Games gone awry

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

This was his second chance. When he blew it -- again -- well, we were going to leave. Then we figured, hell with it, let's blow up his world and *then* leave.

 

Oh. Well, that makes it all right then. Erm, no it doesn't!

 

I think disrupting someone's game just because you don't like it is selfish and immature. It might not have occurred to you that possibly the other Players playing were enjoying the game?

 

A better tactic is to get up, gather your books and leave. Or not to show up at all. If you think that the GM needs a "lesson", then a phonecall, email, or another likely missive to let the GM know why you are leaving the game, if you can't say it in person, will suffice .

 

But purposefully disrupting a game is crass, buddy. It's rude and worse than that, is you trying, on the Hero Games boards, to make it look like that is an ok thing to do... when it is not. No person deserves to be treated so harshly, even if you think he is cheating and whatnot.

 

All I have to say is tsk, tsk!

 

 

We never did play with him again after that.

 

That's good to hear.

 

 

 

Mags

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> Oh. Well, that makes it all right then. Erm, no it doesn't!

 

> I think disrupting someone's game just because you don't like it is selfish and

> immature.

 

I think throwing around words such as 'selfish' and 'immature' before you have actual knowledge of the situation is selfish and immature, so your point is?

 

> It might not have occurred to you that possibly the other Players playing were

> enjoying the game?

 

It might not have occurred to you to *ask* first instead of merely jumping to conclusions?

 

FYI, with one exception -- the aforementioned DM's asshole buddy -- every player in the game was on board with us.(*) I didn't mention them before because it was my and Bob's plan, and they didn't need to help us any in-game. (The players knew what we were up to -- their characters didn't.)

 

[snip]

> No person deserves to be treated so harshly, even if you think he is cheating and

> whatnot.

 

We 'think'? Dude, we were there -- you weren't. There was no 'think'. That sucker was, openly and blatantly, as guilty as sin.

 

Yes, I am proud that I was one of the two people who organized and led a players' revolt against a hideously biased and incompetent DM, and I remain proud of doing so. And it wasn't "wrong".

 

 

 

(*) Correction -- there was one player who was neutral. However, as he only managed to make less than 25% of the sessions, we didn't really count him as being in the game... just an occasional visitor.

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

And it wasn't "wrong".

 

 

Yes. It was.

 

The mature thing to do was to simply drop out of the game. Don't even try to glamorize what you did.

 

By the way, I didn't jump to any conclusions. Your omitting information is beside the point in this case. There might be young, impressionable Players reading your post and thinking "way cool" just because it had entertaining elements to it. But the underlying theme behind your pretty words is wrong. Someone needed to point that out.

 

And I am sure you will continue to disagree with me on this point, because to do otherwise means you'd need to admit you were wrong. That's ok. Just so long as I can put the voice of reason out there.

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

But, to get back on track, I've had to deal with "Games gone awry" on many, many occassions. This is one of the reasons I run games on the fly rather than spending hours on writing up detailed areas and such. It's too much work to risk having it be ignored, you see.

 

A long time ago, I ran simple yet highly detailed, one-plot scenarios and even back then the Players would manage to find something else to do. So now I prefer to give them plenty of leads in several directions... and I plan for my plots to progress in different ways depending on how the PCs deal. It just works better for my group that way. And for me.

 

A good example: Everytime I mention dragons- or even a possibility of a dragon- the PCs in my D&D game run as far as they can in the opposite direction. Last session, they finally fought a dragon... and they won! Which surprised them greatly. Granted, they found out what type of dragon beforehand and protected themselves against it (smart kiddies), but at least now they know they don't need to run away everytime they hear that dreaded word.

 

But, for the most part, in Champions my Players are fairly easy to maneuver into the situations I want them to face... mostly due to their chosen Disads. This helps a lot for me. Don't know what I'd do with a PC that didn't have any Disads (lucky for me, most of my Players prefer to have more points to spend).

 

Mags

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> The mature thing to do was to simply drop out of the game.

 

In case this bears repeating -- it's what the party wanted to do. (With the one exception, natch.)

 

Apparently, parties are no longer allowed to choose their own courses of action.

 

Also apparently, role-playing your character's goals on an epic scale is also wrong.

 

In case you somehow missed it the first time it was said, Bob's character /was/ the high priest of Ahriman, and I was his loyal grand vizier. As such, us successfully bringing about the downfall of civilization and ensuring the eternal reign of Ahriman over the lands of men is good RP, no?

 

You tell us, Magmarock. What were our characters *supposed* to be doing with their time?

 

If you don't want your players to end civilization, don't run 18th-level evil campaigns. At 18th level, you've progressed a bit beyond picking pockets. After all, trying to conquer or destroy the world is what all the 18th-level *NPCs* are doing...

 

> Don't even try to glamorize what you did.

 

I co-masterminded the complete destruction of Western civilization with only four sessions' worth of work -- in a game where I was /supposed/ to be an evil bastard with world-conquering ambitions. I consider that a notable feat. As does Bob.

 

> By the way, I didn't jump to any conclusions.

 

Whiplash alert in 3 - 2 - 1...

 

> Your omitting information is beside the point in this case.

 

OK, so you *admit* that you reached a conclusion in absence of a full knowledge of the situation, and yet you still deny jumping to conclusions...

 

... that's like saying "Yeah, I jumped in the pool, but no, I'm not wet."

 

> There might be young, impressionable Players reading your post

 

*gasp* "Have you no soul? Think of the children!" *sobs*

 

> and thinking "way cool" just because it had entertaining elements to it. But

> the underlying theme behind your pretty words is wrong.

 

... you do realize that from the very beginning, even before the DM cheated, it was our characters' intended goals to conquer the planet, right? That's what uber-high-level evil people *do*.

 

It was a supervillain campaign. We acted like supervillains. The only thing the DM's cheating did was change the timing and manner of our destruction of civilizaton... it didn't prompt our decision to do it in the first place. I would've thought that would already have been obvious from the mere words '18th-level evil campaign'.

 

(After all, if the DM had been playing fair, we'd have a) taken a lot longer to do it, toured more of his world first, and c) gone for something *slightly* less thermonuclear. As well as d) give him a better chance to stop us.

 

As is, he wasn't playing fair at all, so we did a complete end-around his attempts to rig the game and hit him with a nigh-inescapable dilemna months ahead of time.)

 

'Scuse me for being such a dullard, but I just can't grasp why it's such a wrong thing to blow up the world when, you know, your character's *supposed* to be a psychotic supervillain who wants to blow up the world.

 

One of Dave's biggest errors was in running what was, in effect, a D&D supervillain campaign -- and then blowing a head gasket when some of his players actually acted like supervillains. (As opposed to 18th-level brigands and alley muggers.)

 

> And I am sure you will continue to disagree with me on this point, because

> to do otherwise means you'd need to admit you were wrong.

 

The possibility that you might actually be the wrong one is apparently absolutely outside your thinking, I see.

 

I mean, seriously. You're not arguing or debating here. You're just arrogantly declaring yourself the winner, and pre-emptively staking out the position that the *only* possible way *anyone* could disagree with you is because they're a bad gamer and a stubborn fool besides.

 

No wonder you're taking Dave's side of the argument. You debate exactly like he DM'ed.

 

> That's ok. Just so long as I can put the voice of reason out there.

 

Only if 'reason' is defined as 'Magmarock is always right'. Because, you know, the only possible reason anybody could be arguing with Magmarock is because they're too stupid or too stubborn to just admit that they were wrong.

[Chimpira]

Re: Games gone awry

 

I am not seeing this. He was playing an evil character and it does not sound like he went that far away from his alignment. I have played in quite a few games where we have to stop the bad guy from screwing the world. It was just that in this case the bad guys were the pc's. Now he might have taken satisfaction from screwing up the game but the GM put all the elements there for the players to do that. Something similiar happened with me, although the GM was a very good friend. He wanted to play an evil hero game and I am not really hip with playing evil. We played the first game and my buddy jumped on our cases for not being evil enough. (We were primarily motivated by money and I made a mad scientist complete with a straightman lab assistant) We said ok and he allowed us to do a major overhaul of our characters. My plan from then on was the destruction of the world and all parrellel worlds. I hatched scheme after scheme that worked and caused so much destruction that my buddy stopped the game. He had not planned on me getting that evil. But I have never derailed an adventure out of character on purpose to get back at the GM. But if Chuckg did all this while playing his chaotic evil character and simply utilized tools that the GM put in the game, I do not have a problem with it.

[The Watcher]

Re: Games gone awry

 

It seems to me if you've got characters who worship an entity that wants to bring destruction, death, and damnation to the world you shouldn't be surprised when the characters do their best to help it in such endeavors.

 

Looks like the only thing the above were guilty of was playing in-character. The fact that they didn't pull their blows is not a sin. Pulling one's blows is a courtesy, and from the description of the DM, it looks like he forfieted that courtesy.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Especially since, if Ahriman conquers the world, by all logical rights Bob's character, the Evil High Priest of Ahriman... becomes the Viceroy of Ahriman (i.e. -- planetary dictator)....

 

... and since Bob's character has no administration and few courtly skills worth mentioning, and my guy's the freaking medieval Lex Luthor, *I* get to be Grand Vizier and the guy actually in charge of civil administration. Or, to put it more succinctly -- in the name of Ahriman, Bob would reign... and I would rule. :evil:

 

For a prize this rich, our characters (mine NE, his CE) would gladly sell out *our* entire species, let alone somebody else's species.

 

Out of game, we blew up Dave's game world in his cheating face. In game, our characters achieved their life's goals and became the two wealthiest and most powerful individuals on that planet.

 

This is what they call a "win-win".

[Blue]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Well, now we've totally derailed this thread. I'm trying to think of a story to get us back on track...

 

How about this one:

 

I was running one friend in a champions campaign. There were no other players at the time. The Protectors were made up of Quasar (Player character), Nova, White Giant, Midnight, Rainbow, and Jester. Not the most original bunch of heroes I've ever made as NPCs, but it didn't matter. They were just there to assist the PC and not overshadow her.

 

The mission: To invade a viper base and retrieve the PC's sister (Nova). The others are off doing god knows what. It's just the PC Quasar and NPC Jester. While White Giant was known for making noise, these two were not the stealth team either. So they slip into the base and can manage to call up a schematic and figure out where she's being held. But the PC also notices a warehouse. "Let's find out what's in there."

 

Not wanting to bother with it, I say, "You can't tell from the schematic. And it's far away from your sister and the 'interrogation room'." I'm hinting strongly that she should find her sister before interrogation--a viper euphemism for torture.

 

"I want to check that out." I relent and I put some heavy foot traffic in the way, negating any ability to sneak there. So the player says, "Wow, busy area. It must be important! Now I've got to see."

 

Doh! Okay, so she and Jester knock out a couple of viper types and do the old 'dress up in viper uniforms' thing, despite the fact that he's all of 5 feet and carrying one of those jester wands with the little jester head on it. (He tried to find a uniform the size of it so that he could 'disguise' it too, but no dice), and a she's got a freaking 30 COM.

 

So I let them make a disguise roll. Not only does she make hers and he make his, but when they come to a guard, in an amusing bit of self-roleplaying, Jester (me) says to the guard (me), we're showing this prisoner to the cells.

 

"What prisoner?"

 

Jester motions to the wand he's holding with the little head on the end. Jester uses ventriloquism to say, "I'm not telling you anything! You'll get nothing out of me!" I give Jester a fast talk roll and the guy let's them go by, deciding that they must be the new viper leaders he's been hearing about, who were rumored to be insane.

 

Like an idiot, rather than making the room empty, I say inside the room are THOUSANDS of boxes. So naturally she wants to open one.

 

GM: "Inside is a... um... a... It's a Culander."

Quasar: "A what?"

GM: "For draining spaghetti."

Quasar: "... is it part of a secret weapon or something?"

Jester: (Mimicking the cover of the Captain America folder in which I kept my game notes) "The Spaghetti Bomb! It'll destroy the world!"

Quasar: "Now I've got to check another one."

GM: "uh... ok... It's a pair of break pads for a '72 chevy impala."

Quasar: "That's weird. How about a third one."

GM: "You realized your sister is still in custody. Inches from the torture room."

Quasar: "Yeh, I know."

GM: "It's an Emmy award."

Jester: "I always wanted an Emmy! I'd like to thank the members of the academy..."

Quasar: "Keep going. That's it. We've got to open everything now!"

 

So the player spends about two hours opening containers. I summarize it by making up things like: two crates of shoe laces, some birth control sponges, some chocolatey laxative [which Jester promptly confiscates for later use], and for the last box, naturaly, the Kitchen Sink!

 

When the player finally got back to the mission, her sister had been put into the interrogation room and been tortured for the identities of other heroes. She was all beat to heck, but she had a high enough CON to have not given anything up yet. If it had taken any longer, the Egoist would have shown up and pried the info from her brain.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Games gone awry

 

For a prize this rich, our characters (mine NE, his CE) would gladly sell out *our* entire species, let alone somebody else's species.

 

...except, of course, for the fact that selling out your own *entire* species would be a little self defeating...since it would include yourself.

 

As an aside, how does a GM, the guy who can decide from moment to moment how reality works, without whom the current reality you're in wouldn't exist, "cheat"?

 

You mentioned initially that he was apparently blatantly playing favorites among players - is that what you meant by cheating?

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Chuck,

 

You are rationalizing what you (the Players) did by blaming it on your PCs? Oh, come on! That is ridiculous! The truth and logic here is that you (the Players) run your PCs and ultimately you (the Players) make the decisions behind their actions. You made a conscious decision outside the game to wreck it. Your reasons do not matter because there is no reason good enough to justify you actions.

 

It wasn't the PCs that derailed and ruined the GM's campaign. It was the Players. And it was a childish way to do it.

 

Being rude, mean and or demeaning to a GM (or another Player) is wrong. If you don't like someone, leave. If it is your house, tell them to leave. Sheesh! Next thing, you'll tell me that physical violence it ok, too?

 

Apparently social graces are lost on you if you think it's ok to behave so disruptively.

 

Putting it all in my lap won't help you at all. Yeah, I know I wasn't there. Yeah, I know I was only going by what you wrote. I am commenting by just reading what you wrote... but I've been on the other end myself. What you did was not cool by any means. No matter how you spin it.

 

So, Chuck, go ahead and get mad, but I know that somewhere under all the belligerence, huffing and puffing and chest-thumping there is a human being who knows what I am saying is true.

 

Mags

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Games gone awry

 

*gasp* Jester's great! The nutjobs are always so much fun to play.

 

[dbsousa]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Chuck,

 

You are rationalizing what you (the Players) did by blaming it on your PCs? Oh, come on! That is ridiculous! The truth and logic here is that you (the Players) run your PCs and ultimately you (the Players) make the decisions behind their actions. You made a conscious decision outside the game to wreck it. Your reasons do not matter because there is no reason good enough to justify you actions.

 

It wasn't the PCs that derailed and ruined the GM's campaign. It was the Players. And it was a childish way to do it.

 

Being rude, mean and or demeaning to a GM (or another Player) is wrong. If you don't like someone, leave. If it is your house, tell them to leave. Sheesh! Next thing, you'll tell me that physical violence it ok, too?

 

Apparently social graces are lost on you if you think it's ok to behave so disruptively.

 

Putting it all in my lap won't help you at all. Yeah, I know I wasn't there. Yeah, I know I was only going by what you wrote. I am commenting by just reading what you wrote... but I've been on the other end myself. What you did was not cool by any means. No matter how you spin it.

 

So, Chuck, go ahead and get mad, but I know that somewhere under all the belligerence, huffing and puffing and chest-thumping there is a human being who knows what I am saying is true.

 

Mags

 

Why don't you tell us the reason this makes you so mad, why it strikes a nerve. Did someone do this to you?

[The Watcher]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Chuck,

 

You are rationalizing what you (the Players) did by blaming it on your PCs? Oh, come on! That is ridiculous! The truth and logic here is that you (the Players) run your PCs and ultimately you (the Players) make the decisions behind their actions. You made a conscious decision outside the game to wreck it. Your reasons do not matter because there is no reason good enough to justify you actions.

And the actions of the PC's were totally in-character with their personalities and goals. The characters did things that the characters should be wanting to do. That's justification enough.

 

It wasn't the PCs that derailed and ruined the GM's campaign. It was the Players. And it was a childish way to do it.

 

Being rude, mean and or demeaning to a GM (or another Player) is wrong. If you don't like someone, leave. If it is your house, tell them to leave. Sheesh! Next thing, you'll tell me that physical violence it ok, too?

 

Apparently social graces are lost on you if you think it's ok to behave so disruptively.

The GM in question was blatantly abusing his power in such a way that ruined the experiences of everyone involved in the game except his best friend. What you call disrupton other's may call justice. Or are you the type who thinks the GM has the right to treat players like dirt if they want to?

 

Putting it all in my lap won't help you at all. Yeah, I know I wasn't there. Yeah, I know I was only going by what you wrote. I am commenting by just reading what you wrote... but I've been on the other end myself. What you did was not cool by any means. No matter how you spin it.

 

So, Chuck, go ahead and get mad, but I know that somewhere under all the belligerence, huffing and puffing and chest-thumping there is a human being who knows what I am saying is true.

That only is applicable if what you were saying actually were Truth, which it isn't.

 

It's just your interpetation and assessement, and frankly, it's quite flawed and inaccurate.

[Blue]

Re: Games gone awry

 

*gasp* Jester's great! The nutjobs are always so much fun to play.

 

Aren't they though? And it's even easier when it's an NPC and I can use other NPCs to set up the joke.

 

I don't play a lot of crazy characters. The only other one I played that was memorable was a character in a horror game, part of a recon team; a religious sniper modeled on the one from Saving Private Ryan, who when he gained an insanity in-game, decided his gun was magic and that not only did it fell the werewolf they shot, but that it talked to him sometimes and gave him advice. Youc an guess what kind of advice a gun would give.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> You are rationalizing what you (the Players) did by blaming it on your PCs?

 

Nope. I'm just pointing out that we hardly blew up the world under false pretenses, seeing as how Bob had made it plain going in that his character's goal was to bring civilization to ruin and ensure the dominion of Ahriman. And when my character was converted to the faith by his character, I of course also adopted that goal.

 

> Oh, come on! That is ridiculous!

 

Yes, it is indeed ridiculous for people who are rp'ing supervillains bent on world damnation to actually execute a scheme for world damnation.

 

... wait.

 

> The truth and logic here is that you (the Players) run your PCs and

> ultimately you (the Players) make the decisions behind their actions.

 

So, we should have *not* role-played the characters we made? Is that what you're saying?

 

It is true that the players are responsible for creating the PCs and running them.

 

However, the DM is also responsible for making the decision to allow such characters in the game.

 

Hint to all future DMs -- if I or Bob create a character whose stated goal is 'blow up the world', do not approve that character for use in your game unless you accept the risk that we might just actually succeed and blow up your world. Because Lord knows, we'll sure be giving it the ol' college try.

 

Of course, we also RP other characters who *aren't* trying to destroy civlization... this just wasn't one of those times.

 

> You made a conscious decision outside the game to wreck it.

 

It is true that had the DM not been such a total prat, we would have sent his game world to Hades -- literally -- later in the game than we chose to.

 

However, we were eventually going to send it to Hades anyway.

 

> Your reasons do not matter because there is no reason good enough to

> justify you actions.

 

Hey, the DM is the guy who approved those characters in the first place, knowing what their goals were. After that, on his own head be the consequences of his actions... or lack of actions.

 

[snip]

> Being rude, mean and or demeaning to a GM (or another Player) is wrong.

> If you don't like someone, leave. If it is your house, tell them to leave.

> Sheesh! Next thing, you'll tell me that physical violence it ok, too?

 

*snorts*

 

Are you so desperate that blatant straw-mans and reductio ad absurdums is all you have? What's next, saying that because I RP'ed an evil supervillain as an evil supervillain, I must also be into drowning kittens?

 

*meow*

 

*turns aside from his terminal* Shut up down there, furball, or it's into the pond with you!

 

Where were we?

 

> Apparently social graces are lost on you if you think it's ok to behave so

> disruptively.

 

Apparently, name-calling is all you got left.

 

> Putting it all in my lap won't help you at all. Yeah, I know I wasn't there.

> Yeah, I know I was only going by what you wrote. I am commenting by

> just reading what you wrote... but I've been on the other end myself.

 

Really?

 

Perhaps you should ask yourself *why* your players wanted to blow up your game world, then.

 

I'm sure there was a reason.

 

Question -- did they start out the game by creating supervillains whose announced goal was 'world damnation and/or conquest?'

 

> What you did was not cool by any means. No matter how you spin

> it.

 

> So, Chuck, go ahead and get mad, but I know that somewhere under all the

> belligerence, huffing and puffing and chest-thumping there is a human

> being who

 

... has long since decided that you're being a flame-baiting, immature jerk about the entire matter, and only keeps posting back to you because he has nothing better to do with his lunch hour.

 

> knows what I am saying is true.

 

In case you missed the hint the first time, arguments of the form "The only two alternatives I offer are either 1) yield to my POV or 2) admit that you're an idiot" are arguments that don't work very well over here.

 

Find a more persuasive argument, stop arguing, or continue to waste my time. Those are your choices.

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

I am not seeing this. He was playing an evil character and it does not sound like he went that far away from his alignment.

 

*SNIP*

 

But if Chuckg did all this while playing his chaotic evil character and simply utilized tools that the GM put in the game, I do not have a problem with it.

 

 

What happened within the game is not what I am addressing. I was addressing this the following:

 

Chuckg wrote:

"Myself and my friend Bob (who has posted here infrequently) once conspired to massively derail -- indeed, to destroy -- a D&D game.

 

In our defense, I might point out that the DM was not only running a pointlessly ugly and unimaginative campaign, but was indulging in massive DM favoritism for another player, his best buddy in real life. (And by 'massive favoritism', I mean 'the rest of us were finding 5000 gp and a +1 weapon in the treasure pile, and he got the Ring of Wishing')

 

Normally, we'd have just quit. But I saw a window of opportunity to destroy Dave's game world... and destroy it we did."

 

And Chuckg wrote:

"When we announced an outline of our plans to the DM, it was too late for him to stop us without using so much blatant ret-conning or blue-bolting from the sky as to make his already obvious cheating so blatantly obvious that *everybody* would have quit. So instead, he dissolved the game.

 

*heh*

 

Cheating SOB. He deserved it, really."

 

 

Chuck and his buddy had already decided to leave the game, but that wasn't good enough. Shame on them for dragging out a bad situation and making it worse. Instead of being adult and walking out, they had to be disruptive when there was no call for it. And they were sneaky about it too, by not letting the GM know what was up (that they were leaving). It is people like this who give Gamers a bad name. Seriously.

 

On a related note: Assuming that a group of Players are sticking with a game, the Players should never plot in secret against the GM. The PC's plans should always be open to the GM during a game because the GM should know everything that is going on. RPGs are not competions between the GM and Players. Ever.

 

This DM that Chuck talks about, Dave (whom I do not know, but that is hardly the point), had Dave been a better, more confident DM, he could have derailed the PC's plans. But the Player's plans? No, he couldn't control that at all... which is as it should be. However, it seems the Players had him cowed. Just as well that such a game broke up. But even if Dave wasn't fit to run a game, it still doesn't justify plotting against the guy. Leaving the game peacefully would have been the best choice.

 

Mags

[Blue]

Re: Games gone awry

 

So much for stearing this thread back on topic.

I gave it my best shot. No need to come back in this thread again.

[Magmarock]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Why don't you tell us the reason this makes you so mad' date=' why it strikes a nerve. Did someone do this to you?[/quote']

 

I'm not mad. I don't have to be mad to point out piss-poor behavior.

 

Mags

[PoorWandering 1]

Re: Games gone awry

 

Flame off people. This thread is supposed to be about game twists, remember. Flame wars are boring to read.

 

I remember a Illuminati/ordinary person persued by forces he cannot understand game where we ended up with the McGuffin and were being chased across 3 states by people and things we had difficulty believing in. My character, an office temp, and Gilbert and Sullivan fan broke. He was totally unsuited for a life on the run so he gave the 'bad guys' the McGuffin. The GM paused the game and took me aside. I explained that my character was convinced that the other side could kill him with ease and that cooperation was the only chance he had to get his old life back. It all game out well in the end though. Turns out the other-other side was monitering the party and the hand over point became an instant 5+ way fire-fight with the party in full freak out mode in the middle. This allowed the GM to re-introduce the person we were supposed to have met eariler but had been too clueless/frightened/paranoid to track down before. It all worked out in the end. The campaign got back on track and the GM got to play a "come with me if you want to live" moment.

[The Watcher]

Re: Games gone awry

 

What happened within the game is not what I am addressing. I was addressing this the following:

 

Chuckg wrote:

"Myself and my friend Bob (who has posted here infrequently) once conspired to massively derail -- indeed, to destroy -- a D&D game.

 

In our defense, I might point out that the DM was not only running a pointlessly ugly and unimaginative campaign, but was indulging in massive DM favoritism for another player, his best buddy in real life. (And by 'massive favoritism', I mean 'the rest of us were finding 5000 gp and a +1 weapon in the treasure pile, and he got the Ring of Wishing')

 

Normally, we'd have just quit. But I saw a window of opportunity to destroy Dave's game world... and destroy it we did."

 

And Chuckg wrote:

"When we announced an outline of our plans to the DM, it was too late for him to stop us without using so much blatant ret-conning or blue-bolting from the sky as to make his already obvious cheating so blatantly obvious that *everybody* would have quit. So instead, he dissolved the game.

 

*heh*

 

Cheating SOB. He deserved it, really."

 

 

Chuck and his buddy had already decided to leave the game, but that wasn't good enough. Shame on them for dragging out a bad situation and making it worse. Instead of being adult and walking out, they had to be disruptive when there was no call for it. And they were sneaky about it too, by not letting the GM know what was up (that they were leaving). It is people like this who give Gamers a bad name. Seriously.

Actually, it's GM's like the one described who give Gamers a bad name. And while most of the time one finds no choice but to walk away, there's no tragedy when one receives their comeuppence.

 

On a related note: Assuming that a group of Players are sticking with a game, the Players should never plot in secret against the GM. The PC's plans should always be open to the GM during a game because the GM should know everything that is going on. RPGs are not competions between the GM and Players. Ever.

Unless of course the GM turns it into one by spoiling some players and screwing over others. And insisting the players' every thought be known to the GM? Did you come from the Big Brother school of game mastering?

 

This DM that Chuck talks about, Dave (whom I do not know, but that is hardly the point), had Dave been a better, more confident DM, he could have derailed the PC's plans. But the Player's plans? No, he couldn't control that at all... which is as it should be. However, it seems the Players had him cowed. Just as well that such a game broke up. But even if Dave wasn't fit to run a game, it still doesn't justify plotting against the guy. Leaving the game peacefully would have been the best choice.

So in your world the GM can do anything he wants, treat the players like dirt, and nothing would be wrong? But if a player does anything but meekly accept it or run away he's suddenly Beyond The Pale?

 

Looks like a double standard to me.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

> Chuck and his buddy had already decided to leave the game, but that

> wasn't good enough. Shame on them for dragging out a bad situation and

> making it worse.

 

Worse? We -- and not just me and Bob, but everyone (except the DM'S Buddy, of course) -- were bored out of our minds when we were following Dave's hideously pointless plot line. The sessions where we were going on 'Plan Destroy The World' were the only real fun anybody had, even just the spectators.

 

> Instead of being adult and walking out, they had to be disruptive when

> there was no call for it.

 

Disruptive? How can it be 'disruptive' when watching it happen was the most fun anybody in the group (save Dave and his accomplice) had had in months?

 

[snip]

> On a related note: Assuming that a group of Players are sticking with a

> game, the Players should never plot in secret against the GM.

 

Even when the GM uses out-of-game knowledge to screw players? 'Cause Dave did.

 

I mean, seriously. If you said anything in his hearing, the antagonist NPCs would know it whether or not they had any actual way of finding out or not. We had to plan in secret just to have any effing chance. I remember in one other game of his, he retconned and teleported an entire freaking invasion fleet across half the damn ocean just so they wouldn't actually be walking into the trap we'd spent mucho time and effort laying for them, but would instead be attacking our relatively undefended port city instead -- despite the fact that there was no possible way in-game they could have known where our forces had concentrated, or where we'd pulled troops away from him in order to reinforce the anticipated point of contact.

 

Oh yes, and despite my character making a Knowledge (War) check at a DC of eighty-four(*), he somehow completely missed a simple deep raid into his logistics area, despite the fact that comprehending the concept of Sherman's march to the sea is DC 20 at best.

 

Dave not only used knowledge his NPCs shouldn't have had, he wouldn't give PCs knowledge they *should* have had. Except for his buddy's, of course. I once saw that guy successfully pull of a Diplomacy feat that my character had "no chance" of doing, despite the fact I had 30+ ranks in the relevant skill, and his character had zero.

 

(*) Epic-level game.

 

> The PC's plans should always be open to the GM during a game because

> the GM should know everything that is going on.

 

Only if the GM is playing honest.

 

> RPGs are not competions between the GM and Players. Ever.

 

> This DM that Chuck talks about, Dave (whom I do not know, but that is

> hardly the point), had Dave been a better, more confident DM, he could

> have derailed the PC's plans.

 

Actually, there were at least three simple ways he could have derailed the plan we *did* hit him with, too -- if he'd thought of them.

 

He didn't. And we damn sure didn't waste any time pointing them out.

 

Now, a DM who *is* playing fair with me... my God, in the campaign I'm currently in, I've sent the DM notes helping him debug his scenario even as I'm playing it, to the point of giving him tactical advice on how to best counter my character. This is because a DM who plays straight with me deserves the best I can give him.

 

And a DM who fucks me over deserves the worst I can give him, and if I'm inspired enough, my worst can be quite worse indeed.

 

> But the Player's plans? No, he couldn't control that at all... which is as it

> should be. However, it seems the Players had him cowed. Just as well that

> such a game broke up. But even if Dave wasn't fit to run a game, it still

> doesn't justify plotting against the guy.

 

No, even when you blatantly cheat in favor of friends, screw over your players with out-of-game knowledge, *and* completely fail to be either creative and/or entertaining when you do it, your players should still never, ever, ever actually do anything against you, except *maybe* suck it up and walk away.

[Chuckg]

Re: Games gone awry

 

PS -- Magmarock, I am interested in hearing about the incident that you referred to. I can't decide whether or not the two cases were parallel until after I hear about the other one.

 

So, what happened?

[sinanju]

Die, Customers, Die!

 

We were playing a fantasy game. The PCs were employees of a large caravan company, fairly powerful. We were troubleshooters, sent to handle special problems. We were assigned to help defend a town which was being victimized by unreasonably successful bandits (since our caravans were getting munched on a regular basis).

 

The GM had a history of turning every game into a GM-vs-Players contest. We spent quite a few game sessions struggling to get the people we were trying to help to give US some help. But they were, every one of them, mulishly uncooperative. At one point my character, a samurai far from home, discovered that the miners (who were supposed to provide us with material) had decided to strike.

 

I traveled to the mine where I sought out the guy in charge. "Go back to work," I told him. He refused. I'd had enough. "Obey or die," I said. He refused. I whacked off his head. I turned to the new leader. "Obey or die," I told him.

 

HE refused! Whack! I did this twice--TWICE--more, before they finally went back to work. I'd had enough. The other players had had enough. Next time the bad guys attacked the town, we didn't lift a finger except in self-defense.

 

One of our (elven) mages had previously cased the Mayor's office; before we left town, he teleported in to steal the jeweled bad of office. Then he and the other mage in the party raised a huge earth elemental and a huge fire elemental and razed the town. The elven mage/player was heard to comment that his elf had decided that the Dark Elves were right after all--humans were stupid and wretched and didn't deserve to live.

 

So...a few years later, the primary bad guy in MY fantasy game was Yade (Yet Another Dark Elf), essentially that PC (now an NPC) after he'd spent a few years gathering resources for a genocidal crusade against humankind....

[Chuckg]

Re: Die, Customers, Die!

 

Were your characters neutral or good-aligned? I can see a group of particularly 'grey' neutrals going off like this...