More Trouble With DM & Players

[Darth Grall]

Okay, so I came here to vent before and I'm here yet again to do the same.

This time he... Railroaded me pretty hard and I'm infuriated by both the parties actions(Save for one) and the DM putting us in this situation.

To start, I'm a level 8 LG Monk. I suspected that my character would die soon, since the last time I rolled a "1" I ended up helpless and I was going to see a powerful wizard with damning evidence that I was obligated to not tell anyone else about. Thus I bought a scroll of Reincarnation for our new druid to use on me in the event of my death. Turns out the info wasn't as damning as I thought, so we talked things out. So, I still had the spare scroll.

So fast forward to the winter solstice; we hear that a grove of Druids was withering, we go to check it out... And a long rumored/foreshadowed ancient/epic druid/wizard/whatever has returned and the 2 dozen druids in the grove apparently have joined him and are not only on his side but just finishing up with a ritual to super charge him.

The big bad, threats us and offers us a chance to worship him or to leave his lands(which he plans to retake). I basically say, jog on, I proceed to charge/Jump at him(get stopped by a wall of force or something) so I start beating through the wall of druids to get to him.

At this point most of my allies abandon me. My allies(a barabarian and a ranger) swear allegiance and chicken out since they "Don't want their characters to die", another 2(an NPC ranger played by a player till his real character returns and a cleric) don't do anything at all, and the druid actually switches sides and stands with the other druids saying this is the natural order/whatever. The only one who actually stands by me is the CG Drow Fighter/Rogue who sneaks behind them to flank.

I decided to continue fighting, saying **** them, since even if this was a losing situation my character and even my revival was comprimised he wouldn't run away. So I beat up a few druids, doing non-lethal since I can, when 15 wizards come out of the woodwork too and the BBEG just stands there mocking me. At this point the DM even tells me and all the players if we continue to fight we'd all die, no combat even. At this point, not wanting to cause the deaths of all the other PCs, I decided to retreat, vowing to come back and kick his evil butt.

Now, I'm fine with "losing" situations, they're refreshing occasionally, but I'm down right furious at the whole situation.

As it stands, 3/4s of the party was cowards/traitors, a party member just stole a scroll from me with their betrayal, and I feel I didn't even have the option of going out in a blaze of glory. Like I said, I'd even been fine with losing/retreating as I had a plan for the event of my death. Even if that didn't work, I'd been fine with a new PC. I just feel I was on rails in this situation, no chance to stop the ritual, no chance of success however slim, no out other than the DM's premade options.

I mean, I also get from the DM's point of view he has a story & he wants to tell it. It would be potentially anti-climactic for us to beat the NPC. He'd been laying the ground work for him for a while. However not even getting the chance to lose, hurts though. We had a chance to potentially diminish the number of his followers if nothing else. And yeah we probably would have lost, but defeat doesn't always have to equate death too. Even if we somehow won, he could escape through any sorta divine/arcane magic. So his story could have been preserved without this whole situation.

However I also feel it's a bit irresponsible for the DM to throw us in a scenario where the only chance of survival is running. I'm not saying that every enemy should fit into a consistent CR vs APL formula, but literally even stripping away the chance for combat, saying that you'd automatically all die if you stay and fight seems a poor decision.

All around, the lack of agency is infuriating, the scenario on the whole bugs me, and I'm ticked at the DM & my fellow players actions(Drow aside). Am I wrong to be upset in this situation?

[Laserlight]

Okay, so I came here to vent before and I'm here yet again to do the same.

This time he... Railroaded me pretty hard and I'm infuriated by both the parties actions(Save for one) and the DM putting us in this situation.

All around, the lack of agency is infuriating, the scenario on the whole bugs me, and I'm ticked at the DM & my fellow players actions(Drow aside). Am I wrong to be upset in this situation?


Yes. When there's a sign saying PLOT in fiery letters twenty feet tall, why would you expect everyone to ignore it?

[Sith_Happens]

At this point the DM even tells me and all the players if we continue to fight we'd all die, no combat even. At this point, not wanting to cause the deaths of all the other PCs, I decided to retreat, vowing to come back and kick his evil butt.

You see, the correct decision in this situation was to trigger the TPK.:smallwink:

[Gavinfoxx]

Did you tell the GM that you wanted the character to die, even if the others don't?

[Darth Grall]

Yes. When there's a sign saying PLOT in fiery letters twenty feet tall, why would you expect everyone to ignore it?But IMO that feels like such a BS reason not to fight. Like, I mean on paper we shouldn't know his "power level" without a detect of some kind. Instead we should have our own motivations and we all had a motivation to fight him. The Barbarian, for example, had never ran from a fight before this and this BBEG had influenced his downfall in his homeland but ran(without even fighting) because he felt that he was too powerful to challenge.

Plus it feels anti-climactic to have 2 years of build up to preparing for this fight only to... Give up and run away. I don't care how big the "plot" sign is, it's really dumb :/

You see, the correct decision in this situation was to trigger the TPK.:smallwink:
Lolz, I would have but aside from this and another weird incident I really like this game so... I didn't want to kill everyone. Also, didn't want to ruin the game for everyone else either.

Did you tell the GM that you wanted the character to die, even if the others don't?
Yeah, hence the "contingency" reincarnation, but he told me that he'd kill the whole party(or at least heavily implied it). And aside from triggering the TPK, which would ruin the game for everyone else as I said, I was left with the option I went with.

[Slipperychicken]

Correct answer: "My character doesn't know that for sure. Noble Sacrifice time. If these losers want to run away from their responsibility, good for them. But my character isn't a coward. He'll fight the impossible odds, he'll do what no one else has the balls to. He'll be the hero."


Also, your DM sucks. He should at least have given you the hopeless fight against the Wizard. Go down like heroes. I just can't take it when the DM doesn't even let you fight the fight, even if the conclusion seems forgone. You should find a better DM.

[animewatcha]

Okay, where does this DM usually start things of? Tavern? There a way for level 1 versatile caster sorceror to fell drain sonic snap ( or something similar ) to encompass whole tavern at once? Wipe out the whole party at once and 'railroad' the campaign?

[Trellan]

Honestly, I do think it's a little unfair of you to be so upset, especially with the other players. From the situation you described, it would be very obvious in-character that you have relatively no chance of winning. A couple dozen druids and a well-known and feared evil that has just been super-charged? Not only that, he gave you the explicit option of leaving, which means you could easily regroup, form a resistance, and take him on when the terms are better for you. LG doesn't mean you have to throw your life away as soon as you see evil. If I was one of your fellow party members, I wouldn't follow the suicide charge, either. I think it was a bit headstrong, and is a good lesson that sometimes you do need to make a strategic retreat and come back again. Real life is full of examples where people act entirely out of character in interests of self-preservation, and more than a few where those same people come back for triumphant returns. Stories too.

As for your DM, yeah, it's pretty lame that he said "you insta-die if you fight", but really all he was doing was cutting down on combat time. Looking at it from his perspective, he put you up against an insane force, gave you the option to retreat, 3/4 of the players took that option, and you insisted on fighting. As a DM, I would probably rule something similar to him (actually, I would more likely cover their retreat and return to your fight at a later date) just because forcing a fight would have eaten up a huge chunk of time (combat with dozens of druids, 15 wizards, and a BBEG? Yeah, that's gonna take insanely long even to get through the one round you would probably last).

Obviously I wasn't there, and there might be additional things I don't know about, but it seems like you were being a bit too stubborn. There's actually a great article that Rich wrote in the "Gaming" section of this site which talks about almost this exact thing. Just because your character has a motivation to do one thing, that does not mean they don't have motivation to do another. In fact, the most interesting stories can come from characters acting, by choice or by force, completely out of character.

In short: I feel like you might be taking a bit too much offense to this, even though it was a bit mishandled by the DM. If it really bothers you that much, though, talk to him.

[nedz]

You see, the correct decision in this situation was to trigger the TPK.:smallwink:

I was half tempted to say this too, but really as a means of calling the DM's bluff.
A more important question is How is your character going to work with the rest of the party ever again ? There has been a complete break down of trust, the party ought to be finished frankly. So: game over — at least as far as your current character is concerned.

[Eric Tolle]

Repeat this mantra: "No gaming is better than bad gaming". Then quit, because there's an obvious conflict between your play style and the GM's railroaded plot.

[mirror]

Tbh you should be happy the DM didn't just kill you(that's what I would do), instead he gave you a good chance to retreat and save your char.

As for the railroading, well, as someone else said, if your playstyle differs from his DMing then it can get frustrating for you.

[PlusSixPelican]

Oh, the DM probably shouldn't be setting up a fight you *can't* win. One that's a crazy fight? Sure. Throwing a LG Monk at evil and yanking all your options besides RUN AWAAAAAY? Mean.

That's my two cents, anyways.

[Larkas]

*[Monk's Name] has become severely disappointed at his colleagues, and thinks that his goals of self- and world-improvement are not being furthered by his association with them. Hence, he decided to abandon this party and search the world for the answers he is looking for, and for a much needed meditation about his goals."

Retire the character, and, if you want to keep playing, make some sort of very unreliable Sorcerer, one that is in adventuring for riches and power alone, and not for making friends.

And, if you can, turn your monk into a super-optimized LE beast bent on destroying the world, to end the cycle of reincarnation and achieve real "peace". Preferably as an NPC you can control in the background. Who's the BBEG now?

At least, that's what I'd try to do. YMMV, but that's not a game I'd like to play an honorable character in. I'd seriously make your DM regret his railroading decisions. :smallbiggrin:

[Darth Grall]

OKay, calmed down some but still not super happy.

Honestly, I do think it's a little unfair of you to be so upset, especially with the other players. From the situation you described, it would be very obvious in-character that you have relatively no chance of winning. A couple dozen druids and a well-known and feared evil that has just been super-charged? Not only that, he gave you the explicit option of leaving, which means you could easily regroup, form a resistance, and take him on when the terms are better for you. LG doesn't mean you have to throw your life away as soon as you see evil. If I was one of your fellow party members, I wouldn't follow the suicide charge, either. I think it was a bit headstrong, and is a good lesson that sometimes you do need to make a strategic retreat and come back again. Real life is full of examples where people act entirely out of character in interests of self-preservation, and more than a few where those same people come back for triumphant returns. Stories too.But there were 6 of us at level 8(the CG drow, the CG cleric, the CG barbarian, the druid, the 2 NG rangers, and myself), if we'd all fought we could have done SOMETHING. Sure we could have taken some loses that could have forced a retreat, I expected that possibility and accepted my own. But I'm not convinced their motivations for not attacking were wholely based IC. Seems to me the players being wimps.

As for LG not having to do try SOMETHING in that situation, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" . It'd been one thing if the cleric detected evil and SAID we can't take him in a million years. As it is, this is a freshly revived evil entity. Perhaps it's weak after the ritual, perhaps we have a chance still. But instead not only did they not join my attack, they stood aside or even JOINED them. That, is unacceptable imo.

I was half tempted to say this too, but really as a means of calling the DM's bluff.
A more important question is How is your character going to work with the rest of the party ever again ? There has been a complete break down of trust, the party ought to be finished frankly. So: game over — at least as far as your current character is concerned.

*[Monk's Name] has become severely disappointed at his colleagues, and thinks that his goals of self- and world-improvement are not being furthered by his association with them. Hence, he decided to abandon this party and search the world for the answers he is looking for, and for a much needed meditation about his goals."

Retire the character, and, if you want to keep playing, make some sort of very unreliable Sorcerer, one that is in adventuring for riches and power alone, and not for making friends.No, I think I'm going to keep playing. I'm going to distance myself from the Barbarian others whom I've lost complete respect for. If the traitorous druid comes back to our castle, I'm knocking him unconcious and throwing him out of our castle on his ass.

Tbh you should be happy the DM didn't just kill you(that's what I would do), instead he gave you a good chance to retreat and save your char.
But I would have been okay with death. That would have been an acceptable outcome for me & an acceptable reason for my allies to just roll over and give up, especially if I was disinigrated or something. I think I'm partially angry he DIDN'T kill me, and instead forced me to just walk away from the evil of the encounter.

[Slipperychicken]

But I would have been okay with death.

Then embrace it.

[jindra34]

I'm honestly not sure your representing this fairly. Was there any behind the scenes note-taking by the DM? And fights that you can't win without miraculous dice rolls are fine as long as they aren't the main stay and at some point before it gets deadly it is obvious. The DM saying you'll die without a fight, that crosses the line. You probably should sit down and have a long talk with EVERYONE before the campaign continues, if only to get everyone's feelings out in the open.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The scenario? Reasonable. Your character's actions? Totally reasonable, and probably should have been expected. The rest of your party... well, I don't know their alignments, but that all seems OK too.

The DM probably shouldn't have said "stop fighting or EVERYONE dies," though. Saying "OK, you heroic sacrifice, and I'm skipping combat because you're the only one fighting" would be better. Roll a d4 or two to see how many guys you take down before they get you, narrate it so that you go out like a bad***, and move on.

[Seer_of_Heart]

Here is my perspective on this

1. Most importantly, what gives you reason to assume that this person is evil. Unless your cleric specifically cast detect evil there are no grounds on which you can assume that this wizard is evil.

2. 3/4 of the party did not betray you, as a logical conclusion the druid probably would go with the other druids in my opinion, not doing that unless there were very good circumstances would be bad roleplaying. Two members did not do anything which is not betraying you, in fact the only ones who I say "betrayed" you are the barbarian and ranger.

3. You are willing to work with the barbarian who betrayed you on shaky grounds, but not with the druid who had good reason to join them. This sounds like you have other things that you aren't revealing to us.

4. Based on your description there was absolutely no way for you do do anything to them except if you were extremely lucky kill one of them. You were a level 8 party and even if all of you fought the 15 wizards and the druids were likely higher level than you. The main wizard was epic or probably level 20 based on your description that's enough to singlehandedly kill all of you within 1 round/a few rounds based on how optimized you were.

5. It seems you were expecting your party to automatically side with you instead of making a good in character choice, you were the one who I would question the most on his actions.

[warbringer]

"OK, you heroic sacrifice, and I'm skipping combat because you're the only one fighting" would be better. Roll a d4 or two to see how many guys you take down before they get you, narrate it so that you go out like a bad***, and move on.

this.

Judging from what I've seen you post so far, you probably would have been perfectly happy with this.

If I were you, and if you really ARE enjoying the campaign, I would make sure you talk to your DM and make sure he understands the above. Then proceed with your in character alienation of your PC with that of the other characters, followed by a voluntary exile of your character, stating he is going on a quest to defeat the BBEG.

Now you can roll a new character, roleplay your way in and keep the campaign moving. You'll send a sound message to your DM that too much railroading is a big no, but also make it clear you are enjoying the story he's set up for you.

[Da'Shain]

The DM handled it rather poorly ... but as the consensus in this thread seems to be, the situation itself was fairly common, as was your party's reaction.

It's a relatively common thing to give your players a preview of their final boss, so to speak, long before they actually fight it for real, just to show them what they have to face and why they have to face it. This usually translates into a fight that you will lose if you press. Imagine if, after watching Obi-wan Kenobi get killed, Luke Skywalker had run towards Darth Vader guns blazing because he thinks this evil has to be fought now? It would have been noble, but it also would have been utter suicide, and the Rebellion likely would have lost. Your character's reaction might have been exactly what he'd do in that situation, but it's not required by the LG alignment ("Good, not dumb" is the phrase I'd use here). When an explicitly ancient magical evil shows up, you have to realistically assess your own capabilities and ask yourself whether fighting will actually accomplish anything.

Your fellow players all seem to have done so, and realized that fighting was pointless. It may possibly have been that they didn't want their characters to die ... or it could have been that the characters THEMSELVES didn't want to die, especially for no reason. Again, good, not dumb (assuming most are Good). They might swear allegiance only to try and fight from the inside, or they may have followed you in retreating to form a resistance if you rallied them. Or they might simply not be Good characters, in which case, sometimes splits like that will happen.

I am curious, though, as to why the heck the DM thought he needed to port in a wizard kill squad. If this guy was actually some ancient epic spellcaster, powered and supported by 24 druid followers ... why on earth would he need help? Heck, a few single spells by even a near-epic character could probably have killed your whole 8th level party in one or two hits, never mind the death by a thousand cuts that even 24 first level druids might be able to inflict.

[prufock]

At this point the DM even tells me and all the players if we continue to fight we'd all die, no combat even.

Red flag. This is absolute bull crap on the part of any DM. He is not prescient and has no idea what tactics you will use or how the dice will fall. It's possible, but not likely, that you will roll the maximum or near maximum result on all your dice rolls and the enemies will roll minimum or near minimum on all of theirs.

Saying that you don't get even the chance to [i]make[\i] those rolls and decisions is a DM power trip jerk move. It's the DM arrogantly saying that his story is more important than your story. The DM should be a facilitator.

[demigodus]

So, let me see if I understand this completely

You are up against 2 dozen NPC druids + an equal level PC druid, as a monk. By yourself. And for some reason you are a big enough threat that they need 15 wizards for backup.

When your DM throws 2 dozen enemies at you, and they are so weak, that 1 person of an 8 member party is kicking their ass, that doesn't scream "the plot demands we run". That screams "the plot demands we be badasses and slaughter evil". The DM throws 15 more wizards at the fight? The rest of your party still had been presented with evidence that if you all fought together you would have won.

Then, after the rest of your party decides to not fight, the DM declares that if you, abandoned by your party, fight alone, he is going to pull off a TPK? WTF. Honestly, you would not have been causing the TPK. The DM would have been throwing the TPK, because 1 out of 8 of you were suicidal. At that point, in your shoes, I would have just triggered the TPK. And then proceeded to ask the DM why he decided to murder the 7 innocent party members for no reason what so ever.

[PlusSixPelican]

I hope this gets better, because that sounds...kinda sad. That might not have been the kind of story you signed up for, and depending on time investment...OWW.

[Medic!]

I'm not really gonna comment on the whole situation/rant, but if it was me in that specific situation, I'd have a chat with the DM and players, letting them know that they're all giant girly-girls for running without giving it the old college try.

Anecdote:
In a home-table gestalt game one time we had a paladin and pretty much everyone in the party flee from a hallway containing several vampires in a desecrated church. My hellbred scout // warlock was all about getting in the middle of some blood-suckers, but the rest of the party ran like their lives depended on it the entire 30 ft to get out of the church through the wide open double doors....into the noon-day sun. :smalleek:

After said chat with the DM/Players, I'd ask if anyone had a problem with ret-conning the scenario so that my character goes out in a (full-on dice til you die) blaze of glory, provoking the party to flee, then reincarnate him. Then I'd ask the DM for the Saint template for the heroic sacrifice...because the Saint template is baller as hell on a monk, and with the BBEG getting a power-up, the monk getting a power-up could be a ray of hope IC.

Also then hopefully everyone could be happy and the game would go on and be fun! :smallbiggrin:

[NinjaInTheRye]

OKay, calmed down some but still not super happy.
But there were 6 of us at level 8(the CG drow, the CG cleric, the CG barbarian, the druid, the 2 NG rangers, and myself), if we'd all fought we could have done SOMETHING. Sure we could have taken some loses that could have forced a retreat, I expected that possibility and accepted my own. But I'm not convinced their motivations for not attacking were wholely based IC. Seems to me the players being wimps.

As for LG not having to do try SOMETHING in that situation, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" . It'd been one thing if the cleric detected evil and SAID we can't take him in a million years. As it is, this is a freshly revived evil entity. Perhaps it's weak after the ritual, perhaps we have a chance still. But instead not only did they not join my attack, they stood aside or even JOINED them. That, is unacceptable imo.

No, I think I'm going to keep playing. I'm going to distance myself from the Barbarian others whom I've lost complete respect for. If the traitorous druid comes back to our castle, I'm knocking him unconcious and throwing him out of our castle on his ass.

Are you sure that by actually living through the encounter your party hadn't rather smartly positioned themselves to gather allies and resources to mount an offensive that actually had a chance at success? That the members who joined their ranks were now positioned to spy on the enemy and gather intel?

If you get yourself killed making a headlong charge against an insurmountable force, your character basically is ending up doing absolutely nothing to prevent the triumph of evil. Worse yet by initiating violence he's putting his allies at risk as well.

[juicycaboose]

1. Most importantly, what gives you reason to assume that this person is evil. Unless your cleric specifically cast detect evil there are no grounds on which you can assume that this wizard is evil.


You don't need to Detect Evil to know that what something somebody is doing is wrong.

[TheifofZ]

As both a GM and a player, I'm familiar with "hopeless" situations.
In those types of scenarios, I like it to be big, flashy, and of course I'm not going to say no if someone wants to throw down anyway.
Depending on the exact plot, -if- I were to GM that scenario, I'd EITHER:
1- let you go in, put the whammy on you to lock you down and force you to bear witness to whatever evil is being done, and then send you and your "associates" on your way, or
2- Let you die. Blaze of glory and all. It's in character, it makes sense, and it lets the GM show off alittle of what his/her shiny new toy can do to anyone who tries to stop him.
Depending on the other party members, and the villain's personality, of course.

As a player, I do understand the desire to keep your character alive through thick and thin, especially if it's been a couple years of game time, and if they have motivation to join the winning team, then so be it.
On the other hand, sometimes you just have to go for it. Even if it's a known, and inevitable defeat, the GM should be prepared for something like this, and have a Fission Mailed (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FissionMailed) waiting in the wings.

So while I agree that you are being alittle unfair to the other players, I do think that the GM handled that entire scenario badly, and might need to work on going rail-less. No GM should ever need to say "If you don't do what I want, everybody dies". Ever. :smallmad:

Finally, sitting down with the GM apart from the session and trying to work out what went wrong and why you didn't like how it went is an important thing to do when playing D&D and something like this happens.
If you don't discuss it, that resentment might linger, or the GM might do something similar, and as someone else already mentioned, no game time is better than bad game time. The GM has the unwritten responsibility to make sure that everyone is enjoying the game to the best of his ability, after all, and if he/she can't, then it's time to find someone else to take the reings.

[Delwugor]

There is no problem with the GM throwing a no-win situation into the game. In fact if used rarely and correctly it can add good motivation to the party. I've done this twice and they have worked out well, the difference is that I let the party know it was a no-win situation.

The GM should not have threatened a TPK because of one player's actions. It sounds like he became frustrated with your character's continuation and handled it poorly. But all GMs make mistakes and players sometimes just need to roll with it. One mistake is something to be corrected, a pattern of mistakes is a sign of bad GMing.
A minute or two of him narrating your character's heroic death would have wrapped up the scene easily and not bored the other players.

The other players where absolutely correct in running away. They have more knowledge than before and may better meet the challenge later on in the game.

Your rant against the other players comes across as nothing more than "they didn't do as I wanted them to". This attitude will just lead to problems for the entire group and put you in a difficulty situation.
Then you continue with planning on how your character will punish the rest of the group for not doing as expected. I would recommend you not to follow that up because you will end up causing real problems and making the proverbial mountain.

FWIW, either retire your character for a new one or better have your character realize he made a mistake.
"I can't believe how stubborn I became. Sorry just lost my head in the justified anger I had. So let's figure out how we can beat this BBEG because I'm more determined than ever."
To me this turns it into a role playing situation and continues the game with even higher character motivation.

[Phaederkiel]

There is much wisdom in what delwugor said.

Your character tried to force the other to act and it misfired. I´d call that a roleplaying opportunity. Make harsh jokes on the barbarian. Ask for forgiveness for beeing lawful stupid (as a character! No insult intended.), etc.

As for the DM: For me it smells like he had not prepared the encounter.

Imagine, you as a DM: would you prepare a encounter where you know your Group will run? I know I will not. And if my group prepares to fight, even if they have ingame knowledge that it will kill them, I will tell them: "to be honest, i did not think you were going to be suicidal. If you want, I can prepare that encounter now, but chances are you will not see round 2. Shall I prepare it, or do you want to play on?"

A DM has little chance to have everything prepared. I assume he did not imagine that you would want to fight, and used the time for preparing something else. Cut him some slack. His way of telling you to stop was not very good, but if he runs a enjoyable campaign, he works hard on it.

[eggs]

I'd pretty much echo what Grod said.

The setup wasn't unreasonable. The other players doing what they did wasn't unreasonable.

It sounds like the part that was handled poorly was the "if you fight this fight, everybody else dies" thing.

That's a poor move; if the game usually works like that, the game's probably not worth playing. If it was a one-time misstep by a DM trying to keep the game moving, it was probably just be a mistake; let it go.

If the DM had kept it within the scope of your character and had said "if you fight this fight, your character dies," I wouldn't fault that at all - it sounded like it would be clear your guy would be stomped, and stalling the game so one person can see how much damage they do before they die sounds like a momentum-killer.

Making players run away, talk through or otherwise circumvent an encounter to survive is completely reasonable. Not including that sort of encounter every once in a while would be more weird.

[prufock]

Okay, so I came here to vent before and I'm here yet again to do the same.

This time he... Railroaded me pretty hard and I'm infuriated by both the parties actions(Save for one) and the DM putting us in this situation.

If this game bothers you so much, why are you playing it?

[Rizban]

I'm of the opinion that you should be allowed to fight any character you meet, regardless of strength, ability, or position. I don't care if they're random orcs, the king, Pelor incarnate, or some poor farmer. You should always have the option to do something other than what the DM demands of you.

A good DM is one who provides the story but lets the players tell it. If he's taking away your ability for cooperative storytelling, the that's a problem. It seems like your complaint is less about what happened specifically and more about not getting to be an active part in the story. The story was already defined, and you're upset that all you got to do was follow the script instead of taking part. That's totally reasonable.

[Darth Grall]

Thanks for all the advice guys, it tooka few days to realize I'm definitely at fault as far as getting angry at the other players. Still have some things to work out with the DM, but at least I should be level headed.

If this game bothers you so much, why are you playing it?Cause I really enjoyed this game prior to a 6 month Hiatus. Since coming back though, it seems like things are a bit too linear/set in stone in game and that's frustrating. As a fellow dm, I think he just had too much time to plan out the specifics of his story and now everything has a bit too much "plot shielding" around it. Regardless a good talk should set things straight.