DMs Power question

[Remus of Rome]

Me and the group I game with are having an argument about something and I would like some peoples opinions on who they think is right (please support your answer if possible)

Basically the DM was trying to make my character save against falling in love with another of the players (note:there was no spell provoking this) who had a high charisma besides the fact that I was the only character who had to do this I was the only non-standard race (we have a male halfling, male sorcerer, and male monk who's back story intertwined with hers) and at that being a bugbear. First what got to me was the fact that being a goblinoid I was the only person who had to do this which if anyone had read "The Book of Erotic Fantasy" (don't ask a friend gave it to me) should know that that would not happen as it says bugbears are only in heat at such and such a time for so long other than that they don't do such and such. Also the fact that usually they choose people for str. not for looks. Then another thing that the DM did which I though was an abuse of his power was he rolled for me while I was going to the bathroom. one last thing is what he chose my save would be he made me make and opposed charisma check rather than a Will check like I think it should be because it would be to resist something mentally and I really don't see any logic behind my making a charisma check I only understand her doing it. Also I feel as though it would be right if we roll played through this rather than him forcing this upon us especially since I had not yet talked to the other character only to her friend and the halfling in the party, as well as the male sorcerer.

[Jannex]

I'd say no, it's absolutely, categorically NOT acceptable--and the fact that your character is a goblinoid shouldn't even enter into it. Unless there is a magical effect at work, the DM cannot arbitrarily decide who your character falls in love with. Determining the sort of person to whom your character is attracted is exclusively within your jurisdiction, barring magical effects. Heck, all of your character's emotional reactions--barring magical effects--are exclusively yours to determine. It's YOUR character, YOU designed his personality and history, YOU know best how he would react to a given person or circumstance. This is especially true in the case of romance. It's not like you're trying to cheese your way out of being intimidated by the Tarrasque here; this is a completely valid complaint.

Something like this happened to a good friend of mine, once; her rogue was healed by the high-Charisma paladin's "lay on hands" ability, and the DM had her roll a Will save to avoid developing a crush on him, which she failed. My friend didn't really like the paladin's player, and it made the rest of the game kind of uncomfortable for her.

My advice: talk to your DM, out-of-game. Ask him why he's so keen on having your character develop these feelings. Tell him that it really doesn't make sense for your character, and that you're not comfortable with the situation.

[Orak]

I don't think this is an appropriate situation for a DM to force up a player for any reason.

Personally I believe this is morally questionable and can lead to awkward and embarrasing situations that may lead to hurt feelings. This is not something that I would force upon a player and I would be unhappy to have it forced upon me.

Of couse that is left to personal preference.

Rule wise our player group has a house rule that no player can use skills against another player. If one person wants to influence another player they have to do it using old fashioned talking.

I don't know how your group runs but it would seem that your DM seems to have a reason for this. There may be a plot hook or RP reason for your characters to be together. But even if there is a good reason for this I would think that something more subtle than a save verses love should be implemented.

In conclusion, what your DM did I disagee with but hopefully there is a reason for his crude tactics.

[Lemur]

Based on my experience, this sounds more like a joke than something that the DM expects you to take seriously about your character. However, not knowing the exact context, I can't say for certain.

In any case, I'll just say to ignore it. You don't have to roleplay being in love with someone if you don't want to. If the DM tries to force your PC to act in a certain way because you're supposed to be in love with this other character, or penalizes you for not roleplaying it, then there's definitely a problem. If the only purpose of it is to get a laugh or stupid running gag, that sort of thing isn't too unusual in a D&D campaign, although it's not necessarily in good taste.

[Lord Zentei]

Falling in love is very much a roleplay issue. It is an important and complex matter for the character's development, not just some encounter or obstacle or other.

Barring some magical effect, requiring a save in this instance is completely and utterly inappropriate (and I generally side with DM's power when controversies arise).

EDIT: it may be that Lemur is correct. If not, however, the DM is on a power trip. They're not called PLAYER's characters for no reason, after all.

EDIT 2: Question -- was this character you character was supposed to fall in love with somehow trying to seduce him?

[Remus of Rome]

My character was not being seduced at all it was just a random thing that happened and also the DM has a nasty habit of doing this and many times he will make our PC if we had failed the save RP it out against our will (in other words as far as I know my "lust" has no meaning). and I was wrong about what I said before about being the only one who had to save this was kinda sticking it to me having the lowest charisma (what he made me save with for God knows what reason) everyone else has 18 or higher while I have 8

edit 1: also though I know it is the DMs world I guess what the big question I'm trying to answer is, "Is the DM always 'right'?" such as if he has a Monster completely out of its habitat (when wild) and in such cases as love like I have given a detailed description of my problem with, and also do players have a right to complain within reason if we feel a DM is abusing his/her power? like the love or my second favorite example giving someone an epic feat eve when only lvl 10 on exchange for 2 normal feats especially if they did not meat one of the prerequisites and similarly giving epic feats to lvl 14 npcs.

[Xuincherguixe]

This is completely inappropriate for scores of reasons. Were I in this situation I would absolutely not accept it. The question is, do I pretend things never happened, or do I just manipulate circumstances so the character falls out of love with an equally arbitrary roll.

Not knowing much about Bugbears, let's just say "What? Gave mercy to our enemies? I can't love this person." Roll will vs love with a +4 modifier or something. Or roll a die, then pick it up and turn it to 20 for a(n) (un)natural 20.

Both appeal to me really :P The path of least resistance suggest trying to talk things over with your DM, and explain that it's neither fair, nor the DMs place. If they don't budge, then just don't accept it.

[Jades]

The DM's power is absolute, do not doubt it. They can do whatever they want, its their world, and they control their world.

Wait... this has nothing to do with the DM's world... this is YOUR character. A save against infatuation is complete nonsense. Hell, when a species goes in heat, it isn't over love that they need to make saves for.

Punch the DM in the nose, and tell them that Jades Ditoyr told you to do that. Then, have them come to me and I'll explain in great detail what their power includes. Character actions, reactions, and thoughts are ONLY within a DM's jurisdiction when the character is suffering from the effects of a spell or psionic ability.

Everything else is the DM's play thing, and its just rude to overstep that boundry.

[Jannex]

edit 1: also though I know it is the DMs world I guess what the big question I'm trying to answer is, "Is the DM always 'right'?" such as if he has a Monster completely out of its habitat (when wild) and in such cases as love like I have given a detailed description of my problem with, and also do players have a right to complain within reason if we feel a DM is abusing his/her power? like the love or my second favorite example giving someone an epic feat eve when only lvl 10 on exchange for 2 normal feats especially if they did not meat one of the prerequisites and similarly giving epic feats to lvl 14 npcs.

When it comes to things like out-of-habitat monsters, or strange houserules involving feats, then yes, the DM is always right (though I would hope that those houserules were being applied consistently, to PCs and NPCs alike, or if not, that there was justification for this deviation), as far as anything pertaining to the world setting and game rules is concerned. That does not include jurisdiction over a PC's thoughts and emotions. In cases pertaining to these, then no, the DM is not "always right."

Each person involved in a roleplaying game is in charge of a certain thing. The PCs are in charge of their characters' thoughts and actions, and the DM is in charge of the world and all the NPCs contained within it. It sounds like your DM is overstepping himself.

[Quietus]

I disagree categorically with your DM, as he has no right to dictate your character's emotions.

That said, though, here's a question. What does the other player feel about this?

[Tor the Fallen]

Heh heh, I say go with it.

I'm sure the player's character your bugbear is enamored with will never be the same after their "night of passion". Nothing quite leaves marks like a bugbear in heat. Please tell me it's the halfling. Though I guess it's likely the sorceror.

[Zeful]

I say kill the bugbear. There all wrapped up in a nice box with a bow.

[Zincorium]

If your DM ever actually has to tell you that "the DM is always right", that DM is probably not worth playing under. It's not a rule, it's an excuse to go on a power trip.

As DM, I regard player choice, emotion, and behavior as not my problem unless it results in a conflict in game. If a player gets bored and decides to kill the blacksmith, I will certainly as a friend ask them to take the game a bit more seriously, but I won't step in and simply rule that it didn't happen.

Taking the player's choice away without a damn good reason is for me a mistake on the level of the director of a play storming on stage during a performance and correcting the actors on their lines. It negates, if only for a short time, the immersion and even the reason for playing.

Edit:

I say kill the bugbear. There all wrapped up in a nice box with a bow.

Suicide is rarely the best option. And honestly I think the DM in this situation would step in and make him roll save or something to avoid committing hari-kiri (sp?).

[Behold_the_Void]

Honestly, this doesn't sound like a very good DM to be playing under. No DM should arbitrarily dictate your character's emotions and feelings, its extremely rude and not their job at all.

[Rad]

what you described is not within usual DM duty to keep things running (keep in mind that the DM has power BECAUSE he has a duty). My guess is that he is usually a very railroading DM and that he tries to drive the story exactly as he planned it, not leaving anything to the palyers' initiative. You should talk to him and reminding him that you are, with different roles, writing this story together and that this is much different than him being some movie director and you his actors and public.
DMing is very difficult to do right and this is something that inexperienced DMs tend to do a lot. Try not to be hard on him for this; a lot of people make this kind of mistakes; just let him know that this is not working. Thanking him for all the work he does for the group (you keep that in mind, that it is true) at the same time and making sure to say that you do not have a problem with him, but only with that particular thing, is kinder and more likely to work as well.

Hope this helps

[Tallis]

Monsters in a different habitat? Fine.
Altered rules for feats? NOt necessarily a good idea, but DM's choice.
Forcing your character to act out of character? NOt cool. It's your character not his. Talk to him, tell him what's bothering you. If he has some good reason for doing it and was just clumsy in the implementation try to work with him. If he doesn't have a good reason ask him to let you play your own character. If he's just on a power trip find a new DM.

[The New Bruceski]

I'll have to agree with the other posters here. DM fiat's intended to break ties and avoid conflicts. It's the DM's responsibility to work with the players to build the story, not work against them.

[Lord Zentei]

edit 1: also though I know it is the DMs world I guess what the big question I'm trying to answer is, "Is the DM always 'right'?" such as if he has a Monster completely out of its habitat (when wild) and in such cases as love like I have given a detailed description of my problem with, and also do players have a right to complain within reason if we feel a DM is abusing his/her power? like the love or my second favorite example giving someone an epic feat eve when only lvl 10 on exchange for 2 normal feats especially if they did not meat one of the prerequisites and similarly giving epic feats to lvl 14 npcs.

Having a monster completely out of its habitat? Fine. Silly, but fine (vis a vis DM's legitimate power).

Controlling the PCs, not so much.

Simply tell this DM: OK, you want to play this character, go ahead, more power to you. Since I'm not playing him, apparently, I'll just be in this other group from now on. So long buddy.

Perhaps he'll take the hint. If not, hopefully he'll enjoy d20:Solitaire. :smallwink:

[Corolinth]

Yes, technically your DM does have that kind of power. There is only one real rule in any tabletop game, and that's GM fiat. Some games are a little more honest than others about admitting that the GM is the one who really makes the rules.

With that being said, I can think of a number of reasons why a GM would force a PC to roll a saving throw or fall in love with another PC, all of them bad. In fact, none of these reasons make me want to play at the guy's table. Hand in your character sheet and get the flock out. Find a new game to join, because you don't want in this one.

[Narmoth]

Hehe. Well, this is priceless.
First of all ST are used for one thing, and one thing only: to deside randomly the outcome of an attack on your character or a creature under the control of the DM to have a fair method to deside if you take damage or is affected by a spell. It is not a way to determine actions (except the effect of magical spells like charm, suggestion and so on). E.g. effects of psionics arent (at least in 2nd ed which I play) determined by a ST. The breaking of a gate isn't, and the rogues success are not depending on ST, but on test of skill.
2nd, a "test to see if anyone falls in love" should be made using the diplomacy check, not a ST, as love is based on much more than looks.
Anyway, this is a test for NPC's, as the Dm might need a way to deside RANDOMLY what the reaction will be. Usually, he won't, as he will either want the diplomacy check to succed or to fail, especially if the players have actually roleplayed the eno****er.

So, no it's not right of the DM to use ST to deside if your player character falls in love because of the following reasons:
1 Wrong check.
2 Wrong rule. The erotic handbook isn't exactly core, and it's the only book that actually deals with this problem. The rule aplied should be the rule about reactionshttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/smilies/smallstick/smallyuk.gif
:smallyuk:
3 The rule for reactions aplies to NPCs only, not to players, meaning that there isn't any rules at all for what players would do in this situation. Just like (in 2nd ed) players weren't affected by fear, as the could deside to proceed anyway in stead of running away.
4 The DM is the God of the RPG world. As gods in real religions, he has power over the world (and in D&D over all non-player inhibitants) but NOT over PLAYER characters, named so because their actions are the domain of the players and not the DM

[Ali]

I'm sure the player's character your bugbear is enamored with will never be the same after their "night of passion". Nothing quite leaves marks like a bugbear in heat. Please tell me it's the halfling. Though I guess it's likely the sorceror.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!! Legendary. I agree, go ahead with it, just for this... hee hee.

[Xuincherguixe]

Heh heh, I say go with it.

I'm sure the player's character your bugbear is enamored with will never be the same after their "night of passion". Nothing quite leaves marks like a bugbear in heat. Please tell me it's the halfling. Though I guess it's likely the sorceror.

Heh, I never thought of that sanity damaging option. Course, it may not be fair to the OTHER player either. Worse would be if they don't really mind...

[Brother_Franklin]

The DM's fiat is Rule 0. It works this way 'cause I say so.

The players fiat is "I'm not playing." However, I don't think it's gone that far yet. First, talk to your DM and say this part of the game is unfun for you, and suggest some of the kind of things you would like to roleplay. If that fails, than give him more than he asked for:

1. In game, look for some poision. Pretend at first you want it on your weapon, but then drink it saying 'my love for so and so was too much and I didn't want to be a grotesque beast anymore.

2. In game, track her/him/it down a kill it. RP the snap of someone who fell in love psychoticly. Describe the murder in gory detail, than turn yourself in to the nearest authority.

3. Think of your own.

Anyway about it you get a new, not in love, charater.


On the other hand, it may be magical and you don't know it. Try getting yourself evalutated by and enchanter. Aslo, in game make that point you were making about heat.

If all of that fails. Than use the players fiat.

[Flakey]

Much less drastic than walking out if you have no other choice about games is. If the dm keeps insisting that your character has fallen in love with the other, is to hand your character over to the dm, and say fine hes an NPC, you "continue" to run him, I am rolling a new character.

[Tallis]

Hehe. Well, this is priceless.
First of all ST are used for one thing, and one thing only: to deside randomly the outcome of an attack on your character or a creature under the control of the DM to have a fair method to deside if you take damage or is affected by a spell. It is not a way to determine actions (except the effect of magical spells like charm, suggestion and so on). E.g. effects of psionics arent (at least in 2nd ed which I play) determined by a ST. The breaking of a gate isn't, and the rogues success are not depending on ST, but on test of skill.
2nd, a "test to see if anyone falls in love" should be made using the diplomacy check, not a ST, as love is based on much more than looks.
Anyway, this is a test for NPC's, as the Dm might need a way to deside RANDOMLY what the reaction will be. Usually, he won't, as he will either want the diplomacy check to succed or to fail, especially if the players have actually roleplayed the eno****er.

So, no it's not right of the DM to use ST to deside if your player character falls in love because of the following reasons:
1 Wrong check.
2 Wrong rule. The erotic handbook isn't exactly core, and it's the only book that actually deals with this problem. The rule aplied should be the rule about reactionshttp://www.giantitp.com/forums/images/smilies/smallstick/smallyuk.gif
:smallyuk:
3 The rule for reactions aplies to NPCs only, not to players, meaning that there isn't any rules at all for what players would do in this situation. Just like (in 2nd ed) players weren't affected by fear, as the could deside to proceed anyway in stead of running away.
4 The DM is the God of the RPG world. As gods in real religions, he has power over the world (and in D&D over all non-player inhibitants) but NOT over PLAYER characters, named so because their actions are the domain of the players and not the DM

I agree on everything you said but I would like to point out that according to the OP it wasn't actually a saving throw. It was a charisma check. If I were ever going to roll for something like this (which I wouldn't) a charisma check seems like it might be appropriate. Strength of personality seems like the only thing in game that would help a character to avoid falling in love with another character. Diplomacy just doesn't cover that kind of thing IMO.

[Cyborg Pirate]

I agree on everything you said but I would like to point out that according to the OP it wasn't actually a saving throw. It was a charisma check. If I were ever going to roll for something like this (which I wouldn't) a charisma check seems like it might be appropriate. Strength of personality seems like the only thing in game that would help a character to avoid falling in love with another character. Diplomacy just doesn't cover that kind of thing IMO.

Apparently, it was a charisma vs charisma check, if I understand the OP correctly. Which is senseless.

The DM ought to get a good kick up the hiney.

[Deepblue706]

This DM is dumb. Dumbly dumb. So dumb that I feel dumbed. I'm going to stick my head in the oven now.

[Matthew]

That's exactly what I was thinking, DeepBlue - this is dumb. I would be seriously worring about the motives of a DM who uses mechanics to try and create 'love' between two Player Characters. Sounds like he may not be the most mature of people.

[Diggorian]

My homebrew uses an alternate alignment system where a PC must occasionally make a Wisdom check to overcome impulses of their personality. Zealots need to check against expousing their beliefs, drunkards have to check against overdrinking, the DC varies with the strength of the temptation in a given situation.

However,

My players knew about this ahead of time and agreed with it. They chose the traits of their character's personality. They are having fun with it.

Remus' DM not proposing this unconvential turn is his fault. It violates the expectation of the game and descreases fun by raising discomfort; the opposite of what a DM should do.

[Starsinger]

The only time I've ever heard of anything similar was a DM I know homebrewed an ability for Succubi called Seduce. And that was really just a super charm person. But forcing PCs to develop feelings for each other? That's.. quite frankly the biggest breach of conduct ever. I mean, if he's going to tell you how you feel, why not just play the character himself?

It'd be one thing if the save was because you were in heat, and you were rolling to avoid the urge to jump the other character's bones. But a crush? Nuh-uh... doesn't fly. There are certain things which DMs shouldn't get to do, and one of them is (non-magically) tinker with emotions.

[Seffbasilisk]

Without some sort of magical or supernatural impulse, it's complete BS. Even with it, it's a ****ty thing to do. If the DM presses on with it, kill said target. Bugbears mate for strength 'eh? They couldn't survive your love. Too bad.

Then tell the DM point blank he's not to screw with your PC that way. If it IS a houserule, it should have been declared before the game started and PCs were made, and it should apply to all. If it's not, and just DM-dickery, then tell him that you and your friend Mr. Louisville Slugger want to have a talk with him outside. Explain to him the difficulty in rolling dice with shattered hands and wrists. That's just wrong.

[SeeKay]

As a DM, I can say that forcing PC's to do something against the players will is signs of a bad DM. It is the DM's game though. As a player, you can chose to play in the DM's world or not.

As a person that likes to mess with people that do stupid things, I'd say RP this "Love" from a bugbear's eyes. The way I'd see it, bugbears would be big on demonstrations of strength, ability to take care of ones self and the ability to shrug off "minor" wounds. That would be for both you and your "mate". Also, what Alignment are you? If you are non-good, you would also not help the monk often because he has a past with her (or seek his death if you are evil). Even if you are good, you'd only help him sparingly. Watch some old Star Trek:NG and base your courtship on Klingon relationships. Make that DM rue the day he said you were in love. :sabine: (Sorry for that. Best "evil grin" Smilie I could find)

[Alleine]

Thats just wrong. If a Dm starts playing your character, he either stops being DM or the char stops being a PC.

Tell us what alignment you are and we'll find something suitable for you to do. I don't know about bugbear much, but there could easily be a terrible "accident" in which she dies. And out of curiosity, how big is a bugbear compared to a human? Hehehe.

[Dairun Cates]

That's absolutely horrible. A good GM should be able to trick you into having your character fall in love with whatever NPC or PC they want without having to resort to rolls. You should only realize in retrospect how evil the GM is. That's how one of the few times I got to play, my character ended up falling in love with a Unicorn. I got her back in the next campaign with the time paradoxes though.

Seriously though, this is indeed abuse of GM/DM power. In my opinion, the GM's power is exactly as strong as needed to make the players have a good time. No more, no less. This does excuse the occassional dice fudge to keep things interesting though, but no inexplicable love checks.

[Narmoth]

Much less drastic than walking out if you have no other choice about games is. If the dm keeps insisting that your character has fallen in love with the other, is to hand your character over to the dm, and say fine hes an NPC, you "continue" to run him, I am rolling a new character.

I think this is a good way to make the DM see your side of the case.

I just can't understand the DM. Why put 2 PCs in love and violate evert rule in D&D in stead of just harrasing the bugbear with an NPC-lover?

[Corolinth]

To be fair, I only got a very rough sense of what was going on from reading the original post. Character forced to fall in love with other character. Player not happy. For all I really know, this could just be how the DM sees charm person working, and it'll go away in a few game days. Or the DM could be twelve years old, and thinks this is what constitutes good plot.

The question you asked: Can a DM do this? Yes. Very simply, yes a DM can. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, outside of the boundaries of the DM's authority within the game. The question you want to be asking is: Should a DM do this? The answer to that is a solid no. It doesn't advance any plots, and it only serves to alienate a player. Of course, this assumes the DM is simply making you roll a saving throw vs. falling in love with a random character. It's also possible this is some sort of spell, or perhaps a potion that someone slipped into your morning coffee.

I came up with some new ideas since originally responding. I'm not so dead set against this as a concept anymore.

There are several magical effects which could cause this, any of which requires you to roll a save. Just because you're rolling a save doesn't mean you're entitled to know why. I often tell my characters to roll a die, and then add the appropriate modifier myself. That's how you keep from breaking immersion. Tell them to roll a spot check and they get suspicious. Tell them to roll a will save and they refuse to play along when there's an illusion. Tell them to roll a listen save, and they still get suspicious, but if they fail, then you don't have to mention anything about the illusion at all, and they act like it's real (just like their characters would).

As far as your DM rolling stuff for you while you're in the bathroom - that's a moot point. All DMs roll stuff for their players from time to time. I can read their character sheets as well as they can. There's no reason I can't just roll a die, and not tell them what they were rolling for, or what they got. Sometimes the PCs just aren't allowed to know what just happened to them. PCs are not all-knowing, so sometimes you just don't tell the players to begin with.

[JackMage666]

Not knowing you, your DM, or your group, this is purely speculation. Purely, I repeat.

Aside from being in the wrong on making you rule on the check (that's been discussed previously), I believe there could be something behind this. Perhaps (again, purely speculation), the DM is trying to hint at an out-of-game situation in-game - In this case, a possible relationship between yourself and the female player. Again, it's purely speculation, but the clues lie in that the DM is doing something anyone realizes is against the rules and that you, in particular, was singled out despite the likelyhood of the other characters.

I repeat, purely speculation, in hopes you don't resent me for saying so.

[Greyen]

I support the "Your DM is wrong" line of folks above me.

I for one say use it to f- with the DM. If he wants to make you and another player uncomfortable, use it to break the game. Talk to the other player and have a fun (for you) session of playing out and or abusing the DM's Time and story. If youo see that he is going to lead you to the left, take a right.

Say the two PC's get busy, then have a argument, then fight, then draw the other PC's into it. NPC's too. You can draw on any bad RL dating/wedding stories to base you interactions with the other PC on.

I am a fan of breaking DM's bad habits as a player. I had a DM who insisted on roleplaying every single darn shop keeper. So in an effort to break this sometimes cool but mostly annoying thing of his we got together. 8 players, after a huge dungeon crawl, split up into a large city, 8 PC going in different directions, haggling and causing hell, the shopping session took 13 hours all told real life time over the course of 2 sessions. That was only half of the players. The rest he gave up and downtimed, 15 minutes of "Can I find this? -No/Yes/Whatever." No more marathon shopping for us. Nothing is worse than having 7 bored gamers wandering around your house to find something to do while you sit with one gamer who wants to find a place to sell a +1 longsword. Good times.

[Dausuul]

One thing I do wonder... how does the other player (whose character your bugbear is now supposedly in love with) feel about the whole business?

[Narmoth]

I support the "Your DM is wrong" line of folks above me.

I for one say use it to f- with the DM. If he wants to make you and another player uncomfortable, use it to break the game. Talk to the other player and have a fun (for you) session of playing out and or abusing the DM's Time and story. If youo see that he is going to lead you to the left, take a right.

Say the two PC's get busy, then have a argument, then fight, then draw the other PC's into it. NPC's too. You can draw on any bad RL dating/wedding stories to base you interactions with the other PC on.

I am a fan of breaking DM's bad habits as a player. I had a DM who insisted on roleplaying every single darn shop keeper. So in an effort to break this sometimes cool but mostly annoying thing of his we got together. 8 players, after a huge dungeon crawl, split up into a large city, 8 PC going in different directions, haggling and causing hell, the shopping session took 13 hours all told real life time over the course of 2 sessions. That was only half of the players. The rest he gave up and downtimed, 15 minutes of "Can I find this? -No/Yes/Whatever." No more marathon shopping for us. Nothing is worse than having 7 bored gamers wandering around your house to find something to do while you sit with one gamer who wants to find a place to sell a +1 longsword. Good times.


Hehe. i roleplay all my NPCs, even shopkeepers all the time. My players don't shop so often. (Maybee because I roleplay the shopkeepers? :smalleek: ) Then again, it justifes to give discounts or rob the players with different shopkeepers since they have different personalities. Also, the shopkeepers can provide information, and it would be to obvious to suddenly have the shopkeepers that usually just replies yes/no/check the rulebook if you can use it to stat spinning a tale of the lost duchy of Chantar.
Still, I try to remember how much time things take and would never let players unload 15 swords one at the time in stead of saying what they get for the lot.

[Dan_Hemmens]

Your DM is acting within his rights, it's just that he's abusing the power that comes with them.

The DM *can* dictate anything that happens within his gameworld, up to and including the emotions of the PCs. That isn't to say that he *should*.

[ski309]

Whether the DM can do this or not is within the realm of houseruling, in my opinion, but I personally wouldn't want to play under a DM that forced me to roleplay my character a certain way without the aid of magic.

[Xuincherguixe]

Ooo! New way to spite the GM. Roll against falling in love with every single encounter.

Probably not helpful, but it is funny :P

[Tormsskull]

One thing I do wonder... how does the other player (whose character your bugbear is now supposedly in love with) feel about the whole business?

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the DM is playing matchmaker IRL by making the two PCs close to one another in game?

Maybe not, but this just seems to strange to understand. I think there has got to be some missing information somewhere.

[Xuincherguixe]

Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe the DM is playing matchmaker IRL by making the two PCs close to one another in game?

Maybe not, but this just seems to strange to understand. I think there has got to be some missing information somewhere.

Heh, sounds like is so sickeningly cute as to be offensive. But then that's the impression I get to begin with.


Maybe I'm just crazy (...no I know I'm crazy) but doesn't it make more sense to do something like "Hey? You know so and so? What do you think about them? Maybe you should ask them out some time."

Course, I'm probably not the right person to be talking about these kind of things...

In any event, it's all pretty stupid.