PDA

View Full Version : Was that overwhelmingly unfair?



White_North
2010-03-27, 12:58 PM
All right. I once again request the guidance of this board regarding my nWoD game. Something happened at our last game that has one of my players up in arms. The rest seem to be pretty happy with the game, but that guy feels seriously cheated, and I just wanted to know if he's justified in this.

Just a warning, this might be longish. Also, those playing in my Mortals New Orleans Chronicle, please refrain from reading. Plot-sensitive details ahead.

So, first of all, let it be known that my WoD games are more film-noir/horror investigation than all-out horror-adventure. Originally, I wanted all of my players to be mundanes, but after a bit of talking with one of my players, I decided to allow them the use of hunter factions, once I had propery introduced them in-game. The only player who made use of it is our resident optimizer (let's call hm X). He's a really nice guy and a great roleplayer, but he has a bit of a ''must win D&D'' mentality about him. He's pretty much the sole reason I allowed hunter, as I wanted him to have fun, and that would mean giving him abilities that would allow him to be a tangible threat to supernaturals and such.

Now, onto the actual story. I use made-up newspaper handouts to give my players plot hook and to give a sense of immersion in a large and moving world. Long story short, they decided to investigate the case of Jack Cross, industrial tychoon who had just survived an assassination attempt. A man (let's call him Bill) fired three rounds at him point-blank range and he didn't even seem fazed, the newspaper said. My players being pretty sharp, they guessed he wasn't quite human and set out to investigate him.

Now, before the actal adventure, I statted Cross out as being possessed by a powerful demon of Pride and Greed. I wanted him to be able to lie with every breath and also have sort of an unkillable-Terminator feel about him, if my players ever directly confronted him. If you guys want, i can post his precise build, but I don't think that'd be necessary. Point is, Bill was sent by one of Cross' old rivals, Sam, that he put out of business and who had found out what he really was. In retalitation, Cross sent his assassin to kill Sam. My players just narrowly managed track down Bill's employer in time to save his life. They didn,t catch the assassin, but the man was now in the hospital and in police custody (they called the cops when they found him).

Now, my players had already looked into Cross a bit and player X had used one of his hunter abilities (true sight of St Abel) on him. Now, true sight of St Abel says it pierces the veil of supernatural creatures who try to hide themselves in society. However, it doesn't give a clear desription of what it does on Possessed. Now, I figured that demons by nature are beings that thrive on deception and subterfuge. By themselves, TSoSA shows demons as ''gauzy shadows'', but this was a demon who was hiding deep in a human being's unconscious. So, I told him that Cross had a shadowy-grey cloud about his head that seemed to swirl about (which I thought was a pretty good description of a man being possessed by a demon). So, I was pretty surprised when player X labeled him almost instantly as a Mage (beings who, by the way, I hadn't so much as mentioned so far in the chronicle). He doesn't investigate the ''black cloud'' further, doesn't so much as talk to Sam after rescuing him, and decides to go straight to Cross to ''negociate'' with him.

By this point, I was pretty surprised by the whole ''Mage'' thing, but I decided to roll with it. Long story short, Cross meets with those guys who tell him they know he's a Mage and that they want to ally themselves with him against the Vampires of New Orleans. Cross is surprised, but being the opportunistic demon he is, grabs the occasion, and starts lying freely to them, telling them Sam was an ally of the vampires and that they had tried to kill him after they had no more use for him. He tells them he wants to wrestle the French Quarter from the vampire's grasp and purge the city from evil. They take every word out of his mouth as truth and just like that, Cross has a bunch of goons who'll get rid of the vampire lord of the French Quarter for him and who he can offer up to the Prince as scapegoats.

A session later, they had managed to get rid of the vampire lord of the French quarter wihout casualties. Cross summons them to his penthouse in downtown to congratulate them and seeing as they are no longer of any use for him, signals his assassin (who I had built at least 4 sessions before as an extremely talented sniper) to kill them. He gives one player an envelope, saying it contains sensitive information. Player opens (not even player X, mind you) the envelope. It says ''Boom, you're dead''. Sniper takes the shot. Deals 12 lethal. I end the session there as most people had to go.


Now, the session ends on a pretty big cliffhanger, and I must admit that I'm pretty pleased with myself. They had schocked faces, as they apparently really didn't expect Cross to betray them. Two of my players are very pleased with it. Even the guy who died. I usually hate my players feeling cheated, so on the ride back home, I explain the situation to the player who died. he says it's perfectly okay, he had a lot of fun, and that the betrayal was well executed, unexpected and really effective. I'm really glad as it's the first time I've ever freaked my players out that much and have a villain's betrayal really get to them.

Problem is, I get back home and player X is seriously pissed off. He accuses me of not rolling the sniper's roll (which i did, as the two other players can attest), and demands to know how the sniper pulled it off. I explain it to him, giving him the precise stats and dice pool of the event. He accuses me of lying. Then, he starts saying that True Sight of St Abel should have told him Cross was a demon and evil. I explain that that's not quite how it works, that the ability told him there was something serously off about Cross but that's it's not a ''you win now'' kind of ability, especially against beings who rely on deception and hiding to survive and thrive. He made a metagame assumption about Mages, didn't even bother to look into it further, took Cross' word as unquestionable truth and, in the end, got betrayed. He trusted a being who gets off on deception and betrayal, and unfortunately, the team paid for it. And, worst of all, player X still doesn't seem to listen to me and has moved on to telling me essentially ''take it back or I leave the game'', which is an incredibly annoying and disrespectful thing to say.

Now, keep in mind that, in the whole 6 session of WoD we have played so far, this is only the second death. I don,t like killing players, but this time, I felt it was really appropriate, and that the betrayal and deception would really anchor Cross as a memorable villain. It seemed to have had that effect on everyone but player X, who I'm sure is more pissed off that he ''lost'' than anything else. So yeah. Apologies for ranting, but this really bothered me. Thoughts?

Greenish
2010-03-27, 01:06 PM
Thoughts?

You can't "win D&D" by playing nWoD. The envelope was classy. People rarely want to admit their stupid mistakes. Let X cool down and he should get over it.

Vizzerdrix
2010-03-27, 01:08 PM
X is being a chud and you may have to have a word with the group about that session. If X still acts like a chud, boot him.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-27, 01:11 PM
Nope. I'd blame the player for what happened over you.

Let's be fair. You gave him power. You're obviously familiar with the power used and made a legitimate interpretation of what it does. He chose to make a metagame assumption and it killed him. The fact that the majority of your players had fun should tell you something.

He's upset because his super win tool actually screwed him and his friends over and he knows its his fault. Power can be the perfect rope on which to hang yourself, and he doesn't like dangling.

If the other players are on your side, ask them to talk to him. If he's really that upset, you need to have a long talk with him...not about the game, but his attitude. Because that is a problem.

bosssmiley
2010-03-27, 01:11 PM
Player surprised by a (rather classy - nice touch with the envelope) double-cross in WoD? Oh dear. Imagine how badly he'd spit the dummy over a session of CoC. :smallamused:

Godskook
2010-03-27, 01:15 PM
And, worst of all, player X still doesn't seem to listen to me and has moved on to telling me essentially ''take it back or I leave the game'', which is an incredibly annoying and disrespectful thing to say.

The proper reply to that is: Fine, go.

arguskos
2010-03-27, 01:20 PM
The proper reply to that is: Fine, go.
Amen. This player is being highly disrespectful and is complaining because he doesn't get to "win NWoD", which is pretty crazed.

Tiki Snakes
2010-03-27, 01:32 PM
Assumptions, ah delicious assumptions. I especially like them when they are made using entirely out-of-game knowledge. So much fun.

I wonder if there's any link between making such random assumptions and being moody when they are proved wrong? Hmm.

If he was the player that was shot, it would be one thing, because that's kind of understandable. When you have invested in a character, it can hurt to have it taken away with little chance to save them, or react. But as far as we can tell, X is just angry at having been wrong, as much as anything else.

Try not to rise to the Drama. State that he is welcome to continue playing, but that if he's not enjoying the campaign he's welcome to drop out. Your other players are enjoying themselves, so I don't see any real reason for you to go to stage 3 (which would be to offer to let him run a campaign for a while if he's not enjoying yours).

If he's genuinely worth having involved, he should at least calm down/suck it up. If he refuses to play because things that he didn't decide on happened, then it's probably best for both of you (and the others) if he is allowed to just...not play for a while.

Irreverent Fool
2010-03-27, 01:34 PM
I have to agree with those who say to let him go. I had a similar incident with someone who wanted in-game power. My girlfriend wanted to DM a campaign (3.5) for us. She wasn't too familiar with all the rules so she wanted to limit it to core-only at least at the beginning. We knew this.

Now, this guy is ALWAYS talking about his build and what his character can do next level and looking through books during the session. It gets on everyone's nerves. Nobody else in our group really tries to optimize except me and in this case, I made a point of avoiding it. Lots of blasty spells, etc. Of course, he's not even good at optimization. But he's our frient so we usually tolerate him, but this time, given that he was so rude to the single feminine element in our group, we told him he was more than welcome to take off. This had the benefit of reducing the player base to 4, which is much better than 5 for a new DM.

Long story short, one of our crew shows up to character creation, finds out it's core only (he'd been told before), throws a fit and says "If it's core-only, I'm not playing." We told him he was being rude and if he didn't want to play, he didn't have to.

After this, we all greatly enjoyed a RP-driven plot without our own player X constantly distracting everyone with descriptions of what abilities his character will have in so many levels, etc. If you've still got 3 players or more, let him go.

tl;dr: Let him leave. Ret-connning sucks and you'll all realize you're better off after a couple sessions.

obnoxious
sig

Riva
2010-03-27, 01:36 PM
Frankly, I'm surprised this is even a question. No, your actions were not unfair. The player who's character was killed off even thought it was classy (which it was, top score).

I think letting player X cool down a bit might be good? All in all, this is not something I'd go back on. It wouldn't serve any point whatsoever and would make for a rather awkward power shift. You're playing a game; any time something would cause an in real power struggle/power shift you should probably step away from the situation.

Dr Bwaa
2010-03-27, 01:43 PM
You're in the right here. Not only because of the reasons everyone else has already pointed out (kudos on your execution), but because you're the GM, and you make the rules. X is sad that he was deceived and betrayed in nWoD? That's something he needs to get over sooner rather than later anyway.

Lysander
2010-03-27, 01:45 PM
Shows demons as gray shadows. "There's a gray shadow around that guy's head" You seem to have been completely impartial and fair with this one.

If you were feeling kind you could have said something like "you're not sure what that indicates" so he's warned to proceed cautiously and gain more information, but it's by no means required to hold his hand.

White_North
2010-03-27, 01:56 PM
Alright. Thanks for the responses. I'm talking him down now, but honestly, I think that the only way to satisfy him would just be to assume Cross TPKs them. He's telling me that I put them in a situation impossible to escape. Now granted, it's an awful one, but the point of cross being a demon is that he'll be very easily swayed if they tempt him with his vice. But he seems to be unwilling to even try so far. Oh, well.

Thanks again for all the responses. I just hope he'll cool down before next time.

Totally Guy
2010-03-27, 02:23 PM
I've suffered far worse in nWoD than that. I was betrayed by a PC that had secret motivations for killing me off. That wasn't fun at all.

But I didn't make a big fuss even though I should have.

Looking back the other player at my table was basically being a pillock.

T.G. Oskar
2010-03-27, 02:49 PM
First and foremost, I must say kudos for such a cliffhanger. That was one quite surprising application of double-crossing, and a pretty awesome set-up for a memorable scene.

Second: look at your title. Yes, we all refer to the arbiter of the game as the GM regardless of system (although in D&D, it's usually DM and that tends to stick). You are a "Storyteller"; hence, you're the one that's providing the story to them. They are actors, but they're also players. If, for sake of the story, you decide to make a very ingenious explanation of a power's result, you shouldn't find yourself chafed for it; furthermore, this is WoD where the Storyteller has more of a final word about a decision (hence, acting as a movie/theater director would), not D&D where the rules are pretty much set in stone unless you decide to apply Rule 0.

Third, going from that factor, you can improvise even further. Consider it a challenge from the player to the Storyteller. Keep your decision; his anger towards his failure can be a powerful tool to develop his character. If he goes and tries to metagame his anger into the game, you can do several things. Say that the demon has a power that allows him to appear as someone else. Play on his "failure"; go and speak to him in-character and tell him his power was right (if the demon knows his character used a supernatural divination at him, or if the player blurts it out) but that his deduction was wrong, and play on his pride. I'm sure that, given how you have built your villain, that'll rile the players deeper into the story. That will also give him the spotlight, which can be a double-edged sword; if played correctly, his character will have one heck of a character development session, where he'll learn to trust in his logic as a counterpart to his instincts, instead of just going for pure logic or instinct. However, if he keeps saying "this is a trick, yadda yadda yadda", he'll miss the train and screw it all over. This is also a powerful tool for your players, since they can intervene and, considering whatever ties to the player's character they may have, they may intervene on his behalf, serve as mediators...do something memorable.

Fourth, gently remind him that "what happens in the game stays in the game". If that strains your friendship, which it shouldn't, handle it professionally.

Finally, gently remind him this isn't D&D. He's not here to "win a game", he's here to "play a scenario in X acts" and that any conception of manipulating a game drained right at the moment he accepted to play. Being a director and not exactly an arbiter, you're free and open to allow your players to hold some control of the story, but in the end, it's everyone's story...including yours.

As an addendum: you've just created a memorable character, even if it's memorable for one scene. That may (or if it's topped, may be a candidate to) be the Crowning Moment of Awesome for that villain. If he survives the campaign, he'll probably be a recurring villain in other settings. You may gather clues to quirks that make your players unhinge their jaws. That alone surpasses the anger over a misinterpreted result of a divination. Congrats, that's quite probably positive heat and your player hasn't yet noticed it; if he can work that anger into a tool for character development, he'll show his player skills. If not, he'll have to learn how to play a bit better (which, as any actor would say, is an ongoing process that rarely if ever ends)

White_North
2010-03-27, 03:00 PM
Third, going from that factor, you can improvise even further. Consider it a challenge from the player to the Storyteller. Keep your decision; his anger towards his failure can be a powerful tool to develop his character. If he goes and tries to metagame his anger into the game, you can do several things. Say that the demon has a power that allows him to appear as someone else. Play on his "failure"; go and speak to him in-character and tell him his power was right (if the demon knows his character used a supernatural divination at him, or if the player blurts it out) but that his deduction was wrong, and play on his pride. I'm sure that, given how you have built your villain, that'll rile the players deeper into the story. That will also give him the spotlight, which can be a double-edged sword; if played correctly, his character will have one heck of a character development session, where he'll learn to trust in his logic as a counterpart to his instincts, instead of just going for pure logic or instinct. However, if he keeps saying "this is a trick, yadda yadda yadda", he'll miss the train and screw it all over. This is also a powerful tool for your players, since they can intervene and, considering whatever ties to the player's character they may have, they may intervene on his behalf, serve as mediators...do something memorable.

Fourth, gently remind him that "what happens in the game stays in the game". If that strains your friendship, which it shouldn't, handle it professionally.

Finally, gently remind him this isn't D&D. He's not here to "win a game", he's here to "play a scenario in X acts" and that any conception of manipulating a game drained right at the moment he accepted to play. Being a director and not exactly an arbiter, you're free and open to allow your players to hold some control of the story, but in the end, it's everyone's story...including yours.


Thanks a lot for the advice. And yeah. That particular player has been known to fly off the handle and strain relationships because of games. I'll try to work this into character development, like you said, but I don't know if it'll do anything. Honestly, I'm pretty sure I'll have to boot him from the game. I mean, if he can't handle not dominating every situation, I don,t think he's a right fit for WoD. But, again, thanks for the awesome advice. I just hope it'll work

absolmorph
2010-03-27, 03:01 PM
First off, that was an amazing use of the players' assumptions; as a fellow (and new) DM, I hope that I'll be able to equal that, especially since I plan on using a few villains whose only hope is deception (and gnomish quickrazors, for a hidden weapon besides a dagger).

Second, the player made an assumption and got burned because of it. He's gonna be angry, but he should calm down with time. It sounds like he's a bit of a power gamer, although not enough of one to normally cause issues, so getting screwed over by his play style probably irritates him a lot. Just give him some time to calm down, and if he brings it up, it would be useful to be able to prove you had the sniper statted up well before-hand (as in, it wasn't made just for that session). Stay calm, and do your best to get him thinking fully rationally (or as close as he gets).

DeltaEmil
2010-03-27, 03:21 PM
How is that True-Seeing-ability written? Does it really do what the player claims it does, while you stealth-nerfed it? That's the very problem in your game.
Because, you know, you could be wrong, even in a storyteller-system. And seeing as how one of the players is angry about how you two differ on its usage, that's the very crucial point you should investigate.

If it's written as how the player said, apologize to him and tell him that you want it to change in the future, to make adventure-plots a little bit more feasible.

Should it be how you handled it, tell him to accept it and not to disrupt the game.

White_North
2010-03-27, 03:31 PM
How is that True-Seeing-ability written? Does it really do what the player claims it does, while you stealth-nerfed it? That's the very problem in your game.
Because, you know, you could be wrong, even in a storyteller-system. And seeing as how one of the players is angry about how you two differ on its usage, that's the very crucial point you should investigate.

If it's written as how the player said, apologize to him and tell him that you want it to change in the future, to make adventure-plots a little bit more feasible.

Should it be how you handled it, tell him to accept it and not to disrupt the game.

It's really not. The hunter book describes demons in incorporeal form as ''Gauzy shadows''. The demon wasn't manifesting physically, but using a human body as a host. So I used that. His whole argument didn't even rest on the rules as written. He basically said: It's an ability granted by the church, so it should automatically point out demons in a very clear manner. And that's not even considering the fact that one of the main themes of Hunter is that even they aren't quite sure of where their abilities come from. They just assume it's because of their faith.

DeltaEmil
2010-03-27, 03:36 PM
Then he has to accept how it's written and stop disrupting the game. Just to make sure, clearify with him how each ability his character has works exactly, so as to avoid these situations.

The Glyphstone
2010-03-27, 03:53 PM
Great story, obnoxious player. Tell him to suck it up or he can sit out the game and come back when you guys start a new story/chronicle/game.

Godskook
2010-03-27, 05:02 PM
Then he has to accept how it's written and stop disrupting the game. Just to make sure, clearify with him how each ability his character has works exactly, so as to avoid these situations.

Agreed. If he does keep playing, suggest that you and he go over his abilities together in far greater detail, to determine exactly how they work in practice.

Murphy80
2010-03-27, 05:05 PM
The player is being a bit of a jerk about his power, but that has pretty well been covered by other posters, and for the most part I found your plot/story fun and clever, kudos. This is the part I might have a problem with;

...and seeing as they are no longer of any use for him, signals his assassin (who I had built at least 4 sessions before as an extremely talented sniper) to kill them.
To start, I think it entirely your "right" as a DM to have the BBEG do whatever you think he would do. But why did he have "no more use for them"? They still have no clue and who throws away a perfectly good tool after 1 use? Particularly a demon of "Pride and Greed". That sounds like an arrogant SOB who would want to keep playing with his toys and not some super smart, genre savvy villain. I think it would have been better to keep using them until the players had a chance to see that something was wrong.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

White_North
2010-03-27, 05:17 PM
To start, I think it entirely your "right" as a DM to have the BBEG do whatever you think he would do. But why did he have "no more use for them"? They still have no clue and who throws away a perfectly good tool after 1 use? Particularly a demon of "Pride and Greed". That sounds like an arrogant SOB who would want to keep playing with his toys and not some super smart, genre savvy villain. I think it would have been better to keep using them until the players had a chance to see that something was wrong.

Just my 2 cents, YMMV.

Well, the whole point was that they were temporary tools. Cross didn,t wanna start a war with the Prince of New Orleans over the French Quarter. So, the plan was to have them kill the vampire in charge of the French Quarter, and then offer the bodies of the hunters to the Prince, saying ''took care of your problem for you''. That way he'd get to have the French Quarter and avoid open confrontation with the Vampire establishment.

Also, yeah, I was ruthless. But I did give them plenty of chances to clue in on Cross' nature. They essentially ignored those and blindly trusted him. And, when I run WoD villains, I don't run them like my D&D villains. I play them like actual characters with goals, and motivations. I rarely have them go all out with the single intent of destroying my players, but they don't tend to make typical bad guys mistakes either.

And yeah, in the future, I'll definitely extensively clarify my player's abilities with them.

Shadwen
2010-03-27, 05:30 PM
I dont mean to be rude to your or player X. I have played Old WoD. Now onto the big point here.

You are the Storyteller. The leader of the game.

Player X is a player.

You have say on what happens and has happened. Your word is rule.

Whether or not the book says this or this guy said this or I think this. You have final say on what it is in your game. If he cannot handle that then he has no need to remain at your game. Either he will cool down and continue playing as a good player or he will leave. If he stays and still has an attitude i doubt you will want him around. I see this as him being immature and I have removed several players from my game when I used to ST. Sometimes it is needed....Sometimes we are a little wrong..However if everyone else believes that what you did was for the better then let it be and tell him to suck it up or dont show up.

Sorry if I offended you by "informing" you of simple facts.

Cisturn
2010-03-27, 06:01 PM
i can understand why he's upset but its not your fault. You're a good DM for being able to trick your players like that. It's not fun at all when you know exactly what your DM is going to do, it's not even a game then.

erikun
2010-03-27, 06:12 PM
Have you given the problem player a day to cool off and think about it rationally? Some people can get really into their character and take a bit to cool down.

Beyond that? I really like the story and thought you pulled it off excellently. It looks like your players (beyond the problem one) are enjoying it throughly. You've been very accommodating to the problem player, even bringing in an entirely new ruleset for the one person. Don't feel like you haven't tried.

And ultimately, remember that the game is for the group. While I normally say this in GM-vs-players threads, it applies just as well here. If you and your players are happy with the game, and the one problem player is causing trouble, the issue is with the one player. You will need to let him know that he either needs to calm down or stop showing up; his uproar isn't shared by the group and isn't appreciated by anyone else in the room.

DabblerWizard
2010-03-27, 06:15 PM
It sounds like your player X put too much faith in his own interpretations.

He jumped to a conclusion about Cross that wasn't supported by in-game material. This was his major mistake.

On the other hand, he interpreted the use of his power differently than you did. Or more specifically, you allowed one of his powers to work in a unique situation beyond what was covered by RAW, and used some logical extrapolation to justify how things worked out in character. You certainly could have decided that his power wouldn't work, to save yourself the trouble. He seems to not recognize this point.

Ultimately though, he made things worse for himself by acting rude and childish. I've had situations where I (as the DM) have interpreted situations differently than my players, and it comes down to deciding whether (1) I want to be nice and give them slack, or (2) hold on to the fact that I am the DM and what I say goes.

You were acting completely fair. Disagreements will occur in any kind of roleplaying game. Ultimately the DM decides how a contentious situation will work out, and players have to accept that. Though it would have been easier to handle if X could have kept his cool and acted mature.

Asheram
2010-03-27, 06:28 PM
Well... I can sort of imagine how this player in question feels, (I bet he'd give you Real hell if he were the one to be shot) but remind him of the fact that even if he were a mage, the group would be in the same position, should he decide to doublecross them then.

I just don't find how the fact that he's a demon possessed really matters at this point.

Beside, it's WoD; When something's fishy you go and have a second look, then a third, then get the impression from the group, then you run an extensive background check on the person... Then you Might have the answer.

Ps. I can imagine that the rest of the group enjoys the game, if it were my group, then we'd be re-telling that story for years!

"Right, so we're in the businessmans office, he says that he's pleased with our work and hands us an envelope to Jim here, saying that it contains sensitive information. Well, Jim opens it and it says..."
"'Boom, you're dead!' I was all wha..?"
"And his frikken head explodes! So we look at what's left of Jim, then the businessman, then we collectivly craps ourselves! Best game we've had!"

Chaelos
2010-03-27, 06:34 PM
I always laugh when an issue like this comes up and a dozen people shout "boot him!" before the first page of the thread is over. It's one thing to say that over the comfortable anonymity of the internet; it's something else to do it to a friend, even if he's being immature. I definitely agree, however, that "swirling gray" needs to mean "demon possession" from here on out in your game.

For the record, I think you were perfectly justified, but my experiences with WoD games tend to make me far more paranoid in that setting. That sounds like an awesome game you're running.

ShneekeyTheLost
2010-03-27, 06:40 PM
You, sir, may be the Storyteller in any game I participate in! Seriously, I wouldn't have been cheesed at you, I'd have been cheesed at the metagamer who got what he deserved for making false assumptions and getting a party member killed.

randomhero00
2010-03-27, 06:48 PM
OP haha, well played I would say. Even if he was a mage he could still have been evil/deceptive/neutral (and neutrals sometimes backstab.)

Accersitus
2010-03-27, 06:51 PM
I agree that what you did was completely fair, and while I have more experience with oWoD, assuming that a supernatural creature doesn't have any powers that hide his/her nature from other supernatural senses is just naive. You state cross is possessed by a powerful demon, and it sounds like your player is lucky he could see anything off at all (if Cross suspected he could be watched).
At least in oWoD if the ability to conceal something (like Obfuscate) is of a higher level than the ability trying to pierce the concealment (like auspex), the concealment stays in place, if the piercing abilities level is higher, the concealment is removed, and if they are equal, a roll has to be made which is strongest. I don't know if it is similar levels of power for the supernatural abilities in nWoD or what level the "true sight of St Abel" player X used was if there is, but unless "true sight of St Abel" specifically pierces attempts to supernaturally conceal the true nature of the being, the demon might have a more powerful ability to hide what he was and be powerful enough for player X to fail his "true sight of St Abel" automaticly.

White_North
2010-03-27, 06:52 PM
I always laugh when an issue like this comes up and a dozen people shout "boot him!" before the first page of the thread is over. It's one thing to say that over the comfortable anonymity of the internet; it's something else to do it to a friend, even if he's being immature.

Amen. I didn't wanna boot him, so I just told him that that was the way I played, and if he didn't enjoy it, then he could leave with no hard feelings. He's still fired up as far as I know, but I decided to stop trying to reaosn with him. I told him what was what and that's it. Nobody needs drama over a game.


For the record, I think you were perfectly justified, but my experiences with WoD games tend to make me far more paranoid in that setting. That sounds like an awesome game you're running.

Aww, shucks. No, but seriously, I really appreciate that some of you seem to have enjoyed reading that plot. I'm a literature major, and I really like crafting intricate plots with terrifying villains, grey moral choices and heavy, dark atmosphere. I really try to go the extra mile to make sure my players enjoy themselves, which is probably why X's accusation got to me like that. So yeah. Thanks for the advice and the positive feedback. You've all been most helpful.

edit: I'll definitely try to bring up the point that he could have betrayed them even if was a Mage. That's actually a great point and it might tide him over.

elonin
2010-03-27, 07:03 PM
Excellent cliff hanger. Sounds like a game that is fun to be at. First to be a good story some bad breaks have to fall upon the players. Especially since the person who played the pc who died had no complaints then I'd say no foul.

If a player draws a conclusion that is wrong then they get what they get.

Brigham
2010-03-27, 07:50 PM
Late to this game, but I'll add my thoughts.

I wish I could play in a game like this! A quality character death, even a TPK, is far better than some tra-la-la cakewalk of a game. To second what has been said: nice touch with the envelope. It played well with the Pride demon. I hope to find a DM capable of such gravitas.

You played it straight and X was burned by his own assumptions. Perhaps he is more angry that he jumped to a conclusion which cost the party greatly. Maybe he has a pride demon? :smallwink:

Something I do with most groups is a post-game recap. Understandably, it was time for everyone in your group to go home, so this couldn't be done right away. Group discussion can go a long way to soften someone who feels wronged. It can help them to level out and think critically about how to improve the in game situation instead of whining. It can also augment frustration if the tide is against you, admittedly.

Last, what is WoD? World of Darkness, got it.

Draxar
2010-03-27, 08:27 PM
edit: I'll definitely try to bring up the point that he could have betrayed them even if was a Mage. That's actually a great point and it might tide him over.

I agree – probably the best suggestion in this thread. Sure mages are often good guys, but not always. Does the character in question have any lores relating to mages or other way to know what they're like, or was he just totally going "I OOC think that mages are good guys, so my character will treat him as a good guy"

TheCountAlucard
2010-03-28, 03:35 AM
Sounds like he's the only one who didn't have fun with it... a real shame, if ya ask me. Anyway, keep us posted on how it ends up turning out. :smallamused: