Mulligan anyone?

[wolfsgrin]

Anybody here ever just pretend a game didn't happen? I'm seriously considering it. Not sure what my players were smoking but I had two be so disruptive and/or out of character that honestly it may have wrecked the rest of my game. In all honesty, the effects from the game won't be that long lasting but I just don't want to deal with the aftermath. I'll probably push through but my lord, that was dumb.
One player (Scrupulous alignment!) decapitates a rendered harmless foe and the other player decides to use his disruptive fairy abilities on the group and takes one player completely out of the fight. Now the latter, honestly it was my fault should have told him that he would know that the other PC's were there to help and not consider them a threat, but I didn't, so he was just doing his job in the end (but he should have assumed on having that detail, I should have been pacific, didn't think he would use it against me. He didn't even give them a chance, he just used his abilities against the PC's without immediate provocation.) And that really made the rest of the players mad.
Now I like to give the players a sense of true free will so i don't rail or interject on what I think should be done once the game starts. It just sucks, I feel like it was my fault but I can't help but feel a bit betrayed by the two players. They know how I like things to play out and that staying in character is very important, and they went against alignment and what I had laid out for them. I shouldn't have to lay it all out every friggn game just so that they don't exploit details that honestly derail games (it's just mean and spiteful) if not assumed by the players.
If it's because aren't happy with the campaign they know that my GM door is always open, just deal with it before we get to the table. It's easy for me to write a player out of a game or whatever. Just need to know!
Thanks for letting me rant. And any advice presented hereafter.

[Cinos]

Well, all I'd do is the guy who dropped an innocent opponent loses his alignment down to Anarchist (unprincipled if his character felt awful about it in horrible ways). As to the faerie, come what may with that, I'm often fine with party conflict, and players who can't cope with that need to get over it.

[Severus Snape]

The guy who decapitated an enemy who was no longer a threat is now an NPC. His scrupulous alignment would never allow him to do that, and by doing so he has now become diabolic (or one of the evil alignments that allows for the killing of harmless foes). And as this is a heroes campaign, and he just became a super-villain by killing, he is now an NPC. Congratulate him on his kill, and then ask him to roll the dice in front of you during character creation. When he asks why he has to create a new character, tell him it's due to alignment shift thanks to HIS actions, and they are supposed to be heroes not villains.

The guy who used his powers on the group WAS playing in character. How is his character supposed to know that some random party of costumed geeks is there to help him unless they state so up front? If he assumes that when they show up that they are friendly and are there to help him, then he's meta-gaming (ie, using out of game knowledge in game). And that's not cool. He should actually get extra experience points for in-character gaming for that. Did he disable the party and make it a little more difficult to beat the bad guys? Yep. And he should be rewarded for playing and not meta-gaming.

[strtkwr]

The guy who decapitated an enemy who was no longer a threat is now an NPC. His scrupulous alignment would never allow him to do that, and by doing so he has now become diabolic (or one of the evil alignments that allows for the killing of harmless foes). And as this is a heroes campaign, and he just became a super-villain by killing, he is now an NPC. Congratulate him on his kill, and then ask him to roll the dice in front of you during character creation. When he asks why he has to create a new character, tell him it's due to alignment shift thanks to HIS actions, and they are supposed to be heroes not villains.

That's a little harsh for one action, in one off night. I would drop his alignment to at least unprincipled, maybe anarchist. Then, if he does not learn and continues to do actions like this, I would drop him to one of the evil alignments, and potentially roll up a new character (in our games, we allow the aberrant alignment, so if he was dropped to this alignment based on his actions, then he would still be a PC in our game)

All in all, don't kill off the PC for one mistake, but make sure it is clear what the results will be if this continues. And if he wants to be scrupulous again, make him work for it. The character will have to be played as scrupulous for a long time to make headway to the next alignment up. And he may never make it past unprincipled.

[wolfsgrin]

I'm just going to let it ride and roleplay it out. The faerie was in character ( i know) and the guy who decapitated the foe is going to be dealt with in game. It'll make or break the character in whether he is playable anymore.
And the big reason I posted was that I honestly felt betrayed these two that were purposefully being disruptive for one reason or another. Not all the reasons for my frustrations were in the post. Didn't want all our dirty laundry hanging out. I've got a way to make all good, it just sets me back on campaign time and where I want to be in the current arc.

[Severus Snape]

The guy who decapitated an enemy who was no longer a threat is now an NPC. His scrupulous alignment would never allow him to do that, and by doing so he has now become diabolic (or one of the evil alignments that allows for the killing of harmless foes). And as this is a heroes campaign, and he just became a super-villain by killing, he is now an NPC. Congratulate him on his kill, and then ask him to roll the dice in front of you during character creation. When he asks why he has to create a new character, tell him it's due to alignment shift thanks to HIS actions, and they are supposed to be heroes not villains.

That's a little harsh for one action, in one off night. I would drop his alignment to at least unprincipled, maybe anarchist. Then, if he does not learn and continues to do actions like this, I would drop him to one of the evil alignments, and potentially roll up a new character (in our games, we allow the aberrant alignment, so if he was dropped to this alignment based on his actions, then he would still be a PC in our game)

All in all, don't kill off the PC for one mistake, but make sure it is clear what the results will be if this continues. And if he wants to be scrupulous again, make him work for it. The character will have to be played as scrupulous for a long time to make headway to the next alignment up. And he may never make it past unprincipled.

I don't think that's harsh at all. The alignment Scrupulous indicates that the person would never kill an unarmed foe, nor would he hurt an innocent. He also wouldn't torture or commit wanton violence or criminal acts just because he can. That action breaks most of the laws of Scrupulous, making him evil.

I do agree that a warning is proper for the first commission of this type of act. If it's a habit, then something needs to be done.

[strtkwr]

The guy who decapitated an enemy who was no longer a threat is now an NPC. His scrupulous alignment would never allow him to do that, and by doing so he has now become diabolic (or one of the evil alignments that allows for the killing of harmless foes). And as this is a heroes campaign, and he just became a super-villain by killing, he is now an NPC. Congratulate him on his kill, and then ask him to roll the dice in front of you during character creation. When he asks why he has to create a new character, tell him it's due to alignment shift thanks to HIS actions, and they are supposed to be heroes not villains.

That's a little harsh for one action, in one off night. I would drop his alignment to at least unprincipled, maybe anarchist. Then, if he does not learn and continues to do actions like this, I would drop him to one of the evil alignments, and potentially roll up a new character (in our games, we allow the aberrant alignment, so if he was dropped to this alignment based on his actions, then he would still be a PC in our game)

All in all, don't kill off the PC for one mistake, but make sure it is clear what the results will be if this continues. And if he wants to be scrupulous again, make him work for it. The character will have to be played as scrupulous for a long time to make headway to the next alignment up. And he may never make it past unprincipled.

I don't think that's harsh at all. The alignment Scrupulous indicates that the person would never kill an unarmed foe, nor would he hurt an innocent. He also wouldn't torture or commit wanton violence or criminal acts just because he can. That action breaks most of the laws of Scrupulous, making him evil.

I do agree that a warning is proper for the first commission of this type of act. If it's a habit, then something needs to be done.

Which is why I said it was harsh....for the first offense. I agree with what you were saying if it happens more than once. But to have him switch straight to diabolic for one action, which is what you first said, is somewhat excessive.

[Beatmeclever]

Then again, the warning of which you speak should have been given at the time the offense was performed. Going back is an option, but you should discuss it with the group as "we do over, or your PC is now an NPC" sort of thing.

[Noon]

Now I like to give the players a sense of true free will

Well, a sense of free will but not actual free will, given the alignments and such.

It's kind of like putting a rat in a maze, then telling it it has free will to go anywhere it wants. Then getting peeved when the way it wants to go is to chew it's way through a wall...

He didn't even give them a chance, he just used his abilities against the PC's without immediate provocation.) And that really made the rest of the players mad.

You mean, not their characters, the actual players were mad?

Isn't that playing out of character?

that staying in character is very important, and they went against...what I had laid out for them.

So staying in character means going with what the GM layed out for you?

Perhaps just hand them a script next time, rather than expecting them to intuitively get what the script is?


Far from being free, you seem to be playing under a very, very restrictive structure. And they didn't get that.

And I'm betting that you'll say no, they really are free - but then every time a player goes and uses that freedom to do stuff like in your play account, it'll really annoy you. The first step is to just acknowledge that your not really providing a free will arena. And it's fine to do that, if your upfront about it, because then everyone knows what to do and it can work out.

You blame the players once you've told them in technically specific ways what to do but they then go and do something else. And even then it could be you didn't explain it clearly enough.

[wolfsgrin]

Now I like to give the players a sense of true free will

Well, a sense of free will but not actual free will, given the alignments and such.

It's kind of like putting a rat in a maze, then telling it it has free will to go anywhere it wants. Then getting peeved when the way it wants to go is to chew it's way through a wall...

He didn't even give them a chance, he just used his abilities against the PC's without immediate provocation.) And that really made the rest of the players mad.

You mean, not their characters, the actual players were mad?

Isn't that playing out of character?

that staying in character is very important, and they went against...what I had laid out for them.

So staying in character means going with what the GM layed out for you?

Perhaps just hand them a script next time, rather than expecting them to intuitively get what the script is?


Far from being free, you seem to be playing under a very, very restrictive structure. And they didn't get that.

And I'm betting that you'll say no, they really are free - but then every time a player goes and uses that freedom to do stuff like in your play account, it'll really annoy you. The first step is to just acknowledge that your not really providing a free will arena. And it's fine to do that, if your upfront about it, because then everyone knows what to do and it can work out.

You blame the players once you've told them in technically specific ways what to do but they then go and do something else. And even then it could be you didn't explain it clearly enough.

lol <3

[Noon]

Can't help but think the players would just lol as well, if they heard you felt a bit betrayed.

Ie, it's a fine responce until the other guy does it.

lol

[wolfsgrin]

Can't help but think the players would just lol as well, if they heard you felt a bit betrayed.

Ie, it's a fine responce until the other guy does it.

lol

How the hell was I suppose to respond. You took a small portion of one game and blew up on me. My players don't feel like they are on rails. I let all kinds of crazy stuff happen. I never said a word at the table, I let it all happen with only a raise of the eyebrow because the player that killed had never killed before (and the way he did it was against alignment, even though I play loose with those), and I don't like player vs player, but I did not stop them. I didn't even question them. I also admitted to not giving enough info to the player that attacked another player, so again it was my fault. I haven't even talked to the two I thought were disrupting the game. And I posted later that I was rolling with it. We play in a sandbox and my players and I build the story together, and yes certain things need to be played a certain way so a story can be told, or it falls apart and nobody has fun. My group loves the way I structure a game, they do what they want and all I do is throw up a road sign every now and then. If they want to get to the meat of a campaign they know they need to work towards it. How they get there is up to them. The player that killed an unarmed foe was wrong, the player that attacked another player was in character ( iw as wrong for being upset about that). We've been playing our world for over ten years with many of the same players with no complaints. I even ask them for critique and direction they'd like to see the game head in, then I find something in the middle or straight up what they'd like to see with small twists so they are a little surprised. How this is railing a group is beyond me. You don't know me, you have never played in one of my games. You made a judgment based on a frustrated GM's post who was looking for help or advice. I would never take a do over, that was more for comedic effect. There were better ways for you to express your opinion. Instead you attacked me. I wasn't looking for an argument or to get sniped by some keyboard commando. And as for the personal stuff, yes it was, but not aimed towards me. The player that attacked the other player are having a feud at work, so any chance they get to **** each other off they do it. And that is crap. So yes I was mad about it. But again I let it stand with not even a word about it to the players. Good day to you sir, and game on. <3

[Noon]

Dude, if I said your car was low on oil, would you tell me I just took a small portion of your car and blew up on you? That I'm attacking you in saying your oil is low? That I'm a keyboard commando? How the hell are you supposed to respond to someone saying your oil is low? You check your oil.

I don't actually have a problem where, whether they are on rails or stuck not on rails but in a very, very wide corridor of movement (towards a preset goal) or somewhere in between, everyone knows that and are down with it.

I just don't deal in half measures. You said there was a problem - am I supposed to just bring up a half measure against the problem, so basically half of the problem remains? Is it more important to tip toe around than to actually fully solve the problem?

Perhaps I just could have said I don't think the problem is where you think it is. It doesn't just lie in what the players did. Then I could have left it at that.

[wolfsgrin]

As I had said, I admitted it to being my fault, and I was rolling with it. Thanks for the enlightening discussion. Really, always push the envelope. My post was unclear and one sided. Was not looking for an exchange like this but I enjoyed the commentary. Made me think. Good fortune to you and yours.

[The Dark Elf]

Kinda did this yesterday. Didn't redo an entire session just a
Conversation. I'd miss read about a rune weapon (deathkiss) could be
Held by good aligned people, so it would've changed the characters
Actions. Re did them over.