DM issue, Unbiased opinion [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

View Full Version : DM issue, Unbiased opinion

Major

2011-06-26, 02:40 AM

I've been trying to figure out how to deal with this and I'd like neutral unbiased opinions. I've talked to a few people I know, but they are friends so not unbiased. I don't want to cause an issue by talking with other players in the game, so I turn to gitp.

Rather than just list my side which would probably (no matter how hard I tried) contain bias, I'm going to post logs (We game over Skype). I'm merely curious if I'm the only one that feels the way I do, if I'm being irrational, or if the DM is. I've got no problem with the DM in question as a player, but after this issue I'm considering just stepping out of the campaign. However, before I make a choice I wanted unbiased opinions.

Not really possible to do a TL;DR without too much bias, but I will try to at the end.

Background, this journal was found hidden in the archives by my character (Mi'kel) while I was doing the first watch while the party rested. I read the journal, made a note of it for future use, and later even made some inquires about the journal to the mayor.

The journal was mentioned in the game right before. I'll paste the journal first since it DOES sorta connect (as in I use the argument that I had no reason to mention it at the time and was looking for a good moment to add it)

Journal

(The book this is written in is hundreds of years old, dating back to the founding of the city. It was authored by a man named Gren Silvertail in the first decade of Klee's history. He was the secretary at this very City Hall 378 years ago.)

" Entry Thirteen: The King says the war is going well, but Cecilia's letters say otherwise. I'm still worried that she'll get caught, but she assures me her superiors have no idea she knows magic, and they certainly don't know about Sorky."

(From what you can gather, this is a journal kept by Gren. Cecilia is his wife, a soldier, and a sorceress. Sorky is her familiar, a bat, his full name is Sorkuldred.)

"Entry Seventeen: She says the orcs are pushing them further every day. If something doesn't change soon, then they'll reach the border, and then the King won't be able to hide the fact that we're losing. If that happens, there might be riots... At the very least recruitment will fall to a stop, and then we'll be in even worse trouble."

"Entry Twenty-five: It finally happened, they reached the border. The King hasn't left the castle for days, and things are getting insane. If nothing changes, I'll be able to se emy dear Cecilia again in a few days- the fighting has almost reached us."

"Entry Thirty-three: That's it... we've been pushed back to the capital. It's a slaughter. We outnumber them ten to one, but they have Magic on their side. Cecilia has been talking about trying to face them... about using her magic. I'm trying to convince her not to. People hate the orcs, and fear their magic. If anyone ever found out Cecilia learned from them, studied under them..."

"Entry Forty-two: It's been hell. They still won't let Cecilia help us... Sorky is dead. I can't believe them, just because she knows magic they've locked her in chains. We NEEDED magic to save us. They should make her QUEEN. She saved the kingdom single handedly, and they're going to execute her. I can't believe this... The execution is tomorrow...."

"Entry Forty-two B: The King came to speak to me. I was surprised- he understands. He knows we owe Cecilia everything. But he's such a coward! He won't do anything to save her! The people are frightened of her, and he'd rather have her killed than risk being dethroned. He's agreed to give us one last night together, before she's killed."

"Entry Forty-three: That's it... she's gone... I... I can't believe they killed her... the ungrateful slime... They... I..." (The entry cuts off abruptly. There is a much more recent entry scrawled in a similar hand beneath it, although much less shaky, and much sharper. It looks only a couple weeks old.)

"Final Entry: VENGEANCE AT LAST"

There were two plot hooks we were offered. Investigate disappearances of people which I suspected had something to do with the journal and also to go kill a group of orcs. Since the party decided to do orcs first, I decided to wait to mention the journal until we were actually investigating the disappearances. There really didn't seem an relevance.

Anyways moving on, another player has the journal. I'm confused so I asked.

(note that I removed the info on the DM out of politeness)

Logs to those that want 100% unbiased

Michael Riling: wait... He has that journal how? I thought Mi'kel was the only one who found it or did I miss something?

DM: Yeah, during one of th emoments where the party did stuff and you weren't here, I decided that I don't want you trolling and not sharing important info. So Logos knew about the book, and it ended up as shared info.

Michael Riling: ...I see... ok. So I wasn't trusted with information. Gotcha.

DM: Not that. I just believe that if I give the party important information, it should be the PARTY that knows it. This isn't a solo adventure for just Mikel.

Michael Riling: Especially if a player had to make a super high save to discover it. Sure. I also had it saved in case we needed to present it. I know and I saved it so I could tell it to people when there was a useful time... That's kinda why I had that whole conversation with the mayor

DM: You needed to make a DC 20 spot check.

Michael Riling: 25

DM: Search, sorry

Michael Riling: anyways, moving on

DM: Search check. A type of check you can take 20 on, if there's no penalty for failure. But anyways. Group game. If you're not going to work with everyone else, why are you here?

Michael Riling: I never said I wasn't. Did you miss "I know and I saved it so I could tell it to people when there was a useful time..." and "That's kinda why I had that whole conversation with the mayor." My point isn't "I keep things to mysel and don't talk to anyone, my point is I discover something and to say "I don't trust the player with that, I'll just give it to everyone" is a **** thing to do anyyyywaaayyysss moving on...

DM: I trusted you with it. When you then went and didn't share it, and it was meant to be shared, I had it shared.

Michael Riling: ... I mentioned it a lot to the mayor, talked about it a bit. I didn't know I had to run and say "Hey guys I found this story" right away. I saved it TO present it later but whatever.

DM: Well, you should have shared it by this point. You didn't, so it turns out to be a good thing I did what I did.

Michael Riling: Especially since you even admitted to making it up right there on the spot and it wasn't a vital thing at the moment. But whatever

DM: Sorry if it offends you that Logos, the guy who'd been in the archives for years reading books, had read the book you found on your first hour in there. Just because I make something up on the spot doesn't mean it isn't relevant.

Michael Riling: No, it 'offends' (used loosely as in not offend, but I find a **** thing) to tell me that the search check I made and the exploring I did wasn't trusted enough for me to give the party. I'm 'offended' because you flat out said you don't trust me with any information

DM: I'm making the whole campaign up on the spot, relevant AND irrelevant parts.

Other Player: I think his issue is more that you retconned something out of his hands.

Michael Riling: The whole point of D&D is a player/DM trust thing, if you can't trust me, why allow me in the campaign?

Other Player: Rather than just dealing with Player Action and moving on with the story, finding other methods, etc.

DM: I trusted you.

Michael Riling: Thank you *name removed*. *name* gets it.

DM: The thing is, you proved my trust misplaced.

Other Player: ...um... it's not as if he attempted to murder the mayor...

Michael Riling: You could have at least tried saying "hey its important, could you mention it" instead of instantly jump to "Well I'll retcon this as public and rob the player of being valuable and helpful to the team" I didn't know you wanted it right then and you never presented a chance for me to have a reason to mention it and "trust misplaced"? Because the party was SLEEPING WHILE I WAS ON WATCH and I didn't wake them up for it.

DM: Hey, if you want to be helpful to the team, finding info is great. Sharing info is helpful.

Michael Riling: I agree, but next time why not mention it, give me a moment to actually present it, or even ask "Hey, that information could be useful to the party"

DM: I haven't given you guys anything BUT time to do things. You've had literally nothing BUT chances.

Michael Riling: that wasn't in ic choice, I didn't think it was important YET ooc. And I didn't have a chance to present it Whatever *name* I'm leaving anyways. doesn't matter.
**Was leaving work**

DM: So I should tell you ahead of time what is and isn't important? "By the way guys, X is the answer to Y, make sure you bring it with you)

Michael Riling: Actually I thought it was important to the disappearances and had it saved in my character sheet to tell the party then. That's WHY I was asking the mayor about any living descendants

DM: It was a major bit of development about the setting.

Michael Riling: It wasn't something easily brought up. "Hey a journal said this mage died and someone got revenge" that sounds more like the disappearances than the orcs. I was going to present it after the orcs. but thats BESIDES the point
1) As a DM you work with play choices. Work around them. Don't railroad.
2) If you feel a player isn't doing something or have a problem, go to him first.
3) You flat out said you can't trust me. So why have me keep playing?
anyways, leaving. Later.

DM: Alright, I guess we'll call a stop then. : So far I think the party could use some work. Mikel seems to be a slightly less likeable Payet Best, with less to bring to the table. Ray seems lethargic and unmotivated. Logos just wants to do his own thing. Gwen is about to be in a coma for a couple weeks. Which leaves Nyc and Warren.

That is the long unbiased version to anyone with patience...

TL;DR version:
After the DM retconned some information I had found so the entire party knew he said he couldn't trust me with any information because my character didn't run and wake everyone up because he found an old book that had nothing to do with the current plot. I got a bit upset not quite because of the retcon, but because of the "Clearly I can't trust you and you violated my trust because your character didn't randomly tell the party everything."

------------
Extra: This was sent to me privately that same night.
Well, 1) Fine, next time you'll just walk headfirst into death. I figured I'd help you make better choices by having the party have mor einfo, info you chose to keep to yourself until you found a "convenient" time to share it.
2) I can't go to you about everything, because you're not supposed to KNOW what the plot is ahead of time, and I DO have a little bit of it planned.
3) I'm giving you a chance to prove to me you can take this seriously, and play a character without trolling, and work with the others so that you ALL can enjoy the campaign. I may not have much faith you can do it, but I figured I'd give you a chance.

Even more insult...Clearly the DM has no ranks in diplomacy... In regards to three, do not that his "generous chance" is pretty lame when I'm one of the most advanced players and can usually answer questions when people aren't sure and that I've played hundreds of different types of characters ranging good, to evil, to comedic, to serious, to traumatized, to neutral, to power hungry, to heroic, etc.

Anyways, in conclusion, I'm just curious if I was unreasonable in getting a bit annoyed and upset about this situation?

Zaq

2011-06-26, 02:48 AM

From what I can see, he probably shouldn't have proceeded as he did, but you're totally overreacting. I would say that he made kind of an unclassy decision, but you're taking it out of proportion and treating it like a personal attack, which I don't think it is.

In other words, lighten up and see how this plays out. I don't think he's out to get you.

Kin Silvion

2011-06-26, 03:32 AM

From what I read it sounds like you were completely justified in feeling betrayed by your DM. A DM's job is to work with the players, and even when the players make a bad or piss-poor choice, the DM has to work with that.

As a DM he seems to just railroad his plot, and although it looks like he had this planned, it definitely seemed like something that would be irrelevant to the plot at the time, and he goes and shares it just to be safe.

I say stick in it, but be weary about the DM. Maybe do some silly things, but try to win his trust back. Or just troll the hell out of the campaign.

Bhaakon

2011-06-26, 03:47 AM

Depends on what this means:

DM: Yeah, during one of th emoments where the party did stuff and you weren't here,

If he means that you missed a game session in which the info became relevant, then his actions are perfectly justifiable.

If he means that your character wasn't with the group when they found out, but you were personally in-session, then he handled it all wrong and probably should have dropped you a hint about how important the info was and how you ought to share it.

Either way, his tone was unnecessarily disrespectful and, frankly, you let it get to you a little.

Darth Stabber

2011-06-26, 05:40 AM

There were three ways for a GM to handle that situation.
1)the way yours did AKA the synonymous with donky way.
2)ignore it and let the info come out when ever it does AKA the rational way
3)make the whole party regret your decision with a rediculously difficult encounter that could have been avoided if you would have shared the info earlier AKA the stabber way.

There are probably some various 4th options, but honestly those 3 cover the main ways.
1. You may have over reacted slightly.
2. I would have reacted worse, and rage quit, and the manner in which I would have done so would mean that those individuals would likely never want to talk to me again (I have something of a short temper and a foul mouth, and when you combine the 2 it gets savage.)
3. You should probably give the GM another chance, but if he ever pulls similar shenanigans then you can most justifiably rage quit.

That's my 2cp.

The Rabbler

2011-06-26, 05:43 AM

Your DM has an interesting notion on what "trolling" means.

It seems like both you and the DM overreacted a bit and that you both thought the journal meant different things. Your DM must've meant for the journal to be public knowledge when he gave it to you, possibly as a plot hook and possibly as an answer to some question, whereas you seem to think of it as some random piece of flavor that might have come in handy at some point. I think you should go back to the DM and explain your understanding of the journal along with an apology for getting so worked up. If he doesn't appologize as well, that's him being extremely unclassy. I wouldn't hold it against him though, it seems like he expects people to pointlessly grief others on the internet.

playswithfire

2011-06-26, 08:57 AM

Mainly seeking clarification on a couple things, in an effort to better understand the situation/be as unbiased as possible.

DM: Yeah, during one of th emoments where the party did stuff and you weren't here, I decided that I don't want you trolling and not sharing important info. So Logos knew about the book, and it ended up as shared info.1. As Bhaakon said, did they learn the information during a session that you weren't there? Or did he give them the information while you (player) were present but your character was separated from the party?
If you missed a session during which the info became relevant/an event occurred that your character would have shared the info, then it was reasonable for him to share it, though I think I (were I DMing) would have NPCed your character and have him mention it to them rather than having another character do so, so that your character's discovery was credited to you, even in your absence.
2. Who's Logos? Is Logos another PC whose backstory includes working the same archive where your character found the journal or is he an NPC that the party ran into? I'm assuming the former and Logos was used to provide the information during the time that you "weren't there." Again, depending on why you weren't there, this can make some amount of sense, if the character had, in fact, spent a lot of time studying the archives and the info was necessary. Though the odds of him having read that specific book in the couple weeks since the "Vengeance at last" was added would be pretty low. Did Logos share that part of the journal, or just the earlier entries?

There were two plot hooks we were offered. Investigate disappearances of people which I suspected had something to do with the journal and also to go kill a group of orcs. Since the party decided to do orcs first, I decided to wait to mention the journal until we were actually investigating the disappearances. There really didn't seem an relevance.

DM: I trusted you with it. When you then went and didn't share it, and it was meant to be shared, I had it shared.

Michael Riling: ... I mentioned it a lot to the mayor, talked about it a bit. I didn't know I had to run and say "Hey guys I found this story" right away. I saved it TO present it later but whatever.

DM: Well, you should have shared it by this point. You didn't, so it turns out to be a good thing I did what I did.

I figured I'd help you make better choices by having the party have more info

3. Any chance you have the logs of how these plot hooks were presented? Or was it sort of spread out? I ask because it's possible he thought that you would use knowledge of the journal to guide the party towards the disappearances plot hook and was irritated when that happened (granted, the plot should be fluid enough that doing the orcs first wasn't a problem). Also, where was the rest of the party when you were discussing the journal with the mayor? Were they with you, or investigating something else?

Michael Riling: Especially if a player had to make a super high save to discover it. Sure. I also had it saved in case we needed to present it. I know and I saved it so I could tell it to people when there was a useful time... That's kinda why I had that whole conversation with the mayor

DM: You needed to make a DC 20 spot check.

Michael Riling: 25

DM: Search, sorry4. What did you search for? If you searched for a book that looked interesting and would keep you awake on guard duty, then you don't necessarily have a reason to think it relevant. If you made a search for plot hooks and found one, then he might have a somewhat more reasonable expectation of the book being shared. What did you do with the book when you finished reading? Did you put it back on the shelf, leave it out, etc? If you left it out, anyone else who stood guard duty could have read it easily. If you reshelved it, he may have interpreted that as an attempt to hide information from the party, regardless of your intent.

The PM is indeed undiplomatic, though I think everyone here's got irritated and spoken more bluntly over the internet than we would in person. While my initial reaction is that he overreacted in his wording of that PM, we do need more information to determine whether he was unreasonable in sharing the information. If circumstances made his sharing of the information reasonable, then his tone may have been a reaction to your reaction to what was, at the time, a reasonable course of action, with a dose of this (http://xkcd.com/386/) mixed in. (Not saying it was; saying it's hard to know. Trying to be, as requested, unbiased and may be slipping a bit towards trying to explain/understand his point to counteract the potential bias towards supporting your side caused by you being the one asking the question.)

Major

2011-06-26, 12:09 PM

Alright gonna try to reply to everything. Sorry if I miss anything.

@Bhaakon and playerswithfire's question 1: I missed the game after wards, but it still hasn't become fully relevant. A player mentioned it to a PC (Logos) in an attempt to convince them to help the party, which is why I'm confused as to why he said Logos knew, but they had to show it to Logos cause he didn't know... But whatever, that's that. Ooc I was gone, not sure about in character because I didn't even realized I missed a game.

So it wasn't relevant to the game at hand, but he presented it cause I didn't mention it right when I found out while the party was asleep and recovering...

@The Rabbler: That's basically what I thought. Especially since he had told me while he was typing "This might take a bit, I wasn't expecting this so I'm making something up." So I figured it was mostly fluff that would tie into one of the many plot hooks he had presented (mainly the disappearances plot)

@playswithfire
1) answered above
2) Logos is another PC (the PC of the 'other player' in the logs). You make a good point about reading the new section. As for how he presented it, I'm not sure. I couldn't find the logs for that game and it wasn't him who mentioned it in the last game. Another player character, Ray, showed the journal to Logos to convince him to join the party because Logos in character thought orcs were a waste of time and not worth it to deal with.
3) Not the logs sadly...I mean I could probably dig around and try to find them, but they are a bit old. I can sum up how the information was given to me, but I don't know how the party got it other than that Ray had the journal and showed it to Logos last game which caused me to ask how he had it. However, I can say that the journal was added afterward. We were told that there were three missions from the mayor. Investigate the archives and destroy an evil book and the creatures inside it. Kill a group of Orcs that seem smarter than normal and are preying on the town. Or investigate people disappearing. They did the archives first, where I found the journal. Then we decided to do the orcs and save the disappearances for last. When I talked to the mayor it was with the rest of the party. They were reporting back about the archive and I was reporting back because the mayor had asked me to help the group. While there I asked him about the girl in the journal and asked if she had any surviving family. I never actually mentioned the journal, fair enough. But I was trying to get more information to help the party once we started the disappearances (basically I was trying to figure out if it was just fluff and backstory or if it connected to the disappearances or if it was something completely different)
4) My character aspires to be an adventure hero and he loves books. I carry books around in my backpack and have lots of knowledge skills. I was looking for any interesting books about daring swordsman, heroic battles, etc. I found that written in the back of an old book about the history of the city. Ooc I assumed it'd be useful later. Ic I asked around because stopping someone from getting revenge seemed heroic. I made a note of it, but the game ended before I actually finished. I had assumed I put it back though after reading since it was a part of the city archives.

2-HeadedGiraffe

2011-06-26, 12:09 PM

Your DM shouldn't have just retconned the journal into Logos' possession. Especially since you were playing through the Internet, it would have been very easy to send you an IM or something and say, "Hey, you want to share that information with the party?" If you had refused to share, then he might have been justified in giving another player a chance to find it or some such, but either way, he shouldn't have taken it away from you without any in-game justification.

Players have to be allowed to make choices, even if they're choices the DM disagrees with. That being said, you did have a pretty strong reaction to it, and it looks like some strong language was exchanged. You would probably do well to apologize to the DM, calmly and rationally discuss where you coming from, and try to move on from there.

Major

2011-06-26, 12:19 PM

Quietus

2011-06-26, 12:25 PM

Perfect solution : Bake-off. Both of you make something tasty for the group. Everyone wins!

Honestly, I think he kneejerked into "I want this to be important and known", if you're presenting your DM's perspective fairly. He shouldn't have done this, but I think anyone who's been DMing for a while can remember a time they've done something with similar justification. Should he have spoken to you privately and asked what your plans for the journal were? Sure. But DMs aren't perfect, although Pelor knows we try.

You? Definitely overreacted. Again, we've all been there. The DM gives us something special, and we feel important, then the DM gives that something to someone else as well and we feel let down. It happens. As mentioned above, DMs aren't perfect. We make mistakes sometimes, although we try not to let the players know, and try not to let you see us sweat.

Trying to negotiate apologies here is just gonna be a land-mine-strewn-battlescape of potential hurt feelings and wounded pride. Thus, the perfect solution : Bake-off!

Savannah

2011-06-26, 02:07 PM

So...you get (apparently) random information, you don't mention it, and your DM says he can't trust you anymore and that you're not a group player? Totally, totally, totally inappropriate and unjustified on the DM's part. Now, I might have put it down as the DM doing and saying stuff without thinking it through (goodness knows I've regretted some decisions I've made when a player has reacted in a way I didn't anticipate, although, even under those circumstances, he should have handled it better), but the private note you got later rules that out (or else the guy really needs to learn to think before he sends something).

Zaq

2011-06-26, 02:18 PM

In case I didn't make it clear, I agree that what the GM did was not cool, and I, too, would definitely be miffed about it. He definitely should have either made it really obvious that this was something he intended to be shared immediately, or he should have introduced the group to the information in some other way (perhaps an NPC asking about it, hopefully prompting you to bring it up?) before just taking agency away from you like that.

That said, I still think you're totally overreacting and definitely need to calm down. He made a bad decision, but you're definitely making it worse.

If I tried, I could probably say "definitely" a few more times, but I don't think I need to. (Wait, I just did. Crap.)

LansXero

2011-06-26, 02:19 PM

From the facts presented I think everyone can agree that he was unpolite and that, like you said, what he did was a jerk move.

But I think you are indeed over-reacting a bit. He shouldnt have said you were "trolling" (unless you were ic using data from the journal and when asked about how you knew that just played dumb), but it was you who went all hurt and kind of passive-aggresive, bring the trust issue into the conversation. Justified, maybe, as it was a bad way to solve something he considered an issue, but if you look at it calmly and rationally you'd realize its not such a big deal.

I suggest you talk to him in person, if possible, or if you can only meet online try and ignore offense and insult and just ask to let the issue rest and keep going. You werent in the wrong, and he is trying to stick to his planned story a bit too much (you can make stuff on the spot and still be a railroader), and from the very last statement of the logs he seems unhappy with the group as a whole, so it would be better (if you want to salvage the group and the game) if you could all gather around. set aside a few minutes and discussed your expectations of the game, characters, etc.

erikun

2011-06-26, 02:50 PM

Alright, let me make sure I understand things correctly.

While the party is asleep, you search around and find a journal. You don't think it's important, and so don't mention it to anyone. Next session, the DM runs your character. He mentions the journal and hands it over to another character. Once you get back, you notice the journal gone and get upset that the DM had your character mention the journal.

My first observation is that you highly overreacted to the situation. The DM didn't reveal plot-relevant secrets, or your character's desire to eat babies, or the plot to assassinate one of the other characters. The DM showed the party a journal. A journal, you yourself admitted, which you found irrelevant at the time of finding. Furthermore, you gave control of your character over to the DM by not showing up, under the assumption that he would roleplay your character appropriately. Yes, I know we can't be there for all sessions, and that other people tend not to roleplay our characters the way we'd like. But is this the kind of character-destroying action that you have made it out to be?

As for the DM, he should not be using absent players as plot hooks. If he's running a character, he should be running it as the character would act, not handing out personal secrets of a character devoted to secrecy. It also feels like gets a bit railroady at times. I would recommend him to look at the Three Clue Rule (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/three-clue-rule.html) to avoid future mishaps such as this - limiting the only evidence to a single clue means it could be missed or misinterpreted easily. (It was clearly misinterpreted in this case.) I will also point out that players who don't immediately report everything they find to the party aren't being "trolls" or "liars" or "non-team players". They're playing characters, with their own personalities.

In fact, I think that's important enough for big, red letters.

PLAYERS WHO DO NOT DO WHAT YOU WANT ARE NOT "TROLLS" OR "NON-TEAM PLAYERS". THEY ARE PLAYING THEIR CHARACTERS. That's the point of the player - to play their character, not to provide plot exposition. If you want to ensure that the party is aware of a particular point of information, have an NPC deliver the information. THAT IS THE POINT OF NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS. TO DELIVER INFORMATION. DO NOT RAILROAD YOUR PLAYERS INTO DOING THE NPC'S JOB.

Go ahead and invite your DM to read the thread. I think that's important enough for him to take note.

Taelas

2011-06-26, 02:55 PM

Seeing as you skipped a session, I'm not really sure how you can complain about anything the GM chose to do with him in the meantime. You are, however temporarily, an NPC, and the GM is not omniscient. If he thought there was an appropriate moment and decided that your character chose then to share the information (which is honestly what it sounds like to me), there's no harm done, in my opinion.

His behavior towards you is somewhat different, and there is no excuse for that. Not sharing information found in the campaign can be very irritating for the GM, though, which probably influenced it. Still, no excuse for it.

GoodbyeSoberDay

2011-06-26, 03:18 PM

In a campaign I recently played we had a player who would constantly hide crucial information - information that would be relevant to saving that character's life! Crazy, I know. The DM never, ever retconned that character's decisions. We eventually talked to the player about playing more realistically (and saving us hours of real life time, since some of the information this character hid was in the form of magical keys), but we never railroaded him or insulted him.

I'd say that if the GM had just retconned it and said something like "I intended that journal to be group knowledge" without all the insults and the trust bullcrap, it'd be a mistake, but a forgivable one. Hypothetical DM pulled a retcon railroad because something didn't go his way, sure, but at least he didn't resort to presumptuous personal attacks. Your DM crossed the line out of game. Hell, he even started insulting other players' characters apropos of nothing at the end of your log. I'll play in a railroader's game begrudgingly, but I most definitely won't play in a jerk's game.

Jornophelanthas

2011-06-26, 06:51 PM

(If my post is to long to read, just read the bold lines.)

---

In my opinion, the DM jumped to conclusions.

Specifically, he thought your choice not to share the information was a selfish act, rather than a roleplaying decision. As a result, he blames you for being selfish.

In turn, you feel offended by this accusation, because from your point of view, his conclusion (i.e. that you are a selfish player) is patently wrong, and his blame is misplaced.

What needs to be done here, is convince the DM that you are not a selfish player. This may be hard, because he believes that your withholding the journal (and then missing a session) is all the proof he needs.

Perhaps the best thing you can do is to talk to "Other Player", who also commented in the log you quoted, and have this person talk to the DM on your behalf. If I read your OP correctly, this person is the one who received the journal in your absence, and who also believes that the DM is jumping to conclusions. Perhaps the DM is willing to accept this thing as a misunderstanding rather than as a betrayal from a (more) neutral person.

The goal is not to win the argument, but to clear the air, so that the DM remains willing to DM for you and you remain willing to play in his game. Towards this goal, you may likely need to apologize for overreacting and turning this situation into an argument, preferably in person.

However, while you can't insist on an apology from him, you do not need to put up with his condescending tone, such as in the private message afterwards. If the DM keeps acting in this way towards you, he is apparently unwilling to DM for you any longer, and you should leave the game for everyone's sake, including your own. (After all, why stay around someone who holds an unreasonable grudge against you if you can choose not to?)

Still, if both you and the DM can decide to leave this situation behind you without any hard feelings, things should be fine. (And if your character ever receives any solo information again, make a point of informing him privately at what time and under what conditions you are intending to share it with the rest of the party, just to head off future problems.)

CommodoreCrunch

2011-06-26, 08:31 PM

Based on what you've posted, I feel that the DM made a bad move. He should have reacted to his plans being messed up by either creating an alternate in-game source of this information (or similar, related information) like an NPC without resorting to (basically) deus ex machina by directly intervening as the DM -OR- allowing the information to go unspoken and letting the party deal with the consequences. If it derailed his plot, too bad, its his job to find a solution from that point.

However, I believe you overreacted a slight bit as well. You were perfectly reasonable to be insulted by his lack of trust, but you seemed more concerned with making him see how wrong he was than in anything else. I get that he wasn't seeing your point, but the best option at that point would have been to withdraw while tempers were heated and try to approach him with your complaint later.

I've made some railroading mistakes as a DM before, so I can kinda see where he's coming from. It sucks when things don't go as planned, you get RPed into a corner and you have to work on the spot to make the plot work. But it's important to keep in mind that you, as a DM, are supposed to adapt to the choices of the players. It is your job to allow them their free will (not all the time, that would be silly, but most of the time) because the story is as much theirs as it is yours. Try to point this out to him. Not sure if it will help, but if he doesn't change his style, you have every right to ditch his campaign, preferably when its least convenient to his plans.

Hiro Protagonest

2011-06-26, 08:47 PM

I've made some railroading mistakes as a DM before, so I can kinda see where he's coming from. It sucks when things don't go as planned, you get RPed into a corner and you have to work on the spot to make the plot work. But it's important to keep in mind that you, as a DM, are supposed to adapt to the choices of the players. It is your job to allow them their free will (not all the time, that would be silly, but most of the time) because the story is as much theirs as it is yours. Try to point this out to him. Not sure if it will help, but if he doesn't change his style, you have every right to ditch his campaign, preferably when its least convenient to his plans.

But remember, the DM was making this all up on the fly, so he has no justification for railroading.

CommodoreCrunch

2011-06-26, 09:38 PM

But remember, the DM was making this all up on the fly, so he has no justification for railroading. Well, he mentioned having some things planned, so maybe he did, maybe not. Point is, mistakes can be made, and maybe he can be brought to see the light. Seems kinda unlikely based on his attitude, but its worth a shot.

LansXero

2011-06-27, 07:06 AM

But remember, the DM was making this all up on the fly, so he has no justification for railroading.

Makes no difference; railroading is making it so players choice gets overriden. If he decides the stuff he made up MUST. BE. KNOWN. NO. OTHER. WAY. IS. POSSIBLE, specially in the face of a player choosing IC to keep it private, then that is railroading.

But I do think he misunderstood the player's intentions. Or at least I hope so. His being rude towards the OP is a much bigger issue imho.

Major

2011-06-27, 02:32 PM

BlueInc

2011-06-27, 02:50 PM

In a campaign I recently played we had a player who would constantly hide crucial information - information that would be relevant to saving that character's life! Crazy, I know. The DM never, ever retconned that character's decisions. We eventually talked to the player about playing more realistically (and saving us hours of real life time, since some of the information this character hid was in the form of magical keys), but we never railroaded him or insulted him.

This.

In most of the games I've played and most of the games I've DM'ed, the players have a lot of control about what information they share with each other in character and OoC.

In the most recent campaign I DM'ed, a player was possessed and hid the information from the party until it became a serious problem (and an adventure hook).

In the campaign I'm playing in, there's a lawful evil sorcerer who sneaks off from the party to set people on fire and then lies about it. All of his actions have logical consequences, and if he fails his bluff and diplomacy checks, sheep goes down, but he's completely free to not give a full report of his actions to the party.

McSmack

2011-06-27, 03:37 PM

Yeah I think the GM was out of line retconning that someone else found it. Personally I think the DM was just being pissy because he wanted you to share the information and you didn't. He obviously thought it was important and relavent to the plot at hand.

You did not. Your character's actions were completely justified.

His folly was in assuming that by keeping the information to yourself you were not being a team player, and then treating you poorly based on that assumption. There are several courses of action he could have taken that would have been better than what he did.

He was wrong to imply that you couldn't be trusted or that you weren't a team player, even after you gave a perfectly legitimate justification of your character's actions. I can understand how this would make you upset.

That said, I do think you overreacted a bit. But from the looks of it you were willing to move past it.

I say throw the ball into his court. Man up and apologize for getting angry, explain why you were irritated and what mistakes you think were made. Tell him you're willing to keep playing but in the future you'd like him to come to you with situations like that instead of assuming you were doing it for selfish reasons.

Major

2011-06-27, 04:40 PM

Everything has been worked out mostly.

So yeah, I DO trust you as a player. For a while there I didn't, because of how you worded your objection it sounded like you were trying to keep the others in the dark as a way of gaining some power over them or something. NOW I get that you simply hadn't had a chance to share it, but then it just seemed like you were upset because you couldn't keep them in the dark, and that they found out anyways.

We had a long talk and while it wasn't the best of outcomes, it all worked out basically. We both acknowledged misunderstanding the other and being wrong and sorry and such.

shadow_archmagi

2011-06-27, 05:24 PM

Your DM is being dumb. There was no reason for you to share the contents of a random diary you found.

The Rabbler

2011-06-27, 05:32 PM

Everything has been worked out mostly.

We had a long talk and while it wasn't the best of outcomes, it all worked out basically. We both acknowledged misunderstanding the other and being wrong and sorry and such.

even if it wasn't that solid of a making-up, I'm glad you and your DM worked things out.

Thurbane

2011-06-27, 09:30 PM

Ditto - glad to hear things have been resolved (somewhat).

FWIW, even though this is not what you did, unless the DM or group state very clearly up front that characters are not to keep information from each other, there is nothing inherently wrong about keeping a piece of info you doiscovered to yourself (in character). Of course, things like alignment come into play, but I have been in plenty of games where it is the norm that a character may freely chose not to share info with the group if he was the only one who discovered it. There will obviously be consequences down the road if it turns out that the info was important to the group as a whole.

It seems like the DM in the examples above has a sort of blanket expectation that all characters must share any info they discover wth the whole group immediately, if it's what he deems remotely "essential info to the plot". Unless the group is all Lawful Good types, or Exalted, I find that a sweeping expectation like this is a bit of poor form from the DM, unless it was explicitly stated up front.

...but as I said, I am aware that this is not what the OP was doing.

2-HeadedGiraffe

2011-06-30, 01:13 AM

It occurs to me after the fact that it's not the best DM strategy to put information you consider important in a journal that may or may not be found. If the information is important enough that you want to make sure everyone hears it and hears it right away, have it presented by an NPC or have it come up some other way. Don't put it in a journal that the party could presumably have missed entirely if no one had made a good enough search check. If you're going to put it somewhere that it will come into one player's possession, allow that player to decide when/how he presents it.

Honest Tiefling

2011-06-30, 01:58 AM

Erm...Am I inferring too much, or did the PC not mention information that would have sidetracked from what the others were doing? I understand that this is possibly beating a dead horse, as there is the good news that you and the DM came to an understanding. I just wanted to ask if I was wrong with that assumption.

Also...Consider asking the other players how they feel. After all, they would be the supposed wronged party, and a bit of talking might get the gang to work together better in a way that is easier for the DM to handle.