Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mcmurphy510 03-23-07, 10:15 PM	I just recently read the section in the DMG entilted "BAD ADVENTURE STRUCTURE." I dont have the book in front of me presently, but let me try to summarize what it said: Dont rely on events in your adventure whose outcome may be altered by the players. The example they give is the PCs find a tablet, and the adventure hinges on it getting sotlen by the BBEG. So if the party finds a way to keep the tablet from getting stolen, the adventure halts. So now, here's my scenario. The DM says that's it's not bad structure since it only effected one character (mine) and not the whole party. The party was captured and tortured. The DM gave a (very) brief brief description of the torture and made us roll saves. He said that those that failed are 'cowed and afraid' of our torturer (a witch of some sort). The DM expected us to enact this, and some of us did not (feeling that he was treating our PCs like NPCs). This irritated the DM, that we were not in character they way he figured 'in character' ought to be. So, she finished torturing us and deemed us 'not a threat' and we were taken to a dining hall where she asked us why we were there. She offered us food and water. My character (and one other) did not answer her questions or eat any of the food (after all, would you want to eat any food offered by someone who had just been torturing you for 20 days?). Finally she got fed up with the party and sent them off to cells. On a table in each cell was a mug of warm liquid, which everybody but my character decided to drink (?!?!?!). Those that did passed out immedately. So I was the only one left awake. So the witch and the sleeping party members (the rest of the group) are transported to this dream demi plane, where they adventure for the rest of the night. (Details unimportant). About half way thru, I take the DM aside and and ask him if I'm going to get a chance to play any time soon. He dodged the question and said that I made an in character decesion and I would have to live with it. I ended up playing for 30 mins at the beginning, sitting there for 6 hours, then playing for another 15 mins at the end of the evening. Here's the real kicker. The next week when XPs were given out, everyone else averaged about 4500. I got 350. I argued to the DM that participation in the adventure hinged on drinking the drink and was thus unfair. I told the DM that I think it would only be fair if 1) he admitted to me that it could have been handled better (if the DM cant admit such a HUGE faux pas as this, how will he ever be trusted again), and 2) that it be made up to me some way in the game. At this point I dont really care that I was made to sit the game out for 6 hours. I just think my PC deserves an oppertunity on the side (that none of the other characters can get at, to make up those XPs.)
StevenO 03-23-07, 11:13 PM	Although others may disagree it seems to me your character should get around 4200 XP for avoiding the "trap" set by the witch. Apparently they all gained XP for "falling into the trap" and although your character was undamaged deserves an equal share of XP. I don't know if you've played the "after" yet but while the rest of the part is in la-la land he should let your character have an equivalent adventure in reality that possibly leads to freedom for all.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 12:03 AM	StevenO: I would agree with your point (but I *may* be a bit biased) about getting an equal share of XPs (or at least a decent portion thereof). That would go along with the guidelines set in the DMG about XPs. I think the example they give there is that if the party sneaks past a sleeping ogre to quietly break someone out of a cell, they should be awarded XPs for it, if sneaking past the orge was their stated goal. I do not think the DM will it as my having avoided the trap, as this was his 'hook' to get moving with that adventure. The 4200 XPs they got while they were in the Dream Demi Plane (aka la-la land) were for encounters while on the Demi Plane. A bit of backstory: I am playing a cleric in this game, and I'm playing her as a bit of a zelot. Very devoted to her religion. When the DM was trying to 'break our characters (get them to be 'cowed and fearful'). I asked him the following questions: 1. From the way I've been playing my character, do you think my character's faith is breakable? He said No. 2. Pretty much the only thing that my character concerns herself with is her faith. Every decesion she makes is based on her faith. Do you agree with that. He said Yes. 3. Would it be a fair acessment to say that what defines my character is her faith? He said Yes. 4. If that is so, then it would also be fair to state it another way. My character IS her faith. He agreed with that acessment.... I concluded my arguement with the following: If my character is her faith, and you have allready agreed that my faith is unbreakable, then it would be fair to say that my character cannot be broke.... I know it was bit of a cheap shot, but I really resented being told how to play my character... So, when the DM was getting irritated am me for not playing my character 'cowed and fearful' I asked him what percisely he expected from me. He did not say, so I finally said (trying to meet the DM half way), allright, given my character's faith, I would probably resort to quoting of scripture or non stop prayer when faced with such a circumstance. It was right after that that he had us all sent back to our cells and we were presented with the drink. The DM basically said that I allready stated that I would be in nonstop prayer and could not change my action (which I would not have done anyway), or fall asleep (which would have put me w/ the rest of the group). I tried to do other things which the group was in la-la land, but the DM made a ruling that at least two hours had passed before I stoped praying. I was supposed to have played Sunday, and Tonight, but I walked away in disgust when I only got 350 XPs. I emailed the DM about the situation, but have not recieved a responce yet. I wont go back until I do.
KillerVole 03-24-07, 12:15 AM	Well, according to several books (Heroes of Horror and Manual of the Planes, I think) you don't get any EXP for dream realms. The dangers aren't real, and even if they are, the experience (and gear and such) don't return to the land of the waking. It sounds to me like your DM was mad at you for some other reason, and used this to punish you for it.
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 12:17 AM	You are not at fault in any way in this situation. Your DM is being utterly ridiculous, probably because he can't stand that any player would deviate from his clearly brilliant storyline.
KillerVole 03-24-07, 12:18 AM	You are not at fault in any way in this situation. I agree with this. I wonder if he was trying to make you rethink your religious concept.
Comus 03-24-07, 12:25 AM	I agree with this. I wonder if he was trying to make you rethink your religious concept. More likely, he didn't have anything else prepped and didn't want to wing it. Probably also some resentment at the player not immediately jumping at the plot hook.
Fireclave 03-24-07, 12:41 AM	By any chance, does your DM look like this :confused: http://student-iat.ubalt.edu/sde/students/tynes/whiplash.jpg
Magnus_the_Mad 03-24-07, 02:00 AM	Oh man, I can totally relate to your situation man. A few years back, I was playing in a game where the DM (an ex-friend of mine) had the most messed up plot line. In a nutshell, the party was in a dungeon trying to find a religious artifact for the cleric of our group. She was assigned the mission by her superior and was bound by her faith to accomplish the mission. While in the dungeon, the party stumbled across a door that was a portal to another world (although no one knew it until they stepped through). Three of the party members believed the doorway to be normal and decided to open it and step through. The DM asked each player who was stepping through the door and all but the female cleric went in. She was frustrated because she knew that the relic they sought was supposedly just around the corner in another room and did not want to enter the door. However, now that she had no party she also had little choice in order to survive. She stepped through the door and they all found themselves on a totally different world. To make matters worse, she lost the connection with her god and could not regain any of her spells. She was now less than a fighter. Frustrated and ****** off, we called the game. The DM tried to blame the party for going through the door. We told him that it shouldn't have been there in the first place if it had the possibility of ruining the game. Needless to say, we all stopped gaming with him not too long after. I agree with the OP that a side trek is at least in order to make up the xp loss. If not, politely tell your DM to stop being a vindictive jerk wad. Adventures like this make the Tomb of Horrors seem fair.
Reversefigure4 03-24-07, 03:00 AM	You are not at fault in any way in this situation. Er, disagree. If you fail a will save from an effect (like torture) that your DM says makes you cowed and afraid, you're cowed and afraid. You don't get any say about it, any more than you get to say "No, I don't care that I failed my save. My faith keeps me strong, so Dominate Person doesn't work on me."
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 03:54 AM	The DMG is extremely clear in that characters cannot be forced to take any actions unless under the effect of magical compulsion. He may take the negative effects of being shaken, but is still in control of his actions.
The White Sorcerer 03-24-07, 07:24 AM	He may take the negative effects of being shaken, but is still in control of his actions. A good player would have the character act shaken, because that's the right thing to do. Same thing with being nauseated or other stuff that doesn't directly affect the character's actions but should have some effect on behaviour.
UAMDB 03-24-07, 09:01 AM	StevenO: A bit of backstory: I am playing a cleric in this game, and I'm playing her as a bit of a zelot. Very devoted to her religion. When the DM was trying to 'break our characters (get them to be 'cowed and fearful'). I asked him the following questions: 1. From the way I've been playing my character, do you think my character's faith is breakable? He said No. 2. Pretty much the only thing that my character concerns herself with is her faith. Every decesion she makes is based on her faith. Do you agree with that. He said Yes. 3. Would it be a fair acessment to say that what defines my character is her faith? He said Yes. 4. If that is so, then it would also be fair to state it another way. My character IS her faith. He agreed with that acessment.... I concluded my arguement with the following: If my character is her faith, and you have allready agreed that my faith is unbreakable, then it would be fair to say that my character cannot be broke.... I know it was bit of a cheap shot, but I really resented being told how to play my character... So, when the DM was getting irritated am me for not playing my character 'cowed and fearful' I asked him what percisely he expected from me. He did not say, so I finally said (trying to meet the DM half way), allright, given my character's faith, I would probably resort to quoting of scripture or non stop prayer when faced with such a circumstance. It was right after that that he had us all sent back to our cells and we were presented with the drink. The DM basically said that I allready stated that I would be in nonstop prayer and could not change my action (which I would not have done anyway), or fall asleep (which would have put me w/ the rest of the group). I tried to do other things which the group was in la-la land, but the DM made a ruling that at least two hours had passed before I stoped praying. I was supposed to have played Sunday, and Tonight, but I walked away in disgust when I only got 350 XPs. I emailed the DM about the situation, but have not recieved a responce yet. I wont go back until I do. The logic in Bold is flawed. Let me rewrite what you said another way. A=b b=c therefor a=c While this is true in a numeric sense, it is not always true with logic. in your example A= Your character B = Your faith C = unbreakable therefor your character = unbreakable. Now lets change what the letters means. A = cat B = Animal C = dog But wait Dog does not = Cat. Your also upset because you prayed all night and did not get to be apart of the adventure. i understand how fustrating that can be. But lets change the situation alittle. You are all in a bar. Something happens and you begin your 2 hour prayer. The rest of the party goes on a quick adventure. Shoudl you get equal XP. Or should the DM make a special adventure for you? You made the choice not to drink. Ok so now you are in a cell. Your not a rogue so how are you going to get out to do this adventure? Do you really want to roleplaye being stuck in a cell for two hours?
Aminvelos 03-24-07, 09:26 AM	Since the dm had you all roll then you should have acted the way you rolled, however I would point out the fact that my character would be less likely to "break" as easily as the other characters and perhaps expect an extra modifier. One of the characters I am playing has spent most of his life on a farm and in his youth had to eventually move manuer with his bare hands. While he wasn't happy with the proposition as a punishment for his youthful deeds he completed his chores none the less. As our party was adventuring in a cave the party had found a wall of feces. While most of the other players failed their rolls I quite easily passed mine for being nauseated. The whole "forced two hours of praying" shouldn't have happened, you still control your character. You should have gone to the next gaming session to see if the dm had time to make up a storyline where you could "catch up" with the rest of the party. Unfortunately, since you didnt go to the next session you'll never know, and failing to show up for a session never makes the dm more generous. Unless he has a habit of caving in which is usually a bad quality. Should he had given you a side quest, possibly, unless he had decided that he was going to handle the imbalance of xp next session. The dm didn't have a backup plan or elude to out of game that you would have your "chance" and you didn't go to the next session.
Novabomb 03-24-07, 12:18 PM	The logic in Bold is flawed. Let me rewrite what you said another way. A=b b=c therefor a=c While this is true in a numeric sense, it is not always true with logic. in your example A= Your character B = Your faith C = unbreakable therefor your character = unbreakable. Now lets change what the letters means. A = cat B = Animal C = dog But wait Dog does not = Cat. Your also upset because you prayed all night and did not get to be apart of the adventure. i understand how fustrating that can be. But lets change the situation alittle. You are all in a bar. Something happens and you begin your 2 hour prayer. The rest of the party goes on a quick adventure. Shoudl you get equal XP. Or should the DM make a special adventure for you? You made the choice not to drink. Ok so now you are in a cell. Your not a rogue so how are you going to get out to do this adventure? Do you really want to roleplaye being stuck in a cell for two hours? Sry dude, but your actually wrong here. The problem is the lack of definition in your sets, and the lack of use of implication. Given: A is a cat, B is an animal, C is a dog A-->B, B-->C What your trying to prove is that !(A-->C) The problem is that the given B-->C is incorrect. This is because C is a subset of B, but not vice versa. The correct given equations are: A-->B, C-->B. We cannot make speculations on the relationship of A and B in this case. Logic uses implication. The negation of an implication is not necesarily true, nor does the converse of an implication imply truth. Applied to the OP: The setup should look like this Given: A is the OP's character, B is the faith of the OP's character, C is in the set of unbreakable items A-->B, B-->C By the chain rule, A-->C. NOTE: This should actually be done using sets, and subsets but i am simplifying this to logic so that those unfamiliar with set theory should understand. Note2: The flaw in the OP's logic would be that A does not imply B, The character's faith may be his defining attribute, but it does not make the character a subset of faith. On the topic of the DM being a deush: Unless you were somehow notified that not drinking the liquid would exlude you from the adventure, the DM screwed up badly and you should not be penalized. And no, the DM does not get to decide what a character does unless MAGICALLY COMPELLED (EVER). The DM can explain what the treatment was like, but it is ultimately up to the player to decide how his/her character will react to the situation.
KillerVole 03-24-07, 12:25 PM	A good player would have the character act shaken, because that's the right thing to do. Same thing with being nauseated or other stuff that doesn't directly affect the character's actions but should have some effect on behaviour. This is true. A good DM, however, would make some kind of description to evoke feelings of terror, instead of just rolling dice and declaring: "You've all been tortured. Now you're afraid of this witch." I find that DMs who use "The party is captured/sucked into a dream realm and must do X and only X to escape" are DMs who can't improvise. When forced to, they loose all sense of fairness. I was once in a quest where the BBEG was some guy in our village. He kept sucking us into portals to do battle with him in a dream realm. One PC got sick of it, and decided to assassinate him in the real world in his sleep. The DM never saw it coming, and put the BBEG in an unlocked, minimally guarded house. The PC coup de graced him with a scythe. The DM said, "Your attack bounces off." The BBEG awoke, and killed the player with a dagger. When I later asked him why the other PC had failed, he said, "The BBEG was wearing an electromagnet, and it repelled the PC's metal scythe." I told him that he'd just destroyed his game, as now everyone in the world would walk around wearing electromagnets. He claimed it drove people insane. I said most PCs already were. In the end, I convinced him to call it a bizarre magical fluke when the rest of the party asked. Throughout it all, he maintained that the PC had deserved it "for doing something like that to my plot without warning." I find that it helps to let DMs know what you're planning a while before you do it, so that they have time to prepare, if they are bad improvers.
The White Sorcerer 03-24-07, 12:30 PM	This is true. A good DM, however, would make some kind of description to evoke feelings of terror, instead of just rolling dice and declaring: "You've all been tortured. Now you're afraid of this witch." Sure, there are better ways to do it. However, the player should make the best of it instead of being all "Nuh-uh, no I'm not."
Magnus_the_Mad 03-24-07, 12:38 PM	Sry dude, but your actually wrong here. The problem is the lack of definition in your sets, and the lack of use of implication. Given: A is a cat, B is an animal, C is a dog A-->B, B-->C What your trying to prove is that !(A-->C) The problem is that the given B-->C is incorrect. This is because C is a subset of B, but not vice versa. The correct given equations are: A-->B, C-->B. We cannot make speculations on the relationship of A and B in this case. Logic uses implication. The negation of an implication is not necesarily true, nor does the converse of an implication imply truth. Applied to the OP: The setup should look like this Given: A is the OP's character, B is the faith of the OP's character, C is in the set of unbreakable items A-->B, B-->C By the chain rule, A-->C. NOTE: This should actually be done using sets, and subsets but i am simplifying this to logic so that those unfamiliar with set theory should understand. This is all good and well in for a math problem (nice edits btw.), but no way as a DM am I going to allow a player to claim immunity to being shaken, frightened, nauseated, panicked or any other condition because they feel that their faith should save them. When these situations arise, it should be understood that they are so horrible that it is almost guaranteed to effect a commoner but adventurers are hardy and tough and therefore more resistant to these effects by profession. A cleric can be affected just as much by a horrible event or action as a wizard or a fighter can. While I agree that the OP should be given a side quest to make up some xp (what the DM did was still wrong. The adventure hinging on all players drinking the warm fluid is bad structure.) I do not agree that he should pipe up and start creating reasons why he should be immune to these conditions in game.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-24-07, 12:40 PM	Sure, there are better ways to do it. However, the player should make the best of it instead of being all "Nuh-uh, no I'm not." Agreed.
KillerVole 03-24-07, 12:46 PM	One thing I've noticed is that the OP never said that the DM said the character was shaken. He just said that they were "cowed and afraid". If it were a condition, I agree that the PC should deal with it. But otherwise, it should be the players choice how their PC reacts. I read somewhere that DMs should not tell PCs what they feel, or think, or do unless there's some sort of in game reason, like a status effect. I think that just telling a PC that they're afraid is a bad thing to do. Instead, make them afraid.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-24-07, 12:54 PM	I read somewhere that DMs should not tell PCs what they feel, or think, or do unless there's some sort of in game reason, like a status effect. I think that just telling a PC that they're afraid is a bad thing to do. Instead, make them afraid. If a DM calls for a will save and you fail, he will then tell you that "your character is fearful of this creature". That means that you failed your save versus a fear effect giving you the status "feared". What a DM should not do is tell a character that they are madly in love with the dwarven inn keeper when the character may not care at all for the inn keeper. That's what the DMG means by not telling a character how to act, what they feel, think or do. I understand that you want a DM to literally make their PCs afraid of the situation so that they will react more appropriately, but not everyone is Stephen King and can whip up some deranged scene from a horror novel every time a condition takes effect. The DM should do their best to accomplish this but should behave appropriately no matter how good or bad the DMs description is of the situation.
Comus 03-24-07, 01:21 PM	... but not everyone is Stephen King and can whip up some deranged scene from a horror novel every time a condition takes effect. Thank God for that, too. If my DM wrote that badly, I don't know what I'd do. (I kid, of course. King isn't a bad author, in a way. He's great at setting up a 'people are scared' situation and making you feel their fear. The problem lies in that once the 'terrible evil' is revealed, it usually ends up being something lame.) But getting back on topic, what about characters who deal with fear through bravado? I ask this because I'm going to be playing a kobold Crusader soon (This'd be version 3.0 of this particular character - I'm hoping the campaign will last more than two games this time) who deals with fear by running at it and pretending she isn't afraid. Of course, she's shaking with terror and ready to lose control of her bowels the whole time, but she doesn't let it show. I think the player didn't roleplay it correctly in effectively saying "I'm immune to fear because I don't wanna be afraid". But the same situation could come up with someone who says "I am freaking terrified, but will absolutely never show it."
Max Octavious Xavier 03-24-07, 01:33 PM	Yes, its bad adventure structure, but I don't think a makeup/catchup/side quest should be done. When it became clear that the adventure was in dreamland, you should have drank the stupid drink. "But that is what my character would do" really means, "I want to play MY way so I (the player) will have my character act this way." What, that is the absolute ONLY course of action your character would follow? Part of a players responsibility is swallowing plot hooks, sometimes even if you don't like them. The preceeding advice is based on the premise of a decent DM who is just having an off day with this adventure. If the DM constantly does such things, RUN.
Comus 03-24-07, 01:45 PM	Yes, its bad adventure structure, but I don't think a makeup/catchup/side quest should be done. When it became clear that the adventure was in dreamland, you should have drank the stupid drink. "But that is what my character would do" really means, "I want to play MY way so I (the player) will have my character act this way." What, that is the absolute ONLY course of action your character would follow? Part of a players responsibility is swallowing plot hooks, sometimes even if you don't like them. The preceeding advice is based on the premise of a decent DM who is just having an off day with this adventure. If the DM constantly does such things, RUN. Ah, but if he had decided to drink it, that would have been metagaming. Two wrongs don't make a right. Part of a DM's responsibility is to provide the players with something to do, not to make them sit out a game for six hours because of a single in-character decision that is entirely reasonable.
Magnus_the_Mad 03-24-07, 02:03 PM	Ah, but if he had decided to drink it, that would have been metagaming. Two wrongs don't make a right. Part of a DM's responsibility is to provide the players with something to do, not to make them sit out a game for six hours because of a single in-character decision that is entirely reasonable. Exactly. Poor structure is poor structure no matter what. What the DM should have done is to plan an event for the players that didn't drink the fluid (in other words, this is what is going on while the others are in the dream world). Thereby, whatever the player decides to do they aren't sitting around friggin bored for six hours. The player should never be shut out of a gaming session because of a decision they made.
Azar 03-24-07, 02:20 PM	I think I'll play the part of the devil's advocate on this one. If I had to bet the deed, so to speak, I'd say that this situation went south because of your aforementioned arguement with the DM. Perhaps he felt cheated or used by your manuvering and was fed-up with dealing with your situation for the night, and left you to pray in your cell. Is this proper on his part? No. However, I would be rightly ticked if I had a player telling me he was immune to fear because of his faith and the game mechanics he chose to portray his character didn't back this up. If you took every measure to boost your Will save and bolster your resistance against fear, then your character should rightly be immune to all intimidation attempts. If you are only running on your basic Will save + Wis modifier you are not unshakeable. Its as simple as that. Judging from the reaction on the DM's part (Avoiding you both in-game and out) I'd venture a guess that his problem with you is more personal then yours with him.
Empiro 03-24-07, 02:25 PM	I think a big issue here is DM/Player trust, as well as DM/Player cooperation. A player needs to trust that the DM isn't a jerk out to get them, and give the DM the benefit of a doubt now and then. A player should also cooperate with the DM, meaning that occasionally, players need to just grab the hook, even if it's out of character. If you didn't like having to do it, you should tell your DM after the session (nicely of course). And of course, a DM needs to be flexible and trust that players are purposefully trying to destroy the campaign. The DM need to find a way to include all the characters even if a character does something unexpected (so long as it was reasonable). Most new DMs don't do everything right. I know that when I started out, I certainly made plenty of mistakes and had several things that would be under the "bad DM" column. But I also had great, cooperative players that helped me get back on track when I stumbled, and gave me constructive criticism after the session so that I didn't make the same mistakes again.
The White Sorcerer 03-24-07, 02:25 PM	The character who didn't drink the liquid should've started trashing the witch's place and throwing around food or something. It would at least make more sense than just sitting around waiting for the others to wake up.
Kursk 03-24-07, 04:01 PM	Find a DM who knows how to DM.
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 04:03 PM	However, I would be rightly ticked if I had a player telling me he was immune to fear because of his faith and the game mechanics he chose to portray his character didn't back this up. Where, in the game mechanics, does it say that the DM has control over his characters emotions and actions? The character was afraid, and takes the negative effects from being as such, with penalties to attack rolls and skill checks and whatnot. That's all it is. The DM has no control over how the character acts when afraid.
Azar 03-24-07, 04:41 PM	@bobothechimp: You're absolutely right, the DM can't take force the player to act cowed or frightened. In fact, I've found outright forcing the players to act a specific way really kills the mood. But, if you're character is actually frightened or terrified or intimidated, is it okay for you as a player to disregard that and act any way you want? I mean, the player has the ability to portray how his character is affected by any sort of negative effect (Running around, screaming with terror, or uncontrollable shaking/teeth-chattering) but he should atleast work with the effect. Failing some kind of intimidation/fear/etc. effect and then completely disregarding it because of reasons unsupported by mechanics? I don't know if thats right. Or course the DM has no right to control how the character acts when hes afraid, thats the Player's responsibility - and from what I can gather, the OP disregarded this.
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 05:08 PM	You have a point there. He should have at least roleplayed as frightened. The thing is the term "cowed and afraid." This is the real problem. Afraid is sensible, but cowed means that they are frightened into submission. That is controlling a characters emotions and actions, completely beyond a DM's power, disregarding magical compulsion.
kelvinaw273 03-24-07, 05:32 PM	Any Dm worth their salt would have prepped something for those that did not drink. Shame on him. But I disagree thnat it is worth quitting the game over.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 05:43 PM	Ok, let's clear one thing up here: This is from the d20SRD: Panicked: A panicked creature must drop anything it holds and flee at top speed from the source of its fear, as well as any other dangers it encounters, along a random path. It can’t take any other actions. In addition, the creature takes a -2 penalty on all saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. If cornered, a panicked creature cowers. A panicked creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape. Frightened: A frightened creature flees from the source of its fear as best it can. If unable to flee, it may fight. A frightened creature takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. A frightened creature can use special abilities, including spells, to flee; indeed, the creature must use such means if they are the only way to escape. Shaken: A shaken character takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks. I asked the DM point blank. Is my character 'panicked'? He said no. I asked him if I had the compulsion to drop anything or run from her? He said no. I asked him is my character 'frightened'? Again, No. 'shaken'? No. I asked the DM what specific actions he thought my character ought to be taking? He just kept saying that I was 'cowed and fearful' I dont see either of those conditions in the book, and I had already asked him if they correspond to one of the three fear conditions in the DMG. (none of the other PCs where acting like what is described in the condition definitions either, and the DM didn't call them on that.) I even asked him, Are my teeth chattering? Am I weak in the knees? Is my voice shaky? Are their involuntary effects (like piddling myself?) He absolutely refused to give my any guidelines on this. I NEVER once claimed that my character was immune to the fear effects stated in the DMG. And it was not until after the DM refused any definition that I gave my argument (and yes I know it's flawed, but it got the point across... the DM did not argue with my assessment). I spoke with another player on this (who had discussed it with the DM) and he said that the DM thought that from his descriptions of the situation alone (not even based on saving throws - which were apparently a formality), that all of our characters would cower in fear of this woman and just do what she ordered us to do (simply based on the fact that he figured the description of events was scary enough to accomplish this). When the DM first brought the group into the dining hall, and told us we were cowed and fearful, the Witch told us to sit at the table. I did as she said. I refused to look at her or speak or eat any of the food. I can easily see how someone cowed and fearful would try to sit there, quiet like a mouse, trying not to be noticed. When it comes down to it, my actions could have been taken either as cowed or as defiant, depending how how you look at it. The DM chose to take them as the later, without asking me a thing, or giving my any guidelines as to what he was looking for.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 05:44 PM	but cowed means that they are frightened into submission. That is controlling a characters emotions and actions, completely beyond a DM's power, disregarding magical compulsion. Yep... and I even asked about magical compulsion. He said that there was none.
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 05:48 PM	The problem is simply a really bad DM. There were so many places he could have fixed his mistake, but refused to change his storyline.
Azar 03-24-07, 06:05 PM	Honestly, it sounds like he used intimidate on you. From the SRD: If you beat your target’s check result, you may treat the target as friendly, but only for the purpose of actions taken while it remains intimidated. (That is, the target retains its normal attitude, but will chat, advise, offer limited help, or advocate on your behalf while intimidated. See the Diplomacy skill, above, for additional details.) The effect lasts as long as the target remains in your presence, and for 1d6×10 minutes afterward. After this time, the target’s default attitude toward you shifts to unfriendly (or, if normally unfriendly, to hostile). Which (If this is the case) is hilarious! :D If you don't mind me asking, how long has this gentleman been DMing? Perhaps, even if he is a veteran, he's just rusty on game mechanics. Perhaps you should try some time behind the screen? From what you've writen you seem to have a good grasp on the mechanics behind the game.
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 06:24 PM	What he seems to have done is completely ignore any game mechanics so he could railroad you into his already crappy storyline.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 06:24 PM	Honestly, it sounds like he used intimidate on you. If you don't mind me asking, how long has this gentleman been DMing? Perhaps, even if he is a veteran, he's just rusty on game mechanics. I honestly dont know if it's intimidate that he used. The save he had us make was a FORT save (I guess to see how much physical abuse we could take). He's been DMing for years. This particluar campaign has been going on for about 1.5 years now (just started back after a hiatus - which reminds me, someone above mentioned about him wanting me to rethink my religious character concept... it's the concept I've been working w/ since the beginning...). If there is one thing that I have to give him credit for, it's that he knows the rules like the back of his hand. Better than anyone else in the group does (and some of us - myself - has been playing the game for 15+ years.) We sometimes say that he's not a 'rules lawyer' he's a 'rules brute'.. lol. Then again it's possible he may have been mistaken about a rule, or decided to fudge. Perhaps you should try some time behind the screen? From what you've writen you seem to have a good grasp on the mechanics behind the game. Thanks. We all actually take turns DMing in the group. My turn wont come up for a few more months...
bobothechimp 03-24-07, 06:26 PM	Wait, he had you make a fortitude save, against fear? That's ridiculous! This is one of the most obvious cases for it to be a will save! The only way it would be a fortitude save is in case she used poison or something similar, and even then a will save would be allowed against any related fear effect.
Azar 03-24-07, 06:46 PM	Well, I just checked the Book of Vile Darkness for the torture rules, and that was no help (It just lets you be more EVIL while intimidating! Bwahahah...). I'd try to get the thought process out of him over what exactly happened but it sounds like he's tight lipped about it... Perhaps theres a point to it? He can't just tell you what happened because its something that needed to be figured out in-game? I know I'm reaching but I'm not quite sure on the particulars of the situation. :D If it was just the limit to how much physical abuse you can take he handled it a tad bit poorly there as well - that wouldn't really cow you, just make you exausted (easier to move around and such). If theres no animosity outside of the game I'd attribute this mess to just stubborness. Sort of a "Try to foil my plans will you!? *Twiddles mustache* We'll see about that!" moment. As for the lost EXP, I'd have a suggestion to make. If you are of the appropriate level (AKA nearing CoD-Zilla status) and the "Dream World" adventure lasted more then 9 hours, theres no reason you wouldn't have been able to bust the hell out of that jail cell and start taking names. As has been suggested before, if you haven't already escaped this witch's clutches perhaps you could suggest a break-em-out side quest for yourself. If you feel your DM will be stubborn about this, try having one of the other players suggest it to him - it will sound more reasonable coming from someone who won't directly benefit from it. Good luck!
Coranna_Duveltre 03-24-07, 06:56 PM	I too am a player in same game as the OP and I have to say that the situation was handled poorly on both parts. The whole thing basically hit a brick wall more due to personality conflicts and gaming styles more than anything else. All of our characters were subjected to the same thing. We encountered a creature with a special ability to create fear so powerful that it overcomes a Paladins resistance to fear (it says so in the creatures description). I argued with the DM about this at first and was even siding with the OP but then stepped back and looked at the situation. Planly put the characters failed their will saves and were fearful... end of story as far as that goes. Now while it is true that the character could have choosen not to display that fear (as mine did), the character was still frightened and frankly faith or not you know the DM is not the most descriptive person and there fore that him simply telling you the effects could suffice. Now on to the other side of things. I agree with both sides of this argument about different elements of it. You stated that your character was going to pray until she lost her voice or fell asleep... your character typically preaches to every person she meets for hours at a time so saying that during this two hours she feel asleep or lost her voice is unfair. You stated your action but then decided to change it due to above board knowledge and the possibility of not being involved. That is even more unfair. On the other hand we both know that the DM can be stubborn and willful but it is also unfair to make him seem incompotent as a DM because we both know that this is not true, as stated before you both have different styles of running a game and they are almost diametrically opposed. That's actually one of the good things about the way that we do things (switching up games and giving everyone a chance to run). Now do I think that you should be given a chance to make up the XP's? Yes I do. Do I think your characters actions lead to what happened to her? Yes I do. This is no different than when Coranna fought the Red Wizard on the boat and got transported back to Thay. I made a decision and even though I wanted to go back because I realized it was a mistake I couldn't do it. I just got over it and moved on with the game. Before you spend anymore time getting angry I think you both should sit down and hash out your grievances and then see what can be done so that you can catch up in experience with the rest of us. I think he owes you that much from that first night. As far as sunday goes... well you made the decision to leave to any experience not gained from that day and up until the time you decide to come back is not owed to you.
Coranna_Duveltre 03-24-07, 07:02 PM	Wait, he had you make a fortitude save, against fear? That's ridiculous! This is one of the most obvious cases for it to be a will save! The only way it would be a fortitude save is in case she used poison or something similar, and even then a will save would be allowed against any related fear effect. This was actually a will save and not a fort save.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 07:07 PM	No Coronna, I dont know about you. But the save he had me make a was a FORT save.
Coranna_Duveltre 03-24-07, 07:29 PM	Weird... he made me make a will save. Perhaps our characters were having different things done to them. Something that required you make a fort save because your fort save is lower than mine and me making a will save for the same reason. I recall him specifically saying to me that it was a will save twice because a certain hippy in the group kept trying to talk to me when I was figuring out my penalties due to the fatigue.
Lindwyrm 03-24-07, 08:08 PM	So he was targetting your worst save and then telling you you were cowed and afraid, but wouldn't give which "fear status" you were affected by? Hmmmm... We encountered a creature with a special ability to create fear so powerful that it overcomes a Paladins resistance to fear (it says so in the creatures description). Which creature is that? If you don't want to let the general board know, can you PM me it?
KillerVole 03-24-07, 08:20 PM	It sounds like it may have been a misunderstanding, or the DM prioritizing. I got many complaints from my group when two of the seven characters left to go on some random side quest. The main group complained that I was spending too much time on the side quest, and the two said they didn't get enough time. Overall, I think the best way to balance things is to give each PC an equal amount of time. If one is away from six, about 1/7 of the time can be spent on them. It sounds like the DM is usually pretty good. Maybe they were just having an off night, or were tired or worried about something out of game. Try talking with them, it will probably acheive the best results.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 08:22 PM	.. a special ability to create fear so powerful that it overcomes a Paladins resistance to fear (it says so in the creatures description). Yes. I'm sure that the description does state that. I don't know what the creature is, but EVERYWHERE I've seen where it states that a creature or ability can overcome fear resistance, it simply does just that. It reduces or eliminates your bonuses and makes you subject to the fear conditions stated in the DMG. Planly put the characters failed their will saves and were fearful... Now while it is true that the character could have choosen not to display that fear (as mine did), the character was still frightened ... dnd there fore that him [the DM] simply telling you the effects could suffice. 'and were fearful?' What exactly does that mean? I asked the DM repeatedly, was I 'shaken', 'afraid', 'panicked'? Was I under the effects of some other condition that he made up? Each time the answer was NO. 'chosen not to display that fear?' Just how is what you stated here ANY different than what I did? At least I took the DM outside and asked him what effects he expected me to inact. The fact of the matter is the PCs can behave ANY way they choose (in the face of fear or not). I tried to cooperate, but was given no guidelines, so I did the best that I figured my character could under the circumstances. And if your character was infact frightened, just how did that manifest in the game? How did it manifest in the way you played your PC? And I'll state again, the DM did not tell me any effects. I asked him a hundred different ways. You need to go back and read my above posts. ... You stated that your character was going to pray until she lost her voice or fell asleep... Yes, as I stated above. That in such a situation it seems fair that a highly religious person would resort to quoting scripture or praying in the face of such fear. The DM said that the the fear was unrelenting and continuous (so therefor my praying would be as well, at least until something else happened to change that. ...so saying that during this two hours she feel asleep or lost her voice is unfair. That is absolutely ridiculous! The DM had us tortured for 20 days. We were subject to nightmares, he clearly stated that we had not eaten or gotten ANY restful sleep in that time. Now, yes the DM did state that just after the 20 days, we were allowed to rest for 2 days. But I'm sorry.... given the type and duration of abuse we suffered it is not unlikely that any of our characters would wake after that for an hour or two and then drift back to sleep. Take a look at any medical show on TV, the victim of a accident or brutal attack is often be shown as 'resting' for several days, then wake, only to drift back to sleep moments later. the DM MADE IT CLEAR that we were still under the effects of the torture. We had not been given any healing from our battle with her (22 days prior), and our state of rest did not allow us to recoup any HPs. What is unfair (and grossly unrealistic) is for the DM to state that I would not fall back asleep in such a circumstance. You stated your action but then decided to change it due to above board knowledge and the possibility of not being involved. That is even more unfair. Above board knowledge? You have no freaking idea what the DM told me when were outside! After sitting on my thumbs for TWO hours, I took him outside and asked if I was going to get a chance to play. He asked me what I wanted to do. I told him that I had already stated my action, and that to drink the liquid now would be metagaming. I told him that I figured that he MUST have something planned for those that did not drink the liquid. He indicated no, so I made my case for falling back asleep (involuntarily - which would not be metagaming if the DM had allowed it, which would have been very reasonable). Again, no. So I asked him if I could check out the room and find a way out? the DM said that might be possible, that's when we came back in. If a PCs stated action results in a situation where (unknown to the player) he will not be able to play for several hours, it is NOT unfair for the DM to allow that action to be changed. In fact it is his OBLIGATION to somehow facilitate that. This is not my argument Coronna, this is YOUR argument, when YOU were on the other side of a similar situation. ...it is also unfair to make him seem incompotent as a DM because we both know that this is not true I never tried to make him seem incompetent, just unfair. You need to go back and read my posts, where I have implied that he is infact very competent (esp. in that he knows the rules inside and out) This is no different than when Coranna fought the Red Wizard on the boat and got transported back to Thay. The poster here is referring to a situation in my game about a year ago, where her character was transported away from the rest of the party due to a decision she made. The part she's not telling you is that I made sure that she would still be able to play. 2nd characters for everyone were introduced prior to this. And on top of that, I gave her things to do whit her character in Thay, until she could find a way back. I think he owes you that much from that first night. As far as sunday goes... well you made the decision to leave to any experience not gained from that day and up until the time you decide to come back is not owed to you. I know I left on Sunday. I never said that I am owed any XPs for things that happened when I was not there. I have no freaking clue where you could ever have gotten that! What I did tell you (off the board and in PRIVATE) was that if I fall too far behind the rest of the group before this can be resolved, I will not want to come back.
mcmurphy510 03-24-07, 08:24 PM	Weird... he made me make a will save. Perhaps our characters were having different things done to them. Something that required you make a fort save because your fort save is lower than mine and me making a will save for the same reason. I recall him specifically saying to me that it was a will save twice because a certain hippy in the group kept trying to talk to me when I was figuring out my penalties due to the fatigue. I figured that may be a possibility...
Coranna_Duveltre 03-24-07, 08:40 PM	You're right I don't have any idea what he told you when you were outside but I do know what was said when the game was stopped and everyone started blowing up because of it. I know what I saw with my own eyes. That night everyone was pretty much off the hook. I admit that I was even being difficult that night. Oh and there is a difference in the reactions of our characters... I admitted that Beyel was scared... as a Paladin he would have done his best not to show that fair as an example to everyone else or just to hide the fact that he was scared. You came up with reasons why your character wasn't scared. Then again even the hippy (despite what he seems to think) wasn't acting all to scared. The only person who played their character and not themselves was the new guy. I admit to having been mad at the DM on several occasions and even threatening to quit but when I look back at it there are things that I could have done differently in character. Not all of the blame belongs on him. We have all made our share of mistakes as players and as DM's during our respective runs. Best thing to do is to talk it out figure out where to go next then move on. Oh and I never said that you thought you were owed those XP's. I was making a general statement about how things would work out to be fair. Now to answer the other question... I don't remember the PrC of the Witch at the moment but I will find out again and tell you.
mcmurphy510 03-25-07, 07:07 AM	Oh and there is a difference in the reactions of our characters... I admitted that Beyel was scared... as a Paladin he would have done his best not to show that fair as an example to everyone else or just to hide the fact that he was scared. You came up with reasons why your character wasn't scared. Ok... That's a good point. I gotta give you that one. But honestly it was not until after I tried to the get the info out of the DM about what percise effects this fear was having, and what he expected of my character (to no avail), that I had come up with the arguement about not being scared. And even after that, I still said to the DM that I think it reasonable that a devout character would resort to praying and quoting of scripture. The example I used was of a Cathloc Priest in a move about demons. I admit to having been mad at the DM on several occasions and even threatening to quit but when I look back at it there are things that I could have done differently in character. Not all of the blame belongs on him. I agree. There are things you (or anyone else) could have done differnetly in character, but the same is true for the DM. Much of the time, you (and everyone else in their turn) has been right, and the DM should have made concessions or done things different. If everyone is not having fun, it's time to do something different. Oh and I never said that you thought you were owed those XP's. I was making a general statement about how things would work out to be fair. Fair enough. Thank you.