if i were to explain more of the sessions it would be throwing DM under the bus and i do not want to do that because as you say he is a nice guy, slightly unfair only.
You say you don't want to throw your DM under the bus, but then proceeded to do just that.
I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter what i tell you. Because you have already decided i am bad
No, you did something bad. There's a crucial difference. If there's anything to take away from this is not to act that way again. If you can learn that, then this was productive.
i know i had high expectations on the game because it is a fantasy game. i believed and still believe that it should be adventurous and interesting where your imagination draw the line. i came to realize that playing dnd the way they do, i might as well play a game of chess or Warcry.
Yes it is all that, but you have to realize that your imagination includes everyone at the table. It's a collective "you" not a singular "you."
We haven't heard the point of view of the DM or the other players, it is quite possible you were wronged, it is also possible that you were just in an incompatable group where the DM and/or other players wanted a differnt type of game than you.
As others have said doing disruptive things because another player is doing so is no excuse, if you ar enot happy with the way the DM deals with what you see as disruptive play then you either accept the game as it is or leave it.
To have a D&D game with more than one player the party need to have a reason to stay together, one member of the party committing murder and trying to lay the blame on another member of the party means that those characters will never be able to share the same goals. "What my character would do" could resultin:
The Leonin getting arrested and found guilty of murder
The Leonin on being investigated explained he had given you the dagger (possibly under a zone of truth spell, making you you of interest to the authorities (and if the Leonin knows where you are he will tell them
The Leonin trying to kill you
The Leonin running to a distant place away from the law.
Whatever happens the two characters are not going to be able to continue in the same adventure.
You may argue OK see what happens and whoever dies / gets locked up in prison rolls a new character but that isn't going to work you have taken an issue you have outside of the game into the game so changing character isn't going to change that, because you the guy who plays the Leonin cheats your character will do things to drive him out the party, because you tried to kill of his character he may do the same to you. If you try to play together you everythoing would end up being focused on the two of you trying to get revenge on the other / making their game so miserable they decide to quit.
Different players have different amounts of tolerance for tension between members of the group, for example in some groups having a character who steals from the innocent and another who is Lawful good would create an interesting tension in the group in others it would be unacceptable. Kills hirelings because the are a "cost with no benefit" cause too much tension for nearly any group that isn't in an evil campaign (Your character was CE with that attitude). (in character they would get thrown out the party if they found out). Framing party members for murder is too much for any group.
Look, i have accepted that i got kicked all i wanted was to know your opinions, i stated several times already that i understand what you guys are saying and i have explained as much as i need to, if i were to explain more of the sessions it would be throwing DM under the bus and i do not want to do that because as you say he is a nice guy, slightly unfair only. The leonin is a nice guy too, but he cheats and so on like i stated earlier and talking to DM about it didnt change anything.
I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter what i tell you. Because you have already decided i am bad so i am just going to let it be like that, most probably i am a bad player because it was my first time playing DnD and noone really told me where the line is drawn.
i know i had high expectations on the game because it is a fantasy game. i believed and still believe that it should be adventurous and interesting where your imagination draw the line. i came to realize that playing dnd the way they do, i might as well play a game of chess or Warcry.
So i am not mad for being kicked from the game honestly, i am only confused over it. And i generally wanted to see of there are other players that think like me. But from what i have seen, other players dont obviously.
Other players would find this acceptable, and some DMs too. Problem for you was, that wasn't what your table was made up of.
The thing you have to realize is that you came into a thread asking to opinions, and people gave those. They didn't line up with your expectations, but you asked, so people gave them. Some of us have even said we don't really get why the DM didn't put his foot down earlier. You can't be mad that people are going to continue to give those opinions, even if they don't line up with what you want.
D&D is a co-operative story telling imagination game that first and foremost, is about the people around the table. It's not about the stories, or the roleplay, or the combat at first glance. It's about the humans behind the sheets. I don't think you are a bad guy, and I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of being one. I think your play was shortsighted and selfish, but you said you were new to the game. We all started out fresh and made mistakes too. Your problem, both at the table and is this thread, is that you are reacting in a way that is polarizing and to certain people, they would see that as a negative reaction. People don't take that well, and in turn they feel the need to call it out, like I am now. I'm going to be respectful to you, I mean you no personal offense, but that's the tone you can infer in most posts. The reactions that you then get seem very heavy handed to the point of "WELL OF COURSE YOU MESSED UP, WHY DON'T YOU SEE THAT", and this in turn creates a bad cycle of negativity. You can't control the way others respond, but you can control the way you do. You can steer the course of the conversation with how you post.
The problem with "The line" is that every table is going to be different and every DM/GM is going to have much different rules when it comes to that social piece. Ask those questions up front, if you're a new player in a new group, ask for a session 0 or a sidebar of hey, how does this table roll. That way you don't have to figure it out on the fly. Don't be afraid to apologize for things you mess up and take ownership of those mistakes. When you do mess up though, take a step back and try and take it all in. Does it make sense? Are there reasons why it's happening? Am I happy here? The big thing to me when reading your posts is that you really weren't happy with how the game was going, so you decided to take the matter into your own hands, and honestly? Part of that is ok. It's totally fine to be selfish and realize your own wants and needs and try to act on them. It stops being fine when it infringes on someone else though.
Reading both your initial question and the justifications, I wouldn't want to play with that group and would've left. If a player is getting favoritism and cheating and the DM basically just had us doing nothing for a few sessions, I would've left and found a game more to my liking.
If I was part of the party and a player tried what you did I also either would've asked for that player to leave or I would've left. I think both groups in this handling things poorly and you should both try to find groups better suited to your style of play.
Yes, i dont want to be rude and ignore comments, but i see no reason to repeat myself. However i am thankful for all comments even though it proves me being wrong.
by the replies i got i have come to a better understanding of things and i can understand what i did was wrong, even though i felt forced to do something. If there will be a next time, i will not act the same way again.
This is the kind of trap a lot of new players fall into, where the open premise of the game tricks people into thinking their in-game actions don't have real-world consequences. I'm not saying that's all on you; spotlight-hogging and cheating are also bad and diminish the group's fun, but the way to address that isn't to pull similar shenanigans in- game, the best way is just to have a frank, honest discussion out of game about how the other player's actions make you feel. 9.9 times out of 10, the answer to most inter-player dilemmas is "just talk about it, try to come to a solution together."
Now, on a slightly more constructive in-game note: I totally get the appeal of playing evil/ morally grey characters. It's fun, you get to play against type (unless you're evil irl but that's a different issue), and with the rught party, it's a really fun dynamic. That all comes with a big "But..." attached however. BUT when you're being evil and scheming and manipulating, you rarely, almost never want to make your fellow players the targets of your schemes. As an evil character in a larger party, you should view your party as either the few people in the world you actually have some affection for, OR as means to an end that you must do your utmost to endear yourself to so they'll follow you into your glorious conquest, and must ensure become as powerful as you can help them get so that none of your enemies can stand against you.
When you target your party members in these kinds of schemes (see The Wangrod Defense that was linked earlier, it's a great video and Coville has a lot of great stuff in general about figuring out the ins and outs of the game), it's basically impossible for the other character's PLAYER not to feel bad about it personally, and feeling targeted like that will cause them to get angry and everyone being upset will cause a feedback loop of suckyness until nobody it having fun.
That isn't to say "inter-party conflict is impossible without inter-player conflict", but if you do decide that it would be cool from a storytelling perspective for your character to have beef with another character, it has to be mutual between the players. Pitch the idea to them out of game, talk about what it would mean, see what the other player is and isn't ok with going towards this beef, that way nobody's story is stepping on the toes of anyone else's.
Sorry if some of these points overlap with ones already stated, I just wanted to add on these few points as well. If this happened in my game and you were a more experienced player acting this way, I would also have kicked you, however considering you're new I consider this more a learning opportunity.
Yes, there's a line between your character being chaotic neutral and being a raving psychopath. People who act like that in real life end up in prison or dead in very short order. Your play was kind of toxic, and probably drove a monster truck through whatever storyline the DM was meticulously crafting.
Things a Chaotic Neutral character might do from time to time:
Steal a random object of inconsequential value from another player
Disobey an order or plan in the middle of combat, in a hopefully amusing manner
Beat up an officious or oppressive npc
Give away all their gold to a random peasant
Make friends with a goblin
Get into a drunken brawl in a bar
Even an outright evil character should try to bond with the rest of the party, in order to advance their own goals in the end. It's a long game. Loooong. Some chaotic neutral people in real life: Alex Higgins, Paris Hilton, Kanye West, Courtney Love, John Daly, Oliver Reed, Ozzy Osbourne etc. Think hellraisers, rebels, nonconformists and so on.
Chaotic Neutral is about being Unrestrained. You don’t care about much unless there is something in it for you, you have no morals or ethics really, and you take exception to anyone who tries to order people around or shove their opinions down people’s throats.
That's what I tell new players about that alignment in my game. In my opinion, the original poster was playing that alignment perfectly. He was told not to do something, he went ahead and did it anyway. He didn't like the rules, so he broke them. That's classic for Chaotic Neutral. When there's a conflict with a Chaotic Neutral, given that they don't like anyone much or dislike anyone either, they'll usually do something bad.
I don't really like having someone play Chaotic Neutral, because if they play it well, the party pretty much has to pay them in order to get them to do anything helpful. It's not a heroic motivation, and my games are supposed to be heroic fantasy. They have to be given a larger share of the treasure, or priority on magic items, whatever. There has to be something extra in it or they won't do anything, and if they don't get what they want, they will help themselves to it.
And while we're on the subject, a more experienced DM may have handled it better, but it's one of those instances where it's quite difficult to manage. Myself, I'd have made it so when the authorities discover a murdered child, they realise the leonin has been framed and interview them as a witness, leading them to yourself as the culprit. Your character is arrested and tried, and unless they roll a natural 20 for persuasion in court, is sentenced to death in the most grisly method imaginable. The session ends with you being asked to write a new character for the next session, and I'd probably take some time to have a chat about role-playing being about more than just the character's alignment. :)
The original poster apologized and said that they were convinced now that they had, in fact, been in the wrong. Good enough for me, and I will them well.
And while we're on the subject, a more experienced DM may have handled it better, but it's one of those instances where it's quite difficult to manage. Myself, I'd have made it so when the authorities discover a murdered child, they realise the leonin has been framed and interview them as a witness, leading them to yourself as the culprit. Your character is arrested and tried, and unless they roll a natural 20 for persuasion in court, is sentenced to death in the most grisly method imaginable. The session ends with you being asked to write a new character for the next session, and I'd probably take some time to have a chat about role-playing being about more than just the character's alignment. :)
It's ok for DMs to announce a short break so they can take a player aside for a minute when they think things are going to go south fast. Not everything has to be dealt with in game. If you think the game is going to suck when players follow through on their chosen course, I think it's usually best to make sure that's really, really what they want to do (and make sure they're aware of why it might not be what they really, really want to do) and if they reconsider to hit the undo button and backtrack a little bit. Not to allow players to take back dumb actions that'll land their characters in trouble, mind, it's about not spending time on a game that sucks.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I read your excuses before I replied. I stand by my comments. You were playing in a manner that I don’t allow at my table when I’m the DM.
Professional computer geek
I respect your your opinion, thank you for you replies.
Two wrongs don’t make a right. It really is as simple as that.
And you got them. We think you acted badly.
Yeah I don't think we really asked or needed any more explanation.
You say you don't want to throw your DM under the bus, but then proceeded to do just that.
No, you did something bad. There's a crucial difference. If there's anything to take away from this is not to act that way again. If you can learn that, then this was productive.
Ok so now you've been told.
Yes it is all that, but you have to realize that your imagination includes everyone at the table. It's a collective "you" not a singular "you."
If you're still confused that means you're not understanding or admitting that what you did was wrong.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
We haven't heard the point of view of the DM or the other players, it is quite possible you were wronged, it is also possible that you were just in an incompatable group where the DM and/or other players wanted a differnt type of game than you.
As others have said doing disruptive things because another player is doing so is no excuse, if you ar enot happy with the way the DM deals with what you see as disruptive play then you either accept the game as it is or leave it.
To have a D&D game with more than one player the party need to have a reason to stay together, one member of the party committing murder and trying to lay the blame on another member of the party means that those characters will never be able to share the same goals. "What my character would do" could resultin:
Whatever happens the two characters are not going to be able to continue in the same adventure.
You may argue OK see what happens and whoever dies / gets locked up in prison rolls a new character but that isn't going to work you have taken an issue you have outside of the game into the game so changing character isn't going to change that, because you the guy who plays the Leonin cheats your character will do things to drive him out the party, because you tried to kill of his character he may do the same to you. If you try to play together you everythoing would end up being focused on the two of you trying to get revenge on the other / making their game so miserable they decide to quit.
Different players have different amounts of tolerance for tension between members of the group, for example in some groups having a character who steals from the innocent and another who is Lawful good would create an interesting tension in the group in others it would be unacceptable. Kills hirelings because the are a "cost with no benefit" cause too much tension for nearly any group that isn't in an evil campaign (Your character was CE with that attitude). (in character they would get thrown out the party if they found out). Framing party members for murder is too much for any group.
Other players would find this acceptable, and some DMs too. Problem for you was, that wasn't what your table was made up of.
The thing you have to realize is that you came into a thread asking to opinions, and people gave those. They didn't line up with your expectations, but you asked, so people gave them. Some of us have even said we don't really get why the DM didn't put his foot down earlier. You can't be mad that people are going to continue to give those opinions, even if they don't line up with what you want.
D&D is a co-operative story telling imagination game that first and foremost, is about the people around the table. It's not about the stories, or the roleplay, or the combat at first glance. It's about the humans behind the sheets. I don't think you are a bad guy, and I'm not going to sit here and accuse you of being one. I think your play was shortsighted and selfish, but you said you were new to the game. We all started out fresh and made mistakes too. Your problem, both at the table and is this thread, is that you are reacting in a way that is polarizing and to certain people, they would see that as a negative reaction. People don't take that well, and in turn they feel the need to call it out, like I am now. I'm going to be respectful to you, I mean you no personal offense, but that's the tone you can infer in most posts. The reactions that you then get seem very heavy handed to the point of "WELL OF COURSE YOU MESSED UP, WHY DON'T YOU SEE THAT", and this in turn creates a bad cycle of negativity. You can't control the way others respond, but you can control the way you do. You can steer the course of the conversation with how you post.
The problem with "The line" is that every table is going to be different and every DM/GM is going to have much different rules when it comes to that social piece. Ask those questions up front, if you're a new player in a new group, ask for a session 0 or a sidebar of hey, how does this table roll. That way you don't have to figure it out on the fly. Don't be afraid to apologize for things you mess up and take ownership of those mistakes. When you do mess up though, take a step back and try and take it all in. Does it make sense? Are there reasons why it's happening? Am I happy here? The big thing to me when reading your posts is that you really weren't happy with how the game was going, so you decided to take the matter into your own hands, and honestly? Part of that is ok. It's totally fine to be selfish and realize your own wants and needs and try to act on them. It stops being fine when it infringes on someone else though.
As soon as you said "chaotic neutral", you lost me. That alone tells me all I need to know about you and your character.
Anzio Faro. Protector Aasimar light cleric. Lvl 18.
Viktor Gavriil. White dragonborn grave cleric. Lvl 20.
Ikram Sahir ibn-Malik al-Sayyid Ra'ad. Brass dragonborn draconic sorcerer Lvl 9. Fire elemental devil.
Wrangler of cats.
You are absolutely right.
Thank you for your time and i can admit i have made mistakes.
I don't think there's any reason that more people keep piling on the original poster. I think he knows our opinions by now.
Altrazin Aghanes - Wizard/Fighter
Varpulis Windhowl - Fighter
Skolson Demjon - Cleric/Fighter
Reading both your initial question and the justifications, I wouldn't want to play with that group and would've left. If a player is getting favoritism and cheating and the DM basically just had us doing nothing for a few sessions, I would've left and found a game more to my liking.
If I was part of the party and a player tried what you did I also either would've asked for that player to leave or I would've left. I think both groups in this handling things poorly and you should both try to find groups better suited to your style of play.
Yes, i dont want to be rude and ignore comments, but i see no reason to repeat myself. However i am thankful for all comments even though it proves me being wrong.
by the replies i got i have come to a better understanding of things and i can understand what i did was wrong, even though i felt forced to do something. If there will be a next time, i will not act the same way again.
I will try to speak with this DM and try to apologize for my actions, i will apologize to the leonin as well, it is the least i can do.
I will not play with him as a DM again unless he can see his own mistakes too.
That's a stand up approach. Good for you.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
This is the kind of trap a lot of new players fall into, where the open premise of the game tricks people into thinking their in-game actions don't have real-world consequences. I'm not saying that's all on you; spotlight-hogging and cheating are also bad and diminish the group's fun, but the way to address that isn't to pull similar shenanigans in- game, the best way is just to have a frank, honest discussion out of game about how the other player's actions make you feel. 9.9 times out of 10, the answer to most inter-player dilemmas is "just talk about it, try to come to a solution together."
Now, on a slightly more constructive in-game note: I totally get the appeal of playing evil/ morally grey characters. It's fun, you get to play against type (unless you're evil irl but that's a different issue), and with the rught party, it's a really fun dynamic. That all comes with a big "But..." attached however. BUT when you're being evil and scheming and manipulating, you rarely, almost never want to make your fellow players the targets of your schemes. As an evil character in a larger party, you should view your party as either the few people in the world you actually have some affection for, OR as means to an end that you must do your utmost to endear yourself to so they'll follow you into your glorious conquest, and must ensure become as powerful as you can help them get so that none of your enemies can stand against you.
When you target your party members in these kinds of schemes (see The Wangrod Defense that was linked earlier, it's a great video and Coville has a lot of great stuff in general about figuring out the ins and outs of the game), it's basically impossible for the other character's PLAYER not to feel bad about it personally, and feeling targeted like that will cause them to get angry and everyone being upset will cause a feedback loop of suckyness until nobody it having fun.
That isn't to say "inter-party conflict is impossible without inter-player conflict", but if you do decide that it would be cool from a storytelling perspective for your character to have beef with another character, it has to be mutual between the players. Pitch the idea to them out of game, talk about what it would mean, see what the other player is and isn't ok with going towards this beef, that way nobody's story is stepping on the toes of anyone else's.
Sorry if some of these points overlap with ones already stated, I just wanted to add on these few points as well. If this happened in my game and you were a more experienced player acting this way, I would also have kicked you, however considering you're new I consider this more a learning opportunity.
Yes, there's a line between your character being chaotic neutral and being a raving psychopath. People who act like that in real life end up in prison or dead in very short order. Your play was kind of toxic, and probably drove a monster truck through whatever storyline the DM was meticulously crafting.
Things a Chaotic Neutral character might do from time to time:
Even an outright evil character should try to bond with the rest of the party, in order to advance their own goals in the end. It's a long game. Loooong. Some chaotic neutral people in real life: Alex Higgins, Paris Hilton, Kanye West, Courtney Love, John Daly, Oliver Reed, Ozzy Osbourne etc. Think hellraisers, rebels, nonconformists and so on.
Chaotic Neutral is about being Unrestrained. You don’t care about much unless there is something in it for you, you have no morals or ethics really, and you take exception to anyone who tries to order people around or shove their opinions down people’s throats.
That's what I tell new players about that alignment in my game. In my opinion, the original poster was playing that alignment perfectly. He was told not to do something, he went ahead and did it anyway. He didn't like the rules, so he broke them. That's classic for Chaotic Neutral. When there's a conflict with a Chaotic Neutral, given that they don't like anyone much or dislike anyone either, they'll usually do something bad.
I don't really like having someone play Chaotic Neutral, because if they play it well, the party pretty much has to pay them in order to get them to do anything helpful. It's not a heroic motivation, and my games are supposed to be heroic fantasy. They have to be given a larger share of the treasure, or priority on magic items, whatever. There has to be something extra in it or they won't do anything, and if they don't get what they want, they will help themselves to it.
<Insert clever signature here>
None of which matters if they weren't respecting the other players.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
And while we're on the subject, a more experienced DM may have handled it better, but it's one of those instances where it's quite difficult to manage. Myself, I'd have made it so when the authorities discover a murdered child, they realise the leonin has been framed and interview them as a witness, leading them to yourself as the culprit. Your character is arrested and tried, and unless they roll a natural 20 for persuasion in court, is sentenced to death in the most grisly method imaginable. The session ends with you being asked to write a new character for the next session, and I'd probably take some time to have a chat about role-playing being about more than just the character's alignment. :)
The original poster apologized and said that they were convinced now that they had, in fact, been in the wrong. Good enough for me, and I will them well.
<Insert clever signature here>
It's ok for DMs to announce a short break so they can take a player aside for a minute when they think things are going to go south fast. Not everything has to be dealt with in game. If you think the game is going to suck when players follow through on their chosen course, I think it's usually best to make sure that's really, really what they want to do (and make sure they're aware of why it might not be what they really, really want to do) and if they reconsider to hit the undo button and backtrack a little bit. Not to allow players to take back dumb actions that'll land their characters in trouble, mind, it's about not spending time on a game that sucks.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].