PDA

View Full Version : should the dm be aloud to ban player violence



deephelldragon
2010-04-22, 06:42 AM
We have a dm in our group right now that has banned player violence so i want to ask you all is that all right even though he is trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group and he does not want us killing them.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 06:43 AM
We have a dm in our group right now that has banned player violence so i want to ask you all is that all right even though he is trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group and he does not want us killing them.

Player violence as in PvP violence or as in PCvNPC violence?

deephelldragon
2010-04-22, 06:45 AM
Player violence as in PvP violence or as in PCvNPC violence?

i am talking about PVP

Jack_Simth
2010-04-22, 06:47 AM
i am talking about PVP
Banning Player Vs. Player isn't so bad - it's supposed to be a cooperative game, after all.

I mean, if you've got a player who's actively trying to work around such a restriction, you've got a problem... but that's with the player, not the DM.

Comet
2010-04-22, 06:49 AM
Disallowing PvP is definetly within the DM's rights.
The important thing here is that roleplaying games are a group effort. Everyone should be able to enjoy them. So, if the players think that PvP is fun the DM should be prepared to allow it despite his own preferences. Everyone should be able to enjoy themselves.

So, get the whole group together and have a good talk about whether PvP is something that should happen in your games or not.

deephelldragon
2010-04-22, 06:50 AM
Banning Player Vs. Player isn't so bad - it's supposed to be a cooperative game, after all.

I mean, if you've got a player who's actively trying to work around such a restriction, you've got a problem... but that's with the player, not the DM.

Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 06:52 AM
Well, when DMing, I commonly strongly suggest that the PCs avoid PvP. I've never done an outright banning of PvP, but it wouldn't really affect anything in ~90% of games. Still, I don't actually ban PvP because I like all options to be on the table.

What's all this about the DM "trying to kill off everybody but two people in the group"?

deephelldragon
2010-04-22, 06:54 AM
well he is just not killing them he does not even attack them he just lets them go on off and let the rest of us die and there is like 10 people in our group and sombody besides them two are dieing off every session so ya i am kind of mad.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-04-22, 06:55 AM
So, let's get this straight:

Characters A, B, C, D, E, and F are in the party.

DM wants A and B to survive.
DM is actively trying to kill off C, D, E, and F, without killing A or B.

DM has prohibited the characters he wants to kill from harming those he wants to protect.

This sounds entirely unfair. Is the DM playing favorites, or have the other characters done something to deserve this treatment?

Speak with the other players outside of the game, see how they feel about the situation. Speak with the DM outside of the game, let him know you're dissatisfied with how he's handling it. If he persists, the best solution would probably be to just not play with him any more, or possibly suggest that someone else be DM for a while if he insists on running an unfair game.

Edit: It could also be that there are so many people playing, he's actively trying to get someone to quit. If that's the case, try splitting it into two groups. Maybe have a separate DM for each group, or maybe have the same DM run a game on another night for the second group. It looks like there may be too many people and he's trying to thin it out a bit, or maybe he has a hard time designing challenges appropriate to such a large party and people end up getting killed.

Comet
2010-04-22, 06:57 AM
so ya i am kind of mad.

That's the key thing here. Things are going wrong in your group. You should tell the DM that things are going wrong in your group. You're not having fun. You should tell your DM that you're not having fun.
The DM will make efforts to fix the problem. Unless he's an idiot.

edit: Biffoniacus beat me to it.

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 06:57 AM
well he is just not killing them he does not even attack them he just lets them go on off and let the rest of us die and there is like 10 people in our group and sombody besides them two are dieing off every session so ya i am kind of mad.

How long has this apparent favoritism been going on? If it hasn't been long, are you sure that it's not just coincidence?


Also, punctuation a good thing.

Weimann
2010-04-22, 06:57 AM
Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that sessionI don't really see how in-character fighting will solve those problem, though. They sound like completely OOC problems, which should be dealt with accordingly.

Personally, I feel that if a DM "is scared" of his players, there's some serious issues that needs to be worked out. If a player does not recognize DM authority, he should not be in the group.

Edit: Also, a 10 people group sound like it would be better off splitting into two groups, because man, that's huge.

deephelldragon
2010-04-22, 06:58 AM
So, let's get this straight:

Characters A, B, C, D, E, and F are in the party.

DM wants A and B to survive.
DM is actively trying to kill off C, D, E, and F, without killing A or B.

DM has prohibited the characters he wants to kill from harming those he wants to protect.

This sounds entirely unfair. Is the DM playing favorites, or have the other characters done something to deserve this treatment?

Speak with the other players outside of the game, see how they feel about the situation. Speak with the DM outside of the game, let him know you're dissatisfied with how he's handling it. If he persists, the best solution would probably be to just not play with him any more, or possibly suggest that someone else be DM for a while if he insists on running an unfair game.

ya that pretty much sums it up.

Delta
2010-04-22, 07:00 AM
Disallowing PvP is definetly within the DM's rights.

This. If someone at the table isn't comfortable with the style of play, it's his right to say so, and yes I think the DM deserves some special privileges here.

On another note to the OP, I know I've said so in every thread you have opened up here, but could you please try to use at least a minimum of punctuation? English is not my first language, and even if it's not a wall of text like you've done before, the way you write makes it very hard to read your post.

Biffoniacus_Furiou
2010-04-22, 07:00 AM
It could also be that there are so many people playing, he's actively trying to get some to quit. If that's the case, try splitting it into two groups. Maybe have a separate DM for each group, or maybe have the same DM run a game on another night for the second group. It looks like there may be too many people and he's trying to thin it out a bit, or maybe he has a hard time designing challenges appropriate to such a large party and people end up getting killed.

Klyth Manyclaw
2010-04-22, 07:01 AM
Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. Deephelldragon, I'm sorry you've percieved me as having favoritism. I wasn't aware that you were having those problems in my game. I'd prefer if you talked to me about issues in my game, rather than other people on the Giant in the Playground forums, but I guess, seeing it from your point of view, I can understand why. I promise I'll make efforts not to engage in that kind of percieved purposeful player killing ever again. Sorry for not responding sooner. :smallsmile:

Comet
2010-04-22, 07:02 AM
Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. Deephelldragon, I'm sorry you've percieved me as having favoritism. I wasn't aware that you were having those problems in my game. I'd prefer if you talked to me about issues in my game, rather than other people on the Giant in the Playground forums, but I guess, seeing it from your point of view, I can understand why. I promise I'll make efforts not to engage in that kind of percieved purposeful player killing ever again. Sorry for not responding sooner. :smallsmile:

That's exactly how a DM should react. Hope you guys can make things work.

Killer Angel
2010-04-22, 07:06 AM
the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

Is your DM scared by the possible reaction of the Rogue's player? Or is scared to kill the rogue, 'cause he's a PC with background / abilities, that are the key for the adventure?
If the latter, it's a mistake but it's more understandable.

EDIT:

Hello, everyone. I'm the DM in question. (snip)

and this will probably end the problem... :smallsmile:

Chen
2010-04-22, 07:09 AM
Depending on the rest of the party composition not attacking a fighter and rogue could be pretty good tactics for any intelligent monster. Everyone knows fighters and rogues are pretty underpowered and less of a threat in general.

I gotta question how PvP would help this situation though, except perhaps making the fighter and rogue ALSO get upset...

Mushroom Ninja
2010-04-22, 07:09 AM
Excellent! Let honest discussion and reconciliation abound! Drinks for everyone! :smallbiggrin:

Jayabalard
2010-04-22, 07:13 AM
To answer the OP's question: Yes, absolutely, the DM should be allowed to ban PvP in the games he runs.

In addition: Killing off other players because you think there's some sort of favoritism going on is a fairly immature response; this is especially true if you haven't talked to the players/GM about the problem first.

Klyth Manyclaw
2010-04-22, 07:15 AM
I gotta question how PvP would help this situation though, except perhaps making the fighter and rogue ALSO get upset...

That's precisely why I decided not to have PvP. If you'd like to PvP, deephell, we could run a campaign in the future where it would be prevalent, but honestly, I've always found the idea of teamwork and a team against the unfathomable odds more interesting than the gladiatorial arena you seem to enjoy. Once the current campaign is over, I'll be happy to run one. :smallsmile:

Serpentine
2010-04-22, 07:23 AM
Yes.

Sounds to me like the problems are/were in other areas of the game, not this. Also looks like that's fixed, or will be shortly.

Klyth Manyclaw
2010-04-22, 07:25 AM
Our meeting is actually today, directly after school. I'll be happy to update everyone, and I'm glad we managed to work things out. This is the way a disagreement SHOULD be worked out. Glad to help, Deephelldragon.

Magic Myrmidon
2010-04-22, 09:27 AM
Cool. I think this topic resolved itself surprisingly well... at the moment.

Rare on the internet. :p

Klyth seems pretty cool.

ryzouken
2010-04-22, 09:42 AM
On PvP and GM intervention in general and my group's approach in specific: I, as DM, have a long standing tradition of nonpartisan support. If PC A has a beef with PC B, I support any and all resolutions to the conflict, violent or otherwise. I prefer that they pursue nonviolent means of resolution, and make my preference known, but I will accept a PvP fight if it occurs.

But it all comes down to your group's dynamic. Our group can remain friends and avoid (for the most part) the death spiral that PvP all too often becomes ("you're PC killed my PC so now I'm going to make a new PC to PK your PC!" "Oh yeah? Well I'll make my backup PC to take out your new PC!" etc...)

Occasionally this is avoided by outright blackmail... but it's avoided for the good of the group...

valadil
2010-04-22, 09:52 AM
But it all comes down to your group's dynamic. Our group can remain friends and avoid (for the most part) the death spiral that PvP all too often becomes ("you're PC killed my PC so now I'm going to make a new PC to PK your PC!" "Oh yeah? Well I'll make my backup PC to take out your new PC!" etc...)


This sort of thing can spiral out of control very easily. Our first group had a few shouting matches in this nature. The problem wasn't that fights broke out among characters. It was that players would kill each other in the middle of the night for no reason. As a GM, refereeing a fight between two PCs is one thing. Deciding if an everpouring bottle held over someone's mouth in their sleep is enough to drown the person, and what sort of save you make is pure fiat. Naturally there were accusations of favoritism.

Anyway, players being able to work against each other is something that needs to be set and agreed upon. Despite my early experience, I would play a game where backstabbing was allowed. I would not however want to think I'm in a friendly game and suddenly end up with a dead character.

DabblerWizard
2010-04-22, 09:56 AM
Normally I prefer being a voice of reason, but since no one has talked about why a DM shouldn't automatically ban pvp violence, I'll make some comments below.

This is purely an analytical exercise. I don't think pvp behavior is a good idea, generally.

Just to clarify, we're talking about player characters attacking (or harming in some fashion) other player characters. Actual violence between players (not their characters) is definitely problematic and is best avoided.

What constitutes character vs. character "violence"?
- It's the deliberate use of a power, spell, etc., where there is some intent to directly or indirectly, immediately or subsequently, harm another character. This definition works both in-character and mechanically, but I'm assuming that there is no out of character malicious intent on any player's part. If there is, that is one definite reason why pvp violence should be avoided.


Reasons why character vs. character violence can be allowed:

1. It can maintain verisimilitude. Two characters may simply have a love-hate relationship and enjoy scuffling with each once in a while, to let off steam perhaps. This in-game fight doesn't harm any players or the DM, out of character. If a DM placed an out of character restriction on this purely in character argument, they would be acting unnecessarily restrictive, in this case.

2. Not all character vs. character violence necessarily leads towards an out of character party break down. Players may find it difficult to reconcile having their character continue adventuring with that other character that attacked them. This is an understandable concern. However, the two characters in question could eventually "kiss and make up". Characters have no thoughts of their own. It is their players that decide when to allow a character to change away from their current perspective.

3. Not all character vs. character violence necessarily leads towards an in character party break down. Other characters might not like in-party bickering, but they're grown ups (generally) and can choose to handle it however they want. A character that takes on an extreme reaction to c vs. c violence, like leaving the party because of it, probably shouldn't be adventuring with these other characters in the first place.

Thajocoth
2010-04-22, 10:04 AM
YES!

I'm sure some people can enjoy it, but I've found the most fun when players are not just not fighting one another, but actively united in doing what they do. WAY less drama...

MarvinMartian
2010-04-22, 10:10 AM
On a general DM banning PvP side-note - my experience (both as a player and DM) is that if you assign special encounters where this is possible it tends to resolve two problems that can be occurring in any group...

A) Players like to know "who rocks and who doesn't". Can the rogue take the fighter; can either of them take the wizard; CODzilla vs Batman? Also afterwards all PvP tensions/desires disperse...
B) DM's can have some fun killing off Players without repercussions (If DM joins in on the fun).

Typically the "arena" style combat is held without any lasting consequences - i.e. gods (or god-like creatures) using players as pawns and wishing them back into existence afterwards. Rewards were still given for position finished. Everyone got "something" although the more choice stuff went to the big winners. Also nice way to doll out some free xp or choice lewt...

Typically once every campaign we hold such a free-for-all death-match; or some tag-team battle variant for kicks and giggles.

My 2 CP

Quietus
2010-04-22, 10:13 AM
Deciding if an everpouring bottle held over someone's mouth in their sleep is enough to drown the person, and what sort of save you make is pure fiat.

Con check, DC 10, as per drowning rules.

What?

valadil
2010-04-22, 10:19 AM
Con check, DC 10, as per drowning rules.

What?

So you can automatically hold a bottle to someone's mouth without waking them? That's the part that requires fiat. I imagine it'd be some sort of stealth vs penalized perception check. But once a player succeeds at that, other players get more paranoid in their sleeping arrangements. It eventually devolves into fiat.

Person_Man
2010-04-22, 10:42 AM
When I DM, there is no PvP allowed. No violence against another player. No secretly working against another player. No stealing from another player or deceiving them when splitting up treasure. For whatever reasons you want to come up with (friendship, family, self interest, etc) all players are part of the same team, and work together as such. If there is a disagreement between players, it is resolved by discussion, majority vote, or rock/paper/scissors.
If your character is the type of person who can't uphold those basic tenets, then play a different character.

Somebloke
2010-04-22, 10:55 AM
I've previously banned pvp in my games (my exact phrasing was "you can, but I will make you're character's life living hell afterwards"), but more or less allow it nowadays. Mostly it comes down to the fact that I trust my players more (the rule originally developed thanks to exposure to younger gaming groups).

Ecalsneerg
2010-04-22, 11:09 AM
I don't allow lethal PvP. But if party members want to fistfight and/or Color Spray, they can feel free.

Ah, drunk dwarven party members...

Chen
2010-04-22, 11:16 AM
Whether to ban it or not is dictated, I'd say, foremost by the maturity level of the group and what the game is presented as.

The games I normally play in are on the "real" side. Actions have consequences, things are fairly free-form and people can do what they want. If characters come into conflict these can be dealt with in character. All the players know this and they know if they make a decision that puts them at odds with the party they'll likely be removed from the party (i.e., forced to re-roll). Basically you'd have the characters react how a "normal" person would. Regardless of your character's personality most regular people won't like being lied to or stolen from. The same goes for physical assault. Similarly if one person attacks another, the rest of the party will either try to break it up or realize someone is in the "right" and perhaps help them.

The real key to getting it all to work is having players know what they are getting into. That and rule #1 at our table: Don't be a jerk. You'd be surprised how many situations that one covers.

2xMachina
2010-04-22, 11:24 AM
Con check, DC 10, as per drowning rules.

What?

Also, expect them to wake up before enough water goes through (expect them to swallow some ok). Also, punch you in the face.

Evil the Cat
2010-04-22, 11:24 AM
I don't outright ban PVP.

However, I let my players know that I very much do not like PVP in games I run. Characters that work against the group indirectly or directly tend to have very bad experiences, and very short lifespans. There is no outright ban, and in some story situations I will allow it in small doses. Even then, the instigator had best be careful; Inevitables love hunting betrayers :smallamused:.

ryzouken
2010-04-22, 11:32 AM
hehe, I've actually jumped into fights on the wrong side of the fight (as a player!) intentionally, just to further fuel the awesome flames of arse-whooping (while furthering my character's other, ulterior motives).

initially it was: thief pats assassin's rear in overly friendly gesture, assassin attacks for lethal damage (bit of a tsundere there), thief disarms assassin's sword, assassin attacks thief for lethal damage, my barbarian (frenzied zerker) takes note of the fight and of the thief holding the assassin's primary weapon and charges... the thief. Rest of party (who had been standing by and watching this unfold) steps in to stop the frenzied zerker from possibly gibbing (or being gibbed by) thief.

brought a swift and conclusive end to the conflict, got to enjoy another "naive-klutz moment", and furthered my social connection to the assassin all in one swell foop.

Hee, come to think of it, some of my proudest, earliest memories of 3.5 dnd were pvp fights. Like the time I took an lv1 human fighter and cut down an ECL 4 Half Dragon Monk. Craziest fight ever. Only won cause the other idiot didn't stop trying to flurry.

Problem with banning pvp is enforcement. You have to start policing every action your players take, run into problems with willful disobedience, next thing you know you're making judgements on the fly that break immersion... just... problems all around. Better to appeal to your players on the front of "I need everyone to work together instead of against each other if we want our campaign to last longer and have a stronger storyline."

SolkaTruesilver
2010-04-22, 11:35 AM
No, and yes.

I don't like someone playing a fellow partymen-killer "because I'm evilzzzz". that's a stupid way of playing your alignment, and a stupid way of ruining everyone's fun around the table.

A conflict between character, however, is fine. If I know my players are responsible, mature and ready to have FUN together, then they can fight. I trust them not to ruin the game. Not to come up with stupid reasons.

I told them this, and moments when antagonism between character actually degenerated into an outright fight have been rare, but memorable. The funniest thing is what happens AFTER. You have the other party members forcing them to "make peace". :smallbiggrin:

Again, it's all a matter of Role-playing. I just don't play with stupid players who have a desire to kill other players just for fun.

Thajocoth
2010-04-22, 11:39 AM
I'd rather break immersion and verismillitude than break a group. If any individual in the group isn't having fun, there's a problem.

If the whole group likes PvP, then it works. If anyone doesn't, then I'd say keep it out. So I'd say that the DM or any player should be allowed to ban PvP.

TheThan
2010-04-22, 12:41 PM
*Whew*,

I though you meant violence at the table. you had me worried that someone was suggesting its ok to slug someone at the table...

SolkaTruesilver
2010-04-22, 12:45 PM
*Whew*,

I though you meant violence at the table. you had me worried that someone was suggesting its ok to slug someone at the table...

I know a rule-lawyer that would argue it's not specifically against the rules

jiriku
2010-04-22, 12:54 PM
I have a hard ban against PvP at my table. Once, I have had a player who tried to circumvent that ban by manipulating NPCs to undermine and attack other players on his behalf. Once it became clear that he was trying to game the system, I came down on that too. Ultimately, the problem player decided that his preferred style of play didn't match well with our group, and he left the game. We quickly found a replacement player, and the other players tell me they're happier now that he's gone. And we gamed happily ever after.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-22, 01:51 PM
I know a rule-lawyer that would argue it's not specifically against the rules

Munchkin:
"You are allowed to show your hand to other players. Like we could stop you."

loveandwar
2010-04-22, 02:08 PM
i am another player in the campain in question.

i am here to say that this dm has lied to you what he posted was conmpletly opposite of what he acually does.

Chen
2010-04-22, 02:20 PM
i am another player in the campain in question.

i am here to say that this dm has lied to you what he posted was conmpletly opposite of what he acually does.

But he only posted about what he was GOING to do. Not about what he HAD done. So unless you can see the future (or I suppose your meeting already occurred) I fail to see how you can conclude he was lying.

Roderick_BR
2010-04-22, 02:41 PM
Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session
Announced railroading? Talk to him that this sorta thing is annoying and uncalled for. Simply bad DMing. In the worst case, ask your friends to back you up. If it doesn't work... go find another group.

SolkaTruesilver
2010-04-22, 02:44 PM
Actually, I might be mistaken in asking that question.. but..

how old you and your group are?

Caliphbubba
2010-04-22, 03:08 PM
i am another player in the campain in question.

i am here to say that this dm has lied to you what he posted was conmpletly opposite of what he acually does.

I smell troll.

and/or

OP-namechangery.

Mauther
2010-04-22, 03:29 PM
Excellent! Let honest discussion and reconciliation abound! Drinks for everyone! :smallbiggrin:

I feel ripped off. I don't come to the internet for reasoned discourse and genial disagreements. I want personal attacks and grudges held like best loved sons. This is a sad day for the internet:smallwink:

Fallbot
2010-04-22, 03:34 PM
It's really not a good idea to air private grievances on a public forum. You guys should probably discuss whatever problems you're having face to face, where you wont be bothered by strangers making snarky comments (or horrible spelling errors). He may or may not be a liar, but your DM had the right idea about how this should be handled.

On the other hand, this looks like it could be entertaining *Gets popcorn*

Forever Curious
2010-04-22, 03:37 PM
It's really not a good idea to air private grievances on a public forum. You guys should probably discuss whatever problems you're having face to face, where you wont be bothered by strangers making snarky comments (or horrible spelling errors). He may or may not be a liar, but your DM had the right idea about how this should be handled.

On the other hand, this looks like it could be entertaining *Gets popcorn*

This. :smallamused:

Cogidubnus
2010-04-22, 03:40 PM
I smell troll.

and/or

OP-namechangery.

The typing and avatars match. But that's inconclusive. But even if it's not, there seem to be some serious problems here. Either the DM IS fiating, and playing favourites, or for some reason a player is trying to drag down the DM's reputation...on the internet.

Comet
2010-04-22, 03:44 PM
[snip]...on the internet.

Okay, I gotta admit, I lol'd pretty hard at that. Well done, sir :smallbiggrin:

Mauther
2010-04-22, 03:48 PM
i am another player in the campain in question.

i am here to say that this dm has lied to you what he posted was conmpletly opposite of what he acually does.

Yes! The internets wins again! I thought something was wrong there for a little bit.

Anyways, I'd come down heavily on the "no ban" side. I dislike railroading, and in my opinion PvP bans are the first gentle step down that slippery slope. So you ban PvP attacks, what about social interactions? What if I undercut another PC within the group? What about if I undermine his relationship with NPCs? What if I short other PCs on the treasure split or refuse to offer healing to another PC? At what point do you draw the line. In my opinion, its the player's character, I let them play it. Besides, pretty much any time you get problems with PvP, its a symptom of a larger problem. Treating or banning the symptom doesn't address the problem. In this case it sounds like ther are some really serious party dynamics. As a previous poster suggested, there are enough people in the group to split it off. Probably not a bad idea in this case.

SolkaTruesilver
2010-04-22, 03:49 PM
Okay, I gotta admit, I lol'd pretty hard at that. Well done, sir :smallbiggrin:

Hey! Some of us care about their internet reputation!

...

Okay, I almost said that with a straight face. Harder than I thought :smallconfused:

Forever Curious
2010-04-22, 03:53 PM
Yes! The internets wins again! I thought something was wrong there for a little bit.

Anyways, I'd come down heavily on the "no ban" side. I dislike railroading, and in my opinion PvP bans are the first gentle step down that slippery slope. So you ban PvP attacks, what about social interactions? What if I undercut another PC within the group? What about if I undermine his relationship with NPCs? What if I short other PCs on the treasure split or refuse to offer healing to another PC? At what point do you draw the line. In my opinion, its the player's character, I let them play it. Besides, pretty much any time you get problems with PvP, its a symptom of a larger problem. Treating or banning the symptom doesn't address the problem. In this case it sounds like ther are some really serious party dynamics. As a previous poster suggested, there are enough people in the group to split it off. Probably not a bad idea in this case.

While I agree that PvP bans can be detrimental to some, I think you MAY be over-exaggerating...but regardless. PvP and (a) power-hungry player(s) is the reason I never got into DM'ing IRL and stick to PbP.

My suggestion would to structure the campaign in such a way that PvP is simply a bad idea. If the players simply insist on it for the lulz, you can always kindly remove them.

Divide by Zero
2010-04-22, 04:00 PM
Hey! Some of us care about their internet reputation!

...

Okay, I almost said that with a straight face. Harder than I thought :smallconfused:

Now, if this were Facebook, that would be a different story.

Severus
2010-04-22, 06:44 PM
Ya but it kind of gets annoying when my character the wizard is told he is going to die this session and then the fighter and the rouge take no damage at all because the dm is scared of the rouge and the fighter is under the rouges protection and i do die that session

The answer to this is very simple, and it isn't PvP.

You say to the GM "Thanks for having me, it was fun while it lasted. I'll be quitting your game now." Then you leave.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-22, 06:54 PM
It sounds like the PvP ban isn't you problem. Why is the DM "scared of the rogue"? :smallconfused: I assume IRL, unless the rogue is actually pun-pun.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-22, 07:01 PM
i am another player in the campain in question.

i am here to say that this dm has lied to you what he posted was conmpletly opposite of what he acually does.

Are you the Psion mentioned in his 'resignation thread'? If so, can I have your home address for proper targeting of my orbital laser cannon?

(If anyone's curious, this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=150089)is what I'm talking about. That smell you can detect oozing from the link? It's interwebs drama.)

cupkeyk
2010-04-22, 07:13 PM
Regardless of the true reason, dm rauilroading or pvp preference, the op should just quit the game.

Demons_eye
2010-04-22, 07:22 PM
Regardless of the true reason, dm rauilroading or pvp preference, the op should just quit the game.

Thats only true if DM is railroading or playing favorites. No offense to OP but I believe Klyth on this.

On topic: I think its needed sometimes. I DM'd for two people that could not get along and ended up destroying an entire house while fighting. It was a cool fight but we lost 20 minutes to it, nothing changed, and it ultimately lead to the end of the campaign.

jiriku
2010-04-22, 07:58 PM
An important concept to bear in mind is that it's the DM's job to ensure that everyone at the table is having a good time. This means that if the play group happens to include some jerkass who enjoys having fun at the expense of others (and most of us have experienced that at some point), it's in the DM's job description to put a stop to that. This is actually in the DMG, and even if it wasn't it's just good sense.

The DM is the ultimate arbiter of what can and cannot be done at the table, and is charged with the responsibility to use that power to create a good time for all.

Roland St. Jude
2010-04-22, 10:15 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Thread locked. It is apparently part of an external baggage fight from off-forum or a collaborative trolling effort. Regardless, thread locked.