PDA

View Full Version : What to do when a player is trying to force PvP when no one else wants it?



randomhero00
2010-11-10, 06:08 PM
And the DM doesn't seem to want to do anything about it. :smallmad:

We're supposedly friends IRL and I'm telling her that it will make me upset if she kills my character. Yet OOC I know she is setting plans in motion to do so. Which will keep me out of the campaign for a long time since no new characters can be introduced at this point.

So now I'm thinking I must do the dirty deed first...:smallannoyed: but I don't want to, we should be having fun, not fighting and annoying each other OOC.

Her reasoning is roleplay, which she does have cause to but just because she's evil doesn't mean she should take out her friends.

We are low level epic. She's homebrew so I don't know her class. What's the surest way to permanently dispose of a character?

Keld Denar
2010-11-10, 06:16 PM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

Goudaa
2010-11-10, 06:21 PM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.


wow...that's amazing. your posts just hit "top of the list" of must reads for me.

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-11-10, 06:35 PM
I'm assuming you have already spoken to the DM about it, based on your first sentence, and you are convinced no help will come from that angle. If this is the case, calmly inform the player in question that if she intentionally hurts your character, you will no longer attend the games and... [whatever lengths you would be willing to go to]. Make sure that you are actually willing to carry out your threat, because with these types of players, they will often call your bluff. If she carries out her plan, just walk away.

Starbuck_II
2010-11-10, 06:37 PM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

Keld there are no rules for peeing. Peeing might RAI but it isn't RAW. :smallcool:

Goudaa
2010-11-10, 06:39 PM
If this is the case, calmly inform the player in question that if she intentionally hurts your character, you will no longer attend the games and... [whatever lengths you would be willing to go to]. Make sure that you are actually willing to carry out your threat, because with these types of players, they will often call your bluff. If she carries out her plan, just walk away.


Follow that guy's advice if you want to appear to be a whining child imho.

"Screw you guys, i'm going home" - Cartman

That's no way to handle anything, especially in a "game". To be honest, it sounds like people are taking it far too personally. You're playing characters remember. If your character believes his/her life is in danger, react in the way you think your character would.

From your OP it doesn't sound like she's taking it off the table, sounds like you are in all honesty.

Coidzor
2010-11-10, 06:41 PM
From your OP it doesn't sound like she's taking it off the table, sounds like you are in all honesty.

Actually, they are, by making his continuation as a member of the group hinge upon his character surviving and her being dead set on killing his character to the point of revealing it to him OOC.


If this is the case, calmly inform the player in question that if she intentionally hurts your character, you will no longer attend the games and... [whatever lengths you would be willing to go to].

That's the idea. He'd get kicked out of the game anyway since they're not going to introduce any more characters.

The DM and your friend want you out of the game, OP, make of that what you will.

ffone
2010-11-10, 06:42 PM
Try to find out her homebrew class's abilities. Homebrew often has ridiculous 'automatic' things like 'always goes first in battle'* as a capstone, an ability to hose your PC with no save, or an immunity to your PC's tactic. And she has a fundamental advantage if you're not homebrewing - a player willing to PvP probably has no compunction about metagaming knowledge of your char's abiltiies, weakest saves, etc.

To get in-char knowledge of her plans, ask your DM for a Sense Motive check (possibly secret from other players) when she says or does various other things.

*Oops, I'm thinking of the official Iaiajutsu Master from OA!

gdiddy
2010-11-10, 06:45 PM
Wish/Miracle -> Mindrape.

The person that was threatening your character no longer exists and can never return.

Logalmier
2010-11-10, 06:54 PM
What class are you? If you're a wizard, there are ways to solve this problem. You could cast contingency, or use craft contingent spell to activate some really broken spell if she ever approaches you, or is within 100 ft of you with the intent of causing you immediate and imminent harm. Don't tell her about it. If she ever tries to off you in game, she's killed first, or you get an action to kill her first (with something like, I don't know, celerity.)

Unless she's using something like Disjunction, this could work. Also, you could use divination magic like contact other plane to determine what she's going to do in advance. But this is only if you're a wizard. Could you give us more information on what class you're playing?

Fuzzie Fuzz
2010-11-10, 07:52 PM
Follow that guy's advice if you want to appear to be a whining child imho.

"Screw you guys, i'm going home" - Cartman

That's no way to handle anything, especially in a "game". To be honest, it sounds like people are taking it far too personally. You're playing characters remember. If your character believes his/her life is in danger, react in the way you think your character would.

From your OP it doesn't sound like she's taking it off the table, sounds like you are in all honesty.

In that case, I ask, in all sincerity, what your proposed solution is. It seems to me that calmly telling someone how you stand on an issue is far less childlike than turning their character into nothingness. If the destruction of the character that the OP has (presumably) spent considerable time and energy creating will result in them neither having fun nor being able to play, why would it be whiny and childish to tell the player in question this beforehand?

In any case, I think the solution to this quandary will be away from the table.

blackjack217
2010-11-10, 08:00 PM
My solution in 3 easy steps:
1. Disintegrate
2. Gust of Wind
3. Get back to saving the world

AslanCross
2010-11-10, 09:23 PM
Have you asked her why she wants to do it OOC and explained that it pretty much means you're going to get kicked out of the game?

EDIT: I think there's more to it than just "roleplay" considering that it does get you kicked out, and that the DM doesn't want to do anything about it.

Coidzor
2010-11-10, 09:30 PM
Have you asked her why she wants to do it OOC and explained that it pretty much means you're going to get kicked out of the game?

EDIT: I think there's more to it than just "roleplay" considering that it does get you kicked out, and that the DM doesn't want to do anything about it.

Hence my analysis: A convoluted plan to kick the OP specifically out of the game.

Susano-wo
2010-11-10, 09:32 PM
assuing that her being evil is the only reason, that's not RP, that's alignment shields at full power, captain!

If there is a real RP reason, well, it goes back to what the group has decided about PvP. and if they haven't...well, now seems like a good time to do so :P

S oI guess it all depends on the why of the killin and the pvp social contract with your group.
Coidzor: i would def. consider that a possibility, but not a certainty, until we have mor knowledge

KillianHawkeye
2010-11-10, 09:33 PM
Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

Doing it while she's asleep won't stop her from getting to make that saving throw. While it's true that a helpless creature is considered a willing target, that only means that you can use a spell that requires the target to be a willing recipient (for example: teleport (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/teleport.htm)). In other words, it only affects the targeting of the spell. It won't force the person to willingly give up their saving throw.

The only way to do that is by using some kind of mind-affecting effect (such as charm to get them to trust you and convince them you're doing something helpful or dominate to simply command them to willingly receive your next spell--either way, they do get a save to resist SOMETHING before their character is dead.

WarKitty
2010-11-10, 09:39 PM
How big is your group? I presume there are other players that share your feelings?

Tael
2010-11-10, 09:57 PM
There are many ways to completely obliterate someone, especially in epic. What is your build? And what has the other player done so far?

In any case (Steps 1-6 can be skipped if you can attack player 2 while she is unconscious):
1. Mindrape a random commoner to fall in love with Player 2
2. Cast Love's Pain
3. Player 2 dies with no save. This is where it gets interesting.
4. Do not dispose of Player 2's body. Secure it.
5. Fabricate Player 2's corpse to look like the commoner you Mindraped
6. Resurrect Player 2, but keep her unconscious, or have numerous traps in place for when she wakes up to knock her unconscious.
7. Mindrape Player 2's unconscious body so that she thinks that she was the commoner all along.
8. Kill the commoner.

And nobody shall ever find out! Muhahahaha! :smallcool:

SurlySeraph
2010-11-10, 10:04 PM
We are low level epic.

Wait. Why on earth can't you just get someone to resurrect your character if he/she is killed? This does sound like a convoluted attempt to get you to leave the group, yeah.

BridgeCity
2010-11-10, 10:12 PM
Follow that guy's advice if you want to appear to be a whining child imho.

"Screw you guys, i'm going home" - Cartman

That's no way to handle anything, especially in a "game". To be honest, it sounds like people are taking it far too personally. You're playing characters remember. If your character believes his/her life is in danger, react in the way you think your character would.

From your OP it doesn't sound like she's taking it off the table, sounds like you are in all honesty.

They are playing characters to socialise and have fun. If a member of the group is deliberately attempting to stop another member from being able to socialise and have fun, it is in no way childish to ask that person to stop and to walk away if they refuse to do so.

Elfstone
2010-11-10, 10:30 PM
1. Get the DM on your side.. somehow
2. Have Dm us all powerful "rocks fall, you die" weapon
Result, no more annoying evil character.

bloodtide
2010-11-10, 10:38 PM
If your playing in a group that:

A)Lets the player character's kill each other for any reason

And

B)Has some type of closed door policy, where if your character dies in the game, you can't rejoin until the open enrollment period and are forced not to play until then.

You might just want to find another gaming group.....

This does not sound like people you would WANT to game with

Cerlis
2010-11-10, 10:39 PM
cast a giess in her sleep to activate if she attacks you

or ask her why she wants to kill you, if she just says cus she's evil then point out that as an epic character you can help her get more booze, servents, killage if you stay alive than if she starts trying to kill off the party.

or pick up Imp Initiative. "Why do you want to kill me?" "Cus i'm Evil" "Well i'm good, i fight evil" Suprise round, then full attack.

MrLich
2010-11-10, 11:01 PM
Why are so many people opposed to pvp? If there is legitimate rp reason for throwing down then it must be so. If your problem player is just being hostile for the sake of stupidness then yea I'd agree with everyone else kill her pc in her sleep. On the other hand if your character has a feeling their character is going to kill your character there must be rp reasons. Not saying just saying. If pvp is justified then let it happen. Also if pvp does happen and your dm doesn't allow you to bring in a new character then it's more of a dm problem not a pc problem.

Coidzor
2010-11-10, 11:05 PM
Why are so many people opposed to pvp? If there is legitimate rp reason for throwing down then it must be so.
In this particular case, apparently the game didn't start out this way, and so it's been sprung upon the OP without informed consent. Also, the OP has been made to feel singled out outside of the game by the actions of the other player and DM. On top of that, he's been told that if he is killed, he'll get kicked out of the game, and the other player knows this and is still going ahead with her plans. This is, as they say in the biz, a bit of a **** move.


If pvp is justified then let it happen. Also if pvp does happen and your dm doesn't allow you to bring in a new character then it's more of a dm problem not a pc problem.

PVP on this level, such that you actually kick people out of your group based upon its results, is never justified unless the game is started up front and honestly at its face about what it is going to be.

And yes, it is a DM and Player problem primarily, but it just so happens that the interpersonal problems are being made manifest in the game.

Psyren
2010-11-10, 11:12 PM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.


My solution in 3 easy steps:
1. Disintegrate
2. Gust of Wind
3. Get back to saving the world

Either of these are acceptable

AslanCross
2010-11-10, 11:15 PM
Why are so many people opposed to pvp?

It's quite clear that the OP does NOT want to participate in such behavior, and that death at this point pretty much means that he can't play (no new characters).


If there is legitimate rp reason for throwing down then it must be so.
It's so easy to justify this. What constitutes a "legitimate RP reason?" Unless the group has established guidelines that determine what legitimate is (which does not seem to be the case here), almost anyone can say "I have legitimate reasons" and claim they're on the level in doing so. That's the main problem with this line of reasoning.


If your problem player is just being hostile for the sake of stupidness then yea I'd agree with everyone else kill her pc in her sleep.

So yeah, this goes again into whether the excuses for picking unwanted fights is merited or not.


On the other hand if your character has a feeling their character is going to kill your character there must be rp reasons. Not saying just saying. If pvp is justified then let it happen.

Again, see above. The OP knows about the other player's plan OOC.


Also if pvp does happen and your dm doesn't allow you to bring in a new character then it's more of a dm problem not a pc problem.

I agree partially, but I think the DM may be conspiring with the player.

MrLich
2010-11-10, 11:26 PM
So pvp is only allowed if all players agree to it at the start of the campaign? I usually provide the curtisy of warning the players beforehand but in all honestly I'm a rp>most person. Of course I've been blessed with fellow gamers who feel the same.

The last big campaign I played we all started out as childhood friends and we had a pantload of pvp including some in the middle of fighting true enimies because of things said IC.

If in game actions warrant such reactions then it is all in the name of good rp. But once again if it just a player being a d*** then that's that. However I would blame the dm for being unwaverable in the face of pc reactions.

If you're planning a preemptive strike because of OOC information quit metagaming.

Zeful
2010-11-10, 11:26 PM
Why are so many people opposed to pvp? If there is legitimate rp reason for throwing down then it must be so. If your problem player is just being hostile for the sake of stupidness then yea I'd agree with everyone else kill her pc in her sleep. On the other hand if your character has a feeling their character is going to kill your character there must be rp reasons. Not saying just saying. If pvp is justified then let it happen. Also if pvp does happen and your dm doesn't allow you to bring in a new character then it's more of a dm problem not a pc problem.

READ THE OP, the poster does not want to engage in PVP and does not find it fun, that's all the reason I need to be opposed to it.

And essentially PVP comes down to "My game character is more important than yours" it's another player dictating the importance of your character something that is not done in cooperative tabletop gaming.

As for the OP, what class are you? Because if you seriously want help we need to know your capabilities.

MrLich
2010-11-10, 11:37 PM
READ THE OP, the poster does not want to engage in PVP and does not find it fun, that's all the reason I need to be opposed to it.

And essentially PVP comes down to "My game character is more important than yours" it's another player dictating the importance of your character something that is not done in cooperative tabletop gaming.

As for the OP, what class are you? Because if you seriously want help we need to know your capabilities.

I did read the OP.{{scrubbed}}

If you don't want to pvp no matter the reasons then you should let everyone at the table very aware at the beginning. Also I completely disagree that pvp means my pc>yours. Thats taking a very personal insult from character reactions.

Coidzor
2010-11-10, 11:41 PM
If you're planning a preemptive strike because of OOC information quit metagaming.

The group has already violated the laws of good taste by springing PVP out of the blue, declaring OOC intent to kill a character, and hinging a character surviving an OOC-delivered death threat on a player staying in the group, so the burden for anything wrong with metagaming in this way is on them.

Of course, this raises the question of why the OP wants to stay if they're acting like this.


I did read the OP. {{scrubbed}}

No. It's rude to spring PVP out of the blue. It's not rude to not start trying to kill one another. The two are not equal, the burden of support is on PVP. In the absence of an awareness of PVP, one should not have to assume that the rest of the party is going to try to gank them at the drop of a hat and split up their stuff.

Callista
2010-11-10, 11:43 PM
The other player's not being flexible enough. RP does not "force" you to kill other PCs. There are dozens of ways the story could go on, and some of them involve not killing your PC. She should use one of those possibilities.

So you have a problem here: There's a PC in the game who has RP reasons to kill another PC. But it's a bad idea to do so because you can't get into the game again with another character, for some reason. So you have to find a way to remove those RP reasons, so that her character no longer has to attack.

Who's the minority alignment here? That is: Are you guys mostly good and trying to save the world, and her PC is in it for the money and power (and possible betrayal)? Or are you mostly evil, with your character in there because they're his friends or because they hired him or because they share a common enemy (etc.)? Depending on which it is, you could work out an arrangement. If her character is in the minority, you could do one of several things. There's the possibility of a geas spell or similar, forcing her character to work with your group. You could have your characters influence hers and let her character come around and either become a more reasonable person or stop being evil altogether. If your character is in the minority, a lot of the same things could work. There's also outright-evil options like Mindrape or killing and raising as intelligent undead that would mean your characters are no longer so likely to be at odds with one another.

If her character has to attempt to betray yours, you could suggest that she do so during the BBEG fight. In this case, you wouldn't be left out; if her character killed yours, then you could come in right away on the next section of the campaign; if you killed hers, she could come in the same way.

You've got to have a talk with her over this, or else have a talk with the DM about letting people whose characters get killed come in with a new character. As far as that goes: If you are in a hostile area where you have no reason to be meeting anyone living and friendly, the DM could simply introduce your new character (or hers) as a statue, obviously petrified, which can be rescued via Break Enchantment and the resulting PC join the party.

WarKitty
2010-11-10, 11:46 PM
What are her RP reasons? Is her reason just "I'm evil", or is there more to it?

Lev
2010-11-10, 11:50 PM
Tell him to stop being a ****.
If he doesn't, then leave.

Not worth my time.

MrLich
2010-11-10, 11:53 PM
The question that begs to be answered is there really noone else at the table that wants/be okay with pvp it is it just the OPer?

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 12:10 AM
PvP and non-PvP are different playstyles. It's perfectly legitimate to say, "hey, guys, thanks, but I'm just not interested in a PvP game. If you are, more power to you, but that's just not the game I want to play. I hope we can still be friends, and hang out or play other games."

If it's just a plot to get the OP out of the game, then everyone's happy - OP is out of a game that doesn't want him (which is a pretty good reason to leave), everyone else gets what they want.

If the other players really do want a PvP game, then they get it, and the OP doesn't have to deal with it.

If it's just one player being a jackhole, then the rest of the group gets to decide which is more important.

And I really don't get the "if you die, you're out of the game." Wasn't there a Chick tract like that?

Gaming involves a social contract. In this case, it sounds like it needs to be more explicit, as apparently different players have a different idea of what that contract is.

JonRG
2010-11-11, 12:51 AM
And I really don't get the "if you die, you're out of the game." Wasn't there a Chick tract like that?

Yeah, but this DM is a little more based in sanity. I'm guessing that he feels that there's no good way to introduce a new character at this point. Which means your Evil friend is risking her character too. Why she would do that just to underscore her evil is beyond me. Try knocking some sense into her, especially if the other players are on your side. She kills you, they kill her. Nobody wins.

Dr.Epic
2010-11-11, 12:56 AM
Her reasoning is roleplay, which she does have cause to but just because she's evil doesn't mean she should take out her friends.

What's the structure of the campaign alignment wise? If she's the token evil, it shouldn't be too difficult to get everyone on your side and should she try anything just have the party gang up on her. Honestly, talk to both the DM and her and try to reason with them that PvP is really dumb. The worst thing that can happen is you stop playing in the campaign if things don't go good, but let's hope that doesn't.

Jade_Tarem
2010-11-11, 01:05 AM
For the love of Occam! The players are epic level: Just open a Gate under her as she sleeps. The other end opens up into the voidstone caverns in the negative energy plane. Annihilation is a certainty. No save, no SR, no PVP, just doing unto others before they can do unto you. When the other player complains, explain that this is what Epic PVP is and that this is why you didn't want to do it.

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 01:12 AM
Yeah, but this DM is a little more based in sanity. I'm guessing that he feels that there's no good way to introduce a new character at this point.

Then you find a way. What would the DM do if one of the players died in combat? Or is that just not a possibility due to extreme DM fudging/etc?

Like others in the thread, I wonder if something else is going on here.

I also kind of wonder if this homebrew character has some kind of animate dead ability that can be used on the PCs, and if this is actually part of the railroad train that the party's on.

Katana_Geldar
2010-11-11, 01:16 AM
This is something that needs to be dealt with by the DM out of the game. If PvP is making the game unpleasant for you, it needs to be addressed. And if they won't address it, you may need to consider another group.

Do you have house rules for PvP? I do in my games, it's only allowed if:

1) You are playing an NPC and it's for story purposes

or

2) It's non-damaging hi-jinks, like setting the Tiefling's tail on fire for the tenth time.


or

3) We are playing Paranoia

Electrohydra
2010-11-11, 01:18 AM
Well I would say, if you do know IC (which I guess you do), that the character is evil (you dont even know she wants to kill you to justify it), get a wish or something to make her save her next saving throw, and then slip on a helm of opposite alignment. She becomes Good, and you don't have to worry about it ever again, and she is not dead or constrained to help you like with a geas. She wont even want to kill you.

Zeful
2010-11-11, 01:19 AM
I did read the OP. {{scrubbed}}

If you don't want to pvp no matter the reasons then you should let everyone at the table very aware at the beginning. Also I completely disagree that pvp means my pc>yours. Thats taking a very personal insult from character reactions.

{{scrubbed}} And no I don't believe the same courtesy should be given for PVP, as it only adds a jerk factor to the game. The best way to PVP in D&D get yourself a Scythe, a potion of Bulls Strength and a silence spell. Use the silence spell on a stone or the weapon itself, drink the potion and inflict a 26+4xStr fortitude save or die in a single hit with a Coup De Grace. No strategy, no finesse, no class, just instant death for most characters until about level 10 or so. A waraxe does a little better pulling a 40+3xStr Fort Save and will work until about level 15-17, on anyone. The Silence spell lets you get your entire party dead without a chance of any of them waking up from the noise you make killing them.

Congratulations you won a test that required absolutely no skill. That's PvP in D&D.

Katana_Geldar
2010-11-11, 01:23 AM
I did read the OP. {{scrubbed}}

If you don't want to pvp no matter the reasons then you should let everyone at the table very aware at the beginning. Also I completely disagree that pvp means my pc>yours. Thats taking a very personal insult from character reactions.

Just because people don't want to play PvP doesn't mean it's a game nor worth playing. As a DM, I find PvP very detrimental to group dynamics, too many bad things happen.

Also, some systems are better at it than others. Star Wars Saga I'm much more negotiable with it as it's the same rules all around, not for 4E as players are simply too powerful and not meant to fight each other.

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 01:29 AM
The more I think about it, the more I think that this is a "surprise" that the DM and the other player are cooking together.

Evidence:

1) In the "Brutal/Forgiving DM" thread, the OP has posted that they don't really do much combat, and are mostly social/story-based. This usually suggests a DM that *isn't* hardcore.
2) If the DM won't let a player play because their character died, and they aren't at a good point to reintroduce... that's waaaaay hardcore, and pretty much in contradiction to point one. It also suggests, again, that the DM isn't really planning on killing characters.
3) The PvP player is a homebrew class with unknown abilities - meaning the player hasn't told the rest of the party what those abilities are. Usually when people do this, it's for some surprise factor.
4) Apparently, PvP is realllllly important to this player for some unknown reason. Since there seems to be no apparent motivation for this, except jerkiness and alignment-shield aspects, maybe there's a hidden motivation?
5) The DM is okay with this progressing this way, knowing that PvP will likely end up with one of the two players leaving the game for a while, if not permanently.

THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. AT ALL.

One possibility is that the group just wants to get rid of the OP. I doubt that, since it sounds like a pretty new group - usually it takes awhile for stuff like that to really build to a head.

But, if the PvP player had some kind of undead thing to them - maybe they could raise fallen foes as undead, maybe they can come back from the dead in some other form, blah de blah de blah, it makes a lot more sense.

The idea of some kind of event like this happening seems to make sense for the style of game (as described).

This wouldn't actually involve any of the players having to quit.

This means that the combat isn't *really* the focus of the PvP, it's to get a particular story point to happen - which sounds pretty consistent with the group as described.

It's consistent with the "surprise" homebrew character with unknown abilities. They're unknown to maintain the big reveal.

It sounds like something that a relatively inexperienced DM would think would be cool - and this does sound like a relatively inexperienced DM.

The DM would blow off concerns about the PvP, knowing that it's not *really* an issue - but not having the experience to know what kind of tension this is actually breeding in the group.

So, maybe I'm wrong, but I'm pretty convinced myself that this is what's *really* happening, and it's all supposed to be a big surprise. It's *terribly* done, but I don't really think there's any malice behind it.

Tiki Snakes
2010-11-11, 01:43 AM
My suggestion is quite simple.

Let her do it. Make very little effort to prevent or combat it, if she tries. Perhaps your character is too shocked and dissapointed to fight back at such a betrayal?

Then, you see what happens. Either it's railroad time, in which case you've jumped through their hoop, they've had their fun, and the plot may now move forward. OR you're now out of the campaign for a while. Smile, packup, wish them luck and let them know where to contact you when you're allowed to rejoin.

Then leave them to it.

[edit - sometimes the best course of action is to allow something to happen, and leave the guilty party to come to terms with the consequences.]

Jessicat
2010-11-11, 01:53 AM
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

You are my hero.

Jallorn
2010-11-11, 02:04 AM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

I only have one nitpick: Casting Stone to Mud is a better step 2.

This is a popular strategy for the fact that the character isn't technically dead, and therefore is impossible to revive. This is a legitimate "You're dead." Nothing short of a wish (which could easily have adverse side effects) or the like is going to bring them back, and not a lot of people are going to go to that kind of effort.

Keld Denar
2010-11-11, 02:25 AM
I only have one nitpick: Casting Stone to Mud is a better step 2.

While you could argue that a person turned to stone could be considered "natural" stone (since what would qualify as unnatural stone?), you'd have a tough time qualifying a person turned to stone as "unworked". Thus, Soften Earth and Stone works, while Transmute Rock to Mud does not. Regardless, Soften Earth and Stone gets you clay from stone, which is wet enough to Purify Food and Drink to extract the water.

absolmorph
2010-11-11, 03:14 AM
While you could argue that a person turned to stone could be considered "natural" stone (since what would qualify as unnatural stone?), you'd have a tough time qualifying a person turned to stone as "unworked". Thus, Soften Earth and Stone works, while Transmute Rock to Mud does not. Regardless, Soften Earth and Stone gets you clay from stone, which is wet enough to Purify Food and Drink to extract the water.
Soften Earth and Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/softenEarthAndStone.htm) runs into the same problem as Transmute Rock to Mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm).


When this spell is cast, all natural, undressed earth or stone in the spell’s area is softened.
Problem part bolded.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-11, 03:20 AM
Solution:

1. Tell everyone that your character is trying to breed magebred war hounds.
2. Buy 30 or more war dogs and sleep with them.
3. If the other parties complain retire your character (whose epic?) to raise said dogs and quit. They don't get to kill you and you are going to get booted one way or another.
4. If PVP attacks anyways the dogs warn you and you kill it. If you feel you would lose in this sort of fight buy some trained dinos and add them to your breeding roster.

BridgeCity
2010-11-11, 03:25 AM
Soften Earth and Stone (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/softenEarthAndStone.htm) runs into the same problem as Transmute Rock to Mud (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/transmuteRockToMud.htm).


Problem part bolded.

I dunno, would you really class a person turned to stone as having been worked? Sure the stone is far more smooth and defined, but they haven't had any tools taken to them to 'work' them to this right? I don't know the rules for those spells well, so correct me if I'm mistaken.

That 'DM is planning on turning the party undead' theory does sort of have merit, but personally I'd not be all that happy if that's what happened either.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 04:32 AM
Nothing has been done to prepare the surface of a petrified creature, thus the stone, while it may count as "worked" due to having a coherent shape, is not dressed as no treatments or preparations have been done to it.

Engine
2010-11-11, 05:09 AM
And the DM doesn't seem to want to do anything about it. :smallmad:

We're supposedly friends IRL and I'm telling her that it will make me upset if she kills my character. Yet OOC I know she is setting plans in motion to do so. Which will keep me out of the campaign for a long time since no new characters can be introduced at this point.

So now I'm thinking I must do the dirty deed first...:smallannoyed: but I don't want to, we should be having fun, not fighting and annoying each other OOC.

Her reasoning is roleplay, which she does have cause to but just because she's evil doesn't mean she should take out her friends.

We are low level epic. She's homebrew so I don't know her class. What's the surest way to permanently dispose of a character?

My advice: don't do it.
As you said, you should having fun, not annoying each other. Do you think it's really funny starting a feud?

Just talk to her. Nothing happens, talk to the DM. Nothing happens, leave. It's not the group for you, so you have to find another gropu that shares your opinion about PvP. No whining, no crying. Just clearly stated "I really don't love PvP. It's not about losing a character, it's losing a character to a fellow PC".

@PvP Lovers

PvP = Fun. PvE = Fun.
I love both of them, but a player has the right to play a game with no PvP. And no one has the right to complain about that.

DragonOfUndeath
2010-11-11, 05:10 AM
"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

That said:
Permanent removal of character in 5 easy steps.
1 Cast Flesh to Stone
2 Cast Soften Earth and Stone
3 Cast Purify Food & Drink
4 Drink resultant water
5 Pee in an ocean

Only the first one has a save. Do it while she sleeps and is therefore "helpless". Once she's stoned, she is an object and thus has no more say in the matter.

you win the Thread
/thread

Psyx
2010-11-11, 05:30 AM
Obviously the other player is the first one you need to talk to. As stated: Evil does not mean 'douche'. The old 'I'm roleplaying' is a lame cop-out. We make plenty of other suspensions of disbelief within the game to ensure that it runs smoothly (not splitting the party, for example), and not slitting the throats of other PCs is one of them.

The GM is your next stop. They may be able to either help or talk to the other player, or give them something else to think about.

Assuming all that fails, if your character knows about the situation IC, then firstly consider kicking them from the adventuring party ("I'm not taking them with me to the haunted keep, because they are trying to murder me!") or otherwise abandoning them. Would YOU enter mortal peril with someone who wants you dead? No. That would be stupid. So ditch 'em. If they whine, tell them you're roleplaying and explain what I just stated.

Failing that... slit their character's throat while they sleep. If she looses a cherished character, she might think twice about doing it to other people.

WinWin
2010-11-11, 06:01 AM
Establish lethal contingent countermeasures.

That way you are not engaging in PvP, just responding to it.

Bonus points for arranging a contingent ressurection. Perhaps having a planar ally/bound minion on retainer might be able to handle this.

In fact, having a few outsiders on call is always a great backup if you're playing epic. Teleport at will is a great method of corpse retrieval. Planar Binding may not be suitable for this...But a dedicated simulacrum may be.

Action economy is a great weakness to target. A Planetar may not be a challenge for an epic adventurer. 20 Planetars spamming Monster Summoning are going to ruin someones day. At the very least the opposing player is going to get tired and start making mistakes before the fist 2 rounds are even over. Just make sure you are organised before you bring in an army.

Otherwise, just retire your character. If you or your character are the one causing these issues and provoking PvP, then there is no easy solution. Either man up and take out the opposition or just remove the offending character (yours) from play. If it is another character forcing the situation and they are unwilling to resolve matter OOC...You need to send a message. Otherwise you are setting yourself up for a repeat of this little power play.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 09:52 AM
In that case, I ask, in all sincerity, what your proposed solution is. It seems to me that calmly telling someone how you stand on an issue is far less childlike than turning their character into nothingness. If the destruction of the character that the OP has (presumably) spent considerable time and energy creating will result in them neither having fun nor being able to play, why would it be whiny and childish to tell the player in question this beforehand?

In any case, I think the solution to this quandary will be away from the table.


My solution is always the same...play the game as a character you made.

Maybe i'm not understanding the situation here, but to summarize.

You guys are a group, one of the characters has shown to dislike your char and is planning on trying to kill them?

She told you "off the table" she was going to do this? If so the RP has already been broken and there's really no point in trying to understand the situation because imho it's videogame realm now.

If this was determined "on the table" then have your character react in a manner you'd deem like your character and not as yourself the person.

It's an RPG man...

Diarmuid
2010-11-11, 10:09 AM
So, this game just recently started.....you're asking how to stat out your lvl 27 rogue in the 3million GP thread.

Sounds like a bunch of people making epic characters and basically throwing them at each other.

It's really difficult to start an epic game that high a level. PC's that powerful are going to have their own agendas, histories, etc...and when one person makes an evil character well you pretty much know what to expect.

Doesnt sound like you've really got all that much invested in the game to this point and I would imagine the game isnt going to last very long once the PVP starts so really I wouldnt sweat it.

Also, if you're considering pre-empting her by killing her based on OOC information...well that's just crappy role playing.

Emmerask
2010-11-11, 10:16 AM
My suggestion is quite simple.

Let her do it. Make very little effort to prevent or combat it, if she tries. Perhaps your character is too shocked and dissapointed to fight back at such a betrayal?

Then, you see what happens. Either it's railroad time, in which case you've jumped through their hoop, they've had their fun, and the plot may now move forward. OR you're now out of the campaign for a while. Smile, packup, wish them luck and let them know where to contact you when you're allowed to rejoin.

Then leave them to it.


I like it!
Its a clean and memorable exit while staying true to your character.
If the railroad outcome is not to your taste talk to the gm afterwards and tell him so.
If the goal was to get rid of you as a player then at least you made it a good one.

She casts prismatic epic spell of doom "make a reflex save"
No, a single tear rolls down my face while looking at her with infinite disappointment in my eyes :smallbiggrin:

Sipex
2010-11-11, 10:16 AM
Maybe this has already been asked but:

If the DM doesn't like it why would he/she allow it? The DM always has the option of saying "I'm sorry, you're not allowed to PvP/kill each other/etc. For <reasons outlined>. Find another solution to your in character problems."

Quietus
2010-11-11, 10:25 AM
Nothing has been done to prepare the surface of a petrified creature, thus the stone, while it may count as "worked" due to having a coherent shape, is not dressed as no treatments or preparations have been done to it.

But it IS dressed, unless the person targeted by Flesh to Stone was naked at the time... :smallbiggrin:

dsmiles
2010-11-11, 10:29 AM
My suggestion is quite simple.

Let her do it. Make very little effort to prevent or combat it, if she tries. Perhaps your character is too shocked and dissapointed to fight back at such a betrayal?

Then, you see what happens. Either it's railroad time, in which case you've jumped through their hoop, they've had their fun, and the plot may now move forward. OR you're now out of the campaign for a while. Smile, packup, wish them luck and let them know where to contact you when you're allowed to rejoin.

Then leave them to it.

[edit - sometimes the best course of action is to allow something to happen, and leave the guilty party to come to terms with the consequences.]


I like it!
Its a clean and memorable exit while staying true to your character.
If the railroad outcome is not to your taste talk to the gm afterwards and tell him so.
If the goal was to get rid of you as a player then at least you made it a good one.

She casts prismatic epic spell of doom "make a reflex save"
No, a single tear rolls down my face while looking at her with infinite disappointment in my eyes :smallbiggrin:

This. 100% this. It's a classy exit from a game that apparently doesn't want you in it. Suck up your loss, and let them wallow in their guilty consciences. In the meantime find another game, and when they ask you to come back, tell them that you're in another game, and you'll have to check your schedule.

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 11:08 AM
She told you "off the table" she was going to do this? If so the RP has already been broken and there's really no point in trying to understand the situation because imho it's videogame realm now.

If this was determined "on the table" then have your character react in a manner you'd deem like your character and not as yourself the person.
The impression I get from your post is that you expect people to show up for a session, speak in character in total immersion for the duration, and resolve IC everything that comes up IC, even if it's OOC that it bothers them. This is by no means a universal approach to the game.

People generally play to have fun. A certain level of metagaming and OOC discussion facilitates this. Things like talking about the kind of characters you intend to play, so that you don't end up with two who would be unable to get along; or if you want to play such a pair, consciously choosing to keep any conflict at the "entertaining sniping" level without escalating to violence. (A standard cite on this issue is Rich's article here (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html), specifically the "Decide to react differently" section.) It doesn't help that "but I'm just playing my character!" is a standard defense of obnoxious griefers; sure, maybe it's (one possibility for) what your character would do in that situation, but it's you who decided to play that character and chose that response for them over any other, and it's not a very good defense against a charge of deliberate obnoxiousness.

PvP is a problem because when two PCs fight the result is almost certainly that one (character) has to leave the game; either she ends up dead or she's kicked out of the party for having broken trust. Since groups generally a) try to stick together and b) try not to die, PvP undercuts the goals of most games. It can be fun when everyone is on board for it, but when added in to a game that began without any expectation of it it's likely to cause a train wreck. Seeing a train wreck looming and saying "maybe we should put on the brakes for a minute and do some rerouting" does not make one a "whining child". And if in this situation the OP's options are:
- let this other PC attack his, die, and have to leave the game anyway;
- fight back, kill her, and have her leave the game;
- say he's not going to fight, and leave the game as a player if she tries to;
the last one seems the most appropriate, since it denies her a reward for frankly bad behaviour. Fighting back at all, win or lose, allows her to turn the game into PvP as she wanted; saying "that's not the game I'm here to play" shuts it down entirely.

I do like Tiki Snakes' idea, though. I'd just say it's better to state up front in advance that you're not interested in PvP so that she can't claim it was all in good sport.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 11:13 AM
The impression I get from your post is that you expect people to show up for a session, speak in character in total immersion for the duration, and resolve IC everything that comes up IC, even if it's OOC that it bothers them. This is by no means a universal approach to the game.




The impression you got is exactly correct. It is what I expect, but know it doesn't always happen.

I don't understand how something OOC can bother your character.

As one fellow gamer said to me once, "Do you think all the extras in Total Recall were pissed off at Arnold Schwarzenegger when he killed them??"

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 11:21 AM
I don't understand how something OOC can bother your character.
:smallconfused:

Something IC can bother me, the player, if it's something I don't want to have in the game. I have my character and I want to see his story. I also have some idea of what the overall story of the game as a whole is or will be. If events IC are making either of those stories - or any other possible version of them that I might enjoy - impossible to tell, my enjoyment will suffer.

As one fellow gamer said to me once, "Do you think all the extras in Total Recall were pissed off at Arnold Schwarzenegger when he killed them??"
This reflects a view of roleplaying that's very alien to me. I am not an extra at a game table. I'm not there to play a specific role for as long as it's needed and then leave, in service of a final product which is intended for others to enjoy. I'm there to enjoy myself and entertain my friends thereby. Having my character killed, having his own story ended and his role in the larger story ended and my place at the table removed, by the choice of another player would, in fact, piss me off, barring extenuating circumstances. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 11:22 AM
Different groups, different tastes I guess.

My group swaps between IC and OOC constantly and will bring up issues of "I know your character is a jerk but that really hurt my feelings" or whatever.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 11:38 AM
:smallconfused:

Something IC can bother me, the player, if it's something I don't want to have in the game. I have my character and I want to see his story. I also have some idea of what the overall story of the game as a whole is or will be. If events IC are making either of those stories - or any other possible version of them that I might enjoy - impossible to tell, my enjoyment will suffer.

Wow, really? That's actually odd to me to be honest. But each their own.



This reflects a view of roleplaying that's very alien to me. I am not an extra at a game table. I'm not there to play a specific role for as long as it's needed and then leave, in service of a final product which is intended for others to enjoy. I'm there to enjoy myself and entertain my friends thereby. Having my character killed, having his own story ended and his role in the larger story ended and my place at the table removed, by the choice of another player would, in fact, piss me off, barring extenuating circumstances. I think that's perfectly reasonable.

Ahh, so you're one of those "main character" types eh?

I'm more keen on people in a world with many other people - not a "we're the heroes" approach.

But again, each their own.

I just think barring pvp makes for chars to be able to do whatever they want without reprocussion. To me not knowing how people may react or what the consequences can be lends more to the RP than laying it all out pre-game and forcing people to play within that.

Trust, I play RPG's to enjoy myself as well, I just don't think i'm all that important to feel my story/character means the other players have to respect my character - nor do I think if their characters choose not to that the others around the table have done ME personally any wrong.

Douglas
2010-11-11, 11:39 AM
As one fellow gamer said to me once, "Do you think all the extras in Total Recall were pissed off at Arnold Schwarzenegger when he killed them??"
That's really not an accurate analogy.

Consequences for a player when his character is permanently killed in game against his wishes but bringing in a new character is possible:
1) Lose a great deal of character development and history.
2) Spend time creating a new character.
3) Depending on the specific group policies, probably lose a significant amount of character power and almost completely reset character involvement and connection to the game world.
4) As a consequence of the above and them being unexpected, have a lot less fun than expected.

Consequences for a player when his character is permanently killed in game and bringing in a new character is not possible:
1) Lose spot in the gaming group, most likely leading to either having very little to do in each game session or just not attending them at all any more.
2) Miss out almost completely on the fun of future gaming sessions.

Consequences for the actor of an extra that gets killed in an action movie:
1) Take your last paycheck and move on to another job, exactly as you've been expecting and planning for the last several months*.

* Time period based purely on a guesstimate with no research

For the actors, they're getting exactly what they signed up for and they're not really missing out on anything. For the player, he's getting a very unexpected, unwelcome and unilateral large reduction in enjoyment of a fun social activity. It's a rather rude and inconsiderate thing to inflict on someone who is supposedly your friend.

Specifically for the situation that started this thread, it sounds like it's the second of these three scenarios, in which case IC killing a character off is functionally equivalent to OOC expelling the player from the gaming group. Are you really going to say that that wouldn't bother you? That another player unilaterally saying "you (the player) are not playing in this group any more" is just fine and should be accepted without complaint?

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 11:42 AM
agreed, poor analogy for direct comparison and was only meant as a small reference point to playing a role.

Zen Monkey
2010-11-11, 12:06 PM
Let's also not forget that the instigator is essentially cheating when she says "My character is going to kill yours, but yours doesn't know it." Even if you had the clues to make an educated guess about it before, you now get accused of cheating whenever you try to prevent the death.

And yeah, if all else fails and your character is murdered for no good reason other than another player's bloodlust, wield that guilt like a +5 sledge hammer. "I'm mad at you" doesn't carry nearly as much weight as "You're really doing that? Wow. I'm so disappointed in you."

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 12:18 PM
I see a few choices as your options. Assuming that RP is dead due to OOC claims.

#1. Kill her in her sleep.
#2. Since the DM isn't going to assist in resolving the situation, kill the entire group and INSIST on completing the adventure yourself. (Be prepared to fail and sit out if you do).
#3. Become a bumbling moron in combat, making many 'tactical' errors that get her killed through no fault of your own.
#4. If you don't want PVP, and they all do, find a new group to play with.
#5. If you're playing what the forums here would call a 'weaker' class, like a rogue. Use your thiefly talents to steal all her gear while she sleeps, and chuck it in a nearby lava pit. Do it while someone else is on watch, and watch the fun begin.
#6. All of the above.

PS. Make sure you pass many, many notes to the DM. TONS of them. They don't really need to say much, it will drive players nuts. Do not say on the table anything you are doing that will involve any of this. They will take the OCC info, and metagame your plans away.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 12:26 PM
Put the "R" back in RPG.

Books are written with many beginnings and ends. The start of a single sentence, and the end of one.
The beginning of a paragraph and the end of one.
The beginning of a chapter and the end of one.
The beginning of a book and the end of one.

It's the ending that brings closure and finality to the start and it's because of this the success or failure of something can be measured. If your characters do not die permanently, there is no closure. Half the fun in creating something is watching it grow but when it dies you can measure its true worth.

Dont think of a character dying as a true negative. Take that chance to grow something new again.

That said, kill her while she sleeps and burn her character sheet infront of her. Laughing is also an option while doing so.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 12:28 PM
That said, kill her while she sleeps and burn her character sheet infront of her. Laughing is also an option while doing so.

OMG! I totally forgot that part! I've gamed with Tharck, he's done it, true story.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 12:31 PM
{{scrubbed}}

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 12:34 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Or, you know, the cooperative storytelling stuff some of us like to play?

Tharck
2010-11-11, 12:37 PM
Books which have no drama within the "adventurers" is generally boring. That's why there is. But nothing is wrong with boring story-telling.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 12:37 PM
Books which have no drama within the "adventurers" is generally boring. That's why there is. But nothing is wrong with boring story-telling.

Drama requires lethal PvP? I don't follow.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 12:38 PM
Communication is important.

(1) What, exactly did the DM say when you told him "PC X is planning on killing me?"

If the DM said "this is a PVP game?" If so, then your response is "I don't want to play a PVP game." If the DM then says "too bad;" leave. No sense being in a game you don't want to play.

Did the DM say instead "hey, I don't want to control the PCs?" If so, then you simply have a DM who isn't willing to intercede in PC conflicts. Time to go to the Player in question and work it out.

(2) What, exactly did Player X say when you told her that you would prefer she not kill your character?

If Player X said "muwahahahahahaha!" then she has some problems of her own that you won't be able to resolve. If the death of your character in this fashion would be traumatic for you, just leave the game and preserve your friendship. IRL friends don't always play nice together.

If Player X said "sorry, but I have an IC reason for doing this" then ask what that reason is. If the reason is "I'm Evil" then treat it as a "muwahahahahahaha!" response. However, if she does have an IC reason for doing it, see if you can do IC work that makes that reason invalid. For example, if she says "You're my romantic rival!" then start making IC actions to aid PC X's romantic interest. If that doesn't work, start making IC preparations that will make "killing you" less interesting for Player X. A classic example is building alliances within the party; if most of the party likes your character then PC X killing you is going to end poorly for her.
And finally, why exactly do you object to this PVP stance? If it is a philosophical opposition, that's one thing; but if it's just because you are the one being targeted then start coming up with IC reasons to kill PC X yourself.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 01:03 PM
Drama requires lethal PvP? I don't follow.

Sometimes. Drama has many elements, but being true to a character is the element needed to bring the verisimilitude needed to make it engaging. If she is playing an evil character and he's a dweeb maybe she would take him out.

The DM allowed it in. He's also allowing it to happen.

She did say it OOC (Out of character) which was a mistake on her part. She should have just killed him in game. I think, honestly, he has a crush on her IRL and thats what its really about.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 01:11 PM
Sometimes. Drama has many elements, but being true to a character is the element needed to bring the verisimilitude needed to make it engaging. If she is playing an evil character and he's a dweeb maybe she would take him out.

The DM allowed it in. He's also allowing it to happen.

She did say it OOC (Out of character) which was a mistake on her part. She should have just killed him in game. I think, honestly, he has a crush on her IRL and thats what its really about.

We don't have enough information about what's going on. It's also possible that she wants to kill him because "I'm evil and that's what evil characters do!"

The one game I've been in that had PvP...well, trust me, that was the least decent drama I've ever had in a D&D game. Skipped over every attempt at realistic roleplaying, IC discussion, problem-solving, etc., and went straight to "I'm bored and I don't like this person - I think I'll kill them because duh I'm evil!" Whereas in our non-PvP games players actually make more in-depth characters and work through and around drama with other characters. So I'm a little skeptical of claims that all non-PvP games are boring, don't have realistic characters, etc.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 01:17 PM
We don't have enough information about what's going on. It's also possible that she wants to kill him because "I'm evil and that's what evil characters do!"

The one game I've been in that had PvP...well, trust me, that was the least decent drama I've ever had in a D&D game. Skipped over every attempt at realistic roleplaying, IC discussion, problem-solving, etc., and went straight to "I'm bored and I don't like this person - I think I'll kill them because duh I'm evil!" Whereas in our non-PvP games players actually make more in-depth characters and work through and around drama with other characters. So I'm a little skeptical of claims that all non-PvP games are boring, don't have realistic characters, etc.


It's also possible that their characters are fighting the BBEG Ronald Mc.Donald.

What im saying is PvP isn't something that should be discouraged or encouraged in a game. People should be encouraged to play their role - whatever it may be and remain true to it. If the DM is allowing evil to mingle as PCs with other characters and not enforcing a cooperative style of play then it's not her fault.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 01:19 PM
We don't have enough information about what's going on. It's also possible that she wants to kill him because "I'm evil and that's what evil characters do!"

So I'm a little skeptical of claims that all non-PvP games are boring, don't have realistic characters, etc.


It isn't so much that a game without PVP is boring - moreso one that clearly and upfront prohibits it is in my mind.


I agree we don't have enough info to make a valid judgement. But I stand by my handle it IC stance.

Psyren
2010-11-11, 01:19 PM
Communication is important.

(1) What, exactly did the DM say when you told him "PC X is planning on killing me?"

If the DM said "this is a PVP game?" If so, then your response is "I don't want to play a PVP game." If the DM then says "too bad;" leave. No sense being in a game you don't want to play.

Did the DM say instead "hey, I don't want to control the PCs?" If so, then you simply have a DM who isn't willing to intercede in PC conflicts. Time to go to the Player in question and work it out.

(2) What, exactly did Player X say when you told her that you would prefer she not kill your character?

If Player X said "muwahahahahahaha!" then she has some problems of her own that you won't be able to resolve. If the death of your character in this fashion would be traumatic for you, just leave the game and preserve your friendship. IRL friends don't always play nice together.

If Player X said "sorry, but I have an IC reason for doing this" then ask what that reason is. If the reason is "I'm Evil" then treat it as a "muwahahahahahaha!" response. However, if she does have an IC reason for doing it, see if you can do IC work that makes that reason invalid. For example, if she says "You're my romantic rival!" then start making IC actions to aid PC X's romantic interest. If that doesn't work, start making IC preparations that will make "killing you" less interesting for Player X. A classic example is building alliances within the party; if most of the party likes your character then PC X killing you is going to end poorly for her.
And finally, why exactly do you object to this PVP stance? If it is a philosophical opposition, that's one thing; but if it's just because you are the one being targeted then start coming up with IC reasons to kill PC X yourself.

Nice decision tree here; kudos :smallsmile:

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 01:20 PM
Ahh, so you're one of those "main character" types eh?
No. And the way you put that comes off as rather insulting.

agreed, poor analogy for direct comparison and was only meant as a small reference point to playing a role.
Do you have a better one, then? Douglas made many good points there that I agree with; what's your take on them?

My character is one of the characters who are the focus of the game, because if she weren't then I'd be playing a different character. That doesn't mean she has a green diamond floating over her head that designates her as Plot. It means that I expect that the events of the game will be ones that she has a stake in, and that she'll stick around to contribute to developments, ideally lasting to the game's climax. Same goes for all the players and their characters, and all, including the DM, have a hand in it. The events under the DM's control should in fact affect the characters and be something they can do something about. The characters should be able and willing to work together. This is not because they are "main characters", "we're the heroes", or the world doesn't contain "many other people". It's because if the characters aren't going to go on interesting adventures together, then we wouldn't be playing them.

The OP's situation is that another player has apparently decided that only one of them can continue to play, because the other one is going to have their character killed and have to leave the table. What does this add to the game? Even if it's in character for her PC (as if it would be inconceivable for her to not kill someone), how is her having made that character in the first place not a problem?

Tharck
2010-11-11, 01:25 PM
No. And the way you put that comes off as rather insulting.

Do you have a better one, then? Douglas made many good points there that I agree with; what's your take on them?

My character is one of the characters who are the focus of the game, because if she weren't then I'd be playing a different character. That doesn't mean she has a green diamond floating over her head that designates her as Plot. It means that I expect that the events of the game will be ones that she has a stake in, and that she'll stick around to contribute to developments, ideally lasting to the game's climax. Same goes for all the players and their characters, and all, including the DM, have a hand in it. The events under the DM's control should in fact affect the characters and be something they can do something about. The characters should be able and willing to work together. This is not because they are "main characters", "we're the heroes", or the world doesn't contain "many other people". It's because if the characters aren't going to go on interesting adventures together, then we wouldn't be playing them.

The OP's situation is that another player has apparently decided that only one of them can continue to play, because the other one is going to have their character killed and have to leave the table. What does this add to the game? Even if it's in character for her PC (as if it would be inconceivable for her to not kill someone), how is her having made that character in the first place not a problem?


DM allowed it. Thus that is the type of campaign.

Gravitron5000
2010-11-11, 01:28 PM
It's also possible that their characters are fighting the BBEG Ronald Mc.Donald.


... and he's stating out an epic level rogue. Hamburglar, is that you?

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 01:29 PM
It's also possible that their characters are fighting the BBEG Ronald Mc.Donald.

What im saying is PvP isn't something that should be discouraged or encouraged in a game. People should be encouraged to play their role - whatever it may be and remain true to it. If the DM is allowing evil to mingle as PCs with other characters and not enforcing a cooperative style of play then it's not her fault.

I got the impression from the title and op there are other players involved who are also against PvP. In which case the one player is going against the type of game the group as a whole wants to play, and the DM doesn't want to get involved. It also sounded like the reason for PvP is "duh, I'm evil!", which is not a valid reason. So that's what I'm basing my responses off of.

Edit: The DM does not have sole control over the type of game to play. If most of the people in the group want a specific type of game, the DM should either work it out with them or ask someone else to DM. If players sign up for one type of game and find themselves in another that they don't enjoy, they have every right to be upset.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 01:33 PM
PvP takes the same level as sexuality in D&D. They are both one of those things that need to be understood and agreed upon OOC before going at it.

If you agree on a game where sex is simply 'You and the waitress go to your room' and someone wants to start making rolls then you're breaking the agreed upon conditions.

If you make a campaign where the agreed upon rule is "Don't kill each other" and you do it then you're breaking conditions.

That said, we don't know the agreed upon conditions but it sounds like they're "Don't kill each other."

TheEmerged
2010-11-11, 01:43 PM
I've only had this happen once. My response?

"All right, roll initiative." Wait. "PvP, you lose and are permanently dead. Write up a new character with 50 points fewer than you had before." This would have made the character lose about 15% of their existing points, if I remember right.

There was laughter... until the player realized I wasn't laughing along. "It's okay, the rest of us will continue the session while you finish." The player threatened to quit, to which I responded that was his option and we'd let him know the next time we wanted to play Paranoia.

I'm not usually a hardcase -- until a player is doing something that reduces the enjoyment of the other players. Yes, the zero-to-<expletive> approach doesn't work for everyone. But the object of a game is to have fun and if a behavior isn't wanted, either the behavior is corrected or you are "corrected".

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 01:44 PM
This. 100% this. It's a classy exit from a game that apparently doesn't want you in it. Suck up your loss, and let them wallow in their guilty consciences. In the meantime find another game, and when they ask you to come back, tell them that you're in another game, and you'll have to check your schedule.

I highly doubt they'd feel guilty if they don't have the decency to just get rid of him directly and have to engage in convoluted schemes.


I don't understand how something OOC can bother your character.

It's not the character that's bothered. It's the player, the person, the guy who wrote the OP, not Calimdor the level XX Ceasar Salad. Because of the aforementioned convoluted plan to kick him out of the game.

Keld Denar
2010-11-11, 01:47 PM
If you want to be competative in a pvp sense in a D&D game, make sure others are comfortable with it. If they aren't, there are plenty of other outlets. My group usually plays a couple rounds of Dominion, Small World, or Settlers of Catan after a session of D&D. Those games are designed to be competative, given that only one player can win. Get your PK jollies there, and don't be a jerk to people who don't want you to be a jerk to them.

I said it in my first post, but I'll reiterate it for clarity and emphasis:

"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche. Don't be that guy/gal.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 01:47 PM
I've only had this happen once. My response?

"All right, roll initiative." Wait. "PvP, you lose and are permanently dead. Write up a new character with 50 points fewer than you had before." This would have made the character lose about 15% of their existing points, if I remember right.

There was laughter... until the player realized I wasn't laughing along. "It's okay, the rest of us will continue the session while you finish." The player threatened to quit, to which I responded that was his option and we'd let him know the next time we wanted to play Paranoia.

I'm not usually a hardcase -- until a player is doing something that reduces the enjoyment of the other players. Yes, the zero-to-<expletive> approach doesn't work for everyone. But the object of a game is to have fun and if a behavior isn't wanted, either the behavior is corrected or you are "corrected".

I presume this is only for the initiating character?

On a side note: At least for my group, the "no PvP" rule is accompanied by a "don't build a character that everyone wants to kill" rule. Yes, this does mean certain character concepts are not allowed. If a character gets too annoying, the player is asked to either find a reason for the character to cease the problem behavior or roll up a new character.

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 01:57 PM
PvP takes the same level as sexuality in D&D. They are both one of those things that need to be understood and agreed upon OOC before going at it.

If you agree on a game where sex is simply 'You and the waitress go to your room' and someone wants to start making rolls then you're breaking the agreed upon conditions.

If you make a campaign where the agreed upon rule is "Don't kill each other" and you do it then you're breaking conditions.

That said, we don't know the agreed upon conditions but it sounds like they're "Don't kill each other."

It sounds even more like there were not explicitly agreed upon conditions - which is a main source of the problem.


My character is one of the characters who are the focus of the game, because if she weren't then I'd be playing a different character. That doesn't mean she has a green diamond floating over her head that designates her as Plot. It means that I expect that the events of the game will be ones that she has a stake in, and that she'll stick around to contribute to developments, ideally lasting to the game's climax.

Right... that's pretty much having a "main character" vs. you having multiple characters within the game. I do agree that the way that the Goudaa put it was a bit unnecessarily hostile. (That's why I don't refer to non-PvP/PvP as "Carebear" or "Sociopath" - it doesn't help the game).

You have an expectation that you have one character, that *is* important within the context of the story, and that they will make it to the end. That's a "main character" mentality. Doesn't mean it's bad, or good, or anything, but it's a pretty good summary of it. It's also the most common playstyle for the last 20 years or so, so...


We don't have enough information about what's going on. It's also possible that she wants to kill him because "I'm evil and that's what evil characters do!"


Right. We don't have enough information. We don't know the class of the antagonist, or anything. Furthermore, the OP doesn't have enough information, either. It's possible that the antagonist is just a jerk, but it still smells fishy to me.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 02:00 PM
PvP takes the same level as sexuality in D&D. They are both one of those things that need to be understood and agreed upon OOC before going at it.

If you agree on a game where sex is simply 'You and the waitress go to your room' and someone wants to start making rolls then you're breaking the agreed upon conditions.

If you make a campaign where the agreed upon rule is "Don't kill each other" and you do it then you're breaking conditions.

That said, we don't know the agreed upon conditions but it sounds like they're "Don't kill each other."

This right here. There is no good default. I dislike, genereally, being told that I'm not allowed to pvp for any reason. I want to play a character, and if you are (for instance setting my tail on fire repeatedly, I'll probbbbabbbly get realllly mad. And there might be blood. I don't want to be told not to do that.

That being said, I understand the 'grinds play to a halt' arguments against, and I would not mind playing in a no pvp game...assuming we all worked to getehr to insure that this was going to be In character.. In other words, make characters that aren't going to, because they work together so well as characters, or what have you.


These two issues need to be spelled out, really. I don't care if you feel the default for DnD is coop. A person is going to come to the table with their own preconceptions about what the defaults are, based on their play history. So its everyone's responsibility to talk about what kind of game they want. And the big sticking points are sex and pvp.

Though its important to talk about power level expectations, winging it expectations, WBL, etc...butthese are far less hot button issues than the others. For both of those big two, I could see it turning my whole experience with that game/group sour.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 02:03 PM
It wasn't meant to be hostile...maybe you guys are just to sensitive. It was meant to imply there are usually two ways to look at your in game character.

One: Main character, hero/villain, somebody important.

Two: Someone living in this world as an adventurer/explorer that is not special.

I prefer the second personally. If you prefer the first, there's nothing wrong with that.

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 02:03 PM
Right... that's pretty much having a "main character" vs. you having multiple characters within the game. I do agree that the way that the Goudaa put it was a bit unnecessarily hostile. (That's why I don't refer to non-PvP/PvP as "Carebear" or "Sociopath" - it doesn't help the game).

You have an expectation that you have one character, that *is* important within the context of the story, and that they will make it to the end. That's a "main character" mentality. Doesn't mean it's bad, or good, or anything, but it's a pretty good summary of it. It's also the most common playstyle for the last 20 years or so, so...
That's not how I understood him to be using the term, but perhaps I misinterpreted. I took it as more of a "your character is a special snowflake with plot armor and reality-warping metagame powers" thing.

It wasn't meant to be hostile...maybe you guys are just to sensitive. It was meant to imply there are usually two ways to look at your in game character.
Pro tip: "maybe you guys are just too sensitive" is not a comeback ever likely to make anyone less annoyed with you.

And it appears my interpretation was correct.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 02:11 PM
Well, it wasn't meant to be off-putting/insulting or what have you. I stand by if saying "you view yourself as a main character" (which you clearly defined you do) is insulting to you - you're too sensitive imho.

Back on topic, I think the OP needs to clarify the situation for this thread has become many different discussions that are no longer in line.

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 02:16 PM
Well, it wasn't meant to be off-putting/insulting or what have you.
And that's fine. But it was, and you should be aware of that. Heck, if you didn't mean it that way that's more reason to be aware of it so that you can avoid unintended offense in future.

I stand by if saying "you view yourself as a main character" (which you clearly defined you do) is insulting to you - you're too sensitive imho.
No, I did not. Not by the two alternatives you set out.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-11, 02:25 PM
There seems to be three camps here;

1. Invent some in game reason and slay first.
2. Let yourself die.
3. Try to alter circumstances to the point where killing you isn't feasible. (such as warding your room).

#1 justifys itself based on the fact that they have abandoned social contract theory, at which point you don't owe them anything.

#2 justifys itself by the fact that your character doesn't know he/she is going to get ganked, so you shouldn't respond.

#3 is all about making conditions that enforce social contract theory.


Amongst all of them I vote 3, because D&D is about a group having fun. If one person sacrifices another person against their will you are not both having fun; they are putting their enjoyment over yours. If you kill them first you are agreeing that their ethic is okay, which I don't think you believe.

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 02:37 PM
3. Try to alter circumstances to the point where killing you isn't feasible. (such as warding your room).
Depending on circumstances, this may play in to the aggressor's hands by giving the PvP more time and attention even if it never culminates in actual PvP, or may legitimize their actions: "see, I beat your defenses fair and square!".

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 02:39 PM
There seems to be three camps here;

1. Invent some in game reason and slay first.
2. Let yourself die.
3. Try to alter circumstances to the point where killing you isn't feasible. (such as warding your room).

#1 justifys itself based on the fact that they have abandoned social contract theory, at which point you don't owe them anything.

#2 justifys itself by the fact that your character doesn't know he/she is going to get ganked, so you shouldn't respond.

#3 is all about making conditions that enforce social contract theory.


4. Express OOC that you feel the contract violation means you can no longer enjoy the game. Leave if they go through with it.

JonRG
2010-11-11, 02:40 PM
Then you find a way. What would the DM do if one of the players died in combat? Or is that just not a possibility due to extreme DM fudging/etc?

Like others in the thread, I wonder if something else is going on here.

I also kind of wonder if this homebrew character has some kind of animate dead ability that can be used on the PCs, and if this is actually part of the railroad train that the party's on.

There's probably resurrection, but maybe the EvilChick is the party rezzer or the players don't feel like spending 25,000 gp every other session. Maybe they're on a time table and don't have the time to get him raised. Maybe it's perfectly justifiable that they're nowhere near a Level 27 Adventurers r Us. We'd need more info on where they are and what they're doing.

From what RH00 has said, it seems like the DM and other players disapprove of EC's actions, but don't want to cause confrontation. I also don't think he's oblivious enough to miss his entire group turning against him. This is from someone who played with someone who was. (Details below if you're morbidly curious)

Sephiroth, the elven archer with a Cockney accent, a horrendous build and the propensity to lie about his die rolls and have infinite fire arrows to compensate. I had a plan tucked away to murder his brain (Feeblemind + retarded Arcane Archer build = Win), but I also fixed his character so he could actually do damage (plus he didn't actually meet the prerequisites for AA) and saved his butt when he tried to play at melee fighting. I may have also accidentally cheered when I thought he was gonna die though. :smallredface: But he missed that too. :smalltongue:

RH is a smart guy and should be able to get far just by reasoning with EvilChick or the DM. Ask the EvilChick if she really wants you out of the game that badly, and if no, perhaps she could direct her evil at someone else (what cause does she have to kill you)? Explain that you're filling an important role in the group. She's going to regret her choice when the DM springs a deadly trap on the party and you're at home watching House. Finally, if she really has her heart set on orchestrating your demise, ask if you could perhaps have it be a Fighter/Black Mage dynamic (she tries to kill you, but you always live and maybe never notice).

If you can't come to a reasonable agreement, talk to the DM. If he refuses to get involved or help you out, maybe you can at least pump him for some info on what the heck EC's character can do and defend/murder accordingly.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 02:51 PM
Amongst all of them I vote 3, because D&D is about a group having fun. If one person sacrifices another person against their will you are not both having fun; they are putting their enjoyment over yours. If you kill them first you are agreeing that their ethic is okay, which I don't think you believe.
Quibble - a social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) can be drawn to support either #1 or #3. As it is, the nature of the OP's Social Contract is unclear: we see that at least one Player believes in includes PVP, one who does not, and a DM who - at least - is open to the idea that PVP is in the Social Contract.

This situation is the result of unclear communication regarding the Social Contract in force for a given game. I would greatly like to hear the OP's responses to my last post on the thread before making a sweeping judgment.

However, based off of the details that were provided, I think the OP is "in the wrong," so to speak.
(1) The DM allows Evil characters.
IMHO, any DM that allows Evil PCs is one who is at least tacitly supportive of PvP. At best, he believes that metagame takes place in a Hobbesian State of Nature - i.e. the Social Contract does not place limits on PC action; at worst he is hoping for the PCs murder each other because watching them do so fun.

(2) The DM refused to intervene when petitioned
DMs always want the game to run in a particular way; when it isn't, they will take steps to change it. A DM might initially fail to notice when things are going wrong with his game, but as soon as he sees it some sort of action will be taken.

The OP told the DM about a problem with his game and the OP did not feel as though the DM would do anything to fix it. This indicates that the "problem" the OP brought up is not one the DM considers to be a problem with his game. This means that, at the very least, the Social Contract of the game (as envisioned by the DM) permits Player X to consprie to kill the OP's character.

(3) Player X is a friend of the OP and still considers this legitimate play
As we only see the OP's view of things, we should assume that other parties to the conflict have the best intentions in mind as permitted by the facts given by the OP.

Here, the OP considers Player X a friend, yet Player X is conspiring to kill the OP's character. Friends do not kill their friends' characters on a whim; they'd only do it if they believed it was appropriate within the context of the game.
Therefore, the OP should not try to act as though he had the moral high-ground. Even if the OP were in the right, it would be annoying to the others; when the OP is in the wrong, it makes him seem foolish. As such, the proper course of action is to either play the game or leave it. If the OP plays the game, he should act as though PvP is a possibility and plan accordingly; if he doesn't want to deal with PvP he should just leave and play something more fun.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 02:55 PM
Quibble - a social contract (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) can be drawn to support either #1 or #3. As it is, the nature of the OP's Social Contract is unclear: we see that at least one Player believes in includes PVP, one who does not, and a DM who - at least - is open to the idea that PVP is in the Social Contract.

This situation is the result of unclear communication regarding the Social Contract in force for a given game. I would greatly like to hear the OP's responses to my last post on the thread before making a sweeping judgment.

However, based off of the details that were provided, I think the OP is "in the wrong," so to speak.
(1) The DM allows Evil characters.
IMHO, any DM that allows Evil PCs is one who is at least tacitly supportive of PvP. At best, he believes that metagame takes place in a Hobbesian State of Nature - i.e. the Social Contract does not place limits on PC action; at worst he is hoping for the PCs murder each other because watching them do so fun.

(2) The DM refused to intervene when petitioned
DMs always want the game to run in a particular way; when it isn't, they will take steps to change it. A DM might initially fail to notice when things are going wrong with his game, but as soon as he sees it some sort of action will be taken.

The OP told the DM about a problem with his game and the OP did not feel as though the DM would do anything to fix it. This indicates that the "problem" the OP brought up is not one the DM considers to be a problem with his game. This means that, at the very least, the Social Contract of the game (as envisioned by the DM) permits Player X to consprie to kill the OP's character.

(3) Player X is a friend of the OP and still considers this legitimate play
As we only see the OP's view of things, we should assume that other parties to the conflict have the best intentions in mind as permitted by the facts given by the OP.

Here, the OP considers Player X a friend, yet Player X is conspiring to kill the OP's character. Friends do not kill their friends' characters on a whim; they'd only do it if they believed it was appropriate within the context of the game.
Therefore, the OP should not try to act as though he had the moral high-ground. Even if the OP were in the right, it would be annoying to the others; when the OP is in the wrong, it makes him seem foolish. As such, the proper course of action is to either play the game or leave it. If the OP plays the game, he should act as though PvP is a possibility and plan accordingly; if he doesn't want to deal with PvP he should just leave and play something more fun.

So it's perfectly ok in the social contract to threaten to eject a player from the game for no real reason?

I don't buy this at all. It smacks of bad taste and bullying.

If there is a reason the OP should be ejected from the game, it falls upon the DM and players to do so, not to arrange for PVP in the game to come up out of the blue with no prior establishment.

One should never act out interpersonal problems between human beings in the game. That is childish and defeats the point of the game.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 02:58 PM
Quibble on the quibble: As someone who quite enjoys playing the evil character in a good to neutral group, evil=pvp is a very limited concept.

Of more concern than the PvP itself is the idea that a character death would result in a player having to sit out for several sessions. Whatever your opinions on PvP are, I don't particularly see any reason why one would take actions that remove a player. More explanation needed here.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 03:06 PM
So it's perfectly ok in the social contract to threaten to eject a player from the game for no real reason?
Sure, if that's the social contract for a given game :smallamused:

RANT
Y'see, I have a pet peeve - when people use terms in a confusing fashion.

A Social Contract is merely an exchange of sovereignty from one group of people to another for some purpose. In this context, the Players give some portion of their RP "sovereignty" to the DM for the purpose of running the game. This contract can be made in any fashion - the one that most people assume in the thread is not necessarially the only one available. For example, the social contract made to play Paranoia is very different from the one to play some flavor of GURPS.

Even within a single system there can be several different forms of social contract that can be drawn - e.g. some D&D games permit Evil PCs, others to not. There is no such thing as The Social Contract of D&D, let alone one that governs all RPGs.
In this case, the OP seems confused as to the nature of the social contract he made when entering the game; everyone else - as far as we can tell - is in aggreement that PvP is permissible. As is traditional, those who do not accept the social contract can either Exit or Revolt; Exit is usually the better choice unless "the people" as a whole seek a redrawing of the contract.

EDIT:
@Warkitty
As I said, at best allowing Evil signals that the DM is open to the idea of PvP. In a game with only Good and Neutral PCs, there are already constraints on PCs killing each other; Good characters respect life in general, and even Neutral ones are hesistant at taking Innocent life. Evil has no such compunction and, based on a plain reading of the Alignment chapter, actually sees killing others are a wholly legitimate means to any given end.

I said this is "at best" because it assumes that the DM doesn't just like folks being Evil to each other; he's making his ruling base on a broad concept of Player Autonomy.

IMHO, a DM that says "you can be Evil, but not to each other" is twisting the very concept of the Alignment all out of shape.

And no, I'm not going to argue about the definition of Evil again. I know we don't agree on these matters broadly speaking and I simply cannot allow myself to get wrapped up in Alignment arguments anymore. It's bad for my blood-pressure.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:09 PM
{{scrubbed}}
In all honesty people's opinion will always differ on the type of game they enjoy playing. Just as DMs enjoy running different types of campaigns.

But again, this is a DM's call. If it was actually agreed on then he should let her know she cannot. If nothing was said and now everyone is QQ (crying) about it, especially real tears, then perhaps the DM should step in any way and see how everyone feels. But in any case, the DM should be taking measures one way or the other. He's the judge on the rules of the game he is running.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 03:12 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:13 PM
Sure, if that's the social contract for a given game :smallamused:

Then he should have been made aware of this upon entry. Not having established this shows that the DM and the rest of the group are in the wrong as they had not established a legitimate basis for their actions. If they had and he is still reacting in this way, then yes, he is being silly. I find this unlikely, however.

His joining the game means nothing if his consent was not informed, as otherwise that's permitting deliberate deception of others as perfectly ok and acceptable behavior in others.

I don't care what social contract you're playing under, acting immorally towards others is still immoral. Lying and deliberately trying to hurt someone by getting them invested in a gaming group of peers and then kicking them out for no reason but for kicks is malicious and cruel.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:13 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 03:17 PM
{{scrubbed}}


Actually, I vote you run around casting color spray screaming that the entire session! Nothing says I don't care about my character like massive lolz!

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 03:19 PM
Then he should have been made aware of this upon entry. Not having established this shows that the DM and the rest of the group are in the wrong. If they had and he is still reacting in this way, then yes, he is being silly. I find this unlikely, however.
At the very least it is unorthodox to define a social contract by the beliefs held by a single individual in opposition to the majority of the group :smallconfused:

What we (likely) have here is an honest misunderstanding by one member of the group - the OP - in regard to the existing social contract for the game. People make mistakes, but there's no use in acting like the injured party in such a case. Yes, the OP is unhappy, but unless anyone else in the group is willing to back him it seems unlikely that the "social contract" the OP imagines ever existed for the group in the first place. As it stands, the OP sounds like he's alone in his beliefs - and, in regards to a social contract, that means he is the one who is mistaken, not everyone else.

EDIT: To clarify - I'm not saying that Player X is acting "morally" or otherwise condoning her actions; personally, I wouldn't allow PvP in my D&D games (not that it has ever come up). However, what we have here is a failure to communicate, not a violation of some Natural Law; if the game in question turns out to be one that the OP doesn't enjoy, he should quit rather than ruining the game for everyone else by carrying on - as several posters have suggested he should.

If, however, the OP decides that the game is worth the candle, then he should accept the actual Social Contract as presented and act accordingly. If PvP is permitted, the OP should take actions that are in-line with his character yet responsive to this new reality. By way of analogy, in a game where the Social Contract assumes no significant intra-party strife, I am happy leaving all the gold with one character; otherwise, I scruptulously insist on division of treasure. Here, I recommend the OP gather allies as his character does not seem like the "preemptive war" type.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 03:21 PM
His joining the game means nothing if his consent was not informed, as otherwise that's permitting deliberate deception of others as perfectly ok and acceptable behavior in others.

I've played quite a few campaigns in my time and i've never gone into the game thinking a player couldn't attack me.

Story:
One time we needed to smoke an NPC out of his well-locked home. The npc had a fire going in case we tried to sneak through the chimney. We decided to kill a bugbear and use it's corpse to plug up the chimney hole and smoke the NPC out.

Matt (the bugbear) had to make a new character that night.

The NPC turned out to be friendly.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 03:21 PM
PS. My above post actually had a point. It's no fun to "PVP" a person that doesn't give a crap about their character.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 03:23 PM
{{scrubbed}}

I'm a bit confused. was this an actual citation by averagejoe, replacing Gouda's post?

also, on topic..Random...could you please clarify some of the questions brought up? I'd like to understand the situation...

The Mod Wonder: It was not.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:23 PM
At the very least it is unorthodox to define a social contract by the beliefs held by a single individual in opposition to the majority of the group :smallconfused:

What we (likely) have here is an honest misunderstanding by one member of the group - the OP - in regard to the existing social contract for the game. People make mistakes, but there's no use in acting like the injured party in such a case. Yes, the OP is unhappy, but unless anyone else in the group is willing to back him it seems unlikely that the "social contract" the OP imagines ever existed for the group in the first place. As it stands, the OP sounds like he's alone in his beliefs - and, in regards to a social contract, that means he is the one who is mistaken, not everyone else.

Their failure to inform him of the nature of the game in advance was a mistake on their part. Their failure to get informed consent from him or to initiate him properly into their social contract if it is so deviant from the norm was a mistake.

It is not an honest misunderstanding if they withheld this crucial information from him and assumed that he would be perfectly fine with getting thrown out of the group after being told by some girl who is apparently his friend that she's going to kill his character and get him thrown out of the group for no other reason than that she wants to kill his character and throw him out of the group.


I've played quite a few campaigns in my time and i've never gone into the game thinking a player couldn't attack me.

Have you gone into a game thinking you'd be instantly kicked out of the group as a whole if your character ever died? Have you been told by another player that they're going to get you kicked out of the group for no reason other than that it amuses them?

Have you gone into a group where they didn't tell you that death by PVP expels you from a group that is at least somewhat comprised of personal, Real Life Friends until after one of your supposed real life friends tells you that she's going to kill your character and get you kicked out of the group and doesn't even supply a grievance or reason for her actions? How did that make you feel?

That's what's at issue here. Not the PVP, the PVP is at best a secondary issue, if not tertiary. It depends upon how aware and malicious they are. If they're unthinking and non-malicious, then it's secondary, if they're deliberately acting in a malicious manner, then that is of primary concern and importance to the OP.


I don't care two figs about the PVP, I care about the seemingly deliberate psychological harm they're trying to inflict upon the OP by acting in this way towards him.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 03:25 PM
At the very least it is unorthodox to define a social contract by the beliefs held by a single individual in opposition to the majority of the group :smallconfused:

What we (likely) have here is an honest misunderstanding by one member of the group - the OP - in regard to the existing social contract for the game. People make mistakes, but there's no use in acting like the injured party in such a case. Yes, the OP is unhappy, but unless anyone else in the group is willing to back him it seems unlikely that the "social contract" the OP imagines ever existed for the group in the first place. As it stands, the OP sounds like he's alone in his beliefs - and, in regards to a social contract, that means he is the one who is mistaken, not everyone else.

We have only heard anything regarding the opinions of 3 people in the group. Judging by the title, it's not unreasonable to assume that there are other players who do feel the same way as the OP. Again, need more information.

Also, if the OP is mistaken in the nature of the social contract, the reaction would depend on why the mistake was made. Part of the idea of contracts is that they are clear to everyone involved. If it turns out that not everyone understands, especially in a small group, the proper response is to sit down and re-negotiate in an attempt to come up with something everyone can agree on, not tell one person "too bad."

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 03:28 PM
Have you gone into a game thinking you'd be instantly kicked out of the group as a whole if your character ever died? Have you been told by another player that they're going to get you kicked out of the group for no reason other than that it amuses them?

Have you gone into a group where they didn't tell you that death by PVP expulses you from a group that is at least somewhat comprised of personal, Real Life Friends until after one of your supposed real life friends tells you that she's going to kill you and get you kicked out of the group? How did that make you feel?

Wow.......

I think if you start taking a game that seriously, both you and your friends need to stop playing it.
Being that I game with Goudaa, I can tell you right now. I could show up this weekend, end him, and the only thing he'd have issue with is it would be out of character for me.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:29 PM
Wow.......

I think if you start taking a game that seriously, both you and your friends need to stop playing it.
Being that I game with Goudaa, I can tell you right now. I could show up this weekend, end him, and the only thing he'd have issue with is it would be out of character for me.

Ok, and if you showed up, killed his character, and he couldn't come back to game with you for weeks or months?

That's what the OP's friend wants to do to him.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 03:30 PM
Have you gone into a game thinking you'd be instantly kicked out of the group as a whole if you died ever?


Yes on the bolded part.

The DnD I was raised on was very cut-throat and hardcore without pulled punches and with a brutal DM.

{{scrubbed}}

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:32 PM
Guess he'd continue on with life, or perhaps, quit that too =D

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 03:35 PM
We have only heard anything regarding the opinions of 3 people in the group. Judging by the title, it's not unreasonable to assume that there are other players who do feel the same way as the OP. Again, need more information.

Also, if the OP is mistaken in the nature of the social contract, the reaction would depend on why the mistake was made. Part of the idea of contracts is that they are clear to everyone involved. If it turns out that not everyone understands, especially in a small group, the proper response is to sit down and re-negotiate in an attempt to come up with something everyone can agree on, not tell one person "too bad."
Oh, I agree that we need more information but - as I stated - I can find no portion of the OP that even suggests that he has allies within the group. This, combined with my point above, lead to the conclusion that he is the one mistaken, rather than Player X.

Also - renegotiating the contract is fine if there is a genuine misunderstanding between all the parties - or any plurality thereof. However, social contracts in particular function with a good deal of coercion regarding how minority parties interact with it: renegotiating a social contract necessitates the destruction of whatever it was established to do - typically a government, but here a game. Rather than suffer the total collapse of a game, DMs typically will either adapt to a given Player's desire or allow them to leave.

hangedman1984
2010-11-11, 03:36 PM
Guess he'd continue on with life, or perhaps, quit that too =D

WHAT!! Maybe you're who gave Jack Chick such a bad impression about DnD

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 03:36 PM
Ok, and if you showed up, killed his character, and he couldn't come back to game with you for weeks or months?

That's what the OP's friend wants to do to him.

I fail to see how a campaign could prevent a character from joining the group. At the very least, his characters brother, sister, uncle whatever, the powerful wizard he made from one of the many character optimization threads on this forum. Could teleport in, and start kicking some ass for killing his brother/sister/cousin whatever. Make sure you make him a lich too, so you just come back over and over until they are all dead.

The DM set the rules to the game, if you don't like it, show him why you're right.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:37 PM
Oh, I agree that we need more information but - as I stated - I can find no portion of the OP that even suggests that he has allies within the group. This, combined with my point above, lead to the conclusion that he is the one mistaken, rather than Player X.

I must object. Because I can never believe that intentionally trying to hurt someone else is not a mistake.



Also - renegotiating the contract is fine if there is a genuine misunderstanding between all the parties - or any plurality thereof. However, social contracts in particular function with a good deal of coercion regarding how minority parties interact with it: renegotiating a social contract necessitates the destruction of whatever it was established to do - typically a government, but here a game. Rather than suffer the total collapse of a game, DMs typically will either adapt to a given Player's desire or allow them to leave.

So you're saying there's no obligation for the DM or group to properly induct new members?


I fail to see how a campaign could prevent a character from joining the group.

The DM said that he couldn't get a new character in the game if he died from this.

hangedman1984
2010-11-11, 03:38 PM
I fail to see how a campaign could prevent a character from joining the group. At the very least, his characters brother, sister, uncle whatever, the powerful wizard he made from one of the many character optimization threads on this forum. Could teleport in, and start kicking some ass for killing his brother/sister/cousin whatever. Make sure you make him a lich too, so you just come back over and over until they are all dead.

The DM set the rules to the game, if you don't like it, show him why you're right.

According to the op, dm has said he won't be allowing new chars to be introduced at this point in the game

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:38 PM
{{scrubbed}}

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 03:38 PM
Rant:
What is it with the whole "majority rule" attitude people take to D&D? I mean, I get that not everyone can get everything they want all the time. But I'm gaming with my friends; if one of them isn't having fun, I'll damn well sit down with them and figure out what I can do to make it fun for them, even if it's not an issue for anyone else. That's just part of not being a jerk. If PvP isn't fun for one person, I'll work it out with them so they don't get stuck in PvP. Unless they're really annoying the entire group with bad roleplaying, then I don't *need* to get into PvP with their character specifically to have fun. They're my friend, and we're presumably doing this activity to have fun. If one person isn't having fun, there's a problem.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 03:39 PM
According to the op, dm has said he won't be allowing new chars to be introduced at this point in the game

In that case, if she kills your character. Slap the ghost template on it, and continue to return until you have your revenge. Technically, it's not a new character.....

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 03:42 PM
I must object. Because I can never believe that intentionally trying to hurt someone else is not a mistake.
The "mistake" is as to the nature of the Social Contract. Someone, say, entering a game of Paranoia and then being horrified when Friend Computer kills his first clone for asking a question is mistaken as to the Social Contract in force. Friend Computer is not mistaken because Friend Computer cannot make mistakes :smalltongue:


So you're saying there's no obligation for the DM or group to properly induct new members?
Oh, I'd say it's a good idea, but I don't see what that has to do with the current issue.

Do you write up a Social Contract before running a new game? I suspect not - and neither do I. I may make an effort to explain how the game is to be run but, more often than not, I assume that myself and my Players are on the same page. When that turns out not to be the case, I do my best to inform them as soon as I find out.

EDIT:
@Warkitty
There is certainly a problem, but the problem does not mean that the preferences of the minority should always be allowed to trump the majority.

This is pure pragmatism: most RPGs require more than one Player to function. If a quorum of Players is having fun but a minority is not it is often best to ask the minority to leave the game rather than risk losing the quorum and therefore the entire game. The "best practices" model is to try and incorporate the desires of the minority into the game but that's not always possible - in one of my "dungeon crawling" games a single Player hated going on dungeon crawls and spent the entire game being disruptive as a result. After figuring out she didn't want to play a game that resolved around dungeon crawls I told her she should probably leave that game; it was better than letting her sit around making my life difficult every week (when she showed up). After she left, everyone else got back to having fun crawling through dungeons while the ex-player spent that time at home drinking wine and cooking up a V:tM campaign that suited her preferences.

kamikasei
2010-11-11, 03:42 PM
What is it with the whole "majority rule" attitude people take to D&D?
Diminishing returns. On the one hand, yes, I agree that the majority can and should make some compromises to accommodate individual players. But you don't need to have every player in every game. Sometimes it's better to run a game without people who wouldn't enjoy it than to limit yourselves to what all of a larger group would like.

{{scrubbed}}
First it was "to each their own", now it's "...but mine is better"?

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:42 PM
In that case, if she kills your character. Slap the ghost template on it, and continue to return until you have your revenge. Technically, it's not a new character.....

I doubt such a DM as would do that would allow him to become a ghost, but it's worth looking into, I'll give you that.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:42 PM
In that case, if she kills your character. Slap the ghost template on it, and continue to return until you have your revenge. Technically, it's not a new character.....

That sounds like a lot of fun. Then start slaying random NPCs in town - like the Blacksmith for not trimming his beard often enough.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 03:43 PM
sheesh....Coidzor: There is no normal socail contract for dndRPG's. period.

Everyone plays the game differently. PvP was always considered a possibility by my group when I first started playing. Hell, my first real character got attacked by the stalwart draf character. I can't remember why, but I was a Chatoic/Greedy halfling, so that probably had somethign to do with it :smallamused:. Later, I kidnapped one of the other characters and held him for ransom. This was seen as perfectly ok.

With some groups, though, you just aren't supposed to do it. You're supposed to find a way to work together.

So if expectations regarding pvp wasn't covered its a failure of everyone involved, inlcuding OP. Not the end of the world, its something that often gets forgotten. It just means that now, before this goes any further, there needs to be a discussion, and if everyone else wants it one way, and OP wants it another, then they can jsut agree to not RP together, asuming no acceptable compromise is possible.

We also don't know if he would really be unable to be reintroduced. He does not think he would be able to, but we have no way of knowing. Also, this lack of being able to play, may not even be something that the DM and player have thought about. It may be an unintentional consequence that they hadn't considered.

You are putting it in the worst possible light, and trying to say that's apparently what is happening.
thats not the case. YOu are making assumptions that the PvPers are intentionally hurting the player through being mean to the character, etc.

We don't know enough to make a judgement about thesitutation, other than that hte OP should talk to everyone OoC to discuss the situation(or should not, as some people seem to be saying >.>).

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 03:44 PM
Diminishing returns. On the one hand, yes, I agree that the majority can and should make some compromises to accommodate individual players. But you don't need to have every player in every game. Sometimes it's better to run a game without people who wouldn't enjoy it than to limit yourselves to what all of a larger group would like.

First it was "to each their own", now it's "...but mine is better"?

I'm using the term "better" to mean more well-rounded.

Someone capable of more dynamics than "we are super happy party!" is a better player in my mind. But to each their own for enjoyment purposes.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:44 PM
Everyone plays the game differently. PvP was always considered a possibility by my group when I first started playing.

But you all knew it and thus you all entered into it willingly and informed.


So if expectations regarding pvp wasn't covered its a failure of everyone involved, inlcuding OP. True, but the DM as adjudicator of the group does bear more responsibility for properly introducing people to the group and to the game.


We also don't know if he would really be unable to be reintroduced. He does not think he would be able to, but we have no way of knowing. Also, this lack of being able to play, may not even be something that the DM and player have thought about. It may be an unintentional consequence that they hadn't considered. Then the DM has failed to adequately communicate with the player when the player brought up the problem he was having in the first place.


You are putting it in the worst possible light, and trying to say that's apparently what is happening.
thats not the case. YOu are making assumptions that the PvPers are intentionally hurting the player through being mean to the character, etc.

No, I'm making assumptions that they're intentionally hurting the player by kicking him out of the game with no justification for their actions. Because everyone else was ignoring this very real possibility to argue about whether PVP is justified in a game at all.


The "mistake" is as to the nature of the Social Contract. Someone, say, entering a game of Paranoia and then being horrified when Friend Computer kills his first clone for asking a question is mistaken as to the Social Contract in force. Friend Computer is not mistaken because Friend Computer cannot make mistakes :smalltongue:

It is a mistake because the group deliberately mislead the player's expectations for the game.


Oh, I'd say it's a good idea, but I don't see what that has to do with the current issue.

It has everything to do with the current issue of how you treat your fellow players.


Do you write up a Social Contract before running a new game? I suspect not - and neither do I. I may make an effort to explain how the game is to be run but, more often than not, I assume that myself and my Players are on the same page. When that turns out not to be the case, I do my best to inform them as soon as I find out.

If you're going to eject a player from your game because they die in a game with many available options for resurrection, that's the kind of thing you had better inform them of before PVP comes up out of the blue. PVP might be one of those things that others are hazy on, but that's another one of the things that the majority of cases it's something that all parties know about in advance as something on the table.

So, yes, the DM and the group failed in their duties to the OP.

Ejecting someone from the game based upon their character death is a very real and possible passive-aggressive attempt to get someone out of a gaming group. Jerking someone around by bringing them into a group only to very quickly kick them out again by having another player lift the mighty banhammer in game has potential to be interpreted maliciously on its surface appearance.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 03:47 PM
Yes on the bolded part.

The DnD I was raised on was very cut-throat and hardcore without pulled punches and with a brutal DM.

{{scrubbed}}

Why are you arguing what you're used to? This does not make it the standard, it's just what fits into your games.

Kylarra
2010-11-11, 03:48 PM
I'm using the term "better" to mean more well-rounded.

Someone capable of more dynamics than "we are super happy party!" is a better player in my mind. But to each their own for enjoyment purposes.I'm not sure that it's a binary between "super happy party" and "ejected from the game for a character death", but YMMV!

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:49 PM
I'm not sure that it's a binary between "super happy party" and "ejected from the game for a character death", but YMMV!

Would you be my valentine?

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 03:49 PM
Why are you arguing what you're used to? This does not make it the standard, it's just what fits into your games.

I was asked a direct question, that should've been PM'd in all honesty, and answered. It isn't part of my "argument".

My advice from the beginning till now for the OP has been "have a mindset for your character in game and role-play that attitude no matter what".

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 03:52 PM
If you're going to eject a player from your game because they die in a game with many available options for resurrection, that's the kind of thing you had better inform them of before PVP comes up out of the blue. PVP might be one of those things that others are hazy on, but that's another one of the things that the majority of cases it's something that all parties know about in advance as something on the table.

So, yes, the DM and the group failed in their duties to the OP.
*shrug* then we agree - the OP should just leave the group.

Personally, I don't believe in some Natural Law of gaming; I believe in a series of Best Practices that have worked out well for me in the past and which I recommend to others. I just don't see the use in shouting down people for having "failed their duties" when the real question is whether the OP can live with the game as it developed.

Remember: Exit is always an option with a RPG.

EDIT: Coidzor, love the formatting :smallbiggrin:

Really though, if it is some sort of passive-aggressive tactic for getting the OP out of the game then I don't see how this changes the final calculation. If the game is not going to be fun for you (and if the DM is using passive-aggressive tactics to force you out, it won't be) you should leave.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 03:52 PM
Rant:
What is it with the whole "majority rule" attitude people take to D&D? I mean, I get that not everyone can get everything they want all the time. But I'm gaming with my friends; if one of them isn't having fun, I'll damn well sit down with them and figure out what I can do to make it fun for them, even if it's not an issue for anyone else. That's just part of not being a jerk. If PvP isn't fun for one person, I'll work it out with them so they don't get stuck in PvP. Unless they're really annoying the entire group with bad roleplaying, then I don't *need* to get into PvP with their character specifically to have fun. They're my friend, and we're presumably doing this activity to have fun. If one person isn't having fun, there's a problem.

Entirely agree. This isn't "Do what the group wants and shut up!" this is a situation where the two options are
- Kill the OPs character: Presumably to get enjoyment from it and it's in character? OP gets kicked out and the girl goes on playing getting enjoyment out of the rest of the game.
- Don't kill the OPs character: Girl doesn't get enjoyment out of killing OP and has to think of a different solution towards her and players animosity towards each other (I think the idea of, my character doesn't know stats, they just know the OP is a super powerful rogue and isn't worth the risk would be a suitable explanation) and everyone plays the campaign, getting enjoyment out of it.

Situation 1 upsets the OP and is needless, his friends not recognising that (if they're not) is them being jerks, period.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:55 PM
Entirely agree. This isn't "Do what the group wants and shut up!" this is a situation where the two options are
- Kill the OPs character: Presumably to get enjoyment from it and it's in character? OP gets kicked out and the girl goes on playing getting enjoyment out of the rest of the game.
- Don't kill the OPs character: Girl doesn't get enjoyment out of killing OP and has to think of a different solution towards her and players animosity towards each other (I think the idea of, my character doesn't know stats, they just know the OP is a super powerful rogue and isn't worth the risk would be a suitable explanation) and everyone plays the campaign, getting enjoyment out of it.

Situation 1 upsets the OP and is needless, his friends not recognising that (if they're not) is them being jerks, period.

I think he's just upset he's going to be beaten by a girl. And that's what I love about DnD, you can kill your friends / wife / husband (you know we've all wanted too!) and nothing bad happens. Unless its the type of person who throws the TV out the window when their guy dies in Diablo or WoW. I mean its not even the TV that killed them. It's like a wizard throwing his crystal ball when someone kills his simulacrum he's been scrying on.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 03:56 PM
Personally, I don't believe in some Natural Law of gaming; I believe in a series of Best Practices that have worked out well for me in the past and which I recommend to others. I just don't see the use in shouting down people for having "failed their duties" when the real question is whether the OP can live with the game as it developed.

Remember: Exit is always an option with a RPG.

I believe in some common human decency. Thus, when I perceive people as acting in a wrong manner, I have an urge to comment upon this perceived bad behavior. I believe the OP should confirm the exact situation, and if the situation is as it appears on the surface, yes, he should leave and find a group that isn't comprised of individuals who are so opposed to him.

There is no good reason for them to be acting like jerks towards him, even if they don't like him and want to remove him from the game. There is no reason for a both in and out of character attack. It doesn't matter about the rules of the game or not. We are human beings and we should treat one another as such. So, if they are acting like jerks, this is to be condemned rather than justified and defended.

I think they very likely are, but again, the OP should confirm the situation.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 03:57 PM
I believe in some common human decency. Thus, when I perceive people as acting in a wrong manner, I have an urge to comment upon this perceived bad behavior. I believe the OP should confirm the exact situation, and if the situation is as it appears on the surface, yes, he should leave and find a group that isn't comprised of individuals who are so opposed to him.

There is no good reason for them to be acting like jerks towards him, even if they don't like him and want to remove him from the game. It doesn't matter about the rules of the game or not. We are human beings and we should treat one another as such. So, if they are acting like jerks, this is to be condemned.


I entirely agree, unless im playing an Ogre or something. My Ogre might get hungy, party is out of rations... lets eat Larry's character!

Oh that's good! As we paralyze Larry with poison and run a stick through him and are turning him over the fire - we can roll up his character sheet and roll it over a lighter!

Sipex
2010-11-11, 04:00 PM
I entirely agree, unless im playing an Ogre or something. My Ogre might get hungy, party is out of rations... lets eat Larry's character!

This can go into the same thing "Let's eat Larry's character" and Larry is upset with that because even if it's in character it's pretty arbitrary. You notice Larry is upset that he hasn't done anything to provoke this do you go on with it or try to find a creative way around the situation which lets you both have fun? Like...Larry's character persuades your ogre to wait while he goes and tries to hunt down some noms.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 04:02 PM
This can go into the same thing "Let's eat Larry's character" and Larry is upset with that because even if it's in character it's pretty arbitrary. You notice Larry is upset that he hasn't done anything to provoke this do you go on with it or try to find a creative way around the situation which lets you both have fun? Like...Larry's character persuades your ogre to wait while he goes and tries to hunt down some noms.

Or....maybe Larry will learn a lesson from this.....Traveling with evil ogres is usually a bad idea.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:03 PM
This can go into the same thing "Let's eat Larry's character" and Larry is upset with that because even if it's in character it's pretty arbitrary. You notice Larry is upset that he hasn't done anything to provoke this do you go on with it or try to find a creative way around the situation which lets you both have fun? Like...Larry's character persuades your ogre to wait while he goes and tries to hunt down some noms.

Depends, if my Ogre is rather impatient and Larry's CHA was like 8, i'd prolly just eat him.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 04:04 PM
This can go into the same thing "Let's eat Larry's character" and Larry is upset with that because even if it's in character it's pretty arbitrary. You notice Larry is upset that he hasn't done anything to provoke this do you go on with it or try to find a creative way around the situation which lets you both have fun? Like...Larry's character persuades your ogre to wait while he goes and tries to hunt down some noms.


But then who got griefed?

Sipex
2010-11-11, 04:04 PM
Or....maybe Larry will learn a lesson from this.....Traveling with evil ogres is usually a bad idea.

Well, that makes you a jerk then. You pee in Larry's cheerios because you can which doesn't contribute heavily to the game despite that it upsets him.

Tvtyrant
2010-11-11, 04:05 PM
....And the war that I unleashed. I will remember that saying "social contract" beings the grief in the future.

But more importantly; for it to be a social contract you have to actually tell the person. The argument that is being made that its part of their social contract is fundamentally flawed because the OP was not clued in till right before the event. It would be like passing a law against smoking tobacco and then sweeping people off the streets without publishing the law. That isn't social contract theory. Its being a jerk.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 04:06 PM
Or....maybe Larry will learn a lesson from this.....Traveling with evil ogres is usually a bad idea.

You mean, don't play with Todd who decides to randomly kill other PCs for kicks? Or force him not to play evil ogres with a bribery and/or intimidation?

I fail to see what lesson the player is supposed to learn from this exercise, given he has no control over what the other players play beyond getting a consensus and working with the DM. If Larry wasn't going to fit into the group, drawing out the experience by heaping abuse upon him is just protracting the unpleasantness except for the guy who gets off on acting like a jerk to other people.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 04:06 PM
I believe in some common human decency. Thus, when I perceive people as acting in a wrong manner, I have an urge to comment upon this perceived bad behavior. I believe the OP should confirm the exact situation, and if the situation is as it appears on the surface, yes, he should leave and find a group that isn't comprised of individuals who are so opposed to him.

There is no good reason for them to be acting like jerks towards him, even if they don't like him and want to remove him from the game. It doesn't matter about the rules of the game or not. We are human beings and we should treat one another as such.
As certain recent threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174364) have convinced me, Humanity is not jerk-neutral, but jerk-loving; they'll be jerks even when there are good reasons not to be.

However, I made my peace with this revelation with the following:
(1) Given that Humanity as a whole is jerky, there exists some subset which is not made up of jerks.

(2) One does not have to associate with jerks; if the opportunity exists, limit your exposure to jerks you identify.

(3) If your particular slice of existence is made up largely - perhaps even entirely - of non-jerks then it is much like living in a world where Humanity is not, on the whole, jerky.
This is why I advocate Exit whenever possible. I can't say for sure whether this is an innocent mistake or a passive-aggressive conspiracy; likely, no one but the OP can say for sure. However, there is no reason to waste your time trying to reform jerks - at worst it's their nature and won't change, and at best you'll be spending a lot more time with jerks than you have to. Since there certainly exist Situational Jerks, it is for the best to extract yourself from situations where your friends act like Jerks (such as the OP's game) and make sure to spend more of your time with said friends when they're not being jerks.

Moralizing about Jerks is addictive and, if not carefully watched, it can land you in bad straights. It's a vice I am personally trying to kick - with limited success :smallredface:

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:06 PM
But then who got griefed?


Precisely!

I love the smell of burning character sheets in the morning, followed by the sound of bairly controlled outraged and wailing escaping though bated breaths.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 04:06 PM
@coidzor: I disagree that anyone has more responsibility, but thats a minor point. the point is, which you seem to agree with, that everyone bears responsibility to discuss it.

(and we never discussed whether PvP was ok, it just happened. We should have, butmost of us were pretty new to RPG's. I was suing it specifically as a point in the "there is no 1 default for every group" point)

I still insist we don't know the details of the situation. (we know that the OP is concerned with not being able to play if her char is killed, but not that the DM is aware of this, to name one )

But I agree with this: If the situation is as you surmise, then yes, they are being jackasses...I'm just withholding jusgement until I know for sure.

Which sounds pretty self important, I guess. Kinda puts us in a jurors poition, when we aren't
also, unless random just hasn't gotten back on, he doesn't seem to want to clarify, so Iguess we'll never know..::shrug::

@oracle hunter: I would say that humanity is Jerk-unquantifiable...bascially because we run the gamut of stealing a $1 charity game to people who would give their lives to help someone without a second thought :smallbiggrin:
Also, yes, moralizing about jerkasses/getting on one's high horse is addictive....I've been known to do it from time to time:smallredface:...I think that's why I'm trying to advocate hearing the situation out...

Vaynor
2010-11-11, 04:08 PM
The Red Towel: Try to keep it civil, everyone.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 04:08 PM
However, there is no reason to waste your time trying to reform jerks - at worst it's their nature and won't change, and at best you'll be spending a lot more time with jerks than you have to.

I wasn't ever advocating attempting to reform jerks. I was saying that one shouldn't defend them or justify their actions for them.


But I agree with this: If the situation is as you surmise, then yes, they are being jackasses...I'm just withholding jusgement until I know for sure.

Which sounds pretty self important, I guess. Kinda puts us in a jurors poition, when we aren't
also, unless random just hasn't gotten back on, he doesn't seem to want to clarify, so Iguess we'll never know..::shrug::

Most of my vehemence came from people ignoring this or dismissing it out of hand as unimportant or impossible. I wish I had avoided getting involved in this thread.

Keld Denar
2010-11-11, 04:09 PM
Depends, if my Ogre is rather impatient and Larry's CHA was like 8, i'd prolly just eat him.

See also: Jerk

"Roleplaying" is no excuse for being a douche.

On the other side of that character is a player. A player with a goal of having fun. Thats why people play RPGs, and games in general. Some players think its great fun when their character is poisoned and then roasted on a spit. Others don't. If the player doesn't appreciate it, you should respect that. Otherwise you are being a jerk and putting your own jerkery above the enjoyment of the game by others.

Honestly, if I was the OP, I'd probably leave the group BEFORE they killed my character. I doubt I'd have fun with those kind of players, even IF I managed to twart their IC assassination attempts. Thats not why I play D&D and if the people I played with couldn't at least respect that to a small enough degree, I wouldn't respect them enough to play in their game.

Susano-wo
2010-11-11, 04:12 PM
Most of my vehemence came from people ignoring this or dismissing it out of hand as unimportant or impossible. I wish I had avoided getting involved in this thread.


Well, I can understand vehemence at that. :smallbiggrin:
sorry if I got a bit heated...just felt like I was coming up against a brick wall:smallredface:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 04:12 PM
....And the war that I unleashed. I will remember that saying "social contract" beings the grief in the future.

But more importantly; for it to be a social contract you have to actually tell the person. The argument that is being made that its part of their social contract is fundamentally flawed because the OP was not clued in till right before the event. It would be like passing a law against smoking tobacco and then sweeping people off the streets without publishing the law. That isn't social contract theory. Its being a jerk.
You Keep Using That Word (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouKeepUsingThatWord).

Social Contract Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) is simply a theory that models the creation of social arrangements as a sort of "contract" between The People and The Powerful. Alone, it doesn't make any normative prescriptions about the contents of that "contract" - your above scenario is fine under, say, a Social Contract that says that gives the government arbitrary discretion in regards to imprisoning people.

This is why I hate it when people use terms in a misleading fashion - it muddies the debate and compels me to make posts like this! :smalltongue:

EDIT:
@Coidzor - I dunno, I'd feel pretty silly saying Player X or the DM's actions are unjustified since it looks like the OP is actually informed about all the relevant facts before the event itself has happened. Not the he knows, he can just quit; if his PC had instead been stabbed to death in his sleep by PC X with the DM then informing the OP that his PC can't be revived, he would have more to complain about.

Still, I've always felt such complaining to be not worth the time. Better to either try to get the game to change (which has failed) or just leave and let everyone else have a good time.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:13 PM
Imagine Football: Someone is running for a touchdown - his first ever - but gets tackled not a foot from it. He throws his helmet down, tears steaming from his eyes like mini wheepyfalls and he runs screaming off the field.

Imagine Actors: on TV crying at the script writers when their character dies in the film.

Imagine DnD: Where the DM kills a PC and they toss the table and jump out his 5th story window.

Characters die, that's why the game explains how to bring in higher level characters into an existing campaign.

If a DM kills you, he didn't some mobs did. If a PC kills you, he didn't - his character did. As long as it remains in character and there are reasonable reasons why he did then fine.

If there are some kid gloves on the campaign saying TEAMWORK then by all means following that.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 04:14 PM
I respect your post Keld, I truly do. Despite what some of the more humorous posts you've seen today from myself - RP is the first and foremost concern of mine in an RPG.

If everyone doesn't want the same style of game, there will be arguments - i'm with you on that. But on the same token, I don't think someone is a jerk just because they decided their character would attack and or kill another character. Far too many variables to generalize it in that manner imho.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:15 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Tvtyrant
2010-11-11, 04:16 PM
You Keep Using That Word (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouKeepUsingThatWord).

Social Contract Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) is simply a theory that models the creation of social arrangements as a sort of "contract" between The People and The Powerful. Alone, it doesn't make any normative prescriptions about the contents of that "contract" - your above scenario is fine under, say, a Social Contract that says that gives the government arbitrary discretion in regards to imprisoning people.

This is why I hate it when people use terms in a misleading fashion - it muddies the debate and compels me to make posts like this! :smalltongue:

Excepting of course that the people in it have to sign the contract. The reason Locke argued it versus Hobbes' version was that Hobbes version stated that any time freedom was given up you cannot get it back; so your parents could sell themselves into slavery and woops! Your a slave. I'm glad you can link wiki, but the word contract seems to be missing in your context. If you don't sign on, not a contract. Which is exactly what I said above.

hangedman1984
2010-11-11, 04:17 PM
Imagine Football: Someone is running for a touchdown - his first ever - but gets tackled not a foot from it. He throws his helmet down, tears steaming from his eyes like mini wheepyfalls and he runs screaming off the field.

except in this case the op gets tackled when he was under the impression they were playing tennis

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:19 PM
except in this case the op gets tackled when he was under the impression they were playing tennis


Good analogy! But he should have asked where the rackets were, and why they were on the football field.

Sipex
2010-11-11, 04:19 PM
except in this case the op gets tackled when he was under the impression they were playing tennis

I was going to go for "Got tackled by a team mate"

edit: The more I think of it the more it works.

D&D has you, by default, as a team against others. Football is the same way.

By this, you assume your team works with you instead against you unless explicitly stating otherwise. Football is the same way.

Our current situation, nobody told the OP "We're going to kill each other, you still wanna play?"

Mystic Muse
2010-11-11, 04:21 PM
I was going to go for "Got tackled by a team mate"

They're both valid comparisons.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 04:21 PM
Excepting of course that the people in it have to sign the contract. The reason Locke argued it versus Hobbes' version was that Hobbes version stated that any time freedom was given up you cannot get it back; so your parents could sell themselves into slavery and woops! Your a slave. I'm glad you can link wiki, but the word contract seems to be missing in your context. If you don't sign on, not a contract. Which is exactly what I said above.
Ha, except he did "sign" the contract - by joining the game!

As an aside, Social Contract Theory is often criticized because the people it applies to (i.e. you, the citizens of your country) are bound by it without their explicit consent. When you're the citizen of a state, it is non-trivial to emigrate elsewhere; likewise, nobody can choose the nation of their birth and it is that nation's Social Contract which binds you while you live there.

I'm not saying that "Social Contract" is a perfect metaphor for the relationship between The People and The Powerful - but if you're going to use it, use it correctly darn it! :smallbiggrin:

hangedman1984
2010-11-11, 04:21 PM
Good analogy! But he should have asked where the rackets were, and why they were on the football field.

Apparently they're just playing in a big open field

hangedman1984
2010-11-11, 04:23 PM
They're both valid comparisons.

tackled by teammate while playing doubles tennis?

Psyren
2010-11-11, 04:25 PM
Still, I've always felt such complaining to be not worth the time. Better to either try to get the game to change (which has failed) or just leave and let everyone else have a good time.

Seriously, this. I mean, unless the OP can recruit the whole playground to go give his table a talking-to, he has a choice to make here; just like everyone else with free will does.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:25 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Sipex
2010-11-11, 04:26 PM
Seriously, this. I mean, unless the OP can recruit the whole playground to go give his table a talking-to, he has a choice to make here; just like everyone else with free will does.

I think this is where it currently stands.

The OP needs to talk to his friends and explain how he feels.

If his friends ignore this then his only options are A) Deal (which will probably lead to) B) Leave

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 04:28 PM
Ha, except he did "sign" the contract - by joining the game!

As an aside, Social Contract Theory is often criticized because the people it applies to (i.e. you, the citizens of your country) are bound by it without their explicit consent. When your the citizen of a state, it is non-trivial to emigrate elsewhere; likewise, nobody can choose the nation of their birth and it is that nation's Social Contract which binds you while you live there.

I'm not saying that "Social Contract" is a perfect metaphor for the relationship between The People and The Powerful - but if you're going to use it, use it correctly darn it! :smallbiggrin:

It is also, to be honest, not always a good metaphor for a game. The social contract isn't a contract for the sake of having a contract; it's a contract to an end. Politically, that end is roughly "being able to obtain a living without someone else beating the crap out of you for your stuff." The contract is also, within limits, modifiable - it's called changing laws.

In a RGP, the end is presumably "to have fun." If someone isn't having fun, the logical first solution would be to see if you can modify the game so they do have fun. If that doesn't work, then yes one person will probably end up leaving. The first option is obviously preferable; we'd need more details to know specifically.

Edit: Also, I am totally writing a term paper next semester on Social Contract Theory and RPG's.

Douglas
2010-11-11, 04:41 PM
Characters die, that's why the game explains how to bring in higher level characters into an existing campaign.

If a DM kills you, he didn't some mobs did. If a PC kills you, he didn't - his character did. As long as it remains in character and there are reasonable reasons why he did then fine.
Yes, characters die. That is not the primary issue here. In this particular case, character death will directly cause player ejection from the group. That is a problem.


I respect your post Keld, I truly do. Despite what some of the more humorous posts you've seen today from myself - RP is the first and foremost concern of mine in an RPG.

If everyone doesn't want the same style of game, there will be arguments - i'm with you on that. But on the same token, I don't think someone is a jerk just because they decided their character would attack and or kill another character. Far too many variables to generalize it in that manner imho.
If the character's death were the only consequence here I'd agree with you. Killing another player's character is often the act of a jerk, but enough exceptions exist to justify withholding judgment. Removing the player from the group for RP reasons restricted to your own character is another matter, and that is the issue here.

Keld Denar
2010-11-11, 04:42 PM
:mad::mad:

See, there are two different things here. One is RPing in a pvp acceptable environment when you fully expect things to be competative and enjoying that kind of play, and the other is not desiring to play in such an environment, but having your requests not honored. The former is fun, the latter is not. If there is no fun, why play the game?

I'm more of a strategy war-gamer than a method actor. If I joined a D&D group that RPed 99.5% of the time and handwaved combat, I probably wouldn't have fun. They aren't doing it wrong, but I'm still not having fun. Thus, I would decline future invitations to play with them.

I also don't like cut-throat backstabbing pvp when I play D&D. I get my fix of that from playing other games (like Small World or Dominion). When I play D&D, I prefer detailed, challenging, and immersive party vs monsters to save the world. Thats my preference. Its my responsibility to find people to play the kind of game I want to play. If the people don't want to play how I want to play, then I'm free to not play with them.

Its not about playing football and being surprised when you get tackled on the 1 yardline. Thats something that normally happens in football. Its about playing flag football and being surprised when 8 guys tackle you instead of just ripping off your ribbon, and do it in such a way that they intentionally try to put you in the hospital. This isn't the abuse the OP signed up for. The mature thing would be to bow out gracefully, IMO.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 04:44 PM
Edit: Also, I am totally writing a term paper next semester on Social Contract Theory and RPG's.
There is a direct parallel between Social Contract Theory in terms of Government and Gaming; both assume The Many will be giving up some portion of their god-given autonomy to The Few for the creation of a mutually beneficial construct.

In particular you might want to consider what sort of game a Hobbesian contract produces in comparison to a Lockean or Rosseauean one. Off the top of my head, I'd say Hobbes produces an Old School DM (i.e. TSR D&D), Locke produces a modern D&D DM (i.e. WotC D&D) while a Rosseauean one is more of an Indie Game DM (e.g. Bliss Stage or Dogs in the Vineyard).

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 04:45 PM
:mad::mad:


ROFL. So in other words when you slid into 2nd base and got tagged out, your mom came on the field and beat the kid up for you before taking you home for some ice-cream and naming yet another day as a Holiday for you.

False equivalence. Baseball is, inherently, a competitive game. You go into *expecting* competition. Roleplaying games are not. Roleplaying games *can* be competitive games. Most RPG groups will *probably* allow PvP given sufficient provocation in extreme scenarios. There's a difference between that and just randomly opening up on another PC.

Again, they're just different play styles that meet different needs. They're both fine, if that's what the players are looking for. A big part of the problem seems to be that nobody really had an agreement on what kind of game they were playing.

And, frankly, D&D is just not well designed for intra-party combat. If you really want a game where you're trying to beat your friends, there's a lot better choices out there.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 04:51 PM
See, there are two different things here. One is RPing in a pvp acceptable environment when you fully expect things to be competative and enjoying that kind of play, and the other is not desiring to play in such an environment, but having your requests not honored. The former is fun, the latter is not. If there is no fun, why play the game?

I'm more of a strategy war-gamer than a method actor. If I joined a D&D group that RPed 99.5% of the time and handwaved combat, I probably wouldn't have fun. They aren't doing it wrong, but I'm still not having fun. Thus, I would decline future invitations to play with them.

I also don't like cut-throat backstabbing pvp when I play D&D. I get my fix of that from playing other games (like Small World or Dominion). When I play D&D, I prefer detailed, challenging, and immersive party vs monsters to save the world. Thats my preference. Its my responsibility to find people to play the kind of game I want to play. If the people don't want to play how I want to play, then I'm free to not play with them.

Its not about playing football and being surprised when you get tackled on the 1 yardline. Thats something that normally happens in football. Its about playing flag football and being surprised when 8 guys tackle you instead of just ripping off your ribbon, and do it in such a way that they intentionally try to put you in the hospital. This isn't the abuse the OP signed up for. The mature thing would be to bow out gracefully, IMO.

/Signed.

As for him being kicked out for the time being because no new characters can be introduced ah well.

See I have a portfolio of killed PCs which I collect and add to as a PC. My "Portfolio of Painful Tears." From PCs I turned into mice to power my Mouse Cart, to the simple slay them while sleeping.

In all cases though I was always in a game where killing other PCs is known. Had a majority of campaigns where its all about teamwork and in those games I play a good solid build to help my friends.

Now that the OP knows PvP is open, just kill her when she goes to bed - maybe more. Like using sleight of hand, use rope, and move silently to quietly cacoon her in a chain and then acid and fire. Or simply a cut and move on. Hold Person scroll is nice because then she cant have her character scream. But in any case let her know you mean buisiness and buisiness ismean.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 04:53 PM
Ha, except he did "sign" the contract - by joining the game!

In this case, the person actually has to agree to the contract rather than being born into the contract which his forebears may or may not have actually agreed to in some form of fashion. And yet, he was apparently misinformed, either deliberately or through neglect. Having one contract out that's agreed to when really you're operating under another is... considered unsavory and underhanded at best, in violation of the contract that was agreed to at worst.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 04:54 PM
There is a direct parallel between Social Contract Theory in terms of Government and Gaming; both assume The Many will be giving up some portion of their god-given autonomy to The Few for the creation of a mutually beneficial construct.

In particular you might want to consider what sort of game a Hobbesian contract produces in comparison to a Lockean or Rosseauean one. Off the top of my head, I'd say Hobbes produces an Old School DM (i.e. TSR D&D), Locke produces a modern D&D DM (i.e. WotC D&D) while a Rosseauean one is more of an Indie Game DM (e.g. Bliss Stage or Dogs in the Vineyard).

I suspect it would end up being on more than just gaming. Still, a discussion of how social contracts function within various social groups would be interesting and worthwhile. Plus be an easy paper for Modern Philosophy.


False equivalence. Baseball is, inherently, a competitive game. You go into *expecting* competition. Roleplaying games are not. Roleplaying games *can* be competitive games. Most RPG groups will *probably* allow PvP given sufficient provocation in extreme scenarios. There's a difference between that and just randomly opening up on another PC.

Again, they're just different play styles that meet different needs. They're both fine, if that's what the players are looking for. A big part of the problem seems to be that nobody really had an agreement on what kind of game they were playing.

And, frankly, D&D is just not well designed for intra-party combat. If you really want a game where you're trying to beat your friends, there's a lot better choices out there.

Agreed. The trouble with D&D intra-party combat is it does end up being rocket tag. Most of the time you're starting with the implicit (metagame) assumption that you trust these people enough to be out adventuring with them. Generally, if someone wants to kill another PC without giving them warning or a chance to fight back, they can do so.

kyoryu
2010-11-11, 05:04 PM
Agreed. The trouble with D&D intra-party combat is it does end up being rocket tag. Most of the time you're starting with the implicit (metagame) assumption that you trust these people enough to be out adventuring with them. Generally, if someone wants to kill another PC without giving them warning or a chance to fight back, they can do so.

If you *don't* trust them, you won't be adventuring with them, or at least will spend the majority of your time defending yourself from the immediate threat - the other PC. That becomes very disruptive to the game, if the game was not intended to be about PvP.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 05:10 PM
In this case, the person actually has to agree to the contract rather than being born into the contract which his forebears may or may not have actually agreed to in some form of fashion. And yet, he was apparently misinformed, either deliberately or through neglect. Having one contract out that's agreed to when really you're operating under another is... considered unsavory and underhanded at best, in violation of the contract that was agreed to at worst.
To put it plainly.

You are assuming that the OP's perception of the "contract" is accurate. The fact that the DM and Player X both disagree with the OP is therefore evidence of some sort of underhanded attempt to subvert this contract.

I disagree for the reasons I have stated. In short, when the majority of the parties to a contract believe it means a given thing, the burden is on the minority party to prove that the contract is otherwise. For oral contracts (such as this one) this is next to impossible.

Regardless of blameworthiness, the OP has two options - Adapt or Exit. Trying to assign blame in this situation does little to resolve the OP's situation because the third option "change the game" is, apparently, not on the table. If the OP had allies at the table who disliked PvP then the natural course is for him to rally those allies and confront the DM, forcing him to come down on Player X. Yet, I suspect that if the OP actually had those allies he wouldn't have jumped to the following course of action:

What's the surest way to permanently dispose of a character?

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 05:20 PM
I disagree for the reasons I have stated. In short, when the majority of the parties to a contract believe it means a given thing, the burden is on the minority party to prove that the contract is otherwise. For oral contracts (such as this one) this is next to impossible.

So, as long as the DM and the other players agree, they're in the right despite never informing the newer player of the realities of the game. And it's not a failing on their part because they're the majority.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 05:26 PM
Well, that makes you a jerk then. You pee in Larry's cheerios because you can which doesn't contribute heavily to the game despite that it upsets him.

How am I a Jerk exactly? Lets say you're roaming through the forest with your 'teammates', you run into some trolls. After some discussion, you allow the trolls to join your party. A week later, the trolls get hungry, and eat you. Is the DM a jerk? Or are you just a moron? I mean what is the point of playing an RPG if your actions don't matter? Just run around kicking every vendor in the nuts, until you have all the wealth/wishes/riches in the world and announce yourself the winner of the gaming table! So what's the difference if I player walks up playing his Ogre/Barb/FB . Just because you decided to metagame, knowing he's a PC, and allow him in? That makes you at fault sir, not him.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 05:31 PM
How am I a Jerk exactly? Lets say you're roaming through the forest with your 'teammates', you run into some trolls. After some discussion, you allow the trolls to join your party. A week later, the trolls get hungry, and eat you. Is the DM a jerk? Or are you just a moron? I mean what is the point of playing an RPG if your actions don't matter? Just run around kicking every vendor in the nuts, until you have all the wealth/wishes/riches in the world and announce yourself the winner of the gaming table! So what's the difference if I player walks up playing his Ogre/Barb/FB . Just because you decided to metagame, knowing he's a PC, and allow him in? That makes you at fault sir, not him.

In most of the games I've played, not metagaming at least a little means the group doesn't stay together and consequently doesn't get anywhere.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 05:32 PM
In most of the games I've played, not metagaming at least a little means the group doesn't stay together and consequently doesn't get anywhere.

In my experience that happens when someone wants to play a Ur-Priest, something or other evil thing, and someone else is playing a super holy paladin of light and goodness. Thought - Make characters that will get along, and stop trying to powerhouse the game. :)

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 05:34 PM
In my experience that happens when someone wants to play a Ur-Priest, something or other evil thing, and someone else is playing a super holy paladin of light and goodness. Thought - Make characters that will get along, and stop trying to powerhouse the game. :)

See in mine that happens every time someone wants to include any sort of rogue, an orc/halforc/etc., or any character that doesn't come with at least one reference. Also the holy paladin is banned. You have to be able to function with other characters of a wide variety of types and moral outlooks.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 05:35 PM
How am I a Jerk exactly? Lets say you're roaming through the forest with your 'teammates', you run into some trolls. After some discussion, you allow the trolls to join your party. A week later, the trolls get hungry, and eat you. Is the DM a jerk? Or are you just a moron? I mean what is the point of playing an RPG if your actions don't matter? Just run around kicking every vendor in the nuts, until you have all the wealth/wishes/riches in the world and announce yourself the winner of the gaming table! So what's the difference if I player walks up playing his Ogre/Barb/FB . Just because you decided to metagame, knowing he's a PC, and allow him in? That makes you at fault sir, not him.

Because, it's the DM rather than a fellow player. That's a big difference for some people.

Also, you can't choose as a player to forbid another player from playing his character unless you can get the rest of the group on your side to browbeat them in line. At best Larry would refrain from entering Pious McPietypants and instead go for something that can more strongly deter the inherent promise of random attack at the whims of another player rather than an expected and knowable variable of aggression from the DM. DMs generally can't get away with being quite that random or capricious and continue to attract people who aren't just as random and capricious.

In fact, you're arguing in favor of a game where one's actions don't matter, because at any moment your fellow players decide they're bored and they kill your character and so you have to make a new one at best or in the worst case, leave the game. With no rhyme or reason to a game, nothing meaningful can be done or accomplished, no characters can be developed, because they keep ending up in the belly of Todd's Ogre or are created specifically to kill that Ogre. Or, you know, you enter into a constant brawl of PVP rather than a game and might as well have made an arena game rather than have illusions about doing anything else.

He is the one that decided his short attention span and ego needed the stoking of making the game about his character eating other people's characters and getting ganked for it. Thus, it's his fault.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 05:40 PM
I don't think this thread even has a point anymore.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 05:44 PM
In fact, you're arguing in favor of a game where one's actions don't matter, because at any moment your fellow players decide they're bored and they kill your character and so you have to make a new one at best or in the worst case, leave the game. With no rhyme or reason to a game, nothing meaningful can be done or accomplished, no characters can be developed, because they keep ending up in the belly of Todd's Ogre or are created specifically to kill that Ogre. Or, you know, you enter into a constant brawl of PVP rather than a game and might as well have made an arena game rather than have illusions about doing anything else.

He is the one that decided his short attention span and ego needed the stoking of making the game about his character eating other people's characters and getting ganked for it. Thus, it's his fault.

Not at all. The same ogre may be able to be distracted by something shiny quite easily. Or maybe he's terrified of fire. My point being these are all RP elements. Perhaps there is more to this story than we know, perhaps the player insulted the OPs character, and THAT is why she's going to kill him. If the action is truly just a random, I'm bored at the table, you die. That's not roleplaying either, and is just as bad in my mind. The point I'm trying to make may be best quoted from Natural Born Killers.....

Old Indian: Once upon a time, a woman was picking up firewood. She came upon a poisonous snake frozen in the snow. She took the snake home and nursed it back to health. One day the snake bit her on the cheek. As she lay dying, she asked the snake, "Why have you done this to me?" And the snake answered, "Look, bitch, you knew I was a snake."

If you want to curb PVP, and you'd like the group to work together, play a good only group. If you'd like some very interesting RP, play a non murdering, crazy, evil group.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 05:44 PM
So, as long as the DM and the other players agree, they're in the right despite never informing the newer player of the realities of the game. And it's not a failing on their part because they're the majority.
Pretty much.

It's simply not reasonable to blame the majority when a single person is mistaken about something. It's even less reasonable to allow the beliefs of a single individual dominate the shared beliefs of the majority when speaking about the nature of contracts - social or otherwise.

I'm making no comment about "best practices" here nor about the moral content - if any - of the actions described in the OP. At worst we have a situation where the OP believed one thing about a game, was told by Player X that he was wrong and then had the DM confirm Player X's assertion. At this point it would be wrong for the OP to throw a fit or continue to bemoan his situation.

To flip it around, imagine the OP were the PK'er instead:
(1) A PK'er joins a game, believing that PK is allowed

(2) The PK'er mentions his plans to kill another PC and a Player says "No, we don't have PKing at this table."

(3) PK'er then goes to the DM and complains. The DM says "If you try to PK I'll kick you from the table."
In this situation, would you say that the Other Player is blameworthy for informing the PK'er that the game is other than he believes? Or that the DM is blameworthy for not saying "no PK" before the PK'er joined - even if everyone aside from the PK'er believed that this was a "no PK" game?

In my analysis, the situations are indentical - the only duty owed is for the correction of a misconception as soon as it is pointed out. The minority player then has a duty to either leave the game or play it as it is presented.

Keld Denar
2010-11-11, 05:47 PM
How am I a Jerk exactly? Lets say you're roaming through the forest with your 'teammates', you run into some trolls. After some discussion, you allow the trolls to join your party. A week later, the trolls get hungry, and eat you. Is the DM a jerk? Or are you just a moron? I mean what is the point of playing an RPG if your actions don't matter? Just run around kicking every vendor in the nuts, until you have all the wealth/wishes/riches in the world and announce yourself the winner of the gaming table! So what's the difference if I player walks up playing his Ogre/Barb/FB . Just because you decided to metagame, knowing he's a PC, and allow him in? That makes you at fault sir, not him.

The difference is DM face time. D&D isn't a video game where a complex game engine can handle everything at once. A DM is restricted to only be able to handle one group at a time (unless the DM is an ettin, two heads are better than one...).

So, in the interest of not getting shanked by EvilChick, you strike off on your own away from all of the other players. You are now playing solitaire, except the DM has to flip over all the cards for you. While he's doing that, he's not tending to the other X players. So the other players get bored not having DM time, etc. Thats the same thing as show-boating and other forms of spotlight stealing/attention hogging. Its generally disruptive. That, above all else, is the reason I dislike when players want to split the party. I only get 3-6 hours of game time a month and I wouldn't want to spend it dinkin around on my phone because EvilChick and OP want to play cat and mouse with each other.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 05:54 PM
The difference is DM face time. D&D isn't a video game where a complex game engine can handle everything at once. A DM is restricted to only be able to handle one group at a time (unless the DM is an ettin, two heads are better than one...).

So, in the interest of not getting shanked by EvilChick, you strike off on your own away from all of the other players. You are now playing solitaire, except the DM has to flip over all the cards for you. While he's doing that, he's not tending to the other X players. So the other players get bored not having DM time, etc. Thats the same thing as show-boating and other forms of spotlight stealing/attention hogging. Its generally disruptive. That, above all else, is the reason I dislike when players want to split the party. I only get 3-6 hours of game time a month and I wouldn't want to spend it dinkin around on my phone because EvilChick and OP want to play cat and mouse with each other.

Hah! I couldn't agree with you more Keld. I think everyone on this thread agrees the true person at fault here is the DM. If PVP is allowed fine, but a player shouldn't be forced to sit out for a month just cause the DM is to inept to introduce a new character, or if it's important to his plot somehow that new characters are not introduced....then he needs to throw down the no PVP flag. If he wants to do neither, then he's going to end up trying to be an ettin as you put it. Ya know though, instead of dinking around on your phone, you could RP to solve the situation, or B. pick one, smack them around, and take leadership of the party. Because whoever is in charge of the party, should be able to step in and solve the situation quite easily.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 05:54 PM
To flip it around, imagine the OP were the PK'er instead:
(1) A PK'er joins a game, believing that PK is allowed

(2) The PK'er mentions his plans to kill another PC and a Player says "No, we don't have PKing at this table."

(3) PK'er then goes to the DM and complains. The DM says "If you try to PK I'll kick you from the table."
In this situation, would you say that the Other Player is blameworthy for informing the PK'er that the game is other than he believes? Or that the DM is blameworthy for not saying "no PK" before the PK'er joined - even if everyone aside from the PK'er believed that this was a "no PK" game?

In my analysis, the situations are indentical - the only duty owed is for the correction of a misconception as soon as it is pointed out. The minority player then has a duty to either leave the game or play it as it is presented.

Except in that example, a player is not attempting to bully another player by threatening to get him kicked out of the group for something that the player being bullied has no control over. The person who wants to PK can refrain from doing so. The person who does not want to PK and does not want to get summarily thrown out of the group because another player singled him out when there had been no inclinations of a problem or of PVP being a thing on the game from the way they acted in the game, has no option other than to buy into the game and kick another player out of the game or to leave the game himself.

So in the OP's case, a player is going to be ejected from the game no matter what if the situation is not changed. In your case, the player who would be ejected is in complete control of his own actions which are the only thing which would get him ejected.

They are not identical.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-11-11, 06:02 PM
Except in that example, a player is not attempting to bully another player by threatening to get him kicked out of the group for something that the player being bullied has no control over.
He certainly does! He can shank the PC X first, and thereby remove the only apparent threat to being kicked out of the game :smallamused:

You say this means he'd have to "buy into the game" which is exactly right. The game is about PKing and - now that he knows - the OP can choose to either play the game or not. It's not like my PK'er isn't faced with the same choice: if he plays the game the way he wants to, he gets kicked out too.

The only point I have left to make is that moralizing about "faults" in the context of games is counterproductive. A game is a voluntary group activity; if you don't like the game, you don't have to play. Getting angry at other players (or the DM) for how they run things just adds extra frustration into your life and doesn't help anyone - least at all the OP.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 06:06 PM
He certainly does! He can shank the PC X first, and thereby remove the only apparent threat to being kicked out of the game :smallamused: And thus kick another player out. Thusly it's a lose-lose situation in which one player must go. Whereas in the other situation, there's only one outcome in which a player must go and that player is in complete control of it.


You say this means he'd have to "buy into the game" which is exactly right. The game is about PKing and - now that he knows - the OP can choose to either play the game or not. It's not like my PK'er isn't faced with the same choice: if he plays the game the way he wants to, he gets kicked out too. Apparently not or it would have been made more clear and the other players would be something the OP would be worried about. You completely ignored the bit where it's a lose-lose scenario, a zero-sum game in the OP's case, but not in your example.

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 06:15 PM
{{scrubbed}}

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 06:18 PM
{{scrubbed}}

Why do I get the feeling he's the person who objects to people throwing the monopoly board when they lose?

Seriously, all I'm hearing from him is "don't do something that would impede someone else's fun when you can do something else that wouldn't impede either of your abilities to have fun."

Kassimila
2010-11-11, 06:22 PM
Why do I get the feeling he's the person who objects to people throwing the monopoly board when they lose?

Seriously, all I'm hearing from him is "don't do something that would impede someone else's fun when you can do something else that wouldn't impede either of your abilities to have fun."

I will point out Oracle_Hunters point that, NOT pvping can impede other peoples fun as well, if that's what they enjoy. The fact that he's arguing about morality applied to gameplay tells me he takes the game far too seriously, and if this persons friends really don't want to play with him anymore....well than that issue has nothing to do with the game at all.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 06:22 PM
the character and the player should be separate entities.

The real issue here is the OP's game doesn't distinguish and the DM isn't informing people to "keep it on the table".

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 06:27 PM
I will point out Oracle_Hunters point that, NOT pvping can impede other peoples fun as well, if that's what they enjoy. The fact that he's arguing about morality applied to gameplay tells me he takes the game far too seriously, and if this persons friends really don't want to play with him anymore....well than that issue has nothing to do with the game at all.

Morality applies to everything! Literally, morality applies to every activity you take part in that involves other people in any way, shape, or form.
And it's not just PvP, it's the dead character=no more playing thing.


the character and the player should be separate entities.

The real issue here is the OP's game doesn't distinguish and the DM isn't informing people to "keep it on the table".

What do you mean exactly? It seems the key problem here is the "once your character dies you're out" mentality, not the PvP itself.

Coidzor
2010-11-11, 06:29 PM
I will point out Oracle_Hunters point that, NOT pvping can impede other peoples fun as well, if that's what they enjoy. The fact that he's arguing about morality applied to gameplay tells me he takes the game far too seriously, and if this persons friends really don't want to play with him anymore....well than that issue has nothing to do with the game at all.

Then they can say so and have the game set up to support PVP explicitly rather than decide to give their fellows a hard time outside of the game by threatening their security within the group itself.

The primary issue is about the out of character interactions which I interpret as threatening bluster and the ejection from the game based upon this threat. It seems to have been very easily calculated to cause the OP to have to worry about far too many things in regards to a game that is supposed to be played for fun.

When someone is taking steps to actively impede the fun of others and their ability to leave the game behind (as evidenced by the bit where it weighed upon the OP enough to ask the board), that's wrong. As I see it, this is either what's happening, or they haven't taken enough precautions to prevent it from appearing to be the case.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 06:30 PM
I mean that far too often the "players" themselves are being called into question and this is an RPG - at no point have character motivations been stated in this thread. We don't even know why char A wants to kill char b. (if any reason at all).

Everything has been conjecture and I don't think the OP has even posted since his OP lol.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 06:33 PM
Why do I get the feeling he's the person who objects to people throwing the monopoly board when they lose?

Seriously, all I'm hearing from him is "don't do something that would impede someone else's fun when you can do something else that wouldn't impede either of your abilities to have fun."

Landing on someone's property in Monopoly and them forcing you out of the game by asking for the money due - making you sit out while your other 5 friends roll dice and move figures around in a square is - Monopoly PKing.

Although if he threw the board he would be ruining others fun (and taking a manly persona) I much rather think he would take his Monopoly piece, put it into a cigar box with some pictures of him, drape a napkin over it all, and bury it in his backyard after saying a small prayer.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 06:37 PM
Landing on someone's property in Monopoly and them forcing you out of the game by asking for the money due - making you sit out while your other 5 friends roll dice and move figures around in a square is - Monopoly PKing.

Although if he threw the board he would be ruining others fun (and taking a manly persona) I much rather think he would take his Monopoly piece, put it into a cigar box with some pictures of him, drape a napkin over it all, and bury it in his backyard after saying a small prayer.

It comes down, again, to expectations. In Monopoly, that's what I signed up for. And I presume we'll be starting a new game fairly soon. In D&D, I signed up to participate in a long campaign. If I get kicked out, I'm out a major social activity for likely several weeks, because of something I did not sign up for. I would be quite upset if my friends made a choice that would exclude me for that length of time from their social activity.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 06:41 PM
It comes down, again, to expectations. In Monopoly, that's what I signed up for. And I presume we'll be starting a new game fairly soon. In D&D, I signed up to participate in a long campaign. If I get kicked out, I'm out a major social activity for likely several weeks, because of something I did not sign up for. I would be quite upset if my friends made a choice that would exclude me for that length of time from their social activity.


He's not being kicked out.

He can choose to quit, his choice.
He can choose to kill her character.
He can choose to ignore her off the table taunting and just play his dude and ignore her OOC stuff.
He can choose to buy her some chocolate and candies and ask her to be his valentine and smooch her so her character falls in love with his in game.
He can run to the guards and call for help.
He can buy a scroll of Gate and draw her inside the circle of protection while she is sleeping and offer her up as a sacrifice for a wish from the Pit Fiend.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 06:42 PM
:smallbiggrin:

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 06:44 PM
He's not being kicked out.

He can choose to quit, his choice.
He can choose to kill her character.
He can choose to ignore her off the table taunting and just play his dude and ignore her OOC stuff.
He can choose to buy her some chocolate and candies and ask her to be his valentine and smooch her so her character falls in love with his in game.
He can run to the guards and call for help.
He can buy a scroll of Gate and draw her inside the circle of protection while she is sleeping and offer her up as a sacrifice for a wish from the Pit Fiend.

Sorry, but "get someone else kicked out before I get kicked out" isn't really an improvement. The point isn't that I can get someone else kicked out first. The point is I didn't sign up for a game where IC actions taken by another PC have a long-term negative impact on my ability to enjoy my time with my friends.

Goudaa
2010-11-11, 07:02 PM
Sorry, but "get someone else kicked out before I get kicked out" isn't really an improvement. The point isn't that I can get someone else kicked out first. The point is I didn't sign up for a game where IC actions taken by another PC have a long-term negative impact on my ability to enjoy my time with my friends.

Then quit playing...

The "friends" obviously don't care.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-11, 07:04 PM
Sorry, but "get someone else kicked out before I get kicked out" isn't really an improvement. The point isn't that I can get someone else kicked out first. The point is I didn't sign up for a game where IC actions taken by another PC have a long-term negative impact on my ability to enjoy my time with my friends.

I think what we're all questioning is how much of 'friends' they are, if they'd do this sort of thing to someone behind their back and blatantly out in the open at the same time. That's the real issue, far more than how the OP can save themselves from the impending PvP that is being conspired on them by another player and the DM.

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 07:05 PM
Then quit playing...

The "friends" obviously don't care.

I probably would. I'd probably also be pretty pissed at my friends.

Tharck
2010-11-11, 07:06 PM
Then quit playing...

The "friends" obviously don't care.

or they never were...

But in all seriousness if you quit - you might as well have killed her. Either way someone is leaving, except she chose the risk of fighting so if you kill her - she knew the risk. Or didn't which makes it all the better as you explain to her all the different things you're going to use her char sheet for. Then toss her lead fig into a hot frying pan and as it melts sing "I'd melt the world" to her. It's romantic.

Good thing Glyphstone's avatar brought some popcorn. Im fresh out and this topic is still going!

His avatar also looks like the Monopoly man, which is relevant to this topic.

Emmerask
2010-11-11, 07:13 PM
I think what we're all questioning is how much of 'friends' they are, if they'd do this sort of thing to someone behind their back and blatantly out in the open at the same time. That's the real issue, far more than how the OP can save themselves from the impending PvP that is being conspired on them by another player and the DM.


There is however the faint chance that this is all a convoluted plan made up by the dm + the girl and they act this way to not spoil the surprize (ie the railroad)^^
...yeah pretty unlikely I know :smallredface:

Anyway I would love to hear the dms or girls side of the matter but well we canīt have everything can we.

dsmiles
2010-11-11, 07:17 PM
I don't think this thread even has a point anymore.

I think I'm going to have to agree.

The Glyphstone
2010-11-11, 07:18 PM
Good thing Glyphstone's avatar brought some popcorn. Im fresh out and this topic is still going!

His avatar also looks like the Monopoly man, which is relevant to this topic.

That's cause it is the Monopoly Man. His name is Uncle Pennybags.

And the popcorn comes with delicious eldritch butter flavoring.:smallsmile:

Tharck
2010-11-11, 07:18 PM
There is however the faint chance that this is all a convoluted plan made up by the dm + the girl and they act this way to not spoil the surprize (ie the railroad)^^
...yeah pretty unlikely I know :smallredface:

Anyway I would love to hear the dms or girls side of the matter but well we canīt have everything can we.


You bring up an excellent view. It could also be aliens from outspace landed in her bedroom the night before and mindcontrolled her to say that to her dear friend and break his heart.

It could be that he took the last Dr Pepper from the fridge and the DM loves Dr Pepper.

It could be that I e-mailed the girl and DM prior to the OP posting this topic and told them to do that to get him to post this topic on here to reveal my master plan!

Emmerask
2010-11-11, 07:20 PM
You bring up an excellent view. It could also be aliens from outspace landed in her bedroom the night before and mindcontrolled her to say that to her dear friend and break his heart.

It could be that he took the last Dr Pepper from the fridge and the DM loves Dr Pepper.

It could be that I e-mailed the girl and DM prior to the OP posting this topic and told them to do that to get him to post this topic on here to reveal my master plan!

I must admit I laughed a bit :smalltongue:

though dr pepper? if it would have been the last crystal pepsi then I would agree with the dm :smallsmile:

WarKitty
2010-11-11, 07:22 PM
That's cause it is the Monopoly Man. His name is Uncle Pennybags.

And the popcorn comes with delicious eldritch butter flavoring.:smallsmile:

Does it come in caramel?

dsmiles
2010-11-11, 07:26 PM
Does it come in caramel?

Probably, but you don't want to see what's under his hat...:smalleek:

super dark33
2010-11-11, 07:30 PM
OK this thread is going nuts so its better if it will be closed

Emmerask
2010-11-11, 07:32 PM
OK this thread is going nuts so its better if it will be closed

But then we must look for other threads to post in :smalleek:

super dark33
2010-11-11, 07:40 PM
there is the random banter at friendly discussion now shoo

LibraryOgre
2010-11-11, 10:29 PM
The Mod Wonder: Locked for review.