|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many years ago, my friend's mom invited us in for brownies while playing outside one day. Well as we are sitting there, this lad I knew saw a cheese danish and asked if he could have it. Well my friend's mother told him no because she invited him over for brownies and not a cheese danish. Well his response was why couldn't he have it and her's was, "either have a brownie or you can leave, it's your choice".
There is no right or wrong way to DM and I don't like it when people judge you because you don't DM a style that they like. Sometimes I run games where everything is allowed and sometimes I run games where certain things are banned because that's okay. Sometimes I don't care how good of a reason you give as to why a class, race, feat etc that I have banned should be allowed. Sometimes I do allow it and sometimes I don't but what I can't stand is a player who expects you to say yes all the time and is ready to call your DMing into question if you say no. I even heard something along the lines of my imagination being limited because I supposedly couldn't figure out a way to make everything fit into my campaign.
As I said in another thread, I don't force my games on anyone. I present to everyone what I would like to run and everyone decides if they want to or not and I say that's okay.
I, as a DM, should have to worry about being ridiculed for saying no and not giving when someone demands that I do. I've been reading through the Pathfinder books and I don't see anything that would make people believe that this behavior is okay. I don't see anywhere that the book describes entitlement on anyone's part so I'm not sure where this attitude comes from.
If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone actually says "I want to run a game with x, y, and z components and without j, k, and l" then that's absolutely awesome, it's a good thing their game has focus and theme, and good on the GM for handling things that way.
In my experience, however, that rarely ever happens. There's a 'control-freak' GM archetype out there, and they don't like enumerating all of the rules at the campaign at the start, either because the rules are very restrictive and they know they'll attract more players with a 'just the tip' sort of selling strategy, or else they don't actually have a set of guidelines and restrictions for their campaign, as the enjoyment for them is capriciously and arbitrarily passing judgment on player choices and opinions as they come up, then falling back on 'Rule 0.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm happy to have never had a negative experience like that. Players I've DMed for have always been appreciative. I don't think it's due to any quality of mine, but most reasonable people understand the work it takes to prepare and orchestrate an engaging session.
Unfortunately, that's not always the case. There's a sentiment of entitlement and one-true-wayism voiced by a segment of the fanbase (generally on other forums; one in particular comes to mind). One the one hand, it's good that players know what kind of game they prefer, but on the other it's hard to take the vituperative, absolutist statements seriously. I tend to read them as if posted by Comic Book Guy from the Simpsons.
Is your friend's mom Martha Stewart?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your example, as a kid in that brownie-party, I would have left, even if I didn't want the danish, because I object to weird, arbitrary rules on principle. In fact, I probably would have taken the danish-wanting kid with me and gone to a pastry-shop, where I could have had professionally-baked brownies.
My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.
In other words, if you want to run an undead game, players who don't want that should leave. That happened to me, a few years ago. The GM really wanted to run an undead game, and the players didn't want to play in one. So all the players left, and the GM had no players, but had his brownies. Meanwhile, I stole all of his players and ran a game in which everyone had fun. Last time I checked, that GM still didn't have a gaming group, and I'm still playing with all of his players. If the players hadn't come with me, I still would have left.
That's how it should be. GM the game you want, even if it means you have no players. Play the game you want, even if it means you have no GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would imagine a GM style where the GM has a stringent interpretation of the rules and any deviation whatsoever from his interpretation no matter the severity is derisively referred to as cheese would in fact be a wrong GM style. Such hostility and rigidness does not make for a fun game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I would agree that there is no one true way to GM, and there are many legitimate ways of running a game. Having said that, there are some very douche-bag ways of running a game, i.e. wrong way of running one.
So, while there is no one single correct answer, that doesn't mean there are not an infinite number of incorrect answers.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you game with the same group for a long time, you really get a feel for what they like and don't like in a game. That probably isn't the same thing as what they say they like and don't like. Either way, as you GM for that longstanding group, you learn better to deliver the goods to their preferences. Part of that is listening not only to what they say, but also to what they don't say.
The end result is trust. So when you establish restrictions, or give character concept or build advice, your players listen and don't complain because they trust that what you are telling them is going to increase the level of awesomeness for everyone at the table.
Since my group had a very high level of system mastery, I decided it might be interesting to throw them a curve ball. Every seasoned player knows exactly what capabilities spellcasters have at various levels. So I banned PC spellcasters. The in-game reason was a monolithic pseudo-medieval-Catholic religion with injunctions against spellcasting. Psionics, on the other hand, were expressly permitted. At first, mage player was qqing that he couldn't play a mage. But I suggested that he might enjoy a shaper psion focused on astral constructs since psions are the closest analogue to wizards. He decided to go with my recommendation and discovered that he really enjoyed the flexibility of psionics. Because the astral constructs were customizable on the fly, it really gave him a chance to find creative uses for their capabilities. And the differences between spellcasting and psionic capabilities at various levels was a fun challenge for everyone. For instance, without create water, crossing a desert became an actual problem. He solved it by making a tub-shaped astral construct to haul water for them. Since then, he's told me several times that he enjoyed playing that psion as much as or more than playing a mage.
If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.
This isn't what people have a problem with.
Its when the conversation happens like this:
GM: We're going to play a campaign focused on undead.
Player: I'd like to play a rogue.
GM: That's fine, it should work well.
~first combat with undead~
Player: Okay, I hit and I'm flanking, so I get Sneak Attack damage.
GM: Oh, I decided that undead are immune to Sneak Attack now.
Player: ....
|
|
In other words, if you want to run an undead game, players who don't want that should leave. That happened to me, a few years ago. The GM really wanted to run an undead game, and the players didn't want to play in one. So all the players left, and the GM had no players, but had his brownies. Meanwhile, I stole all of his players and ran a game in which everyone had fun. Last time I checked, that GM still didn't have a gaming group, and I'm still playing with all of his players. If the players hadn't come with me, I still would have left.That's how it should be. GM the game you want, even if it means you have no players. Play the game you want, even if it means you have no GM.
Actually no. I presented my undead game to the group and they either decided they would play in it or we would play in another that another person wanted to run.
Okay, so you had some people follow you to another game, what does that have to do with the discussion?
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
In your example, as a kid in that brownie-party, I would have left, even if I didn't want the danish, because I object to weird, arbitrary rules on principle. In fact, I probably would have taken the danish-wanting kid with me and gone to a pastry-shop, where I could have had professionally-baked brownies.
I don't see how that was weird or arbitrary. She invited the kids inside for brownies. She did not invite them in for brownies or whatever else she had in the kitchen that looked good to them. That's like inviting someone over for a spaghetti dinner and then having one person say "I don't like spaghetti. Can I just root through your fridge for something else?"
It works as an analogy. If someone says "I'm going to run a dark, gritty, horror-themed game" you don't then come over and ask if you can play Lobnar the Dancing Goatboy and wield a +3 Trout of Slapping.
|
|
If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.This isn't what people have a problem with.
Its when the conversation happens like this:
GM: We're going to play a campaign focused on undead.
Player: I'd like to play a rogue.
GM: That's fine, it should work well.~first combat with undead~
Player: Okay, I hit and I'm flanking, so I get Sneak Attack damage.
GM: Oh, I decided that undead are immune to Sneak Attack now.
Player: ....
Changing rules on the fly does have it's problems and should be avoided as much as possible but that's not really the sort of thing I see a lot of.
Who said it was on the fly? Maybe the GM decided it weeks prior, but he failed to inform the player during character creation.
Poorly communicating rules changes and concepts is bad GMing, because being a GM is all about communicating things to your players.
|
|
Who said it was on the fly? Maybe the GM decided it weeks prior, but he failed to inform the player during character creation.
Poorly communicating rules changes and concepts is bad GMing, because being a GM is all about communicating things to your players.
You might as well call it on the fly if you don't notify your players before hand.
I'm still looking for players for my game.
I've said I plan to run a horror game set in Ustalav that will feature undead prominently. I'd strongly encourage people not to play monks. They can play ninjas or samurais but if they do, the flavor of those classes will be as rogues and cavaliers, not eastern themed. The gunslinger class is not allowed at the start of the campaign. Everyone starts as a level 1 commoner or warrior (only if they plan to play a d10 or d12 class can they start as warriors). The campaign will use the slow advancement track, but the PCs will replace their NPC class level with their level 1 PC class level at 1000 xp. I have indicated I expect that, should the campaign run a full course, it will wrap up around level 11 or 12. In my materials for the campaign, I have encouraged all PCs to be from the same starting town (or its outlying areas), which is the town in which the campaign will primarily take place.
I've had groups of players say they'll play twice, and twice showed up for a first session where people didn't show up. (Last time, one guy showed up. I feel bad for him.)
My opinion? It's fine if they don't want my brownies, and don't show up, but if they're not going to show up, they shouldn't say they will.
You might as well call it on the fly if you don't notify your players before hand.Who said it was on the fly? Maybe the GM decided it weeks prior, but he failed to inform the player during character creation.
Poorly communicating rules changes and concepts is bad GMing, because being a GM is all about communicating things to your players.
So I think we can all agree that there are in fact, "wrong way[s] to DM", and poor DMing should be addressed and not brushed over, how else do we expect DMs to get better?
===================================@Terquem: I would suggest there is a difference between knowing a bit about the flavor of the game and knowing exactly what is going to happen to so you can design a character for maximization. Also, edition of game would be nice to know as well if any materials are off limits.
====================================
@Wolf Munroe: Might I suggest in the future, instead of playing with everyone being NPCs that morph into PCs, that you introduce apprentice class levels. Basically it is like a 1/2 class level. If you have the 3ed DMG, you can see how they did it there and that can give you an idea how you could house rule it in your game.
Basically, full hp, skill points, full spells known, and proficiencies for your class. You get half the benefits: 1/2BA -> everybody gets +0, 1/2 saves ->+1 for good saves, +0 for poor ones, 1/2 class features (round down), 1/2 spell slots (or just give them 0 levels).
This way you get the pathetically weak rookie feel you want, but the players don't have restart their characters from scratch. You also avoid weird situations where people lose or gain proficiencies and class skills. Just something to think about.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"I INVITED YOU OVER FOR BROWNIES, NOT A CHEESE DANISH."
My sentiments exactly.
I think of it more like you throw and 60's party and someone whats to play some Dub Step. There is nothing arbitrary about saying "No Dubstep at my 60's party. Only music form the 60's."
The person throwing the party gets to make the decision.
This doesn't mean that the people at the party can't suggest things but they shouldn't be offended if you tell them: "No Dubstep."
I always try to make it clear how I play before the first session.
When players try to force their style on your game it's like a someone playing Dubstep at a 60's party.
It's disrespectfully and it shouldn't be tolerated.
"But I don't like 60's music"
"Why did you come to a 60's party?!?"
I'm happy to have never had a negative experience like that. Players I've DMed for have always been appreciative. I don't think it's due to any quality of mine, but most reasonable people understand the work it takes to prepare and orchestrate an engaging session.
This has been my experience as well; none of my players ever thought I was the perfect DM...but then they didn't want to DM, so they reserved complaints for when I really screwed up. Well, the ones who I didn't end up booting did.
That's how it should be. GM the game you want, even if it means you have no players. Play the game you want, even if it means you have no GM.
I wouldn't put it quite this way, but I agree with your underlying point. Players are free to make requests and complaints...but the wise player chooses his battles carefully, or s/he walks away. [Possibly to take up the DM's seat elsewhere.]
Just before I was born, I would have really appreciated my GM telling me what kind of game I was going to be playing in.
Me too. My player took the feat Immunity to Malaria...and then found out that the DM is running a Modern America campaign. *sigh*
For many of us, part of D&D's appeal is that we have some idea of what we're getting into, which helps us feel cool and heroic. Which is, ya know, fun! :)
|
I think the mother was justified in not giving the kid the danish. She didn't make danishes and brownies. She made brownies. Maybe the danish was for someone else. Who knows why.
In the same vein, I agree that if a GM is running a certain type of game, he should inform the players up front. And if I don't want to play that kind of game, I'll just not get involved from the start.
"I INVITED YOU OVER FOR BROWNIES, NOT A CHEESE DANISH."My sentiments exactly.
I think of it more like you throw and 60's party and someone whats to play some Dub Step. There is nothing arbitrary about saying "No Dubstep at my 60's party. Only music form the 60's."
The person throwing the party gets to make the decision.
This doesn't mean that the people at the party can't suggest things but they shouldn't be offended if you tell them: "No Dubstep."
I always try to make it clear how I play before the first session.
When players try to force their style on your game it's like a someone playing Dubstep at a 60's party.
It's disrespectfully and it shouldn't be tolerated.
"But I don't like 60's music"
"Why did you come to a 60's party?!?"
And if your friend tells you his music preferences, but you pressure him into showing up anyways, would you be surprised if they ask or suggest music you didn't intend?
Just because your the GM doesn't mean you get to dictate other people's preferences. In a game amongst friends, you should be accommodating to your friends, because the point of a game isn't for the GM to tell a story, it's to play a game. IMO Bad GMing includes putting your story/theme/setting above the enjoyment of your players.
If I invite you over for an undead game then that is what I have offered you. If you politely decline then that's all good but if you start insulting me because I won't give in then I find that really rude.This isn't what people have a problem with.
Its when the conversation happens like this:
GM: We're going to play a campaign focused on undead.
Player: I'd like to play a rogue.
GM: That's fine, it should work well.~first combat with undead~
Player: Okay, I hit and I'm flanking, so I get Sneak Attack damage.
GM: Oh, I decided that undead are immune to Sneak Attack now.
Player: ....
Have any of you heard about my DM yet? :D
|
|
Please enlighten us Icyshadow. Tell us about this DM.
I've had one for 4e D&D. He had all kinds of houserules made up to nerf the players. It was his second session of 4e...
- You had to roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest. Something they advice you not to do.
- He gave all the races a penalty to a ability score.
- Fumbles, you can't live without them.
- He changed the movement rules back to the 3.5 version.
- Same with area effects. No firecubes in this game.
There are probably a few more, I quite after the first 9 hour session.
Please enlighten us Icyshadow. Tell us about this DM.
I've had one for 4e D&D. He had all kinds of houserules made up to nerf the players. It was his second session of 4e...
- You had to roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest. Something they advice you not to do.
- He gave all the races a penalty to a ability score.
- Fumbles, you can't live without them.
- He changed the movement rules back to the 3.5 version.
- Same with area effects. No firecubes in this game.There are probably a few more, I quite after the first 9 hour session.
With the exception of the fumble rules, those would all have been positive changes for me in a 4e game...
It just goes to show, there's probably no DM style that doesn't have players who would embrace it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please enlighten us Icyshadow. Tell us about this DM.
I've had one for 4e D&D. He had all kinds of houserules made up to nerf the players. It was his second session of 4e...
- You had to roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest. Something they advice you not to do.
- He gave all the races a penalty to a ability score.
- Fumbles, you can't live without them.
- He changed the movement rules back to the 3.5 version.
- Same with area effects. No firecubes in this game.There are probably a few more, I quite after the first 9 hour session.
So here's more or less the story. Basically, I told my DM back in the 3.5e days that I got inspired to make a few homebrew races. He seemed neutral about them at first, and I got write-ups for them done that I later showed to him. After our first campaign was done, he had an idea for another one, and I asked him if one of the homebrew races could be included in the new campaign world. Initially, he agreed. I also asked him if I could play one (he planned to have them wiped out, with mine being the last of her kind). When I asked if the character could be an Aasimar as well (not stat-wise, merely for fluff reasons since aasimar are not limited to humans), not only did he choose to say no, but he removed my race from the campaign completely.
THAT started a big mess (he basically betrayed me there), since later on I had different ideas after the first big heated argument ended, and he suddenly decided that he won't allow any of my homebrews in ANY of his campaigns. Hell, he even went on to mock one of them (my favourite one) behind my back to the rest of the group, who were too scared of the big bad DM to help me. The only one he said he liked was the one I liked the least. Adding to all this, he seemed to more or less overlook the write-ups I made for them so they can be incorporated to the various campaign settings, insulting me and all the sweat blood and tears I poured to get all that done without breaking whatever image said settings (like Golarion, Eberron and Forgotten Realms) more or less invoke.
To put shortly, he went from banning one thing to banning all, over one small thing I asked for.
In Council of Thieves, he has so far...
- Tried to make my missed Ray attack hit an ally
- Put me into a Trap I was able to see, just because I forgot to mention I had Detect Magic on
- Made an arbitrary ruling to Linguistics that forces people to spend THREE skill ranks in it to learn even one language (my Sorcerer only has 2+Int mod skill ranks, so no)
Just one question, Icyshadow: Why do you still play under that GM?
Because the other group I play in is run by "herp derp" players who focus too much on the mechanics and not taking the plot seriously, which I find rather irksome. The other DM finds most of my frustration unfounded (in his own opinion) but he at least knows how to write and run a story instead of a video game parody. One exception happened in the other group, but even he's not the regular DM and the other players are still derps.
From now on, I shall refer to them as...
1) DM group
and
2) Derp Player group
I can relate heavily with this thread. Many of the games I run have a specific theme, or are revolving around a specific area, setting, time period, etc. The story itself is still up in the air, and to be built with the players, but as for the backdrop, I try to have as much of that in place as possible before play starts.
First thing I do is propose my idea for a game to my group. If everyone isn't really into it, I'm willing to compromise and adjust things as needed to be interesting to everyone at the table. If I have any specific restrictions(classes, races, etc) I lay them out ahead of time. No secrets. No "gotcha" rules jabs. For every limitation, I have a justifiable, albeit debatable, reason.
If the group is on board, then hurray! I start taking in ideas and character concepts and the ball gets rolling.
However, there is almost always someone, whom for whatever reason, wants to buck the trend and shoe-horn their crazy, setting-inappropriate concept into the game. Sorry; been there, done that, not doing it again. No dice.
To even things out, every now and again I take breaks from the super-detailed themed games and I'll run some "everything including the kitchen sink" games just so everyone can get their jollies being anything from a winged halfling to a half-dragon Duskblade. Heck, I'll even toss the players free +1 level adjustments or bonus feats just to get the creative juices flowing.
So, have some brownies. Don't want a brownie? Let me see what else I can offer you. But, if I say the danish is already spoken for, then hands off.
He still wants to play? And doesn't want to DM?
More or less true. I am going to DM Kingmaker next month, but I prefer being the player. And actually, fixing one thing on that earlier post, one of the best campaigns I had ever been in was a modified (Tome*) 3.5e game, set in an incredibly silly story setting which happens to be from one of my favourite video game series. Even though the plot was less than serious, I LOVED EVERY BIT OF IT. Sadly, I had to leave said group due to time zones (the game was online) before it could end.
In comparison to the silly tone being actually FUN in that group of players, group 2's derping around is mostly memes, absolutely ridiculous character builds and immature jokes (Dorf Rapist) to me and/or things that really break the mood for any serious character concept I have. I'm lucky that one of my fellow players tries to be as serious as I am, and the group was able to be a bit more serious as a whole when that one DM allowed me to play my Holstaur Cleric (this DM is the one I mentioned in my earlier post as the exception), so yeah.
* = Not the Tome of Battle.
Oh yes. I loved every damned minute of it.
Curse the time zones, that and my need to sleep.
Lastly, I curse my two IRL groups for not seeing the glory of Disgaea!!
Because the other group I play in is run by "herp derp" players who focus too much on the mechanics and not taking the plot seriously, which I find rather irksome. The other DM finds most of my frustration unfounded (in his own opinion) but he at least knows how to write and run a story instead of a video game parody. One exception happened in the other group, but even he's not the regular DM and the other players are still derps.
.
My condolences. I really hope you get to play in a way you like, with a GM you like to play under, with players who make the whole thing fun.I admit, if I constantly got frustrated by the GM, or if the group's style of play justs didn't mesh with mine, I'd probably cease gaming with these people (as I see no merit in doing something in my spare time that is, on the net balance, non-fun).
However, there is almost always someone, whom for whatever reason, wants to buck the trend and shoe-horn their crazy, setting-inappropriate concept into the game. Sorry; been there, done that, not doing it again. No dice.
*laughs* Actually, I'm not quite as harsh. I usually have no problems with a single oddball character in the group, provided that the player has a good reason for that character to be there, the character can work with both the group and the setting, and I can trust the group to roleplay things well.. However, this is the exception rather than the rule.
I am not going to run Elfquest when we all agreed on playing a game heavily centered in dwarven society. If I announced a campaign of courtly intrigue and dashing swordsplay (think three Musketeers), please leave your half-orc neanderthal barbarian at home, thank you very much.
And no, if the players show up for, say, Curse of the Crimson Throne with a Tengu Gunslinger, a Kitsune Enchanter, an Albino Merfolk Inquisitor of Dagon and a Drow Ninja... I will happily tell them to find another GM for their endeavor.
Because the other group I play in is run by "herp derp" players who focus too much on the mechanics and not taking the plot seriously, which I find rather irksome. The other DM finds most of my frustration unfounded (in his own opinion) but he at least knows how to write and run a story instead of a video game parody. One exception happened in the other group, but even he's not the regular DM and the other players are still derps..
My condolences. I really hope you get to play in a way you like, with a GM you like to play under, with players who make the whole thing fun.I admit, if I constantly got frustrated by the GM, or if the group's style of play justs didn't mesh with mine, I'd probably cease gaming with these people (as I see no merit in doing something in my spare time that is, on the net balance, non-fun).
It's a shame both my groups thus far are win-lose situations. Group 1 has a DM good with the story but rather random treatment of players, while group 2 has a DM that allows stuff but runs games for a bunch of 4chan dwellers and two guys who are NOT part of such. Those two guys would be me and the other guy who tries to take the story seriously when possible.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
This is just a stab in the dark, but is there an age difference between DM group and derp group? I can easily picture a curmudgeonly grognard DM on the one hand and a bunch of high school kids on the other. Sounds not too dissimilar to my group in HS only we had Monty Python instead of Internet memes.
This is just a stab in the dark, but is there an age difference between DM group and derp group? I can easily picture a curmudgeonly grognard DM on the one hand and a bunch of high school kids on the other. Sounds not too dissimilar to my group in HS only we had Monty Python instead of Internet memes.
Actually, both groups are around the same age. We're all on the range of 20-22 years old, me included.
|
|
Please enlighten us Icyshadow. Tell us about this DM.
I've had one for 4e D&D. He had all kinds of houserules made up to nerf the players. It was his second session of 4e...
- You had to roll stats, 4d6 drop lowest. Something they advice you not to do.
- He gave all the races a penalty to a ability score.
- Fumbles, you can't live without them.
- He changed the movement rules back to the 3.5 version.
- Same with area effects. No firecubes in this game.There are probably a few more, I quite after the first 9 hour session.
With the exception of the fumble rules, those would all have been positive changes for me in a 4e game...
It just goes to show, there's probably no DM style that doesn't have players who would embrace it.
- Considering you need 3 dump stats in 4e to make a viable character, rolling is a bad idea. Other than that the power level has been upped a little in 4e. Have you seen the standard array? That's a point buy of 23 in Pathfinder.
- A -2 penalty to one ability score makes your character a little weaker. It also means that some races will suck at certain classes, which is a thing the creators tried to avoid in the first place.- Changing movement the way that way means it takes more time to calculatie movement. I've seen some players have serious problems with this.
- Reducing an area from 9 square feet to 5 isn't a problem?
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would have told him he couldn't have the danish as well. Hardly an unreasonable thing. GMing is a lot of work. This entitlement mentality among players is my second biggest pet peeve in gaming. If you don't like the game I want to run then offer to run one yourself. If the group would rather play yours then great I get to play instead, usually only till you realize it isn't as easy as it looks. At which point I am probably going to end up back in the GM seat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To put shortly, he went from banning one thing to banning all, over one small thing I asked for.
In Council of Thieves, he has so far...
- Tried to make my missed Ray attack hit an ally
- Put me into a Trap I was able to see, just because I forgot to mention I had Detect Magic on
- Made an arbitrary ruling to Linguistics that forces people to spend THREE skill ranks in it to learn even one language (my Sorcerer only has 2+Int mod skill ranks, so no)
Banning races is not unreasonable, almost every good GM I have seen bans certain races. Ridiculing your races to others isn't a GMing issue its a problem with your social dynamic in this group. I once banned all a players home brew races as soon as I figured out he was doing them just to get an advantage in the game.
- Ray stuff: Sounds like an old 2nd edition rule. Was this guy a big 2nd edition person? They got rid of that in 3e onward and replaced it with a penalty to fire into melee. I would talk to him in a friendly way to see if he is interested in doing the penalty instead of hitting the wrong target.
-Trap stuff: That is your fault. If you have an effect up I expect you as the player to tell me. I don't have telepathy and I am not going to retcon something because you forgot to tell me. Your character was obviously not paying the divination any attention sorry.
-Linguistics stuff: This sounds weird... Does he heavily rely on language barriers in his game? Most games I have played in barely give any notice of weird languages except in certain obscure case such as long forgotten tombs. He must have a reason he wants to slow down language learning. Maybe if you ask him for advice in a friendly way he will share his reasoning with you. Also have you tried asking him for partial fluency in languages? That way you can still buy languages even if your class has too few skills.
A thought just occurred to me. Is this guy a big realism fan? Sometimes a GM or player can get too worried about realism to the point that it affects the way they play. Not much can be done about this sort of person except the reassurance that in every case I have seen they do grow out of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And no, if the players show up for, say, Curse of the Crimson Throne with a Tengu Gunslinger, a Kitsune Enchanter, an Albino Merfolk Inquisitor of Dagon and a Drow...
GAAAAAHHH! IT'S A BLIZZARD OF SPECIAL LITTLE SNOWFLAKES!!!!
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My friends' parents didn't like me very much, because I always made them justify their rules. On the other hand, I never broke rules that had logical justifications.
Wow. That's really rude. No offense is intended, but I see why your friends' parents didn't like you. I sure as hell wouldn't if I were in their position. If any of my kid's friends had seriously questioned the rules of our household, that kid would not be particularly welcome in my home again, and I would start to discourage the friendship. I might give the kid's parents a polite call as well.
To put shortly, he went from banning one thing to banning all, over one small thing I asked for.
In Council of Thieves, he has so far...
- Tried to make my missed Ray attack hit an ally
- Put me into a Trap I was able to see, just because I forgot to mention I had Detect Magic on
- Made an arbitrary ruling to Linguistics that forces people to spend THREE skill ranks in it to learn even one language (my Sorcerer only has 2+Int mod skill ranks, so no)Banning races is not unreasonable, almost every good GM I have seen bans certain races. Ridiculing your races to others isn't a GMing issue its a problem with your social dynamic in this group. I once banned all a players home brew races as soon as I figured out he was doing them just to get an advantage in the game.
- Ray stuff: Sounds like an old 2nd edition rule. Was this guy a big 2nd edition person? They got rid of that in 3e onward and replaced it with a penalty to fire into melee. I would talk to him in a friendly way to see if he is interested in doing the penalty instead of hitting the wrong target.
-Trap stuff: That is your fault. If you have an effect up I expect you as the player to tell me. I don't have telepathy and I am not going to retcon something because you forgot to tell me. Your character was obviously not paying the divination any attention sorry.
-Linguistics stuff: This sounds weird... Does he heavily rely on language barriers in his game? Most games I have played in barely give any notice of weird languages except in certain obscure case such as long forgotten tombs. He must have a reason he wants to slow down language learning. Maybe if you ask him for advice in a friendly way he will share his reasoning with you. Also have you tried asking him for partial fluency in languages? That way you can still buy languages even if your class has too few skills.
A thought just occurred to me. Is this guy a big realism fan? Sometimes a GM or player can get too worried about realism to the point that it...
- He has not played 2nd edition, but yeah. He was all about the whole realism thing.
- I told him I have it up. He forgot, but so did I. The group as a whole considered it unjustified in the end, though.
- The language barriers have not been an issue at all in the campaign, which is why I found the ruling kind of a worthless investment.
Edited out the angry rant from this.
0.o
Umm...Icy that response is kinda over the top for what was said/asked, don't you think?
Maybe, didn't seem so when I first posted by reply.
I probably got angry because Aranna sounded like a person who tried to justify the crap my DM pulled off.
My GM style involves kidnapping and eating babies. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
My GM style involves kidnapping and eating babies. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Do the babies belong to the players, or their characters?