Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, from what I heard the GM was that player's bitch, along with everyone else except the one player who didn't come there to just be ordered around by a bully.

Lord, how does a group like that happen? (Still need a head spinning smiley) I'm
glad the victim of that really awful gamer abuse was willing to try again with a better group after that, and didn't become some anti-gamer hardcase.

The same way a group like my old one happens.  A player frequently got the DM drunk because he knows he becomes more free with the magic items after a few 40s.  Granted the game sucked for the rest of us but that didn't stop the pandering for free ex pees and phat lootz.

Too much GM power flexing?  Too many players not calling bullshit?

I was the gamer who decided he'd had enough, coincidentally.

Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, from what I heard the GM was that player's bitch, along with everyone else except the one player who didn't come there to just be ordered around by a bully.

Lord, how does a group like that happen? (Still need a head spinning smiley) I'm
glad the victim of that really awful gamer abuse was willing to try again with a better group after that, and didn't become some anti-gamer hardcase.

They happen. The two types I've most commonly seen is a GM who is terrified of confrontation and hostility, or situations where a player is the GM's significant other, and the SO plays the relationship card.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252021They happen. The two types I've most commonly seen is a GM who is terrified of confrontation and hostility, or situations where a player is the GM's significant other, and the SO plays the relationship card.

The first one made me picture a gaming table where the GM stood up shouting "Why can't we all just get along!?" before running off to cry somewhere.  :rotfl:

The SO factor is one I've never encountered.  I myself have gamed with two girlfriends before and one unfortunately uncomfortable fling.  None of those women every expected special treatment from me whether I was a player or GM.  I dare say they would have been pissed at me if I treated them like that.

I'd tell the 'bully' player that he can't do that.

If it's not in-character for his character to stop, he should have to make a new character who won't act like that.

Quote from: Demonoid;251490Have you ever had one player kill another player's character, take his stuff, abuse him because his player character was more powerful, etc?

If so how do you handle it? Do you allow PvP and just tell the player with the 1st level character always being pushed around by a 12 level character "Too bad" or what?

If it's someone being an assmunch, that's one thing. But we tend to set up PvP conflicts as one of the main drivers of our plots and stories. For example, in one game I played in during university, the big bad of the entire campaign was a PC  who'd become completely evil during the course of play.

Right now, in our D&D 4e game, two of three PCs are evil, and this leads to PvP conflict all the time. For example, one of the PCs is an evil fey pact warlock. Whenever he kills someone he's cursed, he can teleport a short distance. My character is a fairly upright former legionnaire. While trying to penetrate an abandoned keep that had been occupied by barbarians, we discovered a girl who'd been taken captive by them. She was unconscious and I was carrying her around as attempted to find a way to get through the portcullis into the keep. After a few moments, the warlock leaned over while I was looking at the windows, shot the girl in the head with his eldritch blast, and teleported to the other side of the portcullis, where he could use the gate's winch.

Trouble ensued, and it's really shaped the relationship since between my character and his (they were starting to become friends, but since then there's been a coolness between them despite mutual goals).

The campaign previous to this one was a kind of George R.R. Martin-does-steampunk thing using Iron Heroes which had huge amounts of PvP. We each controlled multiple PCs who knew of the others and switched allegiances between them regularly. Even within a party, our PCs goals were often opposed to one another, whether obviously or not.

We don't get OOC and IC confused though. That's one of our big strengths in doing this kind of thing. I don't take anything Rob does in the game personally, and neither does he take anything I do personally. We treat PvP as a chance for real surprise to enter the game - I may have an idea for what the DM plans to happen next game, but what Rob's PCs are up to is always unpredictable. We're also given a lot of leeway most of the time - if we want to spend a session dicking around hatching plots instead of pursuing the Duchess or whatever, our DM will often let us do that (or he may set the situation so that we can do that while we pursue the plot).

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252056If it's someone being an assmunch, that's one thing. But we tend to set up PvP conflicts as one of the main drivers of our plots and stories. For example, in one game I played in during university, the big bad of the entire campaign was a PC  who'd become completely evil during the course of play.

Right now, in our D&D 4e game, two of three PCs are evil, and this leads to PvP conflict all the time. For example, one of the PCs is an evil fey pact warlock. Whenever he kills someone he's cursed, he can teleport a short distance. My character is a fairly upright former legionnaire. While trying to penetrate an abandoned keep that had been occupied by barbarians, we discovered a girl who'd been taken captive by them. She was unconscious and I was carrying her around as attempted to find a way to get through the portcullis into the keep. After a few moments, the warlock leaned over while I was looking at the windows, shot the girl in the head with his eldritch blast, and teleported to the other side of the portcullis, where he could use the gate's winch.

Trouble ensued, and it's really shaped the relationship since between my character and his (they were starting to become friends, but since then there's been a coolness between them despite mutual goals).

The campaign previous to this one was a kind of George R.R. Martin-does-steampunk thing using Iron Heroes which had huge amounts of PvP. We each controlled multiple PCs who knew of the others and switched allegiances between them regularly. Even within a party, our PCs goals were often opposed to one another, whether obviously or not.

Why would the group operate together? What possible rationale would they have to operate together?

Your PC is clearly not 'upright', in that he stands by and allows the warlock to use human beings as spell ingrediants. And how can he ever trust said warlock? in a pinch, there's nothing to stop the warlock from zapping your PC.

No offense intended, but it seems a very badly thought-out campaign concept.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252060Why would the group operate together? What possible rationale would they have to operate together?

Quite a few reasons. Firstly, common employment and with that, common goals. The PCs were all mercenaries hired by the local government as part of a punitive expedition against the barbarians. Secondly, mutual peril - if one is deep in enemy territory, one can't really afford to spurn would-be allies. Thirdly, personal loyalty. Plenty of people IRL put up with their friends and allies doing horrible things, or things they disagree with, because they're friends with them. Edit: Another example would be working with coworkers towards a mutual goal b/c they're the best suited despite disliking them personally.

QuoteYour PC is clearly not 'upright', in that he stands by and allows the warlock to use human beings as spell ingrediants. And how can he ever trust said warlock? in a pinch, there's nothing to stop the warlock from zapping your PC.

You misread that. My character didn't "stand by and allow" that. The warlock waited until I was focused on something else and took advantage of that. As I said, trouble ensued. Specifically, my character ended up grabbing him once the gate was open and threatening to kill him if he did that again.

What saved his character was, as I said, that were outside a keep full of barbarians who were in a high state of alert, and there was no feasible way to punish him without failing in the far more important task of getting into the keep.  

QuoteNo offense intended, but it seems a very badly thought-out campaign concept.

As I said, you appear to've misread or misunderstood part of what I wrote there. If you're used to playing games in which PC cooperation is strictly enforced, it may not be clear how one can run games in which the PCs are working at cross-purposes, but it's actually quite easy to do, and it can be quite fun to play out. The "campaign concept" works just fine - it brings the PCs together and gives them things to do and to respond to.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252067As I said, you appear to've misread or misunderstood part of what I wrote there. If you're used to playing games in which PC cooperation is strictly enforced, it may not be clear how one can run games in which the PCs are working at cross-purposes, but it's actually quite easy to do, and it can be quite fun to play out. The "campaign concept" works just fine - it brings the PCs together and gives them things to do and to respond to.

I'm used to games where things make sense.

In the tight little world of a small unit/group operateing in a hazardous environment, there has to be a basis of trust. Anyone who has served in an infantry role in the military can attest to this.

The idea of  two such disparate PCs with completely incompatable moral systems continuing to operate together, trust one another in combat, standing guard, etc., makes no sense.

Your PC threatened the warlock-why would the warlock not simply kill your PC the next time the warlock is on guard and your PC is asleep?

Its your campaign, of course. I'm more accustomed to gaming with older players who require a bit more thought into a campaign concept than a random group gathered without any common uniteing thread.

Of course, what your players accept is the bar a campaign is measured by.

Quote from: Demonoid;252017Mate, from what I heard the GM was that player's bitch, along with everyone else except the one player who didn't come there to just be ordered around by a bully.

No. If a player's character reached 20th level starting from 1st level in D&D, then the DM is the player's bitch. If the player is telling other players what to do, then the DM is the player's bitch.

The DM needs to take control of that group. He should begin by pinning the 20th level character's player to the table and humping his hams as a symbolic dominance ritual, then as he gets off, pick up the character sheet and say, "rocks fall, you die!" and tear it up into little pieces and cast them in the tear-stained face of the munchkin primadonna player.

Then the group can start off on a clean slate and develop into a functional happy group. After the DM humps their hams.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;252098Then the group can start off on a clean slate and develop into a functional happy group. After the DM humps their hams.

I've heard of this type of dynamic. It's the Deliverence -school of GMing right ? "Squeal like a pig..." or swine if you prefer

(You country boys and your weird ways)

Regards,
David R

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252078I'm used to games where things make sense.

In the tight little world of a small unit/group operateing in a hazardous environment, there has to be a basis of trust. Anyone who has served in an infantry role in the military can attest to this.

The idea of  two such disparate PCs with completely incompatable moral systems continuing to operate together, trust one another in combat, standing guard, etc., makes no sense.

Happens all the time, both IRL and in fiction. People with incompatible moral systems can get along just fine, and even trust one another so long as they understand one another's moral outlooks and thus can predict the other person's typical behaviour. My character understood _why_ the warlock did it, he simply found the moral reasoning reprehensible. Now, it's not a total trust between my character and his, but it's not an unreasonable trust either - we each understand the sort of way the other one thinks and know how far we can rely on them. That sort of relation is quite common, and when combined with a professional environment with shared goals and perils (mercenaries deep in enemy territory trying to accomplish a goal), it's not implausible at all.

QuoteYour PC threatened the warlock-why would the warlock not simply kill your PC the next time the warlock is on guard and your PC is asleep?

Because the warlock needed my character alive in order to get out of the situation. More than I needed him, actually. The murder wasn't random - it was purposeful. There would be no purpose in killing me unless I was actively trying to kill him, and he knew in turn that as a morally upright individual, I wasn't going to simply murder him in his sleep or seek some sort of revenge the moment his back was turned. He had no fear of legal consequences, since there wouldn't be any.

QuoteIts your campaign, of course. I'm more accustomed to gaming with older players who require a bit more thought into a campaign concept than a random group gathered without any common uniteing thread.

Of course, what your players accept is the bar a campaign is measured by.

That's a pretty lame dig on your part, especially since it's baseless and inaccurate. We put a great deal of thought into why our characters would associate. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's less pressure in our games for characters to continue to associate with one another than in a typical PC group. As a result, rather than simply relying on OOC contracts or declarations or whatever, we work to find reasons within the game for PCs to associate with one another.

If you can't understand why two people with different moral outlooks but shared goals and a common enemy can't associate with one another professionally, you're simply being obtuse.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106Happens all the time, both IRL and in fiction. People with incompatible moral systems can get along just fine, and even trust one another so long as they understand one another's moral outlooks and thus can predict the other person's typical behaviour. My character understood _why_ the warlock did it, he simply found the moral reasoning reprehensible. Now, it's not a total trust between my character and his, but it's not an unreasonable trust either - we each understand the sort of way the other one thinks and know how far we can rely on them. That sort of relation is quite common, and when combined with a professional environment with shared goals and perils (mercenaries deep in enemy territory trying to accomplish a goal), it's not implausible at all.

Speaking as one who has spent time in hostile environments in the squad setting, that's not the way it works. That's a pressure cooker under the best conditions.

Run your campaign the way you want, but don't try to sell me the idea it flows.

In RL, that kind of difference would end up in a transfer or a fragging.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106Because the warlock needed my character alive in order to get out of the situation. More than I needed him, actually. The murder wasn't random - it was purposeful. There would be no purpose in killing me unless I was actively trying to kill him, and he knew in turn that as a morally upright individual, I wasn't going to simply murder him in his sleep or seek some sort of revenge the moment his back was turned. He had no fear of legal consequences, since there wouldn't be any.

Again, fine for your campaign. But in RL, that sort of thing gets settled.

Obviously, your concept of 'morally upright' is a long, long ways from mine.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106That's a pretty lame dig on your part, especially since it's baseless and inaccurate. We put a great deal of thought into why our characters would associate. In fact, as I mentioned elsewhere, there's less pressure in our games for characters to continue to associate with one another than in a typical PC group. As a result, rather than simply relying on OOC contracts or declarations or whatever, we work to find reasons within the game for PCs to associate with one another.

I didn't mean it as a dig, but I called it like I see it. Its the round peg in the square hole-you can hammer it in, but that doesn't mean its a good fit. If your PC is really morally upright, dealing with a sociopath isn't going to work out. And the warlock's going to get very tired of threats-assuming he has a low enough ego to be threatened over an act he considers insignificant and just take it. But maybe the other player is running a humble warlock. Otherwise, its an insult that would be addressed the instant your PC is no longer essential.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252106If you can't understand why two people with different moral outlooks but shared goals and a common enemy can't associate with one another professionally, you're simply being obtuse.

Actually, I've been in that situation (different moral outlooks in a hostile environment) in RL. Which is why I'm saying its lame. Morality is non-negociable. I can see your PC waiting until the right moment, but to ignore the murder is to accept the murder. It isn't a moral outlook-its a murder.

Again, its probably an age & experience gap. And definately a radically different view of morality.

Its your campaign-run it how you want. I'm just tossing out my opinion, no digs intended.

Quote from: OneTinSoldier;252111Speaking as one who has spent time in hostile environments in the squad setting, that's not the way it works. That's a pressure cooker under the best conditions.

Run your campaign the way you want, but don't try to sell me the idea it flows.

In RL, that kind of difference would end up in a transfer or a fragging.

1) Save that "internet hard man" nonsense for someone else, tin soldier.

2) You still don't seem to understand that this event happened in the middle of a combat zone, in a mediaeval / pseudo-classical setting. A transfer is something that happens in a modern military between missions.

If you mean "I don't see why the characters would continue to associate after this incident once they were no longer in peril" I can answer that question too. But it's a different part of the story than the one I've recounted so far, which was the portion where in the middle of a combat situation one character did something morally reprehensible, and another chastised him for it and told him that he would suffer serious consequences if he did it in future.

Do you want to ask that question? If so, please do, instead of talking about whatever the hell it is you think you're talking about.

QuoteAgain, fine for your campaign. But in RL, that sort of thing gets settled.

... And it did, eventually. You're rambling now without paying attention to the things I have and haven't said.

QuoteObviously, your concept of 'morally upright' is a long, long ways from mine.

Evidently. I do consider someone who disapproves of child murder and attempts to prevent it morally upright, whether or not they hew the child murderer to death on the spot or not. I don't quite understand why you find this so contentious. Can you explain?

QuoteI didn't mean it as a dig, but I called it like I see it. Its the round peg in the square hole-you can hammer it in, but that doesn't mean its a good fit. If your PC is really morally upright, dealing with a sociopath isn't going to work out. And the warlock's going to get very tired of threats-assuming he has a low enough ego to be threatened over an act he considers insignificant and just take it. But maybe the other player is running a humble warlock. Otherwise, its an insult that would be addressed the instant your PC is no longer essential.

Now you're simply pretending that you're playing the character yourself. You're not.

Once again, both myself and my character had pretty good ideas about how that warlock would react to the threat, and how he would act in future in regard to my character.

QuoteActually, I've been in that situation (different moral outlooks in a hostile environment) in RL. Which is why I'm saying its lame. Morality is non-negociable.

That's simply factually incorrect, as well as mis-spelt. You want to talk about relevant expertise, I specialised in ethics in my undergrad.

QuoteI can see your PC waiting until the right moment, but to ignore the murder is to accept the murder. It isn't a moral outlook-its a murder.

He didn't ignore the murder. He simply didn't react to it by murdering the warlock in retaliation for it. You seem to be presenting the possible options as simply being killing the warlock in retaliation, immediately abandoning the warlock, or accepting the murder as justified and legitimate. That's an impoverished and incomplete list of possible responses.

QuoteAgain, its probably an age & experience gap. And definately a radically different view of morality.

Lame excuses.

QuoteIts your campaign-run it how you want. I'm just tossing out my opinion, no digs intended.

Your opinion is based on an impoverished understanding of morality and conduct, as well as a very incomplete picture of how the campaign as a whole has gone so far. You're jumping to conclusions, and not very good conclusions at that, and it's frustrating as hell for me as a result.

Good thing the two of you aren't in the same game.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;2521152) You still don't seem to understand that this event happened in the middle of a combat zone, in a mediaeval / pseudo-classical setting. A transfer is something that happens in a modern military between missions.

If you mean "I don't see why the characters would continue to associate after this incident once they were no longer in peril" I can answer that question too. But it's a different part of the story than the one I've recounted so far, which was the portion where in the middle of a combat situation one character did something morally reprehensible, and another chastised him for it and told him that he would suffer serious consequences if he did it in future.

I understood the conditions. What I do not understand is the kind of twisted reasoning that made two such radically different people A) think they could work together, or B) continue to work together. Doesn't flow.

Yes, your PC issued a threat. Yes, the warlock took it.

Still leaves the issue of the murder ignored. One kid dead is acceptable, two is not? Interesting concept of 'morally upright'.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115Evidently. I do consider someone who disapproves of child murder and attempts to prevent it morally upright, whether or not they hew the child murderer to death on the spot or not. I don't quite understand why you find this so contentious. Can you explain?

Sure. The warlock's still alive & still in the party. Either your PC has a 'one dead kid' tolerance, or he's not morally upright, or the whole concept that binds the party is really lame.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115That's simply factually incorrect, as well as mis-spelt. You want to talk about relevant expertise, I specialised in ethics in my undergrad.

That one was funny. So you read about ethics.

Myself, I was a dual history major, which I never used.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115He didn't ignore the murder. He simply didn't react to it by murdering the warlock in retaliation for it. You seem to be presenting the possible options as simply being killing the warlock in retaliation, immediately abandoning the warlock, or accepting the murder as justified and legitimate. That's an impoverished and incomplete list of possible responses.

I dunno-from a couple decades of dealing with criminals, that's pretty much how it plays out in RL: you act, you accept, or you rationalize. Of the latter, "I'll do something about it later" is usally the most common. Normally offered up when whatever was done has come back and is about to bite the excusee in a major way.

Like I said: age & experience gap. I deal with ethics, morality, & legality every day. More people end up in serious trouble for not acting on what others did, than for what they themselves did. Its called the Splash Effect by some.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;252115Your opinion is based on an impoverished understanding of morality and conduct, as well as a very incomplete picture of how the campaign as a whole has gone so far. You're jumping to conclusions, and not very good conclusions at that, and it's frustrating as hell for me as a result.

Its not an opinion. Morality is an absolute.

But back to the campaign: you've got evil & alleged good working side by side.

Or, if you dislike those terms, a moral person and a sociopath working together.

Does not fly. That's the tried & true 'meet in a tavern, stranger offers a job' campaign starter. Not that I'm knocking that-to each their own. But don't try to sell it as having depth. Every campaign has its cheese issues-that's an unavoidable aspect of RPGs-at some points in the plot you have to say 'screw it, that's the way its gonna play out'.

No problem with those, but don't try to say it flows. Its two players, each with a PC they think is kewl, working out excuses to keep them both in the same campaign. Fine & good, but that's what it is.

No reason to get frustrated-you're reading too much into my posts. Lacking the non-verbal cues you would be getting if we were discussing this accross a table, you're taking what I'm saying a lot harsher than I mean. This is a bull session about PvP'ing and gaming.

To show you what I mean, I'll sum up my position: your campaigns party concept is lame. Your PC concept (upright morally) is not being role-played.

Neither is important. Its your game. Enjoy it.
 
P.S. Your game system sucks, too.