I told the DM that as the first son of the Count, I was also a nobleman in my own right. This gave me land and also gave me fame and prestige. This background interested me because the setting was that the Emperor was of ill health and without any heirs, our family was one of the contendants to the throne. As such, it was something I could set a goal for my character. To become a hero within the kingdom and help my father to bid for the throne. This was all taken in by the DM.
However, when we started the actual game, some players complained about my character background and saying its not fair to them for having a huge discrepancies of wealth at the start. Well, to be fair, the played who complained had a low class background (as he had said it, both his parents died when he was very little and he needed to survive so he became an adventurer to gain wealth). As such, he had a very low gp to start off with. This is what he want to roleplay. Noone force him into that character. When he realises that my character has land and can afford the best weapon (Fullblade) and best armor (Plate mail) and the best equipment (including a warhorse) at level 1. To make the adventure easier, I went to my stable and gave my companion each a riding horse (4 in total) for the use of the adventure. DM allowed it because he felt it made sense that I should have more than 1 horse in a stable and since the horses belong to me, I could use them the way I want to.
Anyway, the player who complained's character asked my character what would happen if the horse died. My character said to him that not to worry about it. He immediately felt that he could then sell the horse for gain in which he actually did try to do that before I stopped him and said to him that his actions made me feel that he was not playing as a party member. As such, I decided to take the horse back and required him to run the whole journey as a kind of punishment for his action. I really couldnt understand where he got that funny idea. In no circumstances, I told him that he could treat the horse as his own.
I honestly believe now as he said that he was simply trying to make a point that he didnt like my character having so much wealth (he really didnt care that his actions delayed our goal in reaching our target place before nightfall. He simply making a fuss in short).
After the game he complained to DM fiercely saying it wasnt fair and he kept saying that I should not gain anything from my character background and should subject to the same start up cash. He even tried to convince other players to ban my character. He managed to do so in part but I protested fiercely because I played my character to the full and I wasnt doing anything that the DM didnt allow. The DM really shouldnt listen to him because he had a choice of choosing a better background character but he didnt in the first place. If he chose his character the way he wanted he should at least count for his actions. He didnt but complained. The fact that he got my character partly banned really made me feel that I didnt want to play the game with him anymore. He would never allow people to play a character with better stuff than him (Well, he really had a history of that).
As such, since last week, I decided to ban this player from any of my future game because he was so disrruptive to the game that made it hard for others to play a character they wish to roleplay.
If you guys think I was wrong, tough. Deal with it. If you guys think I was right to ban him from any of my future game, thank you for your support. But to those DM who sees such character, please dont let these abusive players to ruin your game and stick to your original rules.
Thank you all for reading and listening.
The DM also screwed up by allowing it to become a player vs. player situation, where you and the player of the poor character came to a head like you did. In my opinion, based on what you've said, you should allow the other player back and all of you should speak with the DM about what to do to avoid this happening in the future.
However, when we started the actual game, some players complained about my character background and saying its not fair to them for having a huge discrepancies of wealth at the start.
And they are right. Your character gained a measurable advantage in the game because of your character's background. If that is the case, then the other characters should get equivalent advantages, or yours needs to be taken away.
If you guys think I was wrong, tough. Deal with it. If you guys think I was right to ban him from any of my future game, thank you for your support. But to those DM who sees such character, please dont let these abusive players to ruin your game and stick to your original rules.
So you posted this just for the purpose of getting approval of your dislike for another player? Something tells me your going to be disappointed.
Jay
A little animosity between characters is fine though. I can see how the poor character would be somewhat hateful toward the nobleman character.
You had stated the player has a history of being disruptive toward other PC's who have "better" stuff, then your decision sounds reasonable.
It's possible (likely in fact) that the player in question probably overstepped common courtesy in pointing this out but this statement...
If you guys think I was wrong, tough. Deal with it. If you guys think I was right to ban him from any of my future game, thank you for your support. But to those DM who sees such character, please dont let these abusive players to ruin your game and stick to your original rules.
...indicates you probably weren't the soul of purity yourself.
1) Is this unfair?
2) Is this unfun?
These are the two real issues. The answer is variable.
Is it okay for a character to be a noble? The answer is "It depends on the campaign and players involved."
In this case, it is ambiguous from the description who was in the wrong; was the other player in the wrong because they were whining when the noble's mechanical advantage was small, or were you in the wrong by having a character with an overly large mechanical advantage?
Its not just a question of the DM; the DM may have allowed it, but DMs can make mistakes, and the game is that of all the players, not just the DM.
Depending on the mechanical advantage granted by being a noble, it can either be a major problem, something which shouldn't be allowed, or totally fine.
Wealthy:
You have 400 extra gold at the start of the game.
There you go, problem solved. You got 500 gold worth of whatever you want, so that can be horses. It's intentionally not enough to buy a magic weapon beyond level 1.
Sure, you're out one feat, but that makes sense: your posh upbringing makes you inherently less awesome than the guys who lived on the streets, or joined an army, or made a pact with demons.
But to create a game where you get to say to the GM "I'm rich, so I have those" to overcome a challenge in the story makes for TERRIBLE gameplay. The DM failed, IMO, in allowing you to write whatever advantages you want for yourself.
I told the DM that as the first son of the Count, I was also a nobleman in my own right. This gave me land and also gave me fame and prestige.
Here's how I would respond if I were a player in your game. "I told the DM that my character is the son of God. This makes me the messiah. I can resurrect the dead, heal the infirm, and generally kick butt."
To wit:
In this particular example, how different is it then getting it all from a patron?
I've often used players as patrons - it makes for great hooks when they have land to maintain (and it's a good money-sink when needed)
1) That you're not actually playing with friends.
2) This is actually a message intended to be read by someone specific.
Your character gained a measurable advantage in the game because of your character's background. If that is the case, then the other characters should get equivalent advantages, or yours needs to be taken away.
Ah, Comunism: the RPG....
For my part, I am perfectly ok with DM saying I cant play my background. The fact that he allows it at the first place should nevertheless ban me using it just because he is bullied by the abusive player. To me, this is unfair too because now I need to reset my character just to please one player.
Life is not fair, period.
I disagree that just because a player has a rich background, he should take one less feat. To the contrary, if he has the best upbringing, that character not only have more money to start with but also have better schoolings (means have extra skills)
I am perfectly ok with people making a character that reflects its background. Thats make it real and fun to roleplay.
For that person who complains, fyi, he is a powerplayer. He doesnt care about the character's background and he doesnt roleplay. He disrupts the game by constantly arguing with DM and other players. He is also not a teamplayer. For all these reasons I ban him from my future game.
Here's how I would respond if I were a player in your game. "I told the DM that my character is the son of God. This makes me the messiah. I can resurrect the dead, heal the infirm, and generally kick butt."
Yes, you could do that. I dont mind if the DM allows it. Its a roleplaying experience for other players interacting with players with unusual background too. DM in my game actually encourages that. That's why I ask to play in that kind of character with that kind of background. Thats also the reason why I think that person who complains is in the wrong because the DM has already told him about his setting. He didnt care and he wanted everyone else who didnt make the same mistake as him to suffer the same way as he did. Well, he abused the DM so that the DM changed his original setting to cure his mistake and thats why I didnt like him in my future game.
You're post screams two things;
1) That you're not actually playing with friends.
2) This is actually a message intended to be read by someone specific.
My answer:
(1) Probably right. I wouldnt want to play with an abusive person. Would you?
(2) If you are getting at me pointing this message to the DM and the abusive player. I am afraid you will be disappointed. The DM and the player cant read and write English and they are not members of this forum.
That being said, the DM probably should have just explained to you that you can only get access to 100 gp worth of stuff right now because 100 gp is a decent sum of cash and while you have a lot of family wealth you can't just turn it into coin and go riding off into the sunset. That would have obviously rendered the whole argument moot and avoided any problems.
Failing that the DM could have done something like had the rich guy's father say "well, OK, but if you're going adventuring then I want your party to have the best stuff so you don't get killed" or somesuch thing and let the other PCs have some extra cash too. Again, it won't really effect game balance measurably, and he can always cut it out of a couple of treasure drops if he's worried about it. Or even just make you all pay it back out of earnings.
Lastly I think it would have been smart for the player of the rich guy to give his companions access to equivalent equipment. Again, it could be a loan or taken from treasure drops, but that also would have not only scotched the jealousy but it makes sense anyway. Why wouldn't you want the whole party in the best possible gear?
I can understand offering them riding horses from an RP perspective though. They're (probably) commoners and maybe your character wouldn't even consider that they should be riding a charger into battle. OK, but in that case why not take the same kind of horse yourself? Again, it just staves off arguments.
The other players should also realize all of this, and of course it makes sense for them to ask you to supply them with better stuff, but it also makes little sense for them to complain. From an RP perspective their characters would logically just expect a nobleman to be better equipped. Thats the way their world works. From the player's perspective it is such a miniscule thing to complain about. The advantage you got was really short lived and fairly trivial in the scheme of things.
So, I wouldn't place the blame on any one specific player, nor would I say one of you is right or wrong. It was just not handled well. Frankly it doesn't really reflect too well on the entire group. The impression that I get from it is the players are not being very mature. Expanding the whole thing out of game and into other games probably isn't the best way to handle it either. However on that point I am glad to note that I don't know the complaining player obviously and maybe he/she is a problem player and so maybe you're wise to not play with that person anymore. Overall it seems like a bit of a sorry mess, but these things will happen. Live and learn.
As a DM myself I would be perfectly happy with you playing the eldest son of a count, and getting all the benefits that come with it. And I hope you would equally happy when those benefits are bought with a cost in terms of obligations to your family, to your liege, to your vassals, etc. Believe me, when I'm finished the other players aren't going to envy you at all.
hehe - much more direct than I (but yes, that was my point)
As a DM myself I would be perfectly happy with you playing the eldest son of a count, and getting all the benefits that come with it. And I hope you would equally happy when those benefits are bought with a cost in terms of obligations to your family, to your liege, to your vassals, etc. Believe me, when I'm finished the other players aren't going to envy you at all.
Well, you have pointed out the fundamentals here. As a nobleman, there is a code of conduct which is needed to observe. My character is actually required to treat the peasants nice (helping them whenever in need - to gain popularity within the kingdom so as to become the rightful heir), uphold the law (even I might face a NPC higher level than me but if his actions are unlawful, I have to uphold the law by arresting him). You think that is easy, think twice. Moreover, you think we have enough money and make the vassels fed and paid, we never have enough resource. Only if we get more land and peasants working in the fields will we collect enough income to support our dominion. So when the dominion is threaten, it is the duty of my character to radicule the threat. Its not as easy as it sounds. Moreover, there are all sorts of burdens that one doesnt realise.
My personal feeling is that starting one PC off with extra wealth is not inherently a big deal. First of all, unless its some really vast amount of money the character can use to deck himself out with vastly superior gear and magic items, it really is a miniscule mechanical advantage in the scheme of things. So what if the rich PC gets to start with a fullblade and plate armor? 1st of all he still has to pay 2 feats (as a fighter anyway) to even use these 2 items. Even starting with a warhorse is probably not a big deal. By 2nd level all the PCs will have the money to buy better armor and weapons, and they'll probably be getting at least some magical items. By 3rd level any advantage the rich guy had in starting money will be long since forgotten and irrelevant.
That being said, the DM probably should have just explained to you that you can only get access to 100 gp worth of stuff right now because 100 gp is a decent sum of cash and while you have a lot of family wealth you can't just turn it into coin and go riding off into the sunset. That would have obviously rendered the whole argument moot and avoided any problems.
Failing that the DM could have done something like had the rich guy's father say "well, OK, but if you're going adventuring then I want your party to have the best stuff so you don't get killed" or somesuch thing and let the other PCs have some extra cash too. Again, it won't really effect game balance measurably, and he can always cut it out of a couple of treasure drops if he's worried about it. Or even just make you all pay it back out of earnings.
Lastly I think it would have been smart for the player of the rich guy to give his companions access to equivalent equipment. Again, it could be a loan or taken from treasure drops, but that also would have not only scotched the jealousy but it makes sense anyway. Why wouldn't you want the whole party in the best possible gear?
I can understand offering them riding horses from an RP perspective though. They're (probably) commoners and maybe your character wouldn't even consider that they should be riding a charger into battle. OK, but in that case why not take the same kind of horse yourself? Again, it just staves off arguments.
The other players should also realize all of this, and of course it makes sense for them to ask you to supply them with better stuff, but it also makes little sense for them to complain. From an RP perspective their characters would logically just expect a nobleman to be better equipped. Thats the way their world works. From the player's perspective it is such a miniscule thing to complain about. The advantage you got was really short lived and fairly trivial in the scheme of things.
So, I wouldn't place the blame on any one specific player, nor would I say one of you is right or wrong. It was just not handled well. Frankly it doesn't really reflect too well on the entire group. The impression that I get from it is the players are not being very mature. Expanding the whole thing out of game and into other games probably isn't the best way to handle it either. However on that point I am glad to note that I don't know the complaining player obviously and maybe he/she is a problem player and so maybe you're wise to not play with that person anymore. Overall it seems like a bit of a sorry mess, but these things will happen. Live and learn.
I agree with you 100% that the DM could intervene and help out. For instance when I offered them warhorses, DM said I only got 1 warhorse and the rest riding horse. I did not blame DM because he probably was right that only 1 warhorse available for my use. Rest to spare were riding horses as my guards should be riding on other warhorses. The point was not important as to what I offered because we were suppose to simply ride the horses and go to our destination before sunset so as to save some peasants from dangers. Its not by taking a horse to the market place and sell it for personal gain. Doing something like that is counterproductive and slow down the party. At the end, we didnt save any peasants because we were too late. Such disruptive act by the abusive player made me truly feel he was playing as a team member and disruptive to the game by arguing for 45 minutes, wasting time and the reason he was banned from my future game.
I'd just want to say it again. I am not here to seek your approval. I am banning that abusive player in any event. If he doesnt roleplay in a roleplay required game and his presence only disrupts the game he is banned. Period.
If you ban him, then you really need to ban yourself as well. It took two to make turn that situation into what it was. Of course, based on your posts, you don't want to hear that, so I'm sure you'll ignore it or try to defend yourself some more.
You are playing a noble and feels it gives you right to have advantage. I'm sorry but it doesnt. The PH2 clearly outlines background benefits and ")$*ton of extra gold" is not one of them. Sorry bro, 100gp at first. EVERYONE.
"You made him run to punish him" - you aren't the boss- this is a game of friends and as such should remain FUN. You aren't there to impose yourself on other people- thats what NPCs are for ;p
Get over yourself, and ask the DM and your friends forgiveness for being an asshat.
As a DM I'd allow extra starting gold in exchange for a feat:
I wouldn't. A feat cost is too high or too low, depending on whether you can retrain it or not. At least for 400 gp, which would allow them to purchase a +1 item at first level.
In this particular example, how different is it then getting it all from a patron?
I've often used players as patrons - it makes for great hooks when they have land to maintain (and it's a good money-sink when needed)
Its different in that the players have assymetric power over one another. Having one character who owns everything or has some other status which puts them significantly above the rest of the party can be a source of trouble unless all the players are onboard with it. This is bad, as it causes bitterness, infighting, and makes players tell other players what they can and can't do.
Ah, Comunism: the RPG....
In short, yes. This is a game. Starting out with equal resources is important for reasons of fun, due to fairness. If the players don't perceive it as unfun, then it isn't that big of a deal, but if they do, then it is a problem.
unless all the players are onboard with it.
NOT a disagreement, but this is why I think the DM dropped the ball on this. Admittedly, this most likely is NOT a "personal" group, but the DM should have been able to justify his/her position (general truth - not particularly related to this single instance) to get everyone "onboard"
NOT a disagreement, but this is why I think the DM dropped the ball on this. Admittedly, this most likely is NOT a "personal" group, but the DM should have been able to justify his/her position (general truth - not particularly related to this single instance) to get everyone "onboard"
I totally agree that the DM dropped the ball on this, though to be entirely fair to the DM, the player could have spoken with the rest of the group as well beforehand - it isn't the DM's sole responsibility to do that sort of thing, its just that it often falls to them to do so.
There is the obvious part of starting with more gold, which I'm betting probably isn't the biggest part of the reason you got into a tiff with another player. What I'm betting he was more mad at, and someone else already said this, but I'm betting he was mad that your character was instantly a major part of the plot of the campaign you were in. Especially if it's a home made campaign, because having someone as a noble opens a bunch of plots the DM can run with. That can make the other players feel like they are your minions, they're along for the ride, and if they didn't know that was going to happen then that can rub someone the wrong way.
Like I said, if I was the DM I wouldn't have allowed you to be a noble until I was sure the others were ok with that. Plus, like someone else said, I probably wouldn't of let you have a lot of money. I'd make it so "Daddy" has you on an allowance which just so happens to be in line with everyone else. About the only thing I'd let you have would be an good item to start with...but I generally allow that for good backgrounds anyways.
I totally agree that the DM dropped the ball on this, though to be entirely fair to the DM, the player could have spoken with the rest of the group as well beforehand - it isn't the DM's sole responsibility to do that sort of thing, its just that it often falls to them to do so.
Keyword = sole - granted. I would argue, however, that is primarily his responsibility as he allowed it and it impinges upon "common expectation"
I'd just want to say it again. I am not here to seek your approval. I am banning that abusive player in any event. If he doesnt roleplay in a roleplay required game and his presence only disrupts the game he is banned. Period.
Honestly you seem to be here just to stir the pot. You can pretend you don't want approval, but everything you have said implies that is not true. In fact, you only seem to be against condemnation of your acts by the posters here, wanting in fact their support in the matter, to justify another players legitimate complaint.
Had the other player opted for a background that stated they were the child of the overgod, and thus impervious to all mortal weapons would you have been fine with this? What if they were so powerful that all attacks did 10000d12 damage, and the bonus to each was infinite? Perhaps if they were co ruler of the universe, and by right could rewrite the laws of reality at a whim? At what point is character background silly, and unbalanced? At what point would you call it unfair to others?
Character backgrounds can offer minor gains, but should never make you better than everyone else by default.
-RW
You can have PC's starting out with differing amounts of resources-I guess the thing is to make sure that their overall power level is equal. And in this case, it very obviously wasn't. While the player in question was definitely out of line in yelling at you and acting rudely, your DM did handle it poorly, and perhaps you should of considered the possibility that character getting superior resources would upset your fellow players and suggest equivalent advantages for the other players.
Being equal in all ways is boring, but characters should ultimately be equal-even if it's in different ways.
This is honestly why sometimes I prefer WOD to D&D. In NWOD, one can easily have a "rich character" with everyone else starting out as beggars and it'll be relatively balanced because the beggars can use the merit dots the rich guy used on resources to get contacts and what not.
Of course, it's really the DM who dropped the ball on this one. Starting the characters out with dissimilar resources without getting everyone on board first is an obvious recipe for trouble. (Starting a character out with less than the normal starting amount of gold actually seems like the most egregious crime. Someone with normal starting wealth can comfortably afford a fullblade and plate if that's what they want.) It sounds like your group isn't especially awesome at communication, since a simple dissatisfying situation that normal humans could work through easily somehow blew up.
It's really not that difficult a concept. The reason that characters begin with 100 GP (or the equivalent value in stuff) regardless of their background is that it keeps things feeling fair. What happens when that regulation is lifted is exactly the debacle your poor group found itself in. You're wrong. No character deserves extra starting wealth unless -everyone- at the table is cool with it. Your DM is more wrong for making such a thoroughly obvious mistake. How did he think people were going to react? Seriously.
As a DM I'd allow extra starting gold in exchange for a feat:
Wealthy:
You have 400 extra gold at the start of the game.
There you go, problem solved. You got 500 gold worth of whatever you want, so that can be horses. It's intentionally not enough to buy a magic weapon beyond level 1.
Sure, you're out one feat, but that makes sense: your posh upbringing makes you inherently less awesome than the guys who lived on the streets, or joined an army, or made a pact with demons.
But to create a game where you get to say to the GM "I'm rich, so I have those" to overcome a challenge in the story makes for TERRIBLE gameplay. The DM failed, IMO, in allowing you to write whatever advantages you want for yourself.
This is the most reasonable way to deal with it that I can see, except that it would need to be a little more than 400 gp, methinks.
Also, is it just me, or does this thread reek of something? Can't quite put my finger on it...
I disagree that just because a player has a rich background, he should take one less feat. To the contrary, if he has the best upbringing, that character not only have more money to start with but also have better schoolings (means have extra skills)
I am perfectly ok with people making a character that reflects its background. Thats make it real and fun to roleplay.
Out of curiosity, how would you feel if his character's background was "I'm a retired 10th level adventurer" (or whatever level is significantly over your character's)? Or "my character had a hard life, so he's above average, and has no stat lower than 16".
Those are backgrounds too.
Incidentally, I agree that a feat is a crappy thing to blow on initial starting wealth (or ever), as it makes up such a small amount of cash in the grand scheme of things. Who gives a flip about free horses at level 1. The problem comes in when you continually dip into a vast array of resources far above what you should have by level.
I'm a fan of allowing backgrounds above and beyond the basic PHB 2 system, and used it to flesh out skills not well covered by the existing skill system. I would and have allowed "wealthy" to be an option in this case. The real issue is the basic lack of respect you two showed for each other (not your characters, but you as players) in this issue. Its in the same ballpark as the player who has his thief rob from the party because its "in character". The best roleplayers I know are occasionally willing to compromise their character's personality for the sake of the game... after all, very little enjoyable roleplaying takes place when the group is embroiled in the drama that normally ensues.
There are ways of making a noble character without a huge gold advantage.
Did the poor player find out about the noble backround ahead of time? Frequently my games have had eachplayer make their characters independently, so he might not have known until the first session when the princling offered him a riding horse so he wouldn't slow the prince down.
He knew about my character creation. In fact everyone in the gameplay knew about it before we start playing it. DM did ask each of us to describe our characters background before we start playing. He certainly knew about my character because he helped in the character creation too. He didnt protest then. But protest when he realised the advantage. Having said that, he did realise the burden it came with it.
For the record, what exactly gives you (a player) the right to ban another player from the playgroup? Sounds to me like you are the one throwing a hissy fit, not the other way around.
Of course, he could play in other games just not the games that I hold.
Like a lot of people have said, the DM screwed up, plain and simple. The player you banned was in the right, and you can say he was disruptive all you want, but he was rightfully so. It's not about your background at this point, it's about mechanical equality, something your DM seems to have forgotten about. He was right to protest, and honestly, I would have too. You got free stuff for no reason, while everyone else was pretty much told tough, deal with it. That, and your attitude is kind've...yea.
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
But protest when he realized the advantage.
So he was fine with the background until he realized that you were going to have an advantage over everyone else. What a jerk? You mean that he couldn't deal with this? For shame. You are probably better off for getting rid of him.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
Personally, I think that he is probably better off finding another group anyways. His style of play is just not compatible with the rest of the group, from what I can gather from your posts. Can I ask, have you ever tried the Rifts RPG?
Of course, he could play in other games just not the games that I hold.
If you're not the DM, it's not your call.
If you are the DM, you made a bad call.
As a player, i play with a group that has 1 of 3 OLD friends DMing. Each of them pretty much DMs to another (they each have a favorite, think of a triangle where each corner is a different fave) player. So when Jonny DMs, Billy gets all the goodies...
When i say that, I mean he gets advantages like this OP got. If he is a rogue, he might be the favorred son of the leader of the guild, who gives him wealth. If he is noble, he will also start out with great wealth. If he is a wanderring traveller he turns out to be Jubei from Ninja Scroll, etc.
Of course this is unfair, but it is seniority. Generally, the DM offers 1 experienced player tools that allow for greater RP opps so that others can slowly get involved in RPing without being too outside the box. Its a way for the GM and his fave player to slightly steer the campaign.
Has it been a problem b4? Yes certainly. Have people been banned? Yes, and killed by the DM outright at 1st level because the PC didn't fit with the "leader's" concept of the group.
As for fun? Like anything in life, sometimes you have to bite your pride and realize that these clowns have been playing together for years and years. Every villain has a clue, that the old fave player can use to figure out the enemies weaknesses and such. This makes the game interesting sometimes and sort of trite at other times. Some PCs get frustrated because their attempts at roleplay are shelved because the main guy, the "leader" is speaking.
The game should be fair for all players for maximum fun. While being rich, and having an awesome advantage (mechanical or story oriented) is fun for one player... It looks alot like a "cheat" code to the other players. The only way to balance this is to have incidents which shift the balance to the other PCs at varying levels...
For instance, in the OP's sitch, perhaps his wealthy father gets assassinated and the killers want him removed as the remaining heir. Now the naive nobleman has to use his friend, the poor streetwise cretin, to move about. Maybe he also loses his wealth as well as his status, and has trouble travelling. Something has to balance this out.
As for my DMing such things... Well, I have played with folks who wanted one PC to have an advantage (usually someone's son, or a newb player who needs an advantage to make up for lack of RPing, something that is auto RP, like being a rich nobleman), and have found that it greases the wheels for party unity when all are on the same page.
The rich nobleman is liked by everyone because he flaunts his money and power, but at the same time never gets a cut of anything that the rogue or ranger find when searching, etc. He is never privvy to the secret strategy meetings because he is a know it all, with no military training. Most of the time, its a player who is being asked to play a role that they don't want, so they need compensation (I rolled up a wizzy, but there is no defender... So i am playing the fighter, but if i have to, i want a +1 fullblade that my father left me... etc.).
This does not have to degrade into arguments, but (as someone already mentioned) it is a thing done at PC creation, and should not be a surprise. Likewise the DM should be aware that giving all PCs good stuff is an option as well (just build "tough" encounters).
I have had only one campaign where there was a HUGE fight over monetary wealth among the players. A player got hamstringed into playing the cleric, as such (6th lvl start, 3.5) he asked if he could unban Leadership feat from my campaign. He felt that he was a healbot and wanted to be a Radiant Servant of Pelor. So i let him come into the campaign with Leadership and starting wealth for a 7th i think... which was much higher than what the players had actually earned over the course of their adventuring.
So the players were down, because they had already had 2TPKs (age of worms) with no dedicated healers (think they had a battle druid for a bit). However, on the first night this young man came into the group for a play session, everyone realized that he was a bit of a munchkin. He had built his PC with a fine comb, and had his character together complete with his background...
Since i let him start where the other players were, in terms of exp, to be easiest on me, he was halfway through lvl 6(or maybe it was 8th or 9th, escapes me). I can't remember exactly how he did it, but his Char, and his background were such that he had like 5 lvl 1 followers and a cohort that was behind him in lvl.
So the PCs name was Lewis Huey, and he called all his followers "The News". his lvl 1 followers were all bards that were optimized (think human) in their feats, so that they took performance and such and were all part of the band that Lewis would sing with. They also all took skill focus in a different skill with the extra feat. None of them fought... but together with assists they could break the performance chart and basically were the medieval equivalent of rockstars. They actually could hit the "known throughout the planes" mark on performance 2 or three times a week.
Naturally, this was a totally awesome way to utilize his lvl 1 followers. His radiant servant was also optimized through the roof, and had several spells that helped him become even better when he performed (Complete Divine, iirc).
Of course the party had agreed to let him start with all this in order to get a dedicated healer, but what they thought changed dramatically when they realized that it wasn't just wealth (he made GP anytime they had downtime, sometimes platinum, every performance... every day), but also the fact that no matter where they went the crowd absolutely cooed for Lewis Huey and the News.
Naturally this didn't matter one whit in combat, where he was a healbot, but he completely took over the Roleplay, as well as the Party Face roles. His lvl 1 bards were also the party researchers, and his cohort (bodyguard) basically simply guarded the lvl 1 bandmembers.
Be careful what you wish for, the old addage goes. I guess i just liked the topic and wanted to throw in my 2 cp!
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
Life isn't fair, but games are supposed to be. If the other player was cool with the relative backgrounds, he probably didn't realize that starting wealth would be adjusted to an extreme degree by chosen character background. Standard practice in D&D has always been "justify why you have your starting equipment and wealth, but you don't get to start with any extra, regardless of your explanation." If that wasn't the case, every player with any sense would describe their character being richer than God and inherit world-shattering artifacts from their epic-level grandfathers.
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
But this isn't life. Its and RPG with rules, and bud, you broke some of those rules. The DM let you of course, which is why I said he screwed up. The other player was perfectly within his right to complain, because he had a good point. He probably didn't sign up to play that game just to be screwed over from the get go. Also, going by what you said, it seems like you were the one taking advantage of the DM, so dont even try to play the victim here. He argued a perfectly valid case, and guess what, the DM agreed with him. He realized that yes, it was a bad move on his part, so it took it back. You just seem to be mad that you don't have an advantage over everyone else anymore. So it's not just that he can't stand for anyone to be better than him, it's you that got angry over not having an advantage over everyone.
As for, "hes only got himself to blame", bull. The DM is breaking the rules, chances are, he wasn't informed up front that there was a mechanical advantage involved. It's not in the book, and it's not in the rules. The DM made a (bad) decision with you, and was corrected on it, and proceeded to fix it. That's it. And if you want to play a noble, do so, there's nothing stopping you. But don't get ****** when you start with the same stuff that everyone else starts with. It's gaming equality.
HOWEVER, the big issue here is being so unreasonably selfish that you kick the player out of your group, mainly because he saw an unfair situation, and cried foul. That's completely and totally uncool, and I'd probably quietly start looking for a different game before you decided to kick me from the group for disagreeing with you, also.
Then you show up at the game with a Warhorse, something you should not have for at least a few levels. The one player cries foul. Quite rightly so.
You have every right to keep him out of your parent's basement, or whatever space you control. Don't kid yourself that you're doing it for any reason other than your own selfishness.
Play a nobleman if you want. Heck, play the heir to a huge fortune! But your PC starts with the exact same amount of money as everyone else. And you don't get your inheritance 'til the DM says you do.
I was thinking this exact same thing when I read the OP.
I was thinking this exact same thing when I read the OP.
And if your DM ever actually says so before the characters are retired, he is doing you and your campaign a great disservice. Switch DMs.
Ah, Comunism: the RPG....
No. I have no problem with radically difference in character powers and/or wealth. As long as there is a fair way of deciding who gets what. If you want to roll stats and starting wealth, all the better, I enjoy playing that way.
But giving advantages to the player who is best at manipulating the DM is a terrible way to play the game.
Jay
And if your DM ever actually says so before the characters are retired, he is doing you and your campaign a great disservice. Switch DMs.
I disagree. Depending on how high ranking the family and what the inheritence entails, it could easily be handed out later in the campaign as a reward, while the other PCs receive other comparable rewards. There are definate ways to work it in without doing the player or campaign a disservice.
I disagree. Depending on how high ranking the family and what the inheritence entails, it could easily be handed out later in the campaign as a reward, while the other PCs receive other comparable rewards. There are definate ways to work it in without doing the player or campaign a disservice.
Unless done really well, I don't see how the minor satisfaction of the handout can outweigh the sacrifice of the plot hook.
Unless done really well, I don't see how the minor satisfaction of the handout can outweigh the sacrifice of the plot hook.
Because with the inheritance comes other plot hooks. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. The one fellow said that it's okay to play a nobleman, but the inheritance shouldn't come until the DM says so. Another guy agreed and then you responded with it shouldn't happen.
In my mind, once the inheritance comes, it comes with responsibilities of position, greater family enemies, etc. The amount of plot hooks for the DM rises dramatically.
Because with the inheritance comes other plot hooks. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. The one fellow said that it's okay to play a nobleman, but the inheritance shouldn't come until the DM says so. Another guy agreed and then you responded with it shouldn't happen.
In my mind, once the inheritance comes, it comes with responsibilities of position, greater family enemies, etc. The amount of plot hooks for the DM rises dramatically.
The responsibilities of position can make for good hooks too. Had characters come into a position of wealth and power in several campaigns in the past, even been crowned. And while that was a great carrot, it didn't come with any real mechanical benefits for adventuring. No extra cash - no, that's for the coffers. Better gear? Not really, because I had come across better magic than the kingdom could muster in the course of my adventures. Mostly, it just made me more directly responsible for the well-being of my domain, and was a great big versatile hook.
The sort of inheritance of wealth and titles the OP is talking about, though, are better off as a distant prospect of "some day." A massive infusion of non-adventuring cash for use in purchasing gear isn't usually good for the game. Nor is the ability to muster an army. What is, though, is the prospect of threat to your family and your birthright.
I will even accept "Now, but unaccessable". I would happily let players have access to things like housing, in city transport carriages, and other little luxeries that they don't directly pay for, but it under the prevalience of the king's will. Equipment tends not to directly be involved with that. After all, the noble player is suppose to be governing, not gearing for war.
Gearing for war, I don't actually mind so much. Gearing for adventuring is altogether different.
--snipped---
The sort of inheritance of wealth and titles the OP is talking about, though, are better off as a distant prospect of "some day." A massive infusion of non-adventuring cash for use in purchasing gear isn't usually good for the game. Nor is the ability to muster an army. What is, though, is the prospect of threat to your family and your birthright.
IN 4th Edition, I agree with you MatthiasKaiser, I would expect the inheritance to come when my character retired. After a long, fruitful adventuring career (assuming he doesn't die) he settles down to run a kingdom then hires my new character to rid the kingdom of kobolds.
IN 1st edition, it was expected that a Fighter at 9th level or so would buy/earn land and build some kind of castle/keep. In that type of game I would expect the inheritance to come earlier rather than later.
If you're not the DM, it's not your call.
If you are the DM, you made a bad call.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period. In terms of playing a noble, we are under this system in which it specially say how one plays a noble and how one gets being a noble. This is all known to him.
The Noble Mindset
In running a noble, you might want to keep the following in mind. Your character has occupied a position of power and privilege all of her or his life. She or he is well educated, and unaccustomed to questioning the class system which has created the niche they occupy, believing deep in their heart of hearts that the reason they occupy such a position is because god has chosen them to govern. For good characters, they feel that they have a duty to protect their subjects and be gentle with them. When their subjects have committed a crime, they believe the law needs to be uphold and just punishment is necessary. For evil characters, they may wish to exploit their subjects by taxing them heavily or even require human sacrifice to gain certain privilege from their god. For netural characters, they might wish to do anything that pleases them as long as it is a reasonable act.
Nobles will generally have been raised with tutors in matters such as art, music and matters of etiquette (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Art, Music and History are essentials for their education. They will also learn the way to fight by hand or by magic or via persuasive speeches).
Nobles may employ commoners to work in his households and even run his finances but these people must be educated.
Legal Issues
Nobles are, to a certain extent, not above the laws unless you are the head of state. Even being head of state does not mean you can wandering around killing the subjects without fear of revolts. A noble can be stripped off his title and land if the king orders it or when his subject rebels. A noble may need to form alliance when he sees the need and sever the ties when it becomes dangerous to do so.
Roleplay
Some nobles have a goal to increase their status within the establishment. Some nobles have a goal to make sure his family keeps the current status.
Some nobles may realise that he/she is never going to be the heir and decides to enjoy his life (much like prince harry).
Money
While nobles are certainly wealthier than anyone else, they have a better start than others and what each noble has is determined by the DM.
I play to the full what my character should do. I didnt have any MI to start off with. I only have a warhorse. The DM tried to let others to have a better equipment by letting my character to give them riding horses (all characters knew each other because their parents all served under mine). While the DM makes such setting to make things run smoother, we were all surprised when one player decides to make a fuss. It wasted our time and also gave us a bad game experience. When he started bullying the DM, I felt I should simply kick him out of the door and not let him play. I cant see anything wrong with that. Banning him is the only right thing to do there. If he does like playing the game in the way we set our game, he should not bully the DM to make the setting the way he liked. Thats not roleplaying, thats powerplaying.
I agree that having better things to start with carries a certain burden with it too. Thats ok because its fun to roleplay. Can you imagine a player protesting to DM and bullying him to the point he is allowed to carry the same ring as Frodo. This is simply wrong. Like I said, I felt that his bullying should not be tolerated. Thats why I ban him from my future game.
You friend is playing a game character, not a literary character. This one just happens to have the same name as a literary character.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
Well, I am here not to get approval. (Post 14)
[Defense of actions.] (Post 15)
[More defense of actions.] (Post 18)
[Even more defense of actions.] (Post 22)
[Praise to someone who agreed.] (Post 24)
I'd just want to say it again. I am not here to seek your approval. (post 25)
[More explanation of actions] (post 42)
[Justification of actions] (post 43)
[Even more explanation] (post 44)
[Expansion of justification] (post 66)
[Repetition of justification] (post 67)
[Quick retort] (post 70)
For not seeking approval, you've spent an awful lot of time and energy explaining yourself in the face of disapproval.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
NWOD has a tax on getting that amount of money though called merits. In DnD everyone should start the same because it is a different kind of role playing game entirley. Your characters in new world of darkness had other merits to balance out the lack of money.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
Yes... it will be interesting to roleplay that but unfortunately thats not the setting I am playing. May be another game though. A nobleman from a discredited noble family trying to find a way to gain back respect title and land for his family. Thats a good roleplay experience too.
TLDR (responses that is)
You are playing a noble and feels it gives you right to have advantage. I'm sorry but it doesnt. The PH2 clearly outlines background benefits and ")$*ton of extra gold" is not one of them. Sorry bro, 100gp at first. EVERYONE.
"You made him run to punish him" - you aren't the boss- this is a game of friends and as such should remain FUN. You aren't there to impose yourself on other people- thats what NPCs are for ;p
Get over yourself, and ask the DM and your friends forgiveness for being an asshat.
THIS
I agree that having better things to start with carries a certain burden with it too. Thats ok because its fun to roleplay. Can you imagine a player protesting to DM and bullying him to the point he is allowed to carry the same ring as Frodo. This is simply wrong. Like I said, I felt that his bullying should not be tolerated. Thats why I ban him from my future game.
Frodo got to be the main character. How do you think Samwise feels?
You're focusing entirely on the RP, without regard for mechanics. That's fine, no problems with that.
It's in RP where you (and the DM) really screwed up. A Warhorse is a very minor advantage mechanically. Where you screwed up is in nabbing the role of main character for yourself. You've made yourself the patron.
If I were DMing I would have handled it thusly: You need to go to your father and roll diplomacy to borrow the horses. When he sneers in disaproval over your choice of friends they'd have to bluff convincingly (or roll well for history, to remind him that their parents did XYZ for his kingdom) or maybe quoting a relevant passage from the words of a diety (ie, Religion challenge) held in high regard in that kingdom about nobility respecting their serfs. If it failed I'd allow you a chance to "borrow" the horses by stealth and thievery, or by bluffing, diploming (what IS the verb form of diplomacy anyway?) or intimidating the stable boy.
It would be a fairly easy set of skill challenges, so you'd get your horses, but in this way YOU don't get to be the bearer of gifts. Your father is clearly the patron, and the others, by participating in the skill challenge, get to be "heroes" too.
The warhorse is fine, whatever, but I would have given the other equivalent benefits in some form. A single +1 weapon maybe, or a pet rat that can slip through cracks and steal stuff for you.
Frodo got to be the main character. How do you think Samwise feels?
You're focusing entirely on the RP, without regard for mechanics. That's fine, no problems with that.
It's in RP where you (and the DM) really screwed up. A Warhorse is a very minor advantage mechanically. Where you screwed up is in nabbing the role of main character for yourself. You've made yourself the patron.
If I were DMing I would have handled it thusly: You need to go to your father and roll diplomacy to borrow the horses. When he sneers in disaproval over your choice of friends they'd have to bluff convincingly (or roll well for history, to remind him that their parents did XYZ for his kingdom) or maybe quoting a relevant passage from the words of a diety (ie, Religion challenge) held in high regard in that kingdom about nobility respecting their serfs. If it failed I'd allow you a chance to "borrow" the horses by stealth and thievery, or by bluffing, diploming (what IS the verb form of diplomacy anyway?) or intimidating the stable boy.
It would be a fairly easy set of skill challenges, so you'd get your horses, but in this way YOU don't get to be the bearer of gifts. Your father is clearly the patron, and the others, by participating in the skill challenge, get to be "heroes" too.
The warhorse is fine, whatever, but I would have given the other equivalent benefits in some form. A single +1 weapon maybe, or a pet rat that can slip through cracks and steal stuff for you.
Id just like to say frodo was a walking plot device not a character. He was in general the most useless member of the group. I dont see why someone would want to play him but okay. Rest of your post spot I agree with.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period. In terms of playing a noble, we are under this system in which it specially say how one plays a noble and how one gets being a noble. This is all known to him.Show
The Noble Mindset
In running a noble, you might want to keep the following in mind. Your character has occupied a position of power and privilege all of her or his life. She or he is well educated, and unaccustomed to questioning the class system which has created the niche they occupy, believing deep in their heart of hearts that the reason they occupy such a position is because god has chosen them to govern. For good characters, they feel that they have a duty to protect their subjects and be gentle with them. When their subjects have committed a crime, they believe the law needs to be uphold and just punishment is necessary. For evil characters, they may wish to exploit their subjects by taxing them heavily or even require human sacrifice to gain certain privilege from their god. For netural characters, they might wish to do anything that pleases them as long as it is a reasonable act.
Nobles will generally have been raised with tutors in matters such as art, music and matters of etiquette (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Art, Music and History are essentials for their education. They will also learn the way to fight by hand or by magic or via persuasive speeches).
Nobles may employ commoners to work in his households and even run his finances but these people must be educated.
Legal Issues
Nobles are, to a certain extent, not above the laws unless you are the head of state. Even being head of state does not mean you can wandering around killing the subjects without fear of revolts. A noble can be stripped off his title and land if the king orders it or when his subject rebels. A noble may need to form alliance when he sees the need and sever the ties when it becomes dangerous to do so.
Roleplay
Some nobles have a goal to increase their status within the establishment. Some nobles have a goal to make sure his family keeps the current status.
Some nobles may realise that he/she is never going to be the heir and decides to enjoy his life (much like prince harry).
Money
While nobles are certainly wealthier than anyone else, they have a better start than others and what each noble has is determined by the DM.
I play to the full what my character should do. I didnt have any MI to start off with. I only have a warhorse. The DM tried to let others to have a better equipment by letting my character to give them riding horses (all characters knew each other because their parents all served under mine). While the DM makes such setting to make things run smoother, we were all surprised when one player decides to make a fuss. It wasted our time and also gave us a bad game experience. When he started bullying the DM, I felt I should simply kick him out of the door and not let him play. I cant see anything wrong with that. Banning him is the only right thing to do there. If he does like playing the game in the way we set our game, he should not bully the DM to make the setting the way he liked. Thats not roleplaying, thats powerplaying.
Your DM should not have allowed you to start with that much more wealth than the other players; not all nobles were wealthy, even if they owned land, and quite a few were in debt up to their eyeballs from years of trying to outdo their peers. Letting you start with a warhorse and slightly better equipment is fine, especially if the other characters are allowed some special bit of equipment or skill of their own, but I would have ruled that your character was either seeking to restore his family's fortune and fame, or given you a pending inheritance to be acquired after a few levels, when the disparity of wealth would be less of a factor. The fact that the other characters were family retainers may also have been a factor in the other player's attitude - - player characters should not be subordinate to another player character unless everyone is okay with that.
The player in question, while he may have had legitimate reasons to be annoyed, acted childishly in nagging the DM and trying to get your character banned after the fact. Trying to sell the horse you provided him was pure instigation, and the DM should have called him on it.
And you are wrong - - not so much about the money, as that seemed more a roleplaying thing for you, part of your overall character concept. But you contributed to the disruption of the game when you decided to "punish" this player by taking the horse away, and the impression I got from your post was a refusal to compromise on your character concept, something I've seen all too often. Finally, banning a player because he disrupts your games is one thing; banning him from all future games you DM because of his behaviour in someone else's game just seems petty.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
As williamhm75 said, you have to spend points to get money in WoD. Unlike in this case it's not free stuff because you conned the DM into giving it to you. Let me give you an example in WoD. Everyone but one character is limited to 0 dots in resources. The one character on the other hand is given 5 dots for free without having to spend any of his starting 7 merits on it. Do you see the problem with that? If everyone had been given free stuff as compensation, fine, but this is showing obvious favoritism from the very start. The other guy was right to call foul.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period.
I agree. Sarfnic's behavior was completely out of line. He abused what power his DM (quite foolishly, IMO) gave him by gifting a horse (for use in the adventure, granted - but we don't know what, if any, limitations were put on it, aside from "Don't worry if it dies"), then removing that horse and forcing the character to run. Clearly an abusive, power-mad player, and I can't believe anyone would want to be in a group with that person. This Sarfnic fellow is just a few steps above the CE Thief who BSes his 'friends' and steals things.
Then, when you (quite legitimately) went to complain to the DM and other players, he tried to bully the DM into letting him keep the character as is (it was "partly banned," whatever that means ... mind telling us?). Sarfnic is really quite villainous by your portrayal.
Personally, I think you were quite brave to stand up to Sarfnic and his dastardly doings, and you should feel proud that he is so threatened by your refusal to let you cheat that he has banned you from playing in any games he DMs. Bravo!
I agree. Sarfnic's behavior was completely out of line. He abused what power his DM (quite foolishly, IMO) gave him by gifting a horse (for use in the adventure, granted - but we don't know what, if any, limitations were put on it, aside from "Don't worry if it dies"), then removing that horse and forcing the character to run. Clearly an abusive, power-mad player, and I can't believe anyone would want to be in a group with that person. This Sarfnic fellow is just a few steps above the CE Thief who BSes his 'friends' and steals things.
Then, when you (quite legitimately) went to complain to the DM and other players, he tried to bully the DM into letting him keep the character as is (it was "partly banned," whatever that means ... mind telling us?). Sarfnic is really quite villainous by your portrayal.
Personally, I think you were quite brave to stand up to Sarfnic and his dastardly doings, and you should feel proud that he is so threatened by your refusal to let you cheat that he has banned you from playing in any games he DMs. Bravo!
I see what you did there. :D
Did the poor player find out about the noble backround ahead of time? Frequently my games have had eachplayer make their characters independently, so he might not have known until the first session when the princling offered him a riding horse so he wouldn't slow the prince down.
He knew about my character creation. In fact everyone in the gameplay knew about it before we start playing it. DM did ask each of us to describe our characters background before we start playing. He certainly knew about my character because he helped in the character creation too. He didnt protest then. But protest when he realised the advantage. Having said that, he did realise the burden it came with it.
For the record, what exactly gives you (a player) the right to ban another player from the playgroup? Sounds to me like you are the one throwing a hissy fit, not the other way around.
Of course, he could play in other games just not the games that I hold.
Like a lot of people have said, the DM screwed up, plain and simple. The player you banned was in the right, and you can say he was disruptive all you want, but he was rightfully so. It's not about your background at this point, it's about mechanical equality, something your DM seems to have forgotten about. He was right to protest, and honestly, I would have too. You got free stuff for no reason, while everyone else was pretty much told tough, deal with it. That, and your attitude is kind've...yea.
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
But protest when he realized the advantage.
So he was fine with the background until he realized that you were going to have an advantage over everyone else. What a jerk? You mean that he couldn't deal with this? For shame. You are probably better off for getting rid of him.
Is that what you wanted to hear?
Personally, I think that he is probably better off finding another group anyways. His style of play is just not compatible with the rest of the group, from what I can gather from your posts. Can I ask, have you ever tried the Rifts RPG?
Of course, he could play in other games just not the games that I hold.
If you're not the DM, it's not your call.
If you are the DM, you made a bad call.
As a player, i play with a group that has 1 of 3 OLD friends DMing. Each of them pretty much DMs to another (they each have a favorite, think of a triangle where each corner is a different fave) player. So when Jonny DMs, Billy gets all the goodies...
When i say that, I mean he gets advantages like this OP got. If he is a rogue, he might be the favorred son of the leader of the guild, who gives him wealth. If he is noble, he will also start out with great wealth. If he is a wanderring traveller he turns out to be Jubei from Ninja Scroll, etc.
Of course this is unfair, but it is seniority. Generally, the DM offers 1 experienced player tools that allow for greater RP opps so that others can slowly get involved in RPing without being too outside the box. Its a way for the GM and his fave player to slightly steer the campaign.
Has it been a problem b4? Yes certainly. Have people been banned? Yes, and killed by the DM outright at 1st level because the PC didn't fit with the "leader's" concept of the group.
As for fun? Like anything in life, sometimes you have to bite your pride and realize that these clowns have been playing together for years and years. Every villain has a clue, that the old fave player can use to figure out the enemies weaknesses and such. This makes the game interesting sometimes and sort of trite at other times. Some PCs get frustrated because their attempts at roleplay are shelved because the main guy, the "leader" is speaking.
The game should be fair for all players for maximum fun. While being rich, and having an awesome advantage (mechanical or story oriented) is fun for one player... It looks alot like a "cheat" code to the other players. The only way to balance this is to have incidents which shift the balance to the other PCs at varying levels...
For instance, in the OP's sitch, perhaps his wealthy father gets assassinated and the killers want him removed as the remaining heir. Now the naive nobleman has to use his friend, the poor streetwise cretin, to move about. Maybe he also loses his wealth as well as his status, and has trouble travelling. Something has to balance this out.
As for my DMing such things... Well, I have played with folks who wanted one PC to have an advantage (usually someone's son, or a newb player who needs an advantage to make up for lack of RPing, something that is auto RP, like being a rich nobleman), and have found that it greases the wheels for party unity when all are on the same page.
The rich nobleman is liked by everyone because he flaunts his money and power, but at the same time never gets a cut of anything that the rogue or ranger find when searching, etc. He is never privvy to the secret strategy meetings because he is a know it all, with no military training. Most of the time, its a player who is being asked to play a role that they don't want, so they need compensation (I rolled up a wizzy, but there is no defender... So i am playing the fighter, but if i have to, i want a +1 fullblade that my father left me... etc.).
This does not have to degrade into arguments, but (as someone already mentioned) it is a thing done at PC creation, and should not be a surprise. Likewise the DM should be aware that giving all PCs good stuff is an option as well (just build "tough" encounters).
I have had only one campaign where there was a HUGE fight over monetary wealth among the players. A player got hamstringed into playing the cleric, as such (6th lvl start, 3.5) he asked if he could unban Leadership feat from my campaign. He felt that he was a healbot and wanted to be a Radiant Servant of Pelor. So i let him come into the campaign with Leadership and starting wealth for a 7th i think... which was much higher than what the players had actually earned over the course of their adventuring.
So the players were down, because they had already had 2TPKs (age of worms) with no dedicated healers (think they had a battle druid for a bit). However, on the first night this young man came into the group for a play session, everyone realized that he was a bit of a munchkin. He had built his PC with a fine comb, and had his character together complete with his background...
Since i let him start where the other players were, in terms of exp, to be easiest on me, he was halfway through lvl 6(or maybe it was 8th or 9th, escapes me). I can't remember exactly how he did it, but his Char, and his background were such that he had like 5 lvl 1 followers and a cohort that was behind him in lvl.
So the PCs name was Lewis Huey, and he called all his followers "The News". his lvl 1 followers were all bards that were optimized (think human) in their feats, so that they took performance and such and were all part of the band that Lewis would sing with. They also all took skill focus in a different skill with the extra feat. None of them fought... but together with assists they could break the performance chart and basically were the medieval equivalent of rockstars. They actually could hit the "known throughout the planes" mark on performance 2 or three times a week.
Naturally, this was a totally awesome way to utilize his lvl 1 followers. His radiant servant was also optimized through the roof, and had several spells that helped him become even better when he performed (Complete Divine, iirc).
Of course the party had agreed to let him start with all this in order to get a dedicated healer, but what they thought changed dramatically when they realized that it wasn't just wealth (he made GP anytime they had downtime, sometimes platinum, every performance... every day), but also the fact that no matter where they went the crowd absolutely cooed for Lewis Huey and the News.
Naturally this didn't matter one whit in combat, where he was a healbot, but he completely took over the Roleplay, as well as the Party Face roles. His lvl 1 bards were also the party researchers, and his cohort (bodyguard) basically simply guarded the lvl 1 bandmembers.
Be careful what you wish for, the old addage goes. I guess i just liked the topic and wanted to throw in my 2 cp!
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
Life isn't fair, but games are supposed to be. If the other player was cool with the relative backgrounds, he probably didn't realize that starting wealth would be adjusted to an extreme degree by chosen character background. Standard practice in D&D has always been "justify why you have your starting equipment and wealth, but you don't get to start with any extra, regardless of your explanation." If that wasn't the case, every player with any sense would describe their character being richer than God and inherit world-shattering artifacts from their epic-level grandfathers.
Life isnt fair. If people cant deal with it, they should simply not play in the game in which it allows such setting. When 4 out of 5 decides to play this setting and this is not something new to this chap as he signed up to this game knowing full well about the setting in the first place and he still choose to ignore the background is an important part of the game. He is only got himself to blame. Complaining about it and ruining the experience of others just to correct his mistake is simply wrong in my books. I think he should learn his mistake and not bully the DM. I dont think anyone should bully the DM. Ok the DM is weak but bully in my books should never be tolerated. Think you have missed the point totally.
But this isn't life. Its and RPG with rules, and bud, you broke some of those rules. The DM let you of course, which is why I said he screwed up. The other player was perfectly within his right to complain, because he had a good point. He probably didn't sign up to play that game just to be screwed over from the get go. Also, going by what you said, it seems like you were the one taking advantage of the DM, so dont even try to play the victim here. He argued a perfectly valid case, and guess what, the DM agreed with him. He realized that yes, it was a bad move on his part, so it took it back. You just seem to be mad that you don't have an advantage over everyone else anymore. So it's not just that he can't stand for anyone to be better than him, it's you that got angry over not having an advantage over everyone.
As for, "hes only got himself to blame", bull. The DM is breaking the rules, chances are, he wasn't informed up front that there was a mechanical advantage involved. It's not in the book, and it's not in the rules. The DM made a (bad) decision with you, and was corrected on it, and proceeded to fix it. That's it. And if you want to play a noble, do so, there's nothing stopping you. But don't get ****** when you start with the same stuff that everyone else starts with. It's gaming equality.
HOWEVER, the big issue here is being so unreasonably selfish that you kick the player out of your group, mainly because he saw an unfair situation, and cried foul. That's completely and totally uncool, and I'd probably quietly start looking for a different game before you decided to kick me from the group for disagreeing with you, also.
Then you show up at the game with a Warhorse, something you should not have for at least a few levels. The one player cries foul. Quite rightly so.
You have every right to keep him out of your parent's basement, or whatever space you control. Don't kid yourself that you're doing it for any reason other than your own selfishness.
Play a nobleman if you want. Heck, play the heir to a huge fortune! But your PC starts with the exact same amount of money as everyone else. And you don't get your inheritance 'til the DM says you do.
I was thinking this exact same thing when I read the OP.
I was thinking this exact same thing when I read the OP.
And if your DM ever actually says so before the characters are retired, he is doing you and your campaign a great disservice. Switch DMs.
Ah, Comunism: the RPG....
No. I have no problem with radically difference in character powers and/or wealth. As long as there is a fair way of deciding who gets what. If you want to roll stats and starting wealth, all the better, I enjoy playing that way.
But giving advantages to the player who is best at manipulating the DM is a terrible way to play the game.
Jay
And if your DM ever actually says so before the characters are retired, he is doing you and your campaign a great disservice. Switch DMs.
I disagree. Depending on how high ranking the family and what the inheritence entails, it could easily be handed out later in the campaign as a reward, while the other PCs receive other comparable rewards. There are definate ways to work it in without doing the player or campaign a disservice.
I disagree. Depending on how high ranking the family and what the inheritence entails, it could easily be handed out later in the campaign as a reward, while the other PCs receive other comparable rewards. There are definate ways to work it in without doing the player or campaign a disservice.
Unless done really well, I don't see how the minor satisfaction of the handout can outweigh the sacrifice of the plot hook.
Unless done really well, I don't see how the minor satisfaction of the handout can outweigh the sacrifice of the plot hook.
Because with the inheritance comes other plot hooks. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. The one fellow said that it's okay to play a nobleman, but the inheritance shouldn't come until the DM says so. Another guy agreed and then you responded with it shouldn't happen.
In my mind, once the inheritance comes, it comes with responsibilities of position, greater family enemies, etc. The amount of plot hooks for the DM rises dramatically.
Because with the inheritance comes other plot hooks. Maybe we're misunderstanding each other. The one fellow said that it's okay to play a nobleman, but the inheritance shouldn't come until the DM says so. Another guy agreed and then you responded with it shouldn't happen.
In my mind, once the inheritance comes, it comes with responsibilities of position, greater family enemies, etc. The amount of plot hooks for the DM rises dramatically.
The responsibilities of position can make for good hooks too. Had characters come into a position of wealth and power in several campaigns in the past, even been crowned. And while that was a great carrot, it didn't come with any real mechanical benefits for adventuring. No extra cash - no, that's for the coffers. Better gear? Not really, because I had come across better magic than the kingdom could muster in the course of my adventures. Mostly, it just made me more directly responsible for the well-being of my domain, and was a great big versatile hook.
The sort of inheritance of wealth and titles the OP is talking about, though, are better off as a distant prospect of "some day." A massive infusion of non-adventuring cash for use in purchasing gear isn't usually good for the game. Nor is the ability to muster an army. What is, though, is the prospect of threat to your family and your birthright.
I will even accept "Now, but unaccessable". I would happily let players have access to things like housing, in city transport carriages, and other little luxeries that they don't directly pay for, but it under the prevalience of the king's will. Equipment tends not to directly be involved with that. After all, the noble player is suppose to be governing, not gearing for war.
Gearing for war, I don't actually mind so much. Gearing for adventuring is altogether different.
--snipped---
The sort of inheritance of wealth and titles the OP is talking about, though, are better off as a distant prospect of "some day." A massive infusion of non-adventuring cash for use in purchasing gear isn't usually good for the game. Nor is the ability to muster an army. What is, though, is the prospect of threat to your family and your birthright.
IN 4th Edition, I agree with you MatthiasKaiser, I would expect the inheritance to come when my character retired. After a long, fruitful adventuring career (assuming he doesn't die) he settles down to run a kingdom then hires my new character to rid the kingdom of kobolds.
IN 1st edition, it was expected that a Fighter at 9th level or so would buy/earn land and build some kind of castle/keep. In that type of game I would expect the inheritance to come earlier rather than later.
If you're not the DM, it's not your call.
If you are the DM, you made a bad call.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period. In terms of playing a noble, we are under this system in which it specially say how one plays a noble and how one gets being a noble. This is all known to him.
The Noble Mindset
In running a noble, you might want to keep the following in mind. Your character has occupied a position of power and privilege all of her or his life. She or he is well educated, and unaccustomed to questioning the class system which has created the niche they occupy, believing deep in their heart of hearts that the reason they occupy such a position is because god has chosen them to govern. For good characters, they feel that they have a duty to protect their subjects and be gentle with them. When their subjects have committed a crime, they believe the law needs to be uphold and just punishment is necessary. For evil characters, they may wish to exploit their subjects by taxing them heavily or even require human sacrifice to gain certain privilege from their god. For netural characters, they might wish to do anything that pleases them as long as it is a reasonable act.
Nobles will generally have been raised with tutors in matters such as art, music and matters of etiquette (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Art, Music and History are essentials for their education. They will also learn the way to fight by hand or by magic or via persuasive speeches).
Nobles may employ commoners to work in his households and even run his finances but these people must be educated.
Legal Issues
Nobles are, to a certain extent, not above the laws unless you are the head of state. Even being head of state does not mean you can wandering around killing the subjects without fear of revolts. A noble can be stripped off his title and land if the king orders it or when his subject rebels. A noble may need to form alliance when he sees the need and sever the ties when it becomes dangerous to do so.
Roleplay
Some nobles have a goal to increase their status within the establishment. Some nobles have a goal to make sure his family keeps the current status.
Some nobles may realise that he/she is never going to be the heir and decides to enjoy his life (much like prince harry).
Money
While nobles are certainly wealthier than anyone else, they have a better start than others and what each noble has is determined by the DM.
I play to the full what my character should do. I didnt have any MI to start off with. I only have a warhorse. The DM tried to let others to have a better equipment by letting my character to give them riding horses (all characters knew each other because their parents all served under mine). While the DM makes such setting to make things run smoother, we were all surprised when one player decides to make a fuss. It wasted our time and also gave us a bad game experience. When he started bullying the DM, I felt I should simply kick him out of the door and not let him play. I cant see anything wrong with that. Banning him is the only right thing to do there. If he does like playing the game in the way we set our game, he should not bully the DM to make the setting the way he liked. Thats not roleplaying, thats powerplaying.
I agree that having better things to start with carries a certain burden with it too. Thats ok because its fun to roleplay. Can you imagine a player protesting to DM and bullying him to the point he is allowed to carry the same ring as Frodo. This is simply wrong. Like I said, I felt that his bullying should not be tolerated. Thats why I ban him from my future game.
You friend is playing a game character, not a literary character. This one just happens to have the same name as a literary character.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
Well, I am here not to get approval. (Post 14)
[Defense of actions.] (Post 15)
[More defense of actions.] (Post 18)
[Even more defense of actions.] (Post 22)
[Praise to someone who agreed.] (Post 24)
I'd just want to say it again. I am not here to seek your approval. (post 25)
[More explanation of actions] (post 42)
[Justification of actions] (post 43)
[Even more explanation] (post 44)
[Expansion of justification] (post 66)
[Repetition of justification] (post 67)
[Quick retort] (post 70)
For not seeking approval, you've spent an awful lot of time and energy explaining yourself in the face of disapproval.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
NWOD has a tax on getting that amount of money though called merits. In DnD everyone should start the same because it is a different kind of role playing game entirley. Your characters in new world of darkness had other merits to balance out the lack of money.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
Yes... it will be interesting to roleplay that but unfortunately thats not the setting I am playing. May be another game though. A nobleman from a discredited noble family trying to find a way to gain back respect title and land for his family. Thats a good roleplay experience too.
TLDR (responses that is)
You are playing a noble and feels it gives you right to have advantage. I'm sorry but it doesnt. The PH2 clearly outlines background benefits and ")$*ton of extra gold" is not one of them. Sorry bro, 100gp at first. EVERYONE.
"You made him run to punish him" - you aren't the boss- this is a game of friends and as such should remain FUN. You aren't there to impose yourself on other people- thats what NPCs are for ;p
Get over yourself, and ask the DM and your friends forgiveness for being an asshat.
THIS
I agree that having better things to start with carries a certain burden with it too. Thats ok because its fun to roleplay. Can you imagine a player protesting to DM and bullying him to the point he is allowed to carry the same ring as Frodo. This is simply wrong. Like I said, I felt that his bullying should not be tolerated. Thats why I ban him from my future game.
Frodo got to be the main character. How do you think Samwise feels?
You're focusing entirely on the RP, without regard for mechanics. That's fine, no problems with that.
It's in RP where you (and the DM) really screwed up. A Warhorse is a very minor advantage mechanically. Where you screwed up is in nabbing the role of main character for yourself. You've made yourself the patron.
If I were DMing I would have handled it thusly: You need to go to your father and roll diplomacy to borrow the horses. When he sneers in disaproval over your choice of friends they'd have to bluff convincingly (or roll well for history, to remind him that their parents did XYZ for his kingdom) or maybe quoting a relevant passage from the words of a diety (ie, Religion challenge) held in high regard in that kingdom about nobility respecting their serfs. If it failed I'd allow you a chance to "borrow" the horses by stealth and thievery, or by bluffing, diploming (what IS the verb form of diplomacy anyway?) or intimidating the stable boy.
It would be a fairly easy set of skill challenges, so you'd get your horses, but in this way YOU don't get to be the bearer of gifts. Your father is clearly the patron, and the others, by participating in the skill challenge, get to be "heroes" too.
The warhorse is fine, whatever, but I would have given the other equivalent benefits in some form. A single +1 weapon maybe, or a pet rat that can slip through cracks and steal stuff for you.
Frodo got to be the main character. How do you think Samwise feels?
You're focusing entirely on the RP, without regard for mechanics. That's fine, no problems with that.
It's in RP where you (and the DM) really screwed up. A Warhorse is a very minor advantage mechanically. Where you screwed up is in nabbing the role of main character for yourself. You've made yourself the patron.
If I were DMing I would have handled it thusly: You need to go to your father and roll diplomacy to borrow the horses. When he sneers in disaproval over your choice of friends they'd have to bluff convincingly (or roll well for history, to remind him that their parents did XYZ for his kingdom) or maybe quoting a relevant passage from the words of a diety (ie, Religion challenge) held in high regard in that kingdom about nobility respecting their serfs. If it failed I'd allow you a chance to "borrow" the horses by stealth and thievery, or by bluffing, diploming (what IS the verb form of diplomacy anyway?) or intimidating the stable boy.
It would be a fairly easy set of skill challenges, so you'd get your horses, but in this way YOU don't get to be the bearer of gifts. Your father is clearly the patron, and the others, by participating in the skill challenge, get to be "heroes" too.
The warhorse is fine, whatever, but I would have given the other equivalent benefits in some form. A single +1 weapon maybe, or a pet rat that can slip through cracks and steal stuff for you.
Id just like to say frodo was a walking plot device not a character. He was in general the most useless member of the group. I dont see why someone would want to play him but okay. Rest of your post spot I agree with.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period. In terms of playing a noble, we are under this system in which it specially say how one plays a noble and how one gets being a noble. This is all known to him.Show
The Noble Mindset
In running a noble, you might want to keep the following in mind. Your character has occupied a position of power and privilege all of her or his life. She or he is well educated, and unaccustomed to questioning the class system which has created the niche they occupy, believing deep in their heart of hearts that the reason they occupy such a position is because god has chosen them to govern. For good characters, they feel that they have a duty to protect their subjects and be gentle with them. When their subjects have committed a crime, they believe the law needs to be uphold and just punishment is necessary. For evil characters, they may wish to exploit their subjects by taxing them heavily or even require human sacrifice to gain certain privilege from their god. For netural characters, they might wish to do anything that pleases them as long as it is a reasonable act.
Nobles will generally have been raised with tutors in matters such as art, music and matters of etiquette (Diplomacy, Knowledge, Art, Music and History are essentials for their education. They will also learn the way to fight by hand or by magic or via persuasive speeches).
Nobles may employ commoners to work in his households and even run his finances but these people must be educated.
Legal Issues
Nobles are, to a certain extent, not above the laws unless you are the head of state. Even being head of state does not mean you can wandering around killing the subjects without fear of revolts. A noble can be stripped off his title and land if the king orders it or when his subject rebels. A noble may need to form alliance when he sees the need and sever the ties when it becomes dangerous to do so.
Roleplay
Some nobles have a goal to increase their status within the establishment. Some nobles have a goal to make sure his family keeps the current status.
Some nobles may realise that he/she is never going to be the heir and decides to enjoy his life (much like prince harry).
Money
While nobles are certainly wealthier than anyone else, they have a better start than others and what each noble has is determined by the DM.
I play to the full what my character should do. I didnt have any MI to start off with. I only have a warhorse. The DM tried to let others to have a better equipment by letting my character to give them riding horses (all characters knew each other because their parents all served under mine). While the DM makes such setting to make things run smoother, we were all surprised when one player decides to make a fuss. It wasted our time and also gave us a bad game experience. When he started bullying the DM, I felt I should simply kick him out of the door and not let him play. I cant see anything wrong with that. Banning him is the only right thing to do there. If he does like playing the game in the way we set our game, he should not bully the DM to make the setting the way he liked. Thats not roleplaying, thats powerplaying.
Your DM should not have allowed you to start with that much more wealth than the other players; not all nobles were wealthy, even if they owned land, and quite a few were in debt up to their eyeballs from years of trying to outdo their peers. Letting you start with a warhorse and slightly better equipment is fine, especially if the other characters are allowed some special bit of equipment or skill of their own, but I would have ruled that your character was either seeking to restore his family's fortune and fame, or given you a pending inheritance to be acquired after a few levels, when the disparity of wealth would be less of a factor. The fact that the other characters were family retainers may also have been a factor in the other player's attitude - - player characters should not be subordinate to another player character unless everyone is okay with that.
The player in question, while he may have had legitimate reasons to be annoyed, acted childishly in nagging the DM and trying to get your character banned after the fact. Trying to sell the horse you provided him was pure instigation, and the DM should have called him on it.
And you are wrong - - not so much about the money, as that seemed more a roleplaying thing for you, part of your overall character concept. But you contributed to the disruption of the game when you decided to "punish" this player by taking the horse away, and the impression I got from your post was a refusal to compromise on your character concept, something I've seen all too often. Finally, banning a player because he disrupts your games is one thing; banning him from all future games you DM because of his behaviour in someone else's game just seems petty.
You're right in getting rid of this player, he seems more interested in "winning" than roleplaying. There's nothing wrong with one character having more money than others. I like communism kept out of my games.
I played in a WoD game, where my friend and I had little more than the clothes on our backs. Our other friend's character was so rich he owned his own skyscraper (until we burned it down, but we had a good reason, I swear). The game worked perfectly.
If something fits a character concept without obstructing the other players then it should be ok. Just because your character had an easier time getting equipment doesn't mean the other players can whine and cry until the DM ruins your character.
From what I understand you were even using your character's wealth to aid the other players. This is what players are supposed to do - use each other's strengths to benefit each other. There was no reason for the guy to complain except for petty jealousy.
But hey, I'm sure you'll have tons of fun roleplaying a nobleman with no money.
As williamhm75 said, you have to spend points to get money in WoD. Unlike in this case it's not free stuff because you conned the DM into giving it to you. Let me give you an example in WoD. Everyone but one character is limited to 0 dots in resources. The one character on the other hand is given 5 dots for free without having to spend any of his starting 7 merits on it. Do you see the problem with that? If everyone had been given free stuff as compensation, fine, but this is showing obvious favoritism from the very start. The other guy was right to call foul.
Abusive behaviour is not tolerated. That guy needs to be told off, period.
I agree. Sarfnic's behavior was completely out of line. He abused what power his DM (quite foolishly, IMO) gave him by gifting a horse (for use in the adventure, granted - but we don't know what, if any, limitations were put on it, aside from "Don't worry if it dies"), then removing that horse and forcing the character to run. Clearly an abusive, power-mad player, and I can't believe anyone would want to be in a group with that person. This Sarfnic fellow is just a few steps above the CE Thief who BSes his 'friends' and steals things.
Then, when you (quite legitimately) went to complain to the DM and other players, he tried to bully the DM into letting him keep the character as is (it was "partly banned," whatever that means ... mind telling us?). Sarfnic is really quite villainous by your portrayal.
Personally, I think you were quite brave to stand up to Sarfnic and his dastardly doings, and you should feel proud that he is so threatened by your refusal to let you cheat that he has banned you from playing in any games he DMs. Bravo!
I agree. Sarfnic's behavior was completely out of line. He abused what power his DM (quite foolishly, IMO) gave him by gifting a horse (for use in the adventure, granted - but we don't know what, if any, limitations were put on it, aside from "Don't worry if it dies"), then removing that horse and forcing the character to run. Clearly an abusive, power-mad player, and I can't believe anyone would want to be in a group with that person. This Sarfnic fellow is just a few steps above the CE Thief who BSes his 'friends' and steals things.
Then, when you (quite legitimately) went to complain to the DM and other players, he tried to bully the DM into letting him keep the character as is (it was "partly banned," whatever that means ... mind telling us?). Sarfnic is really quite villainous by your portrayal.
Personally, I think you were quite brave to stand up to Sarfnic and his dastardly doings, and you should feel proud that he is so threatened by your refusal to let you cheat that he has banned you from playing in any games he DMs. Bravo!
I see what you did there. :D