PDA

View Full Version : A DM sacntioned PK: good or bad idea?



Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 01:48 PM
In my gaming group, we've got a bit of a problem with people...well, to put it bluntly, acting retarded. Not in the humorous, "I cast Magic Missile at the darkness" kind of way, but rather, the way that gets nothing accomplished. We're doing Return to the Ruins of Greyhawk currently, and we're down in part of one dungeon, and, of course, the party feels they need to split. After clearing a room of goblins and giants, we decide that most of us want to press onward, but one guy (playing a scout of some sort) decides he doesn't like the look of this water that's been flowing near us, and along with a Cleric, he goes off to investigate. So now, two people out of...God, eight or so, are now off doing their little thing. They discover a secret door. DM asks if they want to go back and tell the party. They decline. They then go off into this room and several rooms following that. And then, they proceed to bull****. Basically, they bog us down. After that, when it FINALLY gets back to the rest of the party doing stuff, we try to go down somewhere else, but then all of these other people start acting retarded and COMPLETELY miss a plothook, and again, just bumble around.

This is but only one example of many. The DM, after the aforementioned session, tells one of our players (currently a Tiefling Rouge-ish type thing) that he's so pissed at most of the party, there would be no reprocussions if he went around killing the party so we could actually do something.
Before proceeding, I should probbably lay down who all we have in our party:
-A human Sorceror (CN) (me)
-A half-fiend shapeshifter (Either LE or CE) who, I believe, is now a gestalt cleric/fighter (don't ask me how or why...). Has a ring of mindshielding. Is in on the TPK plot (to be described later).
-A Human Knight Exemplar (LG) with a squire. He's usually there, but often doesnt show up. Keeps in character well.
-A Human Paladin (LG). The player does not roleplay well, and, as such, has at one point lost his powers by not realizing that paladins need to check if someone is evil before you kill them.
-A Half-Gold Dragon Cleric (LG) (one of the aforementioned people who got to the secret door). Again, stays in character, but just clogs up the party with stupid.
-The Scout-type guy (?). Doesn't often show up, but when he does, it's usually really annoying.
-An Elf Druid. This guy is younger than the rest of us, and isn't...well. I was going to say "isn't as mature" as the rest of us, but that's bad word choice. He's a newbie, and makes newbie errors, and, unfortunately for him, nobody really likes him. He's the newest member.
-A super-multiclass-God-Knows-What. (Presumable LE or CE). I think he's another half-fiend shapeshifter, and has Monk/Warlock/Cleric powers. He's another one in on the TPK plot.
-The tiefling rogue (CN). He's a good guy, and just as fed up with the stupid as some of us others are.
-We also have this other guy who sometimes plays a Hound Archon something or a gnome something.
-We're all around Lv. 9

That settled, the gist is we have TOO MANY PEOPLE. Like, 10-12, depending. Too many people + stupid = nothing gets done = DM is pissed = DM says that the Tiefling is allowed to kill without fear of consequence. As such, he talked to me and both of the Half-Fiends about the concept of killing the party.

The real dillema here, however, is how this is going to go over. I presume lots of people will be pissed and refuse to play anymore, but again, that's kinda the point. The few of us that are exceptionally pissed just want to be able to play the game and get through story, not sit around for God-knows how long and listen to stupid. Has anyone else had a similar situation? Or care to offer some advice?

Edit: Sorry about the double post. I clicked submit thread right as I realized I'd messed up, and, of course, the STOP button in my browser didnt stop the sending of the thread.

Solo
2008-04-30, 01:51 PM
Split into two groups, or find a new group.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 01:55 PM
Split into two groups, or find a new group.

Well, see, that would normally work. But we tried that. And it didn't work. Because not enough people from either group showed up to be able to run split groups, and now we've gained and lost people, and it's all jumbled. Also, all this is run through a local gaming store, the DM being the owner, and he just doesn't have the time to be doing two different groups.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 01:58 PM
Instead of whatever wierd thing you have planned, cut back and forth between the main party and the off shoot group. Since the off shoot group has 1/3 the players, they shoudl recieve 1/3 the time alotted to the main group. When they start talking (and wasting time) cut back to the main group until they get their act together. Once they realize they're not actually playing as much, they'll get their acts together.

Salvaged from the accidentally posted thread.

Severus
2008-04-30, 02:07 PM
It sounds like you have too many people, and some of those people don't understand that splitting up means cutting down everybody's play time.

You want fewer people. Ok, that's cool. But why achieve that by trying to piss people off so much they'll quit?

What it sounds like to me is your GM is too much of a coward to own up to his problem (yes HIS problem), and is trying to get the players to do it for him.

What the GM needs to do is say "I can't run for this many people. I can't have people running all over everywhere because it makes the game un-fun for everybody else. You, you and you. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to find another game. I like you and all, but I just have to cut the group down to manageable size. Sorry."

Then you, the players who the GM likes and wants to keep then need to back him up and say "We understand completely. It is really hard to play when we split up, and we do have too many players to get anything done. Sorry guys, see you around."

Or... You can do it your way, and maybe lose the players you want to keep, and keep the players you want to lose... all while pissing people off and getting them planning to get back at you.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 02:14 PM
It sounds like you have too many people, and some of those people don't understand that splitting up means cutting down everybody's play time.

You want fewer people. Ok, that's cool. But why achieve that by trying to piss people off so much they'll quit?

What it sounds like to me is your GM is too much of a coward to own up to his problem (yes HIS problem), and is trying to get the players to do it for him.

What the GM needs to do is say "I can't run for this many people. I can't have people running all over everywhere because it makes the game un-fun for everybody else. You, you and you. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to ask you to find another game. I like you and all, but I just have to cut the group down to manageable size. Sorry."

Then you, the players who the GM likes and wants to keep then need to back him up and say "We understand completely. It is really hard to play when we split up, and we do have too many players to get anything done. Sorry guys, see you around."

Or... You can do it your way, and maybe lose the players you want to keep, and keep the players you want to lose... all while pissing people off and getting them planning to get back at you.

Yeah. That's about what I figured. And as to whether it being the GM's problem or not....yeah, it is his problem. But he can't risk being mean to the players, because he owns the store we play at, and being mean to people who give you money...well, that's not generally a good thing.

And as to people plotting revenge...I think we're gonna try to encourage people we kill not to roll another character. I realize we're being arses, but its gotten rediculous.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 02:20 PM
Well, see, that would normally work. But we tried that. And it didn't work. Because not enough people from either group showed up to be able to run split groups, and now we've gained and lost people, and it's all jumbled. Also, all this is run through a local gaming store, the DM being the owner, and he just doesn't have the time to be doing two different groups.

This I don't get. If you have 10 - 12 players and even a full third of them don't show up you should still have enough people for one 4 PC group and one 3 PC group.

If you simply must be rid of people:

Step one: Find out from the players you want to stay what other night of the week might work for them
Step two: Move the night the game plays on.

That's it. I bet a few of your problem players will not be able to reschedule. Just make sure you have a good and 'my bad folks I can't on xday night anymore' excuse to give.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 02:24 PM
This I don't get. If you have 10 - 12 players and even a full third of them don't show up you should still have enough people for one 4 PC group and one 3 PC group.

If you simply must be rid of people:

Step one: Find out from the players you want to stay what other night of the week might work for them
Step two: Move the night the game plays on.

That's it. I bet a few of your problem players will not be able to reschedule. Just make sure you have a good and 'my bad folks I can't on xday night anymore' excuse to give.

Oh, I think something may have gotten confused. All but about three people show up regulalrly...although...hah...fractions are not my friends.:smallredface: In any event, we actually did reschedule. We used to do it on Saturdays, but have since moved to Thursdays for much this same idea, and now our DM can't do it any other day.

Ellisande
2008-04-30, 02:38 PM
Yeah. That's about what I figured. And as to whether it being the GM's problem or not....yeah, it is his problem. But he can't risk being mean to the players, because he owns the store we play at, and being mean to people who give you money...well, that's not generally a good thing.

And as to people plotting revenge...I think we're gonna try to encourage people we kill not to roll another character. I realize we're being arses, but its gotten rediculous.

I think you're missing the point: killing PCs to reduce group size is the coward's way out by someone who isn't willing to be honest and say, "I can't manage a game like this". And it will lead to far more hurt feelings and upset-ness than simply laying out the facts and excluding players, regardless of what happens to their characters.

I see the GM as having three choices that aren't bad, or certain to leave a sour taste:

1) Take control of the game. It's a large group, yes, but some GMs manage it. As GM, he can insist that the party stay together and act more or less as a group. And if he lays out his reasoning ("too many people to split up!"), I expect the players will be reasonable about it too. And if they aren't, he's not still not going to look like a jerk if he excludes players who insist on messing up the game for everyone.

This, I think, is probably the best solution.

2) Divide the group. More effort for him as GM, definitely. But if he owns the game store, this is his life, and I imagine he's fairly skilled at it. And this is the least likely to be a concern with respect to stepping on toes and has the potential to leave everyone happy. Even if it does mean playing with an undersized group sometimes--and if you truly can't get enough people to commit for a second group out of TWELVE players, I'm going to hazard a guess that the problem at today's sessions is not too many players, but table management by the GM.

3) Limit the size of this session. He can do it by cutting undesirable players ("We have too many players. Joe, Sam, Bob, would you mind sitting out for the next campaign?"), or he can do it session by session ("We have too many players. The first 5 players to the table each week get to play... I can't manage more than that.")


Even as the game-store owner, none of these are likely to come back to haunt the store-owner like the passive-aggressive PK stuff I think he's trying right now.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 03:08 PM
Okay then. The general consensus I'm getting here is "Killing party members is bad." Which, to be honest, I agree with, because it kinda takes away from the fun of the game for the kill-ees. So I think I'll talk to the tiefling and the half-fiends and the DM and see if there's another way to solve the excessive stupid problem.

mostlyharmful
2008-04-30, 03:14 PM
I know exactly what you mean. I once had a group of seven (me being one, pre-nobodyelse-will-dm) stand outside a door for THREE AND A HALF FRIGGIN HOURS... AND NO. NOT IN CHARACTER debating how to take on a big bug until my squishtastic mage just opened the door and ran screaming into it. I don't give up my evenings to partake of the fun and hilarity of commitee meetings and I'm sure you don't either.

That being said, if only three/four people don't make Thursdays it looks as though one of you are going to have to bite the bullet and siddle behind the screen. Sanctioned PKs are rarely a good idea without the consent of the player or a good big whack of random

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 03:18 PM
That being said, if only three/four people don't make Thursdays it looks as though one of you are going to have to bite the bullet and siddle behind the screen. Sanctioned PKs are rarely a good idea without the consent of the player or a good big whack of random

Does semi-planned randomness count? :smallbiggrin: :smallannoyed:

Sigh.

mostlyharmful
2008-04-30, 03:30 PM
Does semi-planned randomness count? :smallbiggrin: :smallannoyed:

Sigh.

It's not that bad a deal really, my main problem is in not blabbing on preplanned plot and you've got an experianced DM to vent-to/cospire-with/brainstorm-with who'll be happy to have some of the weight shifted. If you've ever wanted a certain plot, to play in a particular world you've been thinking about or have a group of whatever flavour this could be a chance. You can ask others to take over intermitantly if you like once it's started up and settled, you can playtest those homerules you've had brewing in the back of your brain. Anything really, you get to have a lot of fun as DM, just different.

Cause you don't have to, and this plan doesn't have to be you in the hotseat. Just that a two group answer seems a lot better than PC axing from frustration. You could even have a few members write up evil PCs, have them gank the selected PCs whos players designed the mustache-twirlers and then run a side-by-side race to the prize campaign good v evil type thing. I've done that. It rocked.

valadil
2008-04-30, 03:42 PM
I don't know how the group would take it. One of my groups can live with PKs. The other can't. It's a cultural thing as to whether or not that's considered okay and varies from group to group. Hell, my group that can't deal with it doesn't even do character death at all.

What I think would be appropriate would be for the DM to put a cap on the number of players in the group. He can keep track of the line of players who want to get in. A new player gets to come in when a character dies. Initially he'd be over the cap, so nobody could come in until enough people were killed off. I think your DM would have to make it clear that this is how the game is going to work long before a player attacked another player. I also think this might dissuade the tiefling from killing players because the out of game repercussions would be that the PC playing the tiefling would probably get his own character killed and have to sit out. This method will also keep players playing smart since nobody wants to have to sit out and wait for other players to die before they can play again.

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 04:35 PM
How would the group take it...hm.

The druid would feel betrayed. The Dragon would feel angry. The scout would blow it off. The paladin would be hurt, but would get over it. The knight wouldn't care, he's been trying to get his guy killed.

Severus
2008-04-30, 04:53 PM
I'd suggest then that you conspire with the GM to elect a "party leader" who can enforce group discipline.

Want to go off alone? Party leader vetoes. Do it anyway? kicked from group and GM says "sorry, but I'm only running one group here."

Can't make a decision? Party leader decides. Don't go along? GM says "Sorry, I'm only running one group here."

The party leader, however, has to understand their role is to make the game run smoothly and well for everyone, not turn into a petty tyrant.

Myatar_Panwar
2008-04-30, 05:39 PM
I find that whenever a game is being run by a game store, or maybe your schools gaming club, people hardly ever make it.

I have a couple of theories on this, either:
A. Having such a strict schedule on the gaming cause people to be unable to make it, mostly due to more important matters.
or
B. Alot of people join these kinds of things without thinking of the repercussions on the other players ("Oh! I'll join, sounds like a bit of fun."). So they may have some minor fun with the game, but not much, and don't come often, not realizing that others in the group actually care about this game, and that their absence effects the group. (This is not just some weekly game of Pictionary you are playing... the game actually continues)

So I would just suggest telling the GM that you would rather start a group outside of his, I'm sure he wont mind. Then, get together all of the players you believe are the most passionate and serious about the game, pick someone to DM, and run some games on your terms. This allows you all to talk about and discuss the best possible day to play, then you should have a better time getting groups together, playing with others that are as excited about the game and willing to play as you are.

ahammer
2008-04-30, 06:14 PM
on a side note I found it fun to get player to kill eachother in a cyberpunk game I run once.

every one found it fun while trying to run the misson also trying to fig out how and who was going to try to kill them

(This was a one off sesson the only way I think it work without pissing people off)

Jayngfet
2008-04-30, 06:17 PM
XP, phat loot, roleplay experience, no consequences? If you need n ansewer you're just as bad as them

Deth Muncher
2008-04-30, 07:53 PM
@ Severus- If we had someone competent enough to lead us, I'd say that'd be a damn good idea. Actually, I think the Monk/Cleric/Warlock guy would be feasible, but I think he metagames and looks up the campaign, which...yeah. Not cool to have the guy who knows what's gonna happen lead the party. Heck, if people listened to me, I'd do it, but that WON'T happen.

@ Myatar-You're dead on target. People just start playing, then don't show up, or go play MTG instead of paying attention, or do stupid stuff - hence our current problem. But going and splitting off...well, I mean, we all like playing too much. And our DM is a good guy...if a bit of a wimp when it comes to enforcing rules and such.

@ Jay- Yeah...

Deth Muncher
2008-05-01, 09:16 PM
In case anyone might have been worrying, we ended up NOT killing the stupids in the party. We did, however, very peacefully but forcefully kept people on track and not going off track and such. Fun times.