PDA

View Full Version : Should I be mad about this?



Haldir
2016-09-18, 10:53 PM
The game is a 5e adaptation of Phandelver. Not a huge deal, but it is pertinent to note that The Black Spider, through a zany improv on the DM's part, had his blood spilled on the Spell Forge which turned him into a giant, swirling magical energy monster.

Pretty cool right? Well...

The problem essentially comes down to OOC player favoritism. We were able to gain an item that could trap the Swirling Energy Monster inside or could said item could to drain some of this monster's power from a friendly NPC that was basically put into a coma. The player/character, let's call him SW, is the one that created the SEM, and decided he was going to try and summon the SEM/Black Spider without letting any of the other characters know. Well, SW ended up getting possessed. My wizard, a tinkerer/magic item expert, used the magical funnel to save this other character from the SEM, but a latent psychic link remains. No problems here.

The real problem came about when I told the DM and the other characters, completely OOC, that my wizard was going to turn the SEM into a magical battery. The DM immediately says "If you try that, there's a 90% chance you will become the new Black Spider" Hardly, considering that Magic Circle is a fairly cheap spell. IC, the wizard says he wants to study this thing while it's contained. This is where the real favoritism comes in.

First the DM and SW have a private conference in a separate voice channel. Then we are told that the magical funnel is secure enough, then we are told it is not secure enough, then I ask specifically and get it confirmed that it was secure enough, but there are "tons of ways it can get stolen and manipulated and blah blah blah." SW goes to the rest of the party and convinces us there is a plan to transfer the Black Spider back into a human body, and we should steal the funnel from the wizard and enact yet another hairbrained scheme (this guy always has a hairbrained scheme that he entirely f***s up, yet het DM gives him more play time than anyone else). The entire time SW is trying to convince the party, he and DM are taking breaks to loudly to type to one another, every time SW comes back and has some new information and argument in favor of denying the Wizard access to the item. The party doesn't want to let a powerful enemy wizard free. Well, I guess there's a precedent for putting demons into pigs, and all of a sudden a pig body counts as sentient. This goes on for many minutes.

It's very clear that the DM didn't want my wizard to have access to this monster he created, and in the end, SW ends up attacking my wizard, which causes him to flee. I am not allowed to play my wizard anymore because no inter-party fighting is allowed. I can, however, direct my wizards actions through the DM, making my character a faux villain.

I've already spoken to the DM about how I feel that SW gets the most play time and they get wrapped up in the stupid s*** that he does. The rest of the party, more patient and seasoned D&D players, are willing to let it slide in favor of having a decently running game, but the idiocy is becoming a little much.

I am also playing the Cleric of this party, who thinks SW is an idiot and argued against the Pig scheme, mostly based on SW being a catastrophic failure at literally everything else he does (even the DM agreed this was a fair point). But it was clear from the DM and SW's OOC actions that they were dead set on denying the wizard his opportunity to research.

Thoughts? Suggested course of action?

Keltest
2016-09-18, 11:33 PM
Yes, I think you have every reason to be mad. Your DM clearly has a double standard if he allows SW to attack you, but doesn't allow you to retaliate. It seems pretty clear that the DM was trying to make an OOC ruling by pushing in character reasons, and that's never a good solution. Besides the obvious favoritism problems, he also took your character away because of something somebody else did.

Frankly, I probably wouldn't even go to that game anymore if it were me. But assuming you don't want to be that drastic, ask the DM to his face, in front of the rest of the party, why SW was allowed to violate the no party conflict rule, and why you were the one who lost a character over it? Furthermore, he should be asked why he did not simply say, ooc, "Please do not do this"? instead of trying to force such a result in character?

Anderlith
2016-09-18, 11:45 PM
Use all of your characters abilities to wreak as much sh!t on SW as possible, perhaps switch him & the evil thing instead of using a pig. Just shove him into it at the last second. Then break the device. Burn all/toss in a lake all of SWs possessions to teach him a lesson in humility. Find & use thermal detonators to burn him to ash. Only after this is done, & a session or two have passed, do you quit the game, insuring that it will be harder to retcon when you leave.

Dont stand idly by as someone else takes all of the games focus & the DMs attention

Alent
2016-09-19, 03:49 AM
It's very clear that the DM didn't want my wizard to have access to this monster he created, and in the end, SW ends up attacking my wizard, which causes him to flee. I am not allowed to play my wizard anymore because no inter-party fighting is allowed. I can, however, direct my wizards actions through the DM, making my character a faux villain.

I've already spoken to the DM about how I feel that SW gets the most play time and they get wrapped up in the stupid s*** that he does. The rest of the party, more patient and seasoned D&D players, are willing to let it slide in favor of having a decently running game, but the idiocy is becoming a little much.

I am also playing the Cleric of this party, who thinks SW is an idiot and argued against the Pig scheme, mostly based on SW being a catastrophic failure at literally everything else he does (even the DM agreed this was a fair point). But it was clear from the DM and SW's OOC actions that they were dead set on denying the wizard his opportunity to research.

Thoughts? Suggested course of action?

First, a raised eyebrow at you playing two ninths casters in a D&D party, shenanigans are already afoot with that alone. :smallconfused: Was everyone playing two characters?

Moving on, the problem here is simple:

You let the two of them team up and bully then DMPC your character rather than stopping the game by calling shenanigans and insisting the DM maintain neutrality with SW and enforce the no PVP rule. It was strong objection time before that point, but at that point it's time to say "You told SW to break the rules and then you took my character as punishment for SW breaking the rules? There's no reason to put up with this, I quit."

This isn't just favoritism, first allowing then arming SW to incite the party to violate the no PVP rule- consequence free- is straight up power abuse on the DM's part, and someone else should be in the chair. There is no reason on earth to continue past that point.

Personally, I'd hop on the next session and just explain why you're quitting the group. They may try to win you back, but they've made it painfully clear they don't actually want you there.

icefractal
2016-09-19, 03:48 PM
It appears that the GM created the SEM as "SW's thing" and is neither prepared or willing to have someone else using it. Thus the ham-handed attempts to get rid of it.

Which is some bull****, and you should absolutely demand an explanation/ret-con. I mean, the favoritism in an issue in itself, but even if it wasn't, the GM screwed up and is trying to fix his mistake IC at the expense of your character. And that's not ok. Of course GMs screw up sometimes, they're human, but they need to own the mistake and address it OOC - "Guys, I didn't think this SEM through, and I want to get rid of it. Is there an explanation everyone can be happy with?"

LooseCannoneer
2016-09-19, 11:12 PM
Hang on there for a second. The "No PvP" rule only kicks in AFTER the first strike? AFTER? That sort of rule can only be designed with some variety of knowledge of what's to come. Wait, wouldn't that sort of rule be a first strike? I'd get out of the group just to follow their rules.:smallwink:

In all seriousness, that's not how to create a decently running game. That's how to get people (you) stewing about stuff like this. Yeah, be mad. If they're just not quite up to snuff on the social interactions, they'll get they crossed a line. If they don't get that forcibly banning a character just because someone else rolled a d20 for kicks is crossing any boundaries, then they probably aren't the right people to be gaming with. Talk to them, but be ready to leave.

AMFV
2016-09-20, 12:03 AM
I wouldn't be angry over it. It won't help even if you have a valid point of order. If you want to stay in the group, anger will make that harder and make any kind of reconciliation impossible. If you're content with leaving then anger will just give you ulcers and make you bitter.

Haldir
2016-09-20, 01:25 AM
Yes, I think you have every reason to be mad. Your DM clearly has a double standard if he allows SW to attack you, but doesn't allow you to retaliate. It seems pretty clear that the DM was trying to make an OOC ruling by pushing in character reasons, and that's never a good solution. Besides the obvious favoritism problems, he also took your character away because of something somebody else did.

Frankly, I probably wouldn't even go to that game anymore if it were me. But assuming you don't want to be that drastic, ask the DM to his face, in front of the rest of the party, why SW was allowed to violate the no party conflict rule, and why you were the one who lost a character over it? Furthermore, he should be asked why he did not simply say, ooc, "Please do not do this"? instead of trying to force such a result in character?

It should be noted that the DM wanted the entire party rerolled, but because that would be a huge derail/ time sink (SW is very new and sucks at even progressing his warlock) I simply offered to have my Wizard to simplify matters.

As for the DM- He's very much into letting us as players do what we want, withing the context of the game of course. Which is partially why SW gets away with so much. It bears noting, however, that this particular DM started with 4e and is therefore relatively unfamiliar with gaming, as compared to us blokes who've been doing it for 10-20 years. I think he feels like manipulating characters is better than just saying no.



Use all of your characters abilities to wreak as much sh!t on SW as possible, perhaps switch him & the evil thing instead of using a pig. Just shove him into it at the last second. Then break the device. Burn all/toss in a lake all of SWs possessions to teach him a lesson in humility. Find & use thermal detonators to burn him to ash. Only after this is done, & a session or two have passed, do you quit the game, insuring that it will be harder to retcon when you leave.

Dont stand idly by as someone else takes all of the games focus & the DMs attention

This seems unnecessarily hostile.


First, a raised eyebrow at you playing two ninths casters in a D&D party, shenanigans are already afoot with that alone. :smallconfused: Was everyone playing two characters?

Moving on, the problem here is simple:

You let the two of them team up and bully then DMPC your character rather than stopping the game by calling shenanigans and insisting the DM maintain neutrality with SW and enforce the no PVP rule. It was strong objection time before that point, but at that point it's time to say "You told SW to break the rules and then you took my character as punishment for SW breaking the rules? There's no reason to put up with this, I quit."

This isn't just favoritism, first allowing then arming SW to incite the party to violate the no PVP rule- consequence free- is straight up power abuse on the DM's part, and someone else should be in the chair. There is no reason on earth to continue past that point.

Personally, I'd hop on the next session and just explain why you're quitting the group. They may try to win you back, but they've made it painfully clear they don't actually want you there.

I am an experienced player, and the two characters were necessary for the party. No trouble has come of it yet.

Yes, I agree that the DM was arming SW, but I volunteered that if SW was in any way indicating violence, my wizard would flee, rather than having SW's inexperienced player reroll. That being said, I did have to call out metagaming several times and demand that my wizard be given actions equal to SW. This was very frustrating and after hours of doing it, you just kinda give up.


It appears that the GM created the SEM as "SW's thing" and is neither prepared or willing to have someone else using it. Thus the ham-handed attempts to get rid of it.

Which is some bull****, and you should absolutely demand an explanation/ret-con. I mean, the favoritism in an issue in itself, but even if it wasn't, the GM screwed up and is trying to fix his mistake IC at the expense of your character. And that's not ok. Of course GMs screw up sometimes, they're human, but they need to own the mistake and address it OOC - "Guys, I didn't think this SEM through, and I want to get rid of it. Is there an explanation everyone can be happy with?"

The problem here is that the entire group agrees that the SEM is a cool enemy/element. My big problem is the literal and outright denial of my characters completely viable solution in game. Having DM'd plenty of times, I understand the sentiment, but hearing things like "It would be great if the Wizard let him loose again to show him for being such a snob" (the wizard is a bit of a snob) from SW and hearing the DM say "well, it's a good story if a horrible evil is let loose in the pursuit of progress" just makes me feel like no matter what I do I will fail, which is a ****ty feeling, especially given that the DM has expressed that The Player Creates the World.



Hang on there for a second. The "No PvP" rule only kicks in AFTER the first strike? AFTER? That sort of rule can only be designed with some variety of knowledge of what's to come. Wait, wouldn't that sort of rule be a first strike? I'd get out of the group just to follow their rules.:smallwink:

In all seriousness, that's not how to create a decently running game. That's how to get people (you) stewing about stuff like this. Yeah, be mad. If they're just not quite up to snuff on the social interactions, they'll get they crossed a line. If they don't get that forcibly banning a character just because someone else rolled a d20 for kicks is crossing any boundaries, then they probably aren't the right people to be gaming with. Talk to them, but be ready to leave.


I wouldn't be angry over it. It won't help even if you have a valid point of order. If you want to stay in the group, anger will make that harder and make any kind of reconciliation impossible. If you're content with leaving then anger will just give you ulcers and make you bitter.

This is the tack I've kinda been taking. I guess I've just been looking to the Playground for ammunition and validation.

Alent
2016-09-20, 05:04 AM
If your DM has a hard time saying no, you need to sit the DM down and have the "It's okay to say no" talk with him. Explain to him that if he really feels something is inappropriate to the game, he's free to say no rather than causing a convoluted situation where some people are unhappy.


I am an experienced player, and the two characters were necessary for the party. No trouble has come of it yet.

... we might have different definitions of trouble. Is the group smaller than the picture you're painting of it? You make it sound as if the group is a group of 5 players + DM, I'm a little perplexed as to why you would need two characters to support a group of that size, even a group of 3 players with no healer is sustainable unless several people aren't pulling their weight.


Yes, I agree that the DM was arming SW, but I volunteered that if SW was in any way indicating violence, my wizard would flee, rather than having SW's inexperienced player reroll. That being said, I did have to call out metagaming several times and demand that my wizard be given actions equal to SW. This was very frustrating and after hours of doing it, you just kinda give up.

This sounds different from before, this sounds more like you did it to yourself.

Why would you volunteer to take SW's punishment for him when he clearly deserved it? :smallconfused:


The problem here is that the entire group agrees that the SEM is a cool enemy/element. My big problem is the literal and outright denial of my characters completely viable solution in game. Having DM'd plenty of times, I understand the sentiment, but hearing things like "It would be great if the Wizard let him loose again to show him for being such a snob" (the wizard is a bit of a snob) from SW and hearing the DM say "well, it's a good story if a horrible evil is let loose in the pursuit of progress" just makes me feel like no matter what I do I will fail, which is a ****ty feeling, especially given that the DM has expressed that The Player Creates the World.

With my DM, I'd point out that it escaping doesn't necessarily mean your wizard fails- your wizard could succeed and have a profound impact, and a rival like SW's new character comes over and lets the SEM out of the jar instead of the wizard screwing up. Basically, "If you aren't going to say 'no', let's roll the bones and see how it goes and build a story around what happens rather than trying to decide these things in an argument."


This is the tack I've kinda been taking. I guess I've just been looking to the Playground for ammunition and validation.

You might consider a different course of action, as your choice of presentation can pretty much get you the exact response you want regardless of how appropriate such a response is to the issue at hand.

Jay R
2016-09-20, 08:32 AM
It's crucial to realize that you have incomplete information, and that we have incomplete information filtered through one of the people involved in the disagreement.

A. We have only heard one side. No fair person can conclude that your side is correct without hearing the other side as well.

B. The DM knows things you don't know. You cannot fairly and completely represent either the DM's side or SW's side. I'm not speaking against your honesty or competence - just pointing out that you don't have all the information.

C. From the point of view of the DM, the initiation of PvP occurred when you announced OOC that you would try to take over his character's beastie. The DM did everything he could to turn you away from that course of action. It is generally a good idea to play the game that the DM thinks will play best.

D. If SW is possessed, or has a psychic link, then yes, he should be getting private discussion with the DM. That's the nature of the situation.

E. Sometimes something shouldn't be allowed to happen for reasons that the player can't know. So if the DM really wants you to stop trying something, it's usually best to stop trying it.

F. What happened could have happened from DM favoritism. Or it could have happened for perfectly good reasons you just don't know about, and it's impossible for you to know which it is.

My recommendation is that you decide, ignoring this episode, whether or not you trust the DM. This is not primarily a question of honesty. Do you believe in his competence and ability to put together a good, enjoyable game?

If you do, then trust him even when it matters, and stop trying to take the game somewhere that he, with far more knowledge, thinks it shouldn't go.

If you don't trust him, leave the game. And when you tell him why, leave out this episode. You don't have the information to judge it fairly.

Quertus
2016-09-20, 08:51 AM
... we might have different definitions of trouble. Is the group smaller than the picture you're painting of it? You make it sound as if the group is a group of 5 players + DM, I'm a little perplexed as to why you would need two characters to support a group of that size, even a group of 3 players with no healer is sustainable unless several people aren't pulling their weight.

Having played in the party of 7 fighters and 1 thief, I've "had" to play both the party wizard and the party cleric before.

Haldir
2016-09-20, 10:36 AM
Every player was offered the ability to play multiple characters. I'm the only one who chose to.

Haldir
2016-09-22, 12:57 AM
It's crucial to realize that you have incomplete information, and that we have incomplete information filtered through one of the people involved in the disagreement.

A. We have only heard one side. No fair person can conclude that your side is correct without hearing the other side as well.

B. The DM knows things you don't know. You cannot fairly and completely represent either the DM's side or SW's side. I'm not speaking against your honesty or competence - just pointing out that you don't have all the information.

Two points repeating the same thing. Thanks. Yes, I cannot give you information I do not have. Thank you Forum Elder, for your knowledgeable assessment.


C. From the point of view of the DM, the initiation of PvP occurred when you announced OOC that you would try to take over his character's beastie. The DM did everything he could to turn you away from that course of action. It is generally a good idea to play the game that the DM thinks will play best.

No, the initiation of PVP came when SW declared an attack on my Wizard. Everything else was completely in line with helping the party because I and both of my characters have always been team players. "This players beastie" indicates blatant favorism and a true lack of understanding of our game.


D. If SW is possessed, or has a psychic link, then yes, he should be getting private discussion with the DM. That's the nature of the situation.

This is fine, the trouble arises from (as I've previous explained) the GM giving SW arguments in the middle of IC negotiations with the rest of the party. Are you reading the thread or playing Devil's Advocate?


E. Sometimes something shouldn't be allowed to happen for reasons that the player can't know. So if the DM really wants you to stop trying something, it's usually best to stop trying it.

F. What happened could have happened from DM favoritism. Or it could have happened for perfectly good reasons you just don't know about, and it's impossible for you to know which it is.

My recommendation is that you decide, ignoring this episode, whether or not you trust the DM. This is not primarily a question of honesty. Do you believe in his competence and ability to put together a good, enjoyable game?

If you do, then trust him even when it matters, and stop trying to take the game somewhere that he, with far more knowledge, thinks it shouldn't go.

If you don't trust him, leave the game. And when you tell him why, leave out this episode. You don't have the information to judge it fairly.

The DM never asked me to do anything. In our most recent conversations he actually suggested that the entire party was being unfair to my wizard.