Post/Author/DateTime	Post
barnabas 04-29-06, 02:28 PM	I've been in the same weekly gaming group for 8 years now. Most of our games are run by the same two people, my husband and our friend N. Recently, another player -- we'll call him "M" -- agreed to take a shot at running a campaign. This is a fairly big deal for him, as the last time he did so, several years ago, both he and the players were fairly displeased with the results. M created his own world. Because of the history/concept, he eliminated bards as a spellcasting class. This was an issue for N., because N had already come up with a character concept based on the witty thievish con-man bard. N. decided to stick with the character class, and simply make Val a rogue with ranks in perform, bluff and other bard-like skills. At the same time, my character concept was for a sneak-thief rogue -- one without any bluff or other high social abilities, but who is focused on being a cut-purse and a burglar. The two characters get along (professionally and personally), but our DM clearly favors one character over the other. In our group, the DM/storyteller doesn't always require the players to make social rolls, and is quite willing to simply use social encounters (haggling, negotiating, trying to fool someone) as opportunities for pure roleplaying. Yet with Val, our DM is enforcing the "roll your bluff against the merchant's sense motive" at every social encounter. On the other hand, my character, Wynnder -- who should have to make these rolls, since she has no charisma and no ranks in bluff -- is assumed to always be successful in such encounters. The result is that my character makes a lot of money selling stolen goods, or conning people out of things, that she shouldn't be able to do. And Val, always faced with targets who have high sense motives, does not. Val -- who should be the smooth-talker, able to charm people -- comes across as a bumbler. This had the odd outcome, when M asked N to have his character interject himself into a particular conversation with outer PCs (the group hadn't connected up yet) to convince an NPC to hire Val and Wynnder along with the others, so that all the PCs (except one) could finally be traveling together. N had Val interrupt and try to charm our way in ... and rather than simply roleplaying the conversation, M forced a roll, had the NPC figure out that Val was lying, and the whole thing went downhill from there. Wynnder -- who isn't smooth -- is being forced into a role I don't want her to play. It's causing more than a little frustration for both me and N, and we can't figure out how to get the point across to M without souring him (again) on the experience of DM'ing.
kelvinaw273 04-29-06, 03:15 PM	Well the first thing to say is not to you, it is to your DM: Nobody gets it right the first time. It takes years to get good at DMing, and the only way to learn is to practice, practice, practice! Just sit down with them and explain that you feel that one of you is getting rough ride and the other is getting an easy one. The DM is probably trying to make the social skills feel useful to your friend by making him roll, and has not realised that it is not the NPCs being smoothtalked by your character, it is him being smoothtalked by you. Reasure him that you don't have any problem otherwise with his DMing, all else is cool.
Asciiman 04-29-06, 03:23 PM	Have you talked with the DM about this? Seriously it sounds like you have done nothing to confront this problem. Good luck on waiting for it to solve itself....
Azezel 04-29-06, 05:20 PM	Yes... I see your point Miss - it's very difficult to hint to a DM that you don't like the way he is doing things (on the off-chance that my DM reads this - I am entirely happy with the job you are doing FE - this is just a generalisation). Particularly in this situation, where you fear souring him on the chair behind the screen. Have you considered asking to roll? When you think it appropriate, ask 'May I have a bluff check DM?'. The only alternative which comes to mind is using a proxy - you mentioned two other, more experianced DM's in the group. You, and N both ask your Husband to talk to M. Ask him to inquire, in private, about M's reasoing for asking for a given check (or lack thereof) - if your husband is diplomatic, then he may be able to indicate that M leaves something to be desired, without scaring him out of the job. Or not. I'm out of ideas, sorry.
a_psh 04-29-06, 05:35 PM	If your two characters get along well, you might also want to start up a sort of "business partnership" with the other rogue: you steal the stuff, he acts a middle-man when you need to fence it. This'll at least force the DM to treat you two quasi-equally because one guy is doing all the selling. I think you should also point out the problem to the DM, though. It may be a favoritism thing, or it may be like second edition: remember some of the stealth rules (I don't, really)? Rangers and rogues would roll failure chances while the DM just kind of hand-waved the rest of the party succeed, oftentimes.
barnabas 04-29-06, 09:09 PM	Have you considered asking to roll? When you think it appropriate, ask 'May I have a bluff check DM?'. The only alternative which comes to mind is using a proxy - you mentioned two other, more experianced DM's in the group. You, and N both ask your Husband to talk to M. Ask him to inquire, in private, about M's reasoing for asking for a given check (or lack thereof) - if your husband is diplomatic, then he may be able to indicate that M leaves something to be desired, without scaring him out of the job. N. runs the character that is getting screwed, and has tried to talk to M. about it without much success. I think he feels that it comes across that he is whining about not making the rolls, and that his complaints might sour things for the DM. I like the idea, though, of pointing out that my character should also make a roll. Given how poorly my dice treat me, my character should (rightly) fail checks like that as well. At least that way, perhaps I can gently prod the DM to realize that my character was never meant to be the con (wo)man. Thanks for the suggestions, folks.