Other players "overpowering" me/my character to do what they want

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
So I'm just gonna gripe a little. I've been feeling kinda down about this.

It's like my opinion never matters, or is a nuisance, to the group. I'm usually the sorta person who will go along with whatever the group says just to avoid conflict and keep the fun. However, when something DRASTICALLY goes against what my character would do, I'll speak up. It almost never amounts to anything though and sometimes my character is just shut out completely or recently, taken out of play long enough for the others to do what they want.

In our D&D 3.5 game I play a lawful good cleric (homebrew campaign deity) and I decided early on that I didn't want to be preachy. I have my ways, others have theirs. As long as no innocent gets hurt I'm fine with it.
However, there came a point where some members of the group decided to blow up an entire city to end a war because they were the "enemy" (by applying real world science to magic rules and massively abusing the rules....all of which the DM allows a lot, they accomplish horrible, overpowered things). The DM made it clear that innocents, women, children, etc. would be dying too.
Anyways, naturally I was hugely opposed to this both in game and out of game. It was ridiculous and unnecessary. It's not the kind of thing that makes the game fun for me. In between sessions though the rest of the group has a lot more contact with the DM than I do. I go into the next game expecting to be able to continue to make my case against the plan. Nope. The one who championed the idea of blowing up the city was contacting the DM out of game and planning the whole thing with the other group members. Next game starts with the city blown up, us sifting through the rubble, and the next arc of the story going. If I had known any of this, I'd have made a new character more in line with the rest of the group's intentions. They didn't want to lose their healer.


Now, that was quite a while ago, but a few days ago that feeling came back. We were playing Hunter: The Reckoning (vampire/supernatural slayers game). Same group, although different DM/Storyteller. One of the players, the DM from the D&D game actually, wanted us all to play as ourselves. It's cool for him, cause he translates well onto a character sheet with high stats in just about anything, excellent fighting ability, lots of guns and other resources. I get kinda depressed when I'm asked to make myself as a character because my specialties are few and don't really fit well in these kinds of games. Plus it just makes it hard to separate in-game stuff with out-of-game stuff, which is probably why I feel so miserable now.


Anyways, there was a disagreement near the end of the session similar to the D&D one, just on a much smaller scale. I was attempting to argue my case (and play my role as an "innocent" creed character) when the player I mentioned before rolled to grab me and throw me in the trunk of a police car. Again, his physical stats were something I couldn't possibly match up against and I was in the trunk for the rest of the game (about ten minutes real time) as they went ahead with what they wanted to do and wrapped up.

Does this seem right to you? Now I just feel useless again because there's nothing stopping this from happening every time I try to play my character. I'm considering graciously bowing out of the game since I felt humiliated by that encounter when I was having fun up until the trunk incident. I mean, the character wasn't me, but it was me. If I'm going to take in-game stuff like this so seriously I should probably separate myself from the game entirely, right?

I know I should just talk to them about it, but I worry that instead of making things better it'd just go the complete opposite way and feel like an artificial improvement "OH, SomeKinda is talking, let us stop what we're doing and listen so we don't upset her again". Or something like that. Plus I worry that I'm just being disruptive to the group because our play styles don't match completely.


Anyways sorry for the long rant. I just really needed to get it off my chest.
They sound like a bunch of jerks. There's two sides to every story, but if just the, "his character (which is based on him) threw my character (which is based on me) into a trunk for ten minutes and the group played without me," is true: you deserve better. Sounds like an ego-maniac, "Hey guys, let's play as us... by the way since I'm so big and tough and smart I obviously have better overall stats than any of you'se guys, and clearly need an in-game advantage to keep my inflated ego satiated. You disagree? Let's arm wrestle for it!"

Get a new group, there's alot of resources that people on these forums can link you to help you find a local gaming store where you can meet people in a somewhat public forum (so you're not taking any risks by going to some stranger's house) and play some 4e encounters or whatever else they got going at their tables. There are also plenty of online groups from what I hear too so you might also try that resource.

I wouldn't continue to play with any group who treated me or any member like that. Guys sometimes mess with eachother bit (usually to establish a social hierarchy), but there's good-natured ribbing (which should goes back and forth) and there's just plain bullying (always goes one way). If you do go back for even one more session with those guys: stand up for yourself. Tell them you're sick of the treatment and if they can't give you the respect you deserve, then you're done. Be bold.

Participating in roleplaying games should not come at the cost of your self respect.
Regarding the D&D situation, that is totally wrong.

First off, allowing the other characters to play outside of the game session and exclude you in blowing up the town is just plain wrong on so many levels.  A DM shouldn't do something like that.

I also wonder how much communication went into the party makeup in advance.  If you have a party that consists of an evil drow rogue, a goody-good cleric, a psychotic murderous wizard, a lone-wolf thief, a pixie prankster, and a tree-hugging ranger, and you have no connection to each other beyond "so, you're in a tavern and some mysterious dude offers you a job", you're going to wind up with a very fractitious party, and ending up with either a split in the party (and someone rolling a new character, hopefully one who is less of a party irritant) or PvP (No. Just no.).

I've never played Hunter, but a few things that seem odd to me:

First, I play D&D to play things that are different from me.  In real life, I'm an out-of-shape, lanky, socially awkward guy with a boring job and a crappy car, and who hates to travel even if I could afford to vacation to exotic places.  In D&D, I play an agile badass who travels across the reaches of a fantasy world and stabs people for a living.  I think playing myself in D&D would be kind of pointless.  I might as well play World of World of Warcraft (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw8gE3lnpLQ) People should be free to create whatever character they want, within the confines of the rules.

Secondly, how long does the rest of the party expect you to hang around with them?  If you had friends who in real life would lock you in a car trunk and have fun without you, how often would you hang out with them?  I can't imagine anyone continuing to work with people like that.

And if someone says "lets play as ourselves - I'm a total badass who is good at everything, so I'll just make myself out to be a godly character," I'm betting they have some serious issues with their self-perception.  You are entitled to pity them as a free action. 
DM advice: 1. Do a Session Zero. 2. Start With Action. 3. Always say "Yes" to player ideas. 4. Don't build railroads. 5. Make success, failure, and middling rolls interesting. Player advice: 1. Don't be a dick. 2. Build off each other, don't block each other. 3. You're supposed to be a badass. Act like it. Take risks. My poorly updated blog: http://engineeredfun.wordpress.com/
So on two different occasions you've had a game turn into very-not-fun-time with the same group of people.

The conclusion should be obvious, but if it isn't, I'll clear it up for you: If you continue to game with these people, this is the experience you will continue to have. Find a new group to game with. Stay friends with them if you like them out of game, but don't keep gaming with them unless you're comfortable with the situation continuing to go that direction, because it clearly will. 

"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

While leaving may indeed prove the most sensible option...

A good ol' punch to the face never fails.

(Just sayin'.)

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

That's just terrible. Were you the only girl in the group? It feels like they were picking on you.

Especially in the second example, turning physical characteristics into stats is lame in a mixed gender group. Mental stats end up being the same, but most of the guys probably get higher physical stats. Right.

If he wants to make himself in the game, let him do it. No reason for everyone to.
Next time he wants to throw you in a trunk in game make him prove he can and kick him in the junk.  If that doesn't work just grab them really hard and pull hair.  Fight dirty then boost your stats to above his after he fails to throw you in a trunk, because obviously you have better stats than him.  Then call him your b!^#& the rest of the time you play those characters.  No man likes to be called that.  Even more so by a woman.  Just kick his ego down until they don't want to play themselves anymore.  Or yeah just leave.
First part: Players should never be allowed to deal with the DM out of session in a way that cuts other members out of the way. At best, the DM should only be spoken to in such a way to clarfiy problems and determine whether X action is correct or incorrect given the context of the settings. The DM is meant to be entirely imparial to the members and while he shouldn't obstruct any player actions (E.g. If they wanted a to attempt a robbary the royal treasury dispite the fact it's heavily protected by the Kings Finest warriors and wizards) he shouldn't be making any deals under the table with members of the party. It's his univerce but it is not his duty to play god to empower some playersm ore then others, but to grant equal benfit and penaltys to the entire party.

Second part: While it was incredably mean, I would see this as a oppertunity for incharacter motivation to kill that SOB. Kind of like how in star wars an sith appertice will stall until he/she is strong enough. I have to debate about the DM's way of doing this though, explain the system to me? Did he use points buy to arrange his stats in such a manner, hence is lacking somewhere, or did he say "I want to be awesome like I am in real life" and got everything well boosted?


Either way, it seems fairly obvious with me that you are dealing with at least one jerkoff of immense measure and I would either consider leaving the group, talking to him directly out of character to sort out the differences between you two, or be equally as jerkish back, wait until he gets weakened then kill his character as incharacter vengangce in either setting.
lets answer this in a bit of a convoluted order, first:

there is a reason 4e doesn't pose rolling for stats as one of the original methods of genning characters.  It sets up imbalances that suck the fun out of the game if someone is under everyone else.  Its great to be the guy on top, but REALLY sucks to be the underdog.  If you're going to play in that "play yourself" game, just look at his numbers, copy them, and redistribute them on your sheet in a way that makes sense for you.  If he picked (to use D&D numbers as an example) 18 16 18 14 14 18 for his numbers, and trained in 8 skills (or for 3.5, skill ranks to max out 8 skills) then simply adjust those numbers for yourself....say...you're smart but not strong, tough and wiry but not very convincing to the rest of the group....14 STR, 18 DEX 18 CON 18 INT 16 WIS and 14 CHA, and then just pick skills or specializations that make sense to you.

Now, for the cutting you out of things:
Step 1: consider getting your group to adopt an "everyone agrees" rule.  This requires players to all come to terms with a course of action if its to be done.  Even something like "i kill the helpless prisoner and i have super duper high initiative."  Its everyone's time, everyone's game, and everyone's fun.  That doesn't mean your CHARACTER has to agree, but you, as a player.  If an action is something your character probably wouldn't want to do, but you could go along with it or reason sticking around, and the party wants to do that, then great, go with it.  If, on the other hand, something is SO out there, SO utterly against your character's ideals that you cannot stay immersed in the game and your character knowing you've done it or allowed it to happen, then it gets veto'd until a workable solution for EVERYONE can be devised.  Remember, its not just the DM's game.  You're all playing.

Step 2:  If step one doesn't work, isn't agreed to, or is violated.


leave.

many people probably will or have already suggested leaving the party out of game.  Sadly, that is often not really a workable solution.  I'm talking in game - if step 1 isn't agreed to, you probably will have to leave (OOG) or just deal with it, but if they violate step 1, you have a nice easy solution.  "my character quits and leaves.  I cannot continue playing this character, who would never EVER consider going along with what you've done."  I know if it were me, i might be pissed off enough to just leave and ask them to reinvite me to the game when they start a new party, but you might consider making another character.  It isn't ideal, but a new character can probably be built in such a way that you may be able to play a different TYPE of character and have fun.




Lastly, to discuss them ignoring you.
Stop them mid-game.  As soon as it happens, stop them and tell them that you're playing in the game to and you have as much right to play and enjoy it as they do.  Continue repeating this at their face, not loudly and screaming, but in a controlled, stern voice for as long as it takes.  If you are there to have fun, you have EVERY RIGHT to demand to have some input, and to have that input heard and considered.  If your player will disapprove of what they are doing, but will still go along with it, then tell them that....be clear.

  We have some players in our group (most of us, at some time or other while we've been playing) who will say something once, and if you didn't hear it, then too bad, i guess your character wasn't listening or something, because they refuse to repeat it. 

Don't do this.  Make sure, from this point forward, that what you say and do is heard and noticed.  Tell them out of game that you WILL NOT be cut out of the group for any reason, unless all of the decide they want to take a vote and have you not play the game with them anymore.  They committed to playing a D&D (or whatever system) game with YOU in it, and gosh darn it they're going to GET a D&D game with YOU in it, and not just some bag of healing spells that they can kick around!            
Just walk.  These clowns aren't worth your time.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Just walk.



.... after giving them a good, solid kick to where it hurts.

Sorry. I don't deal well with @$$es, especially those that cross that far over the line.

Your friendly neighborhood Revenant Minotaur Half-Blooded Dragonborn Fighter Hybrid Barbarian Multiclassing into Warlord

IMAGE(http://pwp.wizards.com/1223957875/Scorecards/Landscape.png)

That's just terrible. Were you the only girl in the group? It feels like they were picking on you.



Nah, actually our group is 50/50 genderwise.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I feel a little bit better now that I know I'm not entirely overreacting to this.

I think I caused a little bit of confusion though regarding character creation in the Hunter game. It was using the game's normal rules, so balance was equal. It wasn't mandatory to make yourself, it was just what everyone was doing, so I did as well (although *sigh* I and another player have made it no secret that we don't enjoy doing so). If you're a high IQ super tough army guy with bajillions of guns, you're not gonna have many problems when it comes to making a workable character based on you in an rpg. If you're an art student who maybe took tae kwon do for about a year in middle school....not so much.

In his defense, he got the Storyteller to allow warlock characters so the less combat-worthy of us had magic to use. It was far too late for anyone to make new character though, so no one did.  The only thing really imbalanced about character creation was it was assumed that people you knew in real life you knew in the game, things you had in real life you had in the game, and your stats had to match you to an extent etc.

Since it was apparant I have absolutely no combat talent whatsoever I decided to just try for a diplomatic approach to things and put points into social skills. Course...then when I tried to take a moral stand on something I got overpowered and ended up feeling helpless anyways.

Now, we did play a zombie apocolypse game using a homebrew system and played as ourselves using D&D stats generated from an online test. That was HORRIBLE. I think that particular player/DM just really wants to see how well  he'd do in real life if stuff like this actually happened and he gets really into it...

ANYWAYS that's just more ranting from me. I definitely think I'll step out of the Hunter game. I won't stop playing with these guys all together just yet because they're truly a great group of people and aside from the issue I'm complaining about now our play styles match up very well. I can't imagine finding another group so easily that would allow the kind of spontaneous craziness our group gets away with each game. If the game stops being fun I'll stop playing though.

A lot of you gave me some really great suggestions for improving things though, so thank you. I think they would be very open to the "everyone agrees" rule or simply to the fact that I don't want to be left out. I just need to get the courage to say something, haha.
I am glad you have found the solution to your problems. I must admit  I am struggling from the same issues myself in reguards to a constant power struggle in my group between a few players. But live and let live I guess. Heheh
I just need to get the courage to say something, haha.


This, but also while you're roleplaying. I found that most of my roleplaying woes (which usually come down to my character not being able to do what he/she wants) can be solved by just taking the lead early in a scene, see how the others react to your ideas, and play on that. By showing some initiative, you not only nudge the outcome in a direction that you like, you also take away other players' power to (mis)treat the scene.

For example, if you initiate a dialog with a bad guy, the bloodthirsty barbarian player will be less likely to charge and try to behead him. Now reverse this situation: if the barbarian acts first and charges the bad guy, you look silly if you start talking to the bad guy after the barbarian's attack.

Same principle can be applied to almost any situation where you feel obstructed in your roleplay. In your example with the town, if you'd have suggested coming up with a good plan of attack/infiltration/diplomatic mission first, then the idea of just blowing it completely off the map would have sounded pretty idiotic in comparison.
Besides what other people have already said, I would suggest this - talk to the other players about helping each other out, as opposed to competing with each other. It's a cooperative game - even if certain characters have secret agendas, they can still act in a constructive way at the table.

I know when I've DM'd, my policy has always been to reward teamwork at the table, and to punish anti-social behavior. When players hear "Jack and Jill got magic items because they teamed up to find them; you guys didn't because you were all wandering around," it brings them a bit more into the fold. On the other hand, when the level 5 thief starts mugging people in town, running into the level 11 sheiff and having his weapon confiscated will change his behavior pretty quickly. It might be something worth talking to your DM about.
In our D&D 3.5 game I play a lawful good cleric (homebrew campaign deity) and I decided early on that I didn't want to be preachy. I have my ways, others have theirs. As long as no innocent gets hurt I'm fine with it.
However, there came a point where some members of the group decided to blow up an entire city to end a war because they were the "enemy" (by applying real world science to magic rules and massively abusing the rules....all of which the DM allows a lot, they accomplish horrible, overpowered things). The DM made it clear that innocents, women, children, etc. would be dying too.
Anyways, naturally I was hugely opposed to this both in game and out of game. It was ridiculous and unnecessary. It's not the kind of thing that makes the game fun for me. In between sessions though the rest of the group has a lot more contact with the DM than I do. I go into the next game expecting to be able to continue to make my case against the plan. Nope. The one who championed the idea of blowing up the city was contacting the DM out of game and planning the whole thing with the other group members. Next game starts with the city blown up, us sifting through the rubble, and the next arc of the story going. If I had known any of this, I'd have made a new character more in line with the rest of the group's intentions. They didn't want to lose their healer.



You're Lawful Good, they're evil, GM supports them and overrules you:  You have an inappropriate character for that game.  It is correct and good to drop out and either make a new character as evil as their characters, or to stop playing if you don't want to play en evil character.

Now, that was quite a while ago, but a few days ago that feeling came back. We were playing Hunter: The Reckoning (vampire/supernatural slayers game). Same group, although different DM/Storyteller. One of the players, the DM from the D&D game actually, wanted us all to play as ourselves. It's cool for him, cause he translates well onto a character sheet with high stats in just about anything, excellent fighting ability, lots of guns and other resources.



I hope he also took the Megalomania derangement.  Hey, it's two points, and you say it fits.

I get kinda depressed when I'm asked to make myself as a character because my specialties are few and don't really fit well in these kinds of games.



Depends.  But most people can be reasonably built in Storyteller, even if a lot of them make lousy Hunters.

At the same time, that's *part of Hunter*.  Yes, you suck at being a Hunter, that's the point.  That's part of what makes you the protagonist, and what makes your road-warrior-wannabe sidekick former GM the guy who dies horribly demonstrating that being good at punching simply doesn't work when you're facing off against a dood using the Werewolf rules.  Yes, you punched him real good for 15 damage!  That really hurt him!  He didn't die, regenerated it all, and hit you back 6 times for unsoakable agg and you died.  In his first turn.  Now it's his turn again.


Anyways, there was a disagreement near the end of the session similar to the D&D one, just on a much smaller scale. I was attempting to argue my case (and play my role as an "innocent" creed character) when the player I mentioned before rolled to grab me and throw me in the trunk of a police car. Again, his physical stats were something I couldn't possibly match up against and I was in the trunk for the rest of the game (about ten minutes real time) as they went ahead with what they wanted to do and wrapped up.



That can happen.  The real question is, "did he build his character on actual points, or did he pick whatever he wanted?  And did you?"

Because what you've said so far tells me he's cheating, and you're not cheating, and that's putting you at a crazy disadvantage.

Does this seem right to you? Now I just feel useless again because there's nothing stopping this from happening every time I try to play my character. I'm considering graciously bowing out of the game since I felt humiliated by that encounter when I was having fun up until the trunk incident. I mean, the character wasn't me, but it was me. If I'm going to take in-game stuff like this so seriously I should probably separate myself from the game entirely, right?



It's a perfectly rational reaction to take "we're playing ourselves!  I physically restrain you and do whatever I want to you!" as creepy as heck.  As well, it's a perfectly rational and reasonable reaction IN-CHARACTER to that kind of thing happening to leave and never come back, because that person is not your friend and has threatened you in all kinds of nasty ways.

Which is another way of saying that in the unlikely event that you play with these people again, *your character* would have nothing to do with *their characters* ever again, and you'd need to make a new PC.  Because if they'd treated you that way in real life you'd be filing restraining orders, right?  And "our characters are ourselves", right?

I know I should just talk to them about it, but I worry that instead of making things better it'd just go the complete opposite way and feel like an artificial improvement "OH, SomeKinda is talking, let us stop what we're doing and listen so we don't upset her again". Or something like that. Plus I worry that I'm just being disruptive to the group because our play styles don't match completely.



This is the first indication I caught that you were female and they were male.  If I missed one previously, I apologise, but:
1)  It is TOTALLY not your fault or your problem that they're dismissive and ignoring you and acting in threatening, aggressive ways towards you and your characters
2)  If you feel you can't talk to them because they will escalate their threatening behaviour, then don't talk to them.  That's fair.
3)  Under no circumstances should you feel obligated to play with someone who treats you as less than fully human, and these people appear bad at that
and
4)  It may very well be that regardless of their real-world personalities they want to play juvenile badasses doing unrealistic violent things, and that this is not your style.  If so?  You shouldn't feel bad about not playing with them.  Let them have their fun without making you the victim 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.
Follwing up a second time, to a later post I missed the first time:

I think I caused a little bit of confusion though regarding character creation in the Hunter game. It was using the game's normal rules, so balance was equal. It wasn't mandatory to make yourself, it was just what everyone was doing, so I did as well



I know Storyteller well, and the power of self-delusion is strong.  And also the power of min-maxing is very strong.  If you can convince your GM that you're a high-IQ super-tough Army guy, you can dump your bad stats through the floor and never have them come up if the ST doesn't make a point of it, which puts you laps ahead of people who rate "honestly" and then try to use their "honest" skills to solve problems instead of devolving evertything mechanical back to your one or two good stats.

(I put "honest" in quotation marks because very few people are good at assessing their own skills, and most people who assess themselves highly are incompetent, and most people who assess themselves poorly are more competent than they think.  It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect, it's very real, and there's tons of studies on it.)

If you're a high IQ super tough army guy with bajillions of guns, you're not gonna have many problems when it comes to making a workable character based on you in an rpg.



You will certainly make a more effective combat character - but the way good RPG rules work, you'll be short in social and intellectual areas, leaving room for other characters to shine.

And yes, the guy who self-assesses as top-notch in every respect is delusional.  Both by definition, and by the rules of the game you're playing.

If you're an art student who maybe took tae kwon do for about a year in middle school....not so much.



You're almost certainly bad at punching zombies to death, true.  That's not the same as "being a bad Hunter character", even if it means you suck at killing monsters at first.  Sucking at kiling monsters is part of what Hunter is.

The only thing really imbalanced about character creation was it was assumed that people you knew in real life you knew in the game, things you had in real life you had in the game, and your stats had to match you to an extent etc.



"Backgrounds are free if you claim they exist in real life, and delusions of adequacy are assumed to be justified"

Which is to say, he saved a ton of points on buying the stuff he wanted to use, and then put all those points into padding his high points, AND THEN rolled well on his Fast Talk GM roll to let him use his good points and ignore his bad points forever.

Since it was apparant I have absolutely no combat talent whatsoever I decided to just try for a diplomatic approach to things and put points into social skills. Course...then when I tried to take a moral stand on something I got overpowered and ended up feeling helpless anyways.



This is actually not that uncommon:  the guy who would lose a non-physical confrontation forces a physical one instead.  And he's relying on the real-world things that stop that from working (you call the cops, etc) from working because you're under pressure to not be the person who "breaks the party" and truly screws over a fellow PC.  After all, *all* he's done is devalue you and prevent you from having meaningful input in the game - if your character calls the cops and has him arrested for it, well, that's just unacceptable and it's your fault.

(This behaviour is pathological, and depressingly common.  And the player doing it is not worth playing with.  You should leave.)

Now, we did play a zombie apocolypse game using a homebrew system and played as ourselves using D&D stats generated from an online test. That was HORRIBLE. I think that particular player/DM just really wants to see how well  he'd do in real life if stuff like this actually happened and he gets really into it...



See what I said earlier about Dunning-Kruger and self-delusion and wanting fantasy worlds to show off what *isn't* happening in real life?
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.
I'm gonna be serious here, if something like yer first example happened to me? I'd up and say "Well, when my character discovers the town was blown up despite her objections, she calls the rest of the party evil incarnate, then runs off to find a church to hunt them down with." I would then hand my character sheet over to the DM, and tell them flat out that I, as a player, am NOT making a new character since I was left out of the loop for such an important decision that I AND my character were both opposed to.  I would then up and leave, and if DnD came up in talks with them(providing I decided to remain friends with such jerks) I would immediate tell them, "I don't even wanna TALK DnD with you, drop it or find someone else to talk with."
For the DnD session, if you are the party healer, waste all your healing spells on regular people around town and save a couple for yourself incase you get hurt. Technically you are still being good healing the "common" folks. Just that you dont have enough healing for the rest of the party. Tell them that your god/goddess or whatever isnt granting you spells to heal them because they are killing or even considering killing innocent people.

 
Thanks for the replies!

I talked with the GM of the Hunter game about quitting. He apologized for not acting during the game and said he realized he should have done something there (he's gone through the same thing before, apparently). He's given me reason to give the game another shot though. We'll see how it goes, but I'm not entirely optimistic. I do feel I should leave this game, but I'll let another session or two with the full group be the final judge.

We did play a one-shot game where (by lucky coincidence) it was just me and the only other player on the team that wasn't part of the "trunk incident" before. That was fun, and I got to act out some of my aggression towards the other non-present players, which was helpful.

I'll update if anything more happens.


This, but also while you're roleplaying. I found that most of my roleplaying woes (which usually come down to my character not being able to do what he/she wants) can be solved by just taking the lead early in a scene, see how the others react to your ideas, and play on that. By showing some initiative, you not only nudge the outcome in a direction that you like, you also take away other players' power to (mis)treat the scene.



I like this idea!

Besides what other people have already said, I would suggest this - talk to the other players about helping each other out, as opposed to competing with each other. It's a cooperative game - even if certain characters have secret agendas, they can still act in a constructive way at the table.



Good point.


At the same time, that's *part of Hunter*.  Yes, you suck at being a Hunter, that's the point.  That's part of what makes you the protagonist, and what makes your road-warrior-wannabe sidekick former GM the guy who dies horribly demonstrating that being good at punching simply doesn't work when you're facing off against a dood using the Werewolf rules.  



Yeah, I didn't realize that aspect of Hunter until I read more of the core book. That does put things in a much better light. While making a character based on myself is still depressing, it doesn't automatically make me a poor Hunter compared to everyone else. We're all screwed in a way!


It's a perfectly rational reaction to take "we're playing ourselves!  I physically restrain you and do whatever I want to you!" as creepy as heck.  As well, it's a perfectly rational and reasonable reaction IN-CHARACTER to that kind of thing happening to leave and never come back, because that person is not your friend and has threatened you in all kinds of nasty ways.



I agree with you, though I'm having trouble deciding if I actually want to go that route since I've decided to try a few more sessions. In-game I've already stuck around with them for at least another night. Yet....I've found that I'd love NOTHING more than to get in-game revenge on them at the moment.


This is the first indication I caught that you were female and they were male.  If I missed one previously, I apologise, but:
1)  It is TOTALLY not your fault or your problem that they're dismissive and ignoring you and acting in threatening, aggressive ways towards you and your characters
2)  If you feel you can't talk to them because they will escalate their threatening behaviour, then don't talk to them.  That's fair.
3)  Under no circumstances should you feel obligated to play with someone who treats you as less than fully human, and these people appear bad at that
and
4)  It may very well be that regardless of their real-world personalities they want to play juvenile badasses doing unrealistic violent things, and that this is not your style.  If so?  You shouldn't feel bad about not playing with them.  Let them have their fun without making you the victim of it.



Thanks. That helps to put it into perspective for me. I do think though that what they want out of this game is to be "awesome" and "kill things". The Alpha Male guy is *sigh* even running his own game for a party for the Storyteller. I don't think it's canon to the main plot but he basically admitted he's fudging the difficulty of vampires for his one-shot so that they'd be able to "kill hundreds", because he just wants to say he killed tons of vampires in some big massacre. Yes, he's playing himself in a game where he gets to decide that he kills super-tough enemies really easy. *sigh*

Not a part of it. Not playing in that one. Sorry. Hopefully it's not as bad as he made it sound, but I'm staying out of it anyways.

Anyways the Storyteller has in mind that me and another player (playing a visionary) would "temper" the rest of the group somehow. He's not intent on running a "kill them all" game and our characters' think-first/kill-later attitude would be important towards the group's survival. It's nice to know, but if my quitting means the rest of them get a heavy dose of character death, well somehow I won't be sad!

Thanks for the very in-depth and helpful response, LordofWeasels! You gave me a lot of insight into the Storyteller system and my situation.

I'm gonna be serious here, if something like yer first example happened to me? I'd up and say "Well, when my character discovers the town was blown up despite her objections, she calls the rest of the party evil incarnate, then runs off to find a church to hunt them down with." I would then hand my character sheet over to the DM, and tell them flat out that I, as a player, am NOT making a new character since I was left out of the loop for such an important decision that I AND my character were both opposed to.  I would then up and leave, and if DnD came up in talks with them(providing I decided to remain friends with such jerks) I would immediate tell them, "I don't even wanna TALK DnD with you, drop it or find someone else to talk with."


Yeah. My first inclination was just to find an in-character reason for me to still be with the group. It ended up being "She doesn't want to cause in-party conflict. She'd lose any fight she tried to start anyways". I would have made a new character, but among other things the adventure that followed up the blown-up city was one that made it basically impossible to introduce a new character while getting rid of the old one in a way that made sense. I was annoyed by it, but at the time I guess I didn't want to cause any waves.

For the DnD session, if you are the party healer, waste all your healing spells on regular people around town and save a couple for yourself incase you get hurt.
 


I'll spend the party's gold and every use of resurrection/true resurrection I can manage to, little by little, revive every single person in that city they blew up

Then probably decide that create undead would be more respectful to their religious beliefs (the bad guys', that is) and more efficient, go "evil" and raise an army against my former allies.....at least that's what I'd really love to do at this point. It certainly sounds fun. In game all of our characters are on our way to deity status anyways!
I talked with the GM of the Hunter game about quitting. He apologized for not acting during the game and said he realized he should have done something there (he's gone through the same thing before, apparently). He's given me reason to give the game another shot though. We'll see how it goes, but I'm not entirely optimistic. I do feel I should leave this game, but I'll let another session or two with the full group be the final judge.



If you feel that's the right decision, go for it.

The thing to remember about Hunter is that, like all White Wolf games, it's not about winning.  It's about what happens when winning is impossible, or costs too much.

"A player abandons your game because you've been dicks, and her character abandons you after CORRECTLY calling you out as no better than the 'monsters' you're supposed to be hunting:  THAT'S HUNTER"

And, frankly, a character abandoning her former friends as awful people because trials have revealed them to be evil:  Also a perfect Hunter ending.


Yeah, I didn't realize that aspect of Hunter until I read more of the core book. That does put things in a much better light. While making a character based on myself is still depressing, it doesn't automatically make me a poor Hunter compared to everyone else. We're all screwed in a way!



Not just that, but it's important to remember that being a crappy monster-killer is part of what Hunter is about, and the guy who's faking "I am super-smart and have no negatives!" and cheating to claim "All of my lies about my friends are free Backgrounds that I don't have to pay for!" is not a good Hunter character.  He's a perfect example of why being effective-but-immoral is always a losing strategy in Hunter, though.


It's a perfectly rational reaction to take "we're playing ourselves!  I physically restrain you and do whatever I want to you!" as creepy as heck.  As well, it's a perfectly rational and reasonable reaction IN-CHARACTER to that kind of thing happening to leave and never come back, because that person is not your friend and has threatened you in all kinds of nasty ways.



I agree with you, though I'm having trouble deciding if I actually want to go that route since I've decided to try a few more sessions. In-game I've already stuck around with them for at least another night. Yet....I've found that I'd love NOTHING more than to get in-game revenge on them at the moment.



Nothing stops your character from deciding to give the crazy abusive ****-threatening character a second chance, or from declining to inform him that you think he's evil before getting a shot at him.

I do think though that what they want out of this game is to be "awesome" and "kill things". The Alpha Male guy is *sigh* even running his own game for a party for the Storyteller. I don't think it's canon to the main plot but he basically admitted he's fudging the difficulty of vampires for his one-shot so that they'd be able to "kill hundreds", because he just wants to say he killed tons of vampires in some big massacre. Yes, he's playing himself in a game where he gets to decide that he kills super-tough enemies really easy. *sigh*



See also:  "Dunning-Kruger" and "wish-fulfillment" and "not necessarily any fun to play with".
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.
Some general things that sprang to mind when I read this.

1) Regarding playing a LG character, much less a cleric in a group of evil PCs.  Ok, there is a term thrown about in game circles known as "That Guy".  Sometimes "That Guy" is the one playing a good character when the rest of the party is evil.  Sometimes "That Guy" is "That Girl".

2) Regarding playing "ingame versions of oneself".  Ok, this is just, No.  Maybe ONCE.  But this just reeks of delusions of grandeur. If the "gun guy" running the game was really so awesome, he'd be the king of some impoverished nation in Africa or Eastern Asia by now and not running White Wolf games out of his living room in suburban USA.  I would be hard pressed not to get a good hard laugh in the face of this guy upon looking at his character sheet and seeing maxed out scores in everything. 

3) Regarding your obvious lack of self-esteem and your "friends" willingness to punish you for it.  Really?  These are your friends?  Is it not bad enough that you're obviously cringing every time that you have to stat out a character based on yourself, but they have to "LOL, lets throw her in the trunk!"???  Why are you gaming with these people again?  Why are you even associating with these people outside of the game?

In conclusion, you are both a contributor to the failings of the group and a victim of at least 2 other players very real psychological issues.  I would highly suggest leaving ALL incarnations of these games for now and maybe work on your own personal growth and sense of self-worth.
I read this thread with slack-jawed disbelief, and I've gamed for 30+ years now and have NEVER seen this level of insanity.

And I've gamed with alcoholics, manic-depressives and some of the biggest drama queens/kings you could imagine. 
I won't stop playing with these guys all together just yet because they're truly a great group of people and aside from the issue I'm complaining about now our play styles match up very well.




A truly great group of people wouldn't treat you that way.  You need to know that.  A truly great group of people would inspre you to nobler, healthier goals than quietly plotting revenge against them for the way they treat you.  You're not their friend; you're a puppy for them to kick, a resource for them to use, and satisfying yourself with the promise of getting them back in the end assumes that the relationship will end, and end badly, and that you will have become like them, only much less experienced at treating people badly.  You're in an abusive relationship, dreaming of the day it blossoms into a mutually abusive relationship.


You need to separate yourself from these people.    
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.



And one for Jenny and the wimp.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
After giving each of them a boot to the head..... and one for the GM.



And one for Jenny and the wimp.


Just don't stick the rabid badger down your pants...trust me.
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do... which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.

Still, this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed by the DM.
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do... which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.

Still, this kind of thing shouldn't be allowed by the DM.


Though if the DM and group are on board, it can result in fun shenanigans. For a session, our group had a LG Paladin, a LS(Lawful Stupid Paladin, me) and a LS SLayer(4e, so no mechanic deals).  Our grand assault on an enemy base consisted of me knocking on the door, the guard knocking himself out, then me knocking on the boss's door and walking right in. The boss was so confused by us just walking in the front door he didn't know what to do. Good times.
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do...



Depends on the group.  People who make heroes to begin with generally will be arguing over *how* to do things, not whether or not to do them.  D&D is about a team of heroic adventurers doing heroic things - evil characters are simply not appropriate.

which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.



There's a very good reason there's no alignment restrictions and no mechanical consequences for alignment "violation" on Paladins in non-terrible systems.

Terrible systems have rules like "the Paladin loses all their powers if they fail to read the DM's mind", or, even more commonly, "the Paladin loses all their powers no matter what, because the DM put them in a no-win situation for the express purpose of making them lose all their powers and has vetoed all possible non-power-losing outcomes."

But that kind of problem is why those are terrible systems.
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.
Yeah, one small part of a system that can quite easily be ignored without causing any problems with the other existing rules makes the entire system terrible, I agree.

Wait, what?
Well we aren't an evil group of PCs with me as the only Lawful Good one. It's more of a case where the players themselves don't see this particular issue in shades of gray. The DM knocked everyone's alignment down a notch for destroying the city (not sure if I counted in that too....I'd better not be).

So generally I try never to be "that guy", except in extreme situations. Huh, instead of the usual overzealous paladin/cleric in a party of morally gray adventurers I'm the "Let's look at issue from both sides before we do something rash!" in a party of "IT'S EVIL KILL IT". There's no risk of me losing my powers for that belief, because the deity in question is a mildly "love all creatures" type.

Hunter game was similar. We had a vampire at our mercy (staked, can't move or talk) and I pointed out that we attacked him, not the other way around, and that we should find a little more about the situation (1. about vampires existing and 2. about an ankh he had seemingly stolen)  first before burning him to death. I was saying all this as I was actively putting out the fire they were setting on the vampire, so that's why my character was put in the trunk.

This doesn't happen often though. Really it's been those two scenarios. I was upset because I figured that's how the Hunter game was going to go if I kept playing. The D&D game there aren't a lot of situations where our respective alignments get in the way of things.


A truly great group of people wouldn't treat you that way.  You need to know that.  A truly great group of people would inspre you to nobler, healthier goals than quietly plotting revenge against them for the way they treat you.  You're not their friend; you're a puppy for them to kick, a resource for them to use, and satisfying yourself with the promise of getting them back in the end assumes that the relationship will end, and end badly, and that you will have become like them, only much less experienced at treating people badly.  You're in an abusive relationship, dreaming of the day it blossoms into a mutually abusive relationship.


You need to separate yourself from these people.   



I'll probably (if I can get the courage) say something to them before the next game about how I felt when they did what they did. That way the in-game revenge plot will be just that, in-game. Actions have consequences!

 I appreciate your concern but it hasn't reached the level of abuse yet, and it won't. If I keep coming back for more because the "good times" outweigh a heap load of "bad times", then it's bad. But right now? I'm just giving the game a second chance before I decide to call it quits. The Storyteller really felt bad for what happened and will prevent these kind of things from happening again. He's already proven that my play style very much so has a place in his game. My friends went a little overboard in a fantasy game this one time (and totally ignored me this other time), but they're still my friends.....friends that need a good boot to the head.
That's all very well, and I hope things work out for you and your group of friends who need a boot to the head.

And the next time you play D&D, I would highly recommend that instead of a LG cleric, you play an Assassin, with a really big pair of boots. 
i know that this situation has been resolved for the best, but i still have some cents i want to add: 

Aside from this being a cooperative game wherein all of the players are the protagonists of the story, what douchbag mc**** did was just plain rude and immature. Ive made jokes at my table where we would play ourselves as hunters/ players of lycathrope (check the pentex book) but under no circumstances would i actually do it. There is no faster way to have fights break out than attempting to have the players stat themselves or each other (2 intelligence? Ha!). There is no faster way to break up the band. 

And he wasnt just a rude bully. That he did this (and that the storyteller allowed it) has horrific implications for how the story might have gone from there. The storyteller should have drawn the line in the sand there, because by letting him lock you in that truck, he has set precedent for the player to do whatever he wants to the other players and justify it by saying he is stronger than them and can therefore make them go along with it. there are many lines of thought i wont go down, but im sure you can think of some horrible outcomes. The DM is not just the arbiter of the game, but is also the administrator of his little troop, the leader whose responsibilty it is to make sure all involved are having fun (because, we should not lose sight of, that is the purpose of what we do as gamers). 
makes me remeber my first d&d campaign, was set in 3.5 (homebrewed) my DM(first a little backstory on what kinda DM he was) was deadset on making things tough, we never got a lucky break and if we forgot to mention every minute detail of what we were doing down to the twitch of our fingers he would find some way to turn it into bad things, such as we find lots of gold stuff said into pockets walk back to town, get to town find out the gold had fallen out and because we didnt tell him that we neither glanced back or made a spot or listen check we didnt notice. now i was a newbie playing the elf wizard  aand i was the only elf in the party i was the "prettyboy" had alot of jokes made at my expense, well in trying to rescue a party member i get thrown in jail, DM says i get raped and all the common prison sterotype cause im the weak "prettyboy" elf, all the other characters made fun of me and made constant jokes, while i can take a joke in good nature as much as the next guy i finally decided my character got tired of it. and because i have spells like sleep and they liked to get drunk and go to thier rooms alone......, and to this day (i play with the same group just different DM) i dont get those jokes and Dm always comes up with an excuse of why im not being sent to jail! Wink makes great plot hooks, as well as nothing of that nature has come up again because while they may have enjoyed it happening someone else, they definitly didnt like it happening to them.
To be fair, you can't roll a Lawful Good character and expect to never run into situations where you're opposing what the entire group wants to do...



Depends on the group.  People who make heroes to begin with generally will be arguing over *how* to do things, not whether or not to do them.  D&D is about a team of heroic adventurers doing heroic things - evil characters are simply not appropriate.



Actually, D&D is about whatever you and your group want it to be about, that's the single greatest thing about D&D, it can be whatever you wish it to be.

If you want to play a heroic campaigin, cool it'll be alot of fun. If you want to play a villian/evil campaign, cool it'll be alot of fun. Or maybe you just want to be a group of neutral mercenaries, cool it'll be alot of fun. Evil characters are very appropriate for an evil campaign and can be alot of fun.

which is hy playing such characters is so hard, especially for classes like paladins, who have VERY little room for error.



There's a very good reason there's no alignment restrictions and no mechanical consequences for alignment "violation" on Paladins in non-terrible systems.



Just because you don't like or disagree with a rule or two within a system, doesn't make it a "terrible system." House Rules exist for a reason after all. ;)


Terrible systems have rules like "the Paladin loses all their powers if they fail to read the DM's mind", or, even more commonly, "the Paladin loses all their powers no matter what, because the DM put them in a no-win situation for the express purpose of making them lose all their powers and has vetoed all possible non-power-losing outcomes."

But that kind of problem is why those are terrible systems.



That is a great example of bad DMing, rather than a problem with a so-called "terrible system."


It's a good idea to refrain from including "terrible system" comments within one's posts, as it will likely lead to Edition flame wars.

I hear it's amazing when the famous purple stuffed worm in flap-jaw space with the tuning fork does a raw blink on Hara-Kiri rock! I need scissors! 61! " 'Giving up' kills people. When a person refuses to give up, he earns the right to walk down the road of humanity." - Alucard
Sign In to post comments