Post/Author/DateTime	Post
AQuebman 05-03-07, 03:20 PM	I ran into a really frustrating situation last night in a campaign I am in, and it has really turned me off to my group of D&D pals. We were playing and my character disagreed with a route we should go. Now this could have partially been from misunderstanding the DM but from all I had heard I didn't want to go the same route as everybody else. Now instead of doing what they wanted to do everybody gives me a somber look and follows me. Later on the next day I have people in person mad at me, specifically one player because my character chose to do something different. I don't know how other people feel but shouldn't it be all about having fun in a game and not taking these issues into real life. This really has made me consider quitting altogether.
Tempest Stormwind 05-03-07, 03:23 PM	So, people get mad at you... because you disagreed with them? Welcome to life. It's not exclusive to gaming, and it certainly isn't exclusive to D&D within gaming. If people let it bother them that much, they're probably not worth gaming with.
wrecan 05-03-07, 03:27 PM	I don't know how other people feel but shouldn't it be all about having fun in a game and not taking these issues into real life. This really has made me consider quitting altogether. Maybe you should. Yes, this is about having fun, so why were you being a roadblock in your friends having fun? This is what I charitably call "Wet Blanket PC". A PC has a character quirk that is going to ruin everyone else's fun. Rather than consider how he's ruining everyone else's fun, he insists on continuing the action because "it's in character." Here's a hint: when your character is ruining people's fun... change the character! If your character would choose an action that brings the game to a screeching halt... make a different choice. What, you should compromise your role-playing in the name of cooperation? Yes! D&D is a cooperative enterprise. People need to compromise. Your friends were within their rights to be irked with you out-of-game because you affected their fun evening.
AQuebman 05-03-07, 03:33 PM	The argument was a matter of which way to go. I wanted to directly confront this werewolf guy we were supposed to meet at a tower to the west. The others wanted to go after these assassins to the south and "ambush" them. Now in D&D I think it is terribly boring and lacking of roleplay value if every character loves hugs and agrees with everything every other character agrees with. If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. It's a roleplaying game not a lets all hug and never disagree or separate ourselves game. Disagreements, separation, and overall *situations* are what make D&D different from other games. If I wanted a static character i'd play a static game, where my character has no personality.
AQuebman 05-03-07, 03:35 PM	Oh and the DM didn't have a problem with it, not once did he mention any qualms with what I was doing. I take that as being okay if the man in charge is okay with it. Everybody should control their characters as individuals. This particular player who was considerably mad at me more than the others, tends to play the same character and has trouble really roleplaying him. Imagine a character who can't come close to his CN alignment because he's kissing group booty the whole time, unable to break from his shell.
FeceMan 05-03-07, 03:46 PM	From what I just read, your reasoning for halting the game with your in-character antics was not even because it was something your character would do. Rather, you felt that creating conflict made for good roleplaying. C:\programf\life\fail.exe The DM should have let you face the werewolf alone.
Toran_A_Sunder 05-03-07, 03:50 PM	Any group of players that is going to be mad at you out of game for something a character did in game, especially something as trivial as going east instead of south, is not a group you want to play with. Screw them. It's a game.
KillerGM 05-03-07, 03:53 PM	Oh and the DM didn't have a problem with it, not once did he mention any qualms with what I was doing. I take that as being okay if the man in charge is okay with it. Everybody should control their characters as individuals. This particular player who was considerably mad at me more than the others, tends to play the same character and has trouble really roleplaying him. Imagine a character who can't come close to his CN alignment because he's kissing group booty the whole time, unable to break from his shell. Well, you appear to have a problem with how the other guy is playing his character. And it seems that your attitude towards group playing is different from the rest of the players. I'm not saying either side is right or better, just that it looks like your style conflicts with the greater style of the group. This is exactly what was happening in game, and you have the choice of your character - go your own way or conform. Did the PCs (not the players) discuss which way to go? Did anyone try to persuade anyone else as to what to do? Was your character inflexible so as not to be persuaded, thus making it an ultimatum for the other PCs? Maybe the other players felt forced to go with you because they didn't want you to get killed on a solo adventure? I don't disagree that characters should decide what they do, but there is an issue of splitting parties and things like that. Most adventurers wouldn't *want* to split up - the reason you adventure as a group is because you're stronger as a group, and have more of a chance to defeat any adversaries. And silence does not always denote consent, where the DM is concerned. He may have been insecure about how to handle it, he may have wanted everyone to go fight the Werewolf, he might have wanted to let you guys fight it out... there's no real indication one way or the other whether or not he approved of your (or the other people's) actions. Don't assume that, because he didn't say anything, he was fine with it. I'd suggest talking to everyone like adults. Your playing style (highly individualistic) might just be conflicting with the rest of the group's (highly group-minded). If this is the case, then you really have the choice to leave or conform - the choice presented to anyone wishing to be part of a group. To play your style in the group will cause conflicts like this to come up again and again. Maybe you can find a compromise, where you're not so set in doing what YOUR character wants to do - people make compromises all the time, and if you play a character (or characters) that never do, you're going to run into conflicts. Hope it helps! :D
AQuebman 05-03-07, 04:01 PM	I understand that and this is one of the first times my character really disagreed with them. I tried to keep it an in character thing, just roleplaying and immediately I got 4 people bombarding me with their angered opinions out of character. I tried to talk it out and explain my situation, the DM did react but he kept roleplaying it as I thought everybody else would. The others players I think turned it into what they believed to be an ultimatum, I just wanted to thoroughly discuss the situation because I really thought we were heading into a death trap trying to surprise "assassins." My Chaotic Good character wanted to save this girl from this werewolf quickly, and safely... not risk killing assassins not involved with this guy. At least that's my reasoning for what I did.
Kintara 05-03-07, 04:02 PM	Okay, firstly, there's nothing wrong with wanting your gaming experience to not be a waste of time. Don't get down on other people for caring about the game. If there's a problem, then how else do you fix it other than to talk about it "in real life"? I really don't like it when people say that it's just a game and not to take it seriously. Games take a lot time to engage in, and I care about whether the experience was good or not. In fact, your post indicates that you care about what happens in the game, so why not take what happens "seriously"? That said, I'm not saying that that necessarily makes them right and you wrong. They could have been overreacting. That's one of those things that's hard to judge over the internet. At any rate, what I suspect is going on is that you have different expectations about the game than they do. There is more than one way to play an RPG. Your friends may place more of a value on striving to overcome the challenges the DM has set for you to face than you do, and so they place a higher importance on keeping the group together. If you go off in one direction while they go in another, they could be missing a very important member of their tactical team. Does that make your desire to not always stick together in a group wrong? Not as such. But keep in mind that you may not have the same goals as they do. The truth is that in my experience there is a great stress on keeping the adventurers together as a group because the game does reward you for tactical team play. Does that mean that the players automatically stop roleplaying? No. What it means is that the players make sure that when they create their characters, they make sure that their characters are likely to want to stick together with the other characters. What is your character like, if I might ask? Did you think about whether he would get along well with the other characters? Do you think they did? Now, the solution to your problem is to discuss the problem with the group, and decide if your expectations about the game is similar enough to theirs to continue playing with them. If it's not, then stop playing with them, and find another group. Edit (after reading the above recent posts): Okay, so, again, it's hard to judge things like how people reacted just by reading a post over the internet. But assuming they really overreacted in the way you're describing, then maybe they are just not people you should be gaming with. There are other people out there that play D&D, you know, and they all play the game at least a little differently. You'll have to be the judge about whether you can have a meaningful discussion with them. Personally, I generally try unless I am simply making no headway after a good long talk.
Shadowhowler 05-03-07, 04:16 PM	Maybe you should. Yes, this is about having fun, so why were you being a roadblock in your friends having fun? This is what I charitably call "Wet Blanket PC". A PC has a character quirk that is going to ruin everyone else's fun. Rather than consider how he's ruining everyone else's fun, he insists on continuing the action because "it's in character." Here's a hint: when your character is ruining people's fun... change the character! If your character would choose an action that brings the game to a screeching halt... make a different choice. What, you should compromise your role-playing in the name of cooperation? Yes! D&D is a cooperative enterprise. People need to compromise. Your friends were within their rights to be irked with you out-of-game because you affected their fun evening. WTF? You make a lot of assumptions basied on little info... What we do know is this... he feels his gaming buds are giving him **** OUT of game for something that happeneed IN game... and that is not justified, thats imature and lame.
daggeroflath 05-03-07, 04:20 PM	we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. No actually it's not. The DM has the responsibility to run one game, not one game per player. This doesn't mean that you have to stay within 30 feet of the rest of your group at all times, but it does mean you have to work together. Now this is the responsibility of the rest of the group as much as it is yours, however I'll point out that you were outvoted. As a player you have responsibilities too. There's a lot of focus on people being good DMs, but many players lay back and expect their DM to serve them a campaign on a silver platter without working on being good players. Now in D&D I think it is terribly boring and lacking of roleplay value if every character loves hugs and agrees with everything every other character agrees with. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. It's a roleplaying game not a lets all hug and never disagree or separate ourselves game. Disagreements, separation, and overall *situations* are what make D&D different from other games. If I wanted a static character i'd play a static game, where my character has no personality. Yes, roleplaying disagreements can add a vital spark to the game when done right. You didn't do it right, otherwise you wouldn't be on a messageboard complaining about the problems you're having with the rest of the group.
wrecan 05-03-07, 04:28 PM	Now in D&D I think it is terribly boring and lacking of roleplay value if every character loves hugs and agrees with everything every other character agrees with. If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. No it's not. It's not the DM's job to accomodate different people's playing styles. It's your job as a player to find a group that jibes with you. And there are different ways to disagree. Disagreement can be fun, if everybody agrees on the parameters. Disagreeing with the party strategy, but accepting it reluctantly would have been an acceptabel option. In other parties, the majority could have ganged up on you, grappled, gagged and manacled your character, and that would be acceptable. It seems like you don't like the level of intraparty conflict that the group has, so you decided to change it unilaterally. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. By your fellows' reaction, it's pretty clear they didn't have fun that evening. By definition, you ruined it. Now, whether they were right or mature to feel as they do is another story. But let's not deny what happened. You made an in-character choice that caused some of the other players to have less fun than they expected. It's a roleplaying game not a lets all hug and never disagree or separate ourselves game. Why do people always think there are only two option? The choices are not "let me go my separate way" and "let's hold hands and sing kumbaya." There were a myriad of option sopen to you and I'm going to guess that some of them would not have resulted in people thinking you ruined their evening. I'm thinking some of those would have involved some level of intra-party conflict. Disagreements, separation, and overall *situations* are what make D&D different from other games.Agreed. But how individuals deal with those disagreements are what separates mature players from immature ones. If they are injecting conflict for ships and giggles, that's immature. If they are overreacting to intraparty conflict, that's immature. Here's a counterexample to yours. The party was in a dungeon with a puzzle trap that consited of sixteen floor tiles, If you stepped on them in the right sequence, everyone would be safely transported to the next level. If you stepped on the wrong sequence, the party would be unceremoniously dropped sixty feet into the next level. Three of the six players love puzzles and were happily working to solve it, while the other three (who enjoy combat) were holding monsters at bay to give the puzzle-solvers some time. After about five rounds of combat, one of the combatants (a sorcerer) decided he was bored with the current combat (IG and OOG). So he purposely set off the trap, using feather fall ability to avoid damage. In the ensuing chaos, two of the PCs died. People were upset about this behavior. He defended it as being "in character". He also claimed that he acted in the name of "drama" (ie, conflict for conflict's sake). When we pointed out all the other intra-party conflict (which didn't reult in the party splitting up or people getting hurt), he dismissed as not being "real" conflict because nothing was at stake. In the end, he left the group. So I ask you. Was there no intra-party conflict at all before you disagreed on whether to confront the werewolf or assassins? Would have been out of line for your PC to express dissatisfaction with the others' decision to pursue the assassins, but agree to put aside your differences in the name of security? Did your PC really think he could take on a werewolf by himself? If you believe that the others have no intra-party conflict, or you don't perceive the intra-party conflict that existed as "real", then perhaps you need to find another group. But I would ask that you carefully examine the events before you do something you might regret. I also advise you raise this issue with your friends before the next session.
Guan 05-03-07, 04:31 PM	Character disagreements are bound to happen. Make it a practice to have everyone speak their mind and then come to an agreement (vote if you have to) on which direction to go. If you loose, don't pout or complain, just realize that other people have opinions too. If your characte rhonestly can't live with a disagreement like that, it's time to split the group. I.E. split the group to me means group dies. Or, split section dies. Either way, encounters are harder when the group is split up.
wrecan 05-03-07, 04:36 PM	What we do know is this... he feels his gaming buds are giving him **** OUT of game for something that happeneed IN game... and that is not justified, thats imature and lame. Who gave him ****? One person gave him a "somber" look and another guy said he was angry. If he thinks that's giving him ***, it's not his friends who are being oversensitive. I don't get a lot of evenings out. If someone dicided to be disruptive on purpose and I didn't have fun that evening, I'd be upset. Just like I get upset when people talk during a movie, or forget to turn off their cell phones when I go out to a play. If the talker were to say, "Hey, it's only a movie," I'd expect someone would punch him in the face. People have a right to be upset about in-game actions if they impinge on your enjoyment of the game because that's the whole point of the game: to be enjoyed. Sometimes I think people forget that.
daggeroflath 05-03-07, 04:48 PM	People have a right to be upset about in-game actions if they impinge on your enjoyment of the game because that's the whole point of the game: to be enjoyed. Sometimes I think people forget that. QFT
WinDReiN 05-03-07, 04:55 PM	Choose a party leader(PL). Everyone can say his/hers oppinion and the PL decides. No anger, no hate, everybody respects the decision. Choose a new party leader every 4 weeks/ 1 year or whatever suits you best.
graddlin 05-03-07, 06:00 PM	Friend, there will always be disagreements within the game and, unfortunately, those little problems can sometimes spill over into the real world. It's not fun, it's not conducive to the game in any way, and it certainly makes those of us who experience it think about dropping the game altogether. However, I shall attempt to sway you to the idea of sticking with the game. Ever had a case of D&D D.Ts (D&D withdrawals)? It ain't fun either. Besides, it was, as far as I can tell, an isolated incident, therefore it is only a matter of getting back up on the horse! Talk at length with your friends to find out what they disliked most about your choice. If the problem is easily correctable, role with the punch and get busy living and playing!:D Take care, friend.
Count Arioch the 28th 05-03-07, 06:34 PM	If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. You do realize that in the whole history of the D&D game, there hasn't been one instance where a party that split up didn't have a TPK? If you had went your seperate way, you would have died. The game is based around a group, not the individual. I suggest you try playing a different type of game, because if you don't want to work as a party, then D&D isn't your game, my friend.
weepingminotaur 05-03-07, 06:38 PM	Cooperation is important, but it's only a game, for God's sake. Getting mad at someone for in-character actions, however unreasonable, is just as unreasonable.
wrecan 05-03-07, 06:41 PM	Cooperation is important, but it's only a game, for God's sake. Getting mad at someone for in-character actions, however unreasonable, is just as unreasonable. The next time you see a movie, imagine someone talking loudly on his cell phone next to you (imagine he is big enough that a physical confrontation isn't a good idea). When you ask him to stop he says, "It's only a movie for God's sake." Does that make you feel better about your ruined evening? Didn't think so. "It's only a game" is, imo, one of the worst justifications for disruptive player behavior. If anything, the fact that it's a game is all the more reason why you should try to ensure your gameplay doesn't offend other players.
Kintara 05-03-07, 06:56 PM	Cooperation is important, but it's only a game, for God's sake. Getting mad at someone for in-character actions, however unreasonable, is just as unreasonable.In character actions affect the game. If an action derails the game into doing something pointless and boring for two hours, then thats two hours you're never getting back. So, no, it's not unreasonable to care about what your friend's character is doing. I care as much as it affects whether what happens at the table is actually fun.
weepingminotaur 05-03-07, 08:43 PM	The next time you see a movie, imagine someone talking loudly on his cell phone next to you (imagine he is big enough that a physical confrontation isn't a good idea). When you ask him to stop he says, "It's only a movie for God's sake." Does that make you feel better about your ruined evening? Didn't think so. "It's only a game" is, imo, one of the worst justifications for disruptive player behavior. If anything, the fact that it's a game is all the more reason why you should try to ensure your gameplay doesn't offend other players. Perhaps I should have been more clear. What I meant was that there was no reason for his friends not to talk to him out of game and try to resolve the character conflict, instead of just sulking or being angry. Anger never creates dialogue, it just spawns more anger. In the movie example, I don't know the person involved, and I've paid money for a very specific purpose that isn't cooperative. So I'm not really sure about the applicability of your example when the OP stated that his fellow players were also his friends. I've had my issues with disruptive player behaviour in groups I've DMed, and I know it can be frustrating. But anger without honest, civil dialogue doesn't accomplish anything. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression, I posted the first time in a hurry.
Shadowhowler 05-03-07, 10:01 PM	I don't get a lot of evenings out. If someone dicided to be disruptive on purpose and I didn't have fun that evening, I'd be upset. Just like I get upset when people talk during a movie, or forget to turn off their cell phones when I go out to a play. If the talker were to say, "Hey, it's only a movie," I'd expect someone would punch him in the face. People have a right to be upset about in-game actions if they impinge on your enjoyment of the game because that's the whole point of the game: to be enjoyed. Sometimes I think people forget that. I was going to comment on the 'movie example' you gave being completely unrealted to what we are talking about, but weepingminotaur covered that fairly well, so I'll move on to the above quoted statments. :) First, your statments assumes the OP was being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'll admit that he does not have the level of 'group respect' I normaly look for in fellow players, but it does not sound as tho he decided to go a differant direction 'just to screw with people'... it sounds like he honestly thought it was a better choice for his character. If someone making a choice that is right for their character ever 'ruined' my enjoyment of the game I was playing... I'd have to give up Roleplaying... becuase that would be sad. I think if this situation 'ruined' any other players in the games enjoyment of that game, they were taking it WAY to seriously. Yes, the point of a game is to have fun... I have NEVER forgoten that. However, its hard to have fun if people are wound up to tight and if they harbour grudges out of game for events that occur in game. Second... if the characters action DID impead on their enjoyment of the game... a better way to handle that is to talk about it the next time they see they guy "Hey, bob... ya know... we felt like we had to go along with you becuase if we didnt, there would be two game instead of one... and you would likely get killed. It kinda sucked, us being put in that position... maybe we should talk about how to avoid that next time eh?" problem gets addressed and hopefully solved without anyone getting pissy. Life is WAY to short to let IN game stuff screw with you OUT of game. The ability to seprate those two things is VERY important to me in players... I guess maybe some of that is due to me having a heavy LARP background, where seperating in and out of game is even more key.
AffableDoomwalker 05-04-07, 02:58 AM	OP: "Hi guys, heres a problem I have, I did something, and someone disagreed, then they got mad at me out of the game because I "ruined their fun", despite the fact that they were really just whining about not getting their way." General Response: "Its all your fault. All of it. You ruined their fun, you insensitive prick, how dare you make them not have fun at the expense of your own fun?! Do you see how immaturely they handled the situation?! That is your fault mister! You have no right to try and enjoy yourself, then get hated on, then ask for advice, not on my forums! No way! No how! Begone heathen!" Affable: Let it be man, I really don't think you should stress it, its like the 12 year old that calls you "gay" in WoW. Its no biggie, and they'll get over not getting their way; if they don't then its clear: you don't need to game with them. As for the people pointing the finger at you, ignore that too. The game should be fun for everyone, and if you were making a perfectly reasonable request (or hell, even a demand) then there is no reason for you to be labeled the "bad guy." Just let it all be water under the bridge and see how the next few sessions go.
danielinthewolvesden 05-04-07, 03:29 AM	If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. . NO! If you split the group, each group can only have half the fun. D&D is a game, the idea is to have fun. Thus, you never split the group, as Count Arioch has wisely said. You were wrong as you were outvoted. Now, you wanting to go another way- and even later saying "I told you so" (nicely) is perfectly in character and fine. But your PC has two choices: 1. go along with the group- or 2. leave the group. Which means that character wanders off and you bring in a new one. Got that? Yes, it can be "in character" for your PC to go off on his own, but then that PC is no longer part of the group, thus no longer part of the game, as D&D is a group game. So apologize, and say next time you will abide by the consensus.
Cardinal Teplin 05-04-07, 08:25 AM	If you split the group, each group can only have half the fun. D&D is a game, the idea is to have fun. Thus, you never split the group, as Count Arioch has wisely said. My group splits up all the time. Not something you want to have happening all the time, because it's more strain on the DM to keep things moving, but it's a fairly regular occurance. I mean what happens when you stop at an inn? You all pile into the same room? The problem you have here is that the rest of the group went along with you even though they didn't particularly want to, and ended up resenting you for that. We weren't there, so we can't tell if it's because they behaved badly, you behaved badly, or somewhere in between. It's likely they felt they couldn't pursuade you and went along with your idea to avoid an argument, to save time. Solution is to overhaul the way you make decisions with this group. In this case you're probably going to have to try and make sure you go along with someone else's idea, even if you don't think it is a good one. Do it a couple of times, and see if that helps. Ultimately, you need to work out why they think there is a problem with you wanting to do something different. It could be they don't like arguing with you because of differences in the way you express yourselves. And you need to watch out about inter-party conflict. Different people have different ideas about how much is acceptible. As a general rule of thumb, you need to balance disagreements on some issues with agreement/support on others. Work out how far you can push a disagreement before it starts just annoying people, and work out how far you can take an in-character disagreement before it becomes an out-of-character one. For some people it really isn't very far. Ultimately, you are going to have to talk to them about it. You need to understand at what point they want you to drop an objection and go with the consensus of the group, and they need to understand that you can't just surrender your character's judgement. There is a balance point, and you need to find it together. Or find another group of course. The balance point may not be anywhere that either side feels comfortable.
wrecan 05-04-07, 09:34 AM	First, your statments assumes the OP was being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'll admit that he does not have the level of 'group respect' I normaly look for in fellow players, but it does not sound as tho he decided to go a differant direction 'just to screw with people'... it sounds like he honestly thought it was a better choice for his character. Those are not mutually exclusive considerations. You are not a slave to your character. If your character is about to choose to do something that's going to dampen other people's fun, then it's time to rethink that aspect of your character's personality. Your character is not sacrosanct. He's not a real person. The way the OP acted, the DM had two choices. First, tell the rest of the party to go watch TV while the OP gets a solo advanture, followed by the OP watching TV while the rest of the group plays out their stuff. That would probably **** me off. If I wanted ot watch TV for an evening, I could do that anytime. When I game, that's what I'm suppoed to be doing. Second, drop the OP from the party. But I get the distinct impression that the OP would have perceived he was being punished for "playing in character" if that happened. Plus the main partyis now down a man, and likely to get overwhelmed by either encounter. D&D is a team endeavor. Your goalie doesn't get to walk off the field because it's consistent with his personality. And if he does, the rest of the team is going to be pretty pissy towards you. And no, the IG/OOG distinction doesn't immunize you because when your PC walks off, you have walked away from the game table as well (at least, metaphorically). Should the others have talked to him about his behavior before acting pissy? Yes. However, I think that probably did happen at the game table when the players argued with him not to split the group up. The OP took it to be entirely in-game conversarion, but it clearly had out-of-game context, which he seemed to totally miss. If someone making a choice that is right for their character ever 'ruined' my enjoyment of the game I was playing... I'd have to give up Roleplaying... becuase that would be sad. I think if this situation 'ruined' any other players in the games enjoyment of that game, they were taking it WAY to seriously. And if you insist on acting in character regardless of how it affects your friends' enjoyment of the game, I would support your decision to give up roleplaying because then YOU are taking the game way too seriously. However, its hard to have fun if people are wound up to tight and if they harbour grudges out of game for events that occur in game. I think you're taking the friends' reactions a little strong. one guy was upset and one guy glared at him. Hardly "harbouring grudges". It's natural to be upset if someone turned your four-hour D&D session into a two-hour session because he got to go on a two-hour solo (not including the time he ate up with the in-game argument). Second... if the characters action DID impead on their enjoyment of the game... a better way to handle that is to talk about it the next time they see they guy "Hey, bob... ya know... we felt like we had to go along with you becuase if we didnt, there would be two game instead of one... and you would likely get killed. It kinda sucked, us being put in that position... maybe we should talk about how to avoid that next time eh?" problem gets addressed and hopefully solved without anyone getting pissy. In my experience that gets hashed out at the gaming table when the guy made the ill-considered decision to split off from the group. By the time the next day rolled around, the rest of the players probably thought they had made their feelings very clear at the gaming table. It's only because the OP has this bizarre notion that what happens at the table stays at the table that he was confused at the others' reactions. Now it's his responsibility to apologize. Life is WAY to short to let IN game stuff screw with you OUT of game. But splitting a group is not exclusively an in-game issue. It impinges on the most precious out-of-game commodity any gamer possesses: time. It would be one thing if the guy took an item from someone in-game. Or it people were metagaming. But splitting a group is different because it does have out-of-game ramifications. I guess maybe some of that is due to me having a heavy LARP background, where seperating in and out of game is even more key. I LARP too (or did, long ago). But LARP is different. LARP is immersive, so you are always role-playing, whether or not someone splits off from a group. Not so with tabletop where you only have one DM who can only run one group of PCs at a time.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-04-07, 09:54 AM	Now in D&D I think it is terribly boring and lacking of roleplay value if every character loves hugs and agrees with everything every other character agrees with. The PCs don't need to get along, but the players do. My overriding house rule is that your PCs do not need to love each otehr, or evne like each other, but they need to function as a group. If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. You wanted to split the party cos of this? THat is way selfish of you. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. No, the DMs job is to run a fair game for everyone at the table, not kowtow to one player at the expense of everyone else. You splitting off forces teh DM to cut half his time away from the rest of the group jsut so you can get your own way. It is one of the paramount acts of selfishness at the gaming table. Too often have I seen DMs focus on the splitter and ignore the rest of the group. In the past, long ago when I had to deal with players who acted lke that, I would let them go off and do whatever they want, and then devote 95% of my time with the rest of the group who were acting together and not forcing the game to split. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. Clearly your friends feel differently. If you all agree to go to a movie together, then when you reach the cinema they all og see one flick and you go off on your own to see another? If you all agree to go out to dinner together do you go off to one restaurant while they all go to another? Unless you have a seriously lacking EQ and don't really give a damn about your mates then the answer is no. People do not alway get what they want. Being part of a group is making compromises that the group agrees upon, not just splitting off on your own cos you don't get your own way. It's a roleplaying game not a lets all hug and never disagree or separate ourselves game. Disagreements, separation, and overall *situations* are what make D&D different from other games. If I wanted a static character i'd play a static game, where my character has no personality. D&D is a game about groups of heroes working togther to accomplish goals, not everyone getting to do whatever they want to the detriment of others. Maybe you are playing the wrong game.
Cardinal Teplin 05-04-07, 10:28 AM	Those are not mutually exclusive considerations. You are not a slave to your character. If your character is about to choose to do something that's going to dampen other people's fun, then it's time to rethink that aspect of your character's personality. Your character is not sacrosanct. Nor is other people's fun. Otherwise the entire table bullying one guy is your vision of an ideal game, and I doubt that's true. Sometimes you have to put yourself forward into the spotlight. Don't do it too often, make sure everyone gets their turn, but you can't constantly apologise for speaking or acting or doing anything that might stop the game being all about other people. Yes, other people's fun is important, just as your fun should be important to other people. But if you don't act in ways you enjoy for fear that other people might not enjoy it, you're not doing yourself or them any favours. The way the OP acted, the DM had two choices. First, tell the rest of the party to go watch TV while the OP gets a solo advanture, followed by the OP watching TV while the rest of the group plays out their stuff. That would probably **** me off. If I wanted ot watch TV for an evening, I could do that anytime. When I game, that's what I'm suppoed to be doing. Hmm.. So when the party splits in two, it's one person's fault? How do you figure? And do your player characters only ever talk to the DM, not to eachother? D&D is a team endeavor. Your goalie doesn't get to walk off the field because it's consistent with his personality. And if he does, the rest of the team is going to be pretty pissy towards you. And no, the IG/OOG distinction doesn't immunize you because when your PC walks off, you have walked away from the game table as well (at least, metaphorically). Oh, nonsense. Noone is walking 'off the field', they are disagreeing on what to do next, before reluctantly coming to an agreement. There can and will be disagreements in any team endevour and you owe it to the success of the team to work out what to do in those situations. Arguing for too long is bad, but so is agreeing to something and then getting pissy with the guy you agreed with because you feel bad that you didn't stand your ground. And yes, the team should be supporting some level of dissent, because disagreements are what make the team as wise as all it's members, rather then just some of them. Not to mention that there is nothing wrong with playing a game where people do put personality clashes above team goals. I've played in plenty of them, and they can be great fun. Ultimtely you are assuming the goal of the team is to defeat the bad guy rather than, say, support eachother in playing characters within a fantasy world. Should the others have talked to him about his behavior before acting pissy? Yes. However, I think that probably did happen at the game table when the players argued with him not to split the group up. The OP took it to be entirely in-game conversarion, but it clearly had out-of-game context, which he seemed to totally miss. Um.. you're making up extra bits to the story to support your theory. It's not a good sign... Yes he clearly missed something, because he was surprised by the reaction afterwards, but that doesn't mean the problem was his fault. And it's probably not helpful, in a personality clash, to worry about who is to blame in any case. Focus on the solution. But splitting a group is not exclusively an in-game issue. It impinges on the most precious out-of-game commodity any gamer possesses: time. Indeed so. What do you spend time on? Doing solos and supporting individual characters taking the spotlight? Intrigue, plot, mystery and puzzle solving? Intricate scene setting? Discussions on tactics? Combat with the bad guys? All these take time. Assuming that it's ok to do one, but not ok to do one of the others, is just assuming that one playing style is better than another. A bad enough thing to do to your own group, let alone using it to comment on someone else's. Play styles vary a lot, and not all games are alike. For example: I LARP too (or did, long ago). But LARP is different. LARP is immersive, so you are always role-playing, whether or not someone splits off from a group. Not so with tabletop where you only have one DM who can only run one group of PCs at a time. Our tabletop groups are very different (or our LARPs are different). I suspect the tabletop games I run would be described by you as 'immersive'. In the LARPs I run/play in, splitting the group is far more of a problem than in tabletops, where at least when the character goes AWOL, you can still talk to the player. The party splits up in most of the tabletops I run or play in. It's very difficult to comment on the OPs group because we have no idea what they are like, or what their game is like. It sounds like they need to have more agreement about what kind of game they are running and what their expectations are. And how much arguement in the group they want. Too much is bad, but none is bad too.
Stumm_Dolch 05-04-07, 10:40 AM	I'm not saying this to test your self-esteem or anything, but if your "friends" are reacting strongly to you OOC to an in character decision then maybe they don't like you very much. I could be way off here, but I get the impression that you aren't very flexible with your table. While your DM may not have minded if you split from the rest of the party (I'm a DM and can usually roll with a party-split fairly well) the other players might not want to slow the game down and deal with 2 simultaneous timelines. There's no need for you to defend yourself here, I think your Character had the right idea, wanting to solve the urgent issue at hand, but you, the Player shouldn't be so quick to be willing to abandon the group (even if you see it as them abandoning you).
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-04-07, 10:47 AM	First, your statments assumes the OP was being disruptive for the sake of being disruptive. I'll admit that he does not have the level of 'group respect' I normaly look for in fellow players, but it does not sound as tho he decided to go a differant direction 'just to screw with people'... it sounds like he honestly thought it was a better choice for his character. That itself is paradigmatic of a problem I see in some gamers: they tend to view the game as about them, about their PC, rather then the group as a whole. Instead of a group you end up with a collection of solo PCs. Any time a player uses the word "loner" to describe his PC is time to panic.
wrecan 05-04-07, 10:58 AM	Nor is other people's fun. I think other's people's fun is pretty sacrosanct, since that's the whole purpose of the game. Otherwise the entire table bullying one guy is your vision of an ideal game, and I doubt that's true. No, my vision of the game is no one person puts their own enjoyment ahead of their friends' enjoyment. It's a team endeavor, not a bunch of individuals competing to see who can get the most personal satisfaction. you can't constantly apologise for speaking or acting or doing anything that might stop the game being all about other people. If it's constant you're doing it too often. if you don't act in ways you enjoy for fear that other people might not enjoy it, you're not doing yourself or them any favours. Yes, you are. It's called "common courtesy". So when the party splits in two, it's one person's fault? How do you figure? If one of the two groups is only one person, then it's that person's fault. It's simple math. And do your player characters only ever talk to the DM, not to eachother? How does this quesiton relate to anything i've said? Oh, nonsense. Noone is walking 'off the field', they are disagreeing on what to do next, before reluctantly coming to an agreement. No, it went beyond disagreement. One of the characters left the group. That's what the OP wrote. As I've said previously, if one guy wanted ot do something different, got outvoted, and went along reluctantly, no problem. That's not what happened. And yes, the team should be supporting some level of dissent, because disagreements are what make the team as wise as all it's members, rather then just some of them. Okay, now I think you've forgotten what happened. This isn't a case where one guy merely disagreed. This is a case where one guy acted unilaterally and split the party. Nobody cares about the disagreement. What we care about is how the OP reacted to the disagreement; i.e., by acting unilaterally and splitting the party. Ultimtely you are assuming the goal of the team is to defeat the bad guy rather than, say, support eachother in playing characters within a fantasy world. The OP was doing neithe rof those things, so this issue is moot. Um.. you're making up extra bits to the story to support your theory. No, I'm making reasonable conclusions, unlike you, who are ignoring what the guy actually wrote. Focus on the solution. Agreed. The solution is for him to apologize and agree not to derail the game by acting unilaterally to split the group up. Indeed so. What do you spend time on? Doing solos and supporting individual characters taking the spotlight? Intrigue, plot, mystery and puzzle solving? Intricate scene setting? Discussions on tactics? Combat with the bad guys? All these take time. But all except the first one (doing solos) involves all of the players. Which is the point. To play. Assuming that it's ok to do one, but not ok to do one of the others, is just assuming that one playing style is better than another. I do think one style of play is worse than the others: a style of play in which five people show up to play a game but one two of them actually get to play. I suspect the tabletop games I run would be described by you as 'immersive'. Not if some of the players have to spend time twiddling their thumbs while the DM runs a solo adventure because one guy decided unilaterally to separate himself. Then it's not immersive at all. Then it's just rude. There's no immersion when I am talking to a character if my character isn't present (which is what you seem to imply happens when a party splits up). That's the exact opposite of immersion.
Geogoose 05-04-07, 04:19 PM	OP: To be blunt, you attempted to derail the game. You basically threatened to split the group if they disagreed with you. Let me explain my opinion, because I do not think you see the problem with what you did or why the other players, your friends, are upset about it. You describe the other players as your friends, pals, etc. I have no reason to think otherwise so I will believe you. As your friends they probably know a little bit about YOU having spent time interacting and such. They may have all come to the conclusion had they not agreed with you, the group would end up split with you heading off to one adventure while they went to another. This quote is your own words saying as much: If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. So even though you did not overtly state, "I want to go this way. If you guys disagree I will split the group.", your friends know how you would approach his conflict. So even though it was unstated, you gave the group an ultimatum. Have you thought anything about how the other feel about splitting the group? You don't mind, but MANY people do. I have a feeling your friends want to play as a group and do not want it split. Split groups basically guarantee only a fraction of the players are involved at a time. How fun is that? Sure, the party may tell the rogue to go scout ahead once in a while, but half the group play one adventure while half plays another? Might as well send half the players home for the night. The solution to your problem is basically the same solution to the majority of social issues. Talk about it.
Shadowhowler 05-04-07, 05:35 PM	Those are not mutually exclusive considerations. You are not a slave to your character. If your character is about to choose to do something that's going to dampen other people's fun, then it's time to rethink that aspect of your character's personality. Your character is not sacrosanct. He's not a real person. Gotta dissagree with this a little bit. I make considerations for what kinda character I should play when I make the character, making sure to make a character that will be in line with the characters the other players are going to play, to avoid future party dispute situations and make it more likely that we will all work well together. Also, while playing the character, I sometimes make 'group play' influenced choices... where a little 'Back Seat DM' instinct kicks in, and I let 'how will this work for the party' style thoughts into my head... but this comes from too many years of DMing and not enough playing. :) However, I try to play and explore my character as much as a 'real person' as possible... otherwise I won't enjoy the game. If a situation comes up that is VITAL to my character, but may force him to dissagree with party members or go his own way, I'll follow what should be that characters choice over the 'keep the party intact' instinct, becuase, when I'm a PLAYER, not a DM, my character should be my focus. I also make sure to play with other players that understand this... so if their characters get mad at my characters, THEY are not mad at ME, and vise-versa. Hence, keeping in game and out of game seprate. The way the OP acted, the DM had two choices. First, tell the rest of the party to go watch TV while the OP gets a solo advanture, followed by the OP watching TV while the rest of the group plays out their stuff. That would probably **** me off. If I wanted ot watch TV for an evening, I could do that anytime. When I game, that's what I'm suppoed to be doing. Second, drop the OP from the party. But I get the distinct impression that the OP would have perceived he was being punished for "playing in character" if that happened. Plus the main partyis now down a man, and likely to get overwhelmed by either encounter. D&D is a team endeavor. Your goalie doesn't get to walk off the field because it's consistent with his personality. And if he does, the rest of the team is going to be pretty pissy towards you. And no, the IG/OOG distinction doesn't immunize you because when your PC walks off, you have walked away from the game table as well (at least, metaphorically). My parties often break up into smaller groups to acomplish things. Most notouriously when the party has a rogue in it, and the rogue goes on a thiving mission that the other members of the party would be ill suited for. Or a Ranger, scouting ahead to take stock of the enimies numbers. There are a lot of times where one or more members of the party break off from the main group. When this happens in *MY* games, I don't go off and watch TV... and stay and watch whats going on... and I often find it VERY entiertaining, even if I am not directly involved. If you do not, I'm sorry. I would say there is a problem if you must be invovled in every moment of the game directly to enjoy it. If I were DMing the OP's game... and he wanted to do (A) While the party wanted to do (B) and, after discussing it in game they party went right and the OP went left... I would most likely say to the OP 'Ok, most of the group is going off to do this... so I'll take care of them first, and then come back to you' and then deal with both storylines, atending to the main one (the one that contained the most players) first. Again, this sort of thing happens in games I play all the time, and no one gets ****** about it. By the same token, it can go the other way, it depends on your character and the situation. I was a player in a game recently where something like this came up. This NPC wanted us to do some 'work' for him, in exchange he would help us find an entrence to a dungeon we were looking for. My charracters grandfather was held in the dungeon, so I wanted to get their really bad, and I was the the only character in the group with a personal stake in it. My character didn't trust the NPC, and was sure he was going to backstab us. Some of the other characters wanted to do the job for the NPC, and a VERY heated in character argument broke out. In the end, my character was smart enough to ralize that, if he went off on his own... he would not be strong enough to rescue his grandfather, so he asked that the part take a vote... it went 3 against doing the NPC's job, 4 for... so reluctantly my character agreed to go along with it... becuase he knew he needed his friends to save his grandfather. However... if the situation were differant, if my character thought he COULD rescue him on his own, he woulda said 'Ok, you guys are morons, this guy is gonna stab you in the back first chance he gets, and thats *IF* your survive his little mission in the first place... I'm outa here, I'm gonna save my grandpa' either way, the guys I play with woulda been fine with me doing what my character needed to do. The in game argument was VERY heated, but no one was pissy about it out of game, including me. I KNEW in character (as was pretty sure out of character) that we would get screwed doing the NPC's little dirty work... but I didnt get pissy with the other players out of game, cuz thats stupid and wrong. And if you insist on acting in character regardless of how it affects your friends' enjoyment of the game, I would support your decision to give up roleplaying because then YOU are taking the game way too seriously. I insist on playing my character they way I feel he should be played... and I make sure to play with other players that agree with this style of roleplaying, so that me playing my character does NOT affect their enjoyment of the game, but add to it. I als make sure to make characters that 'fit' with the other characters and the story as much as possible... but once the character is made, I try my best to make sure to play him as I feel he should be played, with as little 'out of game'metagame' consideration as possible. Thats the style of play I enjoy, immersive roleplaying style... and I am carefull to make sure to play with others who enjoy that style as well, so we don't have conflicts of intrest. Seems to work out pretty well. The key here is ALWAYS keep character and player seprate. I think you're taking the friends' reactions a little strong. one guy was upset and one guy glared at him. Hardly "harbouring grudges". It's natural to be upset if someone turned your four-hour D&D session into a two-hour session because he got to go on a two-hour solo (not including the time he ate up with the in-game argument). The next day the OP's friends were noticably ******/annoyed about something that happeneed in game the day before, and they are ****** about it the next day out of game. I think that is too strong a reaction. If I'm playing a game with someone, and they annoying me threw the course of the game enough that I am still thinking about it, annoyed with it the next day in a completely non-game setting, I'll probably just stop playing with that person. However, what cuased these guys to still be ****** the next day would never have angered me in the first place. In my experience that gets hashed out at the gaming table when the guy made the ill-considered decision to split off from the group. By the time the next day rolled around, the rest of the players probably thought they had made their feelings very clear at the gaming table. It's only because the OP has this bizarre notion that what happens at the table stays at the table that he was confused at the others' reactions. Now it's his responsibility to apologize. Well, I share the OP's 'bizarre notion' that what happens at the gaming table stays there, at least in the case of characters actions and disagreements should not be confused with PLAYER acting out those characters... and annomosity that a character has for another character should not be expresed by a player. However, if I were the OP, and people were ****** out of game about an in game event, I'd talk to them about it, express my feelings on the subject, and if this failed to resolve the issue, I would then apologize and explaine that I play a differant sort of D&D then they apparently do, and I think its wrong to get made at other players for their characters actions, and I'd leave the game. But splitting a group is not exclusively an in-game issue. It impinges on the most precious out-of-game commodity any gamer possesses: time. I LARP too (or did, long ago). But LARP is different. LARP is immersive, so you are always role-playing, whether or not someone splits off from a group. Not so with tabletop where you only have one DM who can only run one group of PCs at a time. See, again, I disagree here. (Surprise) D&D can be played immersivly as well, and thats they way I enjoy it best. If someone splits off from the group, then I still enjoy the game as I am able to watch that persons story unfold. I don't have to be directly involved in ever single moment of the game to enjoy it. To each their own, I guess.
Shadowhowler 05-04-07, 05:41 PM	That itself is paradigmatic of a problem I see in some gamers: they tend to view the game as about them, about their PC, rather then the group as a whole. Instead of a group you end up with a collection of solo PCs. Any time a player uses the word "loner" to describe his PC is time to panic. Heh. When I DM, my focus is 100% on the group. When I play, my focus is 80% me 20% group. Playing should be a more personal consideration then DMing. Players are not all DM's. They are in charge of/control of their characters, and nothing more. As a player, I do make considerations for other players... mostly these take the form out out of game considerations tho. Like before we even begaing play, I am carefull to make sure I make a character I think will jive well with the other players characters and the story the DM intends to tell... in so much as he feels is safe to revale to me at characetr creation stage. However... *IN* game... my primary concern is playing my character. I DM about 10x more then I play, so it is VERY refreshing to be able to concentrait on one character and his motivations/concerns instead of having to worry about EVERYONE.
daggeroflath 05-04-07, 05:53 PM	However... *IN* game... my primary concern is playing my character. I DM about 10x more then I play, so it is VERY refreshing to be able to concentrait on one character and his motivations/concerns instead of having to worry about EVERYONE. Wow. I wish I could do that. Years of nothing but DMing and now even when I'm playing at least half of me is trying to DM. It's terrible. I'd consider myself a good DM, but my playing skills really need some work. Still, I suppose I've had a fair few DMs thanking me for my character keeping the group together, so it's not all bad.
Shadowhowler 05-04-07, 05:58 PM	Wow. I wish I could do that. Years of nothing but DMing and now even when I'm playing at least half of me is trying to DM. It's terrible. I'd consider myself a good DM, but my playing skills really need some work. Still, I suppose I've had a fair few DMs thanking me for my character keeping the group together, so it's not all bad. Yeah... I know exactly what you mean... :( The above statments are how I want it to be (the 80/20 split) but often it turns other ways. In fact, a lot of games I join as a player and play a few months, the DM says 'Ya know, I'm kinda tired of DMing... hey, new guy, you DM a lot right? How about you take over?' Ugh.
weepingminotaur 05-04-07, 06:01 PM	Heh. However... *IN* game... my primary concern is playing my character. I DM about 10x more then I play, so it is VERY refreshing to be able to concentrait on one character and his motivations/concerns instead of having to worry about EVERYONE. Amen to that. It's what I find refreshing about being a player after 5+ years of DMing.
Stormbrand 05-04-07, 06:03 PM	I ran into a really frustrating situation last night in a campaign I am in, and it has really turned me off to my group of D&D pals. We were playing and my character disagreed with a route we should go. Now this could have partially been from misunderstanding the DM but from all I had heard I didn't want to go the same route as everybody else. Now instead of doing what they wanted to do everybody gives me a somber look and follows me. Later on the next day I have people in person mad at me, specifically one player because my character chose to do something different. I don't know how other people feel but shouldn't it be all about having fun in a game and not taking these issues into real life. This really has made me consider quitting altogether. From this, I felt it was an overreaction on their part. Mostly I agree about not taking game issues into real life. Although spoiling my enjoyment of a hobby counts as a real-life issue. OP: "Hi guys, heres a problem I have, I did something, and someone disagreed, then they got mad at me out of the game because I "ruined their fun", despite the fact that they were really just whining about not getting their way." General Response: "Its all your fault. All of it. You ruined their fun, you insensitive prick, how dare you make them not have fun at the expense of your own fun?! Do you see how immaturely they handled the situation?! That is your fault mister! You have no right to try and enjoy yourself, then get hated on, then ask for advice, not on my forums! No way! No how! Begone heathen!" :heehee That was exactly what I had noticed. If nobody else in character would have followed me then we should have gone separate ways. That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. This is the problem. Splitting the group means that the DM can either focus on you or on everyone else. Either way, someone is going to spend a few hours with nothing to do. Do you understand why this is a problem? I think there has to be a 'time-out'/suspension of disbelief mechanism in-game. So yes, metagame. For example, if you were to explain your position to the DM, that there was a girl in need of saving and the issue was time-sensitive, hence you being strongly in favour of the other route, then he could have adjusted things so that you could spend that session with the party and still have chance to save the girl. Any time a player uses the word "loner" to describe his PC is time to panic. QFT
danielinthewolvesden 05-04-07, 06:23 PM	. There are a lot of times where one or more members of the party break off from the main group. When this happens in *MY* games, I don't go off and watch TV... and stay and watch whats going on... and I often find it VERY entiertaining, even if I am not directly involved. If you do not, I'm sorry. I would say there is a problem if you must be invovled in every moment of the game directly to enjoy it.. Well, since splitting the group in the OP example would give the rest of the players a lot of metaknowledge they are not entitled to, most DMs require the players to split also. I have been DMing for over 30 years and I would require it here, but I also do not allow the party to split while adventureing. Certainly while doing minor RPing things and shopping trips in town, the party often splits. But then we can go around the table with each getttin a turn and everyone can listen in.
Shadowhowler 05-04-07, 06:30 PM	Well, since splitting the group in the OP example would give the rest of the players a lot of metaknowledge they are not entitled to, most DMs require the players to split also. I have been DMing for over 30 years and I would require it here, but I also do not allow the party to split while adventureing. Certainly while doing minor RPing things and shopping trips in town, the party often splits. But then we can go around the table with each getttin a turn and everyone can listen in. See... I don't make them leave so they won't have metagame knowledge, I just don't want players USING that knowledge in character. This goes back to the keeping in and out of game seperate. I was taking part in a big debate about player knowledge vs character knowledge a few weeks ago... and how a lot of players metagame by using taticts that are only sound if you understand the rules froma players perspective instead of a characters perspective. Keeping in and out of game seprate works just as well for Meta gaming aspects as it does for not getting emotionaly butt-hurt in real life about something that happened to your character or in game. If I played in a game where the DM required players who were not directly involved in the action to leave the room... then I'd have a much bigger problem with the party spliting up. However... I would probably not play in the abovementioned style of game... so it would be moot.
MoogleEmpMog 05-04-07, 07:04 PM	It seems awfully simple, to me. The GM should have clapped the OP on the shoulder, given him some non-transferrable bonus XP for playing in character, described the road he was walking down - - and told him to make a new character. This would have been an excellent opportunity for the GM to explain that roleplaying games, like team sports, are cooperative endevours, and that 'playing a role' has two meanings: playing the role of another person, as an actor does, and playing a role in the group, as a player on a team does. Unfortunately, the GM sounds at least as culpable as the OP, accepting if not outright encouraging this behavior. As for the other players reactions, mine would be this: if the GM allowed a player to split the party, or, God forfend, appeared to encourage it, I point out the problem once. If it persisted, I would calmly, politely and definitively collect my kit and excuse myself from that GM's games. And, in the same spirit, ask those players who had not been disruptive if they'd like to jump ship to another campaign.
wrecan 05-04-07, 07:11 PM	I make considerations for what kinda character I should play when I make the character, making sure to make a character that will be in line with the characters the other players are going to play, to avoid future party dispute situations and make it more likely that we will all work well together. Also, while playing the character, I sometimes make 'group play' influenced choices... where a little 'Back Seat DM' instinct kicks in, and I let 'how will this work for the party' style thoughts into my head... but this comes from too many years of DMing and not enough playing. :) However, I try to play and explore my character as much as a 'real person' as possible... otherwise I won't enjoy the game. That's fine, given the fact that you've incorporated into your character a basic desire to try to work with the group, something that will ensure that these situations come up rarely. And you've also mentioned that you actively work to make sure any game-play disruptions (as opposed to in-game character arguments) are kept to a minmum. But the OP does not appear to have attempted either of these things. Also, you mentioned ensuring that any "loner" tendencies are okay with the gaming group, which is laudable. Clearly, the OP did not do this (and as far as I can tell thinks that it's not even his responsibility). My parties often break up into smaller groups to acomplish things. And that's reat if the group understands going in. I personally loathe splitting a party up, either as a DM or player. It often requires me to railroad things to keep the time frames distinct. I.e., player 1 splits off from the group. I DM the group's leg first. They adventure for an hour, during which they have a massive battle in which the main fighter is poisoned. So they take a break. So I roleplay player 1. He pulls a metaphorical rabbit out of his hat and manages to complete his leg in a half-hour. He then runs back to join the group. Based on the time, he should be able to rejoin the group fifteen minutes before the fighter gets poisoned (and player 1 has antitoxin in his pack). So now I have to contrive something to prevent this from happening. I hate that stuff. I would say there is a problem if you must be invovled in every moment of the game directly to enjoy it. There's really no need to insult someone else's aesthetics. My group is comprised of folks with kids and jobs. We get to play once a month for maybe six hours. If three of those hours are me being a spectator, I'm not happy, because that's it. That's my roleplaying for the whole month. If I enjoyed being a spectator I'd spend my free time at the local gaming shop and watch people roleplay. I insist on playing my character they way I feel he should be played... and I make sure to play with other players that agree with this style of roleplaying Which is exactly what the OP did not do. So the others thought they were playing a cooperative game and the OP decided he didn't like that so he decided to play an individualistic game. I can't say I blame them for being peeved. The next day the OP's friends were noticably ******/annoyed about something that happeneed in game the day before, and they are ****** about it the next day out of game. I think that is too strong a reaction. I disagree. They were there to play a friendly game and he turned it into an unfriendly game, from their perspective. He didn't seem to consider their expectations. He didn't clear this with any of them out of game. He didn't seem to treat them with any out-of-game consideration. Sometimes your character choices reveal something about you as a person. People are going to react to that. If I'm playing a game with someone, and they annoying me It's not annoying you. You went to a play a game and you ended up spending a lot of the evening not playing. Apply it to poker, pool, Monopoly. Let's say four guys went to play poker, with dealer's choice. And when one guy got to deal, his choice was solitaire. So he played a game of solitaire by himself every fourth hand, and defended his decision by saying "Hey, it's dealer's choice, and this is my choice. Besides, you get to watch me play. Isn't that fun? I'd watch you play solitaire." I think the other guys would be right to be annoyed with him the next day. Now, if the groups had agreed that solitaire was an appropriate dealer's choice, that would be fine. Clearly, however, they did not. However, what cuased these guys to still be ****** the next day would never have angered me in the first place. Only because you expect people to discuss these things beforehand. But that didn't happen. D&D can be played immersivly as well, and thats they way I enjoy it best. I think your position is contradictory. It cannot be immersive to be a spectator while other people play. By definition, you are pulled out of character. I love playing a character and being in character the whole time I play. Breaking character is the complete opposite of immersion. To each their own, I guess. Yes. And that means a player should make sure that each individual's own style is not inconsistent with the group's style.
Ack 05-05-07, 01:09 AM	I've run games where one (or more) characters split off from the group to follow some situation up. If their reasoning is sensible, I let them do it. What I do then is, I run the game in a 'split' fashion; I push one half of the party along until I hit a stopping point (such as the intro to a battle) then say "Hold." I let him think about that while I turn to the others, and say, "Right, where were we?" I then get them going in their direction. When I hit a stopping place, I say, "Hold," and get back to the other guy. Sure, some people are left doing nothing for certain periods of time, but it's the same in any big combat; if five or more players are participating, there are minutes on end where some players are going, "Geez, get back to me already." Better; if you stop at a good point, the party who is left hanging has something to think about (such as tactics for the upcoming battle). Also note that GMing a small portion of a party is quicker and easier (and takes up less time) than a large portion - because you're dealing with less people. A mono-party (ie, a person on his own) is the quickest, because he doesn't have anyone to disagree with. Combats are over more quickly too (even if you don't kill 'em off in the first round). So yes, Victoria, split-party games are possible to run and (if you do it right) quite entertaining to the people who are left to sit and watch. So maybe the GM wasn't interfering because he could have (shock gasp horror) dealt with it? And maybe the other players overreacted because they underrated the GM? Splitting the party is no biggie. It just requires care and attention - and knowledge of what makes a good stopping point.
Shadowhowler 05-05-07, 04:48 AM	Heh. I'm to tired to respond to everything the way I would like to, so I'm condensing to those points which are of greatest intrest to me. :) That's fine, given the fact that you've incorporated into your character a basic desire to try to work with the group, something that will ensure that these situations come up rarely. Yup... I think carefull and thoughtfull character creation can allow for more ability to roleplay your character and minimise inter-party conflict more then anything eles. Thats why in my games everyone makes their character together, with consideration for eveyone eles and without steping on anyone eles toes. New players are added very carefully and only if everyone in the group agrees. This makes inter-part conflict almost non existant. There's really no need to insult someone else's aesthetics. My group is comprised of folks with kids and jobs. We get to play once a month for maybe six hours. If three of those hours are me being a spectator, I'm not happy, because that's it. That's my roleplaying for the whole month. I don't see how I insulted anyones 'aesthetics'... I mearly pointed out I think someone who needs to be center stage all the time and is annoyed if they are not seems wrong to me. You pointed out that you think someone who feels a need to play there characters personality over group considerations seems wrong to you, and I would say you were more adament and borderline rude about it then I was about stating my opinion. My gaming group also consists of people with jobs, wives, kids... I'm 31 years old, it would be impossable to avoid these things at this stage! However, *I* don't mind sitting back for an hour or so in game if other characters are doing something I am not involved in, I know there will be times where they will do the same while *I* am doing something they are not doing. It all balances out in the end. However, if there was *ONE* problem player who consistently took up all the time... then I would have a problem with that and I would talk to the player and the DM (if it were not me, however, sadly, it is me more often then not.) and try to resolve it. Sometimes your character choices reveal something about you as a person. People are going to react to that. I belive the above statment is VERY true, tho not in the way you mean it. ;) I think your position is contradictory. It cannot be immersive to be a spectator while other people play. By definition, you are pulled out of character. I love playing a character and being in character the whole time I play. Breaking character is the complete opposite of immersion. I prefer an immersive style of game, where players create characters and the only considerations that make up how those characters act is the personality of the created character, rather then a metagamed sense of needing to make sure the party stays together at all times, even if it makes sense that a character would not do so at the moment. This means that, sometimes, I or another player is not activly playing, so at that moment we are not immersed in our characters, true... but the playstyle for the game IS immersion, and when we do play the characters in the game, we get much more deeply into them then we would if we metagamed them. Does that clear it up any? Yes. And that means a player should make sure that each individual's own style is not inconsistent with the group's style. This, I belive, is the single most important aspect to be atended to out of game. If you make sure of this BEFORE play, you will not have the problems the OP is having after play. All it takes is a little conversation with the players... and LOTS of un fun things are avoided, and your games will be SO much more enjoyable. It is indeed a shame the OP negleted this very important aspect of good gaming.
the_Luggage 05-05-07, 09:32 AM	I had no idea the "group is sacrosanct" mentality was so prevalent. In the games I have run, the group always split up, sometimes 3 ways. It's just important to know when to switch back and forth. I'd either adapt encounters to try and minimise the risk of TPK or just let them bungle in and get hammered- it's supposed to be a realistic world, and people split up! My players were all able to 1)Enjoy watching what was going on with the othe players (without metagaming) 2) Have amusing inter character banter 3) chat about other things, or pop outside for a drink of cola/smoke/loo run. I see from reading this that this way of playing isn't very common for a lot of you. I'm at a loss as to why though, my players and I had barrels of laughs, and solo adventures can be very exciting. Each to his own I suppose. To the original poster, I'd say try and find a group that appreciates individuality. They are out there. In my area, the group think types are much rarer than party splitters. Interesting to here about everyone's points of veiw though.
Ack 05-05-07, 11:42 AM	I had no idea the "group is sacrosanct" mentality was so prevalent. In the games I have run, the group always split up, sometimes 3 ways. It's just important to know when to switch back and forth. I'd either adapt encounters to try and minimise the risk of TPK or just let them bungle in and get hammered- it's supposed to be a realistic world, and people split up! My players were all able to 1)Enjoy watching what was going on with the othe players (without metagaming) 2) Have amusing inter character banter 3) chat about other things, or pop outside for a drink of cola/smoke/loo run. I see from reading this that this way of playing isn't very common for a lot of you. I'm at a loss as to why though, my players and I had barrels of laughs, and solo adventures can be very exciting. Each to his own I suppose. To the original poster, I'd say try and find a group that appreciates individuality. They are out there. In my area, the group think types are much rarer than party splitters. Interesting to here about everyone's points of veiw though. Exactly.
danielinthewolvesden 05-05-07, 04:17 PM	I had no idea the "group is sacrosanct" mentality was so prevalent. In the games I have run, the group always split up, sometimes 3 ways. I see from reading this that this way of playing isn't very common for a lot of you. I'm at a loss as to why though, my players and I had barrels of laughs, and solo adventures can be very exciting. Each to his own I suppose. Interesting to here about everyone's points of veiw though. Been playing and DMing for over 30 years. When you are an adult, and you get only a few precious gaming hours, you want to be gaming during all of them. Sure, when we were younger and played 20 hours a week, some solo stuff was fun. But watching someone else play is not as fun as playing yourself, which is why few folks watch D&D.
weepingminotaur 05-05-07, 04:29 PM	In the group I DM, the party splits up fairly often, though I try not to make solo adventures last long. In fact, I'll cap the encounters at roughly 20 minutes and switch back and forth between groups so that some players aren't sitting on their thumbs for long stretches of time. Obviously, from a gameplay and DM standpoint, I prefer the party to stay together when possible, but sometimes it just makes sense, especially when time is a factor in the adventure. I don't see it being a problem unless the players themselves object. In fact, it's a very effective way of giving face time to individual party members, and really bringing out the unique strengths of each character in different situations. That being said, as a 30-year-old player, I fully appreciate the mentality of not wanting to waste precious gaming time. Our group aims to meet once a week, but often times it's once every two weeks -- people's work schedules, other events, kids to take care of, etc. So if I'm showing up for 4-6 precious hours of gaming time, and I'm unsure when our next session will be, I sure as hell don't want to spend most of it leafing through sourcebooks while someone else is playing a solo adventure, especially given that most people have to work the next day.
daggeroflath 05-05-07, 05:28 PM	DM says 'Ya know, I'm kinda tired of DMing... hey, new guy, you DM a lot right? How about you take over?' Thankfully, I just get asked to take over for a few sessions while they work on where the campaign is going. I do a few episodic sessions which don't touch on the metaplot and they spend those weeks refreshing their DMing inspiration. I know what you mean though. I'm lucky that out of the roleplayers I usually game with four of them (not including me) are people who like to DM (and 3 of them are good DMs ;)). This means that we usually get some chance to play. That's what I've got now though... go back in time a short while and if I wanted to roleplay it would mean me running a game. I learned to DM before I played (when I was a kid I got original D&D for my birthday after months of begging and then ran games for my family for years before I found other gamers). I love DMing, but I want more of a chance to play, partly just to learn how to do it better. I'm a pretty lousy player in some ways.
Sunic_Flames 05-05-07, 06:20 PM	Oh and the DM didn't have a problem with it, not once did he mention any qualms with what I was doing. I take that as being okay if the man in charge is okay with it. Everybody should control their characters as individuals. This particular player who was considerably mad at me more than the others, tends to play the same character and has trouble really roleplaying him. Imagine a character who can't come close to his CN alignment because he's kissing group booty the whole time, unable to break from his shell. *uses Detect Chaotic Stupid SLA, then uses Smite Moron on the guilty character* :rolleyes: OOC: Because someone had to do something paladin like while possessing an Intelligence above 8.
the_Luggage 05-05-07, 08:24 PM	Hmmm. Well, I play 3 hours a week so maybe it's easier for me to say "Solo stuff is fun!" But I agree that 20 minutes is the maximum you should spend on one character.I have played in the other type of group, and see the advantages, but overall I prefer to let people do their own thing.
Johnny_Angel 05-05-07, 10:39 PM	Personally, I don't see why the other party members didn't just go the way they wanted to go. The few games I have DMed tended to have large parties of around 8 pcs, so there have been times when not everyone agreed on what they wanted to do. It's not easy, but it's also not unreasonable for the DM to allow the party to split up. Normally I just explain to the players that if they split up that they're going to have understand that each group is going to need to take turns. I don't think I explained what I was trying to say very well, but it works in my games ::shrugs::. I don't feel the OP was wrong. His character disagreed with what the other characters wanted to do. I hardly see that as a cardinal sin. My advice to the OP is to not let the attitude of the other players keep you from playing D&D. Sometimes (unfortunately) in-game situations spill over into out-of-game life; it sucks, but it happens. If need be, try just talking to the other players calmly and explain to them that you were just trying to do what you felt your character would do in that situation.
wrecan 05-05-07, 10:40 PM	I don't see how I insulted anyones 'aesthetics'... I mearly pointed out I think someone who needs to be center stage all the time and is annoyed if they are not seems wrong to me. Actually, you didn't say "center stage" (and it would be odd of you to say such a thing, since nobody is talking about being center stage.) You said you thought that someone who wanted to be "involved" in the game the whole time was wrong. Since we were discussing splittin parties up and having people sit out while others got to play, you could only be referring to people being annoyed that they had to sit out because someone split up the party. That annoys me, because I get to play 6 hours/month. Splitting the party means I just lost half my month's play-time. You pointed out that you think someone who feels a need to play there characters personality over group considerations seems wrong to you, and I would say you were more adament and borderline rude about it then I was about stating my opinion. I wasn't talking about gaming style. I was talking about people being unconcerned about others' feelings. You obviously aren't in that group becausse you won't play characters that will p.o. your fellow gamers. I prefer an immersive style of game, where players create characters and the only considerations that make up how those characters act is the personality of the created character, rather then a metagamed sense of needing to make sure the party stays together at all times, even if it makes sense that a character would not do so at the moment. But you don't. You do the metagaming before you create the character, ensuring that the character would not be the kind of guy to engage in behavior that will upset people out of game. You try to arrange things so that you minimize metagaming during the game. I do the same thing. And I make sure my characters' personalities won't result in disruptive play, because I don't like siting out for an hour or two and so I won't inflict that on people I call friend. Which is great. But isn't what the OP did.
Mock26 05-05-07, 11:13 PM	I ran into a really frustrating situation last night in a campaign I am in, and it has really turned me off to my group of D&D pals. We were playing and my character disagreed with a route we should go. Now this could have partially been from misunderstanding the DM but from all I had heard I didn't want to go the same route as everybody else. Now instead of doing what they wanted to do everybody gives me a somber look and follows me. Later on the next day I have people in person mad at me, specifically one player because my character chose to do something different. I don't know how other people feel but shouldn't it be all about having fun in a game and not taking these issues into real life. This really has made me consider quitting altogether. Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have stood your ground on this issue, but sometimes, for the benefit of keeping player harmony within the group, you have to metagame and ignore what your character would do and do what the majority of the group would do. I am curious, though, as to why you thought it acceptable to want the group to do what you wanted to do but it was not acceptable for you to do what they wanted to do. Sometimes having an enjoyable D&D session is about treating it like a democracy. If the majority of the group wants to go one way, then it is sometimes best for the entire group to go that way, even if it something that your character wouldn't necessarily do. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john.
Ack 05-05-07, 11:33 PM	Now, I'm not saying that you shouldn't have stood your ground on this issue, but sometimes, for the benefit of keeping player harmony within the group, you have to metagame and ignore what your character would do and do what the majority of the group would do. I am curious, though, as to why you thought it acceptable to want the group to do what you wanted to do but it was not acceptable for you to do what they wanted to do. Sometimes having an enjoyable D&D session is about treating it like a democracy. If the majority of the group wants to go one way, then it is sometimes best for the entire group to go that way, even if it something that your character wouldn't necessarily do. Take care and have a great day.... ciao, john. So where, exactly, does that end? Players have free will, and so (hopefully) do their characters. Does the character have to refrain from doing anything and everything because the rest of the party doesn't want him to do that? There's maintaining party harmony ... and then there's letting them tell you what to do. [over the top example] (Party is getting set for an encounter) Wizard goes over to fighter. "Uh, we've decided that we'd prefer it if you matched us in armour and weapons." Fighter: "Huh?" Wizard: "Well, you've got full plate and a two handed sword. The best we've got is studded leather and the rogue is using a shortsword. We'd really feel better if you only used stuff that good, we wouldn't think it was right otherwise." Fighter: "What the hell? What sort of cr@p is this?" (Puts on the rest of his armour and weapons.) "I'm a fighter - this is what I use. Live with it!" Other players, OOC: "You know, you're ruining our fun. Do you have to be so argumentative?" [/over the top example] The OP demonstrably was not trying to force the other players into doing something (ie, going the way he wanted to go). He was going to go that way, whether or not they did. They, on the other hand, were trying to force him into going the way they wanted to go. When he refused to budge, they gave in (their choice!) and went with him, and had bad feelings about it. Worse, they projected their bad feelings on to him. It has been indicated by at least two people on here (me being one) that a split-party game can be run with minimum fuss, at least by a GM who knows what he's doing. Thus, whether they knew it or not, the other party members were working from a flawed set of data. They may have been raised on "Split the party = TPK" but that just ain't true unless the GM wants it to be so. QED
ArcTan 05-06-07, 02:06 AM	The fact that D&D balances power in such a way that you really can't split up the party even when it's a natural thing to do is one of the things I don't like about it.
Shadowhowler 05-06-07, 02:13 AM	Been playing and DMing for over 30 years. When you are an adult, and you get only a few precious gaming hours, you want to be gaming during all of them. Sure, when we were younger and played 20 hours a week, some solo stuff was fun. But watching someone else play is not as fun as playing yourself, which is why few folks watch D&D. This may be true for you, but not for everyone. I am also an adult with work and a wife and many things going on, and I don't game nearly as much as I did when I was a kid. However, that has not changed the WAY I game when I do get the chance... I don't feel a need to be more directly involved every moment of the game then I did when I was young. So... your aproch may have changed as you got older, but not eveyones did.
Shadowhowler 05-06-07, 02:16 AM	Thankfully, I just get asked to take over for a few sessions while they work on where the campaign is going. I do a few episodic sessions which don't touch on the metaplot and they spend those weeks refreshing their DMing inspiration. I know what you mean though. I'm lucky that out of the roleplayers I usually game with four of them (not including me) are people who like to DM (and 3 of them are good DMs ;)). This means that we usually get some chance to play. My gaming group of over 15 years ranged in size from 3 to 9 or so at any point in time.... but there were only 2 people in it that would DM... and I was one of them. :(
maharai23 05-06-07, 02:32 AM	Maybe you should. Yes, this is about having fun, so why were you being a roadblock in your friends having fun? This is what I charitably call "Wet Blanket PC". A PC has a character quirk that is going to ruin everyone else's fun. Rather than consider how he's ruining everyone else's fun, he insists on continuing the action because "it's in character." Here's a hint: when your character is ruining people's fun... change the character! If your character would choose an action that brings the game to a screeching halt... make a different choice. What, you should compromise your role-playing in the name of cooperation? Yes! D&D is a cooperative enterprise. People need to compromise. Your friends were within their rights to be irked with you out-of-game because you affected their fun evening. Oh. My. God. Are you READING what you just wrote? D&D isn't about getting what you want. It's about a group of friends, sitting around a table, eating chips, drinking Mountain Dew, and having fun. Joking, socializing. Where the story goes is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Getting mad at someone over a GAME is silliness. It's like getting angry at someone because they did a trade you didn't like in monopoly.
ArcanaKnight 05-06-07, 03:28 AM	If you do more role-playing than roll-playing you tend to get more involved with your character and this can cause your in game feelings to seep into your real life attitudes. It has happened to me more than once, but it passed relatively quickly. And I wouldn't joke too much about the monopoly thing, I've known people that get very mad about such things. The OP demonstrably was not trying to force the other players into doing something (ie, going the way he wanted to go). He was going to go that way, whether or not they did. They, on the other hand, were trying to force him into going the way they wanted to go. When he refused to budge, they gave in (their choice!) and went with him, and had bad feelings about it. Worse, they projected their bad feelings on to him. The rest of the party probably went with him because they made a decision based on the idea (however correct) that if he went off on his own he would probably die and they as his friends/party members didn't want that to happen. They probably felt resentment because they were forced into that path by his stubborn refusal to not go the way everyone else had decided to go. The rest of the party is also partly to blame for not listening to his reasons. I suppose that if it was just a temporary bitterness on both parts you should keep playing. If one or both sides can't let this sort of thing go, then they need to either talk about it or seperate and find different groups that play to their style.
Noon 05-06-07, 03:39 AM	It sounds like the other players thought the poster was throwing a mini tantrum and they had to give in - you know, like when you play a game with a seven year old who has a tantrum when they lose, so you throw the game just to get over that. I don't know if that happened. It could also be that they can't actually imagine friends not instantly agreeing with each other and see any disagreement between friends as something terrible. Really there's not enough info at the moment - but that covers two bases, anyway.
daggeroflath 05-06-07, 03:41 AM	Firstly Ack, let me just say, that your example was really really over the top. So much so that I personally felt it had no relevance to the argument. Parody and slippery slope arguments are fine, but there are points where you just go, huh? It has been indicated by at least two people on here (me being one) that a split-party game can be run with minimum fuss, at least by a GM who knows what he's doing. So, basically if I disagree with you here, suddenly I'm a DM who doesn't know what he's doing. Gosh, I'd better not disagree... I'm a DM. I can even go as far as saying I'm a pretty good and very experienced DM without my humility stopping me (in other words I know what I'm doing). I can't run a split-party game with a minimum of fuss. Normally 50% less will happen this session because I'm cutting between them. Yes, there are tricks to reducing this, running one of the groups while the other group is thinking, etc. As a DM who "knows what he's doing" I'm familiar with these tricks. If I absolutely have to I'll use them but I'd prefer not to have to because it's more than a minimum of fuss. I'll have to be really on the ball while the group is split up and I'll be demanding more of the players while I do that. That's a lot of energy taken away from the other aspects of the game, just getting thrown into handling a split up group. But there's certainly fuss and difficulty to split the group up. Then I have the choice of sacrificing game world integrity by changing the stats of the enemy on the fly to compensate for the split group (more work which will slow down the game thus creating more fuss), or leaving them as written which means I'm probably going to get a PC death that session. Now if they're splitting up to buy a longsword from the blacksmith while the rest go for a drink, that's not a huge worry. But splitting up between 2 combat encounters in the midst of a session. I know what I'm doing but that'll still cause me a lot of difficulty as a DM. Maybe if I have a chance to prepare for it, for example it happens at the end of the session or it's something I've arranged, then it'll work out better but a sudden "we're going to split up now" is going to give me major headaches.
maharai23 05-06-07, 04:11 AM	If you do more role-playing than roll-playing you tend to get more involved with your character and this can cause your in game feelings to seep into your real life attitudes. It has happened to me more than once, but it passed relatively quickly. And I wouldn't joke too much about the monopoly thing, I've known people that get very mad about such things. I greatly prefer storyline to battle-time. And so does the ENTIRE group I play with. And none of us ever take on-board to the off-board world. It's not worth it. Taking any game to the point of being angry over it is just plain childish. Especially monopoly. Remember, more than the story, more than the combat, D&D is about getting together, bein' with your buddies, and having FUN. If there's a problem with that, it needs to be TALKED about... Nobody should let it get to the point of being angry. The rest of the party probably went with him because they made a decision based on the idea (however correct) that if he went off on his own he would probably die and they as his friends/party members didn't want that to happen. They probably felt resentment because they were forced into that path by his stubborn refusal to not go the way everyone else had decided to go. The rest of the party is also partly to blame for not listening to his reasons. I suppose that if it was just a temporary bitterness on both parts you should keep playing. If one or both sides can't let this sort of thing go, then they need to either talk about it or seperate and find different groups that play to their style. It can always be let go. All you have to do is talk about the problem. If people get ****** over how a freakin' character in a freakin' GAME is played, those aren't the sort of people who can seperate reality from fantasy enough to play the game.
wrecan 05-06-07, 01:12 PM	Oh. My. God. Are you READING what you just wrote? Yes, are you reading what I wrote, because your rsponse to it doesn't match anything I said. D&D isn't about getting what you want. It's about a group of friends, sitting around a table, eating chips, drinking Mountain Dew, and having fun. Joking, socializing. Where the story goes is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Agreed. Where did you get the idea I said that players get to dictate where the story goes. I'm talking about how one person gets to dictate whether other people are actually playing. It's one thing for a player to go solo when everybody has agreed ahead of time that sort of thing is acceptable. It's another thing for a player to decide unilaterally that he's going to take an action that will necesitate his friends sitting out, which is what happened here. It doesn't matter what the specific storyline is. That's why it's not an in-game issue. The problem arises out of the out-of-game ramifications of his conduct. If someone decided that during combat, he had to physically pantomime his character's movements, as part of his "immersion" into character, would you support it even if it measurably slowed the game down? i doubt it. I suspect 99% of all gaming groups would get upset when players waste their time. That's not getting upset about in-game behavior. That's getting upset about out-of-game behavior. And if the player tries to invoke "immersion" as a defense to his behavior, then he's trying to use the game as a shield for his inconsiderate behavior. Getting mad at someone over a GAME is silliness. They're not upset over a game. The guy's actions didn't even affect their characters in-game in any appreciable way. They're upset over his out-of-game lack of consideration. It's like getting angry at someone because they did a trade you didn't like in monopoly. It's not like that at all. It's like the guy in the middle of the game of Monopoly loudly making a barking noise everytime he moved his dog-piece and ocassionally chewing on the guy playing the shoe, because he thinks it improves the game, even though it should be clear that nobody else is entertained by his antics, and when you bring it up during the game, he thinks you're only criticizing him "in-character".
Mock26 05-06-07, 02:36 PM	So where, exactly, does that end? Players have free will, and so (hopefully) do their characters. Does the character have to refrain from doing anything and everything because the rest of the party doesn't want him to do that? There's maintaining party harmony ... and then there's letting them tell you what to do. [over the top example] (Party is getting set for an encounter) Wizard goes over to fighter. "Uh, we've decided that we'd prefer it if you matched us in armour and weapons." Fighter: "Huh?" Wizard: "Well, you've got full plate and a two handed sword. The best we've got is studded leather and the rogue is using a shortsword. We'd really feel better if you only used stuff that good, we wouldn't think it was right otherwise." Fighter: "What the hell? What sort of cr@p is this?" (Puts on the rest of his armour and weapons.) "I'm a fighter - this is what I use. Live with it!" Other players, OOC: "You know, you're ruining our fun. Do you have to be so argumentative?" [/over the top example] The OP demonstrably was not trying to force the other players into doing something (ie, going the way he wanted to go). He was going to go that way, whether or not they did. They, on the other hand, were trying to force him into going the way they wanted to go. When he refused to budge, they gave in (their choice!) and went with him, and had bad feelings about it. Worse, they projected their bad feelings on to him. It has been indicated by at least two people on here (me being one) that a split-party game can be run with minimum fuss, at least by a GM who knows what he's doing. Thus, whether they knew it or not, the other party members were working from a flawed set of data. They may have been raised on "Split the party = TPK" but that just ain't true unless the GM wants it to be so. QED Please note that I used the word "sometimes" in both of my paragraphs. And while the original poster may not have intended to force the rest of the group to go the way he wanted, he did indirectly force them to go that way. They were probably doing it just to keep his character alive, and while the rest of the group made the decision to go with him, they, in part, did it against their will. The players were doing something they didn't want to do. Again, whether or not it was intended, the original poster created some serious group disharmony by his actions. And, as I said, sometimes the greater good of the group supercedes the desires and wants of the individual player. Please note that I said, "Sometimes." As for splitting the group, yes it can be run with a miminum fuss. (It can also be run with more fuss than is necessary or good for the players and/or DM, and sometimes by even the best of DM's). But, it can be an easy recipe for a group disaster. What would have happened if the original poster had gone after the werewolf and the werewolf had a CR/EL equal to the entire group, and not just one member? That character would have died, and then the rest of the group would have been short a character. I'm not saying that splitting the party = TPK all the time, but it can. In my opinion, a good DM, if he has encounters designed to be a challenge to the entire group, should not change those encounters if the group splits up and only half the group shows up at that encounter.
Geogoose 05-06-07, 02:52 PM	It is a matter of style, for one thing. Game preference if you will. I said this in my first reply but people have already started down the path of arguing who is right: Those who say it is ok to split groups up and those who say it is best to stay together. They are two different styles. I've seen players who immediately jump up from thier seat and go play a video game or watch TV when it isn't thier character's turn in the "split". I've also seen players who stay interested. In any case, the DM has to work harder with 2x more things to sift through and look up to run 2 adventures. The OP thinks splitting up is fine andexpects the DM to handle it. It is my opinion the OP's friends are in the other camp. They feel splitting up the group will result in half a game for everyone and were forced into agreeing with the OP's demands. All of these players should discuss thier gaming preference to avoid a game problem into becoming a real life problem.
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-06-07, 05:55 PM	It's not even about splitting the party, not really. It's about one guy being a big turd because he's got this gigantic ego that knocks people around from as far as five feet away thinking that since he put Chaotic on his character sheet he can do whatever because "that's what his character would do". It doesn't have to be CareBears, but it never hurts to use a little consideration. I feel the OP in this case was entirely wrong. He should have been allowed to go his own way, but he should have been handed an empty character sheet and told, "You got eaten by the werewolf and so did the fair damsel. Go ahead and roll up another character and I'll see if I can fit you in a session or two down the road." Then the party could have gone on their merry way, doing what they intended to do in the first place without the chaotic/ornery ball and chain on their ankle.
Ack 05-06-07, 08:06 PM	It's not even about splitting the party, not really. It's about one guy being a big turd because he's got this gigantic ego that knocks people around from as far as five feet away thinking that since he put Chaotic on his character sheet he can do whatever because "that's what his character would do". It doesn't have to be CareBears, but it never hurts to use a little consideration. I feel the OP in this case was entirely wrong. He should have been allowed to go his own way, but he should have been handed an empty character sheet and told, "You got eaten by the werewolf and so did the fair damsel. Go ahead and roll up another character and I'll see if I can fit you in a session or two down the road." Then the party could have gone on their merry way, doing what they intended to do in the first place without the chaotic/ornery ball and chain on their ankle. Okay ... so in your groups, do you put a leash on the rogue when he goes scouting (you know, those wind-out ones) just to make sure he doesn't decide to go and 'do his own thing' as soon as he is out of sight of the rest of the party? Because it certainly sounds as though any kind of individualism and self-reliance is being hammered flat into the Borg of "We are the party. You will be assimilated." People go and do things on their own all the time. It happens. Even in real life. Hell, it happens in movies. Know what I would have done if the "I go off and save the girl from the werewolf" thing happened in my game - even if I'd planned it to be a CR-equivalent encounter for the entire party? I would have adapted. Werewolf would have been out someplace (you know, slaughtering an innocent village, feasting on some poor unfortunate horse) and there would have been some challenge for the lone PC to overcome to save the girl. And then the werewolf would have tracked them down by scent and attacked ... when he got back to the rest of the party with the girl. Level appropriate encounter, a nice exciting fight is had by all. In some games, the players know that the GM is going to hold all encounters until the PCs reach them - and sometimes this results in a "We'll take them one at a time" attitude by the characters. And sometimes, the GM is working on a timetable that the players don't know about. Sometimes, if the players take the time to go and do something else first, by the time they get back to saving the girl - it's too late. Oh, and finally - killing off a character because the player chooses to go and sort out an in-game problem on his own - that's the height of being unfair. This is not Zork, and wandering off on your own without a light will not automatically lead to you being eaten by a Grue. The characters are actually capable, intelligent adults in their own right. Played correctly, they should be able to meet a (level-appropriate) challenge and overcome it, so long as the GM doesn't decide to arbitrarily kill them off just because they dared to venture away from the sanctity of the party. Oh, and by the way, choosing to go against party wishes is NOT being Chaotic. It's not a "law of the land" that you have to do what your party says.
Ack 05-06-07, 08:21 PM	Firstly Ack, let me just say, that your example was really really over the top. So much so that I personally felt it had no relevance to the argument. Parody and slippery slope arguments are fine, but there are points where you just go, huh? That's the point of the 'over the top' notation I put on it. I wanted an example that no-one - absolutely no-one - could ponder and go, "You know, the party has a point there...". It had to be ridiculously over the top, while at the same time being about the party trying to enforce their will on one player on how he played his character. So, basically if I disagree with you here, suddenly I'm a DM who doesn't know what he's doing. Gosh, I'd better not disagree... No, you're a GM who disagrees with me. No more and no less. I'm not the greatest GM in the business, and I find it possible to do. So do others, whom I know personally. So it's possible. This is not a point of conjecture. I'm a DM. I can even go as far as saying I'm a pretty good and very experienced DM without my humility stopping me (in other words I know what I'm doing). I can't run a split-party game with a minimum of fuss. Normally 50% less will happen this session because I'm cutting between them. Yes, there are tricks to reducing this, running one of the groups while the other group is thinking, etc. As a DM who "knows what he's doing" I'm familiar with these tricks. If I absolutely have to I'll use them but I'd prefer not to have to because it's more than a minimum of fuss. I'll have to be really on the ball while the group is split up and I'll be demanding more of the players while I do that. That's a lot of energy taken away from the other aspects of the game, just getting thrown into handling a split up group. Yes, it is harder than running a 'party as a whole' game. I have no argument with that. But there's certainly fuss and difficulty to split the group up. Then I have the choice of sacrificing game world integrity by changing the stats of the enemy on the fly to compensate for the split group (more work which will slow down the game thus creating more fuss), or leaving them as written which means I'm probably going to get a PC death that session. I can see that splitting the party unexpectedly where one side is going to hit a single, indivisible enemy, could be problematic. I don't tend to have the plotline nailed down solid; I always leave a little wiggle room (because ya know, those wacky players, they'll always do something to throw you out...) Now if they're splitting up to buy a longsword from the blacksmith while the rest go for a drink, that's not a huge worry. But splitting up between 2 combat encounters in the midst of a session. I know what I'm doing but that'll still cause me a lot of difficulty as a DM. Only if you let it. Really. Maybe if I have a chance to prepare for it, for example it happens at the end of the session or it's something I've arranged, then it'll work out better but a sudden "we're going to split up now" is going to give me major headaches. Some games I've run have been based around separating the party members. Some players get comfortable in the 'party' setting and get used to having other party members to lean on when things get tough; it's a salutary lesson for them to suddenly have to rely on their own sword arm (or their own sneakiness) once in a while. And it makes them appreciate the other characters so much more when they rejoin the party...
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-06-07, 09:18 PM	Okay ... so in your groups, do you put a leash on the rogue when he goes scouting (you know, those wind-out ones) just to make sure he doesn't decide to go and 'do his own thing' as soon as he is out of sight of the rest of the party? Because it certainly sounds as though any kind of individualism and self-reliance is being hammered flat into the Borg of "We are the party. You will be assimilated." People go and do things on their own all the time. It happens. Even in real life. Hell, it happens in movies. Know what I would have done if the "I go off and save the girl from the werewolf" thing happened in my game - even if I'd planned it to be a CR-equivalent encounter for the entire party? I would have adapted. Werewolf would have been out someplace (you know, slaughtering an innocent village, feasting on some poor unfortunate horse) and there would have been some challenge for the lone PC to overcome to save the girl. And then the werewolf would have tracked them down by scent and attacked ... when he got back to the rest of the party with the girl. Level appropriate encounter, a nice exciting fight is had by all. In some games, the players know that the GM is going to hold all encounters until the PCs reach them - and sometimes this results in a "We'll take them one at a time" attitude by the characters. And sometimes, the GM is working on a timetable that the players don't know about. Sometimes, if the players take the time to go and do something else first, by the time they get back to saving the girl - it's too late. Oh, and finally - killing off a character because the player chooses to go and sort out an in-game problem on his own - that's the height of being unfair. This is not Zork, and wandering off on your own without a light will not automatically lead to you being eaten by a Grue. The characters are actually capable, intelligent adults in their own right. Played correctly, they should be able to meet a (level-appropriate) challenge and overcome it, so long as the GM doesn't decide to arbitrarily kill them off just because they dared to venture away from the sanctity of the party. Oh, and by the way, choosing to go against party wishes is NOT being Chaotic. It's not a "law of the land" that you have to do what your party says. I'll begin at the bottom and work my way up. You are absolutely right, sometimes choosing to go against the party's wishes is a lawful action. That wasn't the point I made. A lot of people fall in the trap of, since I am chaotic, I can justify any action I choose to take, including separating from the party in a really dangerous situation just because it's not what I wanna do. You're dead on. It's not chaotic, it's a rude thing to do and inconsiderate, but lawful people can fall prey to those traits too. In this case, his forcing the party to go along with what he wanted even though they didn't want to was a childish thing to do. They shouldn't have given in to him either, they should have let him go. In most cases, I am pleased to let a character go off on their own, but they way he handled the situation roused my ire and I don't even know the fellow. I fibbed in my earlier post. If the OP had been allowed in my game at all to begin with, that would have ended it. Doing your thing to the benefit of the others is fine. Forcing them to do what you want because you have an ego problem isn't fine and that would have been it. The chance that the lady could be dead when they got around to her is one that they chose to take. Maybe they knew the DM wouldn't kill her in the interim and decided to take care of the greater threat first. However it came down, the PARTY, other than the egocentric dissenting member, decided to do things the other way. Them's the breaks, kid. Deal or leave. The idea of the lone wolf hunting down a threat made for the entire party would have ended in my campaign the way it would naturally. The werewolf would have eaten him or turned him into a lycanthrope himself. I wouldn't dummy down an encounter because one player decided to be foolish. My players can try to singlehandedly take on any monster I create, but I won't go easy on them because of it. I wouldn't have taken up the other players' time roleplaying an encounter with such a predictable ending either. In any case, he didn't go alone. He made the others come with him, because they understand the necessity of group cohesion and didn't want him, for whatever reason, to get killed on his own. It's okay for party members to go out on their own with good reason and I don't mind passing notes across the table just to keep with the action on both sides. I don't leash my players, common sense does. They know what they are capable of and will run off to handle anything they feel they can handle alone. What they _don't_ do is I-me-I-me their way into serious fighting alone, because they know better. What I object to is the way this particular player handled things. If you're ruining everyone else's fun, it's time for you to grab your hat.
green_yawgmoth 05-06-07, 09:25 PM	From what I just read, your reasoning for halting the game with your in-character antics was not even because it was something your character would do. Rather, you felt that creating conflict made for good roleplaying. C:\programs\life\fail.exe The DM should have let you face the werewolf alone. /agree Being contrary just for the sake of stirring up crap isn't good roleplaying. It's being an ass who should be literally kicked out the door. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Stormbrand 05-06-07, 10:11 PM	Oh. My. God. Are you READING what you just wrote? D&D isn't about getting what you want. It's about a group of friends, sitting around a table, eating chips, drinking Mountain Dew, and having fun. Joking, socializing. Where the story goes is COMPLETELY irrelevant. Getting mad at someone over a GAME is silliness. It's like getting angry at someone because they did a trade you didn't like in monopoly. Getting mad at someone for preventing me from enjoying a hobby is reason to be mad at them. Personally, I don't see why the other party members didn't just go the way they wanted to go. The few games I have DMed tended to have large parties of around 8 pcs, so there have been times when not everyone agreed on what they wanted to do. It's not easy, but it's also not unreasonable for the DM to allow the party to split up. Normally I just explain to the players that if they split up that they're going to have understand that each group is going to need to take turns. I don't think I explained what I was trying to say very well, but it works in my games ::shrugs::. If we split up, someone will be sat down bored. I've run games where one (or more) characters split off from the group to follow some situation up. If their reasoning is sensible, I let them do it. What I do then is, I run the game in a 'split' fashion; I push one half of the party along until I hit a stopping point (such as the intro to a battle) then say "Hold." I let him think about that while I turn to the others, and say, "Right, where were we?" I then get them going in their direction. When I hit a stopping place, I say, "Hold," and get back to the other guy. Sure, some people are left doing nothing for certain periods of time, but it's the same in any big combat; if five or more players are participating, there are minutes on end where some players are going, "Geez, get back to me already." Better; if you stop at a good point, the party who is left hanging has something to think about (such as tactics for the upcoming battle). Also note that GMing a small portion of a party is quicker and easier (and takes up less time) than a large portion - because you're dealing with less people. A mono-party (ie, a person on his own) is the quickest, because he doesn't have anyone to disagree with. Combats are over more quickly too (even if you don't kill 'em off in the first round). So yes, Victoria, split-party games are possible to run and (if you do it right) quite entertaining to the people who are left to sit and watch. So maybe the GM wasn't interfering because he could have (shock gasp horror) dealt with it? And maybe the other players overreacted because they underrated the GM? Splitting the party is no biggie. It just requires care and attention - and knowledge of what makes a good stopping point. That is very skillful on your part. More skillful than I would expect from most DMs.
vlad43210 05-06-07, 10:14 PM	I'll begin at the bottom and work my way up. The idea of the lone wolf hunting down a threat made for the entire party would have ended in my campaign the way it would naturally. The werewolf would have eaten him or turned him into a lycanthrope himself. I wouldn't dummy down an encounter because one player decided to be foolish. My players can try to singlehandedly take on any monster I create, but I won't go easy on them because of it. I wouldn't have taken up the other players' time roleplaying an encounter with such a predictable ending either. Hi! Sorry to butt in. I agree with you in part. Specifically, my players can also try to singlehandely take on any monster I create, and I won't go easy on them because of it. On the other hand, I just ran a solo investigation adventure in my game, where a level 7 PC went into a secret fortress level guarded by CR 15 Undead. The PC was obviously toast in a prolonged fight; and the guards could sniff her out in a jiffy. But I did *not* say "okay, your character dies, roll up a new one." I let the character explore as she wished. And when she ran into the guards, she made a lucky fort save to avoid their pain-aura, took some damage, and ran like hell. And she escaped with a few hit points left, mighty scared. I think it was a fun encounter, which wouldve been avoided had I auto-killed the character for being curious and independent. I end up doing quite a few party splits, and they're fun. Heck, in my case they encourage group paranoia :D (running a horror-themed DnD game). That said, I like my party to stick together, and often explicitly encourage my PCs to share what they've learned on solo adventures, unless they have IC reasons not to do so. Perhaps I would think differently if I only got to game six hours a month; perhaps not. The thing is, when I play, I take it as just another way to hang out with my friends, and if two of them (DM/player) are running a solo thing, I listen in, or leaf through books, or look for character builds. It's all part of the game experience for me:) Cheers, Vlad
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-07-07, 02:45 AM	Hi! Sorry to butt in. I agree with you in part. Specifically, my players can also try to singlehandely take on any monster I create, and I won't go easy on them because of it. On the other hand, I just ran a solo investigation adventure in my game, where a level 7 PC went into a secret fortress level guarded by CR 15 Undead. The PC was obviously toast in a prolonged fight; and the guards could sniff her out in a jiffy. But I did *not* say "okay, your character dies, roll up a new one." I let the character explore as she wished. And when she ran into the guards, she made a lucky fort save to avoid their pain-aura, took some damage, and ran like hell. And she escaped with a few hit points left, mighty scared. I think it was a fun encounter, which wouldve been avoided had I auto-killed the character for being curious and independent. I end up doing quite a few party splits, and they're fun. Heck, in my case they encourage group paranoia :D (running a horror-themed DnD game). That said, I like my party to stick together, and often explicitly encourage my PCs to share what they've learned on solo adventures, unless they have IC reasons not to do so. Perhaps I would think differently if I only got to game six hours a month; perhaps not. The thing is, when I play, I take it as just another way to hang out with my friends, and if two of them (DM/player) are running a solo thing, I listen in, or leaf through books, or look for character builds. It's all part of the game experience for me:) Cheers, Vlad In the case I mentioned before, the only reason I would have told him "You got eaten!" was because he was being a jerk to the rest of the group and I am, as a rule, more than a little confrontational. Especially when all everyone wants to do is have a bit of fun and some joker decides that that's too dull and huggy-huggy and does something that ruins everyone else's good time. It makes me mad to see people post "So my character went off and did his own thing even though no one else wanted to do that particular thing and I didn't give them much of a choice and now they're mad at me and I don't know why! I simply hate DnD now!" I'm very lucky to have players that all like a good time and don't mind working together, so it puzzles me to see people that, though they want to play DnD, don't want to make the effort. I came off as quite a tyrant I suppose, but I'm not like that with reasonable players. It's my job to make sure they have fun, and that includes kicking out players that ruin it.
Ack 05-07-07, 02:55 AM	It only ruins everyone else's fun if you don't actually give each part of the party a chance to move along. If they are also advancing along their own story track while the single player is advancing along his, then they don't have anything to whine about. Unless they're compulsive whiners, that is.
ArcanaKnight 05-07-07, 04:01 AM	I greatly prefer storyline to battle-time. And so does the ENTIRE group I play with. And none of us ever take on-board to the off-board world. It's not worth it. Taking any game to the point of being angry over it is just plain childish. Especially monopoly. It can always be let go. All you have to do is talk about the problem. If people get ****** over how a freakin' character in a freakin' GAME is played, those aren't the sort of people who can seperate reality from fantasy enough to play the game. I was talking about the OP's party, not everyone's that reads this forum. It's nice that you and your friends like to take part in the story, but not every group plays that way. I'm so tired of people saying "it's just a game, get over it". Yes it is a game, but it is a game where you ARE the character, not some piece on a gameboard. As with acting, you can get so into character that it takes a little time to distance yourself from it and some of their feelings can carry over for a little while.
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-07-07, 04:42 AM	I was talking about the OP's party, not everyone's that reads this forum. It's nice that you and your friends like to take part in the story, but not every group plays that way. I'm so tired of people saying "it's just a game, get over it". Yes it is a game, but it is a game where you ARE the character, not some piece on a gameboard. As with acting, you can get so into character that it takes a little time to distance yourself from it and some of their feelings can carry over for a little while. Indeed! When you have so much invested in your character, it's no good to have someone come along and foul things up. I think the players were well within their rights to be irritated with the OP even after the session was over.
tuffn00gies 05-07-07, 09:12 AM	One thing I don't get: If they outnumbered you, why'd they end up doing it your way? Why didn't you go with the group instead of making the group go with you?
Vaelan 05-07-07, 09:51 AM	I find these topics endlessly amusing. None of you have enough information to make anything resembling a reasonable statement about the situation. As such, everyone has chosen to concoct an entirely different scenario which villifies one party. Then you argue over your fictional scenarios, thus going completely off-topic and managing to help exactly no one... Well, okay... you help me pass the time since I suffer from insomnia. That having been said, it is my esteemed opinion that your fellow players have been possessed by Cannibal Nazi Ghosts. Their negative responses are due to the fact that you have your shampoo blessed by your local priest, weirdo. I highly recommend that you consult your local exorcist. Personally, I don't get the problem. If it was part of a pattern, then I see why the other players would be upset. Otherwise, I am inclined to label them oversensitive. It's like the guy in the middle of the game of Monopoly loudly making a barking noise everytime he moved his dog-piece and ocassionally chewing on the guy playing the shoe, because he thinks it improves the game, even though it should be clear that nobody else is entertained by his antics, and when you bring it up during the game, he thinks you're only criticizing him "in-character". I am perfectly comfortable completely disregarding the feelings of people who wouldn't find such a thing hilarious.
wrecan 05-07-07, 10:43 AM	I am perfectly comfortable completely disregarding the feelings of people who wouldn't find such a thing hilarious. Then you probably shouldn't play with them either... or be surprised when they're upset with your behavior the next day. As opposed to the OP.
weepingminotaur 05-07-07, 11:32 AM	One thing I don't get: If they outnumbered you, why'd they end up doing it your way? Why didn't you go with the group instead of making the group go with you? THAT is why I feel that they're at least as guilty as the OP is. Yes, he was being obstinate and wasn't thinking of the team, but they're sheep for going along with his plan and resenting him afterwards.
wrecan 05-07-07, 11:51 AM	The alternative appears to have been to split the party up, which may not have been feasible for time reasons, so if they went along reluctantly it could have been a lot of reasons for which they may not be blameworthy: Prehaps it was late in the day and the alternative was not playing at all Perhaps the group has a culture of discouraging PvP conflict, so they went along to minimize conflict even though the dissenting member was using that to manipulate the group. Calling them sheep is unnecessarily harsh if their game is not one in which PvP conduct is usually considered unacceptable. Heck, they may have simply been surprised by the hostility and hadn't had time to assimilate it. That's possible too. We don't have any info on that and what info we do have came from the guy who is not going to be giving us an unbiased account.
weepingminotaur 05-07-07, 12:08 PM	Fair enough, maybe 'sheep' was a bit over the top. :) But sometimes I just feel that people need to take ownership of their own feelings and speak out instead of expecting that everyone else is going to cater to them all the time, or even know that they're upset. I'm not a telepath myself, so if I inadvertently offend or upset you, I expect you to tell me straight up that I've done so, instead of letting resentment build up secretly, which frankly is neither my concern nor my fault. :)
wrecan 05-07-07, 01:25 PM	I'm not a telepath myself, so if I inadvertently offend or upset you, I expect you to tell me straight up that I've done so While true, humans are inherently social animals. Society would flop if people were unable to understand basic social dynamics and nonverbal cues of behavior. Now, if you suffer from a condition, such as Asperger's Syndrome, which makes it difficult or impossible to read nonverbal cues, it behooves you to let people know this so that they can speak up about emotions that they would otherwise reaosnably expect you to know based on their facial expressions and body language. Sometimes, people can be upset and reasonably so, if they feel they are conveying their emotions to you and you fail to account for them. frankly is neither my concern nor my fault. :) It might be or might not be. Every situation is different.
weepingminotaur 05-07-07, 02:50 PM	Now, if you suffer from a condition, such as Asperger's Syndrome, which makes it difficult or impossible to read nonverbal cues, it behooves you to let people know this so that they can speak up about emotions that they would otherwise reaosnably expect you to know based on their facial expressions and body language. Sometimes, people can be upset and reasonably so, if they feel they are conveying their emotions to you and you fail to account for them. I wouldn't deny that it's important to be able to read nonverbal cues, especially in a cooperative game like D&D. However, it's a two-way street. Everyone should be making an effort to understand the other person. That's why I tend to hold both the OP and his group accountable.
AQuebman 05-07-07, 03:01 PM	Okay, I feel quite a few things need to be cleared up... as I have had a few days to relax since the situation happen and think about it I may have a clearer explanation of what has transpired. I am 19 I have been playing D&D since I was 11. I play with my uncle and a bunch of his friends, we have multiple campaigns together, one of which I DM and we usually have a lot of fun. This campaign was a buddy's campaign, a very experienced dm over 20 years worth... who is usually up for handling any situation... he's vocal about what he likes and doesn't like so I would have heard it from him had the situation arised. I also play in a group who all refer to themselves as greatly enjoying roleplaying over any other aspect... something I disagree upon being the truth after situations like this, but a comment I have heard quite a few times. I play a 10th level Chaotic Good Dwarven Dragon Shaman named Oggle Steambottle. We have been playing in this group together since 1st level. This character was made at 6th level because my CN fighter at the time bit the dust. Oggle is a character who has never gone against the grain all that much... he's a lover of dragons (gold) to be exact and will throw his life on the line to save somebody as quick as possible. Oggle wears full plate mail as a heavy steel shield and overall moves at a snails pace. I have always been a roleplay heavy person in D&D not worrying too much about making my character overly specialized... as long as the story is good I am having the utmost amount of fun. The following are the other group members as follows: *Yordakin* 8th Level Gnome Enchanter/2nd level mindbender - my uncle (Yordakin has a cohort ranger, I believe she's 8th level) *Bunzai* 10th Level Hengoyaki Bunny Ninja *just joined so not sure* 10th Level Human Crusader *Jake* 2nd Level Elf Ranger/4th Level Ninja/4th level Scout The following is the situation at hand where the problem arose: We previously had been searching for a farmer's daughter, who had gone missing just outside of the town we are famous in (statues in our image etc..) Yordakin in his mages guild scry's for the girls location and finds that she's naked lying in a cave. Starting with this session: In our fear of her being killed we rush after these caves and are attacked by this very large pack of wolves. It seems to be an unnatural pack of wolves but we managed to fend them off until they run away. Bunzai scouts up to these caves and finds a bunch of naked people sniffing around and living amongst each other. With a little bit of information gathering we find they are werewolves. We head back to tell the daughters father that we believe her to also be infected with the disease. After we do in the local tavern we run into this guy sniffing the air... discribed as being "gruff looking." He leaves us a note and says if you wish to speak with me meet me at this location. Unable to attack him in town for fear of the town guard turning against us believing he's an innocent human, we let him go. We had decided at that point to head up to this guys tower and confront him... or at least my idea was to scout out his tower first. Halfway to this tower we run into a gypsy looking woman who Bunzai knows, apparently a former student who has turned against the ninja ways, who tells him she has heard of Assassins wanting to kill us to the south. Apparently a gruff looking man gave the orders but that was her only description. This is where the argument began, and I thought it would be a fun in character banter we could play out. Many of the party members wanted to attempt to ambush assassins. I believed we could finish this werewolf business at the tower before any assassin business became a problem. I believed that attempting to ambush assassins was a fools mission and would not risk my neck out in the wild. I chose to head towards this tower and see what's up. At this point my uncle is furious for metagame reasons, the previous roleplay interest suddenly gone. The player playing Jake is drunk and making his opinion against me loud and well known, Bunzai the only character I felt who kept it in a roleplaying feel attempted to calmly and quietly roleplay out that he as a ninja felt he knows this type of crowd and felt his former student wouldn't lie to us. The DM sat back in amusement, smiling for a moment then explaining we were arguing in this field before asking us what we had decided to do. Still unwilling to risk my neck chasing down "possible" assassins I began walking towards the tower. The group having a choice to do as they wish and a DM more than willing to run this type of game night chose to follow me. Now I should say this as well. We play D&D about 3 nights a week. I also personally as a player have noted it before I would love to roleplay or just hang out with my character doing nothing to have the story go as it truly should, considering player personality and situations they are thrown into. While this may be a rare feeling amongst players of D&D I enjoy the story aspect of the game more than anything else and I had thought previously that was how my group felt. I feel my group is 50/50 on the subject, but the 2 guys who enjoy metagaming seem to actually get mad when roleplaying is picked before statistical analysis. There were also a few times I had to keep telling Yordakin that his arguments were being done with assumed information... not factual information that would persuade Oggle to risk going the other way. As we have clearly noted in this thread there are multiple ways to enjoy D&D and I am going to play in the way that I enjoy... this previously has not been a problem. Hopefully this all works out in the end for I feel my playing style is justified and fine... no matter my character's fate it is fun.
MerlintheTuna 05-07-07, 03:06 PM	Being contrary just for the sake of stirring up crap isn't good roleplaying. It's being an ass who should be literally kicked out the door.Aye. Now, whether or not that was actually the case here is up for grabs; it'd be nice to hear the story from someone on the other side of the table. Not knowing the exact circumstances, I don't know who I should be facepalming on account of, but either way I urge people to read this article. (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html)
wrecan 05-07-07, 05:37 PM	Thank you AQubeman for the additional information. It would still be nice to hear from someone else on the other side of the table. But from what you've said I don't think you are entirely to blame but on the other hand this seems like an irreconcilable difference in playing style. First, it's pretty clear from the tone of your posts what you think of the two who you accuse of metagaming. Whether they metagame or not, I'm going to surmise they probably know your attitude as well. I bet that might contribute to some of the bad feelings. Second, there's probably an age difference as well. My group has been playing for nigh on fifteen years together, and individual for ten to fifteen years before that. When we brought in a younger person who wanted to play, he often accused some of the players of metagaming when, in fact, they were playing caution. This may or may not be what you're doing. My point is only that different generations read social cues differently. A lot of it also depends on how the argument took place. Were people (either you or the others) sarcastic? Were they condescending? Did they listen to each other's points or merely try to win the argument? I can't tell if you're entirely in the right or entirely in the wrong. You need to talk to your uncle first, as he's family, the DM second and then figure out if you need to talk to anybody else. Whether you need to apologize, I don't have enough info to say. But I'm pretty sure the hurt feelings you observed are not from one instance at the gaming table. (I could be wrong, but it's usually the culmination of grating personal styles.)
Shadowhowler 05-07-07, 08:21 PM	The chance that the lady could be dead when they got around to her is one that they chose to take. Maybe they knew the DM wouldn't kill her in the interim and decided to take care of the greater threat first. However it came down, the PARTY, other than the egocentric dissenting member, decided to do things the other way. Them's the breaks, kid. Deal or leave. Uh... So, the party decided, for metagame reasons, the all powerfull 'DM' (who, BTW, dose not exist as far as the characetrs are concerned) would not off the lady... so they could go ahead and do whatever, and get around to rescuing the lady when and if they felt like, if they had the time later. Very heroic. If the OP's character was anything resemlbing a good guy, let alone a hero, he may have had some peoplems with his fellow characters not being concerned with the lady's safty becuase the characters PLAYERS desided to be metagame a$$hats. My character would have walked off also... and if the DM offed me, I'd just not play that game anymore.
Ack 05-08-07, 04:35 AM	Uh... So, the party decided, for metagame reasons, the all powerfull 'DM' (who, BTW, dose not exist as far as the characetrs are concerned) would not off the lady... so they could go ahead and do whatever, and get around to rescuing the lady when and if they felt like, if they had the time later. Very heroic. If the OP's character was anything resemlbing a good guy, let alone a hero, he may have had some peoplems with his fellow characters not being concerned with the lady's safty becuase the characters PLAYERS desided to be metagame a$$hats. My character would have walked off also... and if the DM offed me, I'd just not play that game anymore. Exactly.
Optimized_Commoner 05-08-07, 06:23 AM	I would have adapted. Werewolf would have been out someplace (you know, slaughtering an innocent village, feasting on some poor unfortunate horse) and there would have been some challenge for the lone PC to overcome to save the girl. And then the werewolf would have tracked them down by scent and attacked ... when he got back to the rest of the party with the girl. Level appropriate encounter, a nice exciting fight is had by all. QFT This is quite a good solution.
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-08-07, 03:14 PM	Uh... So, the party decided, for metagame reasons, the all powerful 'DM' (who, BTW, dose not exist as far as the characters are concerned) would not off the lady... so they could go ahead and do whatever, and get around to rescuing the lady when and if they felt like, if they had the time later. Very heroic. If the OP's character was anything resembling a good guy, let alone a hero, he may have had some problems with his fellow characters not being concerned with the lady's safety because the characters PLAYERS decided to be metagaming a$$hats. My character would have walked off also... and if the DM offed me, I'd just not play that game anymore. Maybe that was the case and maybe not. I said that before I'm sure. I'm not condoning metagaming, but it's entirely possible that that's what the group was doing, which seems to be supported by the longer post the OP made just a bit ago. Heroic or not, that's what they decided to do, and so he ruined everyone else's fun by not doing what they decided to do. Also from the OP's info post, it seems that there has been friction among this group before, so in that case, the guy that doesn't get along, moves along. The OP would seem to be better served playing a game with roleplayers who don't metagame. Either way, he stopped them from having fun, and they are well within their rights to be mad at him.
Ack 05-08-07, 03:36 PM	... he stopped them from having fun, but only because they chose to make an issue out of it. If they'd said, "Fine, you go get the girl, we'll deal with the assassins," then it could have been dealt with. If someone's idea of having 'fun' is torturing kittens, is it still wrong to "stop them from having fun"? How about someone's idea of having 'fun' being to drive at reckless speeds down city streets while under the influence of alcohol? Perhaps someone's idea of 'fun' is to play loud music on their stereo at 3 AM? Or maybe they get enjoyment by commenting out loud on the cards people are holding in a poker game? Should they be allowed to have their 'fun'? Or to make insanely overpowered builds for a one-off roleplaying game by drawing PrCs and feats from every splatbook they can find, thus creating Pun-Pun's elder brother and completely overshadowing the other players, who were just there for a fun game. Now, the above examples are extreme to start with, yet each has a common element; the people having 'fun' are each doing something that is objectionable to a degree. The OP found it objectionable that they were going to go off to ambush some assassins instead of rescuing a girl from werewolves. So he decided not to share that 'fun' and instead decided for himself what his character was going to do (which was, incidentally, still within the purview of the game). Sure, he may have spoiled their 'fun'. But I am yet to be convinced that this is a bad thing.
LCD2YOU 05-08-07, 03:50 PM	After reading all the posts, I doubt seriously if this is the first time there has been real friction in the group. If I were the DM, I'd have let the party split up. However, I do not divide game time based on the number of groups. I divide up game time based on number of players in a group. If there is a "loner" that's in their "own group" and five players in the other group, the "loner" gets 10 minutes an hour. The bigger group, which has 5 of the 6 players, gets 5/6 of the time to game. Also, wrecan is correct. The way a person in a DnD game handles themselves really does reveal a lot about them. If they are going to be, "Do it this way or I'm walking", I'll say, "Please walk". "Please walk right out that door and don't let the screen door hit ya where the good lord split ya". Anyone who in the middle of a game is going to pull that crap is not someone I'd want to game with in any event.
Shan_TheBabau_Burke 05-08-07, 07:57 PM	... he stopped them from having fun, but only because they chose to make an issue out of it. If they'd said, "Fine, you go get the girl, we'll deal with the assassins," then it could have been dealt with. If someone's idea of having 'fun' is torturing kittens, is it still wrong to "stop them from having fun"? How about someone's idea of having 'fun' being to drive at reckless speeds down city streets while under the influence of alcohol? Perhaps someone's idea of 'fun' is to play loud music on their stereo at 3 AM? Or maybe they get enjoyment by commenting out loud on the cards people are holding in a poker game? Should they be allowed to have their 'fun'? Or to make insanely overpowered builds for a one-off roleplaying game by drawing PrCs and feats from every splatbook they can find, thus creating Pun-Pun's elder brother and completely overshadowing the other players, who were just there for a fun game. Now, the above examples are extreme to start with, yet each has a common element; the people having 'fun' are each doing something that is objectionable to a degree. The OP found it objectionable that they were going to go off to ambush some assassins instead of rescuing a girl from werewolves. So he decided not to share that 'fun' and instead decided for himself what his character was going to do (which was, incidentally, still within the purview of the game). Sure, he may have spoiled their 'fun'. But I am yet to be convinced that this is a bad thing. With the understanding that the above examples are meant to be extreme, I do find it necessary to say there are clear cut legal reasons why, fun or not, those actions would have to be stopped. The fifth makes my point in a different manner. All players are not having fun so the lone wolf, or the overpowered character must either change or go. When you are outnumbered, accept what has been decided in a reasonable, adult manner, or move on. Easy peasy.
DFoster 05-08-07, 10:12 PM	When you are outnumbered, accept what has been decided in a reasonable, adult manner, or move on. Easy peasy. And my answer to that is no. If the other peoples arguements are reasonable and are sufficient to convince me that their course of action is the right one then of course I'd do it. But in the end the person that decides which course of action I take is me and no one else. I don't care if everyone I know wants to go down the street torching houses, just because they in the majority decide it's the right thing to do doesn't mean I agree with them or will go and help (if fact I'd do everything I could to stop them in this extremely overblown case). In the case of a girl being in trouble or assassins out for my head, I know which choice I'd make, I'd be heading to save the girl. Now if the other PCs want to ambush the assassins they can go and do that if they want and I'm happy to let them (and to let them have most of the session time them being the larger group). But unless they can convince me that dealing with the assassins first is the right thing to do (which I consider doubtful) I WILL be going to save the girl, even if it kills me (although I'll do my best to not engage the werewolf(s) directly, the snatch and grab maybe, perhaps some tanglefoot bags or a Grease spell to slow pursuit).
Mock26 05-08-07, 11:30 PM	And my answer to that is no. If the other peoples arguements are reasonable and are sufficient to convince me that their course of action is the right one then of course I'd do it. But in the end the person that decides which course of action I take is me and no one else. I don't care if everyone I know wants to go down the street torching houses, just because they in the majority decide it's the right thing to do doesn't mean I agree with them or will go and help (if fact I'd do everything I could to stop them in this extremely overblown case). In the case of a girl being in trouble or assassins out for my head, I know which choice I'd make, I'd be heading to save the girl. Now if the other PCs want to ambush the assassins they can go and do that if they want and I'm happy to let them (and to let them have most of the session time them being the larger group). But unless they can convince me that dealing with the assassins first is the right thing to do (which I consider doubtful) I WILL be going to save the girl, even if it kills me (although I'll do my best to not engage the werewolf(s) directly, the snatch and grab maybe, perhaps some tanglefoot bags or a Grease spell to slow pursuit). So, the game should always be about, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, and ME? There should never be any compromise? There should only be group unity if it happens to coincide with what you want to do? How can this type of an attitude be expected to be accepted in a gaming environment if you assume that everyone in the group has the same attitude? The group of characters are together for a reason. They have willingly formed a "team" of sorts, and as such there should be some concern on keeping the team together. The group of players are together for a reason. They have willingly formed a "team" of sorts, and as such there should be some concern on keeping the team together. Now, don't get me wrong, as I said in an earlier post, there are times when people will go off on their own. That is to be expected. But, as I also said, sometimes there are times when it is best for the player and/or his character to bite his/her tongue and agree to go along with the group. To me this is a case where the original poster should have just sucked it up and gone along with the group. But that is because I personally don't see much of a difference between the two choices involved. I also feel that there is a lot of information that has been left out. Was the werewolf a stationary threat (meaning he wasn't going to "move" out of the area)? Were the assassins passing through the area? Did the assassins have any targets? I can easily see how someone could see the assassins as being just as much of a threat as the werewolf. If both sides see their intended target as being the more important threat, then this is a good example of when one should probably compromise and go along with the majority. Afterall, both options dealt with stopping some evil.
Ack 05-08-07, 11:44 PM	As I recall, the assassins had been hired by the werewolf to take down the PCs; thus, of the two threats, the assassins were the ones most likely to remain static until the PCs came into their ambit. They were unlikely to go and kill anyone else while they were contracted to take down the PCs. As for my last example above, that's all very well if it's one player, but suppose it's three power-munches and two "just here for fun" players? Who's the outnumbered ones then?
DFoster 05-08-07, 11:58 PM	A party is a bunch of individuals which adventure together because they have a common goal or a friendship or something similar, they are not a single minded entity. Occasionally the thread uniting the party is strained by some decisions, such as if you have a guy that likes to save the damsel in distress and the rest of the group is full of those that are doing it for the money and are out to do it with as little risk to their own hide as possible. There will be times these two sides can't agree on a course of action, this happens in real-life all the time why should a group of fictional characters in a game not have circumstances where they don't see eye to eye. Now sometimes the differences can be handled without causing the party to split up at all (maybe the guy that wants to save the damsel offers to pay the other PCs to help), or maybe it requires a short split up ("Well I'm sorry you feel that the assassins are more important, I really feel that the girl needs saving so why don't you deal with the assassins and I'll get the girl and we'll met back here in 12 hours.") or perhaps it is a more permanent split ("Well I won't associate with people that don't fell that a girl in danger is a top priority and has to be handled first damn the consequences."). Now if there isn't an appreciable difference in the options then you might as well go along with the generally agreed upon plan (we can either head to the goblin camp over that hill, or the other goblin encampment over the other one). But in this case there are several difference, we have a time critical option (a girl in a nest of werewolfs) and a non-time critical one that is probably going to bite you on the ass later if you don't deal with it (the assassins). We have a damsel in distress or a bunch of people only a threat to you. We have werewolves or a bunch of persumably human assassins although they could be another type. Any one of those three differences could spur a player to make a choice opposite to the rest of the group. Say I hate shapeshifters, I mean really really hate them to the point I kill them whenever I find them regardless of the risks and the other PCs had to actively stop me killing the werewolf in the bar. Obviously I'm going to choose to take out the werewolves as in this case in the characters (and players) mind the choices aren't equal. Obviously this isn't the case in this example as that would have been differently described but if I'm the kind of guy that has a weakness for saving the damsel in distress (which I am actually) regardless of the personal risk to me it'd likely play out similarly (except without the actively holding me back in the bar). Now I'm not saying that your character should always be at odds with the party (in fact if he is he might be better off heading out on his own and you making a new character), but I am saying that under certain conditions it's understandable that a given character is going to be drawn away from the group either for a short time (such as this example) or a more long term one (like where your character has settled down basically. Of course at this point you make a new character). Under those conditions your character being an individual will likely try to convince the other PCs to see his plan, and if that doesn't work well I guess you try to save the girl on your own.
Vaelan 05-09-07, 12:12 AM	So, the game should always be about, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, ME, and ME? That is so obviously what he meant! The italics denote sarcasm, by the way. There should never be any compromise? Not when any compromise would, as a sheer necessity, involve one party giving up everything to another. You either go after the werewolf and stop him from killing or you don't. There is no halfway. Also, you have to consider that one party is being entirely unreasonable here. Would you compromise with someone who asked you to shoot yourself in the head by shooting yourself in the foot if he promised to drive you to the hospital after? There should only be group unity if it happens to coincide with what you want to do? How can this type of an attitude be expected to be accepted in a gaming environment if you assume that everyone in the group has the same attitude? Go look up consensus decision-making. I think you will be able to see why it is the only way to govern an adventuring party. The group of characters are together for a reason. They have willingly formed a "team" of sorts, and as such there should be some concern on keeping the team together. Yeah, stupid Paladins should jump on the baby-eating bandwagon! How dare they have moral objections! Toe that party line! See? I can exaggerate your statements too! ;) To me this is a case where the original poster should have just sucked it up and gone along with the group. But that is because I personally don't see much of a difference between the two choices involved. One person's life may not be much of a difference to you, but to his Chaotic Good character, it very well could be a huge difference. If both sides see their intended target as being the more important threat, then this is a good example of when one should probably compromise and go along with the majority. Actually, you would go with the more urgent threat in this case, which is very clearly the werewolf killing the girl. Don't get me wrong, I agree with compromise and consensus and all that, but not when one group of people are idiots. When you're dealing with people who are so blatantly wrong, they get to sit down, shut up, and follow the people with an ounce of actual sense or go it alone.
Chalkboard_Sonata 05-09-07, 12:26 AM	The idea that the OP was "just doing what was in the best interest of his character" is bull, and here's why: If following his character's mindset were the player's chief concern, than clearly stepping out of game and saying "Psst, guys, this argument is gonna end in an ultimatum, maybe you should tie my guy up" should be an equally valid response. I think, with this in mind, that it becomes clear that the player had an opinion on what course of action was best, and tried to enforce that opinion in game. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to convince your fellow players what the best course of action is, but we really shouldn't be shrouding the conversation in lies. What's more important OP, character actions or being successful?
Ack 05-09-07, 12:31 AM	The idea that the OP was "just doing what was in the best interest of his character" is bull, and here's why: If following his character's mindset were the player's chief concern, than clearly stepping out of game and saying "Psst, guys, this argument is gonna end in an ultimatum, maybe you should tie my guy up" should be an equally valid response. I think, with this in mind, that it becomes clear that the player had an opinion on what course of action was best, and tried to enforce that opinion in game. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with trying to convince your fellow players what the best course of action is, but we really shouldn't be shrouding the conversation in lies. What's more important OP, character actions or being successful? Unless the OP's actions were going to seriously negatively affect the party (ie, TPK) then in what twisted universe is the player going to suggest to the other players that their characters attack his and tie him up? I'd only do that in a situation where my character's motivations were utterly at odds with what I think should be done (and if carrying out my character's wishes would seriously harm the party, as I mentioned). As it is, it appears that the OP's motivations and the character's motivations were entirely in line with each other here. Thus, he can see no reason, in or out of game, not to go and rescue the girl.
Mock26 05-09-07, 12:36 AM	Not when any compromise would, as a sheer necessity, involve one party giving up everything to another. You either go after the werewolf and stop him from killing or you don't. There is no halfway. You either go after the assassins to stop them from killing your or you don't. There is no halfway.
DFoster 05-09-07, 12:46 AM	You either go after the assassins to stop them from killing your or you don't. There is no halfway. Well actually there is, those that want to deal with the assassins go after them, and those that don't go after the girl. Oh, but you don't consider that an acceptable compromise do you?
Ack 05-09-07, 12:56 AM	You either go after the assassins to stop them from killing your or you don't. There is no halfway. The assassins don't know where you are (or they'd be already there, waling on you). Thus, they aren't an immediate, on-the-spot danger. The werewolf is an immediate danger to the girl. Let's look at the potential repercussions from acting in various ways. 1) Whole party goes to save girl. 1a) They succeed. Werewolf is beaten (or evaded). Girl is safe. The party is now able to go and sort out the assassins, assuming they haven't heard that their employer (the werewolf) is no longer around. 1b) They fail, and possibly die or are maybe imprisoned. It's either game over, or they get to drag themselves out of this mess by their fingernails. Either way, the assassins are no longer a threat - at least, until the party escapes. But quite probably, the werewolf would contact them and tell them that their services are no longer required. 2) Whole party goes to take on assassins. 2a) They succeed. They are now free to go save the girl - who may or may not be still alive, human or even interested in being saved. 2b) They fail. The girl is, by definition, not rescued. 3) Party splits. 3a) Both halves succeed. W00t all round. 3b) Both halves fail. Suckage all round. 3c) Party vs assassins succeeds, party vs werewolf fails. Party vs assassins is now able to go and perhaps rescue the girl (if she is still okay, as 2a) and their compatriot (if he is still alive, ditto). 3d) Party vs assassins fail, party vs werewolf succeeds. Girl is rescued. Presuming that spending time going after the assassins (or being defeated by the werewolf) leads to a 50/50 chance that the girl is no longer able to be rescued, this ends up with the following probabilities of success (ie, girl rescued): 1) 75% 2) 25% 3) 62.5% Note that I am not counting 'party being alive' into success or defeat; adventurers are meant to risk their lives. :D This is just "do they rescue the girl".
Another_Poet 05-09-07, 12:57 AM	Some people are blaming you, and others are blaming life. Who's right? I don't know. But if this was a problem in my gaming group, here's what I would do. I would apologise and suggest, out-of-character, that we come up with a fair way to handle such disputes in the future. Some possibilities: -When there's disagreement, the PC's take a vote. Majority wins. If there is a tie, have some fair tie-breaker (perhaps toss a GP). -When there's disagreement, the party talks and then each side makes a Diplomacy check. Highest result gets to choose. Of course high-charisma characters are most likely to win, but that's exactly like real life. Or make up your own system. As long as everybody in your group agrees to the system OOC, and then stick to it in the game, no one can rightfully complain about the decisions. ap
Chalkboard_Sonata 05-09-07, 12:58 AM	Unless the OP's actions were going to seriously negatively affect the party (ie, TPK) then in what twisted universe is the player going to suggest to the other players that their characters attack his and tie him up? I'd only do that in a situation where my character's motivations were utterly at odds with what I think should be done (and if carrying out my character's wishes would seriously harm the party, as I mentioned). As it is, it appears that the OP's motivations and the character's motivations were entirely in line with each other here. Thus, he can see no reason, in or out of game, not to go and rescue the girl. But as others have pointed out here, there ARE reasons not to go, the most prominent being compromising your opinion with the will of the group. I'm not going to arrogantly suggest which motivation should be the driving one, as it really is an individual thing, but I just wanted to suggest you there is no absolute need to remain steadfast to your opinion. In response to your question "in what twisted universe is the player going to suggest to the other players that their characters attack his and tie him up?" (Which likely was rhetorical, but I'll take a shot at it anyway), I'd say that in any game, but specifically those of a certain story-driven bent, where group integrity and believably character action are the two most important forces, choosing the fatal solution may be appropriate. If the player has made his point clear both in-game and out-of-game, and the party refuses to take heed, having the character issue a contentious, game-halting ultimatum or simply trekking off solo need not be the only answers. If the player is of the opinion that being right is more important than being together, it becomes pretty obvious which option will be chosen. Unfortunately, that choice (Like the others), has consequences, and these consequences echo both in and out of game. The OP decided to issue an ultimatum to the other players. Its important to make the distinction that this ultimatum was made to the players, and not to their characters. This *is* more than just an in-character conflict, and so it is perfectly reasonable that the other players reacted in an out-of-character fashion as well. It sounds like the others choose not to take the highway, but expectedly, dragged their feet along the way, as evidenced by the somber stares and admitted anger. In my opinion, as a side note, I think that if the OP wants the most direct way of stopping the hostilities towards him, he should stop issuing ultimatums, but instead try to find other methods of getting his argument across. Ultimatums result in charged emotions. Approach them as thus.
Ack 05-09-07, 01:01 AM	Some people are blaming you, and others are blaming life. Who's right? I don't know. But if this was a problem in my gaming group, here's what I would do. I would apologise and suggest, out-of-character, that we come up with a fair way to handle such disputes in the future. Some possibilities: -When there's disagreement, the PC's take a vote. Majority wins. If there is a tie, have some fair tie-breaker (perhaps toss a GP). -When there's disagreement, the party talks and then each side makes a Diplomacy check. Highest result gets to choose. Of course high-charisma characters are most likely to win, but that's exactly like real life. Or make up your own system. As long as everybody in your group agrees to the system OOC, and then stick to it in the game, no one can rightfully complain about the decisions. ap This is all well and good, but there are situations when players will follow a particular system until it returns results they don't like, whereupon they declare it a 'stupid' system and refuse to stand by the results.
Chalkboard_Sonata 05-09-07, 01:06 AM	Some people are blaming you, and others are blaming life. Who's right? I don't know. But if this was a problem in my gaming group, here's what I would do. I would apologise and suggest, out-of-character, that we come up with a fair way to handle such disputes in the future. Some possibilities: -When there's disagreement, the PC's take a vote. Majority wins. If there is a tie, have some fair tie-breaker (perhaps toss a GP). -When there's disagreement, the party talks and then each side makes a Diplomacy check. Highest result gets to choose. Of course high-charisma characters are most likely to win, but that's exactly like real life. Or make up your own system. As long as everybody in your group agrees to the system OOC, and then stick to it in the game, no one can rightfully complain about the decisions. ap I agree with everything you said up until the last statement, amending it thus: "As long as everybody in your group agrees to the system OOC, and then sticks to it in the game, no one has real grounds to complain unless the system begins to manifest itself in a unexpected and unfavorable direction, in which case tact must be used to find a solution most acceptable to the greatest number." I know I'm verifying Godwin's Law here, but I just studied the Wiemar Republic, and I'm not making this comparison to any poster. Although there were many in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s who advocated the political system of the time, when Hitler rose to power through legal means, I'm sure some of those original advocates objected, and in my opinion, those objections were completely justified. The system was no longer as originally envisioned, and thus, the original agreement is void.
Ack 05-09-07, 01:06 AM	@Chalkboard_sonata: I see no indication that the OP issued any sort of 'ultimatum'. As far as I can understand things, he said he was going to go rescue the girl. They could come along with him, or not, as they saw fit. He wasn't forcing them to come along, but they were trying to force him to come along with them. They were the ones that were pushing not to 'split the party' (which is, as has been shown, not the automatic precursor to TPK that some people seem to think it is) and when he made it clear that he was not going to bend to standover tactics, they folded first. If he'd gone his way and they theirs, he would not have been overly worried, as far as I can tell. Thus, he was not attempting to force them to come along.
Ack 05-09-07, 01:09 AM	I agree with everything you said up until the last statement, amending it thus: "As long as everybody in your group agrees to the system OOC, and then sticks to it in the game, no one has real grounds to complain unless the system begins to manifest itself in a unexpected and unfavorable direction, in which case tact must be used to find a solution most acceptable to the greatest number." I know I'm verifying Godwin's Law here, but I just studied the Wiemar Republic, and I'm not making this comparison to any poster. Although there were many in Germany during the 1920s and 1930s who advocated the political system of the time, when Hitler rose to power through legal means, I'm sure some of those original advocates objected, and in my opinion, those objections were completely justified. The system was no longer as originally envisioned, and thus, the original agreement is void. QFT
Baernwulf_of_Nor 05-09-07, 01:10 AM	My gaming group once argued about which way to go for 1 hour out of game. In my experience, something as trivial as which path to take can be blown into huge in game and out of game arguements. IMO its part of the DM's job to keep those kind of things going. also IMO, stopping the fight by splitting up the party would have taken even longer. Splitting up the party isn't very fun, especially when its only 1 person who is going another way. But you weren't in the wrong by disagreeing. If you REALLY felt attacking the werewolf was the better option. Causing conflict just because you think it's necessary makes no sense to me, and I've killed fellow pc's. Maybe you're character could have said "Alright guys, we'll go your way this time, but let me make the decision next time?" Of course, they're not gonna follow you into the dragon hive, but they would have followed you to town A instead of B probably.
Chalkboard_Sonata 05-09-07, 01:10 AM	This is all well and good, but there are situations when players will follow a particular system until it returns results they don't like, whereupon they declare it a 'stupid' system and refuse to stand by the results. I think at this point, if the issue is serious enough, it would be most beneficial if all parties came together and tried to find out what about the system makes it now unfavorable, and then they must decide if it warrants being changed. Of course, this assumes a mature party. I don't feel that always decrying something as stupid as soon as it yields unsatisfactory results as a sign of maturity. If such is the case, other, perhaps more heavy-handed measures might need to be taken.
Ack 05-09-07, 01:12 AM	I think at this point, if the issue is serious enough, it would be most beneficial if all parties came together and tried to find out what about the system makes it now unfavorable, and then they must decide if it warrants being changed. Of course, this assumes a mature party. I don't feel that always decrying something as stupid as soon as it yields unsatisfactory results as a sign of maturity. If such is the case, other, perhaps more heavy-handed measures might need to be taken. Note that I wasn't assuming player maturity here :D
Chalkboard_Sonata 05-09-07, 01:55 AM	Note that I wasn't assuming player maturity here :D Hmm...in such cases, I feel liberal applications of creme pie seems to be extraordinarily effective in reminding everyone what is truly important.
Steely_Dan 05-09-07, 07:40 AM	Maybe you should. Yes, this is about having fun, so why were you being a roadblock in your friends having fun? This is what I charitably call "Wet Blanket PC". A PC has a character quirk that is going to ruin everyone else's fun. Rather than consider how he's ruining everyone else's fun, he insists on continuing the action because "it's in character." Here's a hint: when your character is ruining people's fun... change the character! If your character would choose an action that brings the game to a screeching halt... make a different choice. What, you should compromise your role-playing in the name of cooperation? Yes! D&D is a cooperative enterprise. People need to compromise. Your friends were within their rights to be irked with you out-of-game because you affected their fun evening. He's got it.
Ack 05-09-07, 11:23 AM	He's got it. I don't see that. 'Fun' is subjective. By doing something that he thought was wrong (ignoring the plight of the girl) they were ruining his fun. And since when, exactly, did "there's more of us than you" equal "we're right and you're wrong"? There's an anecdote I'm fond of telling, regarding a classroom full of children and the way they determined the gender of a cat (by voting) and how surprised they were when the 'male' cat produced a litter of kittens ... ... but even that's not entirely relevant to the situation. With any particular difference of opinion, some stances are more 'right' than others. Morally speaking, despite the fact that the rest of the party opposed him, his character was in the 'right'. And he was correct in sticking to his guns too - once players learn they can push you to agree with them once, they will do it every chance they get.
Another_Poet 05-09-07, 12:46 PM	I agree with everything you said up until the last statement, amending it thus... Fair enough.
maharai23 05-09-07, 02:14 PM	That's not getting upset about in-game behavior. That's getting upset about out-of-game behavior. And if the player tries to invoke "immersion" as a defense to his behavior, then he's trying to use the game as a shield for his inconsiderate behavior. They're not upset over a game. The guy's actions didn't even affect their characters in-game in any appreciable way. They're upset over his out-of-game lack of consideration. Ah, so you DID read what I wrote. You just didn't read what the original poster wrote. Here's basically how it went down, to recap for the reading-impaired. Person A wants to go 1 way. Persons B, C, and D want to go another. They go with person A because they're rather keep the party together. Later, person B, C, and D are upset. If you read that above, or the original post, they are CLEARLY upset out of game for things that happened in game. End of story. There's no excuse for that. It has nothing to do with "immersion" or "realism", or whatever else you want to try to divert attention from the real issue with. It had everything to do with "we wanted this way, and we didn't get it, so rather than talk about it off board, we're all gonna get pissy with person A." There's never an excuse for that. It's immature and childish, and I don't see why anyone would bother defending such a two year old mentality. It's not like that at all. It's like the guy in the middle of the game of Monopoly loudly making a barking noise everytime he moved his dog-piece and ocassionally chewing on the guy playing the shoe, because he thinks it improves the game, even though it should be clear that nobody else is entertained by his antics, and when you bring it up during the game, he thinks you're only criticizing him "in-character". Had nothing to do with antics or craziness. According to the information, someone was playing his character and wanted to go one way. Others wanted another. It was a difference of opinion over a basic game decision... You seem to be trying to make it out to be the noble sacrificing players finally getting exasperated at the mean, cruel, vindictive, self-centered evil player. Your over-dramatization sways nobody, I think.
AQuebman 05-10-07, 03:58 PM	One minor error in my last post... Oggle my Character is LG not CG. Also btw I know my opinion will be biased of course but I felt I was being given an ultimatum, I was just thinking exactly what my character would do... and without a doubt that would be the way he'd go. If I felt I was in a rigid D&D game where I couldn't do something against what other characters in character felt I would quit. That is something fun we've always been able to do. Also I have told every DM I have, I don't care if I don't get to play for the night because of a party split... I will enjoy listening to everybody else's gaming session and understand some DM's deal with party splits in different manners. We had another session of said campaign and everything seemed smooth with no bringing up of said situation that happened before. As much of an irritant that situation may have been, it seems to have been put behind us and I hope it keeps that way. These situations happen, and I hope they can be avoided in the future... our differing opinions and feelings with D&D especially roleplaying style can make it fun yet tough during our many different gaming sessions.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-10-07, 05:29 PM	A party is a bunch of individuals which adventure together because they have a common goal or a friendship or something similar, they are not a single minded entity. No, a party is a bunch of characters who form a group cos their players want to game together. Disrupting the game and hiding behind the "but it's waht my PC would do" argument is BS. If what your PC would do is detrimental to the overall game then change the PC. No one's enjoyment of the game matters more than everyone else's. I have a simple rule, one that I have thankfully not had to enforce since I played D&D with people who were still waiting for their fuzzies to grow in: the PC's don't need to love each other, or even like each other - indeed interpersonal conflict can make for some great RPing - but they must function as a group. Period.
wrecan 05-10-07, 11:04 PM	Ah, so you DID read what I wrote. You just didn't read what the original poster wrote. Here's basically how it went down, to recap for the reading-impaired. Person A wants to go 1 way. Persons B, C, and D want to go another. They go with person A because they're rather keep the party together. Later, person B, C, and D are upset. If you read that above, or the original post, they are CLEARLY upset out of game for things that happened in game. End of story. No, because you are abjectly ignoring all the possible reaosns they would choose to keep the parrty together, including the aforementioned desire not to lose playing time. (Note I am referencing only post #1, not the OP's subsequent clarifications) It has nothing to do with "immersion" or "realism", or whatever else you want to try to divert attention from the real issue with. I didn't raise the immersion issue. I responded to others who did. Sheesh. And you accuse me of having reading comprehension problems. You seem to be trying to make it out to be the noble sacrificing players finally getting exasperated at the mean, cruel, vindictive, self-centered evil player. Your over-dramatization sways nobody, I think. Nor does your puerile mischaracterization of my posts.
Shadowhowler 05-11-07, 12:04 AM	One minor error in my last post... Oggle my Character is LG not CG. Also btw I know my opinion will be biased of course but I felt I was being given an ultimatum, I was just thinking exactly what my character would do... and without a doubt that would be the way he'd go. If I felt I was in a rigid D&D game where I couldn't do something against what other characters in character felt I would quit. That is something fun we've always been able to do. Also I have told every DM I have, I don't care if I don't get to play for the night because of a party split... I will enjoy listening to everybody else's gaming session and understand some DM's deal with party splits in different manners. We had another session of said campaign and everything seemed smooth with no bringing up of said situation that happened before. As much of an irritant that situation may have been, it seems to have been put behind us and I hope it keeps that way. These situations happen, and I hope they can be avoided in the future... our differing opinions and feelings with D&D especially roleplaying style can make it fun yet tough during our many different gaming sessions. I'd say... keep doing what your doing. If I had been playing your character in your situation... I would have done the same thing you did. However... from the discriptions of some of the characters the players in your group have chosen to make... you may be in the middle of a VERY strange party. (Bunzi? C'mon...) You may have to acept weirdness from time to time. (shrug) As for the contenuing debate of "You must never, never split the party! The group is all that maters!" vs "I need to be able to have my character make the choices that make sense to him, even if it splits the party" I always have and always will come down in favor of the later. I always try to be very up front and coaprative during the character creation prosess, to avoid situations later in game that will cuase the party to disagree enough to split up. However, you cant forsee every situation... and sometimes roleplaying forces characters in a group to dissagree on the right course of action... and sometimes the group splits up. Sometimes this is no biggie (Like the Rouge or Ranger going ahead to scout out the enimes defences and report back to the rest of the group, so they can plan their attack. Othertimes, it's a serious issue (like the op's characters insistance on saving the woman from the warewolf, and the rest of the party wanting to do something eles.) I still think that, if the rest of the OP's party is of good alienment, then the chessed and metagamed the situation... and that saving the woman should have taken precidence over hunting down the assassins. However, it stands as a case of where character conflict can split a party. Anyway... thats where I stand. Do everything you can out of game in during character creation to insure your party will be a tight group, willing and able to work well together with minimum issues. However... once play is underway... play your character as you belive he should be played... and hopefully the other players will do the same... and the DM will take care of the rest. My 2 cents.
Ultimatecalibur 05-11-07, 04:40 AM	I am going to toss a few cents into the pot. Reading AQube's situation clarification I noticed a couple things about the events: 1. The DM seems to have intentionaly setup a situation with 3 possible paths (werewolf tower, assassin hunt, and party split). 2. The assassin hunt may have been a wild goose chase (assassin info may have been false because of missunderstanding or missinformation by NPC). 3. The DM seemed pleased with the disput (meaning he possibly wanted the party to split up). Reading various replies in this thread I read a few things that threw me of kilter: 1. The DM should have punished AQ's PC for acting in a heroic manner (Going off on his own to save the girl). 2. The idea that a party split always equals a character dead. 3. The idea that because (poster or poster's DM) is unable to adaquitely DM a split part no one is able. 4. The belief that the will of the majority of the players is always right. 5. This thread became an arguement over splitting party vs. not splitting party instead of did the other player have a good reason to be angry at AQ the next day because of the previous night (I say no it does not sound like AQ did anything really wrong just disagreed).
nytemare3701 05-11-07, 08:58 AM	ooops, ignore.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-11-07, 09:48 AM	I find it interesting that the other players all agreed to go with the OP's PC. It seems clear that this has happened before, that they know if they do not do what he wants he will just go off and do it on his own anyway, and that they, unlike the OP, are not selfish and would rather keep the party together. It's sad when one player bullies everyone else like this.
northern_bear 05-11-07, 10:22 AM	instead of doing what they wanted to do everybody gives me a somber look and follows me. Why did they decide to follow you? Is it because you're character managed to convince their characters that his idea was better? Or is it because the other players know that you, as a player, are a winey cry baby? They knew that if you didn't get your way, that you were going to pitch a temper tantrum. or pout. or that your character would refuse to go along with them, and would instead sit around and do nothing. So even though their characters thought it was a bad idea, they as players decided to let you, the player, have your way? Basically, did they decide to go with you based on their character's decisions? Or did they decide to give in to you as a player? Later on the next day I have people in person mad at me, specifically one player because my character chose to do something different. They have no right to be upset for what happened in game. But they may have a right to be upset if they feel that it was you the player (not your character) who forced a decision upon them.
Mock26 05-12-07, 01:35 AM	The assassins don't know where you are (or they'd be already there, waling on you). Thus, they aren't an immediate, on-the-spot danger. The werewolf is an immediate danger to the girl. Not necessarily. The assassins may know where the group is and be on their way there. Remember that knowing where someone is located doesn't only happen if you are there with them. The knowledge of where someone is located can be learned while you are in another location. Additionally, the assassins may have known where the group was heading. The players who wanted to go after the assassins may have feared the assassins coming in "behind" them while they were going after or actually fighting the werewolf. The could be a lot of valid reasons on why they thought it best to attack the assassins first. There is no Right or Wrong course of action in this situation. There is no way to know which was the bigger threat (to anyone, not just the group and/or the damsel), the werewolf or the assassins.
Mock26 05-12-07, 01:43 AM	Well actually there is, those that want to deal with the assassins go after them, and those that don't go after the girl. Oh, but you don't consider that an acceptable compromise do you? I NEVER said that splitting the group was NOT an acceptable compromise. I NEVER said that a group should NEVER split up. All I have said, repeatedly, is that SOMETIMES it is best to compromise what you want to do in favor of doing what the group wants to do. Again, let me stress the importance of the word, "SOMETIMES". For those of you who are not familiar with the definition of the word, it means every once in a while or occasionally. And, to clarify, when I said, "You either go after the assassins to stop them from killing your or you don't. There is no halfway," I was being sarcastic because Vaelan said, "You either go after the werewolf and stop him from killing or you don't. There is no halfway."
Splendide 05-12-07, 06:22 AM	PC1: I'm want to do the plot stuff PC2: Nah man, that can wait, assassins! C'mon! PC3: Yeah, assassins! PC4: They may have some poison I can loot PC3: Haha exactly my man! Cleric: I'm going to do the plot stuff. Group goes to do the plot stuff.
Shadowhowler 05-13-07, 03:02 AM	I find it interesting that the other players all agreed to go with the OP's PC. It seems clear that this has happened before, that they know if they do not do what he wants he will just go off and do it on his own anyway, and that they, unlike the OP, are not selfish and would rather keep the party together. It's sad when one player bullies everyone else like this. Your right. When playing D&D, a heroic Fantisy game, it's totaly sad when a player of a good character decideds that saving a defensless woman from a monster is more important then his buddies wanting to go hunt down some people who are after them, when they are obvously capable of defending themselves quite well. How DARE he play a HERO in D&D... he should be a Merc, and moreover, a merc with a hive-mind mentality and no will of his own. Thats much more what D&D should be about.
northern_bear 05-13-07, 10:37 AM	Here's an analogy I thought of the other day. Football game. Fourth quarter. 2 seconds left on the clock. Trailing by 4 points, on the enemy's 30 yard line. Offensive coordinator calls for a passing play. The coach calls a passing play. In the Hudle: Quarter Back: OK, I think we need to do a run. Player 2: But it's our last play, and we need 30 yards. Player 3: And coach said we should do a passing play. Player 4: Passing seems like a better idea to me. Quarter Back: No, I really think a run would be better. Everyone: But everyone else thinks we should go with a pass. Quarter Back: Sorry guys, but I just can't go along with that. If you guys want to try a passing play, you're going to have to do it without me. We can let Fred here play quarter back for this play. Everyone: OK, fine. We'll go with the run. Ball get's hiked. QB hands off. Running back makes it 15 yards before getting tackled. Horn goes, game over, we lose. Meanwhile the wide reciever was uncovered in the end zone. The next day all the other players are mad at the quarter back. Well Duh! Does the analogy fit? Only you know the answer to that. But ask youself this, did you simply make a suggestion? or did you unfairly pressure the rest of your team into doing something they thought was a bad idea?
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 10:49 AM	Does the analogy fit? I really don't know American football but that sounds like a good analogy to me from what little I've picked up from movies. (I know you're talking to the OP I'm just supporting your analogy). Though in American Football doesn't the quaterback have a position of authority in the team when it comes to deciding strategy? That might be the one contrast between your analogy and the scenario.
northern_bear 05-13-07, 11:08 AM	Though in American Football doesn't the quaterback have a position of authority in the team when it comes to deciding strategy? That might be the one contrast between your analogy and the scenario. During play, the quarter back more or less has the power to force the team to do what he wants. This may (or may not) be similar to the OPs situation, in which it is he, as the player, who has the power to force other players to do what he wants. The point is, if he exerts unfair pressure, to force others to do what he wants, even if they think it is a bad idea, then they have every right to be anoyed at him if his plan doesn't work.
Optimized_Commoner 05-13-07, 11:37 AM	During play, the quarter back more or less has the power to force the team to do what he wants. You know what this means? I've learned actual real world information from hollywood movies. This is a scary thought ;). (I'm Australian, our football is different in case you were wondering). The point is, if he exerts unfair pressure, to force others to do what he wants, even if they think it is a bad idea, then they have every right to be anoyed at him if his plan doesn't work. Good point. I agree.
Molitor 05-13-07, 01:16 PM	That's the DM's job to keep that sort of thing going if it happens. I completely disagree that I in any way *ruined* somebody from having fun. It's a roleplaying game not a lets all hug and never disagree or separate ourselves game. Disagreements, separation, and overall *situations* are what make D&D different from other games. Well, I'll explain how I DM. If my players wish to seperate themselves I'll absolutely allow it. But what I WON'T do is alter the encounters I had already in place because of the new group. Meaning basically that your character would have a very short lifespan in one of my games.
Knivestgn 05-13-07, 01:49 PM	Ok normally I am ok with party splits as a DM, but I also do not lower the CR of the encounter, meaning if the assassins and the werewolf were meant for 4 lvl x characters, they stay that way. This means had you split your 3 teammates would have had an extremely tough encounter, and the werewolf would have eaten you as a snack. But hey you wanna split up? Go ahead, buy some mercenaries or henchmen, try to pull it off. If you do more power to you. Heres what has me worried, if a player came up to me before a campaign and said "Don't worry if I cause party splits, im Happy sitting out for a session". I would tell him to find a new group, this means he has knowledge that he causes ALOT of party splits meaning, stubborn unbending, most likely whiney character. (likely why your freinds felt forced to follow you). So let me see if I can break this down a bit. The campaign had two possible "plot paths" at this point. One was to go after the group of evil assassins who were trying to kill you. The other was to go after a "damsel in distress" who may or may not have been in immediate danger at the time. (just as the assassins may or may not have been waiting for you... whatever). 3 players wanted to go after the assassins which is, logical. Why leave them to follow you and attack you are either A fighting the werewolf, or B sleeping? 1 player wanted to go after the werewolf, which kinda makes sense from the blind heroics standpoint. SOMEHOW this 1 guy in *character* convinced 3 other people to follow him? I doubt it, or else people wouldn't have been angry and somber. So yes, the group knew he was just gonna do whatever he wanted regardless because apparently the DnD game is 100% about him individually, everyone else in the group be damned... Heres the deal, DnD is a "Team" game. If everyone just does there own thing, you will be weak, and most certainly easy to kill for bosses and such. Being on a team means actually comprimising and doing things in an order that makes sense. DnD is about the group, not the individuals, if the party stays together encounters are normal, everyone gets to play in the same sessions, everyone gets to have fun. If the party splits, encounters become harder, people have to "sit out" and wait for there part of the story... which they probably would have gotten to as a group, if they would have comprimised. I have run games where the group has heard of an evil barbarian warlord sacking villages to the east, and a dungeon full of mystical wonders and all whom have ventured in has died etc (I run open ended worlds where there is always something to do somewhere, meaning no railroading ever) And the group has had people wanting to do both, so they picked the more dangerous threat (the barbarian warlord), and went after him first. When they got to the dungeon another adventuring party had made it in first... but died halfway through in the same trap that almost killed all of them. Had they split, the trap WOULD have killed those dungeon delving, and the warlord would have had an easy time destroying what he would have deemed as the "puny opposition"
DFoster 05-13-07, 09:08 PM	I NEVER said that splitting the group was NOT an acceptable compromise. I NEVER said that a group should NEVER split up. All I have said, repeatedly, is that SOMETIMES it is best to compromise what you want to do in favor of doing what the group wants to do. Again, let me stress the importance of the word, "SOMETIMES". For those of you who are not familiar with the definition of the word, it means every once in a while or occasionally. Well then I think that means we agree, as I also feel that at least a majority of the time the group should be working toward the same goal. If a given character disagrees with a group the majority of the time it normally means they aren't compatible (like the heroic character in a bunch of mercenaries it might work out as long as the heroic character and mercenaries goals are in line, but it's possible in fact likely the mercenaries will end up doing a bunch of things the heroic character doesn't like). Obviously once the incompatibility is obvious, the incompatible character would remove himself from the group as they don't share his goals and he would go off on his own permanently. Ok normally I am ok with party splits as a DM, but I also do not lower the CR of the encounter, meaning if the assassins and the werewolf were meant for 4 lvl x characters, they stay that way. This means had you split your 3 teammates would have had an extremely tough encounter, and the werewolf would have eaten you as a snack. And I wouldn't change the EL either, however that doesn't mean the guy going after the girl would automatically fail. If he tried a straight out fight he would essentially be fighting what amounts to an equal opponent (As a Fighter 5 is a CR 5 enemy) this gives him a chance (albeit a highly risky one without a plan and some extensive magic item use) to actually win the straight out fight unless of course it was supposed to be tough for the group as a whole and is thus higher then the APL. However he doesn't need to straight out fight the creature, what he needs to do is get in grab, the girl and get out. A Potion of Speed, perhaps some tanglefoot bags, a net or some other magical trinkets could speed up the PC or slow down the werewolf to the point he can grab the girl and escape. The other group of three versus the group of assassins will likely have little trouble what with actually being the ones doing the ambushing if all goes to plan (giving them a tactical advantage to outweigh the character they are down). Heres what has me worried, if a player came up to me before a campaign and said "Don't worry if I cause party splits, im Happy sitting out for a session". I would tell him to find a new group, this means he has knowledge that he causes ALOT of party splits meaning, stubborn unbending, most likely whiney character. (likely why your freinds felt forced to follow you). I've never actually said that to a GM, but if I was asked my feelings on party splitting I'd be perfectly honest, if circumstances arise where the PCs no longer agree on making the same move, unless one side can convince the other or unless they can come up with some kind of comprimise to do both, a party split (temporary or permanent) is unavoidable. However if your character is causing party splits on a very regular basis, he should head off permanently as he is obviously not happy with the rest of the group. Then you make a new character hopefully one more likely to agree with the group (of course it's possible he might have occasional disagreements but such is life). So let me see if I can break this down a bit. The campaign had two possible "plot paths" at this point. One was to go after the group of evil assassins who were trying to kill you. The other was to go after a "damsel in distress" who may or may not have been in immediate danger at the time. (just as the assassins may or may not have been waiting for you... whatever). 3 players wanted to go after the assassins which is, logical. Why leave them to follow you and attack you are either A fighting the werewolf, or B sleeping? 1 player wanted to go after the werewolf, which kinda makes sense from the blind heroics standpoint. The 3 players decision is indeed perfectly logical, hell I want to save the damsel and I know that the odds are that means the assassins will almost certainly ambush us when we exit the werewolf's lair or that night as we sleep. I know this but in the end it doesn't matter the girl needs help, worrying about the assassins comes later. Of course I tend to play heroic characters. SOMEHOW this 1 guy in *character* convinced 3 other people to follow him? I doubt it, or else people wouldn't have been angry and somber. So yes, the group knew he was just gonna do whatever he wanted regardless because apparently the DnD game is 100% about him individually, everyone else in the group be damned... Well he might have tried (and I would have) and first but in the end I would have encouraged the others to do what they felt was right and if that meant them going after the assassins, so be it. If they choose to follow me anyway in spite of the fact they don't want to, they don't really have a right to be ****** at me. Heres the deal, DnD is a "Team" game. If everyone just does there own thing, you will be weak, and most certainly easy to kill for bosses and such. Being on a team means actually comprimising and doing things in an order that makes sense. DnD is about the group, not the individuals, if the party stays together encounters are normal, everyone gets to play in the same sessions, everyone gets to have fun. If the party splits, encounters become harder, people have to "sit out" and wait for there part of the story... which they probably would have gotten to as a group, if they would have comprimised. I have run games where the group has heard of an evil barbarian warlord sacking villages to the east, and a dungeon full of mystical wonders and all whom have ventured in has died etc (I run open ended worlds where there is always something to do somewhere, meaning no railroading ever) And the group has had people wanting to do both, so they picked the more dangerous threat (the barbarian warlord), and went after him first. When they got to the dungeon another adventuring party had made it in first... but died halfway through in the same trap that almost killed all of them. Had they split, the trap WOULD have killed those dungeon delving, and the warlord would have had an easy time destroying what he would have deemed as the "puny opposition" While the warlord might have been sufficient to kill the group that went after him (depending on the numbers, the fight might still have been winnable by the PCs), I'm trying to work out how a trap that ALMOST killed all of them (meaning some surivived it) would miraculously increased it's damage to kill those that survived it last time? Of course if the ones that wanted to do that section were the ones that were killed by it that would explain it. However when you split up you have to take additional precautions as you can't rely on your friends to assist you. This means being more cautious, using clever ideas to get around things that normally you'd just bull through as a group, using magical items to give you better odds and so on.
Shadowhowler 05-13-07, 10:12 PM	The football anology is crap. 1. We don't know the QB motivations for deciding to ignore everyone and run his own play... presumably he thought it stood a better chance of sucsess. However, all that is at stake is a GAME. No ones lives, only a game. Also, the QB has accepted the Coach has authurity over him within the rules of the game he is playing, and he is willfully ignoring that authority. For the OP's character... what was at stake was an innocent and dfensless womans LIFE. She was in danger, and he was determined to help her. Also, he has accepted no ones 'authurity' as to his actions. He travels with friends and adventurers... but they are not in change of him. 2. The other players gave into the OP and followed his plan, but did it 'fail'? No. At least not as far as I have heard. So a better analogy with this stupid 'football' example would be, the QB ignored all the others and pressed his opinion, everyone caved in, and the STILL got the touchdown/30 yards/whatever. Then the next day the other players were still ****** at him. Even with this modification, the anology is still crap becuase of point #1. Ugh.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-14-07, 09:49 AM	Your right. When playing D&D, a heroic Fantisy game, it's totaly sad when a player of a good character decideds that saving a defensless woman from a monster is more important then his buddies wanting to go hunt down some people who are after them, when they are obvously capable of defending themselves quite well. How DARE he play a HERO in D&D... he should be a Merc, and moreover, a merc with a hive-mind mentality and no will of his own. Thats much more what D&D should be about. Ah, sarcasm. How useful. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I have a little bit more concern and respect for my real friends than some imaginary emperiled woman. I really don't give a flippin' rat's ass if someone is playing in the game a hero or not, doing so does not excuse selfishness and bullying to people, who are ostensibly one's friends, in the real world.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 10:05 AM	Why did they decide to follow you? Is it because you're character managed to convince their characters that his idea was better? Or is it because the other players know that you, as a player, are a winey cry baby? They knew that if you didn't get your way, that you were going to pitch a temper tantrum. or pout. or that your character would refuse to go along with them, and would instead sit around and do nothing. So even though their characters thought it was a bad idea, they as players decided to let you, the player, have your way? Basically, did they decide to go with you based on their character's decisions? Or did they decide to give in to you as a player?[? Okay the reasoning that I was given that my group followed me was because they told me out of character they thought splitting would be suicide. I told all of them what Oggle was going to do and they were free to decide what they wanted. I was in no way ****** off in fact I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen in this particular situation as for which way we would go and the consequences of such actions. This is why I was so surprised to see anybody upset with a little bit of roleplaying. I agree with the above post that in character happenings and possible splits I will go with before, forced party staying together. In 6 levels this is the first possibility of party split we've had so I don't think this is a recurring issue that makes me a *cry baby.* How this thread turned from a simple question of... is it right to be mad out of character from a simple roleplaying disagreement into a .... how dare you not assimilate argument i'll never know. It's a matter of opinion clearly some people agree with me, and this is the side of D&D I enjoy... and probably the folks who would enjoy my presence in a D&D Game. Others are the opposite and hate my viewpoints, this is a less hardcore RP side of D&D and is an acceptable way of playing as well. I play in a group that is obviously mired in these two separate opinions amongst the players and as such occasionally we butt heads.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 10:11 AM	Not necessarily. The assassins may know where the group is and be on their way there. Remember that knowing where someone is located doesn't only happen if you are there with them. The knowledge of where someone is located can be learned while you are in another location. Additionally, the assassins may have known where the group was heading. The players who wanted to go after the assassins may have feared the assassins coming in "behind" them while they were going after or actually fighting the werewolf. The could be a lot of valid reasons on why they thought it best to attack the assassins first. There is no Right or Wrong course of action in this situation. There is no way to know which was the bigger threat (to anyone, not just the group and/or the damsel), the werewolf or the assassins. I fully agree, and never meant to say that the other members of my group had a bad idea. I just felt Oggle would go one way, whether others felt it suicidal or not he would help the damsel in distress... and either save her or remove the foul werewolf curse plaguing her and these other people.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 10:14 AM	Here's an analogy I thought of the other day. Football game. Fourth quarter. 2 seconds left on the clock. Trailing by 4 points, on the enemy's 30 yard line. Offensive coordinator calls for a passing play. The coach calls a passing play. In the Hudle: Quarter Back: OK, I think we need to do a run. Player 2: But it's our last play, and we need 30 yards. Player 3: And coach said we should do a passing play. Player 4: Passing seems like a better idea to me. Quarter Back: No, I really think a run would be better. Everyone: But everyone else thinks we should go with a pass. Quarter Back: Sorry guys, but I just can't go along with that. If you guys want to try a passing play, you're going to have to do it without me. We can let Fred here play quarter back for this play. Everyone: OK, fine. We'll go with the run. Ball get's hiked. QB hands off. Running back makes it 15 yards before getting tackled. Horn goes, game over, we lose. Meanwhile the wide reciever was uncovered in the end zone. The next day all the other players are mad at the quarter back. Well Duh! Does the analogy fit? Only you know the answer to that. But ask youself this, did you simply make a suggestion? or did you unfairly pressure the rest of your team into doing something they thought was a bad idea? As in american football the QB decides to change the play if he wants all the time I find this analogy to be a quickly thought up excuse to be argumentative. You are also getting off topic for why this thread was originally made. I did not make a decision based upon what I thought would be the best overall outcome as a quarterback does in a football game. I did what I thought my character felt he had to do in his heart of hearts. As a heroic fantasy hero I felt it within my bounds to stamp my foot down for the first time EVER in this group with this character and go the way I felt I should. D&D if not about winning & losing and if I were in a group who played that way i'd quit and go play a sport. I also totally disagree with the "Obviously the OP always makes characters that whine, cry, and get their way because obviously if we disagree then this player must be a jerk who does this on a constant basis. This character has been with these same guys for 6 levels. Never a large disagreement or issues amongst us. We run into ONE situation where we disagree and my heroic Dragon Shaman goes his way... follow him if you wish. I do not see how I have hurt anybody, caused any real issues or done anything that is a repeated offense. I simply roleplayed a situation and became confused how this turned into real life anger. I've only heard two arguments against me... either "im a whiny cry baby who throws temper tantrums" OR apparently "my character doesn't trust the others in my group" I mean god forbid that he has a personality I have formed over his time as a character and I chose to follow it.
Ack 05-14-07, 10:16 AM	More to the point; if someone decides to go against the rest of the group and it turns out that his way works, he still cops stick from the others. Dunno why, but that's the way it is.
_Jayne_Cobb_ 05-14-07, 10:31 AM	More to the point; if someone decides to go against the rest of the group and it turns out that his way works, he still cops stick from the others. Dunno why, but that's the way it is. They "why" of it is that it's not a success or failure issue, it is that the player - either actively or passivley - is blackmailing the other players in order to get his way. A player has the right to do whatever he wants with his PC, but that right is not without limit. It extends only to the point where those actions begin negatively impact the enjoyment of the rest of the group. Oliver Wendell Holmes once famously said "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins," a truism that everyone one of us should hold dear. Adapting it to D&D one might say "the right to do whatever I want with my PC ends where the other players' bad time begins." What many people seem to be missing is that this is a player-based issue, not a game-based one. The rest of the group is irked at the OP's actions as a player, not those of his PC.
LCD2YOU 05-14-07, 10:48 AM	It all comes down to threat assesment. 1: There's a werewolf stalking innocent people. 2: There's a bad guy after the party. Threat assesment: 1-A: The group after us is small potato(e)s and we can rid ourselves of those Quail anytime we want to do so. 1-B: The group after is is bad but too far away to hurt us anytime soon. 1-C: The group is bad news and close. We must get to them before they can set us up. 1-D: We know there's someone after us and we're not sure about them. We must go see what they're all about. 1-E: The group is bad news and too tough for us, let's go run and hide. And: 2-A: We must go help the innocents as we can easily dispatch the werewolf. 2-B: It'll be tough but we must help the innocents and kill the werewolf. 2-C: The werewolf may kill one or all of us eventually but we must go save the innocents. 2-D: Run away! RUN AWAY! 2-E: The werewolf's secondary right now as we've bigger issues of our own. So one person decides that it's like this: 1-A or 1-B and 2-A, 2-B or 2-C and that they must go help the innocents. The other part of the party felt it was more like this: 1-C or 1-D and 2-E. Who is correct? Who knows, only the DM. If they go and find some snot nosed evil 1st and 2nd level "bad guys" and let a bunch of people die or become infected by the werewolf, then they are a bunch of chumps and not heroic. If they go to rid the villagers of the werewolf but the other group is equal to them and while they are wounded after the fight with the werewolf kill them, or worse fight the werewolf before they are all healed up, then they still are chumps. One rule so many forget. Helping people is a great thing. Not taking care of yourself and faultering because of it when trying to help someone is foolish.
wrecan 05-14-07, 10:54 AM	Okay the reasoning that I was given that my group followed me was because they told me out of character they thought splitting would be suicide. "they told me out of character" Your words. Not ours. This is why they are upset with you out of game. You were basically dictating how they were going to spend their time. This is a campaign where your "friends" clearly thought that splitting up would be suicide. Not just for the individual, but for those who were left behind. They were telling you that the character you created was acting incompatibly with the campagin the DM had created. Those are out-of-game considerations, not in-game ones. So they were absolutely right to be upset with you. I told all of them what Oggle was going to do and they were free to decide what they wanted. I was in no way ****** off in fact I thought it would be interesting to see what would happen in this particular situation as for which way we would go and the consequences of such actions. This is why I was so surprised to see anybody upset with a little bit of roleplaying. Being curious as to what would happen to your friends and you if you split up is not roleplaying. There was no in-character motivation that you just described. That's just being inconsiderate. I play in a group that is obviously mired in these two separate opinions amongst the players and as such occasionally we butt heads. I don't see them mired in two separate opinions. I see you have an opinion and everyone else has a different opinion.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 11:20 AM	Yeah, I played my character as he would go... and the roleplayers in my group disagreed. When we began discussing it rather than any roleplaying I got metagamed (your surely going to die if you chose this route.) I did not force anything or ruin anybodys fun. I merely chose a different route... we are not attached at the hip and I had not started an argument of any type. Merely stating my characters strong opposition to a particular path and going a different way from any fantasty story perspective is perfectly acceptable. Since when did roleplaying become bad. Yes... I had people in real life mad at me for an in character decision, that is PRECISELY why I made this thread. I feel that a hero confident in his abilities and feeling that time is not to be wasted on defending his own possible killers but anothers is okay to focus on... oh no, that type of heroic fantasy is obviously killing the gaming experience. The absolute worst thing that could have happened, is I go off on my own and in heroic fashion my character meets his demise. While the party gets ambushed by assassins. The suicide out of character comment was a comment for me and me alone. They did not feel threatened by what they were facing... it should have been a character to character talk and this is what I was trying to make it. Instead it turned into a situation where players don't want to play it out and get mad because I did what my character would do. Other characters in this campaign have done something they would do with no problem. Heck the Bunzai character was around back when I had my CN fighter who a greedy money hungry bounty-hunter, but his combat abilities were valued by the group. Bunzai mad about some in character happenings attempted to take my chest of gold and run off, in which case the character left the party. Only to come back into the campaign at a later date when his newly made character died and mine had passed as well. While I understand you all aren't in my group so you don't see the situations, I don't hate my fellow players I just don't understand how a roleplaying group could all of a sudden turn a great roleplaying opportunity where they aren't forced by anything other than their own wills and personalities into an actual situation in real life to be mad about. While this situation has come in gone amongst our group as I said earlier... I want my true intentions to ring true to the doubters in this thread as I am not a jerk, nor am I some whiny player who didn't get his way. I consider myself a very intimate roleplayer who greatly enjoys the story and epic feel of Dungeons & Dragons. I think roleplay and story epitomizes what Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson were thinking when they originally created the game. Before it was mucked up with so many rules and *situations* Also you act as if my *character* was just recently created for this group and that I didn't think to make a group oriented character. My character for the 6 levels of his being in this group has been all about working with the group... constantly helpful, and I thought through this character quite a bit to make sure he would be a compatible group member. This is not a character I just threw together and decided to cause a ruckus with. As much as you may like to think I know how to play D&D, I know how to roleplay, and I know how to maintain a group game and have fun.
LCD2YOU 05-14-07, 11:23 AM	What would you have done if the rest of your party decided to leave your character behind and went off to do what they wanted? Would you have expected to play in a "split party with equal time"? or Would you have accepted that the group gets a proportional share of time as dictated by the number of people in it? If there is 6 PCs in the party and you go off leaving 5 in one part and yourself in the "other", would you be content in playing 10min every hour? Also, how would you have behaved towards them? Would you be quiet or would you voice what you felt often?
northern_bear 05-14-07, 12:25 PM	Here's an analogy I thought of the other day. Does the analogy fit? Only you (the OP) know the answer to that. But ask youself this, did you simply make a suggestion? or did you unfairly pressure the rest of your team into doing something they thought was a bad idea? The football anology is crap. As I said in my post, it may be a good analogy, or it may not. Only the OP can comment on whether he thinks the analogy fits, because only he has full information on why he did what he did, and why the other players went along with him. Are you the OP? No? Well then shut your pie hole you pompous jerk. I told all of them what Oggle was going to do and they were free to decide what they wanted. So one member of the team told the others, that he wasn't going to do it their way. They could try to do it their way by themselves if they wanted to, but he wasn't going to help them. He was going to do what he wanted to, and they could either do things his way, or some other way on their own. the reasoning that I was given that my group followed me was because they told me out of character they thought splitting would be suicide. The rest of the team decided that the team would have better luck together. So rather than try to do things on their own, they caved in to the pressure, and stuck with the odd man out, even though they didn't like his plan. I'm not convinced that the football analogy is completely inapropiate here. I did what I thought my character felt he had to do in his heart of hearts. As a heroic fantasy hero I felt it within my bounds to stamp my foot down for the first time EVER in this group with this character and go the way I felt I should. If this is what happened, then you did nothing wrong. If you (either your character, or you as a player) were regularly throwing your weight around to get your way, then it would be inapropriate, and your friends would be right to get angry. However, if this is a rare event, then I don't think you were being a bully. Your friends have absolutely no right to get upset at you for roleplaying your character. Maybe they would if you had a character who was constantly fighting the group, but as this is a first, then they have no legitimate beef.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 12:47 PM	What would you have done if the rest of your party decided to leave your character behind and went off to do what they wanted? Would you have expected to play in a "split party with equal time"? or Would you have accepted that the group gets a proportional share of time as dictated by the number of people in it? If there is 6 PCs in the party and you go off leaving 5 in one part and yourself in the "other", would you be content in playing 10min every hour? Also, how would you have behaved towards them? Would you be quiet or would you voice what you felt often? This is a good valid question, and I don't know if I have mentioned it before I thought I had. I would understand being played less than the rest of the group as I am one person compared to 5, that is completely a DM call and I don't mind how it's handled. I really enjoy story and interesting happenings so i'd do one of two things as per dm's request. Sometimes to avoid out of character play I may leave the room for key roleplaying times to help me keep in character, or other times i've just sat in and watched what unfolds.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 12:52 PM	I believe you left out something on the comment with my group mates saying it would be suicide. They stated suicide for me and me alone. They were confident they could handle wherever they went, and we just disagreed on which action in which we should take that's it. I felt it was good roleplaying and a few others disagreed. It was my assumption because in times past we were a strong roleplaying group. For some reason that night, it was a problem when other nights any action strongly backed by what a character would do was no problem at all. As this situation has not been brought up again and since it has gotten so off topic in the past I think this would make a good close to the fact that this issue is dealt with... and is merely a difference in playing styles and preferences.
wrecan 05-14-07, 01:42 PM	It was my assumption because in times past we were a strong roleplaying group. Did any of those times past involve splitting the group up for role-playing reasons? Because that's the point I try to make which you seem to gloss over. Splitting the group, even for in-game reasons has out-of-game ramifications. If this group has previously accepted group splits, then it would appear inappropriate. If they haven't then you may have just discovered the limits of your group's desire to accomodate wholly immersive role-play.
AQuebman 05-14-07, 03:16 PM	In this particular campaign no we have not. This same group I have plays in multiple campaigns together though and in some of the other ones yes we have with no hard feelings.