Are you a biased DM? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Are you a biased DM? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Magnus029
10-07-04, 09:25 PM After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult."

Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes?
Dash Branaghan
10-07-04, 09:34 PM I like to consider myself non-biased.

While I don't actively try to kill the players, I don't actively save their butts either. They get themselves into trouble, they get themselves out of it. As I have stated in many threads in the past, I don't understand why DMs insist on playing their creatures to lose; that is why they anticipate the creatures death, and not its victory.

Some would argue that it takes away player fun. Whatever. Part of the fun is the anticipation of victory, those tight squeaker wins where you barely pull it off.

So am I biased? No. I don't fudge rolls either way, and I also don't play my NPCs and creatures to be defeated.

Dash
Duvanok
10-07-04, 09:38 PM Absolutely not! A DM's job is to create an entertaining game for the players to play. Any DM who states he will make things hard on the pcs if he doesn't like a particular character is not only taking child-like advantage of the small amount of power he has been given over the game, he is completely missing the point of the game and probably has no clue what the heck he is doing.
WCH
10-07-04, 09:43 PM It's a DM's job to have fun and to make sure the players are having fun, too. If one PC is annoying, putting them in their place is necessary. This past Saturday, I sent Lothar the Magnificent, the (constantly) self-proclaimed "greatest mage in all the land" straight to Graz'zt's throne room in the Abyss. Afterward, his player thanked me for doing so, apologized that the character had gotten out of control, and said he was glad he was now dead.

Of course, technically speaking, it was because he annoyed a powerful NPC cleric who had the Sending spell, not because he annoyed me, but he was definitely annoying everyone, from me to my NPCs to even his own player. :D
Daydreamer
10-07-04, 10:26 PM Depends on what he means by doesnt like.
If the pc is being disruptive to his game world, OR has a stlye so dissimilar to his that it makes npc reactions unfavorable bad juju can follow. But i never fudge dice rolls against the pcs (well almost never) and only sometimes to make a epic fight seem more epic( like half dozen times in my dozen years of gaming).
However the dm does reserve the right to ban certain classes/feats/combos b4 a pc is made. Also i houserule that all the pcs must have characters that would be reasonably compatible with each and are likely to be found in a party together. NO LG paladins and ce theives.
But once i let the pcs pick there characters ive got to live with it. HOwever if the pcs role playing of that character goes in unexpected directions....

Dms can only be so neutral. IF you want to win pick a pc half way between what you want and what your dm wants to dm.
CAUSE WHAT PCS PICK DETEMINES THE TYPE OF GAME THE DM CAN RUN AND ITS HIS GAME TWO.
my 2 cents. Which is usually worth a nickel elsewhere ;)
Arckon
10-07-04, 10:26 PM Problem characters seem to most often just be craving attention.

The old carrot and stick is a useful approach.

The carrot I use is karma points that are useful in a great many ways.

The stick is I take away karma points, and should they run out of those, then I take away LEVELS. Permanently.

If one or two fo those dont straighten things out, I ask them to pack their stuff and leave the game, and I have done that, kicking out two players about a year ago.
The Shaman
10-07-04, 11:22 PM This past Saturday, I sent Lothar the Magnificent, the (constantly) self-proclaimed "greatest mage in all the land" straight to Graz'zt's throne room in the Abyss. Afterward, his player thanked me for doing so, apologized that the character had gotten out of control, and said he was glad he was now dead....(H)e was definitely annoying everyone, from me to my NPCs to even his own player.
Gotta admit, that's some mighty fine roleplaying, if even the PLAYER finds the character's personality grating.

;)

I don't pick on players' characters - that's not fair. I never plan or set-up TPKs - that's not the role of the GM. I fudge the occasional die roll, primarily to heighten dramatic effect or to reward good roleplay - I see that as part of my responsibility as the lead storyteller of the group.
White rabbit
10-07-04, 11:28 PM I have in the past fudged die rolls in favor of the PCs. But that's mainly because I find that having the player roll up a new character in the middle of the game to be annoying and time consuming. I'm careful to do it in such a way that the PC could still get killed if they do something stupid, but if they're cautious, it seems like a miracle of the dice for them to come out of it alive.

I believe first and foremost in the enjoyment of my PCs.
Lordofthebean
10-08-04, 12:14 AM I am proud to say I have fudged the dice exactly one time in my entire career as a DM (the same pc was criticaled by three different opponents in one round. c'mon, that's just not fair). For some reason, I just don't see the point in fudging regularly. If a PC dies, the players deal with, but I don't go out of my way to kill off PCs (that's the NPCs job :devil: ).
Board_Rider
10-08-04, 01:39 AM I think that a Player should make a PC he likes. The group of players should all like each other. The Players should, IMO, be liked by the DM.
Everybody will have fun.
MortalPlague
10-08-04, 02:33 AM I think I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to DM'ing, but I won't hesitate to kill a character if they do something incredibly stupid.

I had a player (newly introduced into the campaign) make a blatant attempt to kill another PC with no provocation whatsoever. He was shooting into a melee at the badly wounded character because it would be "funny". He hit, but he didn't kill the dwarf, and after the battle he tried to bluff his way out of it. I wasn't going to give him any quarter though, so I gave him a harsh penalty on the bluff check, and all but one player made their sense motive checks. They then knocked him out and coup-de-grace'd off his head. Good riddance, I say.
Cold Napalm
10-08-04, 02:44 AM I think I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to DM'ing, but I won't hesitate to kill a character if they do something incredibly stupid.

I had a player (newly introduced into the campaign) make a blatant attempt to kill another PC with no provocation whatsoever. He was shooting into a melee at the badly wounded character because it would be "funny". He hit, but he didn't kill the dwarf, and after the battle he tried to bluff his way out of it. I wasn't going to give him any quarter though, so I gave him a harsh penalty on the bluff check, and all but one player made their sense motive checks. They then knocked him out and coup-de-grace'd off his head. Good riddance, I say.

Hehe, that reminds me of somebody I played with. He played a cleric and for some reason or other he decided he didn't like my character (actually he had a problem with me not my character) so he decided to not heal me, and just me. When I was low on HP he would meta game knowing I was low on hp and try to provoke a fight. So when the hoards of goblins came, I just stepped back and watched him die. I thought it was funny and completely in character...the DM did not agree :( .
Primal
10-08-04, 03:13 AM Usually I avoid playing with people I do not know and new entries in the group, especially if the person is not familiar with the others, are made gradually. As a result I have ended up with two or three separate gaming groups (my wife is a common, would have a hard time leaving her out :D ) with more or less compatible players. It tends to minimize problems and sort of eliminates the "biased" question.

Still, I strongly dislike the "lawyer" type of player (the ones that will jump in with an open book proclaiming rules at every opportunity) and try to avoid them. If that is not possible then I do try to make their life difficult.

Truth be told I tend to fudge rolls in favor of the characters (since I seem to roll exceedingly well only when DMing) and cheat a bit for the "bad guys" when the characters seem to have an exceedingly easy time (lucky rolls) just to keep up the tension.

I am DMing for 15 years and I think that only 3 characters have ever died permanently. I can remember about 10 cases where ressurection was used and only 1 case where I deliberately took away a player character from the player. The character became an NPC after being afflicted by a curse that transformed him gradually into something definetelly unnatural of my own devising. The tranformed character attacked the others who managed to avoid slaying him by binding - entrapping him in a prepared amulet, hoping to reinstate him at a later point. It never happened and the character is still raging insanely inside that amulet as far as I know :D.
Mrvice
10-08-04, 03:35 AM It all depends on how you look at it. I give characters I find enjoyable to be around and add a lot of dimention to a party some lean when it comes to dice rolls. So occasionaly, when something should have killed them I might implore the use of a dues exmachina or fudge the dice rolls a bit in their favor to save their sorry butts. But never, (dispite me kidding about it sometimes), do I go out of my way to kill off a pc. These games are ment to be fun and I feel any GM who goes out of his way just to kill a player character a bit on the pathetic side.

Mr Vice

Please pardon my spelling
Telperion
10-08-04, 03:45 AM After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult."

Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes?

I'm somewhat biased.

Some players are simply "better" (ie. better suited to my campaigns) and they have an easier time than others. I have also noticed that if someone is roleplaying well, performing above my expectations and so on then I'm liable to giving that player's character slightly better loot, contacts and generally an easier time in my campaigns.

Some players simply can't adapt to my campaigns at all, and when (there's usually no "if") they start goofing around I make fairly short work of them. Not that I'm exactly unfair to them, but things simply start happening in a way that will get their characters killed / imprisoned / hunted / etc. and the player booted out of the group if they don't wisen up.

Then there are those who come to a game, try it out once and never come back.

I run certain types of games and they are not for everyone. Simple as that...
Gedrin
10-08-04, 05:31 AM First, I'd say that I am biased in several ways. However, I'd like to think I don't let those biases get the better of me. I try to host a fair game that is fun for all involved (players and myself).

It really comes down to a judgement call. Here's a real life example, current no less, and you can tell me if I'm inapropriately biased.

The character in question is a CN halfling rogue. As part of his background, he's got a problem with being looked down on. I'm big on background and on characters having personal flaws and issues to work out over the course of their growth. He is not the only person in the party that has a serious problem being stepped on.
In the last adventure, the party was on a tropical island, to recover some cargo. The cleric was able to distinguish betwen the berries that would go well as flavoring for rum, and the berries that would cause "intestinal troubles". They track the cargo to an Ettercap lair, where, after a fight, they discover two people that were being saved for later by the Ettercaps. The halfling, before even cutting them out of the webs, and before looking around the lair, begins to shake the prisoners and scream at them, demanding the location of the cargo. They react poorly, insulting them.
Now, as it happes, their rowboat was damaged, and one of the prisoners has shipbuilding skill (just lucked out that way, go fig). After the guy agrees to fix the boat, the halfling puts some of the berries into his drink. Guy is reduced (after the Spiders) to Str 5, and can't fix the boat.
The halfling seemed to like this, as he then also made a point of dosing another person later on. Additionally, he's apparently making a practice of taking revenge against even the smallest slight.

Is it biased if I decide the NPC's eventually figure out the halfling is responsible for the various troubles they've been having? Is it biased if I decide they'll avoid causing trouble with him, but none will lift a hand if he's tossed overboard? The actions the character is taking are becoming troublesome in the campaign. He's already stolen from a shipmate and was nearlly killed for it, so future consequences are likely to be fairly harsh from the crew.

These are the sorts of actions that I dislike as a DM. They do cause problems and they're the sort of problems that don't have any real need to occur. If things go badly in the future, am I not being fair, or am I just doing what a crew of smugglers would do to a constant nusaince?
Telperion
10-08-04, 06:28 AM Is it biased if I decide the NPC's eventually figure out the halfling is responsible for the various troubles they've been having?

No, it's called using your brains. If there's someone around who is being nasty and insulting towards you it is quite normal to assume that the person in question also makes your life hard. If the NPCs are running into actual problems then they are going to to want to know what is causing these problems, and the logical place to start is the halfling rogue.

Is it biased if I decide they'll avoid causing trouble with him, but none will lift a hand if he's tossed overboard?

If the NPCs have concluded that the halfling is indeed responsible for their problems then certainly not. Even if they are not quite certain they could reason that if the halfling dies then he isn't around to cause them problems. This sort of thinking would, of course, slide towards an Evil alignment, but perhaps they are there already?

The actions the character is taking are becoming troublesome in the campaign. He's already stolen from a shipmate and was nearlly killed for it, so future consequences are likely to be fairly harsh from the crew.

From what I heard so far it sounds like the halfling is becoming Neutral Evil, or already is. And the player is enjoying it. If you are running a Good campaign then you should make the halfling rogue into a NPC and remove him from the group. After all: dividing loot, sharing stuff and generally traveling with a bunch of losers isn't natural to a NE rogue. Better to find someone more worthy, or strike out on his own.

These are the sorts of actions that I dislike as a DM. They do cause problems and they're the sort of problems that don't have any real need to occur. If things go badly in the future, am I not being fair, or am I just doing what a crew of smugglers would do to a constant nusaince?

Talk to the player and try to make him see where the character is headed. Since we are talking about smugglers there are probably some Evil NPCs around who might want to take advantage of the halfling's actions (accusations are easy to make) and give some payback for all the hurt that the PC has caused.
LordofIllusions
10-13-04, 10:40 AM After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult."

Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes?

Each DM runs their campaign differently. I personally let the die fall where it may(If you get killed because that night I am rolling 20's[For the monsters.], oh well.); they receive no favoritism or the opposite.

However I know that some DMs do fudge die rolls and for me(Or anyone else.) to sit online and whine about what some DMs do in their campaigns is not only a waste of poster space but also a waste of time, since people are going to do what they want in their campaigns regardless of how much people cry on the WoTC boards.

~~~
The_EvilDungeon_Master
10-13-04, 11:26 AM If the player (not character) is just being an ass to everyone, I'm inclined to make things harsher...
Magnus029
10-13-04, 02:19 PM Each DM runs their campaign differently. I personally let the die fall where it may(If you get killed because that night I am rolling 20's[For the monsters.], oh well.); they receive no favoritism or the opposite.

However I know that some DMs do fudge die rolls and for me(Or anyone else.) to sit online and whine about what some DMs do in their campaigns is not only a waste of poster space but also a waste of time, since people are going to do what they want in their campaigns regardless of how much people cry on the WoTC boards.

~~~

Of course everyone runs things differently. Is this going to effect how I run mine? Of course not. I play the role of storyteller in my games and let the die fall where they may. Am I crying about how others run there game? Not a chance, why would I, I don't play in there game and probally never will.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Magnus029 10-07-04, 09:25 PM	After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult." Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes?
Dash Branaghan 10-07-04, 09:34 PM	I like to consider myself non-biased. While I don't actively try to kill the players, I don't actively save their butts either. They get themselves into trouble, they get themselves out of it. As I have stated in many threads in the past, I don't understand why DMs insist on playing their creatures to lose; that is why they anticipate the creatures death, and not its victory. Some would argue that it takes away player fun. Whatever. Part of the fun is the anticipation of victory, those tight squeaker wins where you barely pull it off. So am I biased? No. I don't fudge rolls either way, and I also don't play my NPCs and creatures to be defeated. Dash
Duvanok 10-07-04, 09:38 PM	Absolutely not! A DM's job is to create an entertaining game for the players to play. Any DM who states he will make things hard on the pcs if he doesn't like a particular character is not only taking child-like advantage of the small amount of power he has been given over the game, he is completely missing the point of the game and probably has no clue what the heck he is doing.
WCH 10-07-04, 09:43 PM	It's a DM's job to have fun and to make sure the players are having fun, too. If one PC is annoying, putting them in their place is necessary. This past Saturday, I sent Lothar the Magnificent, the (constantly) self-proclaimed "greatest mage in all the land" straight to Graz'zt's throne room in the Abyss. Afterward, his player thanked me for doing so, apologized that the character had gotten out of control, and said he was glad he was now dead. Of course, technically speaking, it was because he annoyed a powerful NPC cleric who had the Sending spell, not because he annoyed me, but he was definitely annoying everyone, from me to my NPCs to even his own player. :D
Daydreamer 10-07-04, 10:26 PM	Depends on what he means by doesnt like. If the pc is being disruptive to his game world, OR has a stlye so dissimilar to his that it makes npc reactions unfavorable bad juju can follow. But i never fudge dice rolls against the pcs (well almost never) and only sometimes to make a epic fight seem more epic( like half dozen times in my dozen years of gaming). However the dm does reserve the right to ban certain classes/feats/combos b4 a pc is made. Also i houserule that all the pcs must have characters that would be reasonably compatible with each and are likely to be found in a party together. NO LG paladins and ce theives. But once i let the pcs pick there characters ive got to live with it. HOwever if the pcs role playing of that character goes in unexpected directions.... Dms can only be so neutral. IF you want to win pick a pc half way between what you want and what your dm wants to dm. CAUSE WHAT PCS PICK DETEMINES THE TYPE OF GAME THE DM CAN RUN AND ITS HIS GAME TWO. my 2 cents. Which is usually worth a nickel elsewhere ;)
Arckon 10-07-04, 10:26 PM	Problem characters seem to most often just be craving attention. The old carrot and stick is a useful approach. The carrot I use is karma points that are useful in a great many ways. The stick is I take away karma points, and should they run out of those, then I take away LEVELS. Permanently. If one or two fo those dont straighten things out, I ask them to pack their stuff and leave the game, and I have done that, kicking out two players about a year ago.
The Shaman 10-07-04, 11:22 PM	This past Saturday, I sent Lothar the Magnificent, the (constantly) self-proclaimed "greatest mage in all the land" straight to Graz'zt's throne room in the Abyss. Afterward, his player thanked me for doing so, apologized that the character had gotten out of control, and said he was glad he was now dead....(H)e was definitely annoying everyone, from me to my NPCs to even his own player. Gotta admit, that's some mighty fine roleplaying, if even the PLAYER finds the character's personality grating. ;) I don't pick on players' characters - that's not fair. I never plan or set-up TPKs - that's not the role of the GM. I fudge the occasional die roll, primarily to heighten dramatic effect or to reward good roleplay - I see that as part of my responsibility as the lead storyteller of the group.
White rabbit 10-07-04, 11:28 PM	I have in the past fudged die rolls in favor of the PCs. But that's mainly because I find that having the player roll up a new character in the middle of the game to be annoying and time consuming. I'm careful to do it in such a way that the PC could still get killed if they do something stupid, but if they're cautious, it seems like a miracle of the dice for them to come out of it alive. I believe first and foremost in the enjoyment of my PCs.
Lordofthebean 10-08-04, 12:14 AM	I am proud to say I have fudged the dice exactly one time in my entire career as a DM (the same pc was criticaled by three different opponents in one round. c'mon, that's just not fair). For some reason, I just don't see the point in fudging regularly. If a PC dies, the players deal with, but I don't go out of my way to kill off PCs (that's the NPCs job :devil: ).
Board_Rider 10-08-04, 01:39 AM	I think that a Player should make a PC he likes. The group of players should all like each other. The Players should, IMO, be liked by the DM. Everybody will have fun.
MortalPlague 10-08-04, 02:33 AM	I think I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to DM'ing, but I won't hesitate to kill a character if they do something incredibly stupid. I had a player (newly introduced into the campaign) make a blatant attempt to kill another PC with no provocation whatsoever. He was shooting into a melee at the badly wounded character because it would be "funny". He hit, but he didn't kill the dwarf, and after the battle he tried to bluff his way out of it. I wasn't going to give him any quarter though, so I gave him a harsh penalty on the bluff check, and all but one player made their sense motive checks. They then knocked him out and coup-de-grace'd off his head. Good riddance, I say.
Cold Napalm 10-08-04, 02:44 AM	I think I'm pretty unbiased when it comes to DM'ing, but I won't hesitate to kill a character if they do something incredibly stupid. I had a player (newly introduced into the campaign) make a blatant attempt to kill another PC with no provocation whatsoever. He was shooting into a melee at the badly wounded character because it would be "funny". He hit, but he didn't kill the dwarf, and after the battle he tried to bluff his way out of it. I wasn't going to give him any quarter though, so I gave him a harsh penalty on the bluff check, and all but one player made their sense motive checks. They then knocked him out and coup-de-grace'd off his head. Good riddance, I say. Hehe, that reminds me of somebody I played with. He played a cleric and for some reason or other he decided he didn't like my character (actually he had a problem with me not my character) so he decided to not heal me, and just me. When I was low on HP he would meta game knowing I was low on hp and try to provoke a fight. So when the hoards of goblins came, I just stepped back and watched him die. I thought it was funny and completely in character...the DM did not agree :( .
Primal 10-08-04, 03:13 AM	Usually I avoid playing with people I do not know and new entries in the group, especially if the person is not familiar with the others, are made gradually. As a result I have ended up with two or three separate gaming groups (my wife is a common, would have a hard time leaving her out :D ) with more or less compatible players. It tends to minimize problems and sort of eliminates the "biased" question. Still, I strongly dislike the "lawyer" type of player (the ones that will jump in with an open book proclaiming rules at every opportunity) and try to avoid them. If that is not possible then I do try to make their life difficult. Truth be told I tend to fudge rolls in favor of the characters (since I seem to roll exceedingly well only when DMing) and cheat a bit for the "bad guys" when the characters seem to have an exceedingly easy time (lucky rolls) just to keep up the tension. I am DMing for 15 years and I think that only 3 characters have ever died permanently. I can remember about 10 cases where ressurection was used and only 1 case where I deliberately took away a player character from the player. The character became an NPC after being afflicted by a curse that transformed him gradually into something definetelly unnatural of my own devising. The tranformed character attacked the others who managed to avoid slaying him by binding - entrapping him in a prepared amulet, hoping to reinstate him at a later point. It never happened and the character is still raging insanely inside that amulet as far as I know :D.
Mrvice 10-08-04, 03:35 AM	It all depends on how you look at it. I give characters I find enjoyable to be around and add a lot of dimention to a party some lean when it comes to dice rolls. So occasionaly, when something should have killed them I might implore the use of a dues exmachina or fudge the dice rolls a bit in their favor to save their sorry butts. But never, (dispite me kidding about it sometimes), do I go out of my way to kill off a pc. These games are ment to be fun and I feel any GM who goes out of his way just to kill a player character a bit on the pathetic side. Mr Vice Please pardon my spelling
Telperion 10-08-04, 03:45 AM	After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult." Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes? I'm somewhat biased. Some players are simply "better" (ie. better suited to my campaigns) and they have an easier time than others. I have also noticed that if someone is roleplaying well, performing above my expectations and so on then I'm liable to giving that player's character slightly better loot, contacts and generally an easier time in my campaigns. Some players simply can't adapt to my campaigns at all, and when (there's usually no "if") they start goofing around I make fairly short work of them. Not that I'm exactly unfair to them, but things simply start happening in a way that will get their characters killed / imprisoned / hunted / etc. and the player booted out of the group if they don't wisen up. Then there are those who come to a game, try it out once and never come back. I run certain types of games and they are not for everyone. Simple as that...
Gedrin 10-08-04, 05:31 AM	First, I'd say that I am biased in several ways. However, I'd like to think I don't let those biases get the better of me. I try to host a fair game that is fun for all involved (players and myself). It really comes down to a judgement call. Here's a real life example, current no less, and you can tell me if I'm inapropriately biased. The character in question is a CN halfling rogue. As part of his background, he's got a problem with being looked down on. I'm big on background and on characters having personal flaws and issues to work out over the course of their growth. He is not the only person in the party that has a serious problem being stepped on. In the last adventure, the party was on a tropical island, to recover some cargo. The cleric was able to distinguish betwen the berries that would go well as flavoring for rum, and the berries that would cause "intestinal troubles". They track the cargo to an Ettercap lair, where, after a fight, they discover two people that were being saved for later by the Ettercaps. The halfling, before even cutting them out of the webs, and before looking around the lair, begins to shake the prisoners and scream at them, demanding the location of the cargo. They react poorly, insulting them. Now, as it happes, their rowboat was damaged, and one of the prisoners has shipbuilding skill (just lucked out that way, go fig). After the guy agrees to fix the boat, the halfling puts some of the berries into his drink. Guy is reduced (after the Spiders) to Str 5, and can't fix the boat. The halfling seemed to like this, as he then also made a point of dosing another person later on. Additionally, he's apparently making a practice of taking revenge against even the smallest slight. Is it biased if I decide the NPC's eventually figure out the halfling is responsible for the various troubles they've been having? Is it biased if I decide they'll avoid causing trouble with him, but none will lift a hand if he's tossed overboard? The actions the character is taking are becoming troublesome in the campaign. He's already stolen from a shipmate and was nearlly killed for it, so future consequences are likely to be fairly harsh from the crew. These are the sorts of actions that I dislike as a DM. They do cause problems and they're the sort of problems that don't have any real need to occur. If things go badly in the future, am I not being fair, or am I just doing what a crew of smugglers would do to a constant nusaince?
Telperion 10-08-04, 06:28 AM	Is it biased if I decide the NPC's eventually figure out the halfling is responsible for the various troubles they've been having? No, it's called using your brains. If there's someone around who is being nasty and insulting towards you it is quite normal to assume that the person in question also makes your life hard. If the NPCs are running into actual problems then they are going to to want to know what is causing these problems, and the logical place to start is the halfling rogue. Is it biased if I decide they'll avoid causing trouble with him, but none will lift a hand if he's tossed overboard? If the NPCs have concluded that the halfling is indeed responsible for their problems then certainly not. Even if they are not quite certain they could reason that if the halfling dies then he isn't around to cause them problems. This sort of thinking would, of course, slide towards an Evil alignment, but perhaps they are there already? The actions the character is taking are becoming troublesome in the campaign. He's already stolen from a shipmate and was nearlly killed for it, so future consequences are likely to be fairly harsh from the crew. From what I heard so far it sounds like the halfling is becoming Neutral Evil, or already is. And the player is enjoying it. If you are running a Good campaign then you should make the halfling rogue into a NPC and remove him from the group. After all: dividing loot, sharing stuff and generally traveling with a bunch of losers isn't natural to a NE rogue. Better to find someone more worthy, or strike out on his own. These are the sorts of actions that I dislike as a DM. They do cause problems and they're the sort of problems that don't have any real need to occur. If things go badly in the future, am I not being fair, or am I just doing what a crew of smugglers would do to a constant nusaince? Talk to the player and try to make him see where the character is headed. Since we are talking about smugglers there are probably some Evil NPCs around who might want to take advantage of the halfling's actions (accusations are easy to make) and give some payback for all the hurt that the PC has caused.
LordofIllusions 10-13-04, 10:40 AM	After reading many posts on these boards I have come upon many posts saying things like "If I like the character I might fudge some die rolls." or "I might go tougher if they are annoying me" or if "I don't like the character I will go out of my way to make to make it dificult." Is this really fair to the players? Is it the players job to make a character that he likes or should he be making a character the DM likes? Each DM runs their campaign differently. I personally let the die fall where it may(If you get killed because that night I am rolling 20's[For the monsters.], oh well.); they receive no favoritism or the opposite. However I know that some DMs do fudge die rolls and for me(Or anyone else.) to sit online and whine about what some DMs do in their campaigns is not only a waste of poster space but also a waste of time, since people are going to do what they want in their campaigns regardless of how much people cry on the WoTC boards. ~~~
The_EvilDungeon_Master 10-13-04, 11:26 AM	If the player (not character) is just being an ass to everyone, I'm inclined to make things harsher...
Magnus029 10-13-04, 02:19 PM	Each DM runs their campaign differently. I personally let the die fall where it may(If you get killed because that night I am rolling 20's[For the monsters.], oh well.); they receive no favoritism or the opposite. However I know that some DMs do fudge die rolls and for me(Or anyone else.) to sit online and whine about what some DMs do in their campaigns is not only a waste of poster space but also a waste of time, since people are going to do what they want in their campaigns regardless of how much people cry on the WoTC boards. ~~~ Of course everyone runs things differently. Is this going to effect how I run mine? Of course not. I play the role of storyteller in my games and let the die fall where they may. Am I crying about how others run there game? Not a chance, why would I, I don't play in there game and probally never will.