Were we wrong to try and derail?

[R. Shackleford]

So, our normal DM is cursed with work lately, which means someone else in our group is DM'ing. My friend stepped forward before I knew of this, and now we're playing his game for the time being.

Once again, we're in another diplomatic standoff involving elves and impending war, and the party is made up of a bunch of people who's only connection to one another was that they were in a completely unrelated hunting minigame a few days prior. We've done this scenario about three times in the past two months. It always ends with the war never happening, so the PC plan was to force the war to happen, and get one side to gain the advantage needed to crush the other.

Now, this isn't a total derailment, right? This should've always been a possibility. Nobody broke character until the DM forced everyone to break character to stop our plan. "Your character recieves divine inspiration and becomes lawful good. You want to save both groups." "Just as you agree to help the conspirator, the Ranger's Guild sends a messenger saying they'll drop the bounty on your head if you ensure there are no casualties." "Hey, guess what, you're not insane anymore, so you can think logically. You want to help."

The thing that I guess spurned this post on is that during the course of this, the DM repeatedly swears that 'it was a simple ******* mission', and that we were stupid for not following whatever he had laid it out. Am I missing something? He says this every time he DMs.

He pretty much just up and left after sole encounter where we (shocker) slew both conspirators before they could send the orders to march thus preventing the war, which is the most amiable he's ever been after DM'ing.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

The same scenario three times? I'd probably act up too.

You should talk with your DM.

[Kylarra]

Sounds like someone else should take up the reins for DMing or have some nice OOC talking, of course.

[Duke of URL]

Yes, you were wrong to derail, if you were doing so merely to derail. But the DM was more wrong for railroading you.

And, the story was amusing, so you are absolved of any wrongness.

[Optimystik]

Don't settle OOC problems through the game. Talk to him, let him know you don't appreciate the insults and that you want more variety in your campaign, and if he refuses to listen/leaves again, one of you will just have to take over and DM in his stead. But you can't force him to play your way any more than he can force you to play his.

Though I must admit, I'm very much in favor of slaughtering elvish emissaries.

[Jayabalard]

Yes you were wrong to try and derail; and while your GM is also in the wrong, all you're doing is taking a bad situation and making it worse.

If you want to be "right", start dealing with it as a strictly out of game issue; talk to him about the fact that you've done exactly the same scenario multiple times and don't have any wish to repeat it. Swap up who is GMing and do something totally different.

[Coidzor]

Sort of sounds like this guy isn't really cut out for it as is. Especially if just leaving straight away after the game is the best behavior he's shown since he started DMing.

I can definitely see why you did what you did though.

[truemane]

Yeah. You guys need to spend a session just talking about what you want in a game. Derailing only ever happens when the players haven't been given a reason to invest in the story the DM is telling. And that only ever happens when the DM makes the story in the absence of any idea of what the players/characters want.

You should all sit down and work it out. What do YOU want to do? What do the rest of you want to do? What does the DM want?

If you (the players) can't adequately articulate what you want, then you can't really blame the DM for not giving it to you. On the other hand, if the DM hasn't taken your views into consideration, then he's just telling stories to himself.

Either way, this problem gets solved by scrapping the story and discussion what kind of story you want to tell together.

[R. Shackleford]

Alright, I'll bring it up tonight during FNM. Most of the group will be there anyway.

But yeah, the game before that was a TPK, then he left. And the game before that ended with a detailed walkthrough on why we were idiots for taking our various courses of action. I guess I'll admit I was somewhat in the wrong for my part though, because part of my actions were just to spite him for that.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

How detailed?

[Tyndmyr]

The same scenario three times? I'd probably act up too.

You should talk with your DM.

This.

Also, your DM should not be at all surprised that giving you the same mission repeatedly may lead to different outcomes.

Plus, reacting with "your characters are all now LG and do as I say" is poor form. I'd suggest talking with him, but in the likely event it doesn't help, swapping DMs.

[Optimystik]

Alright, I'll bring it up tonight during FNM. Most of the group will be there anyway.

But yeah, the game before that was a TPK, then he left. And the game before that ended with a detailed walkthrough on why we were idiots for taking our various courses of action. I guess I'll admit I was somewhat in the wrong for my part though, because part of my actions were just to spite him for that.

D&D is Serious Business

[taltamir]

Alright, I'll bring it up tonight during FNM. Most of the group will be there anyway.

But yeah, the game before that was a TPK, then he left. And the game before that ended with a detailed walkthrough on why we were idiots for taking our various courses of action. I guess I'll admit I was somewhat in the wrong for my part though, because part of my actions were just to spite him for that.

1. the DM shouldn't be using heavy handed fiat like "you are now alignment X due to divine inspiration and want to do things my way"
2. the DM should not be throwing tamper tantrums calling you idiots, explaining point by point why, and then leaving
3. the DM should not recycle the same adventure 3 times in a row.
4. You should not do things to spite the DM.

Your problem has absolutely nothing to do with gameplay... your problems are all social of nature. You need to talk with the DM and reach a solution, or break up this group.

[Tyndmyr]

Technically, if derailing consists solely of "characters acted as usual per their alignments and personality, but arrived at a result the DM had not expected", I wouldn't blame the players.

Sometimes players do unexpected things. It happens. Yeah, sometimes it results in more work, but if you lay your campaign out like railroad tracks, you only really have yourself to blame if one misstep ruins it all.

[Optimystik]

Technically, if derailing consists solely of "characters acted as usual per their alignments and personality, but arrived at a result the DM had not expected", I wouldn't blame the players.

Yes, but their intent was to derail, which is a purely OOC motivation. Remember, anytime you catch yourself saying "it's what my character would do" - stop and examine, very carefully.

I'm not saying their DM wasn't a douche, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[Tyndmyr]

Oh yeah, doing things out of spite is bad...no argument there.

But comparatively speaking, that seems to be the least of their problems at the moment.

[Jayabalard]

Technically, if derailing consists solely of "characters acted as usual per their alignments and personality, but arrived at a result the DM had not expected", I wouldn't blame the players.Agreed, but that's not what's being described by the OP. That's clear even from the title alone, the word try, let alone all the other details he's let drop. That group is likely to have some rather serious problems unless they can work through some of this ooc drama, from both the players and the DM.

[Tyndmyr]

Once again, we're in another diplomatic standoff involving elves and impending war, and the party is made up of a bunch of people who's only connection to one another was that they were in a completely unrelated hunting minigame a few days prior. We've done this scenario about three times in the past two months. It always ends with the war never happening, so the PC plan was to force the war to happen, and get one side to gain the advantage needed to crush the other.

Crushing the side you like least is a valid alternative strategy. I see nothing in here about an intentional derailment just to spite the DM. Rather, an alternative action to see "what would happen this way" sorta a thing.


Now, this isn't a total derailment, right? This should've always been a possibility. Nobody broke character until the DM forced everyone to break character to stop our plan. "Your character recieves divine inspiration and becomes lawful good. You want to save both groups." "Just as you agree to help the conspirator, the Ranger's Guild sends a messenger saying they'll drop the bounty on your head if you ensure there are no casualties." "Hey, guess what, you're not insane anymore, so you can think logically. You want to help."

Looks to me like the OP is also asking if this even qualifies as derailment.

Obviously, the DM's actions at this point are inappropriate.


The thing that I guess spurned this post on is that during the course of this, the DM repeatedly swears that 'it was a simple ******* mission', and that we were stupid for not following whatever he had laid it out. Am I missing something? He says this every time he DMs.

If he says this every single time he DMs, something is clearly wrong, and it didn't start with this instance. If anything, I would chalk any derailment up as reactionary to a deeper problem.


He pretty much just up and left after sole encounter where we (shocker) slew both conspirators before they could send the orders to march thus preventing the war, which is the most amiable he's ever been after DM'ing.

Yeah, if he's usually angry after DMing, he has issues. Talk to him. Or get a new DM.

But the problem clearly didn't start with this instance.

[Fhaolan]

Yeah, this is sounding like he has some kind of issue that he needs to work out. If he keeps running the same scenario, and getting upset when you don't follow what he believes to be the 'right' answer, he's either trying to prove a point to someone at the table, or he's a University professor. :smallbiggrin:

[DabblerWizard]

Once again, we're in another diplomatic standoff involving elves and impending war.... We've done this scenario about three times in the past two months. It always ends with the war never happening, so the PC plan was to force the war to happen, and get one side to gain the advantage needed to crush the other.

Now, this isn't a total derailment, right? This should've always been a possibility. Nobody broke character until the DM forced everyone to break character to stop our plan...

... the DM repeatedly swears that 'it was a simple ******* mission', and that we were stupid for not following whatever he had laid it out. Am I missing something? He says this every time he DMs.

He pretty much just up and left after sole encounter where we (shocker) slew both conspirators before they could send the orders to march thus preventing the war, which is the most amiable he's ever been after DM'ing.

The in-game situation you're describing seems to involve two overt options. (1) Try and stop the war, or (2) let the world's events run their course, likely leading to war (with the bonus option of tipping the scales in favor of one side or another)

Any good DM would plan for both of these scenarios. No DM can know which decisions his players will make until they make them, so, the harder, but more productive avenue is to plan for it all (or just be a good improviser).

It seems to me that, as soon as a DM requires his players to follow one scenario, "or else", he's committed the crime of railroading. He's significantly taken self determination out of the hands of his players, which doesn't make for a good roleplaying experience.

Going with a viable in-game option isn't derailing. If it was your intention to mess up his game, then, obviously, you weren't being very nice, but you're still working towards a completely reasonable goal.

I hope this is clear. Deciding on an outcome that your DM doesn't like, or didn't plan for, is far from "stupid". If anything, your DM is foolish for not allowing it, or not planning for it. I can't stand DMs that think they can put down their players just because they're in the DM's chair.

It would appear that your DM only knows how to plan and play linear games: A always leads to B which always leads to C.

Maybe you can help him plan for more sandbox type games, where multiple outcomes are possible, and even though a plan doesn't work out, the campaign can still go on.

[Glass Mouse]

Yeah, this is sounding like he has some kind of issue that he needs to work out. If he keeps running the same scenario, and getting upset when you don't follow what he believes to be the 'right' answer, he's either trying to prove a point to someone at the table, or he's a University professor. :smallbiggrin:

Being a student, three days from my first exam, all I kan say is... LOL :smallbiggrin:


To OP: I do understand the GM in question, and maybe you players were a bit harsh on him. Seriously, if this is the guy's very first attempt at GMing, then just cut him some slack. Talk to him. Of course he won't know what he's doing.

A small anecdote. Due to circumstances, I had something like two months to prepare for my first real GMing. This means I spent two months working on an adventure and, more importantly, an NPC. I spent so much time doing this that I became really attached to the (villain) NPC.
This meant that when the players eventually fought him, I actually "forgot" a few rules, just to keep him alive and allow them to take him captive instead. In the end, it led to an OoC conflict (note to self: GMs should NEVER side with players in in-game decisions).
Yeah, not proud of that one. Luckily, I've got forgiving players, and I've greatly improved since then.

My point, of course, being that GMs muck up, and new GMs muck up even worse. Sometimes, all they need is room to improve, and a patient advice now and then.

Getting upset that you won't follow his rails might as well be because he knows why you won't. No one reacts well to spite.
Maybe he gets upset because he feels that he stepped in despite his own wishes, worked hard to please the group, and now you guys walk all over his work and sacrifice.

I'll say, talk to him. I can guess all I want, you can contemplate all you want, but no one really knows anything until you've talked it out.

Note; I do understand your reaction, I really do. I'm just trying to offer a new GM's perspective here :smallsmile: