PDA

View Full Version : A DM problem



Fan
2009-07-21, 02:27 PM
Okay, currently. I'm having some serious DM problems.

Me, and the DM have known each other for going on well over a year now. We have been gaming pretty much consistently, and while I'm a acknowledged munchkin, he does the same with his actual encounters so I did it more out of nessecity to begin with.

Lately I've been dabbling around with a lot of monster classes, i have always given him them, with the fluff, and entires to read over before he would approve ANYTHING I would take.

Recently we decided to run Tomb of Horrors, and feeling this was probably the only time where this wouldn't be over board I decided to pick up a Red Ethergaunt as a race.

I gave him the supplement for the Khen Zai in addition to multiple web sources dealing with their fluff, behaviors, and the way they think of material plane denizens.

Recently, we had a problem with the party when our Tank decided to run off ahead, while we were working on a obvious puzzle that may have held some special treasure of some sort.

Later, after defeating a encounter, and having been attacked by one of my party members, I use my mask ability to get back at someone I should be crushing underneath my alien heel from the RP prespective, but out of lienance towards the player, and a wish to avoid conflict. I confronted the person IC, and opened my mask. This couldn't have harmed him physically, and was just a scare tactic to prevent him doing it again.

Now, the DM has out, and called me names, and said my RP sucks for this. Despite me having provided him with the supplement details my attitude towards most living things, and the fact that he even said he "loved" the fluff on the Ethergaunts pre hand, he used the excuse that "if I had known you were going to RP someone who was going to attempt to dominate things, and pretend he was above everyone else I wouldn't have let you play it." even though that in essence is what the Ethergaunts are.

Thoughts, Help, Anything? Am I in the wrong, or is he?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-21, 02:29 PM
I think the calling of names and belittling of RP is uncalled for no matter who is responsible.

Blackjackg
2009-07-21, 02:35 PM
Seems to me like he's probably more in the wrong. But if you want to preserve the game and your friendship, you're going to have to take some responsibility anyway. Talk to him, tell him that this was how you had been planning to play the character, and seek a compromise. Maybe you can tone it down some, or find another character to play (if you're in ToH, it's not too far a stretch to just let the character die and roll up a new one). Whatever you do, don't get indignant and tell him he should have known that you would play this way, or that you'd never compromise your art. That's a good way to lose games and friends.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-21, 02:37 PM
What do the other players think?

valadil
2009-07-21, 02:41 PM
It sounds like your DM screwed up by not fully reading the materials you gave him. But he still has the right to ask you to tone it down, especially if your roleplay is bothering other players.

Fan
2009-07-21, 02:43 PM
What do the other players think?

Well, one of them happens to be the DM's "Favorite" and thats the one I attempted the scare tactic on. The other player isn't on very much so we've yet to talk about this.

Even so he KNEW that was my racial paragdim, and I WAS toning it down fro "BOW TO ME PATHETIC MORTALS!" to "If you slight me, I scare the crap out you"

Zincorium
2009-07-21, 02:50 PM
As always, it's impossible to give useful advice based on a single side of a complex problem.

Here are my opinions-

Attempting to coerce another player's character -in game- is rarely cool (not in any of the games I've participated in). A chat with the *player* away from the table, a word with the DM, and a 'We handled it' speech glossing over the actual confrontation is a less game-derailing way of handling the same problem.

If you can't convince the player that his actions were in the wrong, don't attempt to circumvent their control of their character, because it won't work. Even if the player was simply looking for an in character reason to wise up, you don't spring unpleasant surprises like potentially fatal party in-fighting on a DM. Not if you like them, anyway.

Lastly, accept that just because the DM responded badly (and by your account, they did) does not give you a 'get out of blame free' card if you were the instigator. You have accepted certain responsibilities just by sitting down, and if you don't know what those are, well, you're seeing what is possibly the consequence of not knowing.

Fan
2009-07-21, 02:58 PM
As always, it's impossible to give useful advice based on a single side of a complex problem.

Here are my opinions-

Attempting to coerce another player's character -in game- is rarely cool (not in any of the games I've participated in). A chat with the *player* away from the table, a word with the DM, and a 'We handled it' speech glossing over the actual confrontation is a less game-derailing way of handling the same problem.

If you can't convince the player that his actions were in the wrong, don't attempt to circumvent their control of their character, because it won't work. Even if the player was simply looking for an in character reason to wise up, you don't spring unpleasant surprises like potentially fatal party in-fighting on a DM. Not if you like them, anyway.

Lastly, accept that just because the DM responded badly (and by your account, they did) does not give you a 'get out of blame free' card if you were the instigator. You have accepted certain responsibilities just by sitting down, and if you don't know what those are, well, you're seeing what is possibly the consequence of not knowing.

Well, it wasn't fighting per say it was just a Scare tactic as it was a fear effect that he was immune to anyways from his class. >.>

I do accept that I should have turned it down a bit, but I was already playing a watered down version of my character for team works sake in the Tomb of Horrors.

Also, this is a internet game, it's just that this guy is a friend of mine, and I don't want to lose one of the few people I've met who I can call as such over a game.:smallsigh:

jmbrown
2009-07-21, 03:13 PM
Well, it wasn't fighting per say it was just a Scare tactic as it was a fear effect that he was immune to anyways from his class. >.>

I do accept that I should have turned it down a bit, but I was already playing a watered down version of my character for team works sake in the Tomb of Horrors.

Also, this is a internet game, it's just that this guy is a friend of mine, and I don't want to lose one of the few people I've met who I can call as such over a game.:smallsigh:

This is why monstrous races are rarely a good idea. Sometimes, as a player, you have to compromise with what you can play unless you throw the RP aspects out the window. Forcing your will on another player without their concent is never a good thing and even a simple "I intimidate you to make you do--" whatever is never a good thing.

Best thing to do is talk it out OOC. If worse comes to worse I'd just choose a different race because DnD is a game of cooperation and dominating tyrannical beasts don't fit that roll.

Unless... everyone agrees to be your unconditional slave. I'd kill for a group that bowed to my will as a player.

Jayngfet
2009-07-21, 05:06 PM
Hi, another player from the same group here and I gotta say I'm kinda siding with the DM here. You did kinda spend the entire session calling our characters down IC and antagonizing us(the whole unleashing a fear effect wasn't the best thing to do to another PC), not to mention this being the tomb of horrors and you using the only polite conversation on the devils, talking about overtly evil things(slavery, murder, other such stuff) in front of a damn exalted character.


In short, it wasn't so much what you did as how you did it. The game lasted three hours and we had to endure insults and worse the entire time. We kinda expected a little more party cohesion going in.

Mongoose87
2009-07-21, 05:12 PM
To me, it looks like you've got a character you probably shouldn't be playing. Now, that's a bit your fault, because you knew you'd be dealing with a aprty, but, really, I put that on the DM. If you told him what you were going to be doing, and he is angry at you for doing it, he should know better. I have a feeling he didn't look at your race, so much as its abilities.

DMBlackhart
2009-07-21, 05:18 PM
Hello everyone. DMT here, the DM in question. First I must make it clear that while I did not respond in the most positive manner to Night's actions, I did nothing near what he explained to you, and that I hold NO favorites in my parties.

Now to clarify a few points Night statted that are partially incorrect.

1. Yes my encounter were at a time unbalanced, I was budding, and still unfamiliar with most of the rules. I have improved since then, and alot of my encounters are both balanced and fun now, he has no reason to believe my encounters are munchkin worthy. Just as well, I tollerate his munchkining ( which I would not with ANY other person) souly because he has been a great roleplayer and good gamer. That has changed recently...

2. As for the belittling of night, I did not instigate the argument. My worst argument was that I did not want him causing in party conflict, and that he could play evil if he could work with the team. He began calling me ignorant, and blaming the "tank" of the party for bailing them ( It was warrented, seeing as how he WAS being an insufferable "jerk" IC at the time.)
As the argument degraded (Unfortunately) we BOTH threw insults, not just me, it's amazing he neglected that little detail. And ultimately Night was the one who drug the argument out further then nescessary. I try to make my games fun, I do NOT favor others, so when I told him to stop doing a certain action that, when I asked the other players, we all agreed was "crappy" roleplaying or agrivating, he began to become offended and throwing a tantrum. ( the bulk of which dident happen until after the game)

Of course I have knowledge that night has argued with me before, each time we have had a major argument over something, he has always been proven largly at fault, and has been mature enough to apologise (Where as I have as well.) So I know this despute is nothing new. However I wont go into further details.

Lastly, as far as the flavor gos. Yes I looked over bits of it. No I dident read it in full. My bad, however it should have been apon the player to at least WARN me the race was something of a "stick up their Arse" "world dominating " type race. That is mroe of a BBEG role.
Just take in those facts when you make a new assumption of the situation please, my good Giantlings.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-21, 05:20 PM
Good grief, all three of you get on AIM and talk it out.

Taisuru
2009-07-21, 05:21 PM
Also a player from the same group. I'm the guy who went ahead, and for good reason and not without warning. I told them I was going ahead and they ignored the statement completely, despite me having a vague map of the place (In character). Instead, they proceeded to stand in the room they were in for well over an hour, and started an encounter that led to no gain what-so-ever, and was easily bypassed. This happened 3 times throughout the session, each time with me much farther ahead on the correct path then them. The other player (Jayng above) even admits that it was all pointless and he should have stuck to following me.

Basically, Night Surgeon spent the entire game holding us up at trivial things, and usually arguing over some aspect that was entirely pointless and misled.

DMBlackhart
2009-07-21, 05:22 PM
Good grief, all three of you get on AIM and talk it out.

I talked to him about it shortly before he made this thread. I honestly believe he had no need to drag it unto the Gitp, but since he did, I needed to clarify a few points. Regardless, I explaned my situation to him, before this thread was made. He decided to ignore me, and storm off. So yeah. Thanks for the advice though.

Blackjackg
2009-07-21, 05:34 PM
Curses! I should have known better than to side with the player when I didn't know who the DM was. This'll come back to bite me... (Since it's hard to tell in written form, I'm kidding.)

Yeah, sounds like there was a miscommunication, which has been compounded by some further poor communication. Good luck to all involved, I have faith that you as gamers can come to a reasonable solution. Seek third-party mediation if necessary.

Skorj
2009-07-21, 07:05 PM
This sort of thing happens with internet games. Everyone involved should keep in mind that, without RL facial expressions and other non-verbal cues, people will go way over the top without intending any OOC insult.

Sadly, I have to deal with this at work regularly.

KillianHawkeye
2009-07-21, 09:34 PM
The bottom line is that an entire race of malevolent jackasses with dreams of world domination shouldn't be used as player characters unless the particular character uniquely deviates from the norm for his race, or you're playing an evil party campaign. This is the same reason mind flayers don't make good members in good-aligned parties unless they've given up eating brains.

Woodsman
2009-07-21, 09:39 PM
Wait, wait, wait.

An Exalted character is adventuring with an Evil character. What in Baator happened there?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-07-21, 09:50 PM
The bottom line is that an entire race of malevolent jackasses with dreams of world domination shouldn't be used as player characters unless the particular character uniquely deviates from the norm for his race, or you're playing an evil party campaign. This is the same reason mind flayers don't make good members in good-aligned parties unless they've given up eating brains.

Of non villainous characters.

DMBlackhart
2009-07-21, 10:00 PM
Of non villainous characters.

Hmhmh. Nice.

Jayngfet
2009-07-21, 10:04 PM
Wait, wait, wait.

An Exalted character is adventuring with an Evil character. What in Baator happened there?

It's what happens when characters are made seperatly of each other. Then everyone has to bend over backwards, not act TOO malevolent and turn a blind eye to the fact that he's only being a jackass to YOU and is being well mannered to the devils who are waving their weapons at him alone.

KillianHawkeye
2009-07-21, 10:16 PM
Of non villainous characters.

I disagree. A lot of people would still have a problem with you feasting on the brains of your foes. Good ones would, at the very least.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-21, 10:24 PM
Mindflayer: Hi, what did I miss?

Paladin: Do try to keep up will you...where have you been?

Mindflayer: You know...had to go to the little illithids room.

Paladin: Then why is there slobber on your tentacles?

Mindflayer: Oh that. That's how we...

Paladin: Stop! Right there...You haven't been eating brains have you?

Mindflayer: What? Me? Oh come on! You know you can trust me. Were buddies. You can trust me.

Paladin: Oh I trust you alright.

Mindflayer: These are not the droids you are looking for.

Paladin: Come again?

Mindflayer: No, nothing. Nevermind.

Paladin. Good then. Let's go.

VirOath
2009-07-22, 12:07 AM
I disagree. A lot of people would still have a problem with you feasting on the brains of your foes. Good ones would, at the very least.

They feed on brains, but it doesn't say humanoid intellect. You could be a Vegan Mindflayer, and eat the brains of Cows or something.

Jade_Tarem
2009-07-22, 12:19 AM
There are a lot of reasons why you shouldn't play a mind flayer. The brains thing is really a very minor item on the list.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-22, 12:40 AM
There are a lot of reasons why you shouldn't play a mind flayer. The brains thing is really a very minor item on the list.
But it's one of the main reasons why the character you are playing might not want to adventure with a mind flayer character...

Ninetail
2009-07-22, 12:51 AM
You're both in the wrong.

You're in the wrong for wanting to play a creature that does not work well with others, whose attitude can be summed up as "Bow down puny mortals", and (mostly) for using this fluff as a justification to be a jerk, boss around other characters, and flaunt your character's evilness and superiority complex.

Yeah, yeah, roleplay. You know what? Roleplay something that won't disrupt the game and interfere with the other players' fun. No, "watering it down" from demands of obedience to simple bullying is not sufficient. It's a group game. Play something that can damn well work as part of a team. Even if it's only because "Well, maybe I think they'd make good tools/lackeys/future sacrifices to the elder evils/scapegoats." Find a reason.

Your GM, on the other hand, is in the wrong for allowing you to play such a creature in the first place without having read up on them. However, this in no way excuses your characterization.

Both of you are in the wrong for not talking this out.

Finally, you are in the wrong for bringing this up in a public forum before attempting to talk this out. Seriously, none of us are in the game. What would it matter if you had a thousand replies saying "You're absolutely right"? The people whose opinions matter are the GM and the other players, and from the looks of things, they're pretty much in agreement that you're in the wrong. That would seem to indicate that you need to either reconsider your stance or find a new game that better suits your... proclivities.

Either way, you really ought to talk to them.

HamsterOfTheGod
2009-07-22, 01:00 AM
Roleplay something that won't disrupt the game and interfere with the other players' fun.

Good way to put it. Anyway, wouldn't an ethergaunt who is in an adventuring party be less "BOW TO ME PATHETIC MORTALS!" or "If you slight me, I scare the crap out you" and more "How long must I suffer these fools"...

Gorgondantess
2009-07-22, 01:03 AM
This is the same reason mind flayers don't make good members in good-aligned parties unless they've given up eating brains.

As a guy who (predictably) plays quite a few illithids, I've had it always work quite well. I usually play true neutral chessmaster types, even in good parties I just say excuse me, but I need to feed, sorry 'bout that, I know it's repulsive, so I'll just do it over there out of sight and really in the end there's no practical reason you shouldn't allow me to do so because the people I feed on are either dead or going to die it's not like I'm torturing them or binding their spirit. Besides, if I didn't eat their brains some maggots or wild dogs would, and would you rather have vermin eat the fallen or your powerful comrade?

DMBlackhart
2009-07-22, 01:04 AM
You're both in the wrong.

You're in the wrong for wanting to play a creature that does not work well with others, whose attitude can be summed up as "Bow down puny mortals", and (mostly) for using this fluff as a justification to be a jerk, boss around other characters, and flaunt your character's evilness and superiority complex.

Yeah, yeah, roleplay. You know what? Roleplay something that won't disrupt the game and interfere with the other players' fun. No, "watering it down" from demands of obedience to simple bullying is not sufficient. It's a group game. Play something that can damn well work as part of a team. Even if it's only because "Well, maybe I think they'd make good tools/lackeys/future sacrifices to the elder evils/scapegoats." Find a reason.

Your GM, on the other hand, is in the wrong for allowing you to play such a creature in the first place without having read up on them. However, this in no way excuses your characterization.

Both of you are in the wrong for not talking this out.

Finally, you are in the wrong for bringing this up in a public forum before attempting to talk this out. Seriously, none of us are in the game. What would it matter if you had a thousand replies saying "You're absolutely right"? The people whose opinions matter are the GM and the other players, and from the looks of things, they're pretty much in agreement that you're in the wrong. That would seem to indicate that you need to either reconsider your stance or find a new game that better suits your... proclivities.

Either way, you really ought to talk to them.

For the above Italizised, bolded, underlined part. I mentioned above we talked it out before hand. He ended the argument by insulting me ( I equally insulted him before hand, so that is justified) and storming off. Regardless we DID talk it out. Just so you know. :p

Ninetail
2009-07-23, 05:14 PM
For the above Italizised, bolded, underlined part. I mentioned above we talked it out before hand. He ended the argument by insulting me ( I equally insulted him before hand, so that is justified) and storming off. Regardless we DID talk it out. Just so you know. :p

Okay, fair enough. I retract the sentence.