Is it fair for a DM to screw you over in a game if you're playing the character the way YOU want to?

[otakon17]

The setup was this. Me and some Skype buddies were doing an ad hoc "Four Swords" RPG. Well it was just two of us playing so far and I decided that my character was gonna be a loud mouth smart aleck and spout taunts at enemies to get their attention. Because I had a shield really so might as well use it right?

Anyway, the GM didn't like the way I was playing my character. So on the second characters CRITICAL SUCCESS in an attack on a Stalfos, he has player 2 SLICE MY THROAT OPEN AS A SIDE EFFECT! Rendering me mute the rest of the game and generally coming across as a dick move.

Was it a dick move? I was playing a role I wanted, so what if the GM didn't like the character, it's not up to him to like it, just to lord over the preceding, narrate and call out the rolls as they land. I mean, for making a mistake yeah I expect to be punished but I didn't DO anything for that to happen.

 

[Xeorm]

I'd call it a bad way to resolve the conflict. It depends primarily on how you were playing though, as it's considered good manners to not be an annoying git while playing anyway.

 

[InsanityRequiem]

There's two issues about this. The first is the DM did pull a majorly asshole move, something that you guys most likely never discussed and him taking a personal vendetta out against your character. The second is that you were doing an action that, unless had in-game defined rules (Such as calling it the Taunt ability to grab aggro), was disruptive and a bit of a dick move as well.

You seem to think of the DM as a passive role, to obey only the whims of the players. The thing is that that's only one way, and really works when it's a quick and very smash 'n grab type of game style. If you were all playing a more roleplaying or loosely created type scenario, then the DM's role is to guide you all through the route and story he created. Going off the rails destroys the DM's plans, make it unplayable for him as the DM, and creates bad blood between the DM and you, the players. Plus, you "decided" to be the smart aleck loudmouth character, and unless you talked it over with the group, went against what was established in the ad hoc game.

Essentially this is broken down into a issue of bad communication between you, the DM, and the group. Especially because this is an ad hoc game that was created.

 

[RJ 17]

I'd say Xeorm pretty much summed things up. If you were going over-the-top with these taunts of yours then I'd say it could be justified...as it's never a good idea to get on the nerves of the DM. Though if you were being funny about it and getting him to laugh along with you (that's the key to not incurring the DM's wrath, after all ) and he had the baddie slit your charater's throat then yeah, you could call that a dick move.

Then again, I apply to the - if you'll excuse the pun - "cut-throat" school of DM'ing. No easy walkthroughs for anyone playing one of my games. Oh no, they'll have to work to survive my stories. >

Can't say I've ever just up and smote someone, though. I prefer to have them kill themselves to be honest, that's why my games are riddled with instant-death traps that once trigger they cannot be escaped. Such as my Grail of Immortality. Anyone that drinks from it gains immortality through being turned undead, at which point they're immediately reduced to smoking ash due to the temple the Grail is in being heavily consecrated and thus filled with a powerful holy aura.

My tactics may be brutal and specifically designed to murder characters, but the challenge is worth it, as I give out very good loot to those that can survive. I even have a cute little baby seal deity that spits out powerful items if you rub his belly and give him snuggles. :3

Point is: the DM's will is law, and if he didn't like your character's taunts then as the saying goes: "them's the breaks."

 

[otakon17]

I'd say Xeorm pretty much summed things up. If you were going over-the-top with these taunts of yours then I'd say it could be justified...as it's never a good idea to get on the nerves of the DM. Though if you were being funny about it and getting him to laugh along with you (that's the key to not incurring the DM's wrath, after all ) and he had the baddie slit your charater's throat then yeah, you could call that a dick move.

Then again, I apply to the - if you'll excuse the pun - "cut-throat" school of DM'ing. No easy walkthroughs for anyone playing one of my games. Oh no, they'll have to work to survive my stories. >

Can't say I've ever just up and smote someone, though. I prefer to have them kill themselves to be honest, that's why my games are riddled with instant-death traps that once trigger they cannot be escaped. Such as my Grail of Immortality. Anyone that drinks from it gains immortality through being turned undead, at which point they're immediately reduced to smoking ash due to the temple the Grail is in being heavily consecrated and thus filled with a powerful holy aura.

My tactics may be brutal and specifically designed to murder characters, but the challenge is worth it, as I give out very good loot to those that can survive. I even have a cute little baby seal deity that spits out powerful items if you rub his belly and give him snuggles. :3

Point is: the DM's will is law, and if he didn't like your character's taunts then as the saying goes: "them's the breaks."

He didn't have the baddie slit my throat. He had the other players critical success of killing an enemy ALSO hit me as a result. Like, imagine standing on the other side of an enemy and the archer shoots at the enemy. He rolls a twenty, and gets a critical hit. But then the DM says that the arrow went THROUGH the baddie and hit you for massive, crippling damage too because the DM didn't like the puns you were coming up with.

 

[RJ 17]

He didn't have the baddie slit my throat. He had the other players critical success of killing an enemy ALSO hit me as a result. Like, imagine standing on the other side of an enemy and the archer shoots at the enemy. He rolls a twenty, and gets a critical hit. But then the DM says that the arrow went THROUGH the baddie and hit you for massive, crippling damage too because the DM didn't like the puns you were coming up with.

Ah, I must have misunderstood that part. Yeah, invoking friendly fire is a pretty dick move unless the DM said from the beginning that friendly fire does apply. Usually, though, that's only for magic though. Like if a melee character has engaged the enemy and the mage throws a fireball, the explosion could hurt the melee character.

The rest of the stuff I said did apply, though. If you were being annoying and disruptive (not saying you were, I wasn't there so I couldn't possibly know) then that kinda justifies his actions...he just executed his intentions in a BS way by invoking friendly fire. Just come up with a monster on the fly that can cast a silence curse or something, not really that difficult. If you were being funny and everyone was having a good laugh with your taunts and quips, then yeah, he was just being a dick.

 

[Windcaler]

Ive always said that GM has no right to control your character, how they feel about something, or what their goals/reactions are (unless under mind control or something of the like). That said I also think a GM has every right to have consequences for behavoir. I think its perfectly resonable to have a paladin loose their powers after dismembering a prisoner. I think its perfectly reasonable to have a taunted enemy hold a grudge and put a bounty on their heads or just hunt them down. Consequences for a characters action can make for good stories and memorable moments in a game

As for this specific situation, I dont like it but I wasnt there either. If it were me I probably would have asked you nicely to tone it down a bit if it was disruptive to the game. That said Im only hearing one side of the story too.

If I were you I would sit down with your GM. Let him know your pissed about what happened and try to work it out in a calm and reasonable discussion

 

[BoogieManFL]

DM is a real prick, unless you were going really overboard and ignored cues of annoyance.

 

[communist gamer]

Quick question, did you have the stats to support your character? If so then yes, dick move on the behalf of the DM (although every sword has two sides and i suspect you had a talk or two with him about the character). If you did not i would do a similar thing to you

 

[Elvis Starburst]

As some have said, it all depends on you being really obnoxious in game. Not saying you were, but, WERE YOU? Did you do anything you could think of to provoke this? One thing I see is the idea that if the DM is having a laugh with you, it comes off as a dick move. Was he laughing? Answers, my man, we need answers!

 

[Smooth Operator]

Ya it's a real bad way to handle something that annoys you with a player. But you already know he did it because your role play was legit annoying as hell, doesn't matter if it's only a part you play the people around you still need to put up with that shit... hours on end.

I would at least ask you to keep things to a minimum, but if you wouldn't listen then the enemies would rapidly grow in number and strength all coming for you.

 

[Imperioratorex Caprae]

If your roleplay was disruptive to the group, not so much a dick move just a poor handling of communication from the DM. If you chose to be a dick specifically, then all you got was retaliation (again not an excuse) for crossing the line. When roleplaying, people forget the DM isn't there to take abuse from the players, the DM handles all the mechanics, the stage, the NPC's, etc. The DM is the engine that runs the game and pissing off the engine can have disastrous results.
Whenever playing an obnoxious character, it is possibly a smart thing to periodically check in with reality, see if you're going too far overboard and crossed into annoying the fuck out of people.
However it also seems to me that the issue was brought up and you didn't seem to care that people found it annoying. You're not playing a single-player experience, so it would be wise to compromise with your fellow players and DM to avoid massive conflicts. There's no sense in pissing people off, its more than just "your" game its everyone's.
Maybe it was a bad move tact-wise but its not far off from how I'd handle someone I asked to tone down some aspect of their character who decided to continue being obnoxious.

 

[giles]

If your character is annoying to the other players it is not a good character.
Apparently you two have failed to discuss your character before the game, so you're both to blame for how this turned out.

 

[ExDeath730]

Well...In that situation i guess he went a little overboard with you, when i'm a DM i love the choices+consequences thing, so yeah, when someone screws up, it will get back in tue future. But probably you were getting on his nerves and he wanted to have a better time...You know, DMs are human too.

But about the question, it really depends on the situation. There are some P&P RPGs that after finishing the Character Sheet, the DM must them approve it, this rule is because sometimes on or another style of play may not be supported by the tale the DM is trying to tell. For instance, in a D&D game, a DM wants the characters to be villains, so they must be from the Evil Alignments, etc...

I had a situation about a PC clashing with a DM that ended with the character dead. I was a player in a Werewolf The Apocalypse game, and there is a golden rule in my state in this game in particular. There is one advantage that removes the weakness to silver from the Garous, it's a really OP advantage and here in my stat it is a banned one also, the DM's hate it and most of them don't allow, other's just punish the ones who dare put it in the sheet. Anyway, one of the players put it in the sheet, it was his first time with our group and even when we said to him to take it off, he wanted to play HIS character, and he was one of THOSE players that wants to be the badass and ends up screwing up (it's amazing how Werewolf attracts this kind).

So, we were in spying on a Pentex instalation in the Amazon to discover what they were up to, most of the group wanted a stealthy aproach, maybe get a disguise or something. He tried to charge the front, because Pentex=Wyrm. There were sniper turrets in the facility and the snipers were using anti-material rifles. You know that advantage? Well, it didn't matter since the anti-material rifles made quite a mess ripping his character in half even as he was in the Crinos form.

 

[Shymer]

I decided that my character was gonna be a loud mouth smart aleck and spout taunts at enemies to get their attention.

One of the unspoken rules of character creation is that it needs to be a character that will create a fun role-playing experience for the group. That does not always mean likable or team-orientated, but if the way you are playing a character is disruptive to a group, dominating proceedings or otherwise interfering with anyone else's enjoyment, then something has gone a bit wrong.

You have to be careful with characters that have obvious anti-social behaviour (loud-mouth, for example) as they can be very annoying to other players and the GM. The goal is for everyone to have fun. If you, as a player, need to cut loose with puns, loud-mouth comments and the like to relax, then perhaps this wasn't the right game, group or medium to express it.

Anyway, the GM didn't like the way I was playing my character.

If the GM spots that the way you are playing your character is disrupting the group and getting in the way of people having fun, then he should pause the game and have a word with you (the player) about it. If suggestions, advice and coaching fail to address the issue, then the GM should change the game, or ask you to leave.

A GM responding to this situation in-game in-character is not the right way of doing things.

I was playing a role I wanted, so what if the GM didn't like the character, it's not up to him to like it, just to lord over the preceding, narrate and call out the rolls as they land.

Role-playing is a collaborative hobby for people to create enjoyment together, including the GM. To enable this, there are unspoken rules of etiquette. The GM's role is far wider than you suggest here and it is important that he is enjoying things as much as the players. If you haven't tried GMing, then perhaps you should to see what challenges there are to face. It's important for everyone to have fun or there's no point.

 

[Clive Howlitzer]

If I were the DM and someone was "playing their character" in such a way as to be a major detriment to the other players fun. I'd just tell them to cut it out or take a hike. No need to take it out on them in-game. It is better to resolve it outside the game.
That said, playing your character "your way" is not an excuse for being an annoying prick. If that was the case. I don't know the details.

 

[Signa]

As someone who is in a game with an obnoxious player, I'm going to guess that the GM did the right thing for the sake of the game. My last session in my Pathfinder game had us arguing in character about this player and his ultimatums for over a half hour. He was threatening to leave the party if we weren't nicer to him, but he nearly assassinated some NPCs because they were "red shirts" and it would be funny.

 

[Denamic]

That was a horrible way to do it. He should have sprung a trap on you, or even just have assassins slash your throat. Having an ally slice your throat on a critical is so crude. Don't get me wrong, you probably deserved it. I just don't like the way he did it.

How you play your character is your prerogative, but that doesn't mean you're not annoying when you're being disruptive.

 

[communist gamer]

Yes the DM is a dick.
Even if your character was annoying there are better ways to resolve the situation.

The DM could have taken you aside and asked you to tone it down, he could have incorporated it into the story (like having a bad dude cut your throat because your character pissed him off) adding to the plot and giving an opportunity for character development.

Instead he just lazily pulled a reason for your character to be mute out of his ass and shoehorned it into the game with little justification.

Either your DM is childish and malicious or has little understanding of how to run an enjoyable D&D game.

to tell the truth a loud-mouth that has been muted makes for a very cool character idea and can turn into a hellishly cool game, new plot stuff (how to get my voice back) new ways to interact with people (hmmmm so should i use sing langue or BUILD A GOLLEM THAT WILL TALK TO PEOPLE IN HITLERS VOICE!)It was (probobly) a dick move but on the other hand it can turn into a lot of cool ideas for cher development