Dealing with a Serial Killer PC

40 posts / 0 new
Last post

So I’m in a game right now and I’m having trouble deciding how I should proceed.  I’m not saying the other player is the problem by the way, I acknowledge that it seems to be only bothering me.  Anyways I’m getting ahead of my self.


The Player is currently roleplaying a serial killer/mass murderer (yes both, not only has he killed people over a long period of time he also recently killed 17 while we were away for an adventure)  So the character not only doesn’t work with party he is actively not participating in adventures so he can spend the time killing people and covering his tracks.  So this character also has an insanely high bluff so he can just lie all the time.


So my problem is this… I feel like no matter how good someones bluff is that there should be a limit to what your character believes.  I also feel like this guy is getting away with a whole lot while we can’t seem to make a single step forward in our investigation.


Also the character only murders women in game.  Before this guy joined my characters backstory was that he was searching for his son and his wifes killer, being a warlock who sold his sole specifically to avenge his wife’s death.  So as a player and a character this is bothersome. 


My question boils down to what I see are my 3 options.


1. Quit the game


2. Find a spell, ritual, anything that can help me definitively root out the killer


3. Just let it go and pretend my character wouldn’t care and that I don’t.

If the GM is letting this go unanswered, then my vote is 1.  Some behaviors are just inappropriate, and this sounds like one of them to me.  D&D is a game, not an excuse to play out your sociopathic tendencies.

You might want to talk to the other players, and the DM, and ask if this bothers anybody else.  If it does, you can work with the DM to eliminate the problem character.  If the player raises a fuss, then you can eliminate the problem player as well.

If it doesn't bother anybody else ... yeah, definitely bail.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
A scry spell that so happened to be scrying on one of his victims can do the trick. Then they would have proof to track him down and convict him.

Option B is to take a vote and see if the rest of the party doesn't want him just plain out kicked.

Only back out of the game entirely if you are the only one bothered by this. There is no reason to ever run a game where people can't listen to reason.
A scry spell that so happened to be scrying on one of his victims can do the trick. Then they would have proof to track him down and convict him.

Option B is to take a vote and see if the rest of the party doesn't want him just plain out kicked.

Only back out of the game entirely if you are the only one bothered by this. There is no reason to ever run a game where people can't listen to reason.

From an in game point of view, you don't have any problem with the guy as his character is so capable at lying (something that saves many murderers) but if the group were to dedicate themselves to tracking down this scum then the DM should support this with the NPC's because surely they'd want him found.

Using Scrying and Speak with Dead, and once the murderer comes into the limelight then there is a Zones of Truth Ritual(can't remember the name of it) that can be used on him. He gets convicted, his head gets cut off or he makes his getaway to become a good long term enemy of the group.

Out of game, as a DM I'd never agree to have a PC playing a serial killer unless it made for a great plot. I have turned a PC into an unwitting murderer in an Ars Magica game when he became possessed by a Demon and the PC would have black outs where he committed murder and even tried to kill some of the other player characters. However the character wasn't spending the whole time killing people for the hell of it, which is out of order.

Option 3 is clearly not for you as it is bugging you already but I'd discuss it with the group and see what there thought are and especially the DM should explain that he has reason for this being part of his campaign.
Dealing with it "in game" may not play out the way you expect. It is, after all, a game, and the outcome of any of your actions toward player-versus-player highly uncertain.

My suggestions (in order of preference):

1) Voice your discomfort with this part of the plot with the Player, the DM, the group as a whole (in roughly that order).

2) Quit the game.

I would add that I would also find this a bit creepy, and would probably just go straight to (2) if I had easy options for other games. That might depend on my opinion of the other player - I might have more time for an immature player who thought he was playing Dexter as a fun concept. I'd be very creeped out by someone who'd played a lot and had some kind of serial-killer fetish, or who wanted to RP gory details of the killings.
It sounds like this player would really like some kind of single-player campaign.

My option would be to let him have his fun as a killer but to really make it clear to the player that D&D is a group game and that while pursuing personal goals as a character is all good but the ultimate focus should always be on the adventure you are on together. If he does not participate in that adventure he really shouldn't be in the group with you.

I personally wouldn't mind being in the same party as a serial killer as long as the adventure itself doesn't suffer from it. Try to talk about it with the whole group or the GM first.
If the GM is letting this go unanswered, then my vote is 1.  Some behaviors are just inappropriate, and this sounds like one of them to me.  D&D is a game, not an excuse to play out your sociopathic tendencies.

You might want to talk to the other players, and the DM, and ask if this bothers anybody else.  If it does, you can work with the DM to eliminate the problem character.  If the player raises a fuss, then you can eliminate the problem player as well.

If it doesn't bother anybody else ... yeah, definitely bail.

i echo Salla. I wouldn't even make a public announcement of it; I'd send a private message to the GM telling him/her of my distaste and offering my resignation.

I'd contact other players individually to discuss starting a separate campaign. I'd use that method to selectively invite those I wish to play with.

If I may suggest another approach to the killer, it is that having a high Bluff skill should provide little to no safety from being found out and really should not matter (unless you are, in fact, having the characters talk about it in-game and asking each other whodunit). Watch a few criminal investigation shows; I think you'll agree that the killer is rarely found out based on their lack of lying. It has to do with cleaning up the evidence and connected clues.

D&D provides a number of useful rituals that can aid an investigation. Other posters already made mention of that.

Personally, i wouldn't even dignify this other player with a discussion and vote; I would make my own decision independently and alert the GM of my feelings and decision. If the GM wants me, he/she can address those concerns directly and invite me to return.    

the dm shouldnt just let him roll bluff and ease everyone's suspicions. if someone has even a small amount of evidence against him a few lies from the prime suspect wouldnt throw them off the trail.

it sounds like the player is a weirdo and the dm is being too accomadating to him and not handling the situation realisticly.

in a world with magicly aided detective work there is no such thing as a perfect crime. if he's murdered 17 or more people i guarentee he's made mistakes.

get creative and really focus on finding holes in his storiesand smart ways to exploit them. at best his pc will have to answer for his crimes and at worst you'll get some experience in creative problem solving before quitting.
Here's what I would do (or, rather, what I did in the same situation):

1.  Message the DM about my concern.  "Dude, I'm having a hard time roleplaying this situation.  PC X (don't mention the player, but the PC), isn't coming adventuring with us.  Why would my character want to stick around/have this guy as an adventuring ally.

2.  Message other players you trust, and ask them if they also have a problem with it.  "Hey, what do you think of Jack's character?"


In my case, my DM was like "it's what he wants to do" but the rest of the players were like "we're playing two games: the party, and Jack."  So, the players as a group pretty much had an intervention where we all said "hey, why do we bother having Jack's character around?  He's never with the rest of the party."

Granted, Jack's character wasn't a mass murderer, just a thief that was always out stealing stuff from the local nobles.  But it still had a similar effect to the party: it was obvious Jack didn't want to play WITH us.  He ended up quitting after being told that D&D is a group game, not a solo thing.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
And also, if the DM doesn't know how to handle the situation, people mentioned it before in this thread: Speak with Dead/Zone of Truth.  Unless this PC was so amazing that nobody ever saw his face, ever.  Scry, if you guys are high enough level, or even if you are low-level and the local nobles want the murderer caught enough.

Talk with your DM, talk to other players, see what reactions are.
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.

I'm no big fan of evil player characters in general (especially where the whole campaign isn't about evil PCs), and anyone who wants to play a serial killer is simply not welcome at any table at which I'm sitting, as player or GM.  I know others have more open minds on the subject, but there it is. And, frankly, if the GM is allowing serial murder to be hand-waved as just flavor text, that's another sign to me that these aren't people you wnat to hang with, not even for a game.

  Ditto (again) to what's been said: first and best option is to just bail. Not in a big confrontational way, just a note to the GM and maybe the other players.


In-game, there are some issues that might be worth addressing. At what point does a super-high buff roll become "who are you going to believe, me or your own eyes?" Not everyone is going to be completely fooled all the time, no matter what the skill check is - no matter how good a liar he his, for example, he's not going to convince everyone that the victim is not dead! Just like a high Diplomacy skill doesn't mean you can talk everyone into everything, a high Bluff doesn't mean everyone will believe every lie you tell.
I'm a pretty soft GM myself, but even I work in unexpected consequences based on PC words and deeds, both for and against the PCs. So this guy's character lies so well that everyone believes him. OK, but they're still going to hunt for the killer, they'll just find other suspects. And it strikes me that some of the first names on the list might be the people he hangs out with, who are often seen around him...the other PCs. If not them, then someone innocent (of that crime at least) is going to suffer for it. Sooner or later, the innocent suspect is likely to be someone important to the PCs - in fact, if the PCs are spending any time with them, it's likely there's some traceable link between the murderer and the suspect.
At some poitn the authorities are going to pice together that these murders happen at the same time this group of adventurers are in town...the obvious thing to do, if you can't arrest the adventurers, is to banish them from town. Or even all strangers, who are only allowed in town if they completely disarm and are under heavy escort at all times.

If there's really going to be an in-game investigation, don't disdain nonmagical methods. Does the serial killer keep trophies (just about all of the ones in real life do!)? Then those (whether the 'trophies' are magic items, jewelry, clothing, or body parts) will be found among his kit, or his home stash (and they *will* find his home stash). Who are the victims? Do none of them have relatives with any pull (or who have high Diplomacy skills so they can persuade powerful forces to investigate)? In a magic-fantasy world, do none of them come back from the grave (as ghost, wight or vampire) to pursue vengeance? None of them lived in a place with a high-level cleric, who can do appropriate rituals (speak with dead), or request help from divine powers for the sake of their parishoners? This is, after all, the kind of thing that many paladins and heroic types (including most PCs) live for, to hunt down evildoers, of which serial killers are a particularly odious type.

Be all this in-game stuff as it may,  however, the real problem is with the player, and with the GM. This kind of thing hits a nerve with me (as if you couldn't already tell!), and if you're not comfortable with serial-killer fantasy, then more power to you, and you don't need to play with those folks.

Thank you all, I was thinking that I was just being a big wet blanket for the party.  I will probably look into some rituals that others suggested and also talk to the dm about it.  I think I might see if any of the other players feel that same, I'll keep everyone posted.
... I'll keep everyone posted.

Yay! I'm curious how this will unravel

... I'll keep everyone posted.

Yay! I'm curious how this will unravel


As am I.  But be warned.  There may be some backlash if you take offense at bad behavior in the game (or out of the game) and nobody else feels the same, or if the "problem" player is very popular or happens to be a particularly attractive woman.    I speak from experience.

But speaking with the DM, the player in question and the rest of the players, preferably in that order, as slobo said, is the right thing to do.  Express your problem, see if it gets resolved and if not, decide whether you want to just deal with it or leave the game.  Occasionally the player will refuse to change and the rest of the group will back them up.  If that happens, be prepared to grin and take it or else leave.  That's really all you can do.  No game is better than bad game, imo.

Good luck!

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

A scry spell that so happened to be scrying on one of his victims can do the trick. Then they would have proof to track him down and convict him.

Option B is to take a vote and see if the rest of the party doesn't want him just plain out kicked.

Only back out of the game entirely if you are the only one bothered by this. There is no reason to ever run a game where people can't listen to reason.



I'd say try option B first.  You've got a problem with this (I would too), and you should try talking to the player and group before trying to force it to end in-game.
Show

So I’m in a game right now and I’m having trouble deciding how I should proceed.  I’m not saying the other player is the problem by the way, I acknowledge that it seems to be only bothering me.  Anyways I’m getting ahead of my self.


The Player is currently roleplaying a serial killer/mass murderer (yes both, not only has he killed people over a long period of time he also recently killed 17 while we were away for an adventure)  So the character not only doesn’t work with party he is actively not participating in adventures so he can spend the time killing people and covering his tracks.  So this character also has an insanely high bluff so he can just lie all the time.


So my problem is this… I feel like no matter how good someones bluff is that there should be a limit to what your character believes.  I also feel like this guy is getting away with a whole lot while we can’t seem to make a single step forward in our investigation.


Also the character only murders women in game.  Before this guy joined my characters backstory was that he was searching for his son and his wifes killer, being a warlock who sold his sole specifically to avenge his wife’s death.  So as a player and a character this is bothersome. 


My question boils down to what I see are my 3 options.


1. Quit the game


2. Find a spell, ritual, anything that can help me definitively root out the killer


3. Just let it go and pretend my character wouldn’t care and that I don’t.




It might not seem like this at first but to me this seems more like a problem with the DM than the player. Simply put the DM should not be allowing such play. It seems the player is playing solo much of the time and able to do many selfish things for their own character's benefit as well as for the benefit of the player.

Quitting is a good option but should be saved after other things have failed.

I do not know this player but have known a few that have tried playing like this. In all cases talking to them will fail. They're just never were reasonable people to begin with. It would be best to go to your DM for help.

I'm curious is there any kind of bounty out for a serial killer or mass murderer? The authorities might not have an identity but such a thing is not something most kingdoms (even evil ones) would idly sit by and watch happen. If your character is of good alignment it could be reasonable for you to be concerned about big crime sprees like this. Ask some questions around town. Listen to some of the rumors and find your way to the Constable's office. Maybe they'd hire you as a bounty hunter especially if you have some scrying magic available. Talk to your DM about possible bounties or rumors in the world before hand. Especially so if you've not heard the DM ever mention such because there has to have been some kind of rumors by now. Trying to catch the murderer (the selfish group member) could turn into a fun campaign, however by the end of it the mass murderer will likely whine. They tend to when their fun is stopped.

Something worth asking the DM is as to why they've let evil character(s) into their campaign as well as letting someone not participate in a group game. If this person wants to be a solo player they can play their own individual solo campaign. If they are to be a part of the group they need to me productive for the group and not destructive. These are things that should be dealt with. I've only met a couple of players that can handle playing evil characters in a "good" campaign. 98% of players that play evil or boarder line evil characters do it to fulfill some **** fantasy or personality trait of theirs. Simply put there is almost no reason for ever letting a PC play an evil character in a good campaign just for the simple reason that almost nobody seems mature enough to actually be able to do it. So talk to your DM about how the evil character has been bothering you and see what they'd be willing to do about it.

If the DM is not willing to work with you then just quit the game. I'm sure you can find a better group and better things to do with your time.

Resident Grouch and Corrupting Influence A Monster Appears I'm Black and Blue how 'bout you?

I houseruled a *long* time ago that players are free to believe exactly what they want to believe and are immune to any sort of social check (Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate). It's pure stupidity that someone can get away with almost anything at a table by "bluffing" another player.

That aside, I've never seen a player like the one you are describing add anything of value to a  game. Just tell the DM either he rerolls a character that isn't a total assrag, or you quit.
Having PC's fight among themselves is pretty much universally bad in 4e (and most games for that matter).
Pursuing the killer PC is basically putting the PC's at odds with each other even if you catch him. Most of the time, if the killer is caught, the player playing him will take it badly and either his next PC will be another kind of sociopath or solo type, or he will ragequit the game. Some exceptions might occur, but usually I have seen people playing this kind of characters to be people who aren't really in the game to play as a team and for most 4e games that is not going to work for the long term.

For the odd one-off character choice of a good player, the killer concept might work if the PC's catch him and either turn him over to authorities, kill him, or try to "cure him" of the psychotic behavoiur. However, 99% of the time that is not the case. So, usually the solution is to discuss the issue with all players and the DM, perhaps separately with each so that people actually reveal what they really think and not go along with some group decision that might actually turn for the worse if the miscreant player is popular in the gam 
Well we caught him unexpectedly last night.  Turns out the PC was a changeling and while we were climbing down a cliff he fell and the fall damage nocked him into negative hit points which caused him to slightly revert back to his true form.  Upon discorvering that he was a changeling most of us made the jump that he was most likely the killer.  There was other evidence to this as well I will however admit that most of us where using whatever we could as evidence.  

When we finally started to arrest him he got mad and started discussing the whole Meta Game issue.  Let me say I'm a strong advocate of keeping player knowledge and pc knowledge seperate but that for me went out the window when we started having a player who actively wanted to **** with us.  I explained to him that his character was acting entirely opposite the party, the whole reason we are were we are is to protect a community that is just starting to settle and his sociopathic ways are getting in the way of that. 
Well we caught him unexpectedly last night.  Turns out the PC was a changeling and while we were climbing down a cliff he fell and the fall damage nocked him into negative hit points which caused him to slightly revert back to his true form.  Upon discorvering that he was a changeling most of us made the jump that he was most likely the killer.  There was other evidence to this as well I will however admit that most of us where using whatever we could as evidence.  

When we finally started to arrest him he got mad and started discussing the whole Meta Game issue.  Let me say I'm a strong advocate of keeping player knowledge and pc knowledge seperate but that for me went out the window when we started having a player who actively wanted to **** with us.  I explained to him that his character was acting entirely opposite the party, the whole reason we are were we are is to protect a community that is just starting to settle and his sociopathic ways are getting in the way of that. 


I love how people who are dickwads try to hide behind gaming ethics, when they've been ****ing with people the entire time.

 
Salla, on minions: I typically use them as encounter filler. 'I didn't quite fill out the XP budget, not enough room left for a decent near-level monster ... sprinkle in a few minions'. Kind of like monster styrofoam packing peanuts.
Well we caught him unexpectedly last night.  Turns out the PC was a changeling and while we were climbing down a cliff he fell and the fall damage nocked him into negative hit points which caused him to slightly revert back to his true form.  Upon discorvering that he was a changeling most of us made the jump that he was most likely the killer.  There was other evidence to this as well I will however admit that most of us where using whatever we could as evidence.  

When we finally started to arrest him he got mad and started discussing the whole Meta Game issue.  Let me say I'm a strong advocate of keeping player knowledge and pc knowledge seperate but that for me went out the window when we started having a player who actively wanted to **** with us.  I explained to him that his character was acting entirely opposite the party, the whole reason we are were we are is to protect a community that is just starting to settle and his sociopathic ways are getting in the way of that. 

so, i'm still curious, did you talk to the DM and/or other players about the issue before the accident left his changeling in 'grey form'?

On the occassions when a player wanted to chose changeling as a race, I've enforced a rule that they must tell the other players the race of their character. I don't mind if they want the other characters to be left unaware, and I'll respectfully defend that the characters are unaware; however, I'll never allow a player to select the race if they are unwilling to let the other players know.

I encourage meta-knowledge among the players, but i watch for times when they inject that into their character's knowledge or actions.
first time i dealt with a hidden changeling as DM
P wanted to play out a changeling which the party would always see as a h-elf. I was cool with that, and after he explained that to the party, they were excited to be in on the ruse.

He was always careful about who was nearby when he shifted form and frequently stole clothing from enemies in case he needed to change clothes and change face. He also had an extra large backpack to carry spare coats, pants, boots, etc.

As the story developed, he never took any action that would cause detriment to the party. Still, by time we finished our tale, none of the other PCs had become suspicious at all.

second time i dealt with a hidden changeling as DM
B wanted to play a changeling which held to a h-elf form. She wasn't certain if/when she would drop the changeling shape, but began by telling the party, 'at least for now, the otehr PCs don't know this about her.' They all agreed.

During the course of a combat, she was droped below zero and I ruled that she fell into 'grey form' while unconscious. She asked if the other characters could at least be called on for a Percept check to determine if they saw and recognized or not; several rolled low and were therfore too involved with battle to pay attention. The cleric which came to her side and provided a Heal check clearly saw and recognized her race too.

Once she got on her feet, she didn't want to waste an action turning back into h-elf form and simply charged into battle in grey form. So, the party pretty much saw it all at that point. As soon as the brief rest began, she shifted shape and told the party about it and asked for their combined efforts to protect her identity. They all loved it. It gave them all a RP moment and helped bind the group together under a common secret.

first time i dealt with a hidden changeling as a player
S came into the game with two characters, one of which was a halfling outwardly. In several situations, we bumped up against obstacles in which he passed a closed note to the DM. At that point, we would succeed and move forward. No one knew why or how. And nothing we did or said could garner any knowledge or clues.

After a particularly frustrating battle which left two PCs dead due to being abandoned in a fight, I spoke with the DM and found out that S was a "co-DM" and was playign a changeling that he didn't want us to know about. When this was brought to the attention of the group (cause I was really mad about how things had gone down in the fight and about the hidden changeling and the 'co-DM' thing) the entire group broke apart and the campaign ended there.

That was when I created my houserule and began to enforce it. 

second time i dealt with a hidden changeling as a player
C wanted a changeling vampire which none of us would be aware of. He was open to the players knowing, but was a douche about any action that might expose him.

Once he started shifting forms multiple times in a session he decided that the whole secret wasn't really worth it and left us all with, 'well, we've been adventuring long enough that the PCs probably already knew; let's just move on.'

Later, he got dropped below 0 hp and the DM ruled he fell into grey form. It was in front of a large crowd of spectators too. So, at that point, he just dropped the secrecy altogether and enjoyed changing shapes only occassionally.
   
I'm playing a changeling beguiler at the moment, she looks like a human for now. All the players know, their characters don't. The few times she's had to change shape when being observed by one of the party members(always the same one) she passed it off as illusions.

Due to the current scope of the campaign, a "new face in town" would be suspicious, so my character is stuck in the form she's known for for the majority of the time, and she doesn't trust anyone yet, so nobody knows.
Once she gets to a bigger city though, she'll be changing shape so often that the party is bound to know, and she'll probably tell them long before that.

I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!
I don't think any of the other players mind.

(one note: she has a vestment of change, so shifting to a new disguise is really simple. She also only has social feats and abilities, it's been a bit of a task to be useful in combat, mainly through clever illusions :p)

I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!



Uh, isn't this kind of her decision, being the one playing the character and all?
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.

I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!



Uh, isn't this kind of her decision, being the one playing the character and all?



No, he's the player.  And he's playing a character who is stuck in one form and tired of it.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
When we finally started to arrest him he got mad and started discussing the whole Meta Game issue.  Let me say I'm a strong advocate of keeping player knowledge and pc knowledge seperate but that for me went out the window when we started having a player who actively wanted to **** with us.  I explained to him that his character was acting entirely opposite the party, the whole reason we are were we are is to protect a community that is just starting to settle and his sociopathic ways are getting in the way of that. 


I love how people who are dickwads try to hide behind gaming ethics, when they've been ****ing with people the entire time.


Oh so true. Like the whole arguing about metagaming because often the dickwads are the first ones in the group to take advantage of metagame info for their own greed.

Resident Grouch and Corrupting Influence A Monster Appears I'm Black and Blue how 'bout you?

When we finally started to arrest him he got mad and started discussing the whole Meta Game issue.  Let me say I'm a strong advocate of keeping player knowledge and pc knowledge seperate but that for me went out the window when we started having a player who actively wanted to **** with us.  I explained to him that his character was acting entirely opposite the party, the whole reason we are were we are is to protect a community that is just starting to settle and his sociopathic ways are getting in the way of that. 


I love how people who are dickwads try to hide behind gaming ethics, when they've been ****ing with people the entire time.


Oh so true. Like the whole arguing about metagaming because often the dickwads are the first ones in the group to take advantage of metagame info for their own greed.



My personal meta-gaming bugbear (similar to the OP's story) -

Dickwad's apparent thought process: "I want X for my character, and to get there I'm prepared to have my character do things that would offend or alienate other characters. I can do this freely because I am a player, playing with my firends. They daren't react in character, because that would prevent me playing with them. If they do, I will escalate, and am prepared to destroy the game to have things my way."

 . . . I have played (in the past) with players who appeared to have this attitude to the game. Anything and everything could be brought in to ensure a "win", and some of them were very controlling in their attitude to the other players and their characters.



I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!



Uh, isn't this kind of her decision, being the one playing the character and all?


I thought what was intended here is the feeling like it is time to start developing a more dynamic character, but the conditions of the campaign haven't aided in making that rewarding. So, there's a need for the DM to adjust a bit and help find ways and means the character(s) can all develop more freely and build team cohesion through individual growth.

I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!



Uh, isn't this kind of her decision, being the one playing the character and all?



No, he's the player.  And he's playing a character who is stuck in one form and tired of it.



This is correct, I am the player. Perhaps I have a strange way of expressing myself, when I talk about actions by my characters I often say "I'm having her/him do this/that" instead of "I'm doing this." It just seems more true to what actually happens.
In the same way, I refer to her/him having something, instead of "I have this magical item", since it really is the character, and not me, who has it, right?

Also, I do not mind the fact that the campaign doesn't allow my Changeling to change shape as regularily as she would like to. There's RP oppertunities in this as well, think of it a bit as if she were an addict deprived of her drug of choice, only her "drug" is assuming a new persona frequently. So she currently changes form every oppertunity she can, out of sight from everyone. I think it'll be interesting to see the situation develop as we move forward and she gets more desperate for a more permanent fix.

If this were to be the situation the entire campaign, it might become annoying, as it does put my "character concept" in a position that character doesn't want to be in. However, it looks as if the situation will change over time, and in that case this'll be a solid addition to her development as a character.

The DM reacting with absolute incredulence when he saw my disguise checks had a modifier above 20(even though I had repeatedly stated this during character creation :p) has all been worth it so far, anyway ^^

I'm constantly having her send signals that she's tired to death of the form she's in, she's a Becomer in heart and kidneys: she just doesn't feel good living only one life!



Uh, isn't this kind of her decision, being the one playing the character and all?


I thought what was intended here is the feeling like it is time to start developing a more dynamic character, but the conditions of the campaign haven't aided in making that rewarding. So, there's a need for the DM to adjust a bit and help find ways and means the character(s) can all develop more freely and build team cohesion through individual growth.



I interpretted it as the DM telling the player how his/her character feels about something and how to play it (aka "You're a dwarf, you hate goblins." "Uh, no." "Yes, you hate goblins.")  If that was not the case, then I apologize.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
I'm not even the DM for this game, but no apology is needed ^^
I read it as, "part of my character's personality is that she's in a situation where she really wants to be able to do X, but she doesn't trust anybody else enough to let them know she can do X, so she's afraid to do it around the other PCs, leading to internal conflict for my character, which I like getting to work through."

"Not only are you wrong, but I even created an Excel spreadsheet to show you how wrong you are." --James Wyatt, May 2006

Dilige, et quod vis fac

I read it as, "part of my character's personality is that she's in a situation where she really wants to be able to do X, but she doesn't trust anybody else enough to let them know she can do X, so she's afraid to do it around the other PCs, leading to internal conflict for my character, which I like getting to work through."



Yes, this exactly. Very nicely put.
So we're still dealing with the character this week we started up after tieing him up.  Now the theif in the party has decided to side with him.  There are other issues cropping up as well.  For this campaign I came up with back story of my character being a pacifist before being an adventure, after his village was raided and his wife murder his son kidnapped, he sold his soul to gain powers.  Now I have three players all deciding that their characters are all directly tied to my pc wife's death.

It's been the most interesting group I've ever been with. 
So, if I'm understanding correctly, your party caught the serial-killer PC red-handed, has all the evidence they need to convict him, and then suddenly they all went from being outraged to deciding that they must have all been in on a conspiracy to kill your PC's wife without knowing it, in addition to a mass murder of 17 innocent people and an unspecified number of other murders, so they must now defend the serial killer?

*facepalm*  I think I'm going to have to train up my bluff skill!
[spoiler New DM Tips]
  • Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
  • Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
  • Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
  • "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
  • "Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
  • Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
  • Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
[/spoiler] The New DM's Group Horror in RPGs "This is exactly what the Leprechauns want you to believe!" - Merb101 "Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
So, if I'm understanding correctly, your party caught the serial-killer PC red-handed, has all the evidence they need to convict him, and then suddenly they all went from being outraged to deciding that they must have all been in on a conspiracy to kill your PC's wife without knowing it, in addition to a mass murder of 17 innocent people and an unspecified number of other murders, so they must now defend the serial killer?



IMAGE(http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa279/LolaBonne/Quadfacepalm.jpg)
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Actually, after I've had a chance to think about it over night and get in touch with my inner cynic, that may be the most realistic jury ever portrayed in an RPG:  "Your honor, we find the defendent 'not guilty' of assorted crimes against humanity, by reason of it all being society's fault, and the prosecuter being a big meanie...."
[spoiler New DM Tips]
  • Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
  • Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
  • Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
  • "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
  • "Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
  • Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
  • Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
[/spoiler] The New DM's Group Horror in RPGs "This is exactly what the Leprechauns want you to believe!" - Merb101 "Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
I'd like some updates on this, how did the game progress after this shift in attitude by the other players?
Well to start the guy playing the PC who was the serial killer cycled out of the game (there is a large waiting list) as for the people wanting to be the one who killed my PC's wife I finally figured out which player really wants the "honor."

He's actually new to D&D and I think part of it is lack of knowledge of what I consider D&D ettiquette.  I almost started a thread about that itself.  He apparently decided to talk to the DM and not me about having a backstory where his PC's brother is the one who killed my characters wife.

So anyways the DM is trying to convince that player that his actions are just going to cause problems at the table. 
Awesome - THAT sounds more like it

Troublemaker appears to be gone for now, the other problem is just a case of noobiness (we all get that from time to time), and the DM sounds like he's at least making a token effort to get that under control.

I hope the rest of the game goes well for you.
[spoiler New DM Tips]
  • Trying to solve out-of-game problems (like cheating, bad attitudes, or poor sportsmanship) with in-game solutions will almost always result in failure, and will probably make matters worse.
  • Gun Safety Rule #5: Never point the gun at anything you don't intend to destroy. (Never introduce a character, PC, NPC, Villain, or fate of the world into even the possibility of a deadly combat or other dangerous situation, unless you are prepared to destroy it instantly and completely forever.)
  • Know your group's character sheets, and check them over carefully. You don't want surprises, but, more importantly, they are a gold mine of ideas!
  • "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." It's a problem if the players aren't having fun and it interferes with a DM's ability to run the game effectively; if it's not a problem, 'fixing' at best does little to help, and at worst causes problems that didn't exist before.
  • "Hulk Smash" characters are a bad match for open-ended exploration in crowds of civilians; get them out of civilization where they can break things and kill monsters in peace.
  • Success is not necessarily the same thing as killing an opponent. Failure is not necessarily the same thing as dying.
  • Failure is always an option. And it's a fine option, too, as long as failure is interesting, entertaining, and fun!
[/spoiler] The New DM's Group Horror in RPGs "This is exactly what the Leprechauns want you to believe!" - Merb101 "Broken or not, unbalanced or not, if something seems to be preventing the game from being enjoyable, something has to give: either that thing, or other aspects of the game, or your idea of what's enjoyable." - Centauri
We have a character who likes to murder innocent bystanders when she can get away with it, but it has to be played out, and it is not so easy as just a bluff check. She can't just say "oh, during the last 3 weeks of downtime I snuck into the house of inspector Cool Arrow and left his wife's head on a post of the 4 poster bed." It would have to be played out, and die rolls can have random witnesses show up at inoportune moments, trace evidence winds up on her clothes... lots of things can go wrong. Get with your DM and create a custom ritual that will link spilt blood to the weapon that spilt it. It can make for a good story hook as the rest of the party solves the crime and sets up a sting to catch the culprit. For good wizard detective material read the"Dresden files" by Jim Butcher.
Sign In to post comments