That old debate: Jerk DM or whiney player?

32 posts / 0 new
Last post
Greetings all,

I hope you'll excuse my bringing up a topic what has no doubt been brought up many many times before but as this is the 'What's a Player to do?' section, it seemed the best place to ask for advice.

Now, I'm not seeking simple validation of my side to make me feel better...I come forward honestly not knowing how to read the situation as for all I know it may be a normal thing and I'm just being a whiney player.  As a person, and in most aspects of being  DM, I'd definately not call this DM a jerk, which adds to my hesitations to call this jerky behavior.

Anyway, the issue I am seeing is that the DM is needlessly punishing players. Very rarely in huge ways but it's the way he's doing it that I am finding it harder and harder to not call jerkish behavior.


Issue 1: DM complains players do not work well enough together in combat or spend enough time thinking of tactics.  When players try to spend such time, DM punishes them by making a situation worse (IE, additional enemies as time passes during conversation ((often meta conversation between players and not characters)) or dismantles the results of such planning anyway through 'fiat')

Issue 2: Now this might be entirely me given I'll be the first to say I've never really understood people or their connventions.  With that said, I am finding that the DM punishes the players for not saying what I am sure most or all of us doesn't need to be said.  While this is something I can except and addapt to as he is the DM and if we need to be specific then we need to be specific, there are cases of it where it is just silly.  One example I find a bit silly on the DM's part but also something that falls easily into 'it's his game, we'll do it his way' is when the party has cleared out a dungeon and we decide to go back to town; we've left our cart and horse tied up there and apparently walked back when we headed back to town because we did not specify it.  While a more severe case of 'oh well, you didn't say' is when the DM hands out an item found while looting some creature (and in this example, a AD) and decides that the player did not specify how or where on his person the player was storing it and so it must have fallen out of his pocket.

Issue 3: Finally, the last issue and the one I find the most challenging as to how it might be 'dealt with' or even brought up is the issue of 'the loudest voice' of the group being the jerk of the group too.  That player who has no issues stealing from his team-mates or rushing headlong into every situation even if it will clearly take us off course of the team objective as we suddenly find ourselves with some sort of portal we could travel through or a door that clearly doesn't want to be opened.  This is the guy that loots everything and is the one who successfully declares it and hoardes the stuff even though other players prior decloration of looting go ignored.


Now, I've never been great with people and to be honest...I can't imagine a good way of bringing any of these issues up that won't horribly offend as (myself included) people aren't big fans of having issues brought to them as if they are flaws...but with the behavior growing in frequency (or rather the games have decreased in frequency but the behavior has kept pace), I'm finding it more and more frustrating.  I havent been wanting to say anything if I'm just being a whiney player but if this is indeed jerkish behavior I've been afraid to breach the topic for fear I'll ruffle enough feathers that I'll no longer be wanted in the group.
Admittedly, only hearing one side of the story makes an evaluation difficult ...

1 is definitely a DM issue.  Saying 'you should do this' then punishing the players for doing it is asinine.

2 is ... ridiculous.  The PCs are not idiots.  They know to do things like tie up horses.  What, are you going to be playing two weeks later and the DM declares that you die because your bladders exploded?  "You never TOLD me you were going to the bathroom ..."

3 is the most easily dealt with.  React to him in-character.  If he steals from you, beat him up and take your stuff back, then ditch him.  If he goes running headlong into stupidity, everybody else just goes the other direction and lets him get clobbered.  If he takes more than his fair share of stuff, ditch him and go find a teammate who isn't a jerk.

So, yeah, jerk DM, jerk player.
I agree with LolaBonne that hearing one side makes it diffcult to evaluate properly.

I'll give my opinion as well though.

Issue #1

I've seen this happen as a player and I've even done this as a DM.  When things don't go well its easily to get defensive by going on the offensive.  Blaming others for what could eaily be your mistakes.  If a combat situation is too difficult for the players, its the DM's job to try to solve it first.  The is about the players fun, DM needs to reduce the combats and make them challange without making it too easy.  The ball is in DM's court in this situation here.  DM is being to defensive and narrow-minded.

Issue #2

DM's at total fault here.  The game is about fun not telling him where you placed your toothbush.  In my opinion of this situation the DM is clearly being vendictive.

Issue #3

As already stated above deal with the player in-game.  I've seen this work very well in the past.  Just remember if you go though the push comes to shove method be sure that you are prepared to shove back harder.  It also might be useful to have another character watching your back so this looter knows that if he's alone if he decides to pick a fight.

If this stuff continues then I suggest you find another group.  Either split off with some of the players you get along with or simply try to find another group in the area by visiting the local gaming store or online.

Regardless of what you do I wish you good luck.

Hoo boy.

Yeah, the DM is making you jump through hoops. Talk to him out of game, explain the game isn't fun, and talk about ways to make it more fun. If he won't compromise, don't waste your time.

As for in-game loutishness, this again needs to be figured out with out-of-game discussion. In-game retaliation never ends well. Out-of-game discussion might not end well either, but at least you will have learned that the person is a waste of your time. But there's just a chance that the player will maturely relent upon learning what you dislike. If he thinks such actions are true to his character and then fantasy genre, see if you can work something out so that he can roleplay, but not victimize your character. Maybe invent small mundane items that the thief is always stealing, and your player is always missing. No harm done, the thief is a thief, and your character is not diminished.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Maybe invent small mundane items that the thief is always stealing, and your player is always missing. No harm done, the thief is a thief, and your character is not diminished.



This still does not address the basic RP issue of 'why would anybody hang around with a thief?'

I still think hoisting someone on their own petard, in this case, is more effective.  "I'm just playing my character!" "So are we.  We don't want to hang around with a greedy b*****d who steals from us, takes more than his fair share, and endangers us by charging headlong into stupidity."
Maybe invent small mundane items that the thief is always stealing, and your player is always missing. No harm done, the thief is a thief, and your character is not diminished.

This still does not address the basic RP issue of 'why would anybody hang around with a thief?'

I'm going to take this as a question. The answer is: That depends how they resolve it. The most basic way would be that the target never realizes that the objects are being stolen, and assumes absent mindedness, or some other culprit. Or whatever. There's nothing to retaliate against, because the players came to an agreement. Nothing's happening that no one is not comfortable with.

I still think hoisting someone on their own petard, in this case, is more effective.  "I'm just playing my character!" "So are we.  We don't want to hang around with a greedy b*****d who steals from us, takes more than his fair share, and endangers us by charging headlong into stupidity."

Whatever. The game's not designed as complaint resolution method, and a situation like that is going to be unpleasant for everyone. I've seen it time and again. Handle it out of game or not at all.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Issue 1: DM complains players do not work well enough together in combat or spend enough time thinking of tactics.  When players try to spend such time, DM punishes them by making a situation worse (IE, additional enemies as time passes during conversation ((often meta conversation between players and not characters)) or dismantles the results of such planning anyway through 'fiat')



Your DM might be objecting (even if he doesn't know it) to players blocking each other's ideas. When you discuss tactics is there a lot of gainsaying and second-guessing going on? Like Bob says he wants to block the doorway and Steve says he should do something else? And round and round it goes until everyone's turn is taking forever? If so, then it could be the players causing the issue and the DM not having the knowledge or approach to be able to voice his objection clearly with guidance on how to solve the problem. (I'm giving the DM a heaping pile of benefit of the doubt here.)

"Dismantling the results of planning" is itself a form of blocking, only instead of player-to-player it's DM-to-player. Just as bad, if not worse, since it's commonly seen as the DM's role to foster trust at the table. This does the opposite.

We really need more context here.

Issue 2: Now this might be entirely me given I'll be the first to say I've never really understood people or their connventions.  With that said, I am finding that the DM punishes the players for not saying what I am sure most or all of us doesn't need to be said.  While this is something I can except and addapt to as he is the DM and if we need to be specific then we need to be specific, there are cases of it where it is just silly.  One example I find a bit silly on the DM's part but also something that falls easily into 'it's his game, we'll do it his way' is when the party has cleared out a dungeon and we decide to go back to town; we've left our cart and horse tied up there and apparently walked back when we headed back to town because we did not specify it.  While a more severe case of 'oh well, you didn't say' is when the DM hands out an item found while looting some creature (and in this example, a AD) and decides that the player did not specify how or where on his person the player was storing it and so it must have fallen out of his pocket.



You know, when I was watching Star Trek TNG back in the 90s, I noticed that I never really saw any bathrooms. And yet, I have to assume that Captain Picard had to take a leak because he drank so much damn Earl Grey. But we never actually saw him do it, so I guess he didn't do it. Maybe there's a hypospray that allows them to forego elimination. That's gotta be a real time-saver.

Sometimes you can just assume characters do reasonable things that needn't be said. This is a jerk move and deserves a frank, out-of-game conversation.

Issue 3: Finally, the last issue and the one I find the most challenging as to how it might be 'dealt with' or even brought up is the issue of 'the loudest voice' of the group being the jerk of the group too.  That player who has no issues stealing from his team-mates or rushing headlong into every situation even if it will clearly take us off course of the team objective as we suddenly find ourselves with some sort of portal we could travel through or a door that clearly doesn't want to be opened.  This is the guy that loots everything and is the one who successfully declares it and hoardes the stuff even though other players prior decloration of looting go ignored.



I'm going to go with "jerk move, but..." And the "but" part is that it's very easy (and there's certainly plenty of tradition for it) to assume that you can do these sorts of things to the other characters. I mean, you got skills and powers, and class features that allow you to steal and lie and be a jerk... in-character. It's not a difficult decision to imagine someone coming to, personal jerkish tendencies aside. The game almost suggests it. For that reason, he may think that this is perfectly fine and expects the same in return.

Truth is though, the outcome of any player-vs-player activity should be determined by the target of said activity. No dice. Sometimes it's fun to be the target of someone's pvp activity. But you should decide when that is, not the person trying to get one over on you nor the dice or in-game rules. I would suggest this rule be adopted. It's simple and still allows for all tastes.
Not sure if the DM is purposely being a jerk or unintentionally. It sounds like from your tone, he could use some pointers as DM. He may need to trust his players a little more. Or maybe he's dropping a hint that he wants you to be more specific, but isn't specifically telling you that, ironically.

This is one of those 'you gotta talk to him' moments. Remember, criticize in private, praise in public.

When a PC is stealing your PC's stuff, it's not cool. And pretty dumb role-playing on his part. I've had varying responses, depending on the personality of the character I play. It doesn't really bother me like it used to. Now I make a game of it. This assumes you've already had a talk with the player.

I had a character whose stuff kept coming up missing. I didn't steal from the party, because "you don't poo in your plate". Other players were being informed their stuff was coming up missing and I was being accused. I came up with a plan to prove my innocence. Finally, my character swapped the contents of an ink vial with an empty potion vial that was clearlly labelled "INVISIBILITY". The DM told him... "The dark jet-black potion tastes terrible. There aren't any monsters nearby... why take the potion now?"

Him: I pick the priest's pocket.

Another character went through the efforts of crafting a tiny vorpal dagger that he kept as part of a trap on his person at all times....
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
OMG... I haven't had a character take a poop since 1987... that's it. They're all dead if they're not wearing a ring of sustenance. Gotta keep it real. LOL.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Or maybe he's dropping a hint that he wants you to be more specific, but isn't specifically telling you that, ironically.



Great line!
Terrible Dm.  Dm being Jerk.  A-hole player..man what a selfish A-hole! lol.  
Aisu-Blue, "ahem" you really need to grow some balls too!  Tongue Out  
Tell it how it is!  Simplest way to say whatever you want to someone with minimum risk of offending them... is to say it with a smile.  You be amazed what you can get away with simply applying a Smile.  "F-you, selfish kniving thieving bastard!  Next time you steal from my pc or horde everything for yourself, I'm gonna coup-de-grace yo pc azz in yo sleep"....with a Smile on your face. lol

Whatever. The game's not designed as complaint resolution method, and a situation like that is going to be unpleasant for everyone. I've seen it time and again. Handle it out of game or not at all.



Frankly, anybody who would play a jerkass character like that DESERVES to be treated unpleasantly.  There's no cause for that.
I greatly appreciate the input.  Being very poor at dealing with people and worse at knowing what to expect from people or how to read them, your replies are very helpful.

It helps knowing that I'm not crazy and this is indeed a bit of jerkiness on part of the DM and the one player.

I'd drop this under jerky DM territory. I am very bad at dealing with number two, and generally have a conversation like this when it occurs.



  • DM - You get back to town and go to sell some stuff

  • Krusk - OK I try to find a stable to board the horses for a few days.

  • DM - You left them at the cave, and walked back here. It took 2 weeks.

  • Krusk - Oh ok. I walk all the way back immediatley. Any time sensitive plot things are secondary to my horse. When I find it, I apologize profusley for leaving it. In the future can we assume my PC is not mentally handicapped. He feeds himself a few times every day, dresses himself approperiately, doesn't leave his stuff tied up weeks away, and generally just doesn't make the stupidest choice possible for all actions when I leave them unspecified. 


I don't want to recomend that action but it generally works. I find that DMs who do this sort of thing, are doing it because they think its funny. The quicker you point out that it isn't funny, and is just them stretching to make you look dumb, the quicker it ends. 

"In a way, you are worse than Krusk"                               " As usual, Krusk comments with assuredness, but lacks the clarity and awareness of what he's talking about"

"Can't say enough how much I agree with Krusk"        "Wow, thank you very much"

"Your advice is the worst"

You're being far too reasonable, to the point of being unreasonable.  You're enabling his behavior by not trying to get him to stop.  So grow a pair, stop worrying about OFFENDING people who are offending you, and tell the DM (and any other jerk players) to stop being a ****.  You have a right to enjoy the game too.

My suggestion:  Give him one chance to stop being a **** and if he doesn't comply, leave the game before it's too late and start playing with another group that has an adult DM who isn't mentally ill.  You'll save yourself a lot of grief and you'll look back and be glad you did.  Life it too short to waste your precious leisure time with people who can't play nice with others.

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.”

Regarding this thief, I think it's a good idea for these characters to work out backstories together, to explain why it is that the thief doesn't steal from the party if the rest of the party doesn't want to play that kind of game.  I think Bender from Futurama is a good example of what I'm thinking - he wants to kill all humans, except for the Planet Express crew who are on his "Do Not Kill" list.
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/
Talk with your gaming group about a round-robin DM game.
Each person in the group would DM a module.
As a teacher in real life, I know that your DM will learn new and better gaming practices.
Furthermore, it makes it so that your group is not reliant on one person (if he is sick, you can still game on).

This does not directly address the OPs situations, but it gives everybody more control of the game, which subtly addresses the situation.
Talk with your gaming group about a round-robin DM game.
Each person in the group would DM a module.
As a teacher in real life, I know that your DM will learn new and better gaming practices.
Furthermore, it makes it so that your group is not reliant on one person (if he is sick, you can still game on).

This does not directly address the OPs situations, but it gives everybody more control of the game, which subtly addresses the situation.

These are very good suggestions, actually.  More subtle than my "tell him to stop being a ****" advice.  Leading by example really does work, if the circumstances allow you to lead.

However, if your DM is not open to round-robin DMing, that's probably a sign that he's not going to give up on his power trip.  In that case, run.  Run like you never runned before.  No D&D is better than bad D&D.  

I guess I just work under the assumption that people know not to be jerks when in actuality, some people still need to be taught how not be jerks.  That's okay, but I don't have the patience for it (except for when it comes to little kids, who of course can't be expected to have the typical social graces that adults are expected to have).

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 round robin DM? Hmm.  That is a very good idea.  I may have to propose that to the group I am part of in which we've had very much the same issues.
One group I played 2E with had the rule that anything said was assumed to be "in character" unless otherwise specified. One player once got up saying "I'm going to go take a leak." Unfortunately, that turned out to be a mistake, as we were in a temple dedicated to a good deity, and had both a cleric and a paladin the party. :omg!:
We changed the rule right after that, but it was good for a laugh when he came back to find out what had happened to his character while he was gone.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
I would think 'in an appropriate location' would be an assumed part of that statement, and temple would either have facilities, or he could step outside.  That again constitutes part of the 'my character is not an idiot' defense.

Even if the 'everything said is in character' rule were remotely sensical.
Whatever. The game's not designed as complaint resolution method, and a situation like that is going to be unpleasant for everyone. I've seen it time and again. Handle it out of game or not at all.

Frankly, anybody who would play a jerkass character like that DESERVES to be treated unpleasantly.  There's no cause for that.

No one deserves to be treated unpleasantly, and trying to handle things in-game is likely to be unpleasant for everyone anyway.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

No one deserves to be treated unpleasantly, and trying to handle things in-game is likely to be unpleasant for everyone anyway.



I disagree with the first.  There are *many* people in this world who deserve to be treated unpleasantly at best.  This is one of those behaviors I consider completely unacceptable and unconscionable.

Secondly, I didn't say handle it in-game.  Handling it out of game would be fine.  "Dude, what the **** is wrong with you?  Stop playing such a ***hole, now."
I mean... even if your character is, in fact, an idiot.  Who the hell just whips it out and tinkles on the floor of a temple, in front of people?  I've known my fair share of dumb people, but nobody _that_ stupid would be able to function independently at all.  So even if you assume it's in character, you've got to also assume that, much like the player didn't just stand up and pee on the gaming table, the character also managed to find an appropriate facility.
The temple had been abandoned for centuries, but it was still consecrated.
And, seriously? Is it right for any of you to criticize a game with which you weren't involved, involved no PvP tension, and had the rules clearly defined beforehand? Different strokes for different folks, right? Or did that change in 15 years and 2 editions to where every group has to play exactly the same way?
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
The temple had been abandoned for centuries, but it was still consecrated. And, seriously? Is it right for any of you to criticize a game with which you weren't involved, involved no PvP tension, and had the rules clearly defined beforehand? Different strokes for different folks, right? Or did that change in 15 years and 2 editions to where every group has to play exactly the same way?



Sorry, the sheer unbridled stupidity of the player getting up to go to the bathroom meaning the character dropped his pants and went then and there, in-game, in the middle of a room, warrants criticizing.  It warrants derision.  This is beyond stupid.  It's beyond asinine.  It's positively asiten.

The only possible excuses for the rest of the group deciding that happened, particularly since the player apparently had no input on the actions of his own character, is blatant idiocy or intentional malice.
He'd been speaking, IN CHARACTER, and finished up with "...and I go to the bathroom." He found it humorous, too.
And the attitude displayed here is why I LEFT this section of the forums when 4E invaded. Y'all seem to have a different playstyle than previous editions, and like to hate on anyone who doesn't conform to your standard. Thanks for reminding me why I left, and showing that the atmosphere that drove me away in the first place has only gotten worse. I'll leave you to your homogenous playtime now.
"Today's headlines and history's judgment are rarely the same. If you are too attentive to the former, you will most certainly not do the hard work of securing the latter." -Condoleezza Rice "My fellow Americans... I've just signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. Bombing begins in five minutes." - Ronald Reagan This user has been banned from you by the letters "O-R-C" and the numbers "2, 3, 4, and 6"
User Quotes
56788208 wrote:
I do, however, have one last lesson on this subject. That last one? The only build in this post that can one-shot average opponents[by dealing twice as much damage as they have HP? I would argue that it is not optimized. Why isn't it optimized? Because it's overkill. Overkill is NOT optimizing. This means that there are portions of this build dedicated to damage which can safely be removed and thrown elsewhere. For example, you probably don't need both Leap Attack AND Headlong Rush at the same time. You could pick up Extra Rage feats for stamina, feats to support AoO effects, feats that work towards potential prestige classes, and so on. However, you could also shift our ability scores around somewhat. I mean, if you're getting results like that with 16 starting Strength, maybe you can lower it to 14, and free up four points to spend somewhere else - perhaps back into Charisma, giving you some oomph for Intimidating Rage or Imperious Command if you want. You can continue to tune this until it deals "enough" damage - and that "enough" does not need to be "100%". It could easily be, say, 80% (leaving the rest to the team), if your DM is the sort who would ban one-hit killers.
Tempest_Stormwind on Character Optimization
So when do you think Bachmann will be saying she met a mother the previous night that had a son who got a blood transfusion using a gay guy's blood, and now the son is retardedly gay?
When she meets CJ's mom?
Resident Pithed-Off Dragon Poon Slayer of the House of Trolls
Whoa take it easy Draco1119.  Hehe others were defending you.  You did post what your DM did in this "jerk" post.  Others just assumed that your post was similar complaint, not compliment.  If you & others at table wanted it that way and thought it was funny, its all cool.  Would of had total diff response if posted under "Cool & funny thing our table did" post.Wink
He'd been speaking, IN CHARACTER, and finished up with "...and I go to the bathroom." He found it humorous, too.
And the attitude displayed here is why I LEFT this section of the forums when 4E invaded. Y'all seem to have a different playstyle than previous editions, and like to hate on anyone who doesn't conform to your standard. Thanks for reminding me why I left, and showing that the atmosphere that drove me away in the first place has only gotten worse. I'll leave you to your homogenous playtime now.



Good riddance.

Considering that this part of your story contradicts your original post, I no longer believe it happened at all.  If it did, you're changing your story to move the goalposts so you feel justified in making unfounded insults.
He'd been speaking, IN CHARACTER, and finished up with "...and I go to the bathroom." He found it humorous, too.
And the attitude displayed here is why I LEFT this section of the forums when 4E invaded. Y'all seem to have a different playstyle than previous editions, and like to hate on anyone who doesn't conform to your standard. Thanks for reminding me why I left, and showing that the atmosphere that drove me away in the first place has only gotten worse. I'll leave you to your homogenous playtime now.



Good riddance.

Considering that this part of your story contradicts your original post, I no longer believe it happened at all.  If it did, you're changing your story to move the goalposts so you feel justified in making unfounded insults.



+1

RIP George! 4-21-11 RIP Abie! 1-2-13
Funny Forum Quotes
[quote author=82733368 post=532127449]
58115148 wrote:
"You notice a large piece of mold clinging to your toothbrush. What do you do?" "I cast Fireball." "I run like hell!
63797881 wrote:
The standard d4 is somewhat (SOMEWHAT) rounded on the top, the older models are even flat. The Lego is shaped in such a way that in an emergency, you can use one as a makeshift surgical knife.
147742801 wrote:
57457938 wrote:
My wife asked me if her pants made her look fat. What do you think I said?
Wife: Do these pants make me look fat? RedSiegfried: I just killed a bunch of orc women and children.
63797881 wrote:
82733368 wrote:
28.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character (Monk or otherwise) does not require my character to be completely shitfaced, no matter what the name (and fun interpretation) implies.
29.) Making a "Drunken Master" style character does not require ME to be completely tanked, no matter how "in-character" I want to be..
Good riddance.

Considering that this part of your story contradicts your original post, I no longer believe it happened at all.

One group I played 2E with had the rule that anything said was assumed to be "in character" unless otherwise specified. One player once got up saying "I'm going to go take a leak." Unfortunately, that turned out to be a mistake, as we were in a temple dedicated to a good deity, and had both a cleric and a paladin the party. :omg!: We changed the rule right after that, but it was good for a laugh when he came back to find out what had happened to his character while he was gone.

He'd been speaking, IN CHARACTER, and finished up with "...and I go to the bathroom." He found it humorous, too.



I'm not seeing a contradiction here.  Could you point it out for me?
If it did, you're changing your story to move the goalposts so you feel justified in making unfounded insults.

I would think 'in an appropriate location' would be an assumed part of that statement, and temple would either have facilities, or he could step outside. That again constitutes part of the 'my character is not an idiot' defense.

Even if the 'everything said is in character' rule were remotely sensical.


I mean... even if your character is, in fact, an idiot. Who the hell just whips it out and tinkles on the floor of a temple, in front of people? I've known my fair share of dumb people, but nobody _that_ stupid would be able to function independently at all. So even if you assume it's in character, you've got to also assume that, much like the player didn't just stand up and pee on the gaming table, the character also managed to find an appropriate facility.

Sorry, the sheer unbridled stupidity of the player getting up to go to the bathroom meaning the character dropped his pants and went then and there, in-game, in the middle of a room, warrants criticizing. It warrants derision. This is beyond stupid. It's beyond asinine. It's positively asiten.

The only possible excuses for the rest of the group deciding that happened, particularly since the player apparently had no input on the actions of his own character, is blatant idiocy or intentional malice.



Now, I could be wrong, but that grouping of posts seem to me to say, respectively, "Urdoinitrong", "Urdoinitrong", and "Not only are u doinitrong, but you're also a pack of either drooling idiots who should never be allowed near sharp objects or a pack of malicious a-holes... who should never be allowed near sharp objects".  And I note that two of those three posts are yours.

Now, the guy's post may have been rude, rather insulting, and quite over the top... But was it really unfounded? 


Two... Ah ah ah! Three.. Ah ah ah! Four... Ah ah ah! Six... Ah ah ah!!
88534793 wrote:
Punctuation exists for a reason, and your neglect of the shift key is to the point where Social Services should be involved.
Count_Von_CoC, I think the reason LolaBonne said that the two parts of the story are contradictory is that in the original post, draco1119 says the player got up from the table and said "I'm going to go take a leak."  This implies that--even if they presumed he was still talking in-character, his character would likewise be leaving the general area to go do his business, not do so right there in the still-sacred ruins of the temple.  The second post, on the other hand, makes it seem more like he just sat there, did nothing physical to denote his leaving the table and therefore likely making it very deliberate and obvious that he was no longer talking in-character, and said "...and I go to the bathroom," trailing right off of what he said.  It presents a wholly different set of events, which implies far more strongly that his character did just do it right there and then.

This is why LolaBonne stated he was moving the goalposts--he went from a series of events that made it sound like the DM and other players were presented with a statement that was clearly OOC and made it an IC series of actions that didn't even make sense with the player's words, to an event wherein it sounds like the player committed this statement as a conclusion to a string of IC roleplay and very clearly made it sound like his PC was doing his business right there on the temple floor, thus making whatever the Cleric and Paladin did to his PC totally IC and expected.  He's changing the story to make the player sound that much more like he'd done something totally stupid, rather than it being a case of the other group members taking IC advantage of a statement meant clearly OOC to their own amusement, whether the player involved laughed at the end result or not.

As to the posts you label as "urdoinitwrong", I think that LolaBonne and Wishful are somewhat justified in their statements--based on the first of draco1119's posts, the group basically used the player's actions to turn their PC's actions into something immature and most likely not something the PC would necessarily do, unless the person was playing some thoroughly uncivilized barbarian who thought nothing of such things.  Unfortunately, the post doesn't really lead us to believe that, nor does his subsequent post lead us any further toward that conclusion.  It's totally in someone's rights to read that and say that it was a foul call, as it's presuming a greater level of stupidity on the part of the PC (and really, on the entire group, if they couldn't interpret the player's actions as clearly independant of his PC) than should be warranted.  It might be a simple prank to their group, but to an outside audience only getting draco1119's description of it, the events feel mean-spirited and insulting to the player and his PC.  It's a case of "Why the heck would you do this to your friend, man?", as most people tend to presume that a group of D&D players wouldn't go setting their friend's PC up in such a way based on a set of actions and a statement that were very clearly OOC, as the implications are that the Cleric and Paladin PCs did something to that PC in retaliation, possibly physical violence.

It's also not a case of "you 4e jerks, getting up in everybody's business about how we play our game!" as draco1119 then seems to postulate.  It's genuinely a case of people looking at that sort of behavior and wondering how someone could do that to a friend's PC, why they would think it funny to prank like that, particularly when the player is out of the room and has no input, whether or not it was funny to all concerned in draco1119's group.  Even if the player laughed at it in the case of their group, there's probably a lot of groups where the DM would've had the sense to nip it in the bud, or where the player would have come back to the table and been furious at the others' reactions.  It's not a universal response, by any means.