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

[Caffiene]

Sounds like two things in that scenario to me:

- The character was obnoxious and was causing the DM to not have fun. If youre aware of this and continue without attempting to fix the situation, thats a bit of a dick move: its a collaborative game and youre ruining somebody else's enjoyment. In particular, youre ruining the enjoyment of the person who puts in the most time and effort to create the game in the first place.

- The DM was a complete and unmitigated disaster. Imposing negative consequences on a character's critical success to ruin a major character trait is all kinds of dumb. That particular sounds like its a communication failure (in not resolving the problem better), its a DMing failure (imo) by not establishing these rules and consequences beforehand, its a social failure by being a dick move, and its a creative failure by being a bland and boring solution to the problem.

Sounds like better communication was needed, particularly from the DM, and it shows the dangers of an "ad hoc" game without proper preparation. At the very least, a game needs the preparation of knowing what everyone involved expects to get out of the game and what is fun for them.

 

[Bad Jim]

The DM was right to stop you if you were getting really annoying. But he shouldn't have done it on your friends' critical success unless your friend was actually trying to hurt you. The DM should have waited for a friends' critical failure or a mooks' critical success. Or maybe have a high level NPC curse you to say "without my pants" after every sentence.

 

[Kotaro]

If it's just because he didn't like the character you were playing, then it was a colossal dick move on his part and I would find another GM.
However, I would say that a GM is well within their rights to screw a player over if that player is A. Ruining everyone else's fun, B. Making the GM's job significantly harder, or C. Both.

For instance, I remember a case in one of my games where a GM screwing over a player was completely justified:
One of the other players was playing an airship pirate captain (yes), and the GM had the rest of the party end up on his ship, to get the whole group together. He (the player) kicked us off the ship, nearly killing the rest of the party all at once, then proceeded to fuck around on his own with no intention of joining the rest of the group. What he was doing wasn't fun for anyone but him, and having the party split like that made the GM's job a lot harder, so she spent the rest of the session doing everything she could to screw him over. By the end, his ship had been destroyed, his wealth had been lost, and his entire crew had either been killed or mutinied.

 

[rdaleric]

as a GM myself, if it was annoying me and other players I probably would have had a quiet word asking to tone it down a little. If that didn't happen I would have probably had an annoyed mage stop the character from talking or steal his voice for some plot or other, and make it a quest to get it back

 

[zen5887]

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.

Word.

I've been GMing a few different games (mostly D&D and Pathfinder) and nothing annoys me more than a player being purposefully antagonistic or annoying and justifying it with "oh but it's my character". I'm running a Dungeon World game with one player playing a sociopathic, kill-first-ask-questions-never type fighter and it's so frustrating to have every NPC threatened, regardless of their role, because "oh but it's my character. It's not that I want him to play a certain type of character, I just want him to be aware that he isn't the only person playing, and running into a room killing everybody for no reason just isn't fun for me or the other players.

OP, I think you should think about how your style of play effected the other people in the game. If you're having fun, that's great, but RPGs are cooperative so it's so dang vital for your playstyle to gel with the other people. If I were your DM i'd probably tried to be a bit more subtle, but if I had good reason, you probably would have died.

 

[Doom972]

How annoying was your character? Were you screaming your taunts at the top of your lungs? It's very important to make sure that you don't ruin the experience for others - GM included.

Try reasoning with the GM so you can both enjoy the game. I'm sure that after that he'll get a cleric to miraculously heal your throat.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Bad DMing in that situation. Critical Success' should never harm more then one enemy unless it's meant to. (AoE attack, Windmilling, you know.) Even more so, critical success should never harm your ally unless it's a giant messy fireball spell, in which case why is the mage throwing magic at you. And even if your character was grating, this is what magic is for. You get to the bottom of a dungeon, and bam hit with a permanent silence spell that you have to undo or something. Not cut your throat open and I assume nearly kill you.

 

[Tactical Pause]

I'm all for the GM having nigh-unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want (as GM, I'm a heavy rule-bender through and through), but there are some limitations. A critical success should be like a success, but better. There should be no circumstances under which it turns out worse than a regular success. Unless Player 2 was specifically attempting to silence you, that's the sort of thing that should be reserved for a critical failure.

Whether it was justified doesn't really matter, because that's just dreadful GMing right there. If he really wanted to mess with you, he should have waited for an opportunity to do it properly.

 

[AVATAR_RAGE]

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.

Although he does have the right as a DM to do such a thing, the fact it was caused by the success of the an ally is not cool. Especially if it is done out right. If there was a way out of it, like letting your partner realise what was happening at the last second and try to turn the blade. This way the event may have been used as a way to build character relations, rather than just going "No talking for you".

If you were annoying him he should have spoken to you quietly and asked you to cool it. A DM can always call for a time out to discuss such things if they feel a player if infringing in the game. Some (including me) have clear warning signs to attract my players attention if they get out of hand.

So yeah to me it seems a bit immature to turn one players success into your downfall. Not cool.

 

[Thyunda]

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.

Word.

I've been GMing a few different games (mostly D&D and Pathfinder) and nothing annoys me more than a player being purposefully antagonistic or annoying and justifying it with "oh but it's my character". I'm running a Dungeon World game with one player playing a sociopathic, kill-first-ask-questions-never type fighter and it's so frustrating to have every NPC threatened, regardless of their role, because "oh but it's my character. It's not that I want him to play a certain type of character, I just want him to be aware that he isn't the only person playing, and running into a room killing everybody for no reason just isn't fun for me or the other players.

OP, I think you should think about how your style of play effected the other people in the game. If you're having fun, that's great, but RPGs are cooperative so it's so dang vital for your playstyle to gel with the other people. If I were your DM i'd probably tried to be a bit more subtle, but if I had good reason, you probably would have died.

Hey maybe he can threaten somebody who does something that prevents him distinguishing from allies and enemies, and so he threatens his allies who have to do the right thing and put him down. For his own good.

 

[otakon17]

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

I had a shield. The way Four Swords worked there weren't really "stats", and the way successes are handled is that it's based on the amount of health you have(which is stupid). Everyone starts with 3 health, so you get 3 rolls to on stuff. Take damage, you get less rolls and subsequently everything becomes harder and harder until eventually you can't succeed at anything because you can only roll 1 die. Like later on we fought a damn cyclops that we couldn't do anything to because of the way the system worked. We couldn't hurt it because the traps had torn us to pieces earlier and no one had any secondary items left and we were in a featureless arena with a locked door. Trapped in a room against an impossible opponent because of the way the system worked. The game just stopped after that.

I'm all for the GM having nigh-unlimited power to do whatever the hell they want (as GM, I'm a heavy rule-bender through and through), but there are some limitations. A critical success should be like a success, but better. There should be no circumstances under which it turns out worse than a regular success. Unless Player 2 was specifically attempting to silence you, that's the sort of thing that should be reserved for a critical failure.

Whether it was justified doesn't really matter, because that's just dreadful GMing right there. If he really wanted to mess with you, he should have waited for an opportunity to do it properly.

Player 2 wasn't, the GM just saw an opportunity to say "Oh and he slices your throat in such a way you can't speak and healing items even if they restore you to max health don't do anything for it". So then I was forced to pantomime(IN TEXT) the rest of the adventure.

He wasn't. And the basis was because my taunts weren't witty enough for the GM's liking.

 

[Little Woodsman]

Ok, so a critical *hit* should have positive effects for the character who made it.

Crippling an ally would rarely be considered a *positive* effect.

Which makes me wonder....

Are you sure it was the GM's decision to do this and that it wasn't the other player communicated privately with the GM and said "I want to try to hit {your character} in the throat with the follow-through of my swing and make it look like an accident."?

Because I've never met a GM who would do this through an ally's actions rather than just have one of your opponents do it to you.

 

[spartan231490]

Yeah, it was a dick move, but it's never a good idea to be obnoxious while playing a tabletop rpg, it's less fun for everyone. Still, seems like he is a bit of a poor gm if he can't find a better way to resolve the situation.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

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.

It certainly sounds like a dick move.

Is being struck permanently mute by an attack a normal part of the game? Because if not, then yeah, that was bullshit.

Not because it is outside the job other GM to handle plot points like that, but because it appears to have been done purely for vindictive reasons and entirely outside of the game system.

 

[masticina]

Look it is a relationship of give and take. The DM tries to run a story, an experience, and this means that he/she has to railroad the story in certain parts. He/She has some kind of outline of what is going to happen and he/she tries his/her best to give you a great experience.

In return he/she asks that you go with the flow. Now making your character mute, maybe it is a bit hard handed but none of us here we're said DM. Maybe your character was utterly irritating and required a lesson. Maybe your actions disrupted the balance between the players.

I have seen this happen that one player takes all the attention and drags everybody down with them.

It is give and take, everybody has to give something and gets something in return. Certain character traits if played out well might be endearing, or scary or well work within the setting. Others even though 100% legal might not fit with the playstyle of the game and be disruptive.

In short your DM might have believed the way you played was breaking up the game. And so made sure it was impossible.

It would be like me trying to RP a dragon that is 40 foot long. And yet expecting to be accepted in towns and be trusted as Hero. That doesn't works and would cause trouble within the game.

I actually played as necromancer and I had to HIDE my powers. So, within the cities I had to actually hide what I was. I had to make sure my name wasn't mentioned and I had enemies. Some holy orders kinda wanted me dead.

 

[somonels]

This is a common thing. You got what you had coming since the moment you opened your mouth.

What he did was a simple message of, "You Will either shut up, or not show up." 'Playing the character' is a very common excuse for players, we've all been that/seen that. The DM is neither your servant, nor enabler, nor is he supposed to 'let' you do anything. If you don't like it, play a CRPG.

You might want to play as a little shit - in character, of course - but the others don't have to like it, especially the DM. Eventually the outcome is decided by the fellow players who will either find another DM or player. I'll be honest and say they rarely ditch someone willing to DM, unless the player was providing the accommodations.

The only sympathy I can give you is the acknowledgement that he handled it poorly. Which is not necessarily a bad thing as he sounds inexperienced and hopefully the next time he can confront the player before such issues have festered.

Ok, so a critical *hit* should have positive effects for the character who made it.

Crippling an ally him would rarely be considered a *positive* effect.

Which makes me wonder....

That's the joke. Also, no, a critical hit does not have to indicate anything if you are the DM. #1..#n rule is the DM.

 

[JimB]

I believe the GM handled the situation badly. However, I also believe there was a situation which needed handling, because in my personal experience, I have never heard anyone say, "I was just doing what my character would do," or any variation on that sentiment, except to excuse his own behavior as not his fault because an imaginary person made the player say or do those things. It bespeaks a guilty conscience at best, and a complete misunderstanding of responsible role-playing at worst.

 

[otakon17]

If you're screwing the game, the DM should absolutely do whatever he feels is necessary to get the game back on track. I'm sure he wants you to have fun, but not at the expense of his fun or the fun of the other players.

I wasn't screwing the game by taunting enemies to attack me so my ally could flank them. His entire argument was "Your taunts were boring, you weren't creative enough for my liking so I silenced you. I think it improved your character!". I wasn't breaking the rules, I wasn't continuing out of character, it was just my guy being a motor mouth taunting enemies because I had a shield and was better able to survive the hits than my partner. Then he made me mute, had a Like Like appear out of a pot to eat my shield and then kept me going when a bad roll should have killed me for the sake of putting my character through more crap (You don't die till I say you do).

 

[Saika Renegade]

As a player and DM of different games and different times, it's double edged, no pun intended.

Roleplaying and getting into a character is fine, but sometimes there's a fine line between getting fully into character and being disruptive. If he or others are bothered by it, the most professional, courteous, and polite thing to do is have a little aside call to talk things over. It literally takes three seconds to open a new contact window in Skype, step out of one call, and start another. He could have opened respectable dialogue in the time it takes to read this sentence.

Turning another character's critical success into an excuse to slit your character's throat just so he can -force- you to not play the way you want to is petty, vindictive, and indicative of what you're going to get with the DM. I've had bad DMs before, don't get me wrong, but blatantly crippling your character because he doesn't like it is precisely the sort of crap that I would legitimately call him out on in public and among the group.

There's not enough communication going on somewhere here, and I'd suggest you be the bigger man in the situation and make the first move to establish the lines of communication. If he rejects you outright, call him out in front of the group for his vindictiveness without justification, and don't feel bad about bailing. A petty DM is a bigger pain in the ass to deal with than a thousand angry dragons, and far less worth it.