the way he's RPing his character. You don't solve out-of-game issues with in-game actions.
|
Any particular reason why the GM hasn't thrown an overwhelmingly powerful opponent at you during a session that you attend, so that you can retire this character in the way you desire and start a new one?
Or, you know, retire the character and leave the campaign gracefully, if you've tried and failed to work out your larger concerns about this game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're in the middle of a dungeon or on a sailing ship it isn't always possible to pretend the character isn't there.
It seems like the OP and several of the reactionary comments that follow are massive over-reactions.
The OP has made a deliberate choice to turn his character into a brooding, violent, psychopath seeking death and then complains because the GM had him have a drink with an NPC during an away session.
Is it not plausible that two foes could batter each other for an hour only to no longer be able to swing a blow at deaths door effectively reaching a draw? Knowing that the foe wasn't strong enough to beat him the chose to 'commiserate' rather than 'celebrate' (is that suitably maudlin enough?)
Net loss to the character - absolutely none.
Is it in keeping with the stated aims of the character to find a worthy opponent - Yes.
It seems to me the GM gave the OP a few lines to explain how the character was trying to find a worthy opponent but then stopped short of killing him 'off screen' in absentia. That seems like a fairly reasonable act to me.
The description of how the character feels like he wants to die because his friends have died sounds petulant, paranoid and fairly destructive to party cohesion to me. Let's be clear - we all chose to play the character the way we choose - no one is forcing us to play damaged psychopaths. Perhaps have less expectations on GMs and the OP won't be so disappointed.
Let's also be aware that we are only hearing one side of the story here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this is why I never have absent players' characters present.
I've been told a few times that "your character does this" by a DM. I've hated every single one of those times. Why the hell am I even there if I don't even get to play my character? It is some of the worst moves a DM can make. I'm not talking about in-game mind controlling, I'm talking about s@!$ty DMs who can't run a game without hard-core railroading.
I'm personally glad for you that you always have that option. Myself, I can't count how many times I've had to stop a session mid-dungeon and have had to stop mid-fight a few times. So the group is prepared to step into the next room but it isn't time for a rest yet? Great! And the sorcerer can't make the next game? Are you really going to send the unarmored one back alone to the entrance and hope nothing goes wrong? Let alone how does he mysteriously find the group again when he makes the next session?
I've had at least six sessions end in the middle of a major fight. How do you account for the man in a heavy armor and shield holding the horde at bay from the wizard just suddenly disappearing when his player has to go on a business trip (vacation, whatever)?
Taking over a character when the player is absent is NOT railroading. Personally, I try to avoid making choices (I let the players decide what happens to the absent player, with right of veto). That being said, I don't allow death wish characters in my game to begin with. Several above posters have pointed out that it just isn't fun for anyone, and as a GM, it makes it hard to design adventures that are still a challenge without the possibility that one of the players will decide now is the time to cash in that honorable death card. Heroic sacrifice is one thing, a death wish another. Those characters that DO develope death wishes, I talk to the players and either arrange said death a.s.a.p., arrange a work-through also a.s.a.p., or just have the character leave the group to make way for a new character.
And I would ask if that was part of the problem as well. Are you tired of your inquisitor? You say he is the only original player left. Do you find yourself wanting to play a new character? Do you want that epic death first, maybe? Talk to your GM about it, and maybe you can work something out.
However, and this is the caveat I issue all my players: If you aren't present at the game session, expect your character to act different. We aren't you, and can only guess.
Furthering that caveat: Epic things are going to happen in the game. If it is a character specific epic plot point, I will try and avoid it until that characters player is there. (I would assume this is part of what your GM did. Avoiding the epic death until you are there for it. No point making a memorable moment for the person who isn't there to remember it...)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a big fan of this because of problems like these.
I think if I was Gorum and one of my inquisitors got all wangsty over people dying I'd kick him to the curb.
Really though, your GM didn't do anything that bad. I don't know why he treated this situation differently than others, I also can see it possibly being biased by your perspective. If I was another player I would probably see your character fighting an inclusive duel and getting drunk as effectively 'not doing anything.' Obviously it is unfortunate that you feel this is really out of character and don't like it, but It doesn't seem to be something that should be impossible to live with.
Relax a little, remember it is just a game and try to have some fun. Most likely no one but you will even care that your character did this, and if you can just forget about it and not make it a big deal it won't be.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is your character, not your GM's. The GM didn't want to kill your PC while you weren't there. You may have wanted it to happen, but you weren't there. The GM may have known that the PC wanted to die, but the GM didn't know that you the player were okay with him killing your PC.
Wait, no... forget all that.
Go with your first plan of overreacting by making a plan to ruin everyone else's enjoyment of the game. That's obviously the best solution. I can't see any problems escalating from that course of action. None whatsoever.
On the "how to handle missing players", my group of (really rather close) friends operate by consensus, so that we don't have to worry about "why isn't Cattie the bard and party face doing the talking, here?" moments. Basically, on the missing player's character turn, the group decides what they're going to do. It's usually pretty simplistic (inspire courage and shoot bow!) in combat, and out of combat the character is either doing basically nothing, or someone comes up with a rough idea of what they're saying or doing, and we fudge it using their stats, skills, or whatever.
Never had a problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just be glad the GM was running your character. I've been in many games where being absent meant that one of the other PCs ran your character, usually as a crash test dummy. It was rare that a character survived a missed session.
"Yeah - kill his character."
"That'll teach him to interact with females!".
-quoted from The Gamers
I do have to wonder how the player's sudden absence effected the choice to have the character do stuff. It could very well be that the other choices were to cancel, or to try to massively overhaul that night's plot. The second is something that a lot of GMs could not handle. Again, talk with your GM. It also sounds like you might need the other players there as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the problem.
You weren't there for the session. GM's who run their game with consistency simply can't make the character vanish for the session. So it was either tell everyone else they can't play because you didn't make it. Or deal with it somehow.
Keep in mind that unless you make provisions for such occurances, not everyone can dive into your head to play a character the way you think is the proper way to play it.... especially if you've been playing the typical anti-social, anti-hero who keeps all cards tight to his chest.
Here's the thing. Even if you did end up making a mechanically OP character to get on the DMs nerves, you won't win. Because, well, he's the DM. He says what goes, he controls reality in that world and if he's as railroad-y as you suggest, I doubt there'd be any qualms about doing such things.
Was what he did sucky? Yeah. There's a bunch of possible reasons they did it though, and it's probably better just to sit down and talk with them about it. About how you feel the game has been so far, ask why he involved your character when he hadn't with anyone else. Just get it all out in the open. That's really the only way I, admittedly just an outside observer, can see you coming from the game happy in the future.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but did anything bad actually happen to your character besides the instance of maybe acting out of character a bit? Did the fight/having a drink with this person have any real consequences?
For my games, if someone has to miss a session, I'll have one of the other players "cardboard cutout" their character. They won't really do anything for RP, but they'll play the character in battle and usually adopt their same general strategy. (Nobody runs them like crash test dummies like was mentioned above, so that isn't a problem.) Personally, I don't do any RP stuff with characters of players who aren't there--the running joke is that anytime someone misses a session and isn't being played in combat for whatever reason, their character wandered off to use the bathroom--but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't seem like a huge deal to me. I avoid it when possible, but maybe the GM didn't want to handwave your character's whereabouts for whatever reason.
The "worst" thing your GM might have done here (which personally I don't think is that bad; it's understandable that someone else isn't going to play your character exactly as you would) is RPed your character somewhat differently than you would have in one instance. Maybe they fought to a draw and your opponent refused to kill you because it went against his principles or something?
Definitely don't make a character to troll the GM, as that's just going to lead to bad feelings all around. If it really does bother you, maybe try talking to him about it again, but since nothing bad really happened to your character because of it, I'd suggest letting it slide.
|
Maybe I'm missing something here, but did anything bad actually happen to your character besides the instance of maybe acting out of character a bit? Did the fight/having a drink with this person have any real consequences?
I'm a little confused by this one, but the "bad" appears to be that the DM didn't kill off his character in his absence. Consequences seem to be continued existence of the PC. The OP seems to be overreacting.
|
|
Acting out of character may not be a negative consequence for the character, but it can certainly be a negative consequence for a player who is heavily invested in that character's story. While trashing the campaign out of spite would definitely be overreacting, I can definitely understand why OP is upset.
And as a GM, if I knew I had planned a significant character moment for a player who was going to be absent (and for an understandable reason) I would try to put a little effort into revising my plan to account for the absence. Ideally it would be possible to postpone the duel, but if not, was there any way that the fight could have been resolved without either killing OP's character or having him act out of character?
Would it have been plausible for the NPC to incapacitate OP's character without killing him (leaving your character pissed and looking for a rematch)? For the NPC to retreat even if OP's character was still keen to fight to the death? For some third party to intervene in such a way that OP's character might grudgingly accept the need to "finish this later"?