PDA

View Full Version : Tales from Bizarro World: Lack of Player Communication



Talakeal
2017-07-01, 01:02 PM
For those of you who were patiently awaiting my next gaming horror story, here it is.

I haven't really been playing much this year after my good game ended and I quit my bad game last fall, but recently the urge to game again hit me hard and I bit the bullet and joined a new group, and talked some of my friends into doing the same.

So its an OSR game, and I am told that it will be very deadly and combat as war style. Keep that in the back of your head.

First, we have to make characters in isolation before the game. The DM doesn't want us making characters as a group or discussing them because he feels that it is both meta-gaming and encourages / bullies people into making a character someone else wants to play instead of what they want to play.

I show up with six character concepts. Four of them are vetoed because their race and/or class are banned. The fifth is a cleric of a demigod's cult, and I am told that I need to change religions because this is a monotheistic world and any cleric who doesn't worship "God" doesn't get any powers, which I can't do without ruining my concept. So I am down to one choice, a CG human male rogue who is kind of like a combination of Johnny Depps; Jack Sparrow, Sweeney Todd, and Edward Scissor-hands.

I am told that before I can begin mechanically making the character I need to do background and flavor stuff to "prevent power-gaming or murder-hoboing" which I am fine with. But I get stuck when the DM needs my character's long term goals. I try and explain that my character is the sort of person who lives in the moment as if there was no tomorrow, but am told that I need a long term goal for the DM to craft a story that my character will be involved in (also keep this in mind).

So after deliberating a long time I put "To avoid being tied down by commitments," which I fully admit is kind of a cop-out and a non-answer, but its the closest I could think of that matched the character I had in my head.


Ok, so the game starts. The background is that ~30 years ago there was a great war which caused the empire to pull all military and government forces out of the frontier to defend the capital. For a generation the frontier has had to make do on its own, but now the empire is strong enough that it wants to retake the frontier. The party has signed year long contracts of indentured servitude to the commander of the local garrison. We are contractually obligated to follow all orders he gives up and turn over all treasure we find. In exchange we will be given our freedom and generous wages at the end of the one year term.

So, yeah. I am trying to wrap my head around how my character got into this situation and where it would go. Maybe needing to skip town or make a plea deal until trouble cools off? Maybe running a con? Maybe planning to sabotage the army from within?

So, we are sent ahead to secure the area before the troops move in. Kill any monsters and bring their treasure back to the garrison. Talking to the locals, we find that they don't want to be part of the empire again, they feel abandoned, and most of them have done just fine being on their own their whole lives (the average working man here was born after the war), and they don't want to have to pay taxes and work the land as serfs. So then I realize that in my characters mind (and to some extent as a player) that I am actually working for the bad guys.

Now, I realize this is going to cause trouble down the line. I am going to either refuse an order or make a moral stand and the DM is going to kill my character for trying to "jump the rails," but that probably isn't for a long time yet and so I figure I will cross that bridge when I come to it. Maybe talk to the DM outside of the game (but I don't know him well and he doesn't seem like the type who would react well to perceived criticism of his game).


Anyway, so we begin playing. And that's when the real trouble starts.

First, I find that there is another thief in the party, and one who apparently has a much higher Dex score than I do (I kind of flubbed my roll), so when it comes time to do the typical thief skill monkey stuff I am just sitting on my thumbs and watching. This kind of puts me in a bit of a bad mood, but again, is nothing compared to what is to come.

So, if I look at another player's character sheet the DM, in his best elementary school teacher voice, tells me to keep my eyes on my own paper.
If I ask another player what their character can do either in or out of character the DM tells me to stop meta-gaming.
If I try and talk tactics in character the DM says "Talakeal, let other people play their own characters,"
and if I try and simply banter IC with the other PCs the DM tells me to stop wasting time and keep the game moving.

So, here is the big crux of the matter. I know it isn't their fault, but as far as my character is concerned the group he is with are a bunch of anti-social, tactically inept nitwits, who are willingly serving as the thugs of the oppressive imperialistic regime, and that makes it really hard for me to care about what happens to them.


So we come to a building which is inhabited by a deadly monster that we believe is killed by bright light. Again, we aren't allowed to discuss tactics, so the rest of the group kicks down the door and charges in while I stay outside in the sunlight. It is a literal ambush, and it does not go well for the other PCs.

Now, I stay outside and try and outthink the problem. Try and find a window to break, or something to set on fire, or a back door, or some way to create a barricade, or something other than charging into the monster filled darkness with my 1st level HP. I end up wasting my time for about four rounds as the DM shoots down all of my ideas.

Then the fighter goes down and starts making death saves. When my turn comes up the DM says "Talakeal, what is your action?" I decide I need to help, and am going to grab the body, drag it out into the light, and try and stabilize him, so I ask "How far is fighter from the door?" to which the DM responds by giving me a thousand yard stare and stating in a flat voice "What is your action?". To which I reply "I will draw my dagger and stand 10 paces from the blackened door, trying to see what is happening inside and waiting for someone to come out." I just can't justify going into a stupidly dangerous situation to save the lives of these people who are, as far as my character knows, foolish strangers who are probably going to turn me in for not towing the line in the end anyway.

For the next three rounds I continue waiting. Eventually the part (barely) kills the monster and comes out into the light. Then we call it a night, and my fellow players then give me crap out of character for "not being a team player" and spending the whole fight "standing outside sulking".


As a concession, I do agree that I could just meta-game the crap out of everything (ironically the type of behavior the DM is apparently trying to avoid), pretend that the other PCs are my best friends and comrades, and play a reckless but loyal kick-in-the-door character who doesn't care about ethics or dialogue, but that really isn't the character I brought to the game from either a mechanical or a narrative direction.


So yeah... anyone think I should show up for the game next week?


TLDR: The DM doesn't let his PCs talk to each other so I am having trouble working with the group on either a tactical or social level.

Cluedrew
2017-07-01, 01:35 PM
Are you having fun? If you are not, you're only real chance of solving this is letting them know why you are not and hoping they are willing to change or meet you part way. If not I suggest you smile, thank them for their time and quietly leave the room.

BayardSPSR
2017-07-01, 01:35 PM
Half of me says no, half of me says give them a second chance or talk to the GM outside of the game before deciding.

EDIT: I just realized who you were and went through a whole series of "wait, what, who, again, why, how" thoughts in very short succession. I don't understand how you manage to mind all of the most uniquely dysfunctional groups.

Kantaki
2017-07-01, 01:41 PM
Wait. What?:smallconfused:

You are supposed to be not only a adventuring party, but a military unit.
And you are not allowed to talk about tactics or each others abilities?
Because it would be Meta-gaming?
That... doesn't exactly make a whole lot of sense.
No IC-talk is a bit silly too.

I mean even ignoring the soldiers of the empire part, why would anyone fight together if they don't know anything about the others or their abilities- and thus can't trust them?

What does your DM think how teams work?

While I wouldn't say you are blameless with that fight- leaving your fellow players to walk into their deaths alone isn't exactly nice - blaming you for trying to play it smart (meaning in a way that your character survives) seems a bit unfair. Especially if you are new in the group.
And I think I would have done pretty much the same.
I mean if I am told that the dangerous monster I'm about to fight is vulnerable to light, or weakened by it, in some way I try to find a way to expose it to light*.
That's like logic 101.
Worst case? Weakened only means it can't hide as well.
At least I see what's going on on the battlefield.

What I certainly wouldn't do is rushing into the darkness utterly unprepared to fight the beast where it has every advantage.

Oh well, might be the groups playstyle.

*In fact if I'm given that info I would expect there is a way to use this knowledge.

Noje
2017-07-01, 05:01 PM
This sounds like a great opportunity to play that mime character you've been saving :smalltongue:

Your DM takes himself way too seriously. If you want to salvage this game, you could just use this game to pull off some antics you wouldn't do in a game you cared about. Even with a bad DM, it's always possible to make fun out of the situation. plan with the friends outside of the game to do something fun in game.

On the other hand, if you want a serious game, you could approach the DM with your friends and voice your concerns as a group in a way that doesn't antagonize him. Tell him that you would like to be able to have more time to roleplay with your team members and negotiate a list of expectations for both the players and DM.

The fact that you joined with others gives this game a fighting chance to be entertaining. Ultimately, it's whether you think it's worth the effort that determines what you should do.

Quertus
2017-07-01, 06:48 PM
What does your DM think how teams work?

A DM who didn't have a clue how teamwork works seems beyond a simple DM Red Flag in my book. Run. Run away now.

Hairfish
2017-07-01, 07:58 PM
Not gaming is better than bad gaming. Walk away.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-01, 09:35 PM
The GM is not in charge of your talking. In or out of character. If you want to continue then tell him to kindly butt out when he tries to interfere with that.

I can't imagine that this is going to produce a fun experience either way, though.

Fiery Diamond
2017-07-01, 10:00 PM
How do you manage to find all the messed up groups?

In this case, though, it seems like the DM is the only real problem. Unfortunately, a DM that is a problem makes for a game that is a problem. If you think you can change the DM's mind about all his crazy, go for it. Otherwise, just bow out.

Amphetryon
2017-07-02, 12:42 AM
As is often the case, I would love to have another participant in this game chime in with their perspective.

Talakeal
2017-07-02, 01:00 AM
As is often the case, I would love to have another participant in this game chime in with their perspective.

My roommate was one of the players and I think he has an account here. I can tell him to log on. Any specific questions for him or just a generic summary?

Arbane
2017-07-02, 01:06 AM
For those of you who were patiently awaiting my next gaming horror story, here it is.

I think you really need to find the Gaming Witch who cursed you and make amends.



So its an OSR game, and I am told that it will be very deadly and combat as war style. Keep that in the back of your head.

(SNIP)

So, if I look at another player's character sheet the DM, in his best elementary school teacher voice, tells me to keep my eyes on my own paper.
If I ask another player what their character can do either in or out of character the DM tells me to stop meta-gaming.
If I try and talk tactics in character the DM says "Talakeal, let other people play their own characters,"
and if I try and simply banter IC with the other PCs the DM tells me to stop wasting time and keep the game moving.

(SNIP)
So we come to a building which is inhabited by a deadly monster that we believe is killed by bright light. Again, we aren't allowed to discuss tactics, so the rest of the group kicks down the door and charges in while I stay outside in the sunlight. It is a literal ambush, and it does not go well for the other PCs.

I guess the 'war' in question is the Crimean War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Light_Brigade)? :smallbiggrin:

And the GM's an annoying control freak.


TLDR: The DM doesn't let his PCs talk to each other so I am having trouble working with the group on either a tactical or social level.

Talk to the other players outside the game? He can't stop you. I hope.

But yeah, walking away might be the best way to conserve SAN points.

If you do decide to hit the eject button, you can always do it memorably. Have your character charge into the next death-trap yelling LEEEEROOOOYYYY JEEENNNKINNNNS! Tell the GM that's what you thought he wants.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-02, 08:59 AM
*In fact if I'm given that info I would expect there is a way to use this knowledge.

Going from my experience as a GM, I'd expect one of two things:
-I'm supposed to use that information, either this is meant to be a 'here's the weakness, now invent a delivery system' thinking encounter, or I'm being told to prepare to bring the monster to a level I can fight it.
-It's a red herring, meant to even the action economy odds a bit by making a PC waste an action or two.

Yes, I've used both, generally the first but I've pulled of the second very easily by just changing monsters slightly (my favourite: zombies immune to headshots).


My roommate was one of the players and I think he has an account here. I can tell him to log on. Any specific questions for him or just a generic summary?

I'd say a generic summary. It's just more a 'are you being particularly biased' check, I'm sure you're not lying but there's always the possibility that you missed something, didn't understand the rules (of the group) correctly, or something.

On what you've given, I've occasionally done these things, with slight alterations. Like limiting discussion of tactics to before battles (so the battle itself doesn't take up 2 hours), restricting IC talking when the characters have no way to communicate, and so on. But this sounds.... it sounds like the GM doesn't quite get what metagaming is and how a small amount is generally required to make the game function.

Also I have had an amazing group that ran with the rule that you don't look at somebody's character sheet, but you can show people yours (or tell them your abilities). There was generally a bit in the first session where we had IC discussion of 'what can you do', but we also had a session zero where we made our characters together (although there was never any 'you should play this'*, which is how we played a GURPS game with an alchemist, a cleric, two rogues, and an engineer, and everyone had sub-specced as a face). I do tend to base my choices on what other people are playing just to avoid the 'there is a better X, why bother' problem, which is why I transitioned my robot from a brick to a speedster, but I also have lots of my own ideas in my head at once (right now I've got lined up an engineer, a demonologist, an alchemist, a druid, a corporate executive, another engineer, and a arqubuser), so I can just pick whatever fits.

* Well except the one time the player had no idea and we needed someone to dish out damage, but apart from 'brute' they put 100% their own spin on the character.

goto124
2017-07-02, 10:00 AM
For those of you who were patiently awaiting my next gaming horror story, here it is.

Hello, I remember you!


I show up with six character concepts. Four of them are vetoed because their race and/or class are banned. The fifth is a cleric of a demigod's cult, and I am told that I need to change religions because this is a monotheistic world and any cleric who doesn't worship "God" doesn't get any powers, which I can't do without ruining my concept.

Why did the DM not communicate such important stuff such as banned races/classes, and how religion works in the world?

And for all the talk about long-term goals, it doesn't look like you or your character will be sticking around long enough to see what happens.

Talakeal
2017-07-02, 08:49 PM
Well, got quite an update for you.

So I realized that I wasn't going to have fun with this game and sent the DM a message saying "So, after playing on Thursday I am starting to think that maybe the character I made isn't the best fit for the campaign you want to run. You mind if I change around a few things to make it better suited to the game?"

To which he said "Yes, we do need to talk. Can you come over before the game tomorrow night?"

Well, I did.

I sat down and the DM said "We need to talk. Your behavior the other night was completely unacceptable and it will not happen again. I wanted to throw you out several times and everyone was so pissed at you that you are lucky you didn't get hit."

Now, I am really curious if he was the one wanting to do the hitting or if one of the other players told him that after the game, but either way once the thread of RL violence was on the table I was sure the time for trying to work it out had passed. So I said "I suppose that is going to be the end of me playing in your games," to which he said "Ok" and I got up and left.

So yeah...

Bizarro world indeed.

I guess I will have my roommate post a synopsis of the session when he gets home for you to compare.

Cluedrew
2017-07-02, 09:34 PM
... That's not how you handle a problem player (which, because of style mismatch, you may have been). Calling someone in to kick them out is completely pointless, unless you are trying to stroke your own ego.

Well, some times risks don't pay off, I wish you luck in the future. And might be back if the session 2 summery gets posted.

Talakeal
2017-07-02, 09:36 PM
... That's not how you handle a problem player (which, because of style mismatch, you may have been). Calling someone in to kick them out is completely pointless, unless you are trying to stroke your own ego.

Well, some times risks don't pay off, I wish you luck in the future. And might be back if the session 2 summery gets posted.

No, there was no session 2. I know the DM through a miniature painting group and the conversation happened there. His goal didn't seem to be to kick me out, just to "lay down the law" so that I would either shape up or ship out, but when the threat of physical violence was brought up I swiftly cut the conversation short and chose the latter.

Mr Beer
2017-07-02, 11:03 PM
LOL @ him summoning you to a meeting to dress you down about your behaviour. I'd have told him to go fuk himself and I mean using those exact words, followed by the question 'who the hell do you think you are?'...what an absolute moron.

In fact I'd have probably walked out earlier because of all the red flags e.g. make some characters, oh wait I banned all this stuff but didn't tell you; no you can't talk to other players; yes I'm going to use a condescending voice to you etc. I'm too old for that stuff.

Also, while this DM is a cockmongler of the first order, you do seem to annoy people on a regular basis. Not exactly sure how you do it, you do seem a bit aspie though it's hard to tell over the internet.

goto124
2017-07-02, 11:32 PM
and the DM said "We need to talk. Your behavior the other night was completely unacceptable and it will not happen again. I wanted to throw you out several times and everyone was so pissed at you that you are lucky you didn't get hit."

That kind of thinking applies when the player makes discriminatory jokes in spite of being repeatedly told not to. Not for trying to play a game in a perfectly normal way.


you do seem to annoy people on a regular basis. Not exactly sure how you do it, you do seem a bit aspie though it's hard to tell over the internet.

Probably the internet thing. That, and the kind of people Talakeal deals with seem to be power-hungry DMs who get annoyed by regular people behavior:


So, if I look at another player's character sheet the DM, in his best elementary school teacher voice, tells me to keep my eyes on my own paper.
If I ask another player what their character can do either in or out of character the DM tells me to stop meta-gaming.
If I try and talk tactics in character the DM says "Talakeal, let other people play their own characters,"
and if I try and simply banter IC with the other PCs the DM tells me to stop wasting time and keep the game moving.

Arbane
2017-07-02, 11:39 PM
Probably for the best.

On the offchance you don't want to just never speak of this fiasco again, you could ask your friendly fellow player if "everyone" really was that mad, and/or you could send the GM a link to this thread. What's he gonna do, expel you AGAIN?

Mr Beer
2017-07-02, 11:45 PM
Probably for the best.

On the offchance you don't want to just never speak of this fiasco again, you could ask your friendly fellow player if "everyone" really was that mad, and/or you could send the GM a link to this thread. What's he gonna do, expel you AGAIN?

Please do both :)

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-03, 12:12 AM
I, for one, would be very interested in hearing the DM's side of this.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-03, 03:46 AM
While I'm slightly worried because of the possible backlash Talakeal could experience, of he's up for it I agree with linking the GM here so we can give his side of the story. Definitely hoping to get his roommate's opinion though and whether they're going back, might just be a style mismatch..

Cluedrew
2017-07-03, 06:51 AM
I know the DM through a miniature painting group and the conversation happened there.Well that is not as bad as I thought. I still don't think it was well handled, of course as seen by this moment here I don't have every detail.

Another thing that might be worth trying is sending your side of the story, not necessarily the link but just the story, to the GM so he has the opportunity to reflect. I don't know if the GM will and you have already left, but it might help them out in the future.

Jay R
2017-07-03, 08:57 AM
I am not defending the DM. He has made some really bad mistakes.
I am not defending the other players. They didn't do anything to help your situation.

But most situations are complicated, and there's only one part you can change. I suggest that you work on that part.

You created a character with no reason to be loyal to any group he travels with, and no reason to ever commit to a quest or mission or any other long-term party goal. Why would you expect him to fit in with a party on a mission?


As a concession, I do agree that I could just meta-game the crap out of everything (ironically the type of behavior the DM is apparently trying to avoid), pretend that the other PCs are my best friends and comrades, and play a reckless but loyal kick-in-the-door character who doesn't care about ethics or dialogue, but that really isn't the character I brought to the game from either a mechanical or a narrative direction.

Leaving out the negative phrasing, I strongly urge you, in any game, to bring a character to the game, from a mechanical and a narrative direction, who will actually believe that his comrades in arms are friends and comrades, and play a brave and loyal character who cares as much about working and fighting with the people he shares a mission with. You can care about ethics, but be sure that your ethics includes jumping in to save your companions, even when it's dangerous to do so.

You often come up with really great character conceptions that don't work well in a party. Then you are often surprised that the party members don't like it.

Again,
I am not defending the DM. He has made some really bad mistakes.
I am not defending the other players. They didn't do anything to help your situation.

But your character conception makes this situation worse.

I would love to read a story about many of the characters you create. They are interesting, well-developed, and realistic. But I don't want one beside me when we're attacked.

Airk
2017-07-03, 12:26 PM
Am I the only one who barely got past "OSR game with at least four banned races/classes?" Most OSR games I know, if you banned that many classes/races, you'd be left with like, human fighter as the only option. x.x

Another lovely train wreck.

But I do sortof agree with Jay that your characters sound like terrible team players, and that's a problem.

Talakeal
2017-07-03, 12:50 PM
Probably for the best.

On the offchance you don't want to just never speak of this fiasco again, you could ask your friendly fellow player if "everyone" really was that mad, and/or you could send the GM a link to this thread. What's he gonna do, expel you AGAIN?

Already talked to the two players who are my friends. They thought I was "sulking" but weren't angry at me so much as concerned I was having a bad time and anticipating future problems. Again, will have my room mate post his version of the story.


I, for one, would be very interested in hearing the DM's side of this.


While I'm slightly worried because of the possible backlash Talakeal could experience, of he's up for it I agree with linking the GM here so we can give his side of the story. Definitely hoping to get his roommate's opinion though and whether they're going back, might just be a style mismatch..


Well that is not as bad as I thought. I still don't think it was well handled, of course as seen by this moment here I don't have every detail.

Another thing that might be worth trying is sending your side of the story, not necessarily the link but just the story, to the GM so he has the opportunity to reflect. I don't know if the GM will and you have already left, but it might help them out in the future.

Sorry, not going to happen. I am going to do my best to cut off all contact. If I don't I just know I am going to eventually get talked back into giving the game another try, and then I will be back here next month with another gaming horror story and you will all be like "WTH why did you not get out while you could you masochist!"


I am not defending the DM. He has made some really bad mistakes.
I am not defending the other players. They didn't do anything to help your situation.

But most situations are complicated, and there's only one part you can change. I suggest that you work on that part.

You created a character with no reason to be loyal to any group he travels with, and no reason to ever commit to a quest or mission or any other long-term party goal. Why would you expect him to fit in with a party on a mission?



Leaving out the negative phrasing, I strongly urge you, in any game, to bring a character to the game, from a mechanical and a narrative direction, who will actually believe that his comrades in arms are friends and comrades, and play a brave and loyal character who cares as much about working and fighting with the people he shares a mission with. You can care about ethics, but be sure that your ethics includes jumping in to save your companions, even when it's dangerous to do so.

You often come up with really great character conceptions that don't work well in a party. Then you are often surprised that the party members don't like it.

Again,
I am not defending the DM. He has made some really bad mistakes.
I am not defending the other players. They didn't do anything to help your situation.

But your character conception makes this situation worse.

I would love to read a story about many of the characters you create. They are interesting, well-developed, and realistic. But I don't want one beside me when we're attacked.

I agree, my character was absolutely not geared for the adventure, which is why I sent the DM the message I did asking if I could change.

Now, I will admit I make independent characters more often than not and that RPing a characters personality is far more fun to me than running tactical combats at optimal efficiency. However, I have had plenty of team player characters who didn't work out either.

In this particular case I was trying to explore some character archetypes that I don't normally play, I haven't played a rogue since my very first gaming horror story, I haven't played many male characters and after being told I am horrible at playing females I wanted to see how it would go differently on the other side, and I haven't played a character who wasn't an out and out good guy in forever. I also don't normally play party faces or investigators, which this character was set up to be.

The DM kept going on about how he doesn't like min-maxers, or meta-gamers, or hack and slashers at his table, and it is all about the STORY. I took that to mean this would be a heavy RP campaign, but what he apparently meant was "His story," i.e. a narrative heavy railroad. So I thought this character would work well.

And my character was not in any way averse to combat or helping allies. I almost always play overly protective martyr characters who would be the first to jump on a live grenade or stay back to hold off the monster while everyone else escapes (indeed in a Dread game at a con last week I was the only fatality because as soon as the tower got precarious I declared that I was going to do just that and intentionally knocked over the tower). One of this character's personality traits was "Loyal to his friends," unfortunately I simply couldn't make myself consider the people who I had never met before, ordered by my future enemies to work with, and not been able to talk to as my "friends".

Putting a CG outlaw in a group of LN / LE soldiers and not expecting any friction is just baffling to me, especially when I was given no motivation or reason for being there. My character was absolutely not appropriate for this game, I just wish I had a chance to talk about it with someone before the game started.


Also, while this DM is a cockmongler of the first order, you do seem to annoy people on a regular basis. Not exactly sure how you do it, you do seem a bit aspie though it's hard to tell over the internet.

I have often thought I might be autistic as I do show a lot of the signs, but when I was a kid I saw more specialists than I can count and all of them assured my parents I was not. I do, however, have a sensory processing disorder which, among other things, makes it impossible for me to read people's faces / body language, so that might be a part of it.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-03, 01:13 PM
Sorry, not going to happen. I am going to do my best to cut off all contact. If I don't I just know I am going to eventually get talked back into giving the game another try, and then I will be back here next month with another gaming horror story and you will all be like "WTH why did you not get out while you could you masochist!"

Eh, fair enough, I'd be doing the same in your position, I'm just interested in getting as man views as possible.

ATHATH
2017-07-03, 01:42 PM
Perhaps your roommate could contact the DM, then.

Could I get some links to the rest of the horror stories? They sound interesting.

JAL_1138
2017-07-03, 01:43 PM
A DM who didn't have a clue how teamwork works seems beyond a simple DM Red Flag in my book. Run. Run away now.

Even the before-game stuff with character creation was a red flag to me. Then it got worse.

Getting out was the right call.

Nupo
2017-07-03, 01:50 PM
Ok, so the game starts. The background is that ~30 years ago there was a great war which caused the empire to pull all military and government forces out of the frontier to defend the capital. For a generation the frontier has had to make do on its own, but now the empire is strong enough that it wants to retake the frontier. The party has signed year long contracts of indentured servitude to the commander of the local garrison. We are contractually obligated to follow all orders he gives up and turn over all treasure we find. In exchange we will be given our freedom and generous wages at the end of the one year term.
I could totally see me throwing this at a group. I would however expect them to "go rogue" and rebel against the indentured servitude. I think it could be fun to see how that played out. But, that's me, and I think your DM and I have pretty different styles.

Cluedrew
2017-07-03, 03:00 PM
Sorry, not going to happen. I am going to do my best to cut off all contact. If I don't I just know I am going to eventually get talked back into giving the game another try,That strikes me as paranoia, but given your track record I cannot blame you for that.

TheYell
2017-07-03, 03:15 PM
Sounds like you are well rid of a bad bunch. I hope your roommate gets out too.

BayardSPSR
2017-07-03, 04:56 PM
you are lucky you didn't get hit."

Now, I am really curious if he was the one wanting to do the hitting or if one of the other players told him that after the game, but either way once the thread of RL violence was on the table I was sure the time for trying to work it out had passed. So I said "I suppose that is going to be the end of me playing in your games," to which he said "Ok" and I got up and left.

How does it always get worse. How.

At least it made leaving easy, I guess?


Am I the only one who barely got past "OSR game with at least four banned races/classes?" Most OSR games I know, if you banned that many classes/races, you'd be left with like, human fighter as the only option. x.x

Yeah, how do you ban multiple races/classes from an OSR game and still have any left?

Mr Beer
2017-07-03, 06:35 PM
I have often thought I might be autistic as I do show a lot of the signs, but when I was a kid I saw more specialists than I can count and all of them assured my parents I was not. I do, however, have a sensory processing disorder which, among other things, makes it impossible for me to read people's faces / body language, so that might be a part of it.

Wow, that sucks, sorry to hear it. Yeah, that probably has something to do with the problems you encounter.

TheYell
2017-07-03, 06:55 PM
Your condition doesn't justify any hint of threats of violence.

The only thing I can come up with, is, they were getting together to test combat mechanics. So they created a scenario out of Starship Troopers where you fight because you're there to fight, you don't question the need to fight, and when you see something to fight, you clobber it without talking over why or how.

Tactical level wargaming, not roleplaying.

But that's all I can think of as a reason to strip the "wrong" classes, the "wrong" gods, the "wrong" motivations, and get on a guy's case for taking too long in combat.

I'd like to hear what your roommate sees when he/she plays.

Jay R
2017-07-04, 10:41 AM
I agree, my character was absolutely not geared for the adventure, which is why I sent the DM the message I did asking if I could change.

That doesn't agree with me. Your character was not geared for any adventure, with any party. He's a loner, intending to make his own decisions and go his own way, rather than being part of a group.


Now, I will admit I make independent characters more often than not and that RPing a characters personality is far more fun to me than running tactical combats at optimal efficiency. However, I have had plenty of team player characters who didn't work out either.

But the ones we hear about most are like this:

After the session the DM gave me a severe tongue lashing for splitting the party and wasting so much time and "ruining his session by playing a coward". When I explained that I wasnt playing a coward, just someone with a rationale grasp of tactics and risk analysis the DM proclaimed "you arent supposed to be playing a rational person, you are supposed to be an adventurer, which means acting like a HERO!"

The other players, and especially the DM, are getting very frustrated evert time the initiative count comes around to me and I dont do anything escept maybe cast bladeward.

In my Mage group when I first joined I was having some trouble coming up with a motivation for my character to join the rest of the cabal, and I asked for some help coming up with a rationale. I was told, point blank, that I am part of the cabal because I want to play the game, and if my character didn't think that was a good enough reason I was welcome to reroll or leave the group.

I strongly urge you to come to every table in every game planning to work with the party. You didn't work with them this time. You didn't in these other times. This is a consistent issue, and has annoyed the other players in several games.


I almost always play overly protective martyr characters who would be the first to jump on a live grenade or stay back to hold off the monster while everyone else escapes ...

This time you stood out away from the melee, the only PC who didn't jump in and help.


Putting a CG outlaw in a group of LN / LE soldiers and not expecting any friction is just baffling to me, especially when I was given no motivation or reason for being there.

I've already agreed that the DM made mistakes, and if he asks for my advice, I will tell him so, in stern and straightforward terms. But you're not him, and giving you advice intended for him cannot help anything. I can only give you advice about the parts you can make better.


My character was absolutely not appropriate for this game,...

Your character was not appropriate for any game. He's a loner who won't join in with the group's plans and goals.

I know this is no fun to hear, and I'm not trying to hurt you. But I've spotted a pattern that you haven't noticed, and if you can see it, you might be able to have more fun playing, with far fewer Bizarro episodes.

Yes, other people are at fault, too. But you will never find a game where nobody else does anything wrong, because we're all human, and we make mistakes. I'm trying to convince you that you have a long-term approach that always makes the situations with the DM's and other mistakes worse.

I suspect that's why you are in so many Bizarro games. Not because the other people are imperfect (that's true in every game). But because your approach to gaming turns annoying problems into unsolvable problems.


I have often thought I might be autistic as I do show a lot of the signs, but when I was a kid I saw more specialists than I can count and all of them assured my parents I was not. I do, however, have a sensory processing disorder which, among other things, makes it impossible for me to read people's faces / body language, so that might be a part of it.

It may be. That may be why I can see something in your game descriptions that you can't.

If this is a problem for you, then it will be hard to get better - but you can do it. Millions of people have. You can learn how to read people. Start by asking some people you trust what their feeling,and admitting that you can't tell.

You can also learn how to approach these situations to reduce the problem instead of making it worse.

For instance, once it was clear what the situation is, your rogue could have decided, "I'm not happy with this group, but I'm traveling with them in a dangerous world, and we have to work together to survive whether i like them or not." A reason to defend them? Because if they die, you are alone.

I have a Ranger right now escorting a group of city-folks through the Great Forest. It would have been easy to play him as opposed to them being here. But instead, I said, "I'm here to protect you from the Forest. Or to protect the Forest from you. I'm not sure which, yet." That let me keep treating the city folk as somewhat alien while jumping into every melee in front of them.

If you look, you can always find an IC reason not to get along with the rest of the party, and not to share their goals. But you can also always find a good IC reason to work with them. And that always makes a better game for everyone, and reduces the problems caused by poor DMing.

I hope this helps.

JustIgnoreMe
2017-07-04, 11:18 AM
+1 to what JR said.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-04, 11:48 AM
Or just play games where PC cooperation is neither expected nor important.

Cazero
2017-07-04, 11:55 AM
Or just play games where PC cooperation is neither expected nor important.
We all know Paranoia is a thing, but you can't possibly expect every group out there to have the security clearance for it.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-04, 12:33 PM
I've played in games where OP's character and behaviour would have fit in without disrupting group dynamics, because they'd have done much the same thing and/or tried to give his character a train to care (me, of have asked the player to be excepting it instead of a prison sentence and ask them to metagame stick with it for a few sessions). In fact, that kind of character is perfect for free wheeling 'we've encountered or problem let's stumble or way past it' games of people who are hapless fools and heroes. Unfortunately in my experience those are exactly the rarest type of have, and in almost all others will cause friction.

JAL_1138
2017-07-04, 12:52 PM
The easiest way to turn a character like that into a team player is to give them a bad case of Chronic Hero Syndrome to conflict with their desire to be freewheeling. Chained by their conscience. They may not want to charge in to help complete strangers, but won't be able to look themselves in the mirror if they don't.

I generally agree with Jay R in terms of character appropriateness. Not much to add to it—characters can be reluctant team players, but in non-PVP/Paranoia games, should still be team players, period—even if it means taking suboptimal actions. Let me be clear, though--while I definitely see some issues with OP's character concept and in-game actions, if the account of the DM's behavior, ludicrous restrictions on both character creation and discussion, and possible threat of violence (could be serious, could be a figure of speech; hard to tell) are accurate, then while it certainly didn't help, OP's character is NOT the chief source of problems with the game.

Nupo
2017-07-04, 01:37 PM
I know this is no fun to hear, and I'm not trying to hurt you. But I've spotted a pattern that you haven't noticed, and if you can see it, you might be able to have more fun playing, with far fewer Bizarro episodes.

Yes, other people are at fault, too. But you will never find a game where nobody else does anything wrong, because we're all human, and we make mistakes. I'm trying to convince you that you have a long-term approach that always makes the situations with the DM's and other mistakes worse.

I suspect that's why you are in so many Bizarro games. Not because the other people are imperfect (that's true in every game). But because your approach to gaming turns annoying problems into unsolvable problems.

Well said. It's obvious that wisdom was not Jay R's dump stat.

Talakeal
2017-07-04, 02:49 PM
That doesn't agree with me. Your character was not geared for any adventure, with any party. He's a loner, intending to make his own decisions and go his own way, rather than being part of a group.



But the ones we hear about most are like this:




I strongly urge you to come to every table in every game planning to work with the party. You didn't work with them this time. You didn't in these other times. This is a consistent issue, and has annoyed the other players in several games.



This time you stood out away from the melee, the only PC who didn't jump in and help.



I've already agreed that the DM made mistakes, and if he asks for my advice, I will tell him so, in stern and straightforward terms. But you're not him, and giving you advice intended for him cannot help anything. I can only give you advice about the parts you can make better.



Your character was not appropriate for any game. He's a loner who won't join in with the group's plans and goals.

I know this is no fun to hear, and I'm not trying to hurt you. But I've spotted a pattern that you haven't noticed, and if you can see it, you might be able to have more fun playing, with far fewer Bizarro episodes.

Yes, other people are at fault, too. But you will never find a game where nobody else does anything wrong, because we're all human, and we make mistakes. I'm trying to convince you that you have a long-term approach that always makes the situations with the DM's and other mistakes worse.

I suspect that's why you are in so many Bizarro games. Not because the other people are imperfect (that's true in every game). But because your approach to gaming turns annoying problems into unsolvable problems.



It may be. That may be why I can see something in your game descriptions that you can't.

If this is a problem for you, then it will be hard to get better - but you can do it. Millions of people have. You can learn how to read people. Start by asking some people you trust what their feeling,and admitting that you can't tell.

You can also learn how to approach these situations to reduce the problem instead of making it worse.

For instance, once it was clear what the situation is, your rogue could have decided, "I'm not happy with this group, but I'm traveling with them in a dangerous world, and we have to work together to survive whether i like them or not." A reason to defend them? Because if they die, you are alone.

I have a Ranger right now escorting a group of city-folks through the Great Forest. It would have been easy to play him as opposed to them being here. But instead, I said, "I'm here to protect you from the Forest. Or to protect the Forest from you. I'm not sure which, yet." That let me keep treating the city folk as somewhat alien while jumping into every melee in front of them.

If you look, you can always find an IC reason not to get along with the rest of the party, and not to share their goals. But you can also always find a good IC reason to work with them. And that always makes a better game for everyone, and reduces the problems caused by poor DMing.

I hope this helps.

Thanks for taking the time to write out a long well-thought out post. And while I do agree with you that I am partially to blame for most of my problems, I wouldn't go so far as to say that I a take a significant level of blame in all of them, and I think you are kind of overstating your point.

I literally can't see where you are getting that my character wouldn't be appropriate for any game. Loner was not one of my character's listed traits, loyal and protective of friends were. I could see the character working out very well in a noir style mystery game, a swashbuckling adventure, or a seedy urban story. And the character wouldn't have been a bad fit for a gang of unlikely heroes wandering the country side fighting monsters, rescuing princesses, and ransacking dungeons for treasure. Heck, if the game was exactly as is but we had been working as double agents secretly feeding the local resistance information and supplies I think it would have been an excellent fit. My character is an anti-authoritarian and an outlaw, not an anti-social outcast. Indeed, I was built to be the party face and was actively trying to be friendly to the other players and trying to interact with the NPCs as more of the "loveable scoundrel" archetype than the brooding outsider.

Now, I did put "avoid long-term commitments" as a character goal, but it wasn't to avoid contact with the party. The DM insisted I give my character a long term goal to help him create the adventure, and so I chose this one because I knew that I did NOT want this character to end up in a position of authority or starting his own kingdom / mercenary band / thieves guild / family.

I was explicitly trying to play outside of my comfort zone; a masculine character who thinks before acting and prefers talking to violence. A few months ago when I was told that I play female characters very badly that has started me thinking about trying to understand what that means and so I was trying to make this character to, among other things, explore concepts of masculinity.

And, frankly, I think the DM created a lot of his own problems. He kept insisting that this was an OSR game where the dice fall where they may and that people will die if they are stupid or reckless. And he kept saying how much he hated meta-gamers, people who tell other people how to play, and hack and slash players, so I was actively doing my best to NOT start acting reckless and out of character for the sake of party unity.




Also, while I agree that I have created many characters who are stubborn and problematic (and I fully admit that I often do it intentionally because playing a flawless character who simply does whatever I think is the most effective tactic OOC is boring for me) and I appreciate you went to the effort of looking through previous threads to find examples, I don't think those particular cases are very good ones. The first two are mostly mechanical problems from the same session (I wanted to try an abjurer and we are in a setting where arcane magic is hated and feared so I didn't take any offensive spells, and the party left me alone with a monster and my d4 HP and expected me to handle it myself) and in the second I am getting chewed out for doing exactly what you are suggesting in this very post, trying to find an IC justification for my OOC motivation to stick with the group and being told to stuff it.


Also, my disability is not that I don't recognize what emotions look like, its that my nervous system has trouble distinguishing useful information from background noise. I see people, I just don't process the important bits. For example, I will spend ten minutes looking for a book on a shelf or a can of food from the pantry with no success, my brain merely sees the whole picture and even though I know what I am looking for specifically I can't sift it out of the pile. Last week at the con I ended up being late for a game (and embarrassed) when after spending 15 minutes trying to find the table my game was being played at in the directory and not seeing it despite knowing what I was looking for I went and told the con organizer that it wasn't listed only for them to point it out to me right there on the page in plain sight.


Sorry if I come of as defensive, I really do appreciate you taking the time to try and help me, I just think you are being a bit overzealous presenting what is overall very good advice.

Jay R
2017-07-04, 04:06 PM
Sorry if I come of as defensive, I really do appreciate you taking the time to try and help me, I just think you are being a bit overzealous presenting what is overall very good advice.

No problem. One of the problems of internet conversations is that there is no feedback in the middle of a long statement. I had no idea how hard I would need to push to convince you to think about it.

No, I don't think you're causing a lot of these situations. I do think that your character approach often turns what could have been an annoying moment into a potential game-stopper or party-breaker, like when you stand outside the building while your team-mates are inside risking their lives. The best approach at that point is to think to yourself "I don't like this DM's approach," while your character jumps into the party's defense.

JAL_1138
2017-07-04, 04:33 PM
So, here is the big crux of the matter. I know it isn't their fault, but as far as my character is concerned the group he is with are a bunch of anti-social, tactically inept nitwits, who are willingly serving as the thugs of the oppressive imperialistic regime, and that makes it really hard for me to care about what happens to them.

[...]

I just can't justify going into a stupidly dangerous situation to save the lives of these people who are, as far as my character knows, foolish strangers who are probably going to turn me in for not towing the line in the end anyway.


Regardless of what you had on your sheet, your character didn't extend "loyal to friends" to the party. If your character concept doesn't allow you to extend loyalty to party members right off the bat, it's a problem. Other players will not care if you've written down that your character is loyal to his friends if that doesn't include their characters.

While the DM's approach to character interaction was frankly absurd from the way you've described it, as Jay R said, waiting around outside after the rest of the group charged in was not the right course of action. However foolish it might be, charge in anyway...then after the session politely explain that you don't feel like your gaming styles are compatible and excuse yourself from further participation. (Getting out was still the right call; you making a mistake with your character doesn't mean it wasn't a bonkers game that would best be avoided. The character's actions seem to have exacerbated the issue, but are not the sole reason it went south).

Cluedrew
2017-07-04, 05:02 PM
Another thing that may help these sorts of issues is an idea I have just composed into a semi-dramatic statement: Character creation doesn't end until the campaign is over.

Now after the campaign starts character creation should be mostly of the additive variety. Mostly. Anything that isn't blatantly out of the established character is on the table, including tweaking character details others haven't seen yet. Or completely overhauling central concepts they haven't seen yet. Until something has been established changing it doesn't matter, not to anyone else at the table. Not that I recommend changing your entire character very often (that sort of thing is usually a last resort).

It sounds very dramatic, but I don't really think it is. I don't even think people notice when I internally swap out some piece of the character.

Alberic Strein
2017-07-04, 06:35 PM
God... Damn it Talakeal.

How? Just... how? How do you keep being thrown into all these situations?

Anyway, halfway through the first post my advice was to get the hell outta here, it wasn't going to get better. Some GMs have delusions of grandeur and for some reason feel that the game is the place to let out all their control fantasies. Or just fantasies. "Welcome to my magical place" indeed...

Anyway, for once this situation can be more than just patting your back wondering why all these situations always come to you and why.

This time we can actually give you some advice!

In this case the advice is "never leave your home without Karl the Fighter."

I mean, we all have fun concepts and ideas going around in our heads. For example I have been known to play, and keep playing Shadowrun with a character whose description read "Insane madman". The trick being to craft a reason for the character to follow rules that we, as players interacting with other players, follow. Sometimes it's about being really tight with your fixer, sometimes it's about being BFF with the paladin, sometimes it's about having a pack mentality and regarding the party as said pack.

Sometimes you don't need any of these reasons. When Jay R says that your character, at least the way you played him, wasn't geared for adventuring, and with any group, I disagree. You can have a completely dysfunctional cutthroat murder-hobo work with the good guys and go cojones-deep with them. It's just a matter of setting and forcing the character's, not the player's, hand. For example your character, at some point, will like something. Either the cute and naive barmaid will make him go d'awww, or the beer will be exceptional, or any other thing, something trivial that is still extremely important for the character. The bad guy threatens that and boom, the cutthroat murder-hobo is working flawlessly with the team.

Sometimes, however, you meet terrible GMs that want you to follow their adventure the way they want you to just because. And when you hear the first alarms raised by the GM's behavior, this time way before the game actually took place, you whip out Karl the fighter. Karl the Fighter is a simple sort. Hardy enough to waltz into melee, yet still wise enough not to go in when the rest of the party is not ready to commit. You can't say he has no personality either. He simply has one that is easy for you to play as: Yourself. Karl the Fighter has your opinions, and reacts the way you would. As for long term plans? Power, money, and eventually women. That's far enough that it shouldn't particularly come up in the campaign, and wide enough that each level technically works towards that goal. Also, perhaps Karl the Fighter's most admirable quality : he is easy-going, doesn't really care that much one way or the other, and is mainly here for the adventure anyway.

You get the picture, a guy who can work with any team, and brings -at least during the first few levels- something team can not get enough of: frontliners. Two thieves is a crowd, but three fighters is a party.

Also, after all these disastrous campaigns, you might be a bit too focused on surviving, Talakeal. Dying is like drinking, it sucks when you're alone, but it's enjoyable when everyone goes. And if -after the party engaged- you die trying to help them and they survive, well you died a hero, your character will be mourned, and if you and your GM don't tick, then you can reroll Karl the Fighter.

Rule of thumb: Never go cojones-deep, but when the team goes, you go. Even if it's stupid, even if your character's first instinct would be to run. You need to find the trait of your character that would make him go and prioritize that. For example if he travelled for some days with the party, even with the OOC GM's ban on talking, some IC bonds could have started budding, enough that your character could have dared get into the darkness as he hears the fighter screaming in agony and walk on all fours until he finds him in the darkness and pull him out. Or something, anything that would, for the most stressful moment of the game, combat, align your character with the party.

Also, I second Cluedrew's "Character creation doesn't end until the campaign is over." Not because you can change any and all things regarding your character with impunity, but because the adventure keeps building your character along the way. The concept I started a campaign with matured into a character that, by the end, barely resembled what I had started with. And that's great.

JAL_1138
2017-07-04, 06:45 PM
Another thing that may help these sorts of issues is an idea I have just composed into a semi-dramatic statement: Character creation doesn't end until the campaign is over.

Now after the campaign starts character creation should be mostly of the additive variety. Mostly. Anything that isn't blatantly out of the established character is on the table, including tweaking character details others haven't seen yet. Or completely overhauling central concepts they haven't seen yet. Until something has been established changing it doesn't matter, not to anyone else at the table. Not that I recommend changing your entire character very often (that sort of thing is usually a last resort).

It sounds very dramatic, but I don't really think it is. I don't even think people notice when I internally swap out some piece of the character.

Seconded, so very much. Half the time I don't even have a solid concept for a character (other thsn mechanical build) or understanding of their personality until after I've played them a few sessions to get a feel for them, and it often still keeps evolving throughout the game.

Fenrisnorth
2017-07-05, 12:27 AM
I was the roommate in question. We spent a good amount of time making characters, and I had told the DM that Talakeal doesn't like playing the same character as anyone else ahead of time.

The DM had us roll our stats and chose our class and starting equipment. He took that info and made characters for us, including calculating our skills for us. I had chosen to play a magic user with a "half-class" called a portal keeper; as I wanted to play a person going around and sealing holes in the world left over from a cataclysmic war with the outer realms. Unbeknowns to me, this left me with the climb, trapfinding, and (perhaps) open locks... I'm not 100% sure. we weren't allowed to take our sheets home with us.

While we were talking tactics, during an in-character lull in the action the DM snapped at Talakeal not to worry about what [our] characters could do, including asking me what spells I had (Honestly, my spell list was poop, not a very good class.) I thought he meant for Talakeal to focus on telling us how his character could contribute. After this, Talakeal, who hadn't gotten near the monster at the start of the fight; didn't come back inside the building. After the fight, he was the one to suggest we get the wounded back to town for treatment.

I was the one who told Talakeal that he was sulking on the drive home. The physical threat was a great surprise to me, and frankly got me quite angry.

Honestly, I don't like the DM

Talakeal
2017-07-05, 12:46 AM
Regardless of what you had on your sheet, your character didn't extend "loyal to friends" to the party. If your character concept doesn't allow you to extend loyalty to party members right off the bat, it's a problem. Other players will not care if you've written down that your character is loyal to his friends if that doesn't include their characters.

While the DM's approach to character interaction was frankly absurd from the way you've described it, as Jay R said, waiting around outside after the rest of the group charged in was not the right course of action. However foolish it might be, charge in anyway...then after the session politely explain that you don't feel like your gaming styles are compatible and excuse yourself from further participation. (Getting out was still the right call; you making a mistake with your character doesn't mean it wasn't a bonkers game that would best be avoided. The character's actions seem to have exacerbated the issue, but are not the sole reason it went south).

Out of curiosity, how different would the characters have to be for friendship off the bat to be assumed? Like, if I made a standard paladin and the rest of the party showed up with CE assassins and necromancers, would it be the same deal? Because this is a unique circumstance in that the DM actually forbid any sort of cohesive party or discussion of themes before the game began, so that would have been a definite possibility.

But yeah, by the time the last fight occurred I was pretty dang fed-up with the DM and had no motivation in or out of character to try and salvage the game; especially when I liked the character I had created and the DM had been pounding into our heads that meta-gaming was the ultimate sin and that he was looking forward to killing stupid characters.

I certainly could have simply sucked it up and done my best to help the party, but I just wasn't feeling any good will at that point.


God... Damn it Talakeal.

How? Just... how? How do you keep being thrown into all these situations?

Anyway, halfway through the first post my advice was to get the hell outta here, it wasn't going to get better. Some GMs have delusions of grandeur and for some reason feel that the game is the place to let out all their control fantasies. Or just fantasies. "Welcome to my magical place" indeed...

Anyway, for once this situation can be more than just patting your back wondering why all these situations always come to you and why.

This time we can actually give you some advice!

In this case the advice is "never leave your home without Karl the Fighter."

I mean, we all have fun concepts and ideas going around in our heads. For example I have been known to play, and keep playing Shadowrun with a character whose description read "Insane madman". The trick being to craft a reason for the character to follow rules that we, as players interacting with other players, follow. Sometimes it's about being really tight with your fixer, sometimes it's about being BFF with the paladin, sometimes it's about having a pack mentality and regarding the party as said pack.

Sometimes you don't need any of these reasons. When Jay R says that your character, at least the way you played him, wasn't geared for adventuring, and with any group, I disagree. You can have a completely dysfunctional cutthroat murder-hobo work with the good guys and go cojones-deep with them. It's just a matter of setting and forcing the character's, not the player's, hand. For example your character, at some point, will like something. Either the cute and naive barmaid will make him go d'awww, or the beer will be exceptional, or any other thing, something trivial that is still extremely important for the character. The bad guy threatens that and boom, the cutthroat murder-hobo is working flawlessly with the team.

Sometimes, however, you meet terrible GMs that want you to follow their adventure the way they want you to just because. And when you hear the first alarms raised by the GM's behavior, this time way before the game actually took place, you whip out Karl the fighter. Karl the Fighter is a simple sort. Hardy enough to waltz into melee, yet still wise enough not to go in when the rest of the party is not ready to commit. You can't say he has no personality either. He simply has one that is easy for you to play as: Yourself. Karl the Fighter has your opinions, and reacts the way you would. As for long term plans? Power, money, and eventually women. That's far enough that it shouldn't particularly come up in the campaign, and wide enough that each level technically works towards that goal. Also, perhaps Karl the Fighter's most admirable quality : he is easy-going, doesn't really care that much one way or the other, and is mainly here for the adventure anyway.

You get the picture, a guy who can work with any team, and brings -at least during the first few levels- something team can not get enough of: frontliners. Two thieves is a crowd, but three fighters is a party.

Also, after all these disastrous campaigns, you might be a bit too focused on surviving, Talakeal. Dying is like drinking, it sucks when you're alone, but it's enjoyable when everyone goes. And if -after the party engaged- you die trying to help them and they survive, well you died a hero, your character will be mourned, and if you and your GM don't tick, then you can reroll Karl the Fighter.

Rule of thumb: Never go cojones-deep, but when the team goes, you go. Even if it's stupid, even if your character's first instinct would be to run. You need to find the trait of your character that would make him go and prioritize that. For example if he travelled for some days with the party, even with the OOC GM's ban on talking, some IC bonds could have started budding, enough that your character could have dared get into the darkness as he hears the fighter screaming in agony and walk on all fours until he finds him in the darkness and pull him out. Or something, anything that would, for the most stressful moment of the game, combat, align your character with the party.

Also, I second Cluedrew's "Character creation doesn't end until the campaign is over." Not because you can change any and all things regarding your character with impunity, but because the adventure keeps building your character along the way. The concept I started a campaign with matured into a character that, by the end, barely resembled what I had started with. And that's great.

I actually call him "Mike the Fighter" after a joke in Knights of the Dinner Table or "Figh-tor" after a Fear the Boot Referance. But indeed, that is a character I have played many times.

As I said, I usually play a fighter with a martyr complex who would be more than willing to fight or die for allies regardless of what she thinks of them as people, but I was explicitly hoping to try and expand my horizons and play against type this game. When I saw that it didn't work out I was going to suggest to the DM that I switch to "Mike the Fighter" next session, but then he busted out the real life threats and I felt that I didn't really relish real life combat either and left.

Satinavian
2017-07-05, 03:25 AM
I was the roommate in question. We spent a good amount of time making characters, and I had told the DM that Talakeal doesn't like playing the same character as anyone else ahead of time.

The DM had us roll our stats and chose our class and starting equipment. He took that info and made characters for us, including calculating our skills for us. I had chosen to play a magic user with a "half-class" called a portal keeper; as I wanted to play a person going around and sealing holes in the world left over from a cataclysmic war with the outer realms. Unbeknowns to me, this left me with the climb, trapfinding, and (perhaps) open locks... I'm not 100% sure. we weren't allowed to take our sheets home with us.

While we were talking tactics, during an in-character lull in the action the DM snapped at Talakeal not to worry about what [our] characters could do, including asking me what spells I had (Honestly, my spell list was poop, not a very good class.) I thought he meant for Talakeal to focus on telling us how his character could contribute. After this, Talakeal, who hadn't gotten near the monster at the start of the fight; didn't come back inside the building. After the fight, he was the one to suggest we get the wounded back to town for treatment.

I was the one who told Talakeal that he was sulking on the drive home. The physical threat was a great surprise to me, and frankly got me quite angry.

Thanks for posting. One sided stories are always hard to judge.

Honestly, I don't like the DM
Yes, reads overall like many many warning signs, even before the game started. I am not completely sure i would have even agreed to a first session but certainly would have bailed afterwards.



@ Talakeal

This seems like a gm where the decision to leave is a good one.


As for your many horror stories, i think it is possible that you have now a problem with trust. And this seems to be a reason why you make characters that are hard to force into stupid plots you don't like and can always rationalize not going with whatever harebrained scheme the other PCs come up with and are indeed never really compelled to do anything you, as a player, does not want them to do.
That is a perfectly normal reaction to bad experiences with DMs and players. You keep fully in control of your character and the corresponding part of the narrative.

The problem with that is that it makes it significantly harder for the character to get involved in the story or in interactions and realtions with other PCs. All of this now basically can't happen without you letting your character actively and consciously contributing to that happening. That can be frustrating for everyone else. What is even worse, roleplayers often like to make this stuff not too obvious. Which means many plot hooks and interaction opportunities are subtle. Now you have a character who doesn't get involved if you don't want, others (DM and players) give you interaction opportunities and ... you miss them because you are not good at subtlety. Sure, DMs still can railroad you in anyway but hardly anyone does actually want to do that. Other players can't force you into relationships and can't make you helping to build a working group. People get frustrated with you. You don't even notice it. And when some other disagreement about anything happens, it really blows out of proportion.


Just my personal guess.




As for Karl the fighter. I once build such a character because the DM of the group was not good. I thought, this way the character can work with whatever happens. That really went wrong when the DM didn't have a Grand Idea and instead went for a character driven plot immitating sandbox gaming. But it turned out that noe of the characters had any real goals, all of them were unambitious drifters (because former experience with the DM) and the plot went nowhere at all.

Koo Rehtorb
2017-07-05, 03:29 AM
As for your many horror stories, i think it is possible that you have now a problem with trust. And this seems to be a reason why you make characters that are hard to force into stupid plots you don't like and can always rationalize not going with whatever harebrained scheme the other PCs come up with and are indeed never really compelled to do anything you, as a player, does not want them to do.
That is a perfectly normal reaction to bad experiences with DMs and players. You keep fully in control of your character and the corresponding part of the narrative.

https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/abused-gamer-syndrome/

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-05, 04:21 AM
I was the roommate in question. We spent a good amount of time making characters, and I had told the DM that Talakeal doesn't like playing the same character as anyone else ahead of time.

Going to go through this a paragraph at a time, it doesn't sound bad so far. Previously spent three hours making characters as a group in a simple system.


The DM had us roll our stats and chose our class and starting equipment. He took that info and made characters for us, including calculating our skills for us. I had chosen to play a magic user with a "half-class" called a portal keeper; as I wanted to play a person going around and sealing holes in the world left over from a cataclysmic war with the outer realms. Unbeknowns to me, this left me with the climb, trapfinding, and (perhaps) open locks... I'm not 100% sure. we weren't allowed to take our sheets home with us.

Interesting. It seems a weird way to do it, unless you're alpha testing a system (although character creation is generally the third or fourth thing I write so players can play their own dudes ASAP*). There's nothing wrong with the GM making the characters in and of themselves or keeping the sheets in between sessions, but it's a warning sign. Especially because of the 'my only skills are climbing, jumping, and underwater basket weaving' problem.

While that sounds like a cool character concept, it sounds like you ended up with a rubbish character. This is why I pack grenadelikes if possible, can be used well with little character skill.

* Because it'll allow them to find the broken stuff earlier.


While we were talking tactics, during an in-character lull in the action the DM snapped at Talakeal not to worry about what [our] characters could do, including asking me what spells I had (Honestly, my spell list was poop, not a very good class.) I thought he meant for Talakeal to focus on telling us how his character could contribute. After this, Talakeal, who hadn't gotten near the monster at the start of the fight; didn't come back inside the building. After the fight, he was the one to suggest we get the wounded back to town for treatment.

ummm... isn't it standard practice to establish what your fellow party members can do? Of course my groups can be slow on it when there aren't many combats, but I was certain it was standard procedure. Lets you tactically plan in character. Was anybody actually contributing information that could help plan?

Plus if I'm standing in front of the mage's cone spells I want it to be intentional.

Honestly, I agree with Talakeal that his character had made the right decision with the information he was given, and that the party should have given a reason for him to help them. Heck, leaving a dude outside as a runner in case everyone else dies was probably a good idea, and his searching for a way to bring light into the house was actually a reasonable attempt at being useful. From a play perspective it wasn't right, but the intentions seem to have been fair (I assume he was actually trying to open windows and the like, if not remove the 'bring light into the house' bit, I haven't double checked the opening post).


I was the one who told Talakeal that he was sulking on the drive home. The physical threat was a great surprise to me, and frankly got me quite angry.

Honestly, I don't like the DM

Eh, all of this is fair, I've sulked when sessions didn't turn out how I wanted (apparently survivors scrabbling for resources are powerful enough to take on twenty monsters each and win, yeah...)

JAL_1138
2017-07-05, 07:46 AM
Out of curiosity, how different would the characters have to be for friendship off the bat to be assumed? Like, if I made a standard paladin and the rest of the party showed up with CE assassins and necromancers, would it be the same deal? Because this is a unique circumstance in that the DM actually forbid any sort of cohesive party or discussion of themes before the game began, so that would have been a definite possibility.

But yeah, by the time the last fight occurred I was pretty dang fed-up with the DM and had no motivation in or out of character to try and salvage the game; especially when I liked the character I had created and the DM had been pounding into our heads that meta-gaming was the ultimate sin and that he was looking forward to killing stupid characters.

I certainly could have simply sucked it up and done my best to help the party, but I just wasn't feeling any good will at that point.


Lacking good will for the DM is understandable, but don't take that out on the group (or, more precisely, don't let that push you to leave the party in a dangerous situation while you hang outside—even if you had a good idea in trying to open the windows; there are times the right tactical decisions are the wrong ones for party cohesion. There are also absolutely still times not to blindly follow the group, or at least poke a 10ft pole in first—I wouldn't be a founding member of the Paranoid Adventurers' Guild if I said otherwise. But once you know combat is on, it's generally time to abandon sense and proceed). The party aren't the ones causing the problem there, the DM is.

Again, though, I don't see your character as the biggest problem with the game, so bear in mind I'm only critiquing your character because it could be helpful in the future in other games, not saying you caused the game to fall apart. DM seems bonkers, and best avoided.

For the character you actually made, easiest solution is what I said earlier—give him a case of Chronic Hero Syndrome / Samaritan Syndrome. He may not know these people, may not like these people, and may think what they've just done is monumentally stupid...but he knows they're in trouble once they run in, and his conscience won't let him stand idly by while they get shredded, either. So, cursing under his breath, he follows them in despite his better judgment. Chronic Hero Syndrome is one of the most useful character tools I've found for keeping a character in a group and acting in cohesion with the party despite everything else about the character suggesting they'd rather cut and run.

For a standard paladin in a group of assassins, it's going to depend on edition. Some editions prohibited them from voluntarily associating with evil characters, in which case the pally is sunk. Changing characters would be necessary, unless you managed to be willfully blind to the party's evil and could maintain plausible deniability somehow. To salvage them for a single session, you could have them go ahead and fall, and play a Fighter for a session (then leave, in the case of this game, or switch characters, in a saner game). In 5e, you could keep them around for at least one session by having them think something like "if I'm going to save these lost souls from their own wickedness, I can't let them die before they're redeemed." Works for one session, at least.

The DM's character creation restrictions are asking for party composition/alignment problems, and the DM's behavior during the game and afterwards are major red flags, so IMO any character-salvaging should last for one session and end with politely excusing oneself from the madness game.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-05, 08:06 AM
A proper session zero, where the GM also tells you the concept for the campaign (if they haven't beforehand), is highly useful for party cohesion.

So in a game I played set in an alternative version of the Warhammer Fantasy Battle universe where Chaos lost the final battle. People had some thought about the characters we wanted to play, and we got to session zero and were told 'right, you have to have some reason to be working on a special dwarven police team'.

My Warrior Priest had been assigned to do it and it would have broken his code of honour not to complete the mission.
The Alchemist was employed by the police, who might have wanted him bothering someone else for five minutes (curiosity, xenophillia, and low dex do not lead to cultural relics remaining intact).
The elf, I'm not sure had a reason. Something about finding stories? Was a horrible horrible person as far as my character was concerned.
The dwarf engineer was loaned to help if we had any questions about engineering (the first lead was the death of an engineer).
The skaven couldn't be overly shifty and anti-authority without getting mobbed. Was a nice guy though.

With everyone willing to not betray the party and a gentleman's agreement to watch each other's backs we set off. Almost immediately the skaven was in a corner experiencing severe flashbacks of his home being flooded and the engineer's guild was mad at us for almost blowing up a prototype aeroplane. I'm still not certain how we managed to get anything productive done in that game.

Then again, that was an established group were you were free to ask what abilities people had, we knew we wouldn't need any 10 foot poles because the GM was almost compulsively fair, and we knew the opening scenario before we settled on characters. Talakeal's description is of a vastly different experience, and I'd put the fault on the GM not asking for a character with a more defined goal (my favourite: earn enough cash to settle down and do some research for the rest of your life).

TheYell
2017-07-05, 10:26 AM
Anybody reading this and think this was going to be a fun game to play?

Talakeal
2017-07-05, 05:17 PM
Its funny, reading over Fenrisnorth's post and talking to him, its amazing how little of the crap the DM said to me he actually noticed.

He apparently thought I was sulking because he was playing (what I thought was) the same class as me despite explicitly telling the DM that I didn't enjoy playing the same class as someone else, and while I admit that (along with the DM insisting I come up with life goals and then putting me in a scenario that is directly antithetical to them) had me put off from the get go, it was all the nonsensical reprimands that really put me in a bad mood and left me in a position where I couldn't justify being a team player.


https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/abused-gamer-syndrome/

I actually don't think that is me. If anything my character's have become more outgoing and group oriented over time, not less. I also don't think I have ever actual had a character die when that wasn't my intention going into the situation. Although this DM did make a point about how there were going to be a lot of fatalities in this game and so I was being a little more cautious than usual.

AMFV
2017-07-05, 07:39 PM
Its funny, reading over Fenrisnorth's post and talking to him, its amazing how little of the crap the DM said to me he actually noticed.

He apparently thought I was sulking because he was playing (what I thought was) the same class as me despite explicitly telling the DM that I didn't enjoy playing the same class as someone else, and while I admit that (along with the DM insisting I come up with life goals and then putting me in a scenario that is directly antithetical to them) had me put off from the get go, it was all the nonsensical reprimands that really put me in a bad mood and left me in a position where I couldn't justify being a team player.

Well to be fair, you came up with life goals that are profoundly not set up to give him anything to work with. Protip: If a DM asks for life goals, they aren't really asking for your character's life goals, they're asking for things that they can use to hook your character into the story. "Avoid all entanglements and commitments", doesn't work for that. And isn't really a goal to begin with.

Well it's also not really fair to the other players if you take out being in a bad mood because of the DM on them, so much so that other people noticed you were sulking. If people who are neutral parties at the table are noticing that you're sulking or in a bad mood, then you're definitely not being subtle about it, and people tend to take that badly.



I actually don't think that is me. If anything my character's have become more outgoing and group oriented over time, not less. I also don't think I have ever actual had a character die when that wasn't my intention going into the situation. Although this DM did make a point about how there were going to be a lot of fatalities in this game and so I was being a little more cautious than usual.

Well part of the issue is that if you go into a game where the DM says "there's going to be a lot of fatalities" with the thought: "I won't die, I'll just hide!" You aren't really respecting the tone of the campaign. High fatality campaigns mean that you just don't get too attached to the characters. Also in a setting with a lot of fatalities means that the onus is much increased to create a character who will back their teammates in a much more lethal situation. There's a reason that World War 2 soldiers in the same unit tend to get along better than Grocery Clerks working in the same store. And that's part of the tone, that's something you have to recognize.

Mr Beer
2017-07-05, 07:55 PM
He apparently thought I was sulking because he was playing (what I thought was) the same class as me despite explicitly telling the DM that I didn't enjoy playing the same class as someone else, and while I admit that (along with the DM insisting I come up with life goals and then putting me in a scenario that is directly antithetical to them) had me put off from the get go, it was all the nonsensical reprimands that really put me in a bad mood and left me in a position where I couldn't justify being a team player.

This sounds exactly like 'sulking' to me, somewhat justified sulking BTW but still sulking. I'd have walked before this point, but younger me would probably be doing what you did.

Talakeal
2017-07-05, 09:39 PM
This sounds exactly like 'sulking' to me, somewhat justified sulking BTW but still sulking. I'd have walked before this point, but younger me would probably be doing what you did.

I didn't say I wasn't sulking, just that it wasn't because of my friend stepping on my archetype.

However, I was still doing my best to contribute to the fight until the DM started refusing to answer my questions about the game world and growling at me for ever asking them. Honestly even if I had been in a wonderful mood I don't think I would have been able to take an action when the GM refuses to explain my surroundings to me.

I really enjoy getting into character. For me it is really hard to break character to make the game more enjoyable for others. I recognize that it is a thing that must sometimes be done, but it is always going to be incredibly hard.

Also, I was biting my tongue to avoid simply getting up from the table and telling the DM to stick his game up his butt and hopefully find his head while he is back there, but thought toughing it out was the more mature solution. Are you saying that actually would have been the more grown-up choice? :P



Well to be fair, you came up with life goals that are profoundly not set up to give him anything to work with. Protip: If a DM asks for life goals, they aren't really asking for your character's life goals, they're asking for things that they can use to hook your character into the story. "Avoid all entanglements and commitments", doesn't work for that. And isn't really a goal to begin with.

Well it's also not really fair to the other players if you take out being in a bad mood because of the DM on them, so much so that other people noticed you were sulking. If people who are neutral parties at the table are noticing that you're sulking or in a bad mood, then you're definitely not being subtle about it, and people tend to take that badly.



Well part of the issue is that if you go into a game where the DM says "there's going to be a lot of fatalities" with the thought: "I won't die, I'll just hide!" You aren't really respecting the tone of the campaign. High fatality campaigns mean that you just don't get too attached to the characters. Also in a setting with a lot of fatalities means that the onus is much increased to create a character who will back their teammates in a much more lethal situation. There's a reason that World War 2 soldiers in the same unit tend to get along better than Grocery Clerks working in the same store. And that's part of the tone, that's something you have to recognize.

Well, if the DM had asked for ideas about how to hook my character into the story that would have been easy, instead he was asking for long-term goals, which is really hard even for a character I know well, let alone one I am still in the process of creating.

Also, its not that he said it was going to be a meat-grinder, it was that he was looking forward to killing players for being "stupid," which imo going into a pitch black monster's lair in broad daylight when you know the monster is weak to light certainly qualifies as.

Also, the DM had loudly and proudly proclaimed that he would be fudging damage rolls and monster HP, so it didn't actually matter if my character participated in the combat.

scalyfreak
2017-07-05, 09:42 PM
So I've been following this entire thread closely, and while I agree that Talakeal could have handled his part of the situation better, I really do think the constant harping on him "not being a team player" in undeserved. Why? Because in the team acted like a bunch of idiots with a death wish.


So we come to a building which is inhabited by a deadly monster that we believe is killed by bright light. Again, we aren't allowed to discuss tactics, so the rest of the group kicks down the door and charges in while I stay outside in the sunlight. It is a literal ambush, and it does not go well for the other PCs.

The worst and most hilarious part here is that since the DM is not allowing IC or OOC talk about tactics (which makes him an idiot as well) every other player at the table independently came up with this idea, and thought it was a good one. :smallamused:

I'm sorry, but if I was in a game where the entire rest of the group suddenly decides to charge into the very dark lair of a monster that is vulnerable to light, my character absolutely would not follow. The same applies for fighting the vampire in his crypt at midnight, or a full frontal assault on a dragon that is resting but fully awake on top of its personal hoard.

No. When my turn comes, my action will be to move as far away from the danger zone as possible, where I will spend the rest of the fight composing a collective obituary for my fallen comrades. I would call it The Final Charge of the Light Infantry. The word "kamikaze" might show up more than once.

Of course, that assumes that the DM stops us from planning out our assault beforehand. As long as we're allowed to talk about it, I'm pretty sure that group I spent all those years with in college would have approached the scenario Talakeal described above, by blowing the roof off the building, and then tossing down a bunch of flash grenades.

AMFV
2017-07-05, 09:53 PM
I didn't say I wasn't sulking, just that it wasn't because of my friend stepping on my archetype.

True, but your friend didn't know that, and your sulking clearly caused problems for him and the rest of the group, and the DM. I wouldn't do that anymore in games. If you can't be mature enough to at least pretend to enjoy it, then make up a reason and leave.



However, I was still doing my best to contribute to the fight until the DM started refusing to answer my questions about the game world and growling at me for ever asking them. Honestly even if I had been in a wonderful mood I don't think I would have been able to take an action when the GM refuses to explain my surroundings to me.

To be fair, I think that you may have been pestering.

To be unfair, you missed a lot of clues that other people picked up second-hand. So I'm not inclined to take your word for it when you say that the GM was refusing to explain the scenario instead of assuming that you were pestering and being bossy to other players and then sulking afterwards.



I really enjoy getting into character. For me it is really hard to break character to make the game more enjoyable for others. I recognize that it is a thing that must sometimes be done, but it is always going to be incredibly hard.

Well maybe you should have made a character that was willing to work with the group. You literally went out of your way to make a character where to work with the group you would have to break character. I would go into more detail on that, but it's already been said more eloquently than I could.



Also, I was biting my tongue to avoid simply getting up from the table and telling the DM to stick his game up his butt and hopefully find his head while he is back there, but thought toughing it out was the more mature solution. Are you saying that actually would have been the more grown-up choice? :P


Yep, leaving a group when you are sitting there sulking and ruining everybody else's fun is way more mature than sitting there and ruining everybody else's fun. That is the more mature option. Now if you told him to shove his game someplace, that would be slightly less mature, but less crappy to everybody else in the room.



Well, if the DM had asked for ideas about how to hook my character into the story that would have been easy, instead he was asking for long-term goals, which is really hard even for a character I know well, let alone one I am still in the process of creating.

He did, just not in so many words. I mean if you're looking for motivations for asking what he did. That would be the most glaringly obvious one. Like I'm not in the room, I've never met this guy, and I'm getting a second hand account from somebody who not only dislikes the DM but wants to paint him in a relatively worse light and I still picked up that subtext. Like from a mile away.

It's an important part of participating in these types of games that you pay attention to why people are doing or saying the things they are doing or saying. Because that will help bridge that gap between you two.



Also, its not that he said it was going to be a meat-grinder, it was that he was looking forward to killing players for being "stupid," which imo going into a pitch black monster's lair in broad daylight when you know the monster is weak to light certainly qualifies as.

That sounds exactly like a Gygaxian Meat-Grinder to me. Like again, even if you're trying to paint the guy in a worse light, that sounds like that kind of adventure game. Like you roll up six characters and if you pick the wrong door it's instant death. That's exactly what that sounds like. I think you may have not understood what the DM was advertising which is why you brought something to the table that didn't work.



Also, the DM had loudly and proudly proclaimed that he would be fudging damage rolls and monster HP, so it didn't actually matter if my character participated in the combat.

Again, that is completely in-line with Gygaxian gaming, like that's completely with that sort of gaming. Also it did matter if your character participated in the combat, because that was the difference between you sitting and sulking at the table, probably on your phone, and probably distracting to the other players with a pretty negative attitude. I would be pretty upset if somebody came over to my house to game, and then sat there sulking next to all my friends.

So while it might not have mattered in terms of the team's victory, it certainly mattered in terms of the social dynamic of the game. If you play a social game, you have to bend yourself a little bit, have to. And in this case, since it was very clearly a Gygaxian Meat-Grinder, you should have played accordingly. Which is freakishly paranoid but also willing to back the party up.



****

And I'm not trying to be mean here dude. But Jay R already gave you similar advice, and you completely brushed it aside. Look, when you get into one bad gaming group you could brush aside well-meaning advice, but when none of them work, then maybe it's time to concede that you might be bringing some issues to the table as well, and they're fairly evident.

You can't change anybody's behavior but your own, and there are issues with how you behaved, now you can either see that and take the advice of the many people with lots of people experience giving you advice, or keep things as they are. That's really up to you.

Edit:


So I've been following this entire thread closely, and while I agree that Talakeal could have handled his part of the situation better, I really do think the constant harping on him "not being a team player" in undeserved. Why? Because in the team acted like a bunch of idiots with a death wish.

Well you'll note that none of that was included in the other account of the story, at all. So I would not take that at face value. Or at least what he saw was the DM telling Talakeal to focus on his own character's contributions rather than stressing over everybody elses'. But the death wish wasn't really mentioned by everybody else. And I'm more likely to assume that one person read a situation wrong than that 3-5 people were idiots.

Quertus
2017-07-05, 10:02 PM
That doesn't agree with me. Your character was not geared for any adventure, with any party.

I strongly urge you to come to every table in every game planning to work with the party. You didn't work with them this time. You didn't in these other times. This is a consistent issue, and has annoyed the other players in several games.

Your character was not appropriate for any game. He's a loner who won't join in with the group's plans and goals.

You can also learn how to approach these situations to reduce the problem instead of making it worse.


I do think that your character approach often turns what could have been an annoying moment into a potential game-stopper or party-breaker, like when you stand outside the building while your team-mates are inside risking their lives.

Well, like several other posters, I disagree on the "not appropriate for any party" comment. And I'd welcome someone who plays the only character smart enough to stand outside the building trying to actually solve the encounter over those blindly rushing in where angels fear to tread. In many games, Talakeal would have walked away a BDH, and I'm sad that he didn't this time.

But, among a lot of good advice, the best part was the bolded bit. Talakeal, you really ought to consider working on building up skills to lessen problems rather than exacerbate them. Heck, the attitude of telling the director that your table wasn't listed, rather than simple asking for help, when you know you have a problem finding things, is a red flag, even ignoring all your gaming horror stories. Do you actually want all this conflict? Because it sounds to me like you've probably optimized your personality for conflict, rather than for conflict resolution.

Now, me, I'm a **** - I'm perfectly happy with certain forms of conflict. But I don't think you are. And, me, I'm not interested in generating such conflict without first having the skills to potentially navigate or resolve such conflicts before they escalate to violence. Kinda like rushing into a house with a sunlight vulnerable monster without any ability to bring the light, optimizing for creating conflict without knowing how to resolve it sounds... suboptimal.


Regardless of what you had on your sheet, your character didn't extend "loyal to friends" to the party. If your character concept doesn't allow you to extend loyalty to party members right off the bat, it's a problem.

However foolish it might be, charge in anyway...

Depends on the game. Personally, I find friendships created in game are strongest and best, and so prefer not to extend friendship right off the bat. But, you can't know the type of game you're in if you don't know the type of game you're in. So, yes, choosing to play an experimental personality with this potential fail state in an unknown group was... unwise.

Charge in anyway... may be counterproductive. I've seen "stand true to your convictions", especially when they also match up with good tactics, as they did in this case, produce BDH moments. Pity it didn't work out that way this time.

Actually, I think I'll take a slightly stronger stance on this issue. Back in my day, idiots who charged in would be left to their fate, then chided as idiots until they built up player skills, and brought characters whose reckless behavior wasn't going to endanger the party. So, by that standard, if Talakeal did anything wrong, it was to not chew out the morons who charged in without thinking.


Seconded, so very much. Half the time I don't even have a solid concept for a character (other thsn mechanical build) or understanding of their personality until after I've played them a few sessions to get a feel for them, and it often still keeps evolving throughout the game.

And this is why it'll be hard for people like myself, who believe in creating personalities ahead of time, to relate to your advice. Whether that applies to Talakeal or not, I'm not sure.

Sadly, Talakeal, if you can't read people, I'm not sure if you'd be able to evolve a character dynamically in a way that produced positive results.


I was the roommate in question. We spent a good amount of time making characters, and I had told the DM that Talakeal doesn't like playing the same character as anyone else ahead of time.

The DM had us roll our stats and chose our class and starting equipment. He took that info and made characters for us, including calculating our skills for us. I had chosen to play a magic user with a "half-class" called a portal keeper; as I wanted to play a person going around and sealing holes in the world left over from a cataclysmic war with the outer realms. Unbeknowns to me, this left me with the climb, trapfinding, and (perhaps) open locks... I'm not 100% sure. we weren't allowed to take our sheets home with us.

While we were talking tactics, during an in-character lull in the action the DM snapped at Talakeal not to worry about what [our] characters could do, including asking me what spells I had (Honestly, my spell list was poop, not a very good class.) I thought he meant for Talakeal to focus on telling us how his character could contribute. After this, Talakeal, who hadn't gotten near the monster at the start of the fight; didn't come back inside the building. After the fight, he was the one to suggest we get the wounded back to town for treatment.

I was the one who told Talakeal that he was sulking on the drive home. The physical threat was a great surprise to me, and frankly got me quite angry.

Honestly, I don't like the DM

If you're amenable, I'll harass you later for what I would consider to be more pertinent data.


Out of curiosity, how different would the characters have to be for friendship off the bat to be assumed? Like, if I made a standard paladin and the rest of the party showed up with CE assassins and necromancers, would it be the same deal? Because this is a unique circumstance in that the DM actually forbid any sort of cohesive party or discussion of themes before the game began, so that would have been a definite possibility.

But yeah, by the time the last fight occurred I was pretty dang fed-up with the DM and had no motivation in or out of character to try and salvage the game; especially when I liked the character I had created and the DM had been pounding into our heads that meta-gaming was the ultimate sin and that he was looking forward to killing stupid characters.

I certainly could have simply sucked it up and done my best to help the party, but I just wasn't feeling any good will at that point.



I actually call him "Mike the Fighter" after a joke in Knights of the Dinner Table or "Figh-tor" after a Fear the Boot Referance. But indeed, that is a character I have played many times.

As I said, I usually play a fighter with a martyr complex who would be more than willing to fight or die for allies regardless of what she thinks of them as people, but I was explicitly hoping to try and expand my horizons and play against type this game. When I saw that it didn't work out I was going to suggest to the DM that I switch to "Mike the Fighter" next session, but then he busted out the real life threats and I felt that I didn't really relish real life combat either and left.

Having played the "odd man out" in a party of a Paladin, an Assassin, an Undead Hunter, and an Undead Master, I agree that you can't just assume a party that you can work with.

Pick your battles. Choose the right character for (what you know of) the party, not just for your mood. Experimenting with this personality in this scenario was a tragedy waiting to happen. Can you see that, or should I step through it?


Well part of the issue is that if you go into a game where the DM says "there's going to be a lot of fatalities" with the thought: "I won't die, I'll just hide!" You aren't really respecting the tone of the campaign. High fatality campaigns mean that you just don't get too attached to the characters. Also in a setting with a lot of fatalities means that the onus is much increased to create a character who will back their teammates in a much more lethal situation. There's a reason that World War 2 soldiers in the same unit tend to get along better than Grocery Clerks working in the same store. And that's part of the tone, that's something you have to recognize.

That's quite clever. Explains part of why I'm "tone deaf". High fatality campaign, for me, means I don't bother getting too attached to the other characters - quite the opposite of what you say is the intended outcome. :smalltongue: If a DM wants X, they should say that they want X, not say Y and assume people will understand X.


Also, its not that he said it was going to be a meat-grinder, it was that he was looking forward to killing players for being "stupid," which imo going into a pitch black monster's lair in broad daylight when you know the monster is weak to light certainly qualifies as.


So I've been following this entire thread closely, and while I agree that Talakeal could have handled his part of the situation better, I really do think the constant harping on him "not being a team player" in undeserved. Why? Because in the team acted like a bunch of idiots with a death wish.

I'm sorry, but if I was in a game where the entire rest of the group suddenly decides to charge into the very dark lair of a monster that is vulnerable to light, my character absolutely would not follow. The same applies for fighting the vampire in his crypt at midnight, or a full frontal assault on a dragon that is resting but fully awake on top of its personal hoard.

Hear, hear! Nice to know I won't be hanging out outside alone. :smallwink:


Also, the DM had loudly and proudly proclaimed that he would be fudging damage rolls and monster HP, so it didn't actually matter if my character participated in the combat.

Yeah, that certainly moves the scales to "what's the point?".

scalyfreak
2017-07-05, 10:15 PM
If you're amenable, I'll harass you later for what I would consider to be more pertinent data.

I'm curious as well.

I would like to hear Fenrinorth's take on the fight with the light-sensitive monster, for example.

War_lord
2017-07-05, 10:57 PM
Guys and Gals, it's kind of irrelevant whether Talakeal's character was or was not a team player, or whether Talakeal himself could have handled the deteriorating social situation with more grace. By the accounts we have, that DM has more red flags hanging off him them a Soviet surplus store, with a major case of "control freak" to boot. And even putting aside that, threats of physical violence, over D&D of all things, are completely unacceptable by any standard of adult conduct.

Arbane
2017-07-05, 11:04 PM
That sounds exactly like a Gygaxian Meat-Grinder to me. Like again, even if you're trying to paint the guy in a worse light, that sounds like that kind of adventure game. Like you roll up six characters and if you pick the wrong door it's instant death. That's exactly what that sounds like. I think you may have not understood what the DM was advertising which is why you brought something to the table that didn't work.

I think you're being unfair to Gary Gygax, Remember, Tomb of Horrors was intended for TOURNAMENT play. (It probably would've been a good idea for it to SAY that more clearly in the module, but early D&D is conspicuously bad at explaining itself.)

Telok
2017-07-05, 11:48 PM
I think you're being unfair to Gary Gygax, Remember, Tomb of Horrors was intended for TOURNAMENT play. (It probably would've been a good idea for it to SAY that more clearly in the module, but early D&D is conspicuously bad at explaining itself.)

By tournament rules coming home with piles of loot is something of a win even if your party can't finish the module. So killing the battered fools as they staggered out of the lair and returning with loot and the monster's head would have counted as at least a partial win.

In fact wasn't Gygax pretty much all about absolute and uncompromising fairness in combat?

Anxe
2017-07-06, 12:35 AM
I think the Jack Sparrow PC wasn't perfect, but it was good enough. A loner character can work if you make him loyal to the group and it sounds like that was Talakeal's intention with the "loyal to friends" trait. The larger issue was that you were explicitly not given the chance to develop relationships with your fellow PCs or your fellow players.

Broader problem was the DM telling you, "No!" everytime you tried to do something.

Can I bring my own character concept? "No."
Can I roll up my own character? "No."
Can we show each other our character sheets? "No."
Can we talk about what's on our character sheets? "No."
Can we talk in character about our skills and talents? "No."
Can we discuss tactics? "No."
Can we just talk about our goals, desires, or anything in character? "No."
Can I make tactical decisions based off the information you gave us about the challenge? "No."
Can I change my character to be more of a team player? "No. Also, I want to hit you with a baseball bat."

Honestly, what is left of the game for you at that point? Almost all player agency is removed. All you're doing is rolling dice to do what the DM has already decided you're doing. The DM could potentially have the same experience by rolling dice with one hand and pleasuring himself with the other.

Satinavian
2017-07-06, 01:34 AM
Well maybe you should have made a character that was willing to work with the group. You literally went out of your way to make a character where to work with the group you would have to break character. I would go into more detail on that, but it's already been said more eloquently than I could.Disagree. So far seems like an utterly reasonable character, welcome in most groups. A drifter who can work whereever for whatever goal, someone who is willing to cooperate with whoever to improve his survival chance, someone trying to develop tactics involving the whole group instead of relying solely on his own powers. And doesn't even have secret agendas, dark secrets or intention of betrayal. Perfectly fine imho.

He did, just not in so many words. I mean if you're looking for motivations for asking what he did. That would be the most glaringly obvious one. Like I'm not in the room, I've never met this guy, and I'm getting a second hand account from somebody who not only dislikes the DM but wants to paint him in a relatively worse light and I still picked up that subtext. Like from a mile away. Agree with that one. If a DM asks for personal goals, he either wants to make achieving those goals a sideplot or at least wants to use them as a hook instead of relying one something like the tavern clichee.


That sounds exactly like a Gygaxian Meat-Grinder to me. Like again, even if you're trying to paint the guy in a worse light, that sounds like that kind of adventure game. Like you roll up six characters and if you pick the wrong door it's instant death. That's exactly what that sounds like. I think you may have not understood what the DM was advertising which is why you brought something to the table that didn't work.And i disagree strongly with that.

For me that sounds like a survival game. Or one where you are strongly encouraged to avoid unneccessary combat, try other approaches and do risk assessment all the time. And don't participate in action you think will kill you.


So while it might not have mattered in terms of the team's victory, it certainly mattered in terms of the social dynamic of the game. If you play a social game, you have to bend yourself a little bit, have to. And in this case, since it was very clearly a Gygaxian Meat-Grinder, you should have played accordingly. Which is freakishly paranoid but also willing to back the party up.Probably would have played similar to Talakael here. Waste a lot of time trying to get the light in. Maybe later trying to faciliate a retreat opportunity (dragging severly wounded out into the light or something). But not participate in the actual fight.
You can do all of that without sulking though.

Kane0
2017-07-06, 07:13 AM
I play in a group featuring a guy with legit (although minor) aspergers and I domt reckon you were in the wrong man. That DM sounds pretty bad (lots of red flags), especially if your housemate is backing you up on your assessment and didnt even notice half the things going on.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-06, 07:43 AM
I play in a group featuring a guy with legit (although minor) aspergers and I domt reckon you were in the wrong man. That DM sounds pretty bad (lots of red flags), especially if your housemate is backing you up on your assessment and didnt even notice half the things going on.

Heck, all of my groups are like that! Some groups even have two guys like that!

(I'm on the spectrum, although not actually Asbergers, and was once in a group with someone with an actual Asbergers diagnosis, as well as another person on the spectrum. Was by far the group most likely to roleplay conversations.)

Honestly, while Talakeal might not have acted 100% right, I the GM definitely sounds more in the wrong.

Nupo
2017-07-06, 09:22 AM
You can't control other people's actions, only your own.

The way I see it Talakeal had thee different ways he could have handled this:

1. Make the best of this admittedly tough situation. Try to fit in and have fun the best you can, and at the same time not spoil the fun of others.
2. Grin and bear it through the first session with as little unpleasantness for yourself and others as possible. Then politely recuse yourself from gaming with this group in the future.
3. Make a hash of it.

It appears Talakeal chose option number 3. There were better ways to handle the situation. Yes you were handed a sow's ear, and making it into a silk purse would have been tough, but you can still do your best not to ruin anyone else's fun.

Airk
2017-07-06, 10:26 AM
Yeah, I too disagree with the idea that "High fatality game" means "Be a team player, else you'll die.". "High Fatality game" means "Do your damndest to not die" and that can include sacrificing other party members, ESPECIALLY when they DON'T seem to be doing their damndest to not die. So to me, it was the rest of the party that was out of like with this supposed "tone" (which frankly, by the sound of it, the GM was wrong about anyway, since apparently the party did everything wrong, Talakeal stood outside, and they STILL WON AN AMBUSH.) by charging into the room like a bunch of idiots.

Doesn't mean Talakeal is blameless here by any stretch, but the whole "game tone" thing sounds like BS to me.

Talakeal
2017-07-06, 12:51 PM
Question, what should I have done at the end?

The DM won't answer questions about my surroundings and I am not allowed to talk to the other players. The Game Master is getting angrier and angrier any time I ask a question (and has told me in hindsight that OOC violence was on the table).

Should I have just abandoned any pretense of staying in character or trying to keep my character alive and simply declared "I charge the nearest enemy and swing away?"





Also, there isn't a whole lot of Jack Sparrow in my character; just the outlaw who will throw his whole life away to do the right thing and has great eye makeup.

Quertus
2017-07-06, 12:58 PM
In case I wasn't clear (I wasn't), from what I've heard, I'm absolutely on Talakeal's side here, in that this DM had some serious issues. I believe my first post was advice to run away ASAP.

I can't answer whether Talakeal had the possibility of pulling a win out of this situation - or, for that matter, whether I could have done so in the same situation. I can only say that the game is apparently fun for some of the other players, so it can't be all bad, right? Still, I'm pretty sure, if I had perceived the game the way Talakeal did, I would have beat a hasty retreat - or, more likely, been true to form, been a ****, and attacked the GM's play style. And, if we couldn't come to a reasonable place, left.

EDIT: and, to explicitly say this, if I had been DM and said we were in a high fatality game, where I was going to fudge dice rolls and kill off idiots, Talakeal's character would have been the only one to survive that encounter, no questions whatsoever.

But, despite agreeing that this was a horrible situation, I also agree with several posters that there may be lessons to learn from this encounter.

Now, us members of the peanut gallery (is that a proper use of the term?) disagree on what, exactly, Talakeal should take away from this. Me, I think the takeaway is that there is a more optimal strategy for Talakeal to employ regarding which character he brings to which adventure / group, and probably how he responds to setbacks.

However, I think one of the most telling facts to come out of this conversation isn't even directly related to Talakeal's experience. It's that some people look at Talakeal's description of his character, and believe that it is summarily unsuited to any game imaginable, while others of us either find it an acceptable concept, or, at least in my case, find it the only acceptable character out of the lot.

None of us sees the whole spectrum - we're all colorblind. And, like the classic Fighter / Mage / Cleric / Thief party, we all see different shades, different pieces of the puzzle. But we also respond to this difference differently. Sometimes, we are unable to believe something could ever be acceptable (in my case, Railroading fell into that category until I started posing on GitP). Sometimes, we can't see what's obviously right in front of our face. Sometimes, we know there's something out there, and want to learn more. And, sometimes, as in the case in point, we respond violently to just how vast the world is, like the DM in question wanted to.

Personally, I find this aspect of humanity fascinating. Not sitting in an ivory tower, you, Talakeal, unfortunately appear to not be enjoying it so much.

Alberic Strein
2017-07-06, 03:25 PM
Question, what should I have done at the end?

The DM won't answer questions about my surroundings and I am not allowed to talk to the other players. The Game Master is getting angrier and angrier any time I ask a question (and has told me in hindsight that OOC violence was on the table).

Should I have just abandoned any pretense of staying in character or trying to keep my character alive and simply declared "I charge the nearest enemy and swing away?"

Eventually, and it may be counter-intuitive, but yes, you should have charged along with the rest of the team.

Here is the thing: No matter what he says, if the GM doesn't allow you to talk to one another, he isn't interested in having a group roleplay, he isn't interested in his players staying in character. He isn't interested in fun solutions to an encounter, he is interested in you going to the door, killing the monster and getting the treasure he can then tax the hell out of, and keep you playing by his tune.

So yeah, at that point you stay by your group and grip the nearest bar not to get thrown out by your GM's wild ride.

Anxe
2017-07-06, 10:34 PM
Question, what should I have done at the end?

The DM won't answer questions about my surroundings and I am not allowed to talk to the other players. The Game Master is getting angrier and angrier any time I ask a question (and has told me in hindsight that OOC violence was on the table).

Should I have just abandoned any pretense of staying in character or trying to keep my character alive and simply declared "I charge the nearest enemy and swing away?"





Also, there isn't a whole lot of Jack Sparrow in my character; just the outlaw who will throw his whole life away to do the right thing and has great eye makeup.

Were I in your situation I think I would've asked the DM if he wanted the rest of the group and myself to have fun. Probably at some point in the preliminaries when he was saying that talking in and out of character with the other players wasn't allowed. If that didn't spark some sign of the DM getting a clue I probably would've left at that point.

If I'd stayed for the combat I probably would've joined the group in rushing in.
1. That's my play style.
2. Team unity is a strong part of my group's dynamic when we play video games together and it carries over to how I play my PCs. We all rise or we all fall. Your ideas made sense and in a more rational situation, the group would've discussed such ideas beforehand. If the group rushed in impulsively, I'd probably go with them.
Once your ideas were exhausted, the DM stopped giving you information about your surroundings. At that point I would've directly confronted him about what he thought he was doing. Denying basic information about the surroundings prevents you from playing.

Sidebar here, I'm gonna try and reason out the DM's actions as if I was him.
First, the DM appeared to approach this as if the fun of the players didn't really matter. I don't think he was being evil and sadistic. I think he just honestly didn't realize that most of the DM's job is ensuring everyone is having fun and that telling a good story is secondary to the "fun goal."
The DM's story required certain types of characters, so that's why he restricted PC choices in character creation.
The DM wanted to "get to the start of the story" which was presumably somewhere in the dark cabin. Discussing skills, motivations, and tactics were unnecessary preliminaries to his goal of getting everyone in the cabin. That was "wasting time" in his mind.
I'd guess the DM had some plot element that required you all being in the dark cabin. Maybe you're all teleported somewhere else. Maybe the darkness beast possesses one of you but you don't know who. Whatever. He wasn't willing to rework that plot element on the fly. Your refusal to enter the cabin was by extension a refusal to allow the story to advance.

This is all pretty normal behavior for bad or novice DMs. If this happened in my group I would've seen it as my duty to the enjoyment of myself and the others in the group to correct bad DM behavior like that. That's why if I had been in a situation like you described I would've confronted the DM directly. I would have told him the actions he was forbidding were necessary for the group to have a good time. He was preventing you from doing practically everything that makes roleplaying a social game instead of solitaire.

Quertus
2017-07-06, 10:53 PM
So, since I'm apparently not the only one who takes "high lethality" not to mean "perfect brotherhood", I suppose I'll detail exactly how I respond to that phrase.

So, as I said, I take it to mean don't get too attached to the other pc's, or attached to them at all, for that matter, because they might not be there next session. Anyone who's going to be important to your character's story arc / development, beyond a cameo appearance, is almost certainly going to be an NPC.

Don't get too attached to your pc, either, of course. Great time to experiment with diverse personality concepts that have been knocking around in your head, but you're just not sure if you'd really like to play them long term. But not concepts that rely on any continuity of other pc's, like "smitten with sepia" (I assume there's a term for this), of course.

If you find that you have grown attached to your pc, best bet is to retire it immediately, and play it in a different game. Thus, it's also best not to build a pc that's too attached to and dependent upon the particulars of the game he's in.

Even if you don't particularly care about this character, if it gets the opportunity to retire, jump on it. Find some cute maid you'd like to spend the rest of your life with, who is amenable to the idea? Burn down a bar, and realize someone stands to make a fortune by opening a replacement bar? Retire the character, & bring in a new one.

And, of course, if any problems whatsoever arise, bail. Friction with another character? Getting bored of the character? Decide you don't like the character's name? Throw him to the curb, bring a new character. Because the GM has already told you that they are prepared for you bringing new characters, you have no reason to hang on to continuity.

Lastly, because I personally can't care about playing a game about a character I can't care about, and I can't care about a character until they develop a history, I hear "build someone smart and tough and powerful enough to survive the worst the GM throws at you". This is the time to pull out high end PO or even TO levels of optimization. Because, otherwise, it's guaranteed that the entire campaign will be a pointless waste of my time.

Now, in this particular case, we have a DM who has said that it will be a high fatality game with fudged rolls. That's not just old-school, that's old-school from the bad side of town, and a red flag already. Add to that high fatality + don't like power gaming, and high fatality + don't like characters discussing tactics, and fudged rolls + don't like power gaming, and... and I'm not exactly a fan of fudged rolls to begin with. I think, if presented with that list, on paper, my response would be to run away as fast as I possibly could. Or, perhaps, to take a bullet in the name of science, and build a character who could appreciate observing this most calamitous of train wrecks first hand. But I absolutely would never attempt to play a serious character under a DM who seems to have developed his style by reading a list of DM Red flags.


Question, what should I have done at the end?

The DM won't answer questions about my surroundings and I am not allowed to talk to the other players. The Game Master is getting angrier and angrier any time I ask a question (and has told me in hindsight that OOC violence was on the table).

Should I have just abandoned any pretense of staying in character or trying to keep my character alive and simply declared "I charge the nearest enemy and swing away?"

Well, obviously, with perfect hindsight, the answer is, nuke the site from orbit. Alternately, with perfect insight into the situation, and wanting to run the character "optimally", the answer is to go along with what the DM apparently wanted.

But, from within the game, and not being able to read people? Exactly what you did. Yes, it might get you murdered IRL, which is why you shouldn't run this character with this group in the first place, but it's the right answer nonetheless.

Kane0
2017-07-06, 11:47 PM
Careful when picking holes in his choice of character guys, he did come ready with like half a dozen remember. The one he ended up using was the one the DM objected to the least.

Edit: I'm sure this has been asked before, but why not organise your own game? You don't necessarily have to DM it.

JAL_1138
2017-07-07, 09:56 AM
Alas I can't give an adequate full response to Quertus' earlier posts on my cell phone.

I've tried to be clear that Talakeal's character and actions were, in my opinion, absolutely not in any way the main source of the problem; I think I failed at that, and in offering suggestions for improvement of the character in terms of party cohesion (which probably almost certainly were not expressed all that well either), I ended up sounding WAY too critical of Talakeal—I apologize for that. I really feel like the DM is the primary problem with the game. Like, 99% or more of it, if I had to apportion. With the remaining smidge of it spread among the party to an extent (e.g., tactics, lack thereof, etc) and not lying solely with Talakeal. This game was full of red flags before the first die was rolled, and while perfect party character fit would not have saved it.


Now, in this particular case, we have a DM who has said that it will be a high fatality game with fudged rolls. That's not just old-school, that's old-school from the bad side of town, and a red flag already. Add to that high fatality + don't like power gaming, and high fatality + don't like characters discussing tactics, and fudged rolls + don't like power gaming, and... and I'm not exactly a fan of fudged rolls to begin with. I think, if presented with that list, on paper, my response would be to run away as fast as I possibly could.

That's a good summary of it. Red flags galore, and signs of the worst kind of powertripping DM, straight out of the SUE Files. As a certain supercomputer once said, "The only winning move is not to play."

RazorChain
2017-07-07, 10:50 AM
Eventually, and it may be counter-intuitive, but yes, you should have charged along with the rest of the team.

Here is the thing: No matter what he says, if the GM doesn't allow you to talk to one another, he isn't interested in having a group roleplay, he isn't interested in his players staying in character. He isn't interested in fun solutions to an encounter, he is interested in you going to the door, killing the monster and getting the treasure he can then tax the hell out of, and keep you playing by his tune.

So yeah, at that point you stay by your group and grip the nearest bar not to get thrown out by your GM's wild ride.


Or you could just tell the GM he's an idiot and leave. I would have done that, in fact I would have been more explicit and told him to pleasure himself with one hand and roll dice with the other while he railroads the group through the game he wants to play.

1ST RED FLAG
Shooting down 4 of 6 character concepts because of race/class. A good GM works with his players to realize their character concepts or tells them beforehand what classes/races are allowed.

2ND RED FLAG
Not explaining what the game is about before character creation, and falsely explain it as hardcore survival game. Not giving the players heads up that they are the penal legion for the empire before they make characters is incredibly stupid.

3RD RED FLAG
Not letting the players make characters together. A good GM knows this is often the phase where the players make their characters bond or find a reason why they travel together. It is also helps in making characters compatible and able to work together. It makes gamebreaking character conflict less likely in the future and makes for a more balanced group where not everyone shows up with Bob the fighter.

4TH RED FLAG
No metagaming and railroading. No metagaming is impossible but you can keep it at minimum. I've played with serious GM's that wanted us to keep most things IC and that was fine. But this GM seems to be an idiot that doesn't allow the players to keep IC conversation going and rudely ends scenes to keep the game on rails.

5TH RED FLAG
False advertising! Combat as war, survival hardcore game involves crreative solutions and not entering combat lightly. Talakeal was the only one who played smart, the other players managed to get the idiot GM railroad them into an ambush. If it was my game Talakeal's character would be the only one to walk away after I told my players on what premises we would be playing.

6TH RED FLAG
The GM is the players eyes and Talakeal was blind. The idiot GM didn't give Talakeal description of the situation when prompted for it. This is one of the worsts sins of a GM. If the GM gives bad description of a situation to a player it will affect the said PC's actions and may lead to retcon because the player acted poorly because he didn't understand the situation. A GM flatly refusing to describe a situation and demanding the player to act is TOTAL F-WIT IDIOT with moosh for brains.

7TH RED FLAG
Threat of violence. I don't need to say much here, but the GM didn't try to resolve anything with Talakeal.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-07, 11:12 AM
3RD RED FLAG
Not letting the players make characters together. A good GM knows this is often the phase where the players make their characters bond or find a reason why they travel together. It is also helps in making characters compatible and able to work together. It makes gamebreaking character conflict less likely in the future and makes for a more balanced group where not everyone shows up with Bob the fighter.

It is entirely possible for this to have a reasonable cause. Plenty of players are gun shy about certain things because they had a bad experience with it before. It's possible this DM has had experiences either as a player or a DM where the players with the most natural charisma got to pick their character concepts and then essentially browbeat the less assertive players into playing concepts or classes they didn't want to because "duh every party needs a healer" or "you can't be a dwarf from the salt marshes cause I'm already a dwarf from the sulfur marshes"

Enough experiences like that and I could certainly see creating a rule that players have to generate characters in isolation.

RazorChain
2017-07-07, 11:35 AM
It is entirely possible for this to have a reasonable cause. Plenty of players are gun shy about certain things because they had a bad experience with it before. It's possible this DM has had experiences either as a player or a DM where the players with the most natural charisma got to pick their character concepts and then essentially browbeat the less assertive players into playing concepts or classes they didn't want to because "duh every party needs a healer" or "you can't be a dwarf from the salt marshes cause I'm already a dwarf from the sulfur marshes"

Enough experiences like that and I could certainly see creating a rule that players have to generate characters in isolation.

True, but then the GM is lacking the skills as an arbiter which is pretty essential for a good GM. The groups I've been part of usually discuss what we are going to play and we experienced enough to come up with 2-3 concepts in mind because from past experience we know that often 2 players will show up with similar concept. If one player is bullying others into playing something they don't want to play then this is not the solution. The solution is dealing with the problem player.

GungHo
2017-07-07, 12:51 PM
I sat down and the DM said "We need to talk. Your behavior the other night was completely unacceptable and it will not happen again. I wanted to throw you out several times and everyone was so pissed at you that you are lucky you didn't get hit."

Now, I am really curious if he was the one wanting to do the hitting or if one of the other players told him that after the game, but either way once the thread of RL violence was on the table I was sure the time for trying to work it out had passed. So I said "I suppose that is going to be the end of me playing in your games," to which he said "Ok" and I got up and left.
You're a better man than me.



Careful when picking holes in his choice of character guys, he did come ready with like half a dozen remember. The one he ended up using was the one the DM objected to the least.
What do you mean "his choice"? The DM made them. They were never Talakeal's characters (or anyone else's). They were always the DM's. The guy even kept the damn sheets as though they were going to be used in an audit. I'm not even sure why that guy had people at the table. He could have sat in his bathtub doing unmentionable things with GI Joes for the amount of interaction he wanted from the players. Tal's a unique sort, but this other guy is two bowls of Cheerios away from being Jigsaw.

Alberic Strein
2017-07-07, 01:30 PM
Or you could just tell the GM he's an idiot and leave. I would have done that, in fact I would have been more explicit and told him to pleasure himself with one hand and roll dice with the other while he railroads the group through the game he wants to play.

Of course, you could just tell the GM to get bent. It just doesn't strike me as the best possible option. Or the one I would recommend. The GM deserves to be told to get bent, but doing it does not contribute to having a good, or even passable evening. I think that in the situation that the GM bullheadedly refuses to work with you, raises all the flags you mentioned and some more, then your best option as a player is to let that session end with as little drama as possible. Then, once the game is done and you contributed to everyone having an as pleasant evening as possible, once you've calmed down, collected your thoughts, talked to someone about the absolute chore that this session was, you can send a pleasant mail to the GM and tell him, very politely, that you won't be showing up next session, and then do the same for the other players and wish them a good game.

That way you don't act while angry, which is a very steep slippery slope to saying something you'll regret and that will tank the opinions other players have of you, you didn't contribute to any drama and you let the GM have his masturbatory fantasy with as little hurt as possible.

It's not about being right and thus allowing yourself to be as confrontational as you want to be, nobody likes it when someone indulges in such self-satisfaction. It's about acting as morally as possible. It's about you walking out of a terrible game knowing you didn't behave in an inappropriate manner, didn't hurt anyone, and hurt anybody's fun.

Talakeal
2017-07-07, 01:32 PM
What do you mean "his choice"? The DM made them. They were never Talakeal's characters (or anyone else's). They were always the DM's. The guy even kept the damn sheets as though they were going to be used in an audit. I'm not even sure why that guy had people at the table. He could have sat in his bathtub doing unmentionable things with GI Joes for the amount of interaction he wanted from the players. Tal's a unique sort, but this other guy is two bowls of Cheerios away from being Jigsaw.

Not quite. We were playing a heavily modified version of Castles and Crusades, Fenrisnorth thought the DM made out character's for us because he isn't used to playing a game without much in the way of character customization (not am I, but I have atleast read the rulebook and new what I was getting into).

The DM demanded that before we do any mechanics we had to give him a: Name, unique appearance, short term goals, and a long term goal for our character.
Then we had to name and give professions for both parents, a friend, a sibling, and our mentor. Then we were allowed to choose our race and class (off a list that banned most of core but had added a few homebrews and splat book options).
We were not allowed to pick our alignment, starting areas, or spell list.
We then rolled our stats and were allowed to pick our extra prime stat (or two for a human).
We were allowed to describe our equipment, but weapon damager and AC were by class not gear. The DM would decide on a case by case basis whether or not we had other items we might need (quantum inventory is all the better to railroad us, we never have a grappling hook unless he wants us to climb a wall, etc.)

Fenrisnorth assumed that he picked our skill lists for us, not realizing that C&C doesn't have skill lists, merely class abilities that would be skills in most modern games.


Careful when picking holes in his choice of character guys, he did come ready with like half a dozen remember. The one he ended up using was the one the DM objected to the least..

You know, now that you mention this it actually makes me recall an earlier red flag. Before character creation I asked him for some scratch paper to jot down a few character concepts and he gave me an ugly look, told me no, and then berated me for wasting his time coming to a game without a clear character concept already in mind.


Edit: I'm sure this has been asked before, but why not organise your own game? You don't necessarily have to DM it.

Trying. Not many gamers in this small town, and those I know already belong to a crazy DM's group or have incompatible work schedules. On Monday I did start DMing a lone wolf game for my roommate, but I have no idea how to attract more players for it. I have made posts on several looking for group forums and classified boards (including this one) over the years but have received very few responses, and those that I have heard from are always established groups looking for new players rather than players looking for a new group.

GrayDeath
2017-07-07, 02:50 PM
Honestly, reading all your awful experiences makes me suggest the following:

Look for Players for a Skype Game online, the whole world should be able to provide enough non-Bizarro Material for your Flaw of "attracts Bizarro DM`s" (probably severe)^^ to be overcome by the sheer power of statistics!

Note to self: get a Skype Game of international variety set up during the dead summer month.

Arbane
2017-07-07, 04:02 PM
Trying. Not many gamers in this small town, and those I know already belong to a crazy DM's group or have incompatible work schedules. On Monday I did start DMing a lone wolf game for my roommate, but I have no idea how to attract more players for it. I have made posts on several looking for group forums and classified boards (including this one) over the years but have received very few responses, and those that I have heard from are always established groups looking for new players rather than players looking for a new group.

I recommend collecting emails from the few, precious non-terrible gamers you meet. Then you can email them and ask 'wanna play?'

War_lord
2017-07-07, 06:07 PM
If you're not totally wedded to playing games in person, there's always roll20, you'll still come across bad DM's, but there's go many games that the turnover on finding a new game is super quick.

Kane0
2017-07-08, 07:25 AM
Before character creation I asked him for some scratch paper to jot down a few character concepts and he gave me an ugly look, told me no, and then berated me for wasting his time coming to a game without a clear character concept already in mind.


Oh my god, what a tool. How does this guy still have a group? I'm guessing either blackmail or stockholm syndrome.

JNAProductions
2017-07-08, 08:34 PM
Oh my god, what a tool. How does this guy still have a group? I'm guessing either blackmail or stockholm syndrome.

I can understand being mildly peeved that you didn't have a character concept in mind... Assuming you asked them to make some ahead of time. This DM did not, it sounds like.

Amphetryon
2017-07-09, 08:57 AM
The DM demanded that before we do any mechanics we had to give him a: Name, unique appearance, short term goals, and a long term goal for our character.
Then we had to name and give professions for both parents, a friend, a sibling, and our mentor. Then we were allowed to choose our race and class (off a list that banned most of core but had added a few homebrews and splat book options).
We were not allowed to pick our alignment, starting areas, or spell list.
We then rolled our stats and were allowed to pick our extra prime stat (or two for a human).
We were allowed to describe our equipment, but weapon damager and AC were by class not gear. The DM would decide on a case by case basis whether or not we had other items we might need (quantum inventory is all the better to railroad us, we never have a grappling hook unless he wants us to climb a wall, etc.)

"Demanded"is an interesting (loaded) term here, connoting hostility of intent from an observer who admits to a processing disorder that makes it difficult for him to read that hostility, if it existed at the time.

Asking for "unique appearance, short term goals, and a long term goal" for each Character sounds a lot like asking each Player to create a background and personality for their Character; it's simply a matter of approach and which particular info the GM wants a Player to communicate at the table (see earlier "red flag" about IC/OOC chatter). Could you clarify why the former is different than the latter?

Quantum inventory is also better for GMs that don't want Players getting hung up on where every single piece of equipment is on their person, or how Characters are carting around all their gear when that sort of bookkeeping isn't the point of the adventure (or game itself), but one can certainly choose to assign a malicious reason for the GM's preference when relating the tale.


You know, now that you mention this it actually makes me recall an earlier red flag. Before character creation I asked him for some scratch paper to jot down a few character concepts and he gave me an ugly look, told me no, and then berated me for wasting his time coming to a game without a clear character concept already in mind.

An experienced gamer showing up to a first session without anything on which to take notes would be a red flag for me, as a GM. Again, I am seeing a conflict between the admission of "impossibility in reading peoples' faces/body language" and the described "ugly look" and "berating."

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-09, 09:12 AM
While I've seen quantum inventory used well, I've never seen it done as well as significant items. Or the idea that you're assumed to be carrying around stuff like paper, pencils, a waterskin, some dice or cards, or whatever else seems reasonable for your character concept, but if you want to carry something that gives you a benefit it's a 'significant item' and you can only have a few of those (likely dedicated by your strength). So a fighter's sword and the wizard's spellbook might both be significant.

The idea is that you have the ability to do things like first aid whenever, because that's fun, but if you want to try and repair an ancient device, perform surgery, pick a lock, or whatever then you had better taken the tools as a significant item.

The difference is that you can definitely say you have a grappling hook, but if you turn out to need a battering ram you have to work out another way. Probably with the infinite paper and iron rations you have access to.

Quantum inventory is pretty much only good for railroading or those times where you'd believably be picking up and dropping off things at short notice. I once got unlimited access to whatever a middle class person might have via the ability to go back to my house, and then lost it an hour later when we went to a site (where I had to make an intelligence roll to have brought anything not written on my sheet).

(I was once in a game where I essentially got 20kg of equipment to lug around, which was restrictive until the GM ruled that things like bags, torches, and bullets wouldn't count, and so I managed to get a weapon or two and most of my tools into my allowance. 'Weight only for significant items' worked a charm and made everyone wish they'd taken just one more point in Strength to get that extra kilo.)

EDIT: I know many gamers who don't turn up with scrap paper or a notepad, many just don't think of the need to take notes. After session 0 most groups I know basically nominate a scribe to do all the heavy note taking and most people don't write more than the occasional reminder.

Amphetryon
2017-07-09, 11:14 AM
While I've seen quantum inventory used well, I've never seen it done as well as significant items. Or the idea that you're assumed to be carrying around stuff like paper, pencils, a waterskin, some dice or cards, or whatever else seems reasonable for your character concept, but if you want to carry something that gives you a benefit it's a 'significant item' and you can only have a few of those (likely dedicated by your strength). So a fighter's sword and the wizard's spellbook might both be significant.

The idea is that you have the ability to do things like first aid whenever, because that's fun, but if you want to try and repair an ancient device, perform surgery, pick a lock, or whatever then you had better taken the tools as a significant item.

The difference is that you can definitely say you have a grappling hook, but if you turn out to need a battering ram you have to work out another way. Probably with the infinite paper and iron rations you have access to.

Quantum inventory is pretty much only good for railroading or those times where you'd believably be picking up and dropping off things at short notice. I once got unlimited access to whatever a middle class person might have via the ability to go back to my house, and then lost it an hour later when we went to a site (where I had to make an intelligence roll to have brought anything not written on my sheet).

(I was once in a game where I essentially got 20kg of equipment to lug around, which was restrictive until the GM ruled that things like bags, torches, and bullets wouldn't count, and so I managed to get a weapon or two and most of my tools into my allowance. 'Weight only for significant items' worked a charm and made everyone wish they'd taken just one more point in Strength to get that extra kilo.)

EDIT: I know many gamers who don't turn up with scrap paper or a notepad, many just don't think of the need to take notes. After session 0 most groups I know basically nominate a scribe to do all the heavy note taking and most people don't write more than the occasional reminder.
Suffice to say our experiences in these matters vary significantly.

Talakeal
2017-07-09, 01:30 PM
"Demanded"is an interesting (loaded) term here, connoting hostility of intent from an observer who admits to a processing disorder that makes it difficult for him to read that hostility, if it existed at the time.

Asking for "unique appearance, short term goals, and a long term goal" for each Character sounds a lot like asking each Player to create a background and personality for their Character; it's simply a matter of approach and which particular info the GM wants a Player to communicate at the table (see earlier "red flag" about IC/OOC chatter). Could you clarify why the former is different than the latter?

Quantum inventory is also better for GMs that don't want Players getting hung up on where every single piece of equipment is on their person, or how Characters are carting around all their gear when that sort of bookkeeping isn't the point of the adventure (or game itself), but one can certainly choose to assign a malicious reason for the GM's preference when relating the tale.

An experienced gamer showing up to a first session without anything on which to take notes would be a red flag for me, as a GM. Again, I am seeing a conflict between the admission of "impossibility in reading peoples' faces/body language" and the described "ugly look" and "berating."



The hostility was verbal as well as visual. I said demand because I was annoyed by it, replace with insisted if you like. Either way, when I was having trouble thinking of it on the spot and asked if I could come back to it he flatly refused and told me that crunch can't start until fluff is complete like a mother in a sitcom telling a child they can't have desert until they finish their vegetables, and then got frustrated at how long it was taking me and (again verbally) chewed me out for wasting his time and mocked my (admittedly highly mockable) creative writing degree.


What do you mean former / latter? Do you mean creating a background normally vs. following his setup? If so, basically you have to do it in a certain order. For example, typically naming a character is the last thing I do and often takes longer than the rest of character generation combined, but he insisted it be the very first thing you do and won't let you move on until it is done. Also, having a unique appearance feature is kind of tough. I know exactly what the character looks like, I have even had an illustration of them, but I couldn't think of anything about their appearance that I would call "unique". Likewise I had plenty of goals and background info about the character, but I didn't have a long term goal because the character wasn't overly ambitious or dissatisfied with their life as is, and I wanted to keep myself fairly open so that I could pick up whatever call to adventure was sounded.



See, here's the thing, I have been talking to this DM for a long time while painting miniatures. Almost everything he says or does about gaming is to go on and on about how his story is more important than anything else, be it dice, rules, or player wants. He thinks this is a good thing and doesn't try and hide it. He pretty much said, although in language that makes it sound like a good thing, that he will adjust people's inventory on the fly to maintain the challenge he thinks is appropriate. He also told us that one of the reasons we weren't allowed to keep any loot we find according to the terms of our indentured servitude is that he doesn't want to have to deal with book keeping or balancing treasure and thinks the game will go much more smoothly if he can simply have the quartermaster assign us what we need when he thinks we will need it.
And I actually saw him doing this quantum gear stuff at the table even in the short time we played, both denying players an item they needed and laughing at players for assuming they didn't have something.



It isn't "impossible" for me to read expressions. I don't recall ever using the word impossible, but if I did it was for illustrative purposes. I have trouble picking out small details, but when someone falls silent and scowls at me that is not a subtle detail and it comes through loud on clear. He also did plenty of verbal chewing out, and the two other players at the table who I have talked to since certainly picked up on his hostility as well (although not necessarily the same things I picked up on). My roommate actually had some tension with the DM during the character creation session and wanted to drop out of the game and I had to play peace maker between them; and I did the same thing after the first session before I knew that threats of violence were on the table.


I didn't want to be late for the first session but I had to walk the dogs and cook dinner for my family after getting home but before leaving for the game, so I was kind of in a hurry while packing and I didn't think to bring a notepad. I normally do, but I didn't this time. I have seen lots of players bring notepads over the years, but the majority of them don't, I have never much cared one way or another, and I certainly would never consider it a "red flag".

Also, on a side note, what happened to your avatar? I am seeing a lot of people with that avatar recently, did some big hosting site go offline or something?

Telok
2017-07-09, 02:14 PM
Also, on a side note, what happened to your avatar? I am seeing a lot of people with that avatar recently, did some big hosting site go offline or something?

One of the larger hosting sites started requiring paid subscriptions in addition to ads. I don't know if the images are lock/gone or just offlined without the money.

And I feel ya on the notepad thing. I always wrote my characters on my own paper because the official sheets are always pretty crap, missing things or not enough room are the usual culprits. So while I always have a notepad because that's where my character is I know bunches of people who use the official sheets and a pencil from the dice bucket, they never have any paper.

Talakeal
2017-07-09, 03:47 PM
Also, on the subject of my interpretation of the DM, he flat out admits to being a control freak (albeit not in those words).

I asked him to join my gaming group months ago and he bluntly told me that while he loves gaming he will only ever GM as (again said with verbiage that makes it sound good and reasonable) the main draw of DMing is that he gets off on having power over people and he can't stand being in a game where he is subservient to another DM.

So no, his domination tendencies are confirmed by two other players and the man himself, they aren't just something I misread due to my disability or exaggerated on the forum to drum up sympathy for myself.

JAL_1138
2017-07-09, 03:52 PM
See, here's the thing, I have been talking to this DM for a long time while painting miniatures. Almost everything he says or does about gaming is to go on and on about how his story is more important than anything else, be it dice, rules, or player wants. He thinks this is a good thing and doesn't try and hide it. He pretty much said, although in language that makes it sound like a good thing, that he will adjust people's inventory on the fly to maintain the challenge he thinks is appropriate. He also told us that one of the reasons we weren't allowed to keep any loot we find according to the terms of our indentured servitude is that he doesn't want to have to deal with book keeping or balancing treasure and thinks the game will go much more smoothly if he can simply have the quartermaster assign us what we need when he thinks we will need it.
And I actually saw him doing this quantum gear stuff at the table even in the short time we played, both denying players an item they needed and laughing at players for assuming they didn't have something.

...I have to ask why joining this game seemed like a good idea in the first place. Everything you've described about what you knew before the game even started would've sent me running fast enough the phrase "greased lightning" would be applicable.

Talakeal
2017-07-09, 03:55 PM
...I have to ask why joining this game seemed like a good idea in the first place. Everything you've described about what you knew before the game even started would've sent me running fast enough the phrase "greased lightning" would be applicable.

Agreed, and in hindsight I would have.

He had just been asking for so long and talking up how great his new game was going to be, and I have gone almost a year without playing in a real campaign so I finally gave in.

War_lord
2017-07-09, 05:53 PM
Sounds like the guy would be happier just writing novels.

Talakeal
2017-07-09, 06:03 PM
Sounds like the guy would be happier just writing novels.

Honestly, and this is kind of cruel and might be completely off base, judging from the conversations I had with the guy he enjoys having power over the audience as much if not more so than simply having an audience, not something you get from a novel.

Mr Beer
2017-07-09, 06:22 PM
That kind of guy pushes my buttons really hard. When he was busting out the threats of violence, how did you size him up, do you think he's the kind of person that gets into fights and wins?

JAL_1138
2017-07-09, 06:56 PM
Agreed, and in hindsight I would have.

He had just been asking for so long and talking up how great his new game was going to be, and I have gone almost a year without playing in a real campaign so I finally gave in.

Understandable, particularly given he was sort of a friend (or at least a miniatures-painting acquaintance) before all this went down.

Good call on cutting off contact, especially after the implied threat later on. This person sounds toxic.

goto124
2017-07-10, 03:32 AM
He had just been asking for so long and talking up how great his new game was going to be, and I have gone almost a year without playing in a real campaign so I finally gave in.

A... real campaign. What of the other games that didn't count as real campaigns? Did those games go well, or just as terribly as majority of your games?

Kane0
2017-07-10, 05:42 AM
Talakeal likes to only tell us the horror stories, keeps up his image :smallamused:

Kantaki
2017-07-10, 10:37 AM
Talakeal likes to only tell us the horror stories, keeps up his image :smallamused:

To be fair, at this point would we even believe him if he told us a good gaming story?

At best he would get some concern about his well-being.
I know I would react with a „Who are you and what have you done with Talakeal?”:smalltongue::smallwink:

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-10, 10:44 AM
To be fair, at this point would we even believe him if he told us a good gaming story?

At best he would get some concern about his well-being.
I know I would react with a „Who are you and what have you done with Talakeal?”:smalltongue::smallwink:

Well if he could get a reliable witness or twelve we might give him a 30% chance of telling the truth.

JAL_1138
2017-07-10, 12:40 PM
Well if he could get a reliable witness or twelve we might give him a 30% chance of telling the truth.

If it weren't for the scheduling issues and the fact that we're all stark raving mad here too (meaning the likelihood of anything approaching normalcy is 0%), I'd almost suggest some playgrounders try to do a Roll20 game with Talakeal just to see if we can get him some semblance of a decent game as a reference point.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-10, 12:48 PM
If it weren't for the scheduling issues and the fact that we're all stark raving mad here too (meaning the likelihood of anything approaching normalcy is 0%), I'd almost suggest some playgrounders try to do a Roll20 game with Talakeal just to see if we can get him some semblance of a decent game as a reference point.

Unfortunately I think I'm in a different time zone to him and most Playgrounders (I'm in GMT), and I'm busy with trying to actually graduate from university this year (stuff went wrong), so I'm probably out. Wouldn't be a bad idea, we could even have a thread to chronicle the adventures.

GrayDeath
2017-07-10, 01:16 PM
I think I`d be up for that, Roll20, Skype or otherwise.


I mean its not as if scheduling a game with people all over the world is more difficult than finding a nonawful Game around where he lives, is it? ^^


So how about this:

List of poeple who would want to help Talekeal experience a Good Game (TM) and are hence willing to do a SkypeRoll20/whatever Game:

Gray Death

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-10, 01:25 PM
I think I`d be up for that, Roll20, Skype or otherwise.


I mean its not as if scheduling a game with people all over the world is more difficult than finding a nonawful Game around where he lives, is it? ^^


So how about this:

List of poeple who would want to help Talekeal experience a Good Game (TM) and are hence willing to do a SkypeRoll20/whatever Game:

Gray Death

You could throw me on there, but I'm not overly available so put in a tag for that. I can certainly give up a few hours a week if it's not at some ungodly hour for me.

GrayDeath
2017-07-10, 02:02 PM
Then just add yourself to the List, guys. We need to show Takeleal that there is Hope! ;)



List:

GrayDeath
Anonymous Wizard

Actana
2017-07-10, 02:20 PM
You know, why not? Depending on the system in question I might even be up to run a game of a couple of sessions. European time zone, though.

Feel free to add me to the list as well.

War_lord
2017-07-10, 02:26 PM
I'd be down, but the only system I know is 5e. I do have Curse of Strahd, Volo's and the Monster Manual on Roll20 if that helps. I mean worst case scenario is that it's another awful game for Talakeal to post about, right?

Talakeal
2017-07-10, 02:36 PM
A... real campaign. What of the other games that didn't count as real campaigns? Did those games go well, or just as terribly as majority of your games?

A bunch of one shots and con games.

The last serious attempt at a campaign was when my roommate tried to run a game and our combined stubborness led to a tpk on session 1.




If it weren't for the scheduling issues and the fact that we're all stark raving mad here too (meaning the likelihood of anything approaching normalcy is 0%), I'd almost suggest some playgrounders try to do a Roll20 game with Talakeal just to see if we can get him some semblance of a decent game as a reference point.

I have never tried an online game before, the idea never really apealed to me, but I would love to gove this a try if people are interested.

Although, I am by no means without my flaws, and I do have a suspicion that people might use this as an opportunity to expose me as the source of all my gaming problems. Half joking?

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-10, 02:42 PM
I have never tried an online game before, the idea never really apealed to me, but I would love to gove this a try if people are interested.

Although, I am by no means without my flaws, and I do have a suspicion that people might use this as an opportunity to expose me as the source of all my gaming problems. Half joking?

Looks like I'll have to get in a mic, this laptop doesn't have one. Still, that's a minor expense.


Based on what War_lord says about systems, what do we want for this venture. I can easily do D&D 3.X and 5e, and have access to quite a few other ones, so I'm down for anything that I can legally access online.

I'll admit I'm with my player flaws as well, Wisdom was my RL dump stat. So feel free to blame me when I cause a tpk or get somebody killed.

Talakeal
2017-07-10, 03:00 PM
Looks like I'll have to get in a mic, this laptop doesn't have one. Still, that's a minor expense.


Based on what War_lord says about systems, what do we want for this venture. I can easily do D&D 3.X and 5e, and have access to quite a few other ones, so I'm down for anything that I can legally access online.

I'll admit I'm with my player flaws as well, Wisdom was my RL dump stat. So feel free to blame me when I cause a tpk or get somebody killed.

I normally play Mage or homebrew games, but I am familiar with D&D of all editions. 5e is probably the easiest choice.

JAL_1138
2017-07-10, 03:02 PM
I think I`d be up for that, Roll20, Skype or otherwise.


I mean its not as if scheduling a game with people all over the world is more difficult than finding a nonawful Game around where he lives, is it? ^^


So how about this:

List of poeple who would want to help Talekeal experience a Good Game (TM) and are hence willing to do a SkypeRoll20/whatever Game:

Gray Death

I'm definitely game to join in as a player, if scheduling works out; my weekends and Friday nights tend to be occupied with AL and/or other commitments.

Despite suggesting it to start with, I'm sadly not likely up for DMing it (not anytime soon, anyway)—I'm running a couple of AL games weekly, and trying to prep for bunch of games at a local mini-con next month too. Between all that I'm kind of at my limit for DMing. (I'm mediocre at best behind the screen; if we can't find any other DM, I could maybe run AL modules; I have all of Seasons 4 & 5; but fair warning they tend to be railroady.

I'm typically free Mon-Thurs after about 4:30-5:30 pm EDT, with no real limit on how late I can go.


I have never tried an online game before, the idea never really apealed to me, but I would love to gove this a try if people are interested.

Although, I am by no means without my flaws, and I do have a suspicion that people might use this as an opportunity to expose me as the source of all my gaming problems. Half joking?

I would hope no one's angling to do that. I've got a lot of my own faults; I'm definitely not out to give anybody grief over their own.

Actana
2017-07-10, 03:11 PM
Perhaps a new thread should be made for this endeavor? Would make organization a bit easier.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-10, 03:13 PM
I'm definitely game to join in as a player, if scheduling works out; my weekends and Friday nights tend to be occupied with AL and/or other commitments.

Despite suggesting it to start with, I'm sadly not likely up for DMing it (not anytime soon, anyway)—I'm running a couple of AL games weekly, and trying to prep for bunch of games at a local mini-con next month too. Between all that I'm kind of at my limit for DMing. (I'm mediocre at best behind the screen; if we can't find any other DM, I could maybe run AL modules; I have all of Seasons 4 & 5; but fair warning they tend to be railroady.

I'm typically free Mon-Thurs after about 4:30-5:30 pm EDT, with no real limit on how late I can go.

I unfortunately don't have time to GM for at least a month and a half.

I can probably do those times, it's scratching the ceiling of 'reasonable hour' but I can valiantly sacrifice one night a week. I'm a youngster (23 years old) though, so be prepared for crazy ideas like 'not being insanely paranoid' and 'the GM wouldn't kill us'.

War_lord
2017-07-10, 03:17 PM
I could DM, but I'm totally new to it (I've ran one session with a group of internet friends so far) so we'd probably be much happier if an actual veteran did it. Not sure if there's a way to let someone else DM with my plug-ins.

Kane0
2017-07-10, 07:38 PM
I'd express interest, but unfortunately I A) Live in Australia and B) probably won't have a strong enough schedule for a skype game. Totally available for play-by-post though.

Jay R
2017-07-10, 08:52 PM
I am really looking forward to hearing from every participant in the game.

War_lord
2017-07-10, 09:45 PM
To be clear, in case anyone's under any illusion otherwise, I'm participating because I was looking for a game anyway, and I want to help a fellow forumgoer out with their game drought. I'm not signing up because I want to, or feel I ought to, judge Talakeal's merits as a player or as a person, I don't have the right to. (Asmodeus knows, I'm not without rough edges myself).

If there's issues there, I don't know if there is, I'd bring them to his attention privately and constructively. I'm not going to come back and use it for public mudslinging. I don't abide that kind of behavior.

Friv
2017-07-10, 10:27 PM
I'd be willing to give this a try as a player; as a GM I would probably try to turn this into a Chuubo's game or something. :smallwink:

(I'm playing in a LARP right now, it would be nice to be part of a real game for a little while.)

That said - I'm currently on PST, so I don't know if my schedule will line up. I wouldn't available until solidly 8:30 Eastern.

Anxe
2017-07-10, 10:43 PM
Let the playground show Talakeal a good time! Best choice of a system appears to be 5e.

Talakeal lives in US Mountain Time which is GMT-7.

USA
GrayDeath
Friv
JAL_1138

Europe
AnonymousWizard
Actana
War_Lord

Australia
Kane0 (But also said availability is sketchy)

With Talakeal, that's 4 people in the USA group. Just need a DM. I could do it, but not as a permanent DM.
For Europe time zone, everyone who is willing to play is also willing to DM.

I'd DM for a few sessions, but nothing permanent if that's what you're after. I've only experienced running 3.5 and Hackmaster. I have enough knowledge to run a 4E adventure as well. I think you've got enough players, so if a different DM steps up to run 5E I will just be backing out and wishing you well.

EDITED for War_Lord being in Europe.

War_lord
2017-07-10, 11:31 PM
Slight correction, I'm in Europe, Ireland to be exact. GMT +1 right now.

I can do US timezones, but if it's during the week, and assuming 4 hour sessions the latest start I can do is 5pm, or even 5:30 edt. Staying up late isn't an issue right now, but from September on staying up till 6am will stop being practical for me.

Anxe
2017-07-10, 11:54 PM
K. I edited to reflect that.

As Actana said, a new thread in the Player Recruitment section of the board might make sense. Leaving it up to Talakeal to start it though.

Starshade
2017-07-11, 05:09 AM
Talakeal: I do not know your previous misadventures, but from this thread it looks like you enjoy roleplaying a character, and play from the characters view in a team of players who plays from a different point of view.
And you plays a hit-em-bash-loot style game light on roleplay, scripted in a railroad, and with no way to communicate between the player characters in any meaningful way regarding tactics, no character knows any other as part of the setting as soldiers, etc.
The DM I assume is good at some special kind of DMing, in a rule system I don't know. Rolling up a simple character with no motivation or direction, inside a system enforcing motives and goals appears contradictory, though. Looks like your character was needed to be fully formed, then sent on a "boot camp" experience; break em' down, build them up again, like in boot camps in real life, or in backstories for miniature gaming. Did your DM plan to have you play a soldier in "boot camp" training ish game, inspired by miniature Imperial Guard / Space Marines? :smallamused:

Anyway; too bad it didn't work out.

JAL_1138
2017-07-11, 05:57 AM
To be clear, in case anyone's under any illusion otherwise, I'm participating because I was looking for a game anyway, and I want to help a fellow forumgoer out with their game drought. I'm not signing up because I want to, or feel I ought to, judge Talakeal's merits as a player or as a person, I don't have the right to. (Asmodeus knows, I'm not without rough edges myself).

If there's issues there, I don't know if there is, I'd bring them to his attention privately and constructively. I'm not going to come back and use it for public mudslinging. I don't abide that kind of behavior.

Hear hear. I would hope all the prospective players approach with the same attitude.

kraftcheese
2017-07-11, 06:23 AM
I'd express interest, but unfortunately I A) Live in Australia and B) probably won't have a strong enough schedule for a skype game. Totally available for play-by-post though.
I'd love to help Talakael have a good gaming experience, but I'm in the same boat on both counts; in Australia and I have an unstable work/uni schedule.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-11, 06:38 AM
Hear hear. I would hope all the prospective players approach with the same attitude.

I mean, I signed up because I wanted a game but I'm not in a position to find a RL one at the moment, and Talakeal sounds like a great guy to play with. I mean, I'm not going to be throwing stones at anybody's mistakes because I'm just as likely to make some.

Actana
2017-07-11, 07:13 AM
To be clear, in case anyone's under any illusion otherwise, I'm participating because I was looking for a game anyway, and I want to help a fellow forumgoer out with their game drought. I'm not signing up because I want to, or feel I ought to, judge Talakeal's merits as a player or as a person, I don't have the right to. (Asmodeus knows, I'm not without rough edges myself).

If there's issues there, I don't know if there is, I'd bring them to his attention privately and constructively. I'm not going to come back and use it for public mudslinging. I don't abide that kind of behavior.

Quite right indeed. Anyone interested should be looking for a game primarily, and not just some weird form of gathering gossip.

Given that people have their own preferences of what to play and when, it's likely best that we'd start gathering some form of table of people, their available times and games they'd prefer to play, as well as people who would like to GM and how long a game they'd be running. I believe the ultimate choice should, however, be left to Talakeal, as they are the one uniting factor in this potential game. I can start working on some form of table for the case, and I'll be asking for people to fill it in once I have it up in a reasonable form.

Can I just also say that it's a bit admirable how eagerly people are willing to jump in at a random idea like this?


Edit: Here's a link to a Google Doc sheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1U5NP7NcbtCwv7A4C-RZxMgQMofyOcL0ARWE-lVqZ60Q/edit?usp=sharing) for anyone interested. Please fill in the blanks. I inferred a couple of details here and there, but if something is wrong in your listings please correct them.

For the time being, please list your available times in UTC. It'll make things easiest to coordinate. Once there's a bit more in it I can work on converting the timetable for other time zones, but for now it'll likely be easiest to list everything in a single timezone and go from there.

Quertus
2017-07-11, 10:35 AM
Although, I am by no means without my flaws, and I do have a suspicion that people might use this as an opportunity to expose me as the source of all my gaming problems. Half joking?


I normally play Mage or homebrew games, but I am familiar with D&D of all editions. 5e is probably the easiest choice.

Eh, I'm a ****, and will tell everyone to their face how I feel. Not sure if that would help or hurt.

I'd love to join, (and I love Mage & D&D) but cell phone with limited data plan and, uh, erratic schedule don't sound conducive to this endeavor.

GrayDeath
2017-07-11, 01:40 PM
Talakeal lives in US Mountain Time which is GMT-7.

USA
GrayDeath
Friv
JAL_1138

Europe
AnonymousWizard
Actana
War_Lord

Australia
Kane0 (But also said availability is sketchy)


I`m in Europe as well. GMT +1

Also, I`lls tart a new thread to clarify system, who will DM and so on, since I more or less started this ^^


. here be Linky:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529969-Talekkeal-and-us-a-Good-Game-in-the-Making&p=22184385#post22184385

ImNotTrevor
2017-07-11, 02:23 PM
Talakeal lives in US Mountain Time which is GMT-7.

USA
GrayDeath
Friv
JAL_1138

Europe
AnonymousWizard
Actana
War_Lord

Australia
Kane0 (But also said availability is sketchy)


I`m in Europe as well. GMT +1

Also, I`lls tart a new thread to clarify system, who will DM and so on, since I more or less started this ^^


. here be Linky:http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?529969-Talekkeal-and-us-a-Good-Game-in-the-Making&p=22184385#post22184385

That thread should probably be in the Finding Players subforum.

Talakeal
2017-07-15, 01:09 PM
So I was thinking, in this case the DM almost certainly feels like I was a problem player ruining his game and that he is lucky to be rid lf me.

He (and other bad DMs I have had in the past) alwasy tells stories about kicking out all of their unreasonable players over the years, even thiugh from a one sided story it is obvious the player had legitimate grievances, and now I am certainly among those stories.

And the last bad game I left, the other players felt that I looked like the jerk for standing up to the GM and leaving.

And then I realized, by the rules of the game they are absolutely right. standing up to an abusive DM is apparently a big no no. Gaming books always go on and on about how the DM is always right, that they can change the rules on a whim without telling anyone, and that their call is always final.

Why is it that games are set up in such a way that the DM position is set up to be unquestionable and absolute and attractive to control freaks? And by the rules of the game, isnt anyone who stands up for themselves against an abusive DM a problem player by definition?

The Glyphstone
2017-07-15, 01:13 PM
That sounds like a problem with the specific gaming books. From what I remember, you play mostly World of Darkness (infamous for the designer's attitude of Storyteller-As-God) and D&D with its equally infamous and often controversial 'rule 0'. Both are notorious for fostering that sort of attitude.

There's a vast assortment of other game books/games out there that don't have that attitude of DM Is King. Some niche games like Fiasco don't even have a GM at all.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-15, 02:32 PM
And then I realized, by the rules of the game they are absolutely right. standing up to an abusive DM is apparently a big no no. Gaming books always go on and on about how the DM is always right, that they can change the rules on a whim without telling anyone, and that their call is always final.

Why is it that games are set up in such a way that the DM position is set up to be unquestionable and absolute and attractive to control freaks? And by the rules of the game, isnt anyone who stands up for themselves against an abusive DM a problem player by definition?

For the why, because it's an easy way to rely on the GM to fill in the gaps. As should be obvious it's nearly impossible to create a fair set of rules which can both deal with any situation and won't collapse into a black hole. Therefore most RPG authors will write a generic set of rules that covers most situations, and give the GM the power to change the rules to deal with the exceptions.

This is not universal. Fate's GMing chapters have a lot more focus on how to use the tool's you're given, while Mongoose Traveller 1e has no GMing advice or rule zero* at all (I cannot say for other editions). However, generally what happens is some form of 'what the GM says goes' is put in and this is treated as 'the GM is never wrong'.

* it does say the rules are a guideline, but there's no suggestion the GM should go against them when they want.

War_lord
2017-07-15, 04:32 PM
So I was thinking, in this case the DM almost certainly feels like I was a problem player ruining his game and that he is lucky to be rid lf me.

He (and other bad DMs I have had in the past) alwasy tells stories about kicking out all of their unreasonable players over the years, even thiugh from a one sided story it is obvious the player had legitimate grievances, and now I am certainly among those stories.

Roleplaying games are fundamentally a social activity. When people have arguments in their social life they generally don't admit to any wrongdoing. Usually it's a two way street, and both sides of the falling out handled things less then professionally.


And the last bad game I left, the other players felt that I looked like the jerk for standing up to the GM and leaving.

And then I realized, by the rules of the game they are absolutely right. standing up to an abusive DM is apparently a big no no. Gaming books always go on and on about how the DM is always right, that they can change the rules on a whim without telling anyone, and that their call is always final.

Why is it that games are set up in such a way that the DM position is set up to be unquestionable and absolute and attractive to control freaks? And by the rules of the game, isnt anyone who stands up for themselves against an abusive DM a problem player by definition?

I really doubt that the reason they felt you where acting like a jerk had anything to do with the rules. When people sit down to play D&D, they generally don't suspend their normal social dynamics. If they've been friends with the DM for longer then they've known you, they're probably going to jump to the side of their friend even if he is being a jerk. Or they might be happy just to play the game, even if the DM isn't great and don't appreciate the hassle of dealing with an argument in what is meant to be a game. Or maybe they haven't really noticed the problems in the group before, and now that you're there highlighting them, they're associating their new awareness of the situation with your presence in a way that makes you seem like the source of the "new" issue.

None of those reasons are logical reasons to dislike you, but people's interpersonal relationships, in most cases, hinge on emotional rationales, not logical ones. And I'm learned from bitter experience that if you try to defuse emotional situations with logic, you're just going to make it much worse.

I don't know where you're getting your view of DMing from, but the 5e DMG at least, makes it very clear to the reader that "The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players... your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed... and to let their characters do awesome things." That description is a far cry from the assertion that the DM role is "set up" to be for abusive control freaks. It says the opposite, and then goes on to list the seven types of player, and give suggestions on how best to cater to each type of player.

In the 5th edition of D&D at least, the whole concept of "problem players" or the "abusive DM" does not exist anywhere in the rules. They say there's multiple types of player, and encourages me to try to give everyone what they want out of the game. I don't think there are "problem players" or "abusive DMs" I think there are social conflicts and toxic people, like in any community. There's never going to be a "rule" that stops all toxic behavior at roleplaying tables, because it's a people issue not a game issue. And I think you're doing yourself a disservice by laying the blame for a handful of bad experiences you've had on the entire institution of the Tabletop RPG.

Talakeal
2017-07-15, 04:59 PM
I didn't mean that the game asks you to be a control freak, merely that it tells you that you can do whatever you want and are never wrong (which the 3.5 and PF DMGs do more or less explicitly) which does seem to attract and entitle people with controlling tendencies.


Its interesting how the exact phrasing varies from edition to edition. An interesting article someone posted the last time this subject came up: https://geek-related.com/2013/10/12/rule-zero-over-the-years/ has a pretty in depth breakdown of it.

In the WoD games I usually play it even changes from book to book. Some say the GM is always right, some say they are just another player, and some are entirely silent about it. My favorite game is revised Mage, which states that "you" can change the rules however you like, but in typical ambiguous White Wolf manner it doesn't say whether "You" means the Game Master, any given player, or the gaming group as a whole (we played it as the latter).

JAL_1138
2017-07-15, 05:54 PM
I do think Talakeal has a point that the DM position—as someone who controls the world, the NPCs, the monsters, and to an extent the very game rules—does attract control-freaks and other toxic people who enjoy the powertripping aspect, by its very nature. DMs in most systems control basically everything but the players themselves, and it's not a stretch from there for someone with a power complex or control issues to try to control the PCs too so they follow the story the DM has set out and don't "mess up" the story or the setting. Talakeal has unfortunately encountered a markedly disproportionate number of bad DMs—most gamers won't have a fraction of as many horror stories—but the draw for the position to that kind of person is there.

I don't think it's actually a Rule 0 problem, although the wording of it often doesn't help the situation. It's that the DM runs the game-world. If the game doesn't have a Rule 0 at all, or includes recommendations on how to cater to different types of player and emphasizes that the players' fun is vitally important to a successful game, you'd still get toxic people in the DM's seat. If a game gave the DM virtually no latitude at all and gave a list of d% tables to resolve things (including story direction) instead, the toxic control-freak/powertripper would fudge their rolls. Or say "well the book says that, but I'm doing it my way instead." [Edit] And regardless of what Rule 0 says or doesn't say or if it's even included at all, they can always say "do you want to keep playing my game? Then we do it this way no matter what the book says."

Starshade
2017-07-15, 05:55 PM
Talakeal, know of the Critical Role show? Among the viewers of it, the D&D player in it who seems to have had most criticism, is Marisha Ray for playing a druid the wrong way. #YourFunIsWrong
http://crittersrpg.com/blog/2016/03/14/why-the-hate/

Basically, some viewers of the show don't like the Key'leth druid character played by Marisha. Her fun is *wrong*, she acts dumb (RP's the charisma dump stat), dont play optimized ,etc. Some people just don't have the same sense of fun, and don't play/dm the same way.

AMFV
2017-07-15, 09:26 PM
So I was thinking, in this case the DM almost certainly feels like I was a problem player ruining his game and that he is lucky to be rid lf me.

Possibly. At least from your description of events you seem to believe that he was quite hostile to you. If that's correct, then it likely stands to reason that he would be gladder without you. But also don't forget, you're also not having to deal with him either.



He (and other bad DMs I have had in the past) alwasy tells stories about kicking out all of their unreasonable players over the years, even thiugh from a one sided story it is obvious the player had legitimate grievances, and now I am certainly among those stories.

And you've come on here and told literally dozens and dozens of stories about bad GMs. People always tend to present themselves in the better light, even in your own mind. Also most cases where people are arguing there are legitimate points to both sides, unless one of the parties is quite insane.



And the last bad game I left, the other players felt that I looked like the jerk for standing up to the GM and leaving.

If other players feel that you're a jerk, you probably were.



And then I realized, by the rules of the game they are absolutely right. standing up to an abusive DM is apparently a big no no. Gaming books always go on and on about how the DM is always right, that they can change the rules on a whim without telling anyone, and that their call is always final.

No, no... they probably think you were a jerk because of actions and subtext that you don't remember or didn't describe to us here.




Why is it that games are set up in such a way that the DM position is set up to be unquestionable and absolute and attractive to control freaks? And by the rules of the game, isnt anyone who stands up for themselves against an abusive DM a problem player by definition?

Not necessarily, but somebody who visibly sulks for the entirety of a game ruining other people's enjoyment is absolutely a problem player.

TheYell
2017-07-15, 11:09 PM
Not necessarily, but somebody who visibly sulks for the entirety of a game ruining other people's enjoyment is absolutely a problem player.

Then the action is too slow, for whatever reason. They should be too excited about what they're going to do next to notice him sulk.

Nothing justifies telling a player he was almost beat up by the other players and the GM expected it. That's just a bunch of jerks.

AMFV
2017-07-16, 12:01 AM
Then the action is too slow, for whatever reason. They should be too excited about what they're going to do next to notice him sulk.

You clearly have never seen somebody who was set on sulking. There is no way to not notice them in a room, particularly since sulking is designed to draw attention to oneself. It's not a quiet thing, it's deliberately intended to attract attention so you can make others feel bad about your plight.



Nothing justifies telling a player he was almost beat up by the other players and the GM expected it. That's just a bunch of jerks.

I don't believe that exact phrasing was used. I think the GM said that he thought that Talakeal's behavior deserved getting punched. But there wasn't much else to it, there's no evidence that there was an actual threat, just a comment on how bad the behavior actually was.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-16, 12:22 AM
And then I realized, by the rules of the game they are absolutely right. standing up to an abusive DM is apparently a big no no. Gaming books always go on and on about how the DM is always right, that they can change the rules on a whim without telling anyone, and that their call is always final.

There's a difference between being the final arbitrator / GM call is always final and being right. I conduct my tables as follows, at any time, someone can make an objection to a ruling or event, and present (briefly) their reasoning. At that point, as the GM I will either modify the ruling or let it stand, and the game continues, no further discussion is allowed. That is "final arbitrator" in action. However, after the game, and any time we're not playing, players are free to have more in depth discussions on the issue with me.

Many rules acknowledge the fact that the GM in putting together the game may or may not want to change the rules for the system, though I am unfamiliar with any that suggest it could be done on a whim, and I can't think of any that actually suggest players should put up with a GM who abuses their position. Even in the height of the GM is God games, I don't think I've ever seen one that doesn't admonish the GM to be fair, even handed and otherwise a neutral arbitrator.



Why is it that games are set up in such a way that the DM position is set up to be unquestionable and absolute and attractive to control freaks? And by the rules of the game, isnt anyone who stands up for themselves against an abusive DM a problem player by definition?

Standing up against an abusive player, whether GM or otherwise is never a problem by the rules. Abusive players are an OOC problem, and therefore not addressed by the rules of the game. As for why the GM position is absolute, it's fundamentally about the nature of the GM in these games. The GM prepares the setting, the scenarios and runs everything other than the PCs. Quite often they're also the host of the game. Even if the rules didn't explicitly call out their authority or their ability to alter the rules, it would exist anyway, because without the GM, there is no game.

Agreeing to start a TTRPG game is a negotiation between GM and players. We use existing rule systems to simplify the negotiations, but even if the rules didn't say they could, nothing would actually prevent a GM from modifying those rules as part f the negotiation. The end result is the same, players can accept, or they can leave. Good behavior is enforced both by social norms and the fact that failure to successfully negotiate your changes with the players means there's no game for the GM either.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 12:27 AM
If other players feel that you're a jerk, you probably were.

Wonderfully constructive comment. So, let me get this straight, in 9/10 threads people come here and say "Leave the group, guy is a jerk, vote with your feet and get the heck out, no gaming is better than bad gaming," but if I actually follow that advice I am probably a jerk?

Out of curiosity, what would a non-jerk have done if they were in my shoes in the following situation?


The DM uses the game as an excuse to boss people around. He constantly lies to us and criticizes us for everything. If we make good tactical decisions he mocks us for lack of role-play, if we make poor tactical decisions he mocks us for being stupid. He doesn't communicate and then blames us for not understanding him. He fudges dice and monster HP constantly. He tells us where to sit and how to fill out our character sheets. He won't let us take our character sheets home or show them to each other. He won't let us share character concepts before play but he bans any character he feels steps on another's toes. He randomly removes, adds, or changes aspects of our character, both mechanical and fluff, without telling us. He yells at us for using our smart phones during the session and chews us out for being late or missing a session due to RL commitments. He doesn't know the rules, but he pretends he does, if we correct him he calls us rules lawyers, even if he changed the rule on the spot from how we were doing it previously. He tells us how to roll dice and write notes. He refuses to let us look at the rule books of the game. If there is a rules disagreement where you actually show him where he is wrong after the game using your own rulebook he either won't look at it or flat out denies it, and if you try and save face by stating it is ambiguous he literally laughs in your face and says "no it isn't you are just wrong". He also doesn't understand dice probability in the slightest, but claims to have a PhD in mathematics and corrects you with absolute nonsense anytime you bring it up.

He belittles people outside of the game to. He asks every new player what degree they have, then tells them how worthless it is and claims to have a more prestigious degree in a related (but superior) field. He corrects other people's gaming stories telling them they were cheating / playing wrong (and see above if you try and defend yourself). We spend the first hour+ of each session listening to him lecture us about conspiracy theories, comic books, or "historical trivia" that is just complete nonsense; folk stories at best and outright made up lies at worst.

So I was not having fun and finding excuses not to show up. One night a while back he announced a new rule, we weren't allowed to roll our own dice. When I protested how bad an idea that was he said "Ok, I didn't want to say it but I am going to since you forced the issue. The problem is YOU. You are a dice thief, and anytime I let you touch the dice you hoard it and don't give it back. I didn't want to call you out in front of everyone, but you forced my hand," I told him that was ridiculous and even if it was true, we have plenty of dice and there has never been a shortage, I could bring a whole bucket of dice from home and go the entire campaign throwing them away after each roll without ever running low.

He shrugged and said sorry, but I couldn't be trusted with his dice and he couldn't trust me to use my own dice. I said if you have that much of a problem with me I think I am just going to save us both a lot of trouble and go home.

Then he said "So you are going to quit the game over something as stupid as dice?" to which I said "No, it isn't dice. This is just the last of many things. For example we have only been playing for 10 minutes so far tonight and you have already chewed me out over X, Y, and Z, and chewed out the other players over A, B, and C. I just can't take anymore."

To which he replied, "Look, those are the RULES, and I can't abide by people in my house not following the rules," to which I replied "No, they aren't. But that's not the point. This is supposed to be a game, and it is supposed to be fun, and it just isn't fun when you are constantly riding us like a drill sergeant."

And then he said, "I wouldn't have to ride you so hard if you guys would just learn to follow the rules and play the game right," to which I said "Ok, fine, its our fault, and I am just not capable of playing at your level. So I am going to do us both a favor and just not show up anymore so you don't have to deal with me." And then I left.


You clearly have never seen somebody who was set on sulking. There is no way to not notice them in a room, particularly since sulking is designed to draw attention to oneself. It's not a quiet thing, it's deliberately intended to attract attention so you can make others feel bad about your plight.

Out of curiosity, what does sulking actually entail in your view? I always thought it was being quiet and not participating in an event, which is pretty much the opposite of what you described.


And you've come on here and told literally dozens and dozens of stories about bad GMs. People always tend to present themselves in the better light, even in your own mind. Also most cases where people are arguing there are legitimate points to both sides, unless one of the parties is quite insane.

Actually this is only the second person I have ever told a story about their bad DMing. Every other DM I have ever had has been a great pleasure to be around. The guy in the above story, I am pretty sure, actually is quite insane, to the point where he can't hold onto players for more than a few sessions and even his long time RL friends will no longer sit at his gaming table. He was so bad people in my gaming group back in CA thought I making up the stories about him, but then when one of them actually met him in person they told me that, if anything, I was underselling how bad he was.



Edit: I am sorry if I read your post as more hostile than you intended and got a bit more defensive than was warranted.

goto124
2017-07-16, 01:27 AM
Most of your bad DM stories... are from one DM?

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 01:30 AM
Most of your bad DM stories... are from one DM?

All of them except this current one are about the same guy, yes.

People (both online and in person) were telling me to get the heck away from him for over a year before I finally wised up and left the group, but a few months later when I talked to some of the other people who had been playing in the game the night I left told me that from their point of view I was being the unreasonable one.

1337 b4k4
2017-07-16, 01:31 AM
Wonderfully constructive comment. So, let me get this straight, in 9/10 threads people come here and say "Leave the group, guy is a jerk, vote with your feet and get the heck out, no gaming is better than bad gaming," but if I actually follow that advice I am probably a jerk?

I don't think that's quite what AMFV was saying. They were saying that you might take the old saw about "if one person calls you an ass, ignore them them. If five people call you an ass, buy a saddle" to heart. You can have perfectly reasonable grievances about something and still be a jerk about those grievances. We admittedly only get the stuff that's so bad you want to rant about it here, but from the perspective of a lot of the readers here, we see you go from group to group to group, and have impossibly high encounter rates with some of the worst gamers any of us have ever seen. You seem to play with more bad players in one night than some of us will play with in our entire lifetimes. The only constant between all of these stories is you, and a lot of these stories because they're from your perspective, paint you as innocent in everything or most things. If that's true, and you just truly live in bizzaro world where there are literally no players or GMs with a maturity level beyond 5th grade, then so be it. Very sorry that is the situation you're in. BUT, if there's a possibility that you might be flawed, that you might be doing something, or saying something or otherwise being a jerk of your own, and you're ignoring that, you're dismissing the possibility that you share some blame, then you will never be able to fix those things, and you will continue to have problems, even after you move out of Bizzaro World or your local players graduate middle school.

As a quick example, you misinterpreted or misunderstood the point, and extrapolated out a completely different (and offensive to you) interpretation instead. Your response was then aggressive due to the perceived offense. Now, AMFV could have been less flippant, or could have phrased things differently to make the point more clear. But the flip side of that is that if you had given AMFV the benefit of the doubt, and assumed good intention rather than bad intention, your response could have been a calm request for clarification, or you might have found the alternate interpretation. Now you could be having bad night. For all we know, you just got done dealing with another Bizzaro world game and didn't want to hear someone else tell you you were a jerk. That's fine, we all have bad days. But if on the other hand, assuming bad intent is a habit you have, maybe that causes strife and friction between you and other players and GMs and that leads to misunderstandings that get heated and that leads to bad times all around.

Again, maybe you don't have that habit, maybe you really do live in bizzaro world. But if I had your frequency of encountering terrible players, I would hope someone would have me do a little bit of introspection first, to ensure I'm not contributing.

Talakeal
2017-07-16, 01:42 AM
I don't think that's quite what AMFV was saying. They were saying that you might take the old saw about "if one person calls you an ass, ignore them them. If five people call you an ass, buy a saddle" to heart. You can have perfectly reasonable grievances about something and still be a jerk about those grievances. We admittedly only get the stuff that's so bad you want to rant about it here, but from the perspective of a lot of the readers here, we see you go from group to group to group, and have impossibly high encounter rates with some of the worst gamers any of us have ever seen. You seem to play with more bad players in one night than some of us will play with in our entire lifetimes. The only constant between all of these stories is you, and a lot of these stories because they're from your perspective, paint you as innocent in everything or most things. If that's true, and you just truly live in bizzaro world where there are literally no players or GMs with a maturity level beyond 5th grade, then so be it. Very sorry that is the situation you're in. BUT, if there's a possibility that you might be flawed, that you might be doing something, or saying something or otherwise being a jerk of your own, and you're ignoring that, you're dismissing the possibility that you share some blame, then you will never be able to fix those things, and you will continue to have problems, even after you move out of Bizzaro World or your local players graduate middle school.

As a quick example, you misinterpreted or misunderstood the point, and extrapolated out a completely different (and offensive to you) interpretation instead. Your response was then aggressive due to the perceived offense. Now, AMFV could have been less flippant, or could have phrased things differently to make the point more clear. But the flip side of that is that if you had given AMFV the benefit of the doubt, and assumed good intention rather than bad intention, your response could have been a calm request for clarification, or you might have found the alternate interpretation. Now you could be having bad night. For all we know, you just got done dealing with another Bizzaro world game and didn't want to hear someone else tell you you were a jerk. That's fine, we all have bad days. But if on the other hand, assuming bad intent is a habit you have, maybe that causes strife and friction between you and other players and GMs and that leads to misunderstandings that get heated and that leads to bad times all around.

Again, maybe you don't have that habit, maybe you really do live in bizzaro world. But if I had your frequency of encountering terrible players, I would hope someone would have me do a little bit of introspection first, to ensure I'm not contributing.

Good point. I was actually thinking the same thing about AMFV taking what I was saying in the worst possible light when I made my last post, so I guess it goes both ways.

But honestly all of my horror stories are about me trying to work out problems with the same couple of players. Its not that I keep meeting new crazy people (or am myself so crazy that I keep meeting perfectly rational people and perceiving them as crazy); it really is that I know a couple of unusual people and rather than cutting off contact with them I keep trying to make it work and coming to the forums looking for advice when it doesn't go well.

For example, I was playing in a great Mage game for over two years (2014-2016) and I don't think I have a single horror story from the entire time, although I did but heads with one of the other players a couple of times (the player who happens to be the aforementioned crazy DM) and may have asked for advice on dealing with him once or twice in that time, but I certainly never had any problems with the DM of that game.

TheYell
2017-07-16, 04:35 AM
Sulk: 1. be silent, morose, and bad-tempered out of annoyance or disappointment.

Yeah I know what a sulk is. I don't know what you think a sulk is. Whatever you're thinking of --a tantrum, maybe?-- it's unfair to apply that to Talakeal because somebody observed him "sulking".

" A threat can include almost any kind of an expression of intent by one person to do an act against another person, ordinarily indicating an intention to do harm. Moreover, a threat generally includes any menace that would serve to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and to take away from his acts the free and voluntary action which constitutes consent." Hardy vs State, 575 So. 2d 145 (1990) Alabama

To have the head of a group comment that he expected the group to use violence against Talakeal, and he wanted Talakeal to know that before Talakeal went back to the group, is a threat on its face requiring no further evidence. A snarling dog is not a hint of a possible threat. A snarling dog is the threat itself.

AMFV
2017-07-16, 07:42 AM
Wonderfully constructive comment. So, let me get this straight, in 9/10 threads people come here and say "Leave the group, guy is a jerk, vote with your feet and get the heck out, no gaming is better than bad gaming," but if I actually follow that advice I am probably a jerk?

That isn't what I've said. What I was saying is that if you have multiple occasions where things are going badly, you should look in the mirror. I'm not saying that leaving a group makes you a jerk. I'm saying that you shouldn't spend time thinking about what they did wrong, but rather say "what can I do better". Like you posted on here looking for validation of your actions. I don't give people who are looking for validation of their actions that, because I don't think it's healthy or productive.

And what happened here is that several people initially commented on ways that you could improve, and then you completely brushed them off. Which is what left a bad taste in my mouth. You can't control what they other people did, and they did (probably) behave badly.



Out of curiosity, what would a non-jerk have done if they were in my shoes in the following situation?


The DM uses the game as an excuse to boss people around. He constantly lies to us and criticizes us for everything. If we make good tactical decisions he mocks us for lack of role-play, if we make poor tactical decisions he mocks us for being stupid. He doesn't communicate and then blames us for not understanding him. He fudges dice and monster HP constantly. He tells us where to sit and how to fill out our character sheets. He won't let us take our character sheets home or show them to each other. He won't let us share character concepts before play but he bans any character he feels steps on another's toes. He randomly removes, adds, or changes aspects of our character, both mechanical and fluff, without telling us. He yells at us for using our smart phones during the session and chews us out for being late or missing a session due to RL commitments. He doesn't know the rules, but he pretends he does, if we correct him he calls us rules lawyers, even if he changed the rule on the spot from how we were doing it previously. He tells us how to roll dice and write notes. He refuses to let us look at the rule books of the game. If there is a rules disagreement where you actually show him where he is wrong after the game using your own rulebook he either won't look at it or flat out denies it, and if you try and save face by stating it is ambiguous he literally laughs in your face and says "no it isn't you are just wrong". He also doesn't understand dice probability in the slightest, but claims to have a PhD in mathematics and corrects you with absolute nonsense anytime you bring it up.

He belittles people outside of the game to. He asks every new player what degree they have, then tells them how worthless it is and claims to have a more prestigious degree in a related (but superior) field. He corrects other people's gaming stories telling them they were cheating / playing wrong (and see above if you try and defend yourself). We spend the first hour+ of each session listening to him lecture us about conspiracy theories, comic books, or "historical trivia" that is just complete nonsense; folk stories at best and outright made up lies at worst.

So I was not having fun and finding excuses not to show up. One night a while back he announced a new rule, we weren't allowed to roll our own dice. When I protested how bad an idea that was he said "Ok, I didn't want to say it but I am going to since you forced the issue. The problem is YOU. You are a dice thief, and anytime I let you touch the dice you hoard it and don't give it back. I didn't want to call you out in front of everyone, but you forced my hand," I told him that was ridiculous and even if it was true, we have plenty of dice and there has never been a shortage, I could bring a whole bucket of dice from home and go the entire campaign throwing them away after each roll without ever running low.

He shrugged and said sorry, but I couldn't be trusted with his dice and he couldn't trust me to use my own dice. I said if you have that much of a problem with me I think I am just going to save us both a lot of trouble and go home.

Then he said "So you are going to quit the game over something as stupid as dice?" to which I said "No, it isn't dice. This is just the last of many things. For example we have only been playing for 10 minutes so far tonight and you have already chewed me out over X, Y, and Z, and chewed out the other players over A, B, and C. I just can't take anymore."

To which he replied, "Look, those are the RULES, and I can't abide by people in my house not following the rules," to which I replied "No, they aren't. But that's not the point. This is supposed to be a game, and it is supposed to be fun, and it just isn't fun when you are constantly riding us like a drill sergeant."

And then he said, "I wouldn't have to ride you so hard if you guys would just learn to follow the rules and play the game right," to which I said "Ok, fine, its our fault, and I am just not capable of playing at your level. So I am going to do us both a favor and just not show up anymore so you don't have to deal with me." And then I left.

I think that you guys had a conflict of styles. There are gaming styles where what that DM was doing didn't sound like they were that awful. Although again I may have given him the benefit of the doubt since we had only one viewpoint. I do think that leaving that group was the right idea.



Out of curiosity, what does sulking actually entail in your view? I always thought it was being quiet and not participating in an event, which is pretty much the opposite of what you described.

Not participating in a way that people notice that they interpret as hostile. The equivalent of the silent treatment. Because of how the DM responded, I imagine that is at least how he saw your actions. From your earlier objections and obstinacy which you mentioned, I think that I likely would have seen it the same way. Also you have other players who said the same thing.

So that's probably something that you could work on improving.


Sulk: 1. be silent, morose, and bad-tempered out of annoyance or disappointment.

Yeah I know what a sulk is. I don't know what you think a sulk is. Whatever you're thinking of --a tantrum, maybe?-- it's unfair to apply that to Talakeal because somebody observed him "sulking".

I'm thinking of sulking as the silent treatment. Which is VERY noticeable, particularly in an event where you're intended to participate. Now it's possible that you've never been in a room with somebody who conspicuously going out of their way to participate as little as possible, it sucks the fun out of everything. And bad attitudes are very contagious.



" A threat can include almost any kind of an expression of intent by one person to do an act against another person, ordinarily indicating an intention to do harm. Moreover, a threat generally includes any menace that would serve to unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and to take away from his acts the free and voluntary action which constitutes consent." Hardy vs State, 575 So. 2d 145 (1990) Alabama


Unless you are suing your friends in a court of law, common usage trumps legal definitions. And if you are suing your friends in a court of law, they aren't likely to be your friends, anymore.



To have the head of a group comment that he expected the group to use violence against Talakeal, and he wanted Talakeal to know that before Talakeal went back to the group, is a threat on its face requiring no further evidence. A snarling dog is not a hint of a possible threat. A snarling dog is the threat itself.

I do not think that statement was intended as a statement of fact, rather a statement that he, the DM, was not the only person who was upset by Talakeal's behavior. And the degree of anger was conveyed by what you're describing (incorrectly even by a legal definition) as a threat. It isn't a threat to say "I was surprised that you didn't get hit for that", unless you are saying that somebody is likely to get hit.

Cluedrew
2017-07-16, 08:34 AM
Good point. I was actually thinking the same thing about AMFV taking what I was saying in the worst possible light when I made my last post, so I guess it goes both ways.Communication, its problems and the responsibilities to avoid those problems usually goes both ways. The first and last are even supposed to work that way.

TheYell
2017-07-16, 10:01 AM
AMFV

You've apparently decided that Talakeal is totally in the wrong, and you're going to go step by step and disagree with anything he says. Have at it.

The silent treatment can't kill a LIVELY game of RP, and you can't be mad at somebody and tell them they almost got hit as a sign of how mad you are at them, without it being a threat of violence at the next meeting.

Chase your own tail, we've burned enough bits coming full circle.

Anonymouswizard
2017-07-16, 10:07 AM
The silent treatment can't kill a LIVELY game of RP, and you can't be mad at somebody and tell them they almost got hit as a sign of how mad you are at them, without it being a threat of violence at the next meeting.

This, in my experience the average game consists of four or more players jockeying for the spotlight, with the less active players generally being left behind. In some groups the silent treatment might get noticed, but that just means they'll occasionally be asked for their opinion for a while until the rest of the group moves on. Although it's better to sulk outside the room, just in case.

goto124
2017-07-16, 10:16 AM
The silent treatment can't kill a LIVELY game of RP


In some groups the silent treatment might get noticed, but that just means they'll occasionally be asked for their opinion for a while until the rest of the group moves on.


If I ask another player what their character can do either in or out of character the DM tells me to stop meta-gaming.
If I try and talk tactics in character the DM says "Talakeal, let other people play their own characters,"
and if I try and simply banter IC with the other PCs the DM tells me to stop wasting time and keep the game moving.


Huh, interesting observation...