Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Syn_of_Edin 05-14-07, 12:10 AM	We have a weekly game with five people. The current DM took over for the previous individual, who is now a player. The current DM hasn't done much running for D&D, and is most familiar with Vampire, Fading Suns, and Amber. The last few sessions had already been problematic; he was running things more like Vampire, with people going off and doing individual things instead of working within the party. This includes someone who made a character completely against party and player dynamics and then whined about how it wasn't fun, and so got a quest from this DM to fix it 'off-screen' instead of working out the situation with the characters. For this session, the DM had made a Sahuagin Spellthief to throw against us. (Which we incapacitated within two rounds of combat, but anyway. :D ) This Spellthief had some loot, a trident and bracers and some jewelry, including two rings. When the 'Neutral Good' Rogue/Bard gnome was doing Appraise checks for us, the DM took him aside and told him how much they were actually worth (a lot) without informing anyone else. The gnome then lied to the rest of the party about how much they were actually worth, quoting a figure under their true value by a factor of at least ten. The DM then secretly did Sense Motive checks for us without mentioning the rolls at all. There had been no secret rolls in the campaign before this. We (two players out of the other four) have just found out about it, and we are not happy. It feels like a lack of trust and a slap in the face. The lack of trust is not warranted; another player had his character take something from the party and hold back the truth, and no one has metagamed or made a fuss over it even though that situation is known out-of-character. The GM claims this set of cirsumstances wasn't about trust anyway, that the player would not have done it if the details had been explained OOC, but that gives more sting to the slap in the face because he's deliberately encouraging party infighting and dishonesty. I'd expect that in Camarilla Vampire scenarios, but it's not a welcome dynamic in the current game. The player of the gnome understands our ire and is willing to smooth things out, but the DM doesn't seem to get it. How do we explain why it was a bad idea, when he's not even willing to consider that his actions were improper and fun-impairing?
Shadowhowler 05-14-07, 12:19 AM	Uh oh. Ok.. I have played and run many Vampire games, including LARPS... and I LOVE Vampire. That being said... I am VERY aware that most players who play and enjoy D&D enjoy it in a very differant way then a lot of people enjoy Vampire. If I'm running a D&D game for players... I always make sure I understand their playstyles and what the expect/enjoy out of the game... so that I don't run a game thats contrary to that. Sounds like your DM is not being considerate in that way... sounds more like he wants to 'enlighten' your game in his mind by bring more 'roleplaying'... which in his mind means more fighting and disension among your group. Not a good thing if thats not what your group likes... and it seems that clearly that is the case here. However... the bigest indicater that this guy is trouble... Amber. Amber is so SO bad it's not even funny. However, my opinion aside, the Style of Amber is about as far from the mainsteam style of D&D as you can get... and someone that enjoys the one probably does not enjoy the other. I think you may need to get a new DM here.
darkeness 05-14-07, 12:23 AM	The Dm is fully within his rights to pull a character aside and give him information that the party was not privy to. Don't blame the DM that the "good" rogue wants to steal from the party. If I were in your shoes I would confront the rogue on that score and tell him point blank that if my character finds out that he is steeling from the party you are going to start taking off fingers (and hands). OF course, it helps if you can actually back up that threat! he was running things more like Vampire, with people going off and doing individual things instead of working within the party. This includes someone who made a character completely against party and player dynamics and then whined about how it wasn't fun, and so got a quest from this DM to fix it 'off-screen' instead of working out the situation with the characters. I'm not sure what your getting at here. Is the Dm allocating a large portion of group play time to "fix" this bad character? Is this "bad" character getting extra Xp making him more powerful than the rest of the group? If so these are bad choices on the Dm's part. Granted, he should not have allowed the mismatched character in, but at least he is taking steps to correct it, hoepfully without tipping the balance of power towards one player. The gnome then lied to the rest of the party about how much they were actually worth Another option is to strip him naked, roll him in butter and toss him into a room with a dozen horny, drunk dwarves? :D
Syn_of_Edin 05-14-07, 12:31 AM	Oh, Vampire can be incredibly fun, no argument there. :) It is a different gamestyle, though. The previous GM also allowed dissension within the ranks; we started play in an Expedition to Castle Ravenloft, and had two paladins and one cleric of Hextor (lawful evil) in the same party. One of the other characters was someone from the Seventh Sea setting. There was plenty of in-character conflict and RP around people's differences of alignment and knowledge, but the previous DM did not encourage OOC malice or misdirection and trusted us with knowledge of what he was doing. So it's not just a matter of in-party conflicts, we've weathered that before. This DM just doesn't seem to understand where to draw the line between 'realism' and fun.
DrMorganes 05-14-07, 12:33 AM	Sounds like a difference in style to me. Some DMs try to encourage roleplaying by providing information secretly and allowing the player to determine what gets shared and how. The DMG encourages certain rolls - like Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive - to be rolled secretly by the DM. Even calling for a Sense Motive roll is enough to tip off even a novice player that something isn't quite as it seems. Asking for one while dealing with another player is a sure-fire tip that somebody is lying... However, it sounds like your previous DM handled things differently. There is nothing inherently wrong with how the current DM is running things. It is, however, different. I STRONGLY encourage you - either individually or as a group - to sit with the new guy and discuss the game. Keep it friendly, keep it light, and just get a feel for the guy. Be willing to give his way an honest go before you show him the door, and be equally willing to give him the opportunity to try things the way you're used to having them. You're supposed to be friends and all, right? Communicate. It does wonders.
Syn_of_Edin 05-14-07, 12:54 AM	Don't blame the DM that the "good" rogue wants to steal from the party. If I were in your shoes I would confront the rogue on that score and tell him point blank that if my character finds out that he is steeling from the party you are going to start taking off fingers (and hands). OF course, it helps if you can actually back up that threat! We don't blame the DM for the bard's actions. We do, however, object to him deliberately arranging the situation to encourage such behavior. (He did not change the character's alignment for it, by the way). The player of the gnome has already realized his error and promised to work with us, but... The DMG encourages certain rolls - like Listen, Spot, and Sense Motive - to be rolled secretly by the DM. Even calling for a Sense Motive roll is enough to tip off even a novice player that something isn't quite as it seems. Asking for one while dealing with another player is a sure-fire tip that somebody is lying... Those rolls had never been done secretly before. Also, we've already had a case of the other players knowing someone's character did something underhanded. There haven't been any problems over it, since it's appropriate to the character and that same person has used the item they took to help the party. We know OOC what this person did, but we haven't metagamed about it. The game was already faltering because there wasn't enough group cohesion. Now it turns out he's deliberately encouraging characters against each other, and the way he's doing it hurts the player dynamics as well. He's treating this as all our problem, stalling discussion and really killing trust and fun with the game.
darkeness 05-14-07, 01:34 AM	We don't blame the DM for the bard's actions. We do, however, object to him deliberately arranging the situation to encourage such behavior. (He did not change the character's alignment for it, by the way). The player of the gnome has already realized his error and promised to work with us, but... Well, as mentioned earlier by another poster you had better talk to your Dm then about his and your gaming style. As I was not present I can not say wether the DM "encouraged" said behavior by the bard. As a Dm I often pull players aside to give them confidental information and let them choose to relay that info to the party if they so choose. The Dm's in many of the games I am in and have been in do the same. Changing the gnomes alignment for 1 misdeed would be heavy handed IMO. Now, if the bard has been acting less and less good as the game has gone on, then that might be a different story. Haven't you ever told a lie or done something dishonest only to come clean about it later and strive to do better in the future? Alignment is not balck and white, there is a lot f grey in there too. Those rolls had never been done secretly before. From a Dm's perspective that sounds like player whinning. I am NOT saying you don't have a legitimate complaint: The game was already faltering because there wasn't enough group cohesion. Now it turns out he's deliberately encouraging characters against each other, and the way he's doing it hurts the player dynamics as well. He's treating this as all our problem, stalling discussion and really killing trust and fun with the game. From this last sentance I take it that you have tried talking to him (as a group) about his Dming style vs the groups play style? If not, that is an important first step. Open communication is one of the most important ingrediants for a good game. If you have then it sounds like it's time to find a new game (or DM).
darkeness 05-14-07, 01:37 AM	two paladins and one cleric of Hextor (lawful evil) in the same party Having avoided Ravenloft (2nd ed & more recent stuff) like the plague is there some special rule (or house rule) that would allow these people to be in the same party?
Optimized_Commoner 05-14-07, 02:39 AM	I've had a vampire storyteller who only ran D&D before once. It felt very weird going on a dungeon crawl through subterranean military bases with two vampires, a werewolf and an awakened mage. I don't think I've ever been so amused though. It was surprisingly fun.
kelvinaw273 05-14-07, 03:03 AM	Sounds like your DM has simply got a difference in style to the rest of you. It isn't his fault that the gnome chose to withhold information - he merely arranged it so that the character could do it. This isn't encouraging dissension, neither is it discouraging it; it's removing metagaming that previously prevented it. However Appraise is a skill that can be used untrained, so it would be fair to allow everyone a check to see if they think the gnome has badly undervalued these items. Making rolls in secret isn't bad either, a lot of DMs do that. In short, your DM is encouraging role-play and discouraging metagaming ... it isn't his fault that some players role-play 'jackass' is it? You need to go through a few things with him and the gnome's player, though: 1) You can Appraise things too, ask the DM if he checked to see if any of your characters noticed that the items were obviously undervalued (reality trumps Bluff), 2) Party dynamics are built on trust, the character hasn't betrayed that before, why would he start now? (and potentially change alignment on you), Vampire games often have a lot of intra-party friction, which is the nature of the game. D&D doesn't as a rule have that, nor is it an essential of good role-playing. Your DM may have the idea that it is, plus it cuts down on his workload. Once you have some ground rules in place for dealing with the non-metagame controlled rogue (just assume they were the methods you used to control him before but didn't bother with the details), you can enjoy an RP heavy game ... Having avoided Ravenloft (2nd ed & more recent stuff) like the plague is there some special rule (or house rule) that would allow these people to be in the same party? LOL, yes, it's called "You are in a tiny realm surrounded by a killer mist and you don't have a hope in hell of getting out alive if you don't work together" - the kinda rule everyone can relate too without friction.
danielinthewolvesden 05-14-07, 03:22 AM	1) You can Appraise things too, ask the DM if he checked to see if any of your characters noticed that the items were obviously undervalued (reality trumps Bluff), The RAW trumps Bluff. Bluff does not work vs PC's. Thus no Sense Motive rolls were nessesary. You need to sit down with your DM and talk with him like adults. As for the Bard, it is simple- just make sure you folks are there when the rings are sold. Why shouldn't you be?:D
Shadowhowler 05-14-07, 03:49 AM	As for the Bard, it is simple- just make sure you folks are there when the rings are sold. Why shouldn't you be?:D Becuase it might be that they trust their buddy, the Gnomish bard, who has an understanding of the value of things and a way with people, to sell certain loot for them when in town? I've played in many games where one character might be more socialy inclined and more 'Urbane'... more skilled at finding the right spots to 'fence' items and get the best price... and more often then not we let such a character go off and do so on his own, while other character atend to other issues. If you trust the character, no need to shadow him.
danielinthewolvesden 05-14-07, 03:57 AM	Becuase it might be that they trust their buddy, the Gnomish bard, who has an understanding of the value of things and a way with people, to sell certain loot for them when in town? I've played in many games where one character might be more socialy inclined and more 'Urbane'... more skilled at finding the right spots to 'fence' items and get the best price... and more often then not we let such a character go off and do so on his own, while other character atend to other issues. If you trust the character, no need to shadow him. You might trust him, but he could get mugged you know. Or pickpocketed. Or a NPC might roll a high Diplomacy/Bluff/Intimidate and thus force him to give up all the party's loot ....as in this campaign it seems that Social skills can be used against PC's.:rolleyes: So, trust or no, it is not SAFE to allow him out alone!