| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| thugpoetry02-05-04, 01:08 AM | So, my DM finally did it. Finally did something that I can't get past long enough to play the game. What I want to know is if I'm justified in being twerked off about this to the point of walking away from the campaign, or if I'm just being an angerball. (bonus points for anyone who can identify where I get the term "angerball" from.) In order for you, gentle reader, to give me real feedback, I should probably tell you about what happened. I intend to make this post as fair and impartial as I can, but take it with a small dose of sodium, as I am one of the people involved. So, I was playing with my DM and the other player. We were on a fairly typical (for him) quest. It was innovative, themed, made us use everything that we had to get through. To keep it on topic, I'll skip to the end. This BBEG for the moment was a 2000 cursed cleric, who could only die in a very specific way. We got her to the specific place, did the specific stuff, and she died. But before she dies, she casts a spell (which I don't really think she should have been able to do, given that everyone knew she was a powerful magic user, there should have been some magic-nulling something there. But that's beside the point.). This spell switches out our (the other player and myself) minds with the minds of two criminals sitting in the holy courtroom. Then he says "here are your new character sheets" and hands us blank character sheets. It's a bit twisted, and plenty enough to get me out of my comfort zone, but I'm thinking "okay, trust my DM, let's see how it works out." Then I learn a little more about my character and all the little twerks it has to dig at me. First off, I despise spiders. As such, I play this trait in all my characters. Probably not the best of role-playing rules, but it's a fun and small trait that my characters all share. Secondly, I like wolves. I like them in real time, and I like them in game. This doesn't mean that all my characters like wolves, but the one that I'm playing now does. He was a dwarven Druid, and he's the one who is stuck inside the ettercap's body right now. With a couple levels of wizard, just for the spider familiar. So, I was cool with the character getting switched out. Gets me out of the comfort zone. What I have a problem with is having to roleplay being something that I'm nowhere near comfortable with in real life. Granted, if i was a better roleplayer, it might not bother me. But it does. It bothers me that I'm not getting to play the character that I've put a lot of time and effort into, including ways to try to speed up combat when I get going. I'm a summoner Druid, to be short. It bothers me that I have to play a spider based thing. But I figured, you know, that my DM is a reasonable gentleman, he'll switch it to something else if I ask him nicely. So, I send him a PM asking him nicely to change it. His response? "Yeah, I got a chuckle out of it." Not really the reaction I was going for. So, I sent him another PM detailing why, both in and out of game, that I did not want to play this character, and mentioning that this was a gamebreaker. His response? "You metagamer, I did a lot of work. If it's a game breaker, then it's a gamebreaker." He also mentioned that the other player, who plays nothing but fighting characters, was willing to try her distinctly NON combat based character (she's a bard). He also mentions that my character is "more powerful" than hers, because it has an effective level of one more. This last argument is a bit flawed because an ettercap does not lend itself well to being a wizard. A rogue, yes. Maybe even a Cleric. But a Wizard? No, it simply doesn't. I guess he thinks that the only reason I don't want to play this guy is that it's not as effective as my druid is. That's one reason. It's not enough to make me walk away from the game, but it's a reason. I would be willing to take a different character, one that is weaker, and one that is NOT specifically designed to twerk every aggrivation nerve I have. But he specifically set up the character to twerk those nerves. I think that during this campaign I've put up with enough (can you say two free true resurrections for the other character, who would have probably not played anymore if she was drained a level?) to have earned a little indulgence. I don't mind playing something besides my character, although I do prefer playing Val. I do not want to play a spider based character. Make me a level BELOW the other player, that's fine. But make it a character that I can enjoy. It's the conjunction of three things that make me want to get up from the table. 1) Not my character, 2) Lack of even playing field, and 3) Spider based. None of those reasons are enough by themselves to make me leave what's been a great game so far. But taken together, it's enough to get my blood boiling. And that's what it boils down to. I don't see myself having fun with this character, even if it's just for one or two sessions. The point of DnD is for both the DM and the players to have fun. So, am I at least somewhat justified in being bleeped off about this, to the point of forcing the campaign to halt? Or am I just being a meh-head? If you've actually read all this, then kudos. |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 01:45 AM | I know that if it were me, I'd be :censored::censored::censored::censored: :censored::censored:. Especially if you were willing to sacrifice the ECLs to change it to something else. and I suppose the stigma carried with being an ettercap might somewhat stifle your options of roleplaying. I guess that the only thing might be if the DM had something specific in mind other than :censored::censored::censored::censored: :censored::censored::censored: you off, like some major plot thing. Did you ever get a save vs this spell? Other than that, it seems like you got a little screwed. |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 01:46 AM | strange the things that get censored....didn't even swear:angel: |
| Capn Charlie02-05-04, 02:03 AM | So he swapped your MINDS but you get all the class levels of the new body? That is just sloppy. And a very bad idea. I once had an obligatory Mind Swap(tm) adventure but just swapped the minds so the Sun Elf Wizard is now in the body of the Half Orc Barbarian. The elf and orc were equally horrified, but worse yet was that little bits of psyche started wearing off... IT was all fun and good for about two sessions before it got really old and tired. I let them swap back after finding the fabulous (insert item here) in the bottom of an old dungeon. If carefully done this kind of thing can be interesting, but not if it is done in such a shoddy manner. |
| Nytmare02-05-04, 04:49 AM | It sounds like the DM is trying to break you and the other player out of your pre-set modes. I can empathise with him on that point. This is something I try to do a lot of times with my players too. I try to be a little more subtle about it however. I also think that he may not understand how big your "thing" with spiders is. However there's absolutely no reason why you should drop that character choice. You're still the same person, just in another body. Dismiss the familiar, refuse to cast icky arachnid spells, get the heebie jeebies. You're not happy about the change, but more importantly neither is the character, there's no reason for either player to go along quietly with this. I agree with the Capn' and think that the DM's method of doing this however was pretty sloppy. I'd also think that if he didn't give you an eventual way of swapping back it's AWFUL railroady. I am understanding this correctly, you have been swapped into the bodies of two soon to be convicted felons, right? Is this going to turn into a 'prove your innocence' thing? A 'jail break' adventure? I'm sure the two convicted felons, although happy that they are not currently in the hot seat are about as happy with their new bodies as you and the other PC are in yours. Where do you think the game is going? If I were you I wouldn't quit. I would suggest trying not to take it so personally. *shrug* |
| Nagol02-05-04, 06:56 AM | Another alternative is to say "My character cannot handle the switch and suicides. The experience was so horrific, he refuses to be raised." The is extremely unsatisfying since it provides a bad end to a character you like. It doesn't appear that the DM is taking the comfort-level of his players seriously. Players should not be forced into personally uncomfortable situations by the game. In addition, the DM has control of and right to play every character in the universe. The player has the right to build and play one. The DM should allow his players to build and play the characters that they enjoy with his ruleset. This does not mean bad things shouldn't happen to the characters, but a fundamental shift in character design should not be implemented arbitrarily. If this is a game-breaker for you then walk. |
| Kash Darreder02-05-04, 08:20 AM | Personally I would try one more time to reason with the DM, face to face this time. If he is still adamant against letting you switch to another character I would say "Sorry, but I simply cannot do this. Let me know when you are done with this thing so I can come back" Shows that you dont carry grudges, but in THIS particular situation, you are simply to far beyond what is fun for you to play. Best wishes KD |
| Leap02-05-04, 08:23 AM | This would irritate the [mammaries] off me if I was you and would probably walk if it did not get better in a couple of weeks..... It is too interfering in the players realm to force character change like that............and to me implies your DM is stuck for ideas (or has seen a real cool film recently and wants to chop and change in that direction ;) )..... |
| Naeron02-05-04, 09:18 AM | I can't see how swapping your minds into other bodies can change your class/level or mental stats. All the spells that simulate this do not do this (Shapechange, Possession, Reincarnate). If your class and or level has changed you are simply not the same person. If your personal feelings mean that you won't enjoy playing an ettercap with a spider familiar then just refuse to do so. Tell him outright that you won't enjoy the PC and tell him to let you know when the next campaign starts up. A DM has the right to refuse a players character into a campaign if they are uncomfortable with it for any reason (alignment, balance, background etc etc) but they do not have the right to force a player to build a character that the player is uncomfortable with. You can cajole and tempt the player out of their "always a fighter" mould but you can't dictate to them in this way. |
| thugpoetry02-05-04, 09:50 AM | He is trying to break us out of preset modes. Which is not something that I mind. I don't have problems with trying new characters, new concepts. I think that the only core classes I've NOT played are the monk and the paladin. What I do mind is not having any control over it, short of "go get your old bodies back, bring them to the big powerful witch, and then convince the witch to do something about it. It's not meant to last more than one or two sessions. But the key is if I'm going to play those sessions. I'm sure that the next sessions would be balanced and interesting. I just don't want to play this character. Not at all. It's not *just* the spider thing. I've tried playing an arenea once before. That lasted about...oh....30 minutes. Wasn't real comfy with it, but decided that it would be fun to try. The difference is that I had some input into that character. This one? Nothing. Aggrivation level for the character is high. Aggrivation level for me personally, even higher. I probably shouldn't take it so personally, but if I wanted to not get so deep into a character, I'd fire up Diablo II. And no, I got no save versus the spell. Even if i had, though, it would have been something unreachable so as to make the swap happen anyway. He's not above a bit of railroading to make the game interesting. We've been playing for over 3 years now in different campaigns, and this is the FIRST time he's done something that's actually over the line of what I'd like to play. What great responses...wow. I expected something along the lines of "n00b!". What I've gotton are reasoned, rational responses that I can actually use. *is very impressed by the posters*. |
| Addi8302-05-04, 10:25 AM | You should have kept your mental ability scores, your feats, your skills, your levels, and probably your hitpoints as well. Did you? |
| Thorak02-05-04, 11:41 AM | As people have mentioned, if your mind gets switched, you retain at least your levels, skills, and feats. All that changes is your racial mods, and technically only the physical ones (I could see the biology of the new body affecting the mental ones as well, but I digress). That said, there are better ways to 'break people out of their molds' than this. You said you despise spiders. I take it you mean that on a deep-down, oh-dear-god-it's-on-my-leg! kind of way, rather than a purely intellectual dislike of things with 8 legs. If that's the case, your DM forcing you into a character like that isn't just wrong, it's insensitive. It's almost as bad as insisting on RPing a session where a previously-sexually-abused female player's character gets raped. Long story short, your DM's being a railroading jerk. The game only works with both players and a DM, so you have to work together. Being DM doesn't mean he becomes God, it means he's the arbiter and storyteller of the game. |
| meabolex02-05-04, 03:13 PM | I know the entire situation. I'm not the DM nor am I a player in this campaign. However, I came up with the idea of the ettercap. First of all, the spell used is arbitrary. To put a name on this unique effect that only one NPC can cast one time ever isn't fair. All this nonsense about keeping this and that "because of the rules" doesn't apply. If you want to call it a powerful wish spell, you may. However, making generalizations about it without knowing anything about it is silly. Thorak: You don't understand the situation. Calling the DM in question a jerk is like calling me a banana. Now that I've managed to get past the things that irk me about this thread, I can address the more serious issues. I honestly didn't know thug had a big issue with spiders when I came up with the idea. The fact that he had an issue with spiders kinda surprised me, considering he played aranea (a big magical spider) using a savage species progression in a game with me. So when I picked the ettercap, it was simply because I thought it allowed for some serious roleplaying potential. If he didn't like spiders, that was a new one for me. I agree that having a character forced on you in 99.5% of most situations is railroading. This is one exception -- your character has been lost, and it's your duty to get it back again. Captn Charlie's response is typical of someone who has one side of the story. This situation will only last just one session. The whole point of the adventure was to get your character back. Mechanically, I'd say there are some problems that I would have eliminated as a DM (but again, this isn't my game). I would have let them keep the wisdom and charisma scores. He did let them keep the BaB, but I probably would have defined it more in terms of a 9th level version of polymorph any object. In my opinion, thug is jumping the gun. My problem is that he didn't even try. He found out about the body-switch and immediately began to complain without attempting to roleplay it. If he honestly hated the character after playing one session with it (the only session with it), I wouldn't mind. But it's a severe case of being afraid to try something new, even if it's not exactly your favorite thing in the world. I think the point of the adventure was to make you appreciate how good it is to play the character you select. The new forms weren't under-powered by the game standards. The ettercap had the equipment of a level 10 character. It also had a BaB of thug's previous character, which was much higher than the ettercaps'. Also, high level stats were used to make the ability scores (well above 32 point buy). This thread shows how easy it is to make generalizations about a subject that you don't really have enough information about. I know the information was limited to one perspective, but terms like "poor execution" and "railroading jerk" are inappropriate in this context. I respect your position as posters in the PH forums, but please have an open mind. |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 04:31 PM | I agree with the open mind thing. Sometimes we as players get a little irked by this sort of situation, but we shouldn't let it get under our skin. However, creating a non-canon spell (that seems a wee bit more powerful than the players' current levels...) with very powerful effects that have no save and don't actually follow all the rules of the game is more or less the definition of railroading. I think that the other posters on this thread, anger aside, meant to say that a plot similar to this could have been implemented that followed the rules a little more strictly. It is not a bad plot, and the ettercap thing seems more or less accidental so it really shouldn't be an issue (it wouldn't be that hard to change it to a non-spider themed thing), but it might have been better if the plot had been tweaked to make it a little less railroad-y. *shrug* We live and we learn, ne? |
| Nagol02-05-04, 04:46 PM | I agree that having a character forced on you in 99.5% of most situations is railroading. This is one exception -- your character has been lost, and it's your duty to get it back again. I disagree. This is the epitome of railroading. The one exception to railroading you describe has to be qualified with "by impartial game mechanics" to qualify. Losing your soul to the Void qualifies, becoming Imprisoned qualifies, having the DM arbitrarily swap your body does not qualify. Granted, a player needs to trust that a DM is not trying to permanently affect the character. It is incumbent on the DM to build that trust. It is incumbent on the DM to indicate the level of permanence the change is expected to have. It is incumbent on the DM to make certain the player, if not comfortable with the situation, will tolerate the situation. If a player suggests he is uncomfortable with the incredibly arbitrary (from the player's perspective) change and requests a revision, it should be granted. |
| meabolex02-05-04, 05:21 PM | Originally posted by Nagol I disagree. This is the epitome of railroading. The one exception to railroading you describe has to be qualified with "by impartial game mechanics" to qualify. Losing your soul to the Void qualifies, becoming Imprisoned qualifies, having the DM arbitrarily swap your body does not qualify. "Railroading" implies that the DM is forcing the PCs to take actions that correspond to the DM's story-line. The DM in this case is not forcing the PCs to take actions. They were not subject to being "arbitrarily" swapped. And the mechanics described (while not exactly to my choosing) are in line with 9th level spells. It is a plot development. The characters are not obligated to get their bodies back. No one is making them think a particular way. Sometimes in life, you're handed a situation. It may be an extremely difficult or crazy situation, but you still have to deal with it. You can't just run to the forums and complain because it's hard. In D&D terms, this is a pretty tough situation for anyone to face. But the said DM has no interest in keeping these players in a particularly bad situation. He will work with them to get out of it in game, as opposed to simply destroying the entire campaign. The problem here is that thug doesn't want to deal with the situation. He refuses to face it. You can't just call any situation you don't like in your game railroading. It's a term used to describe people who are obsessed with their story and not the character's interest. The DM CARES about getting the PCs out of this. He knows they're going to be smart enough to figure it out. He just wants to work with them. |
| ryan_stone02-05-04, 05:24 PM | I must say that I agree with Meabolex. Thug, you should at least give it one session. I think that not even attempting to see where the DM was going with this idea was immature of you. I don't think this is a case of horrific railroading either. Sometimes as a DM you have to make things happen in order to progress the story or to try something new. Would you call it railroading if the DM wanted to run an adventure in Ravenloft so he has the mists roll in an transport the characters to Ravenloft? Should the players get a save to not be transported by the mists? No, becuase if they make thier saves then the game is over. Sure, it's railroading, but it has it's place in this instance. The botom line is this: It's temporary, so deal with it. It's not worth walking away from the table over one session where you have to play something other than your character. |
| PSchirf02-05-04, 05:39 PM | Another idea: If you're *really* that uncomfortable with the character contact the other players and see if any are willing to switch characters until the original bodies are restored. It takes away the DM's arguement that he put too much work into the new body forms to have you change. The transformation in each would certainly be enough to justify the slightly different personality that the toon would take on. If you can find one that is willing and the DM doesn't allow you to switch characters with another player then maybe the DM really is trying to get you to quit. |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 05:49 PM | Interesting responses. Sometimes as a DM you have to make things happen in order to progress the story or to try something new Fancy word for railroading Would you call it railroading if the DM wanted to run an adventure in Ravenloft so he has the mists roll in an transport the characters to Ravenloft? Well, according to this: Sure, it's railroading, but it has it's place in this instance. You call it railroading. My bad if I sound testy, I'm not. Just being a smart-aleck I guess. The plot portion wasn't really my sticking point. It was more the spell. Even ninth level spells usually have some restrictions. Having a ranged no DC mind switch spell is a little more powerful than most 9th level spells I know of. The witch could've just taken over the world with that one, methinks. And the railroading is also in that the characters probably shouldn't be fighting something with that calibur of spells. It means that the DM has to provide special help to get the PCs through it. Not a problem if the PC's don't care one way or the other, but it seems that he does care. what's wrong with wanting to play by the rules? But you guys are right, they should give it a chance. Especially if it's only going to last like one session. I still don't think it's a problem to switch out the ettercap to something less personally offensive to the player. Whatever. Like I say, live and learn. |
| Galahad the Pure02-05-04, 06:24 PM | I've read through and I'm with thug on this one. I'm not going to call it railroading, because the player still has options in this. However, a mindswap is a pretty dopy premise for an adventure. It makes me think of that bad Disney movie where the mom switches bodies with her daughter and everyone has some cheap laughs because they don't know how to deal with their new forms, but in the end, they all learn a valuable lesson, not that I know/care what it is. Maybe the focus of the adventure was supposed to be that by taking advantage of your new form's abilities, you'll be able to achieve some adventuring goal. If that was the DM's goal, then it's not such a silly idea. Too bad that the new form was completely distasteful to the player. There's a difference between being afraid to try something new and having no inclination whatsoever to try something new. Personally, I'm not afraid of drinking cement mix, but I can imagine that I'd probably not like it, and don't want to try it. The DM isn't at fault for forcing thug into the ettercap's body, because (if I read correctly) he didn't know that thug didn't like spiders. The DM is not entirely blameless either, but this isn't worth walking out. Anyway, thug, don't be an angerball ;) |
| Nagol02-05-04, 06:35 PM | They were not subject to being "arbitrarily" swapped Sure sounds like they were to me. We got her to the specific place, did the specific stuff, and she died. But before she dies, she casts a spell (which I don't really think she should have been able to do, given that everyone knew she was a powerful magic user, there should have been some magic-nulling something there. But that's beside the point.). However, I came up with the idea of the ettercap. First of all, the spell used is arbitrary. To put a name on this unique effect that only one NPC can cast one time ever isn't fair. All this nonsense about keeping this and that "because of the rules" doesn't apply. If you want to call it a powerful wish spell, you may. However, making generalizations about it without knowing anything about it is silly. What we do know about is a specific effect was constructed by you to lead to the specific player conundrum. I can posit from this (since you are not the DM and are the one who came up with the plot device) that the result was going to arbitrarily come about irrespective of player actions or scenario outcome. That, my friend, is railroading. It is a plot development. The characters are not obligated to get their bodies back. No one is making them think a particular way. Sometimes in life, you're handed a situation. It may be an extremely difficult or crazy situation, but you still have to deal with it. You can't just run to the forums and complain because it's hard. Railroading in general is plot development or rather developing a plot whether or not it fits with player action and circumstance. The above quote does contrast with your following point however. This situation will only last just one session. The whole point of the adventure was to get your character back. It does sound like the players are being herded through the scenario. Since the situation the players find themselves in will necessitate that the situation rectifies itself either through correcting the body switch or presumably being executed in the next session. So to recap: The DM railroaded a role change on the players expecting the players to deal with the character change as an adventure and get their normal selves returned. The players are placed in a situation where without immediate action, they will be executed. One player is aghast at losing his character. The character change activates his real life phobias and has no interest at all in playing the scenario. The player makes repeated attempts to have the DM adjust the character change to something tolerable. The DM refuses. You, who purport to have inside knowledge, claim that the change is extremely temporary and should last a session or so. It is unclear if the player had that understanding. The player is so upset with the forced character change he is looking for advice on whether to quit the campaign or not. As a player, I would certainly give it serious thought. |
| Nytmare02-05-04, 06:36 PM | I personally find that the term "railroad" gets bandied about as improperly as "munchkin" and "metagamer". Not to turn this into a debate, but I believe that there's no reason why a DM should not "railroad". I just think it should be subtle. Players should at least be given the illusion of having choices. It should fall towards manipulating and orchestrating decisions, not just flat out shovelling the players down a sliding board. It should not be done simply to preserve the DM's story, it should be done to assure that the players get a good one. This story seems to fall towards my version of what railroading should be. It wasn't done to prevent the players from achieving a goal, and it wasn't done to make people feel bad. It was done because the DM decided that that was where the best story for the players was going to be. That being said however, I think the spell should have made more sense. If not by a measure of how other spells work, at least within the story that was being told. If the cleric had the ability to cast this spell why didn't she use it before her dying breath? Why didn't she use it on herself? Did she use it on herself? Maybe this effect happened to everyone within range of her? Maybe she's occupying the body of the lawyer defending the two PCs? Maybe she's occupying the body of the judge about to sentence the two PCs to death? |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 06:50 PM | Nytmare - interesting ideas! that's actually pretty clever. You seem like you'd make a good DM! Your words do bring up some good points on why with her dying breath this witch chose to cast that spell. Technically, she'd have to be alive and conscious to cast the spell, thus she could not have been dying. If I were her, I'd cast teleport, heal up, and try to save myself as opposed to cursing the characters and bleeding to death. *shrug* maybe she was drunk. :D thus, we're not comlpletely following the rules. But that aside, railroading in general is a bad thing because if an adventure is written and executed properly, railroading isn't necessary. The characters should want to participate because of chosen incentives. Many (I'd be silly to say most, since I don't really know everyone) people prefer to have a choice in whether or not they take an adventure, even if they know they're going to take it. the option is nice to have. Not going after your body and accepting the life of a prison inmate isn't what I call a choice. *shrug* in 20 years it won't matter anyways. as Adam Smith once said, "in the long-run, we're all dead" |
| meabolex02-05-04, 07:20 PM | Nagol: The death of a 2000 year old cleric that was cursed with immortal magic is not an arbitrary event. We're not getting past the point that nothing here was arbitrary. You're either using the word incorrectly or you're not considering the implications of the plotline. The players brought about its death. It was their decision and the repercussion for their events are their responsibility. There was no intention of keeping the PCs out the form they've worked hard to maintain. The players are placed in a situation where without immediate action, they will be executed. Are you trying to use Total-Logical-Disconnect on me? (: I have not mentioned anything about being "executed," and I don't know what you're talking about. If Thug stated this, he's mistaken. No one is losing a character. If you think you're losing a character, you are metagaming. What would your character (who's in the ettercap now) think? Aww man, I'm an ettercap now -- I cut my throat.:rolleyes: The players didn't know what was coming. The major purpose of DMs is to provide a storyline that prevents the PCs from knowing what's about to happen. If you play in a predictable, textbook campaign, good for you. This campaign is something different. I know that the DM has literally filled a book with material about his campaign world (based on Terry Pratchet's Discworld), and I find it terrible that the campaign is dissolving as it is. |
| meabolex02-05-04, 07:28 PM | Originally posted by PSchirf Another idea: If you're *really* that uncomfortable with the character contact the other players and see if any are willing to switch characters until the original bodies are restored. It takes away the DM's arguement that he put too much work into the new body forms to have you change. The transformation in each would certainly be enough to justify the slightly different personality that the toon would take on. If you can find one that is willing and the DM doesn't allow you to switch characters with another player then maybe the DM really is trying to get you to quit. PS -- this is a fabulous idea. I'll try to get the DM to take this approach. |
| Nagol02-05-04, 07:38 PM | The death of a 2000 year old cleric that was cursed with immortal magic is not an arbitrary event Actually, I was trying to point out your two uses of the term arbitrary. The spell is arbitrary enough to not need any form of write-up, but the use was not arbitrary? Come now. The use f the arbitrary spell was completely arbitrary and designed to force the current situation. The event may be noteworthy, possibly even singular, but it was arbitrary. "After the players kill the 2000 year old cleric, she will use her dying breath to cast a spell expelling their minds into two dissimilar bodies no saving throw". That is about as arbitrary as you can get. (One thing that I don't want to get derailed on -- I don't really care if the situation was a railroading or not. That's not the main point here. I was just demostrating that the the situation was a railroad -- something you denied. What would your character (who's in the ettercap now) think? Aww man, I'm an ettercap now -- I cut my throat Actaully that isn't meta-gaming if the character had been played as having a phobia for arachnids -- something thugpoetry stated was the case. Meta-gaming is thinking, "mm, the DM won't let me stay this way. I know there has to be a solution to my problem nearby let's look for it." Are you trying to use Total-Logical-Disconnect on me? (: I have not mentioned anything about being "executed," and I don't know what you're talking about. My mistake. I somehow got from being in a courtroom to being convicted and awaiting punishment. Not sure how -- probably my day at work leaking through. The players don't need to know what is coming. Where did I imply that? The DM has to build enough trust with the players for the players to tolerate huge shifts. It is the responsibility of the DM to guage the abilitiy of the players to tolerate large changes to their characters and stay within the comfort zone of the players. If a player becomes agitated at seemingly arbitrary and unpleasant shifts in his character, the DM has a responsibility to soothe the player. |
| iamjimdavis02-05-04, 07:42 PM | Thug - Quit the group and find a new one. Seriously As a player you have every right to be angry and upset. You're not jumping the gun or refusing to experience new modes of play. This was an arbitrary situation and if it were me I'd walk out of the game. Does that make me a bad person or a bad roleplayer? No. What it means is that I want to play a character I created, not something that my DM created. This notion that it advances the plot or makes you appreciate playing the character you made is horse hockey. Walk away, even if they are your best friends. There are better and more enjoyable ways to game. |
| Nytmare02-05-04, 07:47 PM | Originally posted by iamjimdavis Quit the group and find a new one. Should he take his toys with him after he throws the temper tantrum? |
| iamjimdavis02-05-04, 07:56 PM | It's only a temper tantrum if he screams and hollers. I don't remember saying that throwing a fit was a good thing to do, but if he walks out and tells everyone calmly why he did it then thats fine. Why play with a group that you can't trust? Or with a DM you can't trust? I don't remember there being any contracts needed to game. There are times when it's appropriate to stick around, but I just don't think this is one of them. Besides he asked for advice and I gave him some. Whether thugpoetry listens or not is up to him. |
| meabolex02-05-04, 07:57 PM | Removed by request |
| Nytmare02-05-04, 08:05 PM | Originally posted by iamjimdavis Why play with a group that you can't trust? Or with a DM you can't trust? I don't remember there being any contracts needed to game. How is this the DM, or anyone for that matter, betraying the player's trust? Is there some general ruling where when things don't go your way the world has to change to make you happy or suffer the consequences? |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 08:08 PM | No need to be testy there. If no one- thug, you, or the DM- was willing to try to sit down and look at this logically, then maybe it wasn't meant to be. everyone in the campaign is supposed to enjoy the game, not 2/3 of the group. So there were some people posting messages on a message board. We were just trying to give thug some advice, and it ranged from 'suck it up' to 'get the h3ll out of dodge'. We seem to be an uncharismatic bunch, but this is just supposed to be constructive criticism. the players should take a breather and try to come to terms with things, maybe learning some patience in the process, and the DM should count to 10, and try to come up with a solution that makes everyone happy. thug didn't seem dissatisfied with anything but the ettercap anyways. If you changed it to a freaking troll or gnome or even a *shudder* kender he sounds like he wouldn't care. then the story could go on. no one should buckle after reading the rantings of a bunch of nerds.:D just try to make everyone happy, and you don't have to ditch everything. the solution is easy. |
| Nagol02-05-04, 08:30 PM | I love this word "arbitrary" -- it's as if you know what you're talking about (: I do. You quoted the wrong definition though. Arbitrary -- Depending on will or discretion; not governed by any fixed rules; as, an arbitrary decision The act of magic coming together to make a fireball is "arbitrary." No it is not. It is governed by fixed rules in the game. Those game rules are arbitrary, however the consequences of the rules are not. The easiest way to agitate players is to make sweeping changes to their characters without their input. It makes a lot of sense -- those are the players' characters. A player usually understands when unwanted things happen to his character based upon the game rules. "DARN! The 2000 year old cleric hit me with a Destruction in the final round! One round earlier and I'd still be alive!" A player usually does not understand when things are forced upon his character arbitrarily (there is that darned word again) and without his input or agreement. Add in the feelings of favouritism and the the player becomes annoyed. Mix in the phobia and you will have a seriously troubled player. Troubled players should re-evaluate if the game is important enough for them to deal with the trouble. Sorry if that offended the DM, but if the game is causing more grief than it is providing fun it is time to quit. I've thrown that type of situation and worse on my players for years. The trick is (1) building up the trust level to the point where the players will give me a pass for a short while (2) choosing the effect and affected players carefully, (3) making certain they understand that its not personal or vindictive, and (4) using the effect in a non-arbitrary way during play so the player know they have a chance to avoid/control the flow of the game. The few times a player grew agitated I discussed the problem with the player and made necessary adjustments to the situation to alleviate the discomfort. I have never told one "if it's a gamebreaker then it's a gamebreaker" EXCEPT when the result was non-arbitrary and well-understood mechanic (i.e. governed by the rules of the game and played fairly and fully at the table). |
| thugpoetry02-05-04, 09:17 PM | Hey...lighten up. This is supposed to be an airing of opinions. Meabolex, as we've discussed for about 30 minutes on AIM...you know what I think. I know what you think. Just to clear a few things up. It's not a phobia with me. It's close. But I do not suffer from arachiaphobia. I don't see it as a temper tantrum. If I don't like doing something, I don't do it. Not if I'm only doing that something for fun to begin with. This principle applies to pretty much everything that I do. I don't play or watch baseball because I consider it to be a boring sport. Why would I play DnD when I don't think that I would have fun as the next session stands? I don't see this as a big enough deal to completely destroy the whole group. At most, I see it as a big enough deal to stop the current campaign. But, we'll see how it works out. I would like to thank everyone who chimed in and managed to stay on topic. These posts were logical, well-written, and expressed the full range of opinions that were available. I humbly thank everyone who took the time to read this thread. |
| Dun Fe'Ran02-05-04, 09:19 PM | You're quite mature about the whole thing!:) Good response |
| PhaedrusXY02-05-04, 09:42 PM | Originally posted by Nytmare How is this the DM, or anyone for that matter, betraying the player's trust? Is there some general ruling where when things don't go your way the world has to change to make you happy or suffer the consequences? No, but D&D is a game that most of us play to have fun. If I play a few times with a DM and don't like their style, I don't play with them anymore. It's that simple. If I am not enjoying the game, why stick around? If I go to a movie and find it so not to my liking that I would be more comfortable leaving than sitting through the rest of it, I leave. Why should D&D be any different? They are both forms of recreation. And "railroading" aside, I think switching the character's classes is ridiculous. There are effects in place in the game that can swap the minds of two creatures, but they keep their classes. A wizard casts spells because he has spent years learning how to. A druid casts spells because they are such a devout follower of a god (or nature), that said greater being sees fit to give them divine powers. These are not things that can be changed by anything in the entire published body of Dungeons and Dragons materials, nor should they be. (Edit: Guess I should have read the entire thread. I pretty much just echoed what Thug says in the post before this one. :D ) |
| thugpoetry02-09-04, 11:46 PM | Well, it's settled. There will be no more gaming with that particular grouping. The DM has decided that he will no longer DM for me, and I have decided that I will no longer be playing with him. I suppose it could be seen as the two of us both throwing temper tantrums, if you wanted to see it like that. It's basically a staring contest at this point, save there's not much reason to stare. Just take my stuff and go home. Anyway, I'd like to (again) thank everyone who chimed in with reasoned opinions, regardless of which side of the fence you came down on. And Meabolex, while you may think that I just don't want to face the situation, and you and DM can tell each other the same nonsense you like to tell each other, I know the truth about why I made a big deal about this. If you can't or willfully fail to see that distinction...well...I don't really care. :) |
| Phist02-10-04, 12:03 AM | This is a form of railroading but not the kind to frown upon. I'd call it a plot twist. You want campaign that's little more than a siries of stand-alones? If not your DM is entitled to force you somewhere. If something happens that's beyond the PCs conrols, is it automatically railroading? Of course not, that happens in real life too and no one is railroading you here. The fact that you're an ettercap is just a bit of irony. I think the DM is taking a less than subtle jab at the fact that all your characters hate spiders. I would do something similar if I was the DM. Just out of curiousity, how did the court case go? |
| thugpoetry02-10-04, 12:48 AM | The court case went like so: "Your honor, we have a powerful criminal here, can we put her at the top of the list?" "Sure" Confessions ensue, since the cursed cleric that she was could only truly die if she was forced to confess her crimes on holy ground before a holy judge. Said conditions were met. Her final words were those of a pretty spell, which had the game effect of what twerked me and ultimately caused the game to fall apart. If it were just the ettercap, then maybe I could see the irony. But beyond irony is just trying to irritate your player. The spider familiar, plus the ettercap? Bleh. Not fun. |
| Raymond_Luxury_Yacht02-10-04, 01:20 AM | How about this. The shock of being put into the body of a creature with features of your character's phobia has shattered your character's mind. Your character has now become homicidally insane. Start picking off important NPCs one by one. The best thing is, you have a legitimate excuse. |
| Glak02-11-04, 09:54 PM | It seems as if nearly all of the responses are missing the point. Railroading is not the issue. It is spiders. Thug has real life issues with spiders. Forcing him to play a spider character is abuse. Tell the DM that it is, ask for a different form. When that doesn't work quit the game. If you aren't having fun it isn't a game. |
| human_folly02-13-04, 07:38 AM | Firstly, the only place I've ever heard 'angerball' is in the very excellent film, Playing by Heart. As to Thug's situation: I would define rail-roading as a DM making something happen that runs contrary to what makes sense, just in the name of the story. This most often manifests as disregarding character actions, and the consequences there-of. There appears to be a certain amount of rail-roading involved in this situation. The DM decided what he wanted to happen, and tried to come up with a way for it to happen. What he failed at was having a logical 'reason' for it to happen. When confronted with death, what did the 2000 year-old cleric do with her last breath? Curse the people responsible? Oh, the terrible fate of those who had wronged her... not! But rail-roading is more of an irritant than a problem. The real problem, is that when presented with a player who was uncomfortable with what had just happened, (and he must have known most, if not all of them would be), the DM didn't reassure the player, he basically said "Yeah, I thought it would be fun to upset you". That doesn't speak of a person who takes responsibility for developing a player's trust, but instead demands it as a given. But anyway, I'm late to the party, and the problem's over. |
| CrippleMrOnion12-03-04, 04:52 PM | :bump: |
| Mikal12-03-04, 05:20 PM | I know the entire situation. I'm not the DM nor am I a player in this campaign. However, I came up with the idea of the ettercap. First of all, the spell used is arbitrary. To put a name on this unique effect that only one NPC can cast one time ever isn't fair. All this nonsense about keeping this and that "because of the rules" doesn't apply. Wrong. This isn't 'Storytime Theatre'. This is DnD. DnD is a game. It has rules. If something happens, it happens do to a spell effect. Even if it was an epic level spell, it has a name, it has a school, it has a casting time, it (may) have components. By saying it just happens you have a sloppy game, and a sloppy DM. A good DM has good mechanics, just like he has good story telling skills. Even if all you have to say is 'this is an epic level spell that combines polymorph other with modify memory (complete arcane spell) combined with an special epic stat rearrangement', then you have the mechanics covered. But you never ignore them. Mechanically, I'd say there are some problems that I would have eliminated as a DM (but again, this isn't my game). I would have let them keep the wisdom and charisma scores. He did let them keep the BaB, but I probably would have defined it more in terms of a 9th level version of polymorph any object. Technically, he should have let them keep their class levels/abilities, mental scores (int, cha, wisdom), and thats it. But eh, that's his choice, even if it's mechanically not good ;) |
| ShadowDragon868512-03-04, 06:40 PM | Why was this bumped? In any event... My take on this situation? This is not just railroading. This is railroading, Uncle Joe Stalin style. This is bull****. This is stuffing the players onto a train pullin' out of the station, at last minute, and said train is decorated with red stars. Thug has every right to be ******. I'd be ******. This is arbitrary, it's sloppy, it's bad DMing, and it's akin to having the character of a rape victim raped, and doing so in graphic detail. The DM needs to be slapped with a wet fish. |
| Ty12-04-04, 01:01 PM | I agree with the question as to why this was bumped. It seems the thread ended almost a year ago. This DM and module? Reminds me of our group almost nine years ago. Using a "plotline" as an excuse for hooking PC's and dragging them along the railroad is to be frank, amateur. Sorry to be blunt but those sorts of campaigns will end up in the players eventually becoming jaded and uninterested in the game. DM's may have a story cooked up. They may have wonderful rationales behind why they do certain things in-game to players. However, it is a railroad. It's just more subtle than "Deity X walks in to save the day" or "You have to do Y quest or you all will die tomorrow." Maybe it works for some groups, maybe not. I for one, would walk. I and the other DM's in my group stopped this years ago for the exact reason the original poster seems have originally posted. He doesn't know what to do and he has stopped enjoying himself because the DM, for whatever reason, knows best. |
| SammasterT12-04-04, 01:40 PM | Hail! I have to admit that I only glanced over all of the posts in this thread, but I don't really see what the problem is. You don't like spiders? But you are now in an ettercaps body, and ettercaps like spiders? Well, then you would be a very peculiar ettercap!! One that didn't like spiders! :D Don't like being an ettercap? Well, tell the DM that you and yours will be questing to find a way to reverse the spell? And then, if he doesn't create viable oppurtunities for this quest, and for it to actually succeed, then dump him/her. I have forced my characters in many uncomfortable situations before, and heard all of the grumbling, but once they oriented themselves, and realized that things change, change back, do back flips, all kinds of crazy quantumm physics stuff, etc. they came to appreciate (after having went through the trouble to se things *mostly right* of course) what they had went through. Ultimately, while players should be willing to endure things they don't like or agree with in a game (if they have any sense), enjoyment is the ultimate point. A player shouldn't be forever locked into playing something they don't enjoy playing. It defeats the purpose. |
| thugpoetry12-05-04, 11:21 AM | Well....I think this would be the best place to discuss the new development... So, the last campaign ground to a halt and me and the DM had a staring contest that, did indeed, wind up with me taking my books and going home. However, we're both gamers through and through...and honestly, the best games I ever played were with him as a DM. Long story short, he invited me to join the new group that he had going...and I accepted. The current campaign is basically this. They started as a normal party, I joined, we were a normal party. But, the problem is, we keep fighting spiders. Not like "there's two monsterous spiders ahead. roll initative" but more like "ahead, you see little in the gloom besides a multitude of glittering eyes and two massive fangs dripping poison." Just good detail, right? Right. It kinda makes me shift in my seat, but it's just the same detail that he's always provided. But we kept fighting spiders. All kinds of spiders. Well described, huge, icky, spiders. Not every encounter, mind you...there's still the ogres to be handled...but there was one encounter that we found a dead ogre, all dissolved and eaten. By *rolls knowledge:nature* a big honkin spider! It's not all fighting. We've talked to the areneas in the area, and they were cryptic. Something about a prophecy in their world. I've talked to him again, and he said that it "might" die down, but that he has reasons for it, and I should just "suck it up". ... What do you think? Is he subtly twerking me, or am I just overreacting? |
| ShadowDragon868512-05-04, 11:58 AM | That's harassment, thug. Pure and simple. That's doing things to **** with you. See the analogy of constantly raping (or exposing to rape,) the victim of a real-life rape. Dump this loser, or tell him to @%^*)ing STOP. |
| meabolex12-05-04, 12:09 PM | This is not just railroading. This is railroading, Uncle Joe Stalin style. Any good DM is essentially a benevolent dictator. He tries to do the right thing -- give the PCs plenty of options and plenty of ideas to get through and out of various situations. But in the end, the DM decides what the game is -- in style, in format, and in mechanics. If you get turned into an ettercap because of a new effect, that's the DM's decision, not the players. If the DM made every choice in how the story progressed -- what individual choices were made -- then that's bad DMing. But there was no choice here. . . there were consequences. The players angered something ultimately powerful and they paid for it. A good DM (like the DM in question) was well-prepared to let the PCs figure out how to get out the said situation. However, it never quite got that far. Thug has every right to be ******. I'd be ******. This is arbitrary, it's sloppy, it's bad DMing, and it's akin to having the character of a rape victim raped, and doing so in graphic detail. I still don't understand what's arbitrary about cause and effect. Sloppy I'll give you -- at least mechanically. I don't think it's bad DMing for a variety of reasons. But the bottom line is that the DM did not make the choices for the PCs. The PCs were put in a tough spot by their own decisions. . . not some arbitrary whim of the DM. If that isn't clear, you might want to read both sides of the story. The DM needs to be slapped with a wet fish. Hmmm. Occasionally the DM in question does need this treatment though (: |
| meabolex12-05-04, 12:17 PM | Even if it was an epic level spell, it has a name, it has a school, it has a casting time, it (may) have components. By saying it just happens you have a sloppy game, and a sloppy DM. That's a pretty odd chain of reasoning. So, as a DM, you write an epic spell for everything you do that isn't defined clearly in the DMG? Do you not use effects that aren't clearly labeled in the DMG? Oh, I'm a huge fan of playing by the rules. I love drawing up all kinds of rules for all kinds of situations. However, the rules only go so far. You have to improvise at some point. . . or else you become boxed in or predictable. Yes, I didn't particularly like the exact rules behind this situation. However, it wouldn't have been that hard to do, as you say, an epic level spell specifically designed to do what happened. And since the creature in question was essentially epic in power, it's not far-fetched to assume it had this epic spell enabled. The PCs didn't get huge experience for killing it -- that's because it wasn't that hard. However, the PCs did trigger a powerful curse, which is simply a session away from removal. |
| ShadowDragon868512-05-04, 12:25 PM | Yes, yes you do. Everything must have rules, everything must have a save, or a damned good reason why it does not. This thing that happened is only one step removed from "A piano falls out of the sky and kills you." That, and it was utter bollocks. When your mind gets swapped, you don't get a new character sheet. You get a new body, that's it. |
| meabolex12-05-04, 12:32 PM | Everything must have rules, everything must have a save, or a damned good reason why it does not. Reason: the curse does not offer a save (: Why? Because the curse doesn't as the DM defined it. That should be good enough, but if you need a damned good reason: because it's so powerful that it doesn't. Random specific reasons that could be used (but weren't): affects creatures under a certain hit dice count, offers spell resistance only, etc. For instance, let's say you're falling in an air-filled space between two fields of gravity (two large bodies of mass providing the gravity). The gravity fluctuates randomly between the fall. Does the DMG specifically cover combat rules for falling through this field? Or the effects of spells in this space? Or does the DM "arbitrarily" define the rules for this area? If the DMG doesn't say it, it can't possibly exist? I thought this was a fantasy game! Whatever happened to imagination? |
| was_fired12-05-04, 11:37 PM | Imagination is largely an extension of ones logic and previous experiance. I know people can fly, but what if they could. This is using imagination. Logical steps make these cases interesting and enjoyable. Random leaps into the void are meaningless since others can't follow the same path. Example: Good: 1. Vampires are undead which feed of blood which sustains our bodies. Souls sustain our esence. So what if there was a kind of vampire that fed on souls? 2. Humans have finite power and finite preception. What if there was a being without these limitations. What would it be like? 3. I can make a fire with these tools. Fire can sometimes show up without people doing anything though. What if a person could make fire without tools? Bad: 1. I sit on a chair. What if my chair ate me and started dancing? 2. I DM in a game with rules one of which states that for the good of the game I can bend these rules. What if the good of the game wasn't defined as a fun time? Then I could break the rules to **** my players off for my fun right? |
| Lord Schpungus12-06-04, 12:42 AM | Suck it up. Also, tell him in no uncertain terms that spiders really freak you out. And that he should stop. He should know this by now. The other option would be to suck it up and expand your horizons. These here are fake spiders; spiders of the imagination, as it were. |
| The Man from Uncle12-06-04, 08:48 AM | Cool. This is superb. I have not seen a defence put up of such an open and shut case since the OJ Simpson trial. My hat is off to you Meabolex. You have invented a whole new way in which people should think about things. You could have gone for a 'DM with good intentions' defence or the more difficult to get sympathy for 'Sulky player always tries to get his own way' defence, but instead you went for the broadly semantic, removal of common sense defence. Outstanding. By bothering to defend definitions of words; 'arbitary', 'railroading' and even adding to the mix a few extras that people might pick up on like 'metagaming', you totally redefined the point in question in terms that had no clear truth value. Remarkable. I mean, really really good. There were bright people here trying to get you to appreciate why they used the WORD arbitary and instead of appreciating the intent of their language you attacked in on a technicality. Marvelous. (Though, to be fair more succesful due to your own stuborness than your understanding of the language. Your cause and effect position.....staggering, but again, well done.) I genuinly can't see a single reason why the DM (way back whenever this happened) didn't just change the race and explain his intentions to poor old thug. Thug seemed to be mostly driven on emotion and principle, and they are both easily fixed with a little dialoge. I mean, how easy is it: DM comes up with an arbitary idea (meaning that, to the players, it was unexpected, beyond prediction, without justification and occurring in a manner inconsistant with what they had grown to expect (ie the rules)), player is unhappy and voices this.....DM says.....love it or leave it. Players says....but....i just want to play a fun game.....you know me....why torture me with something (even if it is based on an irrationallity) that i don't like? DM says.....because......screw you i am the DM, i can do what i like! Player says.....but....i don't understand.....DM says.....talk to Meabolex. Awesome |
| Nagol12-06-04, 02:12 PM | I've talked to him again, and he said that it "might" die down, but that he has reasons for it, and I should just "suck it up". ... What do you think? Is he subtly twerking me, or am I just overreacting? I would suggest the following strategy: Pick a number between 2 and 5. Attend that many more sessions. If the situations are still unpleasant and continually concentrate on areas that provide you discomfort tell the DM that the game was interesting, but you no longer have time for his campaign at this time. Walk away and stay away. Be polite. Do not threaten. Do not issue ultimatums. Do not rehash the past. Do not get involved in more discussions about why you are uncomfortable. Find a game you can enjoy with a DM and players who will respect your boundaries and that will be fun for you. Life has too much stress for entertainment to add to it. |
| meabolex12-06-04, 07:12 PM | You could have gone for a 'DM with good intentions' defence or the more difficult to get sympathy for 'Sulky player always tries to get his own way' defence, but instead you went for the broadly semantic, removal of common sense defence. I could have gone with the 'let's use sarcasm instead of make a real point' attack, but I see that one's been taken (: There were bright people here trying to get you to appreciate why they used the WORD arbitary and instead of appreciating the intent of their language you attacked in on a technicality. Technicality? So that's what the truth is now? (: Though, to be fair more succesful due to your own stuborness than your understanding of the language. Your cause and effect position.....staggering, but again, well done. Here's an idea. You present a valid idea on topic. I'll ponder it, accept it or reject it, and let you know how it goes. It's quite a game! I'm not quite familiar with the off-topic, let's attack people instead of positions, I-can't-think-of-anything-better-to-do-than-be-a-mule's-bottom discussion. But as you can see, I'm learning (: |
| meabolex12-06-04, 07:29 PM | I would suggest the following strategy: Pick a number between 2 and 5. Attend that many more sessions. If the situations are still unpleasant and continually concentrate on areas that provide you discomfort tell the DM that the game was interesting, but you no longer have time for his campaign at this time. Walk away and stay away. Be polite. Do not threaten. Do not issue ultimatums. Do not rehash the past. Do not get involved in more discussions about why you are uncomfortable. Find a game you can enjoy with a DM and players who will respect your boundaries and that will be fun for you. Life has too much stress for entertainment to add to it. Extremely sound advice worth following. I totally agree with this approach in most cases. Unfortunately, that wasn't how it played out. The player in question picked the number zero. The negotiations yielded the number: zero. And the final number agreed to was: you guessed it, zero. However, there are circumstances that result in zero. A DM/player(s) at the session gets in a physical confrontation with me. A shouting match will usually do it. A sudden souring of relations because of some external problem. A criminal activity taking place, etc. Being an ettercap for one session, perhaps a half of a session? The only logical reason to complain is horrible diaper-rash or a not-so-chewy pacifier. |
| The Man from Uncle12-06-04, 07:41 PM | Meabolex......you should have your own theme music. I ain't stepping in the ring with you dude. I'm a spectator not a matador. |
| meabolex12-06-04, 08:04 PM | Meabolex......you should have your own theme music. I ain't stepping in the ring with you dude. I'm a spectator not a matador. I do have my own theme music. It's called "The Night The Troll Made A Single Point." I would repeat the lyrics here, but I fear the moderators wouldn't approve -- like they really approve of this anyway (: Again, less points, more fluff. You sir should work at a poodle kennel (: But, to make some attempt to remain on topic and somewhat diet los espectadores incompetentes, I mean trolls, I believe Mr. Thugpoetry really liked his character. He worked with his DM to create a prestige class. He meticulously designed the character for maybe what, a few days. The DM had filled several tomes with material, wrote profoundly good adventures with this character in mind, and labored literally for weeks and weeks to design the perfect encounters, both mechanically and conceptually. Part of the reason Thug became so attached to his character was the genuine labors of the DM. How surprising is it that 'Thug' (a fitting name in this instance) decided to ruin the DM's entire game because of a trivial idea that I proposed -- not even being a member of the game? And to the DM in question, I applaud you for sticking to your guns. Silly players! Why do they ever want to work AGAINST the DM instead of with him. *shakes head* In all seriousness, if it were really a big deal, I could understand. I consider myself an understanding person. But it is simply so petty that it blows my mind. Oh well, the damage is done. |
| thugpoetry12-06-04, 09:41 PM | Meabolex....I'm still not sure who you think that you're fooling with the wannabe logic and the half-tailed points, but you're certainly not fooling me. We'll get to my gaming history in a moment...let's take a look at yours. In the last two games that you and I played in together, both times you were a betrayer. This could mean that you and the DM worked together to have an interesting and engaging plot point come about. The first time. The second time showed me exactly what was going on. That you were an attention hungry player who had mad schemes and no place for those schemes to come into being. And most of all, you were and still are someone who holds basic rules of gaming that are very different than the rest of us. Perhaps it was fun for you to spend 40 minutes fighting a sheet. By yourself. The rest of us, however, were very bored. The only theme music you have when you come in should be the theme to MST3k...because you make a mockery of every game that you touch. I shudder to think about what the campaign you DM is like. Meabolex, you said, quote, "The DM had filled several tomes with material, wrote profoundly good adventures with this character in mind, and labored literally for weeks and weeks to design the perfect encounters, both mechanically and conceptually. Part of the reason Thug became so attached to his character was the genuine labors of the DM." So, by your reasoning, the fact that he had filled so much stuff with material for his game, that I should just shut up and play whatever he wanted? Nope. Sorry, wrong answer. Here's my reasons why, if you want to remove the blindfold of mediocrity long enough to see them. 1) Almost all of the material that he came up with was for me. The biggest reason his world got fleshed out was because I interacted with it for a period of at least 2 years. Probably closer to 4, but I'll err on the side of conservatism. 2) If I wanted to be stuck in a linear storyline, with linear mechanics, and no sayso about anything that my character did, I'd go play diablo ii. And I do play diablo ii. When I want to hold down a button and slay everything, no thought required. DnD, however, I hold to a higher standard. 3) If he put "literally weeks and weeks" into it, then he should have come to the conclusion that I would wig out. He knew me well enough to know that if I don't want to do something, I don't do it, and I don't really care about what other people care about it. Much like I don't really care about what you think about it. I simply think it's funny that you're so quick to blame me for not doing what I didn't want to do, and so quick to praise him for sticking to his guns. "Unfortunately, that wasn't how it played out. The player in question picked the number zero. The negotiations yielded the number: zero. And the final number agreed to was: you guessed it, zero." Negotiations? What negotiations? There was "Will you change it for me please?/NO I'M THE MASTER HERE ACCEPT THE GAGBALL AND LIKE IT"" and "I PUT IN A LOT OF WORK" "Being an ettercap for one session, perhaps a half of a session? The only logical reason to complain is horrible diaper-rash or a not-so-chewy pacifier." The real reason has been presented to you time and time again. You say that you never knew how to deal with attack the person not the position arguments...this statement, and many of your previous statements, tend to rebutt that argument. One last quote, then I'm done with being mired in this idiocy. Meabolex: "I'm not quite familiar with the off-topic, let's attack people instead of positions, I-can't-think-of-anything-better-to-do-than-be-a-mule's-bottom discussion. But as you can see, I'm learning (:" You've always known how to do that. It's all that you do. |
| The Man from Uncle12-06-04, 10:29 PM | Watches on munching popcorn, wondering if the penny will drop and the simple truths be uncovered....Will Meabolex notice that the player was unhappy? Or will he continue to explain the DMs praise-worthy gun sticking in terms of time and effort?..... Well done for getting that off your chest thug. Your displeasure is quite understandable, not least because you are dealing with a person who 'holds basic rules....that are very different than the rest of us.' Eyes turn stage left (Theme music comes back on, we await the protagonist) |
| e-z0r12-06-04, 11:29 PM | thugpoetry, I know nothing of you, let me get that clear. So I'm particularly prone to being wrong in any of my assumptions. So: I agree, if you don't have fun playing, don't play. And so on and so forth. How old are you? Guessing by how well you express yourself, I'd say you were at least over 16, likely much over that. By that age, I say it's really unprobable that you haven't yet come to the understanding that sometimes we must suffer some things that aren't fun, in order to hold on to the things that are fun. Wouldn't you agree? What I mean by this is, that while it's understandable that you don't like being forced to either play spidery characters or fight spiders, you must ask yourself if it really overweighs the fun times you've had in the past and might have in the future? After all, a gaming session lasts for how long? 6 hours? 8 hours? 12 hours? It's not that big of a time in your life to spend, maybe doing something you don't like, if it pays off to having a lot of fun in the future. By no means am I attacking you. For example, the DM not making a change after you expressed your feelings is just not nice. Yet, the DM isn't participating in this conversation and it feels moot to talk about him. It comes down to you and how you handle the situation. Do you quit the whole group? Do you simply abstain from the sessions until the situations pass? Do you try to reason with the DM? Your choice. |
| bitnine12-06-04, 11:30 PM | Hm. Let's say I've got game notes, and in my notes it indicates that at a certain point of the session something happens to the players - in this case, something as robust and campaign-altering as mind swapping. There's no leading indicator, no definate mechanics, no conditions, just a note: at this part of the story, this happens to the players. No avoidance, no interaction, no dynamic element to the direction. That's the very definition of a static capaign element. Many times when people talk about "railroading," they are indicating a game that's framed and directed by static elements that do not allow for alteration or player determinism, such as this example. Many folk find such distasteful and do not want to be part of such a game. To be honest, I can understand why. |
| meabolex12-07-04, 10:33 AM | Hm. Let's say I've got game notes, and in my notes it indicates that at a certain point of the session something happens to the players - in this case, something as robust and campaign-altering as mind swapping. There's no leading indicator, no definate mechanics, no conditions, just a note: at this part of the story, this happens to the players. No avoidance, no interaction, no dynamic element to the direction. That's the very definition of a static capaign element. Many times when people talk about "railroading," they are indicating a game that's framed and directed by static elements that do not allow for alteration or player determinism, such as this example. Many folk find such distasteful and do not want to be part of such a game. To be honest, I can understand why. Valid and well-crafted points Bitnine! I'll certainly address the Thug's comments later (as I'm sure the Lord of the Poodles can't wait). However, I'd like to present some distortion removal (otherwise known as my biased perspective) in response to some dubious ideas presented by Thug. I completely agree with your definition of railroading. I also completely understand the point you make in your first paragraph. A previous poster mentioned 'a piano falls on your head [and you die]' -- that of course is ridiculous! However, there are some key distinctions in this situation between railroading and what played out in this adventure. There's no leading indicator, no definate mechanics, no conditions, just a note: at this part of the story, this happens to the players. No avoidance, no interaction, no dynamic element to the direction. Now, I don't know about your games, but when you interact with extremely powerful entities (IE, a powerful NPC, a god, something that is rather dangerous at virtually any level), there's a certain level of randomness that can happen in that situation. Your DM can have you never meet excessively powerful beings until you're ready to kill them -- but that eliminates the verisimilitude of any decent campaign. Look at Mordenkainen or Elminster! The PCs in this particular adventure knew that they were dealing with an extremely powerful being. The power of that being was relatively self-restrained, but it still had considerable effectiveness. When you're dealing with dangerously powerful bad guys, you have to expect crazy stuff to happen. You have to be fully aware of the entire range of powers the creature is capable of -- or at least TRY to be aware. The PCs in question made no attempt to gauge the true power of the being. They tried to cast no divination spell or did not consult one NPC for the purpose of predicting what would happen. They essentially opened themselves up to the whim of the DM. The definite mechanics of an extremely powerful being are difficult to define, even with the epic handbook. But I don't think the exact definition of mechanics defines railroading or not. I can think of several examples where mechanics have to be created. . . the D&D system only goes so far. Imagination has to be an important element, especially when the power level goes very high. The condition for triggering the curse was very clear. . . they satisfied the exact conditions for the being to die. As it was dying, it unleashed a curse. Curses (as you probably know) are excellent tools for DMs to control the flow of the game because they're typically unique effects. The spell Bestow Curse contains the following lines at the end of its text (which strangely aren't in the SRD): You may also invent your own curse, but it should be no more powerful than those described above, and the DM has final say on the curse's effect. While the curse in question obviously wasn't created with Bestow Curse, an epic version of bestow curse could create effects within the range of body swapping (again, the mind swapping mechanics were a little coarse for my tastes). So, the PCs interacted with the powerful NPC -- killing it with predetermined conditions. The PCs made no attempt to avoid facing the wrath of a dying, extremely powerful creature -- including no divination (either by themselves or by others). The PCs could have completely avoided killing the being if they chose to do so -- but they made that decision. . . it was not forced upon them. I'm not saying this was the best adventure idea. I'm also not saying that this was an idea that I'd even do regularly or even again in my campaigns (judging by the childish reactions). But I'm convinced that it still was a valid campaign element and not worth destroying a campaign over. |
| Nagol12-07-04, 11:27 AM | Being an ettercap for one session, perhaps a half of a session? The only logical reason to complain is horrible diaper-rash or a not-so-chewy pacifier. Actually, the advice was in response to thugpoetry's more recent post of what to do while now playing under the same DM in a new campaign full of spiders. This will be the last time I comment on the original point of this thread. I have no sympathy with the previous campaign's crash and burn. It is entirely the DMs fault, in my view. He pushed a player beyond that person's comfort zone. When approached about the problem, he refused to consider modifying the scenario to accomodate the player even though the accomodation seems quite simple to this outsider ("Did I saw Ettercap and spider familier? I meant Lizardman and toad!"). The campaign failed as a result. No one should be required to participate in something that makes them very uncomfortable when they are seeking entertainment. If a player feels uncomfortable enough not to participate, I as a DM have failed. |
| e-z0r12-07-04, 02:43 PM | Someone argued the point of not getting a save. Well, there are plenty of spells without saves. Such as Power Word, Blind, Power Word, Kill, Magic Missile and whatnot. I should know, my 15th level rogue having been blinded today by a Death Slaad's Power Word, Blind. There's only the spell resistance, and this particular Death Slaad had no trouble blasting over my measly 26 SR. |
| meabolex12-07-04, 03:14 PM | o one should be required to participate in something that makes them very uncomfortable when they are seeking entertainment. OK. If I were to say to you (being serious) that I can't stand it when my character dies -- that it makes me PHYSICALLY ILL -- would you let me be in my "comfort zone" by preventing me from ever dying? Personally, I find the whole process of dying quite disturbing. I don't think it would be a stretch to take someone out of their comfort zone by telling them they're dead. As a DM, would you change the entire game to modify the idea that dying bothered me, simply because it made me feel uncomfortable? Why not give me a bottle while you're at it? BTW, the whole "it's out of my comfort zone" garbage from Thug is BS. Don't let him fool you. He's played spider characters before. He didn't like it that he lost his spellcasting ability and the ettercap is relatively physically weak. He even agreed in concept until he saw the low physical stats. . . which happen to be next to the ettercap picture, which was his silly excuse. Does that sound ridiculous? Yes, it does. Is that typical for Thug? Of course. |
| thugpoetry12-07-04, 03:39 PM | As usual, meabolex, you have a..."unique" take on things. Call it what you want, but I'll tell you this about the original game. Had it been Lizardman and toad with the same exact stats, spiderfree...this entire thread would never have come into being, I'd still have gamed with that DM in that campaign, and we wouldn't have a problem. Everyone reading, please open your Monster Manual to the picture of the Aerena. Take a good look. Now, turn to the Ettercap picture. Which one do you think is more likely trigger reactions to playing? Especially when the aerena has the shapeshift ability to look like a normal person, so I wouldn't have to deal with the spider aspect at all. And meabolex, if you're going to make analogies, please make the analogies somewhat the same. If you have a serious aversion (like my aversion to spiders) to your character dying, then you shouldn't be playing DnD. That's a personal thing. I never played an ettercap character. Closest I came was an Aerena as a middling NPC. :) I understand the reducio ad absurdum argument technique. The part that most people always found tough was to demonstrate absurdity without proving theirselves absurd as well. Guess you'll keep working on that, eh? I never made the choice to play anything with a spider familiar, for that matter. And I've played LOTS of wizards. Your arguments make sense in your world. However, out here in the real world, you'd need either the ability to concede something or rock solid arguments to make me come to a consensus on this matter. Thus far, you've demonstrated neither of the two. Therefore, YAM. :) *hands Meabolex a bottle, as requested* |
| Nagol12-07-04, 05:41 PM | OK. If I were to say to you (being serious) that I can't stand it when my character dies -- that it makes me PHYSICALLY ILL -- would you let me be in my "comfort zone" by preventing me from ever dying? Personally, I find the whole process of dying quite disturbing. I don't think it would be a stretch to take someone out of their comfort zone by telling them they're dead. As a DM, would you change the entire game to modify the idea that dying bothered me, simply because it made me feel uncomfortable? Why not give me a bottle while you're at it? No, I would suggest you need to find a different hobby and would no longer be welcome at my current game. If that was likely to force the campaign to end, I would suggest to the group that we play a different campaign genre where death if it exists at all is very rare -- CHAMPIONS superheroes for example. |
| The Soul Collector12-07-04, 07:09 PM | I know I haven’t been around these boards as long as many of you but I can safely say that this is one of the most insane threads I’ve seen on here. First off, I’ve noticed that many of these threads include posts by people who are so insecure and/or narcissistic that they feel they must present complicated, convoluted, and ridiculous arguments to state their point, often throwing in the casual, seemingly sophisticated insult. Come on guys, we’re talking about a guy who doesn’t what to play a character given him. Why must you rake him and people who defend him, over the coals? Listen, I know it is very easy to get all huffy about many D&D topics but we really need to get to the root of the problem and that is: All members of the game are not having fun. Period. And, that is really all that matters. So what if players want to stay in their comfort zone, so be it! However, if a player is just being a jerk because what happens to his character is not min/maxing or does not augment the character’s power, than yeah, there is a problem because now your talking about a whole new issue. Now the issue becomes, “This guy just wants to play an uber-mob killer who with nothing more than a toothpick and his ungodly abilities/stats, can level all 9 Layers of Hell” and that really kills the game. What so completely absurd is that this isn’t about “not giving the baby his bottle” or a DM being malicious and pig-headed, its about both parties having differences on how they see a fun and exciting game played. Granted, many exciting and memorable gaming sessions can come form people trying new things but if someone is really not feeling it, just let it go. I’m sure we all have DM’ed for a group that after spending just loads and loads of time on something and it didn’t pan out. Maybe there is a middle ground both groups can take, one where the player does not have to totally leave his comfort zone and one that does not trash all the time the DM has spent on this. All the posts on this thread just take one side or the other with absolutely no real try to reach a compromise. I know I’m going to get flamed till next Sunday for this post but I don’t care. D&D is supposed to be about having an awesome time with like minded people, and later going off to Denny’s for dinner and talking about how “Dang dude, how did you botch your MS check? I thought we were toast!” Instead of sitting here on my high horse and simply pointing out this problem I would like to offer some compromises: - What’s the point in making him an Ettercap? As others have suggested, what’s so bad in making him into something else? - Have the curse strip him of some critical abilities/stats/etc. until he completes some quest. - Have the curse infect the player with a more temporal affliction like lycanthropy so he can be human some of the time. And there is much more that can be done. My apologies if these suggestions are lacking. |
| ganda1f12-07-04, 10:33 PM | I keep getting the impression the DM in this case has put hours of work into a spider-themed campaign/storyline (hence the Ettercap transformation) and when your previous campaign fell apart he has decided to re-use portions of it in the new game. I find this a little strange ... couldn't your Ettercap, who had Wizard levels (I assume) have worked towards polymorphing himself back into his natural form? |
| The Man from Uncle12-07-04, 11:10 PM | ...click...(tunes into the Meabolex show, co-starring Thugpoetry, guest starring Nagol, Soul Collector......) Lights up. Much to the audiences surprise Meabolex seems to conceed to railroading but then pulls it back using a trick we are so fond of seeing him do 'the technicality trick' and says but the PCs didn't have to kill the Evil Witch. To the common observer this would appear as though Meabolex would rather have had the PCs wreck the original quest (and subsequently the following quest) just to exercise their freewill (and their ability to metagame), than have them finish the old quest and refuse the new quest on the grounds it is something they would rather not participate in. Another ingenius position. But wait. What is that under Meabolex? An unsprung trap door? Did he just say he played DnD but gets sick when he loses a character? Did he compare this inescapable hazard of the game with a fear of spiders? My god the trap door openned..... And i think that may be the last we see of him. Even he can't convince himself there is still some life to his position. Its a shame too because if he'd just conceeded that, everything being equal, the DM could have given an inch to save a mile in the original case, then we might have been more sympathetic with the new situation. By the way, you are spot of there Soul Collector old man. My (would-be) comical take on this discussion was meant to show the daftness of it. Its not worth fencing words with people who are made of stone and wouldn't know a good point if it broke the wielders arm to drive it home. (Though i accept that Bitnine did have some limited success). I was trying to use indirect communication consistent with Kierkegaard, but sometimes satire has to be pushed to sacasm if it is to have any real impact. I bet Meabolex read Swifts 'A modest proposal' and said....'hmm....that is a good idea.' |
| MonkeyKing12-08-04, 01:54 AM | You have to be fully aware of the entire range of powers the creature is capable of -- or at least TRY to be aware. The PCs in question made no attempt to gauge the true power of the being. They tried to cast no divination spell or did not consult one NPC for the purpose of predicting what would happen. They essentially opened themselves up to the whim of the DM. It's already been stated that the outcome was planned before the event, the new characters had been created and the scenario determined. Essentially the chain of events leading to the character switch had already been pre-designed. The characters didn't open themselves up to the whim of the DM, they merely followed a contrived plot sequence following the path which the DM had laid out for them leading to this event. It seems to me, with all the thought put into the eventual outcome, (you said yourself that the DM designed to break the players from their respective moulds and make them appreciate their characters), that this was always going to happen within the quest irrespective of the choices the characters made, because in order to complete this portion of the quest (killing the BBEG) this unavoidable event would occur. Sure the chacters could have decided to call it a day once they discovered that this being had power to do unimaginable things, but then it would have been game over and hence not really an option. Whether you choose to call this railroading or not, it was an unavoidable event leading to a specific scenario. But then, that point really is just a minor aside. The real question would appear to be whether the DM was right to compromise a players enjoyment of the game (for personal reasons, not powergaming ones) because he refused to make, what would potentially be, a minor alteration to his scenario? I don't think he was, but then that's just me... |
| Naeron12-08-04, 11:34 AM | Exactly how the transformation originally happened and what might have been planned is actually not that relevant when compared to the DM's underlying behaviour. A Player has an aversion to spiders - which the DM probably was well aware of before the first incident. So he chose to change that player's character into an Ettercap with a spider familiar, and one of his responses was "Yeah, I got a chuckle out of it." This indicates that he knew exactly how the player was likley to react and thought it would be funny. When the new campaign starts he invites the player back, knowng fully that they have an aversion to spiders and that it is so strong that they would walk out of a campaign, and what does he do. He fills the campaign with multiple spider encounters. Yes it is obvious that the DM is immature and wanted a cheap laugh in the first instance and is being immature and seeking revenge in the latest campiagn. My advice to Thug, if a DM feels that its appropriate to repeatedly put characters in situations that make the players themselves feel uncomfortable then they are a bad DM, there is no counterargument to this. A good DM may challenge PC's but they should never place repeated situations in campaigns that their players will react adversely to, it is innapropriate content just as much as mature content can be. Leave the campaign. |