Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 october_darkness Jul 16, 2009 22:04:58	Anyhoo ha, here's the situation. I'm a combat heavy player. I like combat. Combat is my friend. If I don't have combat, I'm not happy. I've been temp playing with this one group here in SF for about 2 months. When I first started, every session was combat. I was happy, and was able to fit in well. There was a sub-DM who ran the encounters. DM comes back from his work trip (being out of country), and gives us more combat facing some of the main bosses in that certain chapter in his campaign. In one session, I ended up finding out it would be solely roleplaying for that night.... and no fighting. Ok, cool.... no problem. Things started to degenerate when I realized how the party couldn't come to a conclusion, and started getting frustrated. I'm not going to described what exactly the situation was, but I did find myself annoyed by how this session was drawn out just to be a bunch of "sherlock holmes" encounters. I shut down, and just talked with my girlfriend on AIM while the other guys take care of business. We come to the next session, and instead of running long combat encounters (which i can understand), the DM decides to run a group skill challenge. Ok, I know how to do this. I did it once in the RPGA. The main skills for the challenege were Nature, Athletics, Endurance. I'm a fighter, so 2 of them are really good for me. We run the skill challenge, but then he's like, "ok, for each failure... EACH player loses a healing surge." At that point, I was like WTF????? I kinda called him out on that, and told him why should I lose a healing surge for someone elses's failure. Keep in mind, the party in this skill challenge may have more than 3 failures (not the usual). Other people are playing spellcasters with HORRIBLE skills for the designated challenge. He ends up debating me about it, and we settle on the fact that I have to put up with it. I understand that debating rules in the middle of a session is disruptive. I know what I did wasn't exactly the correct way to go about things. So I find out later after he comes back from another work trip, that he just doesn't want me in the group anymore. At first, I was kinda peeved.... but then it came to me. What exactly could I have learned from this? I have my own faults, but from my perspective I'm entitled to being happy as a player. For me to take the time for traveling, paying for materials, etc. etc..... I felt the DM should've catered to what would make each player happy. Not just himself. They do have something like this in the 4th ed. DMG detailing players, and what not. Any ideas/suggestions?
#2 jedijake Jul 16, 2009 22:19:38	Sounds like you dodged a bullet. If they asked you to leave after one friendly debate and stopped playing the game you showed up for...Seems abrupt, could probably have been handled better all around, talking and whatnot. *shrug*
#3 Aeon Jul 16, 2009 22:41:29	It sounds like the group just wasnt your fit. My group just did three roleplay sessions in a row and I am happy. Thats one thing we tell people who try to join our group, WE ROLEPLAY!!! Everyone doesnt fit for every group so hey move on. Yes the DM is supposed to cater to his audience but if your the only one who wants to fight all the time then he isnt catering to the rest of the group. Talking on the computer and argueing about the rules of a skill challenge is disruptive and I wouldnt deal with it. Its one thing to argue about a rule that is being broken, but skill challenges are different they are more cinematic and freeform as far as rules go. The DM's guide may have guidelines on being a good DM but there are other places that have guidelines on being a good player. While I dont subscribe to the whole DM/GM is god idea I pick my battles and show proof. Like there is a epic feat that lets you do that and you are letting everyone else do it for free (just an example of how I brought a concern to my DM). A skill challenge has basic rules but its up to the DM to get creative with them. I wouldnt play with an all combat no story group so I wouldnt expect an all combat no story player to play in my game or any game my group runs.
#4 gregt_314 Jul 16, 2009 22:51:02	DM calls the shots, dude. Your right to have your interests catered to as a player is entirely subject to your responsibility to respect the DM, his game, and his rules calls. If you end up chatting on AIM during a game and arguing the toss with the umpire, well, okay, maybe the DM should have presented a game you liked better, but you lost your right to complain by the way you acted. Not trying to insult you here; sounds like there were some failings all round. But two wrongs don't make a right, and you can't expect your DM to magically discern what you enjoy. You need to respect his calls on the night, don't argue them and let the game go on, and then afterwards (maybe once you've calmed down) have a polite discussion about what you enjoyed and didn't enjoy, how you felt during the bits you didn't enjoy, and what (constructively) the DM could do to make a game you'd be more comfortable at.
#5 navar100 Jul 16, 2009 23:50:50	How long have you been with this group? To be kicked out after one argument? Sounds to me the DM had his ego threatened because you didn't like one of his rulings. Kicking you out is a lesson for everyone else that he's Il Duce. If they're not enjoying something about the game, tough noogies for them. They must keep silent or else there's the door.
#6 kouk Jul 17, 2009 0:43:42	No DM is under any obligation to cater to any specific "flavor" of player, ever. There are guidelines to "identifying" different sorts of player motivations and catering to them, but it's not a rule. It's just that when a group has varied interests, a good DM will endeavor to cater to them all over time -- assuming he's interested in keeping all the players. Here are the main points relevant to you though: There is no group that can literally accept any and all players under the sun. Try to find out how the group games, because all groups are different. This means how the DM runs the games mostly. You like a steady stream of combats -- most players want at least one fight a session. Not all groups like combats the same way though. Some have mostly RPG, with a single combat once in a blue moon. Some groups, like the one you seem to have found, can have sessions that alternate. If you don't like that kind of group, it's better that you leave rather than everyone involved getting upset (you and them). When looking for another group, be up front with your tastes and what things you can deal with well in moderation. Discuss the DM's game with at least the DM. And also, when you're bored you can't just start playing games or texting people. Excuse yourself for a while, give someone control of your character if something relevant happens, and just go to a different room until you're ready to come back.
#7 MrCustomer Jul 17, 2009 1:06:56	How long have you been with this group? To be kicked out after one argument? Sounds to me the DM had his ego threatened because you didn't like one of his rulings. Kicking you out is a lesson for everyone else that he's Il Duce. If they're not enjoying something about the game, tough noogies for them. They must keep silent or else there's the door. Depends on the person, I have kicked out players after only one arguement before, I can learn from my mistakes without repeating them several times repeatedly. It could be that the DM realized that their style just wasn't going to be compatible with yours, that it would only end in your frustration and in continued arguements between both parties. There is no reason why he should wish to inflict that upon either himself, the group nor even yourself. Rather then repeat the inevitable conflict pain and suffering to come, then kicking you out is likely the best solution for both parties. I say I have kicked people out after only one event before, but that is because those events are either so significant, or else very evident that the relationship just won't work. It's like having a drink of milk and finding out it's past it's date, it's bad and there is no fixing it, and no "just tolorate it and drink it anyways and maybe it will start tasting good after a couple of days" Don't suffer through the inevitable doom that looms in your face, cut your losses and move on. On the other hand I have had issues that came up that I could deal with, or at least try, but most inteligent people can tell the difference between a solvable problem that can be worked out, negotiated and compromised for and one that is hopeless. On the other hand, maybe the DM just doesn't like you. This is perfectly normal, there are many, many people whom I don't like, I've kicked one individual out of my game simply because he was an asshat. Great player, smart guy, even a nice guy, but still there was no way in heck that I was going to tollorate his annoying pressence. This is just something that happens and both parties just have to live with it (well, legally they both have to live with it, but I difgress) Sometimes it just doesn't work between two people.
#8 ritorix Jul 17, 2009 2:34:08	We run the skill challenge, but then he's like, "ok, for each failure... EACH player loses a healing surge." At that point, I was like WTF????? I kinda called him out on that, and told him why should I lose a healing surge for someone elses's failure. Keep in mind, the party in this skill challenge may have more than 3 failures (not the usual). Other people are playing spellcasters with HORRIBLE skills for the designated challenge. What exactly could I have learned from this? I have my own faults, but from my perspective I'm entitled to being happy as a player. For me to take the time for traveling, paying for materials, etc. etc..... I felt the DM shouldn't catered to what would make each player happy. Not just himself. Any ideas/suggestions? Well first off you shouldn't be surprised. A new one-dimensional player to a group zoning out and chatting on AIM during noncombat (very disrespectful btw), then arguing with the DM when you do decide to play? Seriously what did you expect? Arguing with the DM in the middle of a game over something he designed is a huge no-no. There could be any number of reasons he set the challenge up that way. Maybe he wanted party healing surges lower so that a combat later would be more dramatic. Maybe he knew you would just walk all over the skill challenge otherwise, and he just wanted some added risk for challenge failure. Maybe he intended the party to lose nearly all your healing surges for some dramatic reason to emerge later. I'm sure his intent wasn't to screw you over in combat because they don't even like combat. DM'ing is a thankless job, and for that DM you helped make it a little worse. Btw, DMs rarely decide on their own to kick people out...dont be surprised if the other players were in on it. Some people disrupt their group for weeks before something is done about it as a group. It drags the game down when one player is not participating when everyone else is trying to roleplay. You have focused on mostly how the DM reacted to you, but I would bet the other players were not thrilled either. Luckily you can learn from this for next time. Just remember this new rule: you are entitled to cater to the DM and fellow players and to make them happy. Don't cater to what just makes you happy, or you will end up playing alone.
#9 jutter Jul 17, 2009 2:57:50	Any ideas/suggestions? During sessions, don't AIM with your girlfriend and don't argue with the DM. From your first post, I realise you already know this. But honestly, it's that simple. A lot of people won't call you out on disturbing behavior. Some are to shy, others try to avoid open conflict, and some want to get rid of you so much they're just adding stuff to the list to back up their future suggestion of kicking you out. This generally leads to being disinvited without a warning up front. This stinks and is unfair. The solution is to try and guess what the others consider disturbing, and try to avoid said disturbing behavior as much as possible (or leave if you can't put up with that). Life is complicated like that. You seem to have a firm grasp of the first part. But when the time comes, you need to balance the short-term results (AIM is better than Sherlock Holmes) against the long-term results (being in this group is better than one night of AIM). You generally can't have life 100% like you want it to be. You can try to improve that percentage, but sometimes somebody else improves his own percentage by, say, disinviting you from his D&D group. Seems to me like there is no 'guily' party here. There is simply a clash in play styles. Both sides could have done a bit better. But then again, isn't that always the case? Don't let it get under your skin. You don't seem like a bad player to me: I'd readily invite you to join my group, if it weren't for the fact that you live on the other side of the planet. Good luck finding a new group.
#10 marshzd Jul 17, 2009 13:48:19	Well first off you shouldn't be surprised. A new one-dimensional player to a group zoning out and chatting on AIM during noncombat (very disrespectful btw), then arguing with the DM when you do decide to play? Seriously what did you expect? Arguing with the DM in the middle of a game over something he designed is a huge no-no. There could be any number of reasons he set the challenge up that way. Maybe he wanted party healing surges lower so that a combat later would be more dramatic. Maybe he knew you would just walk all over the skill challenge otherwise, and he just wanted some added risk for challenge failure. Maybe he intended the party to lose nearly all your healing surges for some dramatic reason to emerge later. I'm sure his intent wasn't to screw you over in combat because they don't even like combat. DM'ing is a thankless job, and for that DM you helped make it a little worse. Btw, DMs rarely decide on their own to kick people out...dont be surprised if the other players were in on it. Some people disrupt their group for weeks before something is done about it as a group. It drags the game down when one player is not participating when everyone else is trying to roleplay. You have focused on mostly how the DM reacted to you, but I would bet the other players were not thrilled either. Luckily you can learn from this for next time. Just remember this new rule: you are entitled to cater to the DM and fellow players and to make them happy. Don't cater to what just makes you happy, or you will end up playing alone. I love when people create their own scenario and then argue it against original posts stories. First of all, DM's aren't a thankless job. Every group I've played in we've thanked the DM quite well. Women in the groups I've played in have given him treats and things, realizing the effort put in. After every session I always say thanks for the game, and make sure to compliment them on their world. Secondly, you have no real idea what the motivations were of his DM and so to criticize this player for his actions is ridiculous. This player doesn't need to learn from his actions necessarily. I know in the past when I've DMed and noticed that a player is getting bored (sometimes it happens for whatever reason) I work a way to spice up the game immediately, whatever it has to be. The DM needs to cater to the players -- he doesn't have to ruin his world to do so, but he should be trying to make them have fun, period. DM's who like to be in control and manage everything have to be humble in allowing certain things to happen. These DM's who aren't humble are the ones I love to completely go AWOL in the story. Oh, we're supposed to travel west to Fantasy City One? Well, I'm going south. Why? Cause I have no interest in the mission, my character wouldn't care to. Then I love to see them railroad me and the other players generally think it's funny and the DM learns his lesson.
#11 isaiah Jul 17, 2009 14:10:12	The GM's ruling on healing surges and skill checks is retarded and he deserved to be argued with over it. It also sounds like you have a wildly different style of gameplay as the GM and the rest of the players, perhaps you should join a game that runs solely RPGA modules. But IMing at the table is one of the most annoying and rude things that you can do. I would have kicked you out of the game for that.
#12 zackblack Jul 17, 2009 14:17:54	I would have booted you after the argument. Had you "called me out" on the loss of HS's I would have said "because the DM says so" and would have expected you to accept that. Had the argument continued I would have told you not to let the door hit your a$$ on the way out right there and then. Most of my players are "role play light" but there have been two adventures so far that I designed for them that the idea was not to fight any of the monsters. I also (like the next adventure they will be playing) design "combat heavy" adventures as well but like others responding to this thread have said: You can't cater to everyone all of the time. If you like combat so much why don't you and a friend grab a copy of "Dungeon Delve" and work through it from cover to cover?
#13 gargs454 Jul 17, 2009 14:40:03	You, as a player, have a right to play in a game that suits your style. But then, so does every other player, including the DM. You, as a player, also have the right to not play in a game -- as does every other player and the DM. If the DM wants to run a game where all the PCs are female Gnome barbarians named Ramone, he has that right. Of course, its also likely that he won't find any players for that game. What you do not have the right to is to have a game changed specifically to suit your particular needs/style. This also means that the DM does not have the right to make you play a female gnome barbarian named Ramone because you can walk away instead. As for the OP's group, first and foremost, it simply looks like the OP was not a good fit for that group. That doesn't mean that either the OP or the group was "wrong" or "bad player(s)", it just means that they have conflicting styles. There are many different styles of gamers out there and not all of them are compatible. Two of my best friends for instance are completely incompatible at the gaming table which means that I will frequently end up running two games because I know if they are in the same game that at least one of them (and probably both) will not have fun. Both are great gamers though and both get along quite well away from the game table. As to the two incidents described here though, I would tend to side against the player. The AIM thing is at best a less than ideal solution. At worst, it disrespectful to both the DM and the rest of the players. I would though ordinarily let it pass (at least the first time). Arguing with the DM though was a big no-no in my book. This is not due to Rule 0 or anything like that. Rather, its simply disruptive. It doesn't advance the game any, and what's worse, human nature is such that when you call out the DM in front of the group like that, he is only all the more likely to dig his heels in. The better response would have been to approach the DM after the game and express your concerns to him. Certainly DM's make mistakes all the time (I've been on both sides of them). That being said, those mistakes are rarely a result of a DM trying to screw a player and are usually an honest mistake. My bard recently got stunned by a young black dragon and the DM said it was a "Save Ends". I thought I had seen that it was just til end of next turn, but I kept quiet. Kinda sucked because my dice went ice cold and I failed about 7 times before finally getting it. Point was though I still had fun, everyone survived and now the group laughs about it. My bard even turned it into a positive by telling a rival group of adventurers in a bar how he had distracted the mighty dragon by simply staring at it, showing no fear at all, thus forcing the dragon to keep one eye on the bard while the rest of the party pounded away. Bluff check had the entire tavern buying every word of it (and buying the bard all the beer he could drink). Going a step further though, without knowing the specifics of the skill challenge in question though, I can't even say that your DM was "wrong" for charging everyone a healing surge. To me, that is a perfectly acceptable penalty in certain challenges (there's even an LFR mod that has that penalty in place for a failed challenge). The long and short of it is that in the future, when you are not having fun, or when you disagree with a ruling, suck it up during the session and just grin and bear it. Then, after the session express your concern to the DM and let him know what you disliked, etc. Perhaps he'd come back and say "Don't worry, this was more an interlude and normally we are combat heavy." Or, perhaps he would say, "Well this group really digs RP encounters and its always going to be a part of our game. Is this something you want to try out, or would you rather just look for a different game?" In general, a DM is going to be much more amenable to hearing you out after the session, particularly if you are polite about it.
#14 gargs454 Jul 17, 2009 14:42:44	The GM's ruling on healing surges and skill checks is retarded and he deserved to be argued with over it. It also sounds like you have a wildly different style of gameplay as the GM and the rest of the players, perhaps you should join a game that runs solely RPGA modules. But IMing at the table is one of the most annoying and rude things that you can do. I would have kicked you out of the game for that. Be aware that by telling him to join an RPGA group you are telling him to join a group that may have a result of him losing healing surges during a skill challenge as I know of at least one mod that does it. This is certainly an acceptable penalty in certain situations, though not all skill challenges of course.
#15 Stuntman Jul 17, 2009 15:40:07	I'm not going to described what exactly the situation was, but I did find myself annoyed by how this session was drawn out just to be a bunch of "sherlock holmes" encounters. I shut down, and just talked with my girlfriend on AIM while the other guys take care of business. I understand that this particular session may not be suited to your tastes. Talking with your gf may not be the most polite thing to do. As long as you are not really distrupting the session, this is probably just a minor issue. I know of one player in a group I played with who just naps on the couch until he hears the words, "roll initiative." That group understands his lack of interest in non-combat things and has no problem with it. I doubt that this is a man reason for your being dismissed from the group. We run the skill challenge, but then he's like, "ok, for each failure... EACH player loses a healing surge." At that point, I was like WTF????? I kinda called him out on that, and told him why should I lose a healing surge for someone elses's failure. Keep in mind, the party in this skill challenge may have more than 3 failures (not the usual). Other people are playing spellcasters with HORRIBLE skills for the designated challenge. He ends up debating me about it, and we settle on the fact that I have to put up with it. I understand that debating rules in the middle of a session is disruptive. I know what I did wasn't exactly the correct way to go about things. This sounds like the reason you were dismissed from the group. My impression is that this incident isn't just about the rules argument. It's more like you seem to be not a team player. By "team" I am referring to the D&D play group including the DM. Your negative, out of character reaction to losing a healing surge because of another player's failure appears very immature to me. The rule details does not matter. What matters is in the story, your group is doing some skill challenge and due to the group's lack of skill the group (including you) are having a difficult time (losing healing surges). This sounds like the way the scenario is being played out. Sometimes there are failures and characters suffer some consequences as a result. I don't think that the DM is personally out to get you or your party. It also sounds like you were able to overcome whatever losses you incurred and was able to continue. You have the right to feel unhappy with the result. I don't like it when I take damage or lose surges and stuff for instance. However, I move on. It's just part of the game. Also, it doesn't sound like losing a surge is such a big deal that would warrant such a reaction from you. It's one thing to be in character and berate another character for causing harm to you. In one of my games, the paladin got caught by friendly fire from the wild magic sorcerer. In character, the paladin berated the wild magic sorcerer for not being able to control his magical power better. That was just the paladin's character and he did similar things to other NPC's as well. As the paladin player, he simply had fun with the incident and saw the opportunity to role play. I know that you appear not to be the type who is into role play as you said in your post. What I am demonstrating is an example of acceptible behaviour for such an incident. What you did, I would not consider to be acceptible in my group. From what you are telling me, it sounds like this incident was too disrupting for the DM to feel you should continue playing with the group. Perhaps he also saw that your play style and the groups probably doesn't mesh well and feels that it is best that you and the rest of the group part ways. Any ideas/suggestions? I felt you made too much of a fuss over too little an issue. Let things slide. It doesn't sound like losing a surge is really that big of a deal for your group, especially you since you are a fighter and can probably spare a surge or two. If there are any rules issues you may have with a DM's call, I would suggest you just leave it until after the game. If it is something major like you or a party member dying, it may be more appropriate. The 4E rules allow for a rather large margin of error compared to previous editions. Even if the DM made a mistake, it is likely something you can overcome.
#16 october_darkness Jul 17, 2009 16:37:23	After reading through all of your posts, it makes me feel better knowing that it could have been done differently. I DID disrupt the game, and suffered the consequences of it. At the same time, I feel DM's should explain why they're doing something before they tell the group what's going on. My first DM was really good at it. Unfortunately, she lives too far away. Anyways, back to the main points here. I have a better understanding of other people's views... and appreciate your posts. Thank You.
#17 FlashbackJon Jul 17, 2009 16:46:05	I shut down, and just talked with my girlfriend on AIM while the other guys take care of business. A lot of folks are pointing out the argument, but I'm guess this is more likely the culprit in your dismissal. The argument was just the final step. It was clear to the DM here and the other players that you were completely disengaging yourself from a chunk of the adventure they very much enjoyed. We don't know all the details, but it sounds like the DM designed a lot of this adventure from scratch, right? And you just completely disregarded it, waiting for the next combat. I play in a lot of RP-light groups with a lot of fairly timid DMs who would've held a not insignificant level of resentment if one of their players had acted this way.
#18 wraithstrike Jul 17, 2009 19:02:24	Sometimes written modules or even DM-made modules do things that seem to break the rules. It can be hard to explain it to the players without giving away the story. This may have been one of those cases. I do encourage my players to correct me if I make a rules mistake. If it is a mistake I thank them. If it is due to a special ability or some other reason I just say "I know", and they understand there is a, behind the scenes, reason for it No matter what the reason was, the DM should have told you either: A. It's a house rule, of course losing healing surges is a bad one, but that is not the point. B. It's for story purposes, and give you as much detail as possible without ruining the story. If your story is the entire story, then kicking you out was going overboard.
#19 wraithstrike Jul 17, 2009 19:19:28	"because the DM says so" That is the worse excuse ever. "Because I said so", never really goes over well with anyone. The players are not just little kids you can talk down to. If you have a ruling, but you can't explain it right then tell the player you will talk to him/her after the session, and try to explain it within reason. If he is to impatient to wait, he can leave.
#20 sier_labeguileuse_dup Jul 17, 2009 19:45:42	How long have you been with this group? To be kicked out after one argument? Sounds to me the DM had his ego threatened because you didn't like one of his rulings. Kicking you out is a lesson for everyone else that he's Il Duce. If they're not enjoying something about the game, tough noogies for them. They must keep silent or else there's the door. Was he Italian? Does he make good paskety?
#21 darksavior Jul 17, 2009 19:49:55	It sounds like the group just wasnt your fit. My group just did three roleplay sessions in a row and I am happy. Thats one thing we tell people who try to join our group, WE ROLEPLAY!!! Everyone doesnt fit for every group so hey move on. Yes the DM is supposed to cater to his audience but if your the only one who wants to fight all the time then he isnt catering to the rest of the group. Talking on the computer and argueing about the rules of a skill challenge is disruptive and I wouldnt deal with it. Its one thing to argue about a rule that is being broken, but skill challenges are different they are more cinematic and freeform as far as rules go. The DM's guide may have guidelines on being a good DM but there are other places that have guidelines on being a good player. While I dont subscribe to the whole DM/GM is god idea I pick my battles and show proof. Like there is a epic feat that lets you do that and you are letting everyone else do it for free (just an example of how I brought a concern to my DM). A skill challenge has basic rules but its up to the DM to get creative with them. I wouldnt play with an all combat no story group so I wouldnt expect an all combat no story player to play in my game or any game my group runs. What bothers me about the above quoted argument and the original post is that someone reading them would think that Roleplay and Combat are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't agree with this assertion which seems fairly widely accepted on these boards. You can do both, simultaneously even. I get that during debates arguments get polarized but seriously, it can be done folks, you can have combat AND role-playing in the same game. This is in no way like crossing the streams, and there will not be a total protonic reversal should you actually pull this off. As for the OP's dilemma, or rather former dilemma, all parties are likely better off. I know gaming groups can sometimes be scarce, so folks will settle for the game they can get instead of the game they want, but as with everything in life, when you settle for less, you get less. My 2 cents.
#22 zillah Jul 17, 2009 20:43:28	we don't really know. i mean, people annoy others just to get them out of the group. it all could have been lies. Some maybe just didn't like him and gave the DM a choice. Anyway, better off regardless. I have been in the "we are a secret society" group and its horrible politics and BS. better off not doing it
#23 1red13 Jul 17, 2009 21:22:05	As a new player to the group you hadn't earned any goodwill through friendship or prior aquantancship, at least by your description. To zone out and drop out of the game as welll as make a big deal about a skilll challenges i'm sure seemed to have the hall marks of a burgeoning problem player. I think there is definately some merit in your suggestion that as a player you have a right to expect an entertaining game. With that said I didn't see any reference to other players or how they were enjoying or not enjoying the game which comes off awfully one sided. The dm does have to present an entertaining game to all players. As others have mentioned you're better off. I think you're transgressions weren't all that terrible, but if you combine it with the fact that you were new to the group and more particularly the full time dm it really isn't that big of a surprise that it didn't go over well.
#24 sirkaikillah Jul 18, 2009 17:36:38	...I felt the DM should've catered to what would make each player happy. Not just himself. They do have something like this in the 4th ed. DMG detailing players, and what not. Any ideas/suggestions? My suggestion is get a new group. This attitude that the Dm is here to cater to players, bothers me. DnD is a cooperative game. Ideally there should be some give and take on both sides. The Dm is not God and he is not a fantasy game caterer. The Dm has the responsibility and authority of being the game's leader. You acted like a puff. The game wasn't going your way and you rebelled, starting texting your girl friend. You then stopped the flow of the game and argued about a skill challenge. That disrespectful to the whole group, not just the Dm. Take this advice with a grain of salt, because it is from a guy on the internet you don't know, but maybe you should adjust your attitude. Instead of expecting the Dm to cater to your whims as a player, expect him to lead you and the entire group on this heroic fantasy game experience and follow. ;) PS> what makes combat and role playing exclusive elements of the game? There is ton of role playing in the combat encounters our group plays.
#25 sirkaikillah Jul 18, 2009 17:38:26	What bothers me about the above quoted argument and the original post is that someone reading them would think that Roleplay and Combat are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't agree with this assertion which seems fairly widely accepted on these boards. You can do both, simultaneously even. .... Amen brother!!! Amen!!!
#26 eini Jul 19, 2009 6:09:02	Just a thought. The DM might have taken healing surges if the party was tracking or searching through wilderness. Nature was tagged as one of the challenge skills. As a DM I might penalize the party in such a way if failure on a particular skill check would result in a longer challenge that pushed the party to exhaustion. It is not specifically in the rules but i would consider such a ruling fair. It is hyperthetical of course, I wasn't there and the DM may have had no reason he could justify, but there are reasons that a failed check could result in further penalty. Also it seems the party was enjoying the change of pace from combat heavy ,under the relief DM, to strict roleplay with the primary DM that had returned. It would seem that this was the nature of their game and that long term the OP would have been pretty dissatisfied longterm anyhow. For roleplay heavy parties that had a combat orientated player I used to do a cut scene. The main group would roleplay and I would set up a side combat scene for the HacknSlasher that I would break to in intervals. As this party seems to have been long running and the DM wasn't yet comfortable with the new player I guess the DM chose simply to go with what he knew was working.
#27 october_darkness Jul 19, 2009 14:56:20	As a new player to the group you hadn't earned any goodwill through friendship or prior aquantancship, at least by your description. To zone out and drop out of the game as welll as make a big deal about a skilll challenges i'm sure seemed to have the hall marks of a burgeoning problem player. I think there is definately some merit in your suggestion that as a player you have a right to expect an entertaining game. With that said I didn't see any reference to other players or how they were enjoying or not enjoying the game which comes off awfully one sided. The dm does have to present an entertaining game to all players. As others have mentioned you're better off. I think you're transgressions weren't all that terrible, but if you combine it with the fact that you were new to the group and more particularly the full time dm it really isn't that big of a surprise that it didn't go over well. Yes, it was one-sided. Why? Because I didn't feel like going through all the details of every single thing going on. That would have required more attention to a third-party view, and actually would have delayed my post. Yes, it might have been selflish but I felt my story would have been explained better had I kept it on a self-perspective level. we don't really know. i mean, people annoy others just to get them out of the group. it all could have been lies. Some maybe just didn't like him and gave the DM a choice. Anyway, better off regardless. I have been in the "we are a secret society" group and its horrible politics and BS. better off not doing it No, it's not. I don't feel the inclination to lie about what's going on in my life. I'm not looking for attention, I'm looking for suggestions. Pretty much, the majority agreement is that this group wasn't a fit for me. In some sense, I was a bad player... and therefore was looking to find ways to improve. The two situations I caused as a player are obvious to fix. That is all.
#28 Kaldric Jul 19, 2009 15:14:46	You IM'd during a game, that's probably enough right there. It doesn't sound like his game is hurting for players, so why include one that doesn't seem as into it as everyone else, and argues to boot? If you're going into a game as a stranger, you're on probation - at least, that's been my experience. Until you're actually friends with the group, not just a relative stranger, be on your best behavior. Learn how they play before you even start making suggestions, let alone arguments. They have no obligation to let you play with them.
#29 MrCustomer Jul 19, 2009 20:45:02	Secondly, you have no real idea what the motivations were of his DM and so to criticize this player for his actions is ridiculous. This player doesn't need to learn from his actions necessarily. I know in the past when I've DMed and noticed that a player is getting bored (sometimes it happens for whatever reason) I work a way to spice up the game immediately, whatever it has to be. The DM needs to cater to the players -- he doesn't have to ruin his world to do so, but he should be trying to make them have fun, period. When a player is talking to someone else on AIM, or texting, or surfing the web, or reading a book, then they aren't playing the game, and being able to "spice things up" really requires interaction and motivation on their part. In his example he states that the group wasn't exciting enough for him (despite that he was having plenty of fighting over 2 months of play, this ONE part of a single game session wasn't exciting enough) so he "shuts down" and talks to his girl friend on AIM and ignores the group. That means he stops playing, stops interacting, stops involving himself. This also means that the DM can't spice things up by introducing plot hooks etc that can catch his attention or from presenting alternatives for the player to look for something that interests him. He's chosen not to play at that point. How I handle this as a DM is I stop the game, right there and then, and ask the offending person to either put the phone, Ipod, DS, book, laptop etc away and play, or if he rather do something else, then he go do it somewhere else with someone else. You see, if he had participated and helped the group, then they could have gotten through this "boring" session faster, and gotten to the more exciting stuff, or he could have found something that would have taken the party to more exciting and interesting events, but instead decided to do something else. Players shouldn't expect the DM to lead them by the hand everywhere, they want something then it is the Player's perogative to find it. The DM is probably even more bored then the players thinking to himself "OK you fools, do I have to make it even more obvious or are we going to sit around and flounder all night?"
#30 etarnon Jul 20, 2009 4:11:51	OP I think perhaps the thing Zillah was saying was not that you lied. You seem to be telling it in a refreshing bare honesty, that around here seems to be unusual. I think he might have been hinting at, and I suspect, that the other players lied and undermined / sabotaged you, and with that as backup the DM say yup, I'll drop him. I've seen it. Side note, I'm not gonna repeat what everyone said, but you seem to be a mostly combat as you say player. Consider a game with more combat / wargamish elements like warhammer, battletech, starship troopers, some of those. Cause if you keep at D&D it's gonna be at least some (To you) boring roleplay. That or learn to like roleplay. Best of luck. I was a wargamer before I was a roleplayer so I know where you are coming from. A DM ignoring the rules as I have read and understood them (Unless he's explained house rules bugs the utter **** out of me. Best of luck.
#31 october_darkness Jul 20, 2009 20:55:16	What bothers me about the above quoted argument and the original post is that someone reading them would think that Roleplay and Combat are somehow mutually exclusive. I don't agree with this assertion which seems fairly widely accepted on these boards. You can do both, simultaneously even. I get that during debates arguments get polarized but seriously, it can be done folks, you can have combat AND role-playing in the same game. This is in no way like crossing the streams, and there will not be a total protonic reversal should you actually pull this off. To me, roleplaying and combat are not synonymous. Sorry, but I disagree with your viewpoints. Can they be "made" that way? Yes. I don't find rolling dice and dealing damage a part of roleplaying scenarios. Whenever I think of roleplaying, I think of interacting with NPC's out of combat. Honestly, it's subjective because we can all agree to disagree. Your post is taken into consideration. Thanks. OP I think perhaps the thing Zillah was saying was not that you lied. You seem to be telling it in a refreshing bare honesty, that around here seems to be unusual. I think he might have been hinting at, and I suspect, that the other players lied and undermined / sabotaged you, and with that as backup the DM say yup, I'll drop him. I've seen it. Side note, I'm not gonna repeat what everyone said, but you seem to be a mostly combat as you say player. Consider a game with more combat / wargamish elements like warhammer, battletech, starship troopers, some of those. Cause if you keep at D&D it's gonna be at least some (To you) boring roleplay. That or learn to like roleplay. Best of luck. I was a wargamer before I was a roleplayer so I know where you are coming from. A DM ignoring the rules as I have read and understood them (Unless he's explained house rules bugs the utter **** out of me. Best of luck. It's funny, because the current DM (my other game) I have... his game interests me a lot, and I do feel like "roleplaying". Not to mention, he knows I like to be in combat... so everyone is happy. Also, to let everyone know.... I've been playing since AD&D 2nd edition, so it's not like I'm some noob player that just jumped on board. I just prefer to strategize, rather than to dawdle with Sherlock Holmes.
#32 Stuntman Jul 20, 2009 22:48:27	To me, roleplaying and combat are not synonymous. Sorry, but I disagree with your viewpoints. Can they be "made" that way? Yes. I don't find rolling dice and dealing damage a part of roleplaying scenarios. Whenever I think of roleplaying, I think of interacting with NPC's out of combat. Honestly, it's subjective because we can all agree to disagree. Your post is taken into consideration. Thanks. Just because there is a fight going on, it doesn't mean you cannot interact with NPC's or players. There are many instances in fiction where during the fight, the hero converses with one or more enemies while he is fighting them. These non-combat interactions within combat may even end the combat. Talking is a free action and you can do it while you are in combat. It's funny, because the current DM (my other game) I have... his game interests me a lot, and I do feel like "roleplaying". Not to mention, he knows I like to be in combat... so everyone is happy. I'm glad you are able to find a game and DM that suits you. Also, to let everyone know.... I've been playing since AD&D 2nd edition, so it's not like I'm some noob player that just jumped on board. I just prefer to strategize, rather than to dawdle with Sherlock Holmes. You are not the only one. I was in a group where one of the players would just nap on the couch until he hears the words, "roll initiative." The group understood this and does the role playing without him and he jumps into the chair when combat begins.
#33 ChimericPhase Jul 21, 2009 23:37:15	We run the skill challenge, but then he's like, "ok, for each failure... EACH player loses a healing surge." At that point, I was like WTF????? I kinda called him out on that, and told him why should I lose a healing surge for someone elses's failure. I'm surprised at this and other posters that feel this isn't a valid mechanic. As both Gargs454 and Enini mention - it is actually valid. Additionally there is an example skill challenge in the DMG itself which has the result of one player's skill failure equaled all characters in the party lose one healing surge. It reflected how grueling the task was for everyone involved. The DM may have had a valid reason for why he decided to implement it for every single check. - I don't know the circumstances of the skill challenge so I'm not going to speculate. Ok, rules issue aside, you asked what can you learn from this (everyone else, please note that he didn't ask for opinions about who was or was not a jerk...) from my perspective I'm entitled to being happy as a player. For me to take the time for traveling, paying for materials, etc. etc..... I felt the DM should've catered to what would make each player happy. I completely agree, but what a lot of people forget is that to obtain happiness, first they must know what makes you happy. I rarely hear about players that went to their DM sometime prior to the game day and said "Hey, you know what I would just love to see in your D&D game?..." But I always hear about the players that complain afterwards "Well there wasn't enough of X in this game, so I didn't have fun." I think this is a lot like ordering a carrot cake from the bakery, paying for the cake, eating the cake, and then going to the bakery and complaining that the baker didn't put chocolate-banana flavored icing and confetti sprinkles on the cake. The baker is going to look at you like you're crazy and ask you to leave. I think that communication with the party and the DM is so important to obtaining happiness in a D&D group - and yet it always seems to be the last possible resort anyone takes. It's possible that if you had (during non-game time) explained that you would like at least a little bit of combat each game... or maybe at least every other game... the DM might/could have made the effort to include more combat. Additionally, assuming a defensive stance ("Hey, I KNOW that isn't fair!") generates a defensive response. Try being the calm objective individual instead. (I'm not convinced that skill challenge was entirely kosher. Can you explain it more to me?) The DM will either be helpful and convincing, or they'll still be defensive and you'll have learned you're not compatible with that particular DM anyway.