A Novel Approach to Resurrection

[Saph]

Thought some of you guys might find this amusing. :)

I play in the same meet-up as several other D&D groups. One aspect of this is that you get to see other people's campaigns unfold.

One of the other groups plays a lowish level 3.5 campaign, and have had some . . . frictions between players and DM in the past. During the last meetup a couple of PCs were killed in battle. A day or two later, one of the players whose PC had died sent the following email to the DM. (Names removed for the sake of anonymity.)


> I have some Bad news i'm affraid Aranor (character's name)is
> capible of returning from the dead, this is strange i know
> but i didn't relise myself untill moments ago, but you
> approved the backstory for Aranor which included a family
> curse. to save you pulling up the file (but feel free to if
> you wish to check it)
>
> this is the curse again:
>
> "i curse you and your family one male child of each
> generation is doomed to be eaten by a red dragon"
>
> Aranor and his brother have a 10 year diffrence this makes
> his brother a diffrent generation
>
> this makes Aranor to some degree immortal. picture it like
> a highlander curse you can only get killed by having your
> head removed in this case it is being eaten by a red dragon,
> i honestly was not aware this could happen untill discussing
> it with ______ who informed me of this. we have just
> finished discussing weather or not the curse would end and
> the ability to die from any cause would take effect once the
> character in question has bought a child into this world
> this is not how ever true the character is 100% unable to
> die by any other means (due to thier being magic in this
> world anything is possible). but how ever the battle between
> a red dragon and the cursed in question may not occour
> before the cursed has once again had a son. as the blood
> line must continue for the curse to be effective.
>
> the cursed must have a child.
>
> so to clarify immortality is circumstancial
>
> 1) the cursed must have a son
> 2) the cursed must fight a red dragon (please note if the
> cursed wins it can die by anything after that) (but is
> unable to die before unless eaten by a red dragon so being
> cut to peices and those peices being eaten by a red dragon
> would still count aslong as the red dragon killed you)
>
> in the event of winning: the cursed is freed from his curse
> as he has earnt the right to live
> in the event of loosing: need i say more
>
>
> (i do not intend for this email to be a rude, offensive,
> insulting or even "in your face" style)
>
> but i hope this makes a convincing case for my return
>
> kind regards and best wishes i hope to hear from you soon.

The DM's response was to post the email on the message board, in their group's campaign thread, along with the following reply:


PC backgrounds are there as an aid to characterisation, not to gain mechanical advantage - and certainly not to make your PC immortal. That's a particularly bad form of 'munchkin' behaviour.

This along with previous incidents such as the '2d8 greatsword', '1-handed greatsword', and various emails have convinced me there is a fundamental player-GM incompatibility, and I have asked (player's name) to find a different game.

It's definitely one of the more original responses to getting killed that I've ever seen from a player. "Remember how my character's cursed to die from a red dragon? So that means I can't be killed by anything else. Lucky for me, huh?"

(If you're wondering what I think about the player and the DM's actions, my opinion on the subject is to be glad that it wasn't my group and that I don't have to deal it. :P)

- Saph

[SurlySeraph]

*headdesk*

Just tell him his brother counts as being in the same generation and have the brother get eaten by a dragon. Or have a dragon swoop down and eat his corpse. Either way, that's cheap.

Also, "one-handed greatsword"? Isn't that what Monkey Grip and Bastard Swords are for? Someone's been playing too many JRPGs.

[starwoof]

I don't know whether I would give that player a high five or five to the face if I were his DM. Its certainly a clever idea...

[Vorpal Soda]

The curse doesn't actually mention cause of death, just that the body would be eaten by a dragon, so he can be eaten after death, as long as it's by a red dragon.

The curse also makes no mention of how many generations this curse goes on for.

It makes little sense for a curse designed to torment and kill to cause people to become immortal (Thus increasing chances of being slain by the cursed), a far more logical consequence is, as mentioned before, that a red dragon finds the corpse and eats it.

As a result, his claims of immortality should logically have the opposite result, making true resurrection the only chance of his character returning.

[WickerNipple]

:smallbiggrin: Classic.

Proper response to said email:

http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g145/mohi3/bush.gif

And: lol, I can't believe people are giving serious responses to stuff like this. DM did perfectly right, you can't even give such a claim the credence of a straight answer. BYE is the the right approach.

[BRC]

Also, since when does 10 years= A generation. And what about Cousins, or perhaps the character's father has an illegitimate son somewhere who gets eaten by a red dragon. Perhaps the character had a little brother who was eaten by a red dragon and never mentioned by his parents. Perhaps this character is unknowingly adopted.

Perhaps the curse was placed on the family by an Elf, and Elven generations last 100 years. Countless methods of potential red-dragon-eating could occur.

[Starscream]

*Red Dragons can cast sorcerer spells
*When people die their souls go to another plane, based on their alignment
*Plane Shift is a sorcerer spell
*Problem solved

Or you can just have the dragon eat the corpse, as other have suggested. Honestly, I don't know what players are thinking when they try to pull stuff like this. Even if the DM allowed it, what are the odds the next monster they encounter wouldn't possess a certain crimson dragonosity?

[LibraryOgre]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.

[Tsotha-lanti]

All the children of any one person are all in the same generation. Indeed, this is the only accurate measure of a generation - determining if, say, two unrelated people of the same age are of the same generation would require tracking their lineages back to a common ancestor and counting the steps, which is infeasible.

Also, bad English makes my eyes bleed.

And kudos to the DM for kicking that idiot out. Definitely the right choice. I'm curious about this problematic greatsword now, though.

[MisterSaturnine]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.

This just sounds like fun. For both the DM and the player. Hell, if I was the player, I'd love this.

[Yahzi]

The curse doesn't actually mention cause of death, just that the body would be eaten by a dragon, so he can be eaten after death, as long as it's by a red dragon..
Or, 1,000 years in the future, an Epic Red Dragon resurrects him from the dead, solely for the pleasure of devouring him alive. :smallbiggrin:

[Tsotha-lanti]

Having a Wyrd - a certain doom - can be a pretty cool device in some games, but it obviously needs to be discussed and approved beforehand. It's a staple of mythology, after all.

[Jimp]

Have to give him points for being inventive. Could have been a really fun plot point. It screams 'HOOK'.

[Starsinger]

men named Gaius Verres.

I don't get this one.

[mikeejimbo]

Huh. I would actually let him be resurrected if I were the DM, except for a few problems. For one, he and his brother ARE in the same generation. For another, his spelling is horrible.

[Maerok]

I don't get this one.

My context senses tell that's the scientific name for a boar?

[Starsinger]

My context senses tell that's the scientific name for a boar?

Ahh, how very clever.

[Flickerdart]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.
Or an angry, drunk, sick or blushing second-in-command of the BBEG's armies.

[icefractal]

Immortality - by all means! But that doesn't mean invincibility, or special healing ...

So in other words, keep him alive - as essentially a talking corpse. His body may be rotting, or in pieces, but his soul will hang on until a dragon eats the remains or he gets ressurected in a way that actually heals him (Raise Dead, for instance). Better hope the party doesn't get tired of a carrying a complaining body around and chuck him in a river.

[LibraryOgre]

My context senses tell that's the scientific name for a boar?
I may have misremembered, but Verres was a Latin word for "boar".

Oh! And someone whose sword has the image of a red dragon on the handle!

[Eclipse]

Simple solution: curses can cause harm, but never benefits. Therefore, if he manages to die before the curse effects him, then the curse's work is already done, even if the curse itself didn't come true.

This curse will just prevent him from making it to old age. If he were to survive that long, a dragon will eventually find him.

Or, as many others have said, a dragon eats his corpse.

[mikeejimbo]

Or, as many others have said, a dragon eats his corpse.

Many years pass. Your corpse decays into dirt. Grass grows, using nutrients from the dirt. A cow eats the grass. A red dragon eats the cow.

[horseboy]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.+1 This. Oh, Eric the Red, in his dragon prowl boat.

[BobVosh]

Or, 1,000 years in the future, an Epic Red Dragon resurrects him from the dead, solely for the pleasure of devouring him alive. :smallbiggrin:

Hmm. Epic Glactis...red-dragon epic level cleric. Cast a resurrection seed spell that resurrects everyone on the planet. He likes the squishy feel and screams as he devours planets.

[bosssmiley]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.

*This* is the mindset of a true DM: give 'em exactly what they want so hard they never ask for it ever again. :smallbiggrin:

I have nothing else to add except to ask Mark Hall where he'd like his statue situated (I'm thinking it should be of him mounted, wielding a DMG, and riding roughshod over wailing munchkins).

[KIDS]

I actually thought it was a good idea. Ok other issues aside, but this was a funny opportunity that might have been used. Linking it to munchkinism is really overboard.

[kjones]

Honestly, how did that player think his immortality would work mechanically? He would just pop back up and say, "No, I'm fine"? If anything, I would play this as giving the party impetus to resurrect him, over and over, so that when he gets killed for real, he's eaten by a red dragon.

That, or the walking corpse.

If only it was "killed by a red dragon" instead of "eaten by a red dragon". Then I would have had him killed having a horse (named Red, of course) draggin' him along a rocky road until he dies.

I kill me.:smalltongue:

[Krrth]

I've actually read a decent story about a knight with a similar curse, although in his case it was "be eaten by a specific dragon". That dragon really regretted leveling the curse, as he found himself having to rescue the knight's decedents on more that one occasion.

[Burley]

I'd just have some little kid run up to him while they're chillin' in some inn. The kid has a stuffed red-dragon toy and runs up to the guy and starts "Nom Nom Nom" on the guy's leg.
Problems solved... With "D-aaaawwww"s.

[Kami2awa]

I don't get this one.

Funnily enough, he was a real guy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Verres

[Kami2awa]

I may have misremembered, but Verres was a Latin word for "boar".

Oh! And someone whose sword has the image of a red dragon on the handle!

Or indeed just someone who calls himself 'Red Dragon' or just 'Dragon' and happens to wear red, have red hair, or has sunburn...

[Bayar]

Honestly, how did that player think his immortality would work mechanically? He would just pop back up and say, "No, I'm fine"? If anything, I would play this as giving the party impetus to resurrect him, over and over, so that when he gets killed for real, he's eaten by a red dragon.

That, or the walking corpse.

If only it was "killed by a red dragon" instead of "eaten by a red dragon". Then I would have had him killed having a horse (named Red, of course) draggin' him along a rocky road until he dies.

I kill me.:smalltongue:

He could just say "But I'm not dead yet !" .

Funny reading. Think I will add this to my next character's BG. As a improvised contingent ressurection.

[Another_Poet]

I'm not going to say whether I think the GM was right in throwing out the player. But, since the GM did decide to throw out the player, I have to say he did it wrong.

First of all, the GM posted the player's private email on the group message board? Bad form, bad manners, creepy.

Second:

PC backgrounds are there as an aid to characterisation, not to gain mechanical advantage - and certainly not to make your PC immortal. That's a particularly bad form of 'munchkin' behaviour.

Insulting the player? Just a Bad Move. It turns an otherwise polite explanation into sour grapes - imagine how much better it would have sounded if the GM had replaced the bolded sentence with. "That's something I'm not going to houserule in."


This along with previous incidents such as the '2d8 greatsword', '1-handed greatsword', and various emails have convinced me there is a fundamental player-GM incompatibility, and I have asked (player's name) to find a different game.

Wrong on two levels. First, announcing to the whole group that you're throwing out Player X? Look, if Player X was trashing your house and you had to throw him out on the spot, sure, but even then ask to talk to him in private. Since this happened outside of the meetup, there's no reason the GM had to do it this way. There's a reason you don't fire/break up with/defrock/dismiss/reject someone in front of their peers if it can be helped. In this case, it could have been avoided.

The most telling though is dredging up all the old stuff. It sounds like the DM is shaky in his sense of authority and is trying to justify his decision with more examples. And it's a decision he wouldn't have to justify if he had just handled it privately. To compound matters, it makes it sound like he's been fuming over these other problems for a while now. If a 2d8 1-handed greatsword was a problem, it should've been dealt with when it first came up, not after the fact. If it has already been dealt with, no need to bring it up again.

It sounds like the DM has been bottling up hard feelings toward this player instead of resolving them as they came up. Once he had an excuse he decided to throw the guy out to avoid confrontation. But he knew on some level he was doing it wrong so he feels like he has to justify it to the whole group. Just ick.

Take it as a lesson, fellow DMs and players - confrontation is not your enemy. Polite confrontation is your tool to avoiding passive-aggressive nonsense, unfair rulings and looking like a jackanapes in front of your whole group.

Eesh.

[Waspinator]

Here's how I would have handled it:

"Yeah, it turns out the guy who cursed you was just messing with you. It's not real."

[kamikasei]

It sounds like the DM has been bottling up hard feelings toward this player instead of resolving them as they came up. Once he had an excuse he decided to throw the guy out to avoid confrontation. But he knew on some level he was doing it wrong so he feels like he has to justify it to the whole group. Just ick.

Or - the player has been trying to put one over on the DM for a while. The DM has dealt with each incident, but the player doesn't seem to be learning to behave any better. When he eventually pushes his luck too far, the DM explains the situation for the benefit of other groups on the same message board which the player may wish to join.

Posting the email publicly can be seen as a jerk move, but your interpretation seems to me skewed against the DM.

[Tormsskull]

First of all, the GM posted the player's private email on the group message board? Bad form, bad manners, creepy.


Agreed. I'm shocked and amazed constantly, especially in the business world, how often people will forward corresponse between them and 1 other to several other people. If someone sends you a message in some form, it is considered polite to get their permission to pass it on to someone else.



Second:

Insulting the player? Just a Bad Move. It turns an otherwise polite explanation into sour grapes - imagine how much better it would have sounded if the GM had replaced the bolded sentence with. "That's something I'm not going to houserule in."


I have to disagree here. I think that the DM handled this well. The player's post was polite, which is a good sign on the behalf of the player, but it still attempts to undermine the DM's authority (and with it, the group consensus).

In such cases I find it is a good I idea to squash such a sentiment and squash it good.

The same can be said for a player who does not want to be involved in certain campaigns involving brutal depicitions of violence, or certain acts that they don't want to occur in the campaign. They should firmly and adamantly state that they do not want to be a part of such a camapign, and shouldn't have to gently say no.



Wrong on two levels.


Have to disagree again. It didn't really come off as that offensive to me. It seemed to me that the DM was saying "Here's the story the player gave me, which I refuse to tolerate, and as such I'm uninviting the player." Though, as I said before, the DM should have just provided the details "Player thinks his character should be immune to death cause his backstory said so" instead of posting word-for-word what the player sent to him.

Now, had the player worded his message to the DM differently, in a more passive manner, I would think that the DM could have worked with the player.



If a 2d8 1-handed greatsword was a problem, it should've been dealt with when it first came up, not after the fact. If it has already been dealt with, no need to bring it up again.


I don't think either of us know the whole situation, so we're really just inferring and then guessing, but I saw this as the DM reiterating the fact that this is not the first time this particular player has tried to 'pull something' on the DM. While disinviting the player may seem a bit harsh, by reminding all of the other players of the additional munchkiny things this particular player has attempted it won't seem as such to them.



Take it as a lesson, fellow DMs and players - confrontation is not your enemy.

I think based on the situation, you would handle things differently. But I definitely think that munchkins are bad, and they typically aren't the kind of players you can convince to play the game on the level. I think the lesson would be: Being assertive against munchkinery is important.

[Another_Poet]

I just want to clarify I'm not saying the player is right. The player could be a total piece of crud for all I know, and the DM still handled it wrong.

Was the player a munchkin? Maybe.

Was the player trying over and over to undermine the DM's authority? Possibly.

Should the DM call the player a munchkin in front of other players and re-open old wounds of previous munchkinery? No, absolutely not. It might be different if the player refused to go and said, "What, what have I ever done that caused trouble in your game?" If they ask for a list, give a list, but this was strictly a one-way dumping, and uncalled for.

I will never tolerate this kind of thing from people in a position of authority. Tormsskull, "squashing"? What possible squashing is needed that isn't accomplished by throwing the guy out of the group completely? "Sorry, I don't think we should game together anymore" is all the squashing you need for any problem player.

Just my opinion but... when I see people in charge decide they have to go beyond adjudication into blame/shame/offend territory, I see a lack of leadership.

[Tormsskull]

I will never tolerate this kind of thing from people in a position of authority. Tormsskull, "squashing"? What possible squashing is needed that isn't accomplished by throwing the guy out of the group completely? "Sorry, I don't think we should game together anymore" is all the squashing you need for any problem player.


It depends, really. There are a lot of variables here that we do not know. But what I would gather from this situation is that the player thought that there was at least a chance that since he wrote something in his backstory that that would give him the ability to have an immortal character.

The fact that he thought it could possibly work means that there is more squashing to be done.

At my table that's the kind of thing that would immediately cause laughter, because we all would KNOW that the person stating this about their background was joking.

And if someone was serious, the DM wouldn't even have to say anything because the other players would hound a player making such a statement.

[Another_Poet]

I guess we just disagree on what constitutes civility. Proper "squashing" of a bad attitude can range from making a light joke out of it, to asking if we can set it aside and move on with the session, to speaking to the player in private about the current problem, to throwing the player out of the group, to calling the police (if the player is threatening) to spraying the player with pepper spray (if the player actually attacks you).

Calling the guy names doesn't help any situation, even if they are accurate ones.

Plus, the evidence you're citing for why he needs a squashing (he thinks he can get aweay with a free res) happened before he was thrown out of the group. So it's still not evidence that any additional squashing needs to happen in addition to throwing him out of the group. Really, what would this accomplish?

...

I think that's a world record for number of "squashes" in a post, at least outside of a cooking message board.

[The_Snark]

I think the DM had pretty sound reasons for doing what he did, AP...

First of all, the GM posted the player's private email on the group message board? Bad form, bad manners, creepy.

Normally, I'd agree here, but... well, see below.


Insulting the player? Just a Bad Move. It turns an otherwise polite explanation into sour grapes - imagine how much better it would have sounded if the GM had replaced the bolded sentence with. "That's something I'm not going to houserule in."

It would have been better if he'd been a bit more polite, but the player was arguing that his character should be immortal, until they fight the specific enemy he was cursed to be killed by. And even then, he was saying that if he wins the fight he's free from the curse—he's not actually doomed to be killed by a red dragon, just that he has to fight one before he dies.


Wrong on two levels. First, announcing to the whole group that you're throwing out Player X? Look, if Player X was trashing your house and you had to throw him out on the spot, sure, but even then ask to talk to him in private. Since this happened outside of the meetup, there's no reason the GM had to do it this way. There's a reason you don't fire/break up with/defrock/dismiss/reject someone in front of their peers if it can be helped. In this case, it could have been avoided.

The most telling though is dredging up all the old stuff. It sounds like the DM is shaky in his sense of authority and is trying to justify his decision with more examples. And it's a decision he wouldn't have to justify if he had just handled it privately. To compound matters, it makes it sound like he's been fuming over these other problems for a while now. If a 2d8 1-handed greatsword was a problem, it should've been dealt with when it first came up, not after the fact. If it has already been dealt with, no need to bring it up again.

The DM could have uninvited him in private? I guess he could have. But this is a group game, and it's not like the other players aren't going to notice he's gone. I don't think the DM should feel obligated to lie to the other players to protect this one's privacy.

As for bringing up old instances, the DM is explaining why the player is being thrown out. He probably wouldn't be throwing the player out, if this were the first thing he'd done that the DM disagreed with. I feel that it's much better for him to tell the player in question what he's done that they've disagreed with than to just reply with "No, and you're banned from my games." It also tells the other players why he's not going to be there anymore. An explanation is much better than no explanation.

In short, I'd much rather have a DM inform me that another player was asked to leave the group and why than have the player vanish and be casually told, "Oh, I asked him to leave" when I asked if he was coming. The DM could have just told everyone else that they had a difference over play style, and that might have been better. Maybe the player had been irritating some of the other players as well as the DM, and he wanted to share the reason. We don't really know.

Regardless of that, though, I don't think he was wrong in telling the other players he would be leaving, or in explaining his reasoning (both so that the player knows what their differences were, and so that the other players know what this DM dislikes if they don't already). He could have handled it a bit more politely, but he finishes by saying there's a DM-player incompatibility, not by saying the player is a bad player.

[Tacoma]

Actually, Ars Magica addressed something similar to this. It was possible to have a death curse... you only had to fear X. Now, if you only had to fear boars, that would include the animal, people whose coats of arms included boars, inns that had the sign of a boar, and men named Gaius Verres.

So, he was cursed to be eaten by a red dragon. I'd have FUN with that. Make the main enemy have the heraldry of a red dragon. Send him through the Drachenwald during autumn. Fight a "Dragon Style" monk who wears red. Have him fight a mass of kobolds, all rust colored. Go to a Red Dragon Inn.

Hell, I'd let the guy resurrect (or reincarnate) just to continue ****ing with him.


QFT.

"You look down in shock as you feel the sensation of cold passing over you. Your blood pours forth from the sword wound onto the hilt and the hand of the equally surprised bandit. He got lucky. It is only now you realize the pommel of his sword is shaped like a simple serpent ... or dragon ... now stained bright red."

Makes me think this should be a pretty standard Flaw. It would help with the problem of random PC death due to chance criticals.

[Another_Poet]

Wow, I'm really surprised at how my post is being interpreted.

I would never expect a DM to lie to cover a player being thrown out. That's just dirty. It's very simple at the next session to say, "Well guys, So-and-so won't be joining us anymore, so I'll NPC his character until the next town."

Somebody will ask, "Oh, why did he leave?"

"Well, he and I talked and this group isn't really a good fit for him."

(Snark's "they had a difference over play style" would work too.)

Am I the only person here who's had to fire someone at work? There's a right way and a wrong way, no matter how bad they were. The other employees do not need to know the personal disputes or infraction involved (no matter how much they may *want* to know). If they are friends with the other player they'll get to hear his side anyway, and if they aren't his friends it's irrelevant to them. Game on.

[Tormsskull]

Really, what would this accomplish?


It would reinforce the idea that the DM and the group are playing with a set of rules and expectations for all. It makes clear to all of the other players that such a request is outrageous and won't be considered.

If I'm a player and I feel like my DM can get fleeced by the other players, I'm going to lose interest in the game. Squashing such a sentiment ends all speculation.



I think that's a world record for number of "squashes" in a post, at least outside of a cooking message board.

lol. I think you are right :smallbiggrin:

squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash

[OracleofWuffing]

Or indeed just someone who calls himself 'Red Dragon' or just 'Dragon' and happens to wear red, have red hair, or has sunburn...
Green dragon that's colorblind.

I've not delved too deeply into D&D afterlife affairs, but according to the Ghost template entry, "Ghosts are the spectral remnants of intelligent beings who, for one reason or another, cannot rest easily in their graves." I think "Curse which demands an individual to die in a specific manner" falls within the extremes of "one reason or another," so that's probably the route I would go if I was in a similar situation.

x_x Then I'd have to read more about D&D ghosts. Dang it.

[Another_Poet]

It would reinforce the idea that the DM and the group are playing with a set of rules and expectations for all. It makes clear to all of the other players that such a request is outrageous and won't be considered.

If I'm a player and I feel like my DM can get fleeced by the other players, I'm going to lose interest in the game. Squashing such a sentiment ends all speculation.

So does a simple firm "no" when someone asks for something ridiculous. Again, no need to add humiliation to it.



squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash squash

Some part of me knew that this would happen. :smallwink:

[KeresM]

If the email was meant tongue-in-cheek, I'd probably laugh my arse off and give the player some bonus XP for his next character. Or have him try to make his case before the 'god of the dead' or something.

If it was meant seriously, well, the DM in the story responded correctly.


Take it as a lesson, fellow DMs and players - confrontation is not your enemy. Polite confrontation is your tool to avoiding passive-aggressive nonsense, unfair rulings and looking like a jackanapes in front of your whole group.

Sometimes it is necessary to do this kind of thing in public. Having a player in the group cheat leads to hard feelings among all the players, and trust and believe, the other players do notice. If they think the GM is letting that player get away with it, they get resentful.

I've been in this situation as both the player and the GM. I've left groups because of GMs who let players get away with stunts like this.

Calling someone on their cheating publicly is often a very effective means of preventing them from doing it again. Public shaming was used so often as a punishment because it was very effective. It also served as a warning to anyone who might be thinking 'well, Joe got away with it, maybe I should try it'

If you have reasonable, mature players, it is unnecessary, and that is because reasonable, mature players don't cheat in the first place.

This isn't work or a professional environment. Theoretically anyway, a gaming group should be made up of friends, and friends have a right to know about stuff like this.

[Yakk]

Am I the only person here who's had to fire someone at work? There's a right way and a wrong way, no matter how bad they were. The other employees do not need to know the personal disputes or infraction involved (no matter how much they may *want* to know). If they are friends with the other player they'll get to hear his side anyway, and if they aren't his friends it's irrelevant to them. Game on.As a matter of business policy, you want your employees knowing as little as possible about your interaction with other employees. You don't want them knowing each other's salary, as that can lead to someone discovering they are underpaid. You don't want them knowing what the other employee got away with before they where fired.

You want them to view you as an authority, and think that they are getting a great deal by working for you. In short, the business benefits by suppressing employee knowledge about employee-business relations.

This especially is true when things are looking glum, job security wise. Leak or imply information that the situation will be worse than it is, then quickly follow up with the actual job cuts (which are less than what was rumored), to manage expectations and make the actual actions taken look positive, even if they involve cutting bonuses and firing their friends.

In a situation like a roleplaying game, there is far less power imbalance than in an employee-employer relationship. You don't have to hide information from your players about why things happened.

By exposing why the DM did this extreme action of banning the player, the act of banning doesn't look capricious. Odds are that the players know each other (or can communicate without the DM's permission), so if the DM doesn't deliver the information, the PC who was "fired" is free to spread any information they want about the situation. Thus hurting morale.

Or so goes a slightly different argument. Dunno if it holds water. :)

[Another_Poet]

If they think the GM is letting that player get away with it, they get resentful.


And if they see that the GM threw the player out of the group, they know the player did not get away with it. There is still no need to

a) call the player names
b) bring up past incidents that have already been resolved
c) shame the player in front of the other players or
d) do the throwing out in front of the rest of the group

[KeresM]

And if they see that the GM threw the player out of the group, they know the player did not get away with it. There is still no need to

a) call the player names
b) bring up past incidents that have already been resolved
c) shame the player in front of the other players or
d) do the throwing out in front of the rest of the group

That depends entirely upon the group and the player in question.

[The_JJ]

Just like to point out that telling someone that something they do is 'munchkin' behaviour. (with the little '' quotes included) need not be an insult. Hey, I just use it as an adjective. No need for it to be an insult.
And since the whole 'I can't die because I'm cursed not to' was told in private, but I think needed to be aired at very least. I'd hate it if a DM said to me and the rest of the group 'player x won't be playing anymore.' And then when pressed 'our playstyles don't match.' C'mon, that sounds like the DM is running tyrant over the group, even if he's trying to do the opposite.

To me it sounded like a polite 'no, I don't think that'll work' and 'you might be happier somewhere else.' No judgment, but a polite push to the door.

[Immutep]

Just a couple of points.
First, the DM did ask him to leave in private. at least assuming the statement he put on the board was written accurately. He just then showed everybody on the board the reasons why. I'm not getting involved in the argument of did he handle it right, how to handle a given problem is always a judgement call imho.

Second, I'm REALLY confused by the one handed 2d8 greatsword bit, first in the PHB it states that a two-handed weapon needs to be wielded in two hands to be effective (page 113). Second a greatsword only deals 2d6 damage normaly (Table 7-5, page 117). So how could it possibly deal 2d8 one handed? Even assuming that the character was large, that would mean normally dealing 3d6, not 2d8!

[Tacoma]

Yeah as for the employee/employer thing, honestly, I know that's how it works but it's completely wrong.

Keeping information from people in order to force them to make decisions in your favor isn't nice.

Doing so when their livelihood is on the line is wrong.

So if my coworker is being underpaid, I think he should know it. I think he should go to his boss and say, "X, Y, and Z are paid more than me and I have more experience, education, and take responsibility for just as much as they do."

The problem is, nobody is going to tell someone else what they make because they're afraid their boss will fire them. And the boss surely might, if only to reinforce that fear in a union-busting mentality.

Ideally everyone knows whatever information others are willing to divulge, and divulging information is unpunishable. That way people are able to make informed choices. Otherwise they're just being led around by the nose.

And who is doing the leading? Some "superior" who is possibly actually inferior in most ways except position in the company? As a human such a person could hardly be considered superior and is not a logical choice for leadership.

I second the point that seeing a leader eject and punish arbitrarily (or act arbitrarily at all) calls into serious question that person's role as a leader. You can't have everyone be a chief, most people just have to be followers, but the chief should be the best of them.

[Another_Poet]

Yeah as for the employee/employer thing, honestly, I know that's how it works but it's completely wrong.

Keeping information from people in order to force them to make decisions in your favor isn't nice.

?????

I don't think that protecting someone's privacy matches what you just said at all.

Anyway it seems I am outnumbered. All I can say is I think you guys would feel differently if it happened to you. Of course I'm not accusing any of you of trying to sneak ridiculous stuff past the DM as this player seems to have done... but let's say your DM was upset with you over a misunderstanding and didn't want to game with you any more. You probably wouldn't enjoy him telling the whole group he canned you for being a munchkin. You might like it more if he spoke to you one-on-one.

Actually, I can't speak for the rest of you, but I'd prefer the one-on-one. And doing so doesn't require him to lie to the other players - he can be honest if they ask him for details. Smearing you on a message board just reeks of 4th grade drama, at least to me.

[KeresM]

All I can say is I think you guys would feel differently if it happened to you. Of course I'm not accusing any of you of trying to sneak ridiculous stuff past the DM as this player seems to have done... but let's say your DM was upset with you over a misunderstanding and didn't want to game with you any more. You probably wouldn't enjoy him telling the whole group he canned you for being a munchkin.

So don't be a munchkin, and the subject shouldn't come up. If he claims you were a munchkin but cannot provide any supporting evidence, then he just looks like an idiot and that can be an enjoyable experience for you.

I have been publicly kicked out. Though I was not canned for being a munchkin, but for expecting the fact that Charisma was not my dump stat to actually affect how NPCs reacted to me. I believe my comment was along the lines of 'somehow, I just don't believe that every innkeeper, merchant, and town gossip in the world is a homosexual, so is there some reason why they keep brushing off the busty blond with the 18 charisma'?

It was because the kicking out was public that the other players were able to make up their own minds regarding the GM's play style, and three of the other five players decided to leave as well.

If I have to kick a player, I always tell the other players why. I try to do so in a polite and reasonable manner. Usually the reason is 'Bob only attends one in three sessions and is usually late to those, without explanation. Since it's disruptive to keep trying to work him in when he does show, the wizard received an opportunity to study with a master and bids you a fond farewell.'

That way everyone knows the situation and, if they feel I am being unfair, can present an alternative viewpoint. Such as 'well, Bob's wife is pregnant and it's a stressful time for him right now, I'm willing to deal with a bit of disruption to give him a chance to unwind when he can'. The other players should be allowed to have a bit of input in the situation.