Okay so the problem arose while my friends and I were playing a new campaign my friend had bought. We were around half way done when I needed to leave for the restroom. When I returned my friends told me my chracater had been killed during a tough encounter. I didn't ask how but just thought okay after they finish we can go on a quest to revive me.
I was told at the time I would get half the amount of xp for the work I had done and I thought that was fair. It wasn't until the near end of the campaign that I made a remark about the amount I was receiving. I wasn't a negative remark but I was simply commenting on how much I was still getting. Our DM then said I was actually getting less than I thought I was. For a second I thought okay that is still fair until I thought more and more about the amount. Normally the in question amount of 23,000 xp would be just dandy with me, but I thought that given how much my character had contributed to the campaign I asked for more. My DM then said that I either take that amount or get nothing at all.
This made me very upset due to the fact that I had contributed alot to the campaign and thought this was very dumb. We can't agree about it so now I ask anyone who sees this. Do you think that the 23,00 is fair,should I get more than that, or am I just being a whiny idiot. Thank you for your time.
You should be getting the full amount, because your character shouldn't have been killed in the first place if you weren't present to oversee what was happening in the battle. If there was some way you could have prevented or interrupted whatever combination of factors resulted in your character's demise, you got screwed. Was it really such a hardship for the others to pause the action while you were in the bathroom? That just strikes me as a lack of common courtesy on their part.
So you do have a legitimate issue, but I think it runs on a more basic level than what you've addressed.
If you arn't present and din't give permision to anyone else to play your character, then they did not had any rights to proceed without you or in your place.
Specially if you only took a bathroom break and where absent for like 10 minutes...
In our group when someone goes for a break, either we wait for them, or we only proceed on exploration and some diplomacy or any other kind of encounter types, given that it doesn't involve actual fights and traps, and we don't mess with the absent's character, we assume that he is checking something at the other end of the room that he found interessting enough to not join us.
The only times where we played with someone else chars, was because they had to leave earlier, and because we where in the middle of a fight, and we always proceeded in a way that while the character does his job, he doesn't die a stupid and avoidable death.
So if i where you , i would tell that Dm, or you get your char back at the same point and lvl then everyone else, because they did have any rights to play it without permission, or he can take his campaigne a take a deep breath and shove it in his hairy arse...
this the DM who killed rage sage this what happen Ragesage took his potty break in the middle of a fight when it was the enimies turn not only that but his health had reached neagtive 8 which is near death so when one of the enimie zobies attacked him they lowerd him below 10 this was one roud not an entire battle
1) Why are you posting on somebody else's account?
2) You did a poor job as DM. Why were you awarding a player less XP than they were supposed to receive? Why did you tell a player at your table that if they didn't like how you run your game that you'll run it even more unfairly? You basically invited him to quit your game, and he should have.
3) No seriously, why can't you make your own account?
4) Based on this incident, and I'll note that it is only one incident, and we have only really heard one side of the story, you should probably reconsider how you run your games. At the very least, you should be more up-front with your style of play. The player's handbooks give players an expectation that their game will be run in a certain manner, and if a DM tends toward a different style of play (like yours, a more hardcore style where a downed PC will still be attacked, even though they're lying on the ground unconscious and effectively no longer a threat to the monsters), the burden is and should be on that DM to make sure new players fully understand his style of play before they join the game. Otherwise, you end up with situations lik this, where a player feels they were unfairly treated by a DM. It's not necessarily that you did him wrong by killing him and cutting his XP share (though that is unfair). It's much more the fact that he didn't seem to expect this is how it would work, most likely because you weren't as open and honest as you probably should have been about your DMing style.
5) Really though, just make your own account.
Honestly from what you and your DM have said, it sounds like that group doesn't like you and wants you to quit.
All PCs are supposed to get equal XP per 4e rules. Its also generally the consensus for pre-4e games that it works best if all PCs get equal XP.
Playing your character without you present is lame, especially if you didn't give permission. Killing your PC while you are gone is worse.
The group couldn't wait for you to go? How long do you take, I can see getting impatient after 30+ min or something but that seems like a side conversation to have with a doctor. In that same vein, you couldn't wait until after combat? I know they go for a while in 4e, but still...
End of the day though, it sounds like your group doesn't like you and wants you to leave. I'd do that and find a new one.
Seriously, it's too bad the OP couldn't put off his trip to the bathroom during a climactic scene, but sometimes you can't. It's nature. Losing a character to something like that is really unfun, and antithetical to the spirit of the game. Chalk up one more supporter for RageSage.
this the DM who killed rage sage this what happen Ragesage took his potty break in the middle of a fight when it was the enimies turn not only that but his health had reached neagtive 8 which is near death so when one of the enimie zobies attacked him they lowerd him below 10 this was one roud not an entire battle
Since when a character in the paragon path tier of the game dies from a -10hp while unconcious?...
If you guys are playing in 4e, then even -10 he would'nt have died..., the limit for dying is your Bloodied value..., so a supposly lvl 11+ char, even if he is a squishy kind will have a bloodied value higher then 10..., or i'm i mixing things up?
Either way, killing a PC while his player isn't present is bad form to say the least.
this the DM who killed rage sage this what happen Ragesage took his potty break in the middle of a fight when it was the enimies turn not only that but his health had reached neagtive 8 which is near death so when one of the enimie zobies attacked him they lowerd him below 10 this was one roud not an entire battle
There are a couple of problems with this, however.. assuming you are playing 4e, the DMG specifically talks about monsters not attacking downed PCs, seeing the remaining standing characters as a more immediate threat. This is a debatable point, but still a point.
Also assuming 4e, -10 does not kill a character.. they can go all the way to negative bloodied value. Because of the -10 statement, 3.X is possible.
Next - potty break? Seriously? RageSage #1 had to hit the bathroom. I have trained my 3 y.o daughter that when she has to go, she stops playing and runs to the potty. I assume RageSage#1 is older than her, and had similar parenting, in which the loving parent attempts to instill common social norms in the child.
Finally - bad DMing to kill a player while they aren't at the table. If you absolutely HAVE to attack THAT player with THAT zombie, put the zombie off until the end of the round, let the player come back to the table, and then wallop the bejeezus out of them. Common courtesy, because hey.. without players, you aren't a DM.
Final finally - make sure RageSage#1 washed thier hands before (s)he digs into the Cheetos.
Hopefully this will clear up a few things. The group I play with is just my close friends and we usually don't let him DM because he is pretty remorseless and newer than us to the game ,but he had just bought the campaign and very much wanted to play. The reason that -10 is when we die is that the DM thought that no one in our group had died before and thought we needed to mix it up.
It sounds like he doesn't get what a good DM is supposed to do. It's not about trying to win or slaughter PCs, it's about trying to make for a good time for all. A good DM is like the Washington Generals - they go out not necessarily to win, but to provide a foil for the Globetrotters, make the Trotters look good and make for a memorable game where everyone has fun.
If he's power-tripping and trying to kill PCs, or arbitrarily punishing players and their characters for questioning him, he needs to check that "evil DM" attitude.
Additionally, adding a house rule like that is generally the thing the group should agree on. And throwing in house rules for the purpose of making it easier for your "remorseless" DM to kill PCs is just... not good.
Our group is kinda weird in that one of my friends and I play 4e but everyone else in our group plays just a mix and match version were they just pick whatever rules they like because 4e is "stupid" and "dumb".
So, let me get this straight: at your table, you have some people playing 4e, and others just cherry-picking rules from other editions because they think 4e is "dumb"?
That's just... no. You generally have to be playing the same game to sit around a table. You can't have a poker night where two people are playing five-card draw, one guy is playing Texas hold 'em, and another guy is cherry-picking rules from both.
This whole situation is just ridiculous and absurd beyond belief.
A good DM is like the Washington Generals - they go out not necessarily to win, but to provide a foil for the Globetrotters, make the Trotters look good and make for a memorable game where everyone has fun.
... what needs to be said is that was great. I might want to put that in my sig.
I mostly agree there is nothing more to be said, but...A good DM is like the Washington Generals - they go out not necessarily to win, but to provide a foil for the Globetrotters, make the Trotters look good and make for a memorable game where everyone has fun.
... what needs to be said is that was great. I might want to put that in my sig.
Hear hear, as I read it I just got that feeling of "Oh, this is so on the money, this is just genius."
I mostly agree there is nothing more to be said, but...A good DM is like the Washington Generals - they go out not necessarily to win, but to provide a foil for the Globetrotters, make the Trotters look good and make for a memorable game where everyone has fun.
... what needs to be said is that was great. I might want to put that in my sig.
Hear hear, as I read it I just got that feeling of "Oh, this is so on the money, this is just genius."
Really? I thought this was understood - the very basics of the job of a DM in a tabletop roleplaying game. I don't think it ever gets said simply because it goes without saying.
If the DM wants to win, he wins. It's as easy as breathing. To win is clearly not the goal of the DM in preparing or running the game. Never has been or will be.
But maybe that's just me.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Really? I thought this was understood - the very basics of the job of a DM in a tabletop roleplaying game. I don't think it ever gets said simply because it goes without saying.
If the DM wants to win, he wins. It's as easy as breathing. To win is clearly not the goal of the DM in preparing or running the game. Never has been or will be.
But maybe that's just me.
I can assure you, it's not. It needs to be stated, repeatedly, in whatever books are printed for every RPG system ever.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" class="mceContentBody " contenteditable="true" />Really? I thought this was understood - the very basics of the job of a DM in a tabletop roleplaying game. I don't think it ever gets said simply because it goes without saying.
If the DM wants to win, he wins. It's as easy as breathing. To win is clearly not the goal of the DM in preparing or running the game. Never has been or will be.
But maybe that's just me.
I can assure you, it's not. It needs to be stated, repeatedly, in whatever books are printed for every RPG system ever.
Maybe it should be understood, but I think there is a lot of evidence right on these boards that Salla is right. On the positive side, I think a lot of inexperienced players look at the "game" aspect of the game, and genuinely misunderstand the unique dynamic of players and DM. It is not normal business in games to have a relationship that is both advasarial and collaberative at the same time, so without the benefit of experience it easy to fall into the trap of thinking in terms of traditional opponents.
Even among those of us who get it, I think it is nice to see a glib and clever reminder now and again.
I mostly agree there is nothing more to be said, but...A good DM is like the Washington Generals - they go out not necessarily to win, but to provide a foil for the Globetrotters, make the Trotters look good and make for a memorable game where everyone has fun.
... what needs to be said is that was great. I might want to put that in my sig.
Hear hear, as I read it I just got that feeling of "Oh, this is so on the money, this is just genius."
Really? I thought this was understood - the very basics of the job of a DM in a tabletop roleplaying game. I don't think it ever gets said simply because it goes without saying.
If the DM wants to win, he wins. It's as easy as breathing. To win is clearly not the goal of the DM in preparing or running the game. Never has been or will be.
But maybe that's just me.
You know how everyone treats "The Art of War" as a genius work, when a lot of it is really pretty simple? It's like that. Yeah, it's basic, and yeah, I've always thought in terms like this, and hopefully this goes without saying for the majority of people who play D&D, I just really enjoy the way he put it.
I'm a big proponent of Washington Generals references, is what I'm saying.
You know how everyone treats "The Art of War" as a genius work, when a lot of it is really pretty simple?
Well... common sense doesn't become common sense until it becomes commonly accepted...
You know how everyone treats "The Art of War" as a genius work, when a lot of it is really pretty simple?
Well... common sense doesn't become common sense until it becomes commonly accepted...
I'm sorry, man, that probably didn't come off very clearly; that was intended as a humorous example rather than a serious one. I didn't mean that back in the day when Sun Tzu wrote it that it was treated as old news, just nowadays.
in my game if they die they die. in fact because i didn't want them to carry around corpses to revive people and such i made a dm rule, which i told them about right away when we started, the revive dead ritual and such can only work within one day of the person dying. my reasoning is their body is rotting to much beyond that.
What about the Gentle Repose ritual? It's designed specifically to preserve a body for an extended period of time so that it can be resurrected. Do you allow that one?
We where discussing the fact that sometimes, when your char dies for stupid reasons that could have being easely avoided, but luck was just not on his side, and that it was a character that you really felt an emotional connection to it, it simply sucks, and take away a part of fun of the game and it can undermine the will and prospect of a player to continue playing.
So after brainstorming various ideas together while we where at work late at night( i'm his boss and we work together), we came up with a weird, yet fun&rewarding way to deal with death.
We invented a character NPC wich is a mix between Pratchet's Grim Reaper, Jim Carrey, Baron Samedi and The Reaper from Maximo, the video game on PS2.
in substance, the first time a player dies, he awakens in the Realm of the Purgatory and will meet with our Grim Reaper, wich is affectiously called Morty.
Morty is a hard working Grim Reaper, but unlike any of his predecesors, he yearns for a bit of colours, a bit of exictement(because things in the Realm of the Purgatory are all greyish and its a bit of a boring place).
He attempts to make poems, write songs(though poorly) and even presents a "TV show" called "An Eternity with Morty!", wich no other souls in the Purgatory really understands...
But upon encountering the freshly arrived soul of the PC, he feels something aloof, something unique and strange in this world.
Wherever the PC is walking colours fadely and slowly appears, and thus it spikes Morty interest!
He will gives tasks to the PC's, they are various and can go to simple mind games, to solving puzzles, fight ennemy's under certain conditions or any other tasks that amuses him!
in exchange he will offer the PC's the possibility to re-integrate their body's.
The PC comes back to life, with hazy memory's of what has just happened, at 1hp.
While the first encounter with Morty is free, any other encounter after it, needs the PC to be in possession of the "Styx Coins", coppery like coins who looks normal for ordinary people, but when a PC who has been in contact with Morty gets those coins, he sense the power behind it, and also sees a ghostly like skull embeded in the coin.
there is a small chance that a PC finds a Styx Coin on mobs while looting the gold, or that they get it when a merchant give the change back when making transactions.
You need minimum 2 Coins to be able to take a Trial of the Death, if you don't have enough coins, you are unable to participate into Morty's llittle show, and thus stay death for good.