What is considered a dick move by the GM?


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

ghettowedge wrote:

In the most recent session of my Savage Tide, the 19th level fighter was in an arena fight with a pair of death giants and a crawling head, and the rest of the party can't interfere. The fighter thought he was clever and opened by trying to sunder a death giant's weapon. The crawling head retaliated by trying to disarm the fighter, on the very open opposed rolls I rolled a 20 and he rolled a 1. I ruled that the head ate the axe.

It was late and we paused the session there. Can't wait to see how it plays out. Am I a dick?

I think the head should have to use a move action to swallow the fighter's axe, but otherwise that sounds like a great way to handle the situation. No dick-ery detected :)


Melissa Litwin wrote:


The WBL guidelines for 10th level characters are that you should have ~62,000 in stuff. In an individual campaign that can be more or less depending on high-magic or low-magic, but it's something to keep in mind as a yardstick. PCs who are significantly under-treasure will be a lot weaker than they "should be".

Note that of that 62,000 roughly only 25% should be devoted to weapons, at least in a medium game. That would be 15,500 gp. This one weapon (the bow) is what? 3,000 more than the total in weapons the character should have at that level. What other weapons does he have and what is the gold total for all of them.

Sounds to me like the campaign is likely a tad out of the GM's control. He may have had his eye on the bow as a problem item.

I don't begrudge him trying to balance his campaign, but I think his rude reaction to your protests and the higher-than-average gold you guys have rockin' there are signs he is maybe not very experienced, or not sure of what he's doing.

To me, the dick part is him snapping at you.


@lvl12 Procrastinator

Oh no. I'm very fond of rules (maybe being a physics grad student will do that to you) and I like my enemies to have correct ruleslawyering too. Even if it is to their benefit and not ours... :D

@bruunwald
Huh. Missed that... I helped with the character creation and I really didn't see that. Thanks!

@onishi
He uses a prewritten adventure and stays true to it. And I don't remember drow priestesses carrying bows around... Or their pet demons. Or the various shade demons, etc. pp. No, "character loot" is not coming forward... And "a chance to shine"? That's not on his To-Do-List.
Every time that we pull something crazy and cool, he's all like "What, he can do that much damage?" or "What, you can do that class feature as a move action" and then harrumphes and reads in the rulebook (or looks on the wiki) and grudgingly accepts, that it is right.

I do enjoy our weekly game session, don't get me wrong. But I am still not very happy about our last session. I think, I'll talk about that. Next time that we play. Thanks for all the input!


Are wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:

In the most recent session of my Savage Tide, the 19th level fighter was in an arena fight with a pair of death giants and a crawling head, and the rest of the party can't interfere. The fighter thought he was clever and opened by trying to sunder a death giant's weapon. The crawling head retaliated by trying to disarm the fighter, on the very open opposed rolls I rolled a 20 and he rolled a 1. I ruled that the head ate the axe.

It was late and we paused the session there. Can't wait to see how it plays out. Am I a dick?

I think the head should have to use a move action to swallow the fighter's axe, but otherwise that sounds like a great way to handle the situation. No dick-ery detected :)

This. Use actions as the rules demands, and don't cheat, and I am plenty cool with having enemies disarm and remove weapons. This is no more unfair than an enemy fighter using a standard action to disarm the player and using a move action to kick the sword away.

@Lv12 Procrastinator: I lawyer plenty against players as well when they try to break the rules. Just rare that players get away with it, because they don't have the last say.


Are wrote:
ghettowedge wrote:

In the most recent session of my Savage Tide, the 19th level fighter was in an arena fight with a pair of death giants and a crawling head, and the rest of the party can't interfere. The fighter thought he was clever and opened by trying to sunder a death giant's weapon. The crawling head retaliated by trying to disarm the fighter, on the very open opposed rolls I rolled a 20 and he rolled a 1. I ruled that the head ate the axe.

It was late and we paused the session there. Can't wait to see how it plays out. Am I a dick?

I think the head should have to use a move action to swallow the fighter's axe, but otherwise that sounds like a great way to handle the situation. No dick-ery detected :)

Is swallowing a move action? It seems a little easier than sheathing, especially for a 20' x 20' head.


This is a grey area. What we know is that there is an entangled (?)Succubus taking a swim in the lava who has landed a Charm Monster on the Fighter with a Bow.

Now the Succubus states "Throw me your bow, I need it."

Well, the Fighter considers the Succubus a close friend and thus he *could* arrive at the conclusion that the Succubus indeed needs his bow - but I find that unlikely except the Fighter has a low Int.

I would have allowed the player to refuse the request if he can think of a way to help the Succubus in another way (such as be explaining to his friends that they should leave her alone).

So while I would have handled it differently it still is not a dick move imho. This would be reserved by foring the character to jump after her in order to rescue her from the lava...


ghettowedge wrote:
Are wrote:


I think the head should have to use a move action to swallow the fighter's axe, but otherwise that sounds like a great way to handle the situation. No dick-ery detected :)
Is swallowing a move action? It seems a little easier than sheathing, especially for a 20' x 20' head.

I think it's fair to use a lesser action than a move action. That said, I think using a more significant action like a move action (or some action on the next turn) is more fair to the spirit of adventuring. It would give the character a last, desperate chance to recover the axe like Indiana Jones grabbing his hat out of the crushing room in Temple of Doom at the very last second.


Generally when the player perceives that the GM's action is motivated by metagame considerations moreso than the character and motivations of the NPC or monster, they'll believe it is a dick move. This is for the better grades of players though honestly---some players consider anything that hurts them dick moves, but I don't GM for that sort if I can help it.


Quite aside from whether it was a dick move (though for the record I'm in the camp of it being spell misinterpretation/abuse), I've found as both a GM and a player that NOTHING on this earth or elsewhere will tick a party off like taking their stuff. I have NEVER seen this turn out well for a GM and in one case it destroyed the game. Even if the players go along with it being logical and accept that it happened, they will still grumble about it to a significant degree. For many players gear seems to be an essential component of how they view/construct their character.

I don't think it's a dick move to take/break items. Under the right circumstances it makes complete sense. However, my experience with it is that it is a bad idea and not worth the price. After the last game I played in where this happened, and seeing the resulting fallout between the GM and the other players, it's not a tactic I will personally use in future games. I'm sure it works for some groups, somewhere, but I've not encountered these mythical beasts.


Lilivati wrote:


I don't think it's a dick move to take/break items. Under the right circumstances it makes complete sense. However, my experience with it is that it is a bad idea and not worth the price. After the last game I played in where this happened, and seeing the resulting fallout between the GM and the other players, it's not a tactic I will personally use in future games. I'm sure it works for some groups, somewhere, but I've not encountered these mythical beasts.

If destroying or taking items isn't a dick move, is it a dick move for players to raise such a stink about it that the campaign folds? I think it may be - illustrating that dick moves aren't the sole province of the DM.


That is an incredible dick move. One, it's a tremendous abuse of charm person/monster, the fighter should easily have received a second save, if not outright refused as a very dangerous /suicidal action. A fighter without their magic weapon should just jump into the lava and hope they come back at APL at that point with full gear.

Explicitly, there is NO WAY that bow could have ever been a problem unless the other PCs were just awful compared to the fighter which should never, ever happen. Likewise, tons of spells and abilities NPC can utilize make ranged attacks much weaker or outright stop them.

Also, can I drill into your heads? WEALTH BY LEVEL HAS NEVER EVER BEEN BALANCED NOR TESTED AS A BALANCE POINT AT ALL FOR ACTUAL PARTY POWER, EVER. It's a ROUGh, very rough estimate, and item costs may be greatly out of line. But no combination of Magical abilities combined along with feats could have ever, under any Good or sane DM been broken.


Dick move destroying items? Only in groups where they've agreed that it would be a dick move. Otherwise... not in the least.

Spell misinterpretation? Heck, yeah. Charm isn't dominate. I doubt a request from a "good friend" to toss a bow to said friend in (or near!) lava would be heeded.

Suggestion or domination? Then no problem.


Dick moves are relative. I have two players that would think throwing a bow into lava is funny, and two players that cry like babies when they take damage.

It has everything to do with how much of a sense of entitlement the player has.

In my opinion, a dick move is when the GM goes against normal consequence or logic to keep the party on the railroad or to inflate his own ego.

Liberty's Edge

There was only one time I feel the DM did a dick move. It was nothing to do with rules, but how the campaign went.

We discovered that the BBEG was going after this suit of plate mail that as we were discovering things about where to go, how to find it, ect., that it was an evil magic artifact that needed to be destroyed.

We managed to get the armor before the BBEG. But we needed to do more checking into how to permantly destroy it. Turs out the only way to destroy it for good is to put it into the fires of a volcano. (orginal I know).

All this was taking about 3 years of real time, biweekly game. The DM made it VERY clear that was the only was to destroy it.

So after about another year of real time we finally make it to the volcano and go inside to dump the armor. The DM said the armor just lay on top of the lava and did not melt or anything.

So anyone else think that was a dick move?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
When I pull down my pants midgame and ask a player to bend over, it's usually considered to be a dick move by everybody involved.

Not everybody, ye landlubber! Point your prow windward and sail the tempestuous seas, matey! Arrr!


cranewings wrote:
In my opinion, a dick move is when the GM goes against normal consequence or logic to keep the party on the railroad or to inflate his own ego.

This. Also, sometimes a character or item fails what should be an easy save. It happens.


CapeCodRPGer wrote:

There was only one time I feel the DM did a dick move. It was nothing to do with rules, but how the campaign went.

We discovered that the BBEG was going after this suit of plate mail that as we were discovering things about where to go, how to find it, ect., that it was an evil magic artifact that needed to be destroyed.

We managed to get the armor before the BBEG. But we needed to do more checking into how to permantly destroy it. Turs out the only way to destroy it for good is to put it into the fires of a volcano. (orginal I know).

All this was taking about 3 years of real time, biweekly game. The DM made it VERY clear that was the only was to destroy it.

So after about another year of real time we finally make it to the volcano and go inside to dump the armor. The DM said the armor just lay on top of the lava and did not melt or anything.

So anyone else think that was a dick move?

Ummmm..... I think it is really funny :D

Shadow Lodge

Well, the people who believed it could only be destroyed by volcano could have been misinformed.

Maybe even by the BBEG...

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

The ladies always love my dick moves...

...as a GM. Why? What did you think I was talking about?

Liberty's Edge

CapeCodRPGer wrote:

There was only one time I feel the DM did a dick move. It was nothing to do with rules, but how the campaign went.

We discovered that the BBEG was going after this suit of plate mail that as we were discovering things about where to go, how to find it, ect., that it was an evil magic artifact that needed to be destroyed.

We managed to get the armor before the BBEG. But we needed to do more checking into how to permantly destroy it. Turs out the only way to destroy it for good is to put it into the fires of a volcano. (orginal I know).

All this was taking about 3 years of real time, biweekly game. The DM made it VERY clear that was the only was to destroy it.

So after about another year of real time we finally make it to the volcano and go inside to dump the armor. The DM said the armor just lay on top of the lava and did not melt or anything.

So anyone else think that was a dick move?

There were hints that it had to be a specific volcano?

And you reached that volcano?


Darksmokepuncher wrote:

A succubus is smart, but not very strong. She knows that her spell is limited. Hence, charm then make her friend break the bow.

I say no dick move.

Unless, the succubus could have gained more by using a different action or choosing a different target.

I would not pour sugar in the gas tank of my car for a friend. I wouldn't even break a window, and all charm person does is let you be seen as a friend. It is not "I own you" mind control like dominate person is. Charm person would not have you go beyond anything a friend could get you to do.

I can see charm making someone plead on his new "friend's" behalf or leave to go get help in order to break up the fight.

Liberty's Edge

Diego Rossi wrote:


There were hints that it had to be a specific volcano?
And you reached that volcano?

Yes on both.


Jeremias wrote:

...Every time that we pull something crazy and cool, he's all like "What, he can do that much damage?" or "What, you can do that class feature as a move action" and then harrumphes and reads in the rulebook (or looks on the wiki) and grudgingly accepts, that it is right.

...

This happened to me all too frequently. Usually because I'd try and make a PLAYER happy and allow something that should NOT be allowed (splat books for example--especially when I ruled no splat book except XYZ.) I think it bothered me that I try and help PLAYER enjoy what they are playing and the CHARACTER destroyed the enjoyment for everyone else in the game. :) To get passed it we agreed to table discussions until out of game time.

Also, I say 'no' more often right up front. :)


@curaigh

Allright, my GM in another group can relate to that. He also is not very fond of splatbooks... But the GM in this group does this with things out of the Corebook (not even UC or UM!).


For maximum effect employ Dust of Sneezing and choking. No save, 12 rounds of inaction on the part of the victim. Loot as much stuff as you want.

I performed this move against my players, the fallout was intense, but it achieved the desired effects without TPKing. My villain required 2 pieces of equipment that the characters had acquired and I played his evil intellect to the letter. No deaths, took the items and left everyone breathing.

Dick move?

Probably, but using nasty stuff against a foe goes both ways, and if the GM wants to create a particularly memorable villain or encounter within the narrative then it's a necessary requirement. All the more reason for the PC's to pursue and exact revenge, this time it's personal.


The Dust is pretty dangerous; 3d6 CON damage with a save (in 3.5, there was at least only 2d6 immediately, and then 1d6 more if you failed another save later) and disabled for 5d4 rounds even if you do save is pretty much TPK-city.


Are wrote:

The Dust is pretty dangerous; 3d6 CON damage with a save (in 3.5, there was at least only 2d6 immediately, and then 1d6 more if you failed another save later) and disabled for 5d4 rounds even if you do save is pretty much TPK-city.

I stand corrected, there is a save! Apologies!

51 to 77 of 77 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / What is considered a dick move by the GM? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion