I understand where you are coming from OP, but...
You basically created a character to prove your GM wrong. This implies an adversarial relationship. I'm not surprised you are having trouble.
Depends on how it's done. It can be an ads for cereal relationship, or it can simply be a discussion where you let the facts do their own talking.
I understand where you are coming from OP, but...
You basically created a character to prove your GM wrong. This implies an adversarial relationship. I'm not surprised you are having trouble.
Depends on how it's done. It can be an ads for cereal relationship, or it can simply be a discussion where you let the facts do their own talking.
In response to the Evil Lincoln thing.
1)I created the character because I like wizards and think I know how to play one effectively. This DM has said in the past that wizards are more powerful in his games because he thinks they're underpowered RAW. I wanted to impress the DM by playing an effective wizard (both rules-wise and roleplaying).
2)Your position seems to be how dare you expect the rules of the game to be followed or your spells to ever work? This is extremely puzzling.
3)While I will admit a certain amount of adversarialness, it's in my genetic makeup to be a perfectionist and to seek truth in all things, it has never risen to more than a gentleman's disagreement. No more with this DM than others I've had, including other members of the same group who do, btw, share my feelings about him. He is just notorious for being unable to see or be shown reason.
meat,
You do gotta step back and try to see why the GM is roadblocking you. He's trying to get his game to go a certain way. Maybe he just feels that you as a player spend too much time in the spotlight. Maybe he does have it in for caster-types — given the conversation topics around here I could relate. Maybe he just has a mancrush on another player and is trying to make their contributions relevant. Maybe he wants to seem like a tough-as-nails GM.
While none of these reasons are good from a GMing perspective, they're all social dynamics. You're not robots, or computers, nor can you rely on such for rules interpretations in an RPG. This is an inter-personal problem.
Especially because this is a type of rule interpretation that keeps coming up. It means you have a problem with him, or he has a problem with you. Luckily, most human beings, especially friends, have the tools to work this kind of thing out.
RPGs can be confusing because we are all so mutually fascinated by them, we often blame things on the game when they should be viewed in their social context. Fights become about the game when they are really about love-triangles, or paying for pizza, or forgotten birthday parties. But because the shared interest is in the game, and that interest way outstrips most other diversions in our life, we often lose that perspective.
So, I suggest taking stock of the Out-Of-Game situation. Accept that he is not perfect. Acknowledge that you are not perfect either. Figure out how to have fun with this person, and that means with and without a game going. Good luck.
The GM is not always right. The GM is not god.
While it is true that the GM has the last word about rulings in his game and stuff like that, that doesn't mean he can't be a bloody idiot too damn stupid to read and understand stuff correctly. Or even to make slight errors.
When the GM does not call something a houserule and plays it differently from the RAW, he's wrong. Personally, I am grateful when stuff like that is pointed out to me. I'm not so screwed in the head that I have to play GM dictator/god in my games.
And when I houserule something, I do it in advance - ideally before the campaign starts. I will make the house rules available to players. And should I come upon something that I haven't noticed which I want to house rule, I will weigh things carefully, and allow the players to modify their characters if my ruling messes them up in a non-trivial way.
And when I make house rules, I'm always open for player input - after all, I rule differently from people who do this stuff for a living, and probably have more experience (and have put more thought and testing into their rules), so it's always possible that I'm ruling something really s@*!ty. Doesn't mean that I'll always do what they ask of me, but I'll at least hear them, and if I decide against their suggestions, I try to make them see things my way.
Doing houserules on the fly is bad GMing (maybe not terribly bad, but you won't get points for it, either). Doing it to screw players is applying for the coveted Tosser of the Month award. I mean, this is pitiful, thinking it necessary to show the players that you win. What do you need to compensate?
It's true that the GM probably has done more work than the players and all that, but that doesn't mean they're his slaves or anything. The goal should be to make everyone happy at the table. That includes the GM and every single player.
As DM, I know that I'm not always right. The players need to understand that sometimes the rules won't work the way they expect but there is a valid in game reason for that. I don't just change the rules unless I give ample notice. Sometimes it benefits the players, sometimes it doesn't.
Something I like to do when either I or one of the players misinterprets a rule, I like to back things up just a moment so that the player can make a more informed decision. If that isn't possible, then I make a concession for a later time.
Some examples:
1) One of my players had misheard how far away the enemy was at one point and said he was going to charge. He can't reach the enemy on a charge so when the enemy would charge him back, he would have had a penalty on his AC with no benefit even though he was going to move 40 feet regardless. I allowed him to change his action because it was a misunderstanding.
2) One of my players wanted to use his judgments all at once. He didn't understand (and is still having a hard time with) swift actions. Because he would have done things differently if he had a better understanding of the rules, I allowed him to back up and change his actions.
3) One of my players pointed out that I had managed to poison him but he had forgotten that he was immune to poison. It happens especially with a class you aren't used to playing. We backed up and fixed the problem so that the poison was no longer affecting him. He got back the attribute losses and I made a few other adjustments to fix things.
4) One of my players took some item creation feats but has been unhappy with the fact that they haven't had much down time. I did point out that it was the party who was pushing to go on, not any time line I created. I then was in an unrelated discussion on the boards with someone and he pointed out that you can craft while adventuring. I read up on the rule again and I sent an email out to let him know that he can create a few item and the restrictions. I told him that it would be assumed that he had been crafting them all along. I also made it clear that in this case, and only this case, he can craft more than one item at a time.
If he throws a ruling at you that is inconsistent with how you expect things to be (no prestidigitation on a coin with light on it) ask if you can back up and change your actions since you would have known that. It's a reasonable request and something that I think should be allowed.
Something I think you should do is write down all the rulings he makes so that you can know what his houserules are. Don't do it to be adversarial. Do it so that your character can react accordingly. If you need a Perception check to cast spells under certain circumstances, then so does the enemy. Use that to your advantage. Get some cover or concealment so that it's harder to target you.
In the end though, I really think that Evil Lincoln has the absolute best advice on here right now.
EDIT: Oh, that GM above, he also ruled that a T-Rex who was chewing on me was 'too hungry' to drop my character, even while the ring of blades around me chewed through his head to the tune of 30 hps (over half it's hitpoints, to it's head). That's like arguing a lion is too hungry to drop the porcupine in it's mouth as the spines drive through the roof of his mouth into his brain. End result, I died, and the T-Rex died.
Does your GM play a lot of video games? This sounds to me like gaming syndrome, where the graphical images of the hero and the monster simply swing at one another until one is dead, ala World of Warcraft.
It has nothing to do with how real world creatures would react and is strictly a gaming oversimplification, which has no place in a roleplaying game. Most creatures aren't going to fight to the death if they have a choice. They will retreat. If they are intelligent/determined, they might regroup and/or plan a better strategy and try again.
Lions in the real world don't chew on a porcupine until dead. If hungry enough, however, they might do hit and run "test" swipes with their claws for a good long time.
EDIT: Oh, that GM above, he also ruled that a T-Rex who was chewing on me was 'too hungry' to drop my character, even while the ring of blades around me chewed through his head to the tune of 30 hps (over half it's hitpoints, to it's head). That's like arguing a lion is too hungry to drop the porcupine in it's mouth as the spines drive through the roof of his mouth into his brain. End result, I died, and the T-Rex died.Does your GM play a lot of video games? This sounds to me like gaming syndrome, where the graphical images of the hero and the monster simply swing at one another until one is dead, ala World of Warcraft.
It has nothing to do with how real world creatures would react and is strictly a gaming oversimplification, which has no place in a roleplaying game. Most creatures aren't going to fight to the death if they have a choice. They will retreat. If they are intelligent/determined, they might regroup and/or plan a better strategy and try again.
Lions in the real world don't chew on a porcupine until dead. If hungry enough, however, they might do hit and run "test" swipes with their claws for a good long time.
He's not my GM anymore. That pretty much poisoned me on him. I played a little while longer, but he kept pulling other BS and I finally quit. And it's not that he likes video games (I play more than him). I've got 24 years experience as a GM, so I play VERY effective characters (not min maxed, I just go by flavor more than numbers, but I am very good at doing the right thing at the right time with the equipment/abilities I have on hand). He is not used to players who think 3 moves ahead, and he was getting frustrated with my half-drow warmage (so he killed him off).
Then he got frustrated with my catfolk scout (which was his NPC that I took over, we were in a jungle with no way to get replacement characters). He started getting frustrated because I was tumbling past all his creatures and flanking/skirmish attacking them, and started nerfing my character by stating I couldn't find concealment in a jungle when 40 feet from a bad guy. I basically quit at that point.
The GM is not always right. The GM is not god.
This is very true. However, how many of us who DM like it when a player challenges every ruling we make right there at the table, rightly or wrongly?
Yes, it's a pain in the ass. We've all experienced or heard horror stories of players derailing games like this, and confrontation is never a good way to resolve such disagreements anyway.The important thing here is not that the DM is right or wrong (and yes, he sounds pretty wrong to me too) but that any queries to him about his rulings (whatever they are) are done in a respectful, non-confrontational manner at an appropriate time to contribute constructively to the game.
There is an unwritten agreement between GM and Players.
The players do not quibble over every ruling, and the GM does not change the rules midgame.
This agreement has been broken. Sorry, but that ship has sailed, burned, and then sank offshore.
The GM has the right to change any rule he wants, anytime he wants...that's the perk of being GM. If the players don't like it, then don't show up. If they all don't show up, then the game ends, and that GM will realize that his play style doesn't fit with his players.
No. A GM does not have the right to change any rule at any time. The ability? Perhaps. But right, definitely not.
Let me be clear. The GM is a player, just like all the PC players. He or she has no more validity or importance in any key fashion than any of the other people sitting around the table. The GM's role in a game of D&D is to enforce the rules, process them, and act as a central reality "hub" from whence the fictional elements of the game find consistency. That's it.
When we sit down and agree to play Uno, any player who changes the rules during the game is cheating, even if that player is the dealer. When we sit down to play Monopoly, any player who changes the rules during the game is cheating, even if that player is the banker. When we sit down to play D&D, any player who changes the rules during the game is cheating, even if that player is the GM.
It is one thing to announce house-rules before a game or between sessions. It's even understandable to ask your players for permission to enact an alteration of rules in a session. To change rules on the fly is un-cool.
The GM has the right to change any rule he wants, anytime he wants...that's the perk of being GM. If the players don't like it, then don't show up. If they all don't show up, then the game ends, and that GM will realize that his play style doesn't fit with his players.
You can definitely pull your GM aside and disagree with him on a rule call, but you, as a player, have no say if the GM decides to keep the rule change he decided to make. In the end its his decision, not yours, as the player.
That's a big load of BS. That's not a perk, that's abuse.
Games have to have a set of agreed upon rules simply to function. Otherwise, it's not a game at all, it becomes something in between "cowboys and Indians" and "GM story hour."
A game cannot possibly function if the players don't know the rules as a result of the referee changing them all the time, mid-game, on a whim. If someone was insane enough to attempt it, I have to ask, why did the group in question spend hundreds of dollars on the rulebooks in the first place, if not to play the game under the established rules therein?
You are right about one thing though: such a GM won't be a GM for very long.
In response to the Evil Lincoln thing.
1)I created the character because I like wizards and think I know how to play one effectively. This DM has said in the past that wizards are more powerful in his games because he thinks they're underpowered RAW. I wanted to impress the DM by playing an effective wizard (both rules-wise and roleplaying).
2)Your position seems to be how dare you expect the rules of the game to be followed or your spells to ever work? This is extremely puzzling.
3)While I will admit a certain amount of adversarialness, it's in my genetic makeup to be a perfectionist and to seek truth in all things, it has never risen to more than a gentleman's disagreement. No more with this DM than others I've had, including other members of the same group who do, btw, share my feelings about him. He is just notorious for being unable to see or be shown reason.
I thought Evil Lincoln had a good take on your situation and some excellent advice. After reading your response, I'm wondering if you were actually looking for advice on the situation or just affirmation that your DM was "wrong", and then by extension you're "right"?
As for the general discussion going on in this thread regarding GM interpretation of rules, it's not really a question of can or can't GM's make rules interpretations, but rather to what extent is everyone at the table comfortable? When I play or GM, I lean towards a RAW approach, reserving rules interpretations or houserules for exceptional circumstances.
However, I've played at tables before where the GM was constantly making modifications or interpretations to the rules. It wasn't my style and I wasn't enjoying the gaming experience, and in each case after some discussion with the GM I ended up moving on to a new game. However, just because I didn't enjoy it didn't make the GM "wrong", since in each case there were 3 to 4 other players who were enjoying themselves and had not problems with the constant GM calls on the rules.
Games have to have a set of agreed upon rules simply to function. Otherwise, it's not a game at all, it becomes something in between "cowboys and Indians" and "GM story hour."
But RPGs ARE exactly "something in between 'cowboys and Indians' and 'GM story hour.'
A game cannot possibly function if the players don't know the rules as a result of the referee changing them all the time, mid-game, on a whim.
So you tell me that all those sessions I GMd with people not knowing the rules weren't RPGs (actually some of my players said that they prefered that way - they tell what they do, I tell them what dice to roll, they roll and I tell them what results of their actions are) or that many systemless sessions GMd by me and many of my friends weren't roleplaying games? Or even that AMBER roleplaying game is not roleplaing game? From my own experience I know that RPG's session it can work perfectly well as long as GM has the entertainment of the whole group in his mind regardless if the player's know rules or not.
The term game in Role Playing Games is a bit of misnomer actually, reminder of the fact that creators had background in wargaming and created term that appealed to initial target group.
The point is that rules are suggestions to GM not laws that bind him. If GM abuses that authority and he cannot be reasoned with then players are free to not play and organizing their own games - nothing forces them to play with that particular GM.
And I write this as both GM and player (and actually mostly from the point of player currently as I play more and GM much less these days).
Of course changing rules in the middle of session might be disruptive and changing rules between the rolls just because so isn't good.
Still I both had done it and agreed with GMs doing it when the rules were disrupting the groups entertainment or the story because entertainment of players and GM is what is all about and if the rules stand in the way of fun it then there is no point in sticking to them.
See, now, where others see conflict and turmoil, I see only opportunity. First, a few disclaimers.
-I am a big proponent (if feeling frisky and confrontational) of using my adversary's words/abilities/traits against him.
-Keep in mind I am not normally an evil thinking scallywag.
-I did have a wonderful experience (and by that I mean horrible) with a DM early in my career that I still use in story form to scare young gamers before bedtime.
-I much prefer the "never criticize in public" way of doing things that includes bringing stuff up in a very nice outside the gaming table way.
-But sometimes I get a feisty itch.
Ok so if it had gotten to this point (and assuming all things to be completely objective from the OP) I personally would have used his own words against him. This method (although it can break someone's spirit) of forcing the DM to make a decision will do one of two things; make him admit he was wrong in one case, or make him admit he is a big fat jerk face.
And this is how you go about doing it in this particular case.
1. Ask for clarification- just double check that the reason you cannot cast prestidigitation on the coin is the fact that it is now a magical item.
2. Look for an Opportunity- soooo.... wait the DM just said if I cast light on a coin it becomes a magic item..... hmmmm.....
3. Apply opportunity- here comes the big bad monster that has damage reduction 5/magic..... hey I have a cantrip that does that!
4. Wait for contradiction- Player-"I cast light on the fighter's weapon to make it magical."
DM-"that doesn't count as a magic weapon"
Player-"ok I cast light on my coin and prestidigitation it then"
DM-"no....uh....that doesn't work either"
5. Get win- Player-"please do enlighten me as to which one you would like.... you can't have it both ways.... or you can, but you must admit you are just a big fat jerk face."
See either way I win! Either I am allowed to make coins that glow and move, or I am allowed the coolest cantrip in the world, or he admits he is a big fat jerk face! Opportunity!!!! no conflict, just good clean evil fun!!!
WARNING-Applying techniques as outlined above will not make you any friends and you may lose some, be prepared to face the consequences of your actions....you have been warned.
Meat. Dude.
There's a lot of argument to be had here, and a lot of people are (I might add, in some cases, eloquently). I'm not going to, because I don't think I have anything new and brilliant to add beyond this:
It's a game.
Games are fun.
Un-fun games? Don't play.
On the bright side? CONGRATULATIONS on your impending promotion (hehe) to GM of your own spiffy shiny new campaign!
"I'm grateful."
"The time will come when you won't be."
I cant believe I read through all this......
You can play an effective wizard, kudos to you, I cant( and the factthat I like to put every spell I come across in the book proves the fact that I cant).
It does sound like to me that you may have sub consciously created the wizzie to be confritational, it might not be.
Just the same, I'll echo everybody else that said talk with your gm outside thesession.
If all else fails, talk with the other players and elect a new dm or leave the group again.
Games have to have a set of agreed upon rules simply to function. Otherwise, it's not a game at all, it becomes something in between "cowboys and Indians" and "GM story hour."
But RPGs ARE exactly "something in between 'cowboys and Indians' and 'GM story hour.'
A game cannot possibly function if the players don't know the rules as a result of the referee changing them all the time, mid-game, on a whim.
So you tell me that all those sessions I GMd with people not knowing the rules weren't RPGs (actually some of my players said that they prefered that way - they tell what they do, I tell them what dice to roll, they roll and I tell them what results of their actions are) or that many systemless sessions GMd by me and many of my friends weren't roleplaying games? Or even that AMBER roleplaying game is not roleplaing game? From my own experience I know that RPG's session it can work perfectly well as long as GM has the entertainment of the whole group in his mind regardless if the player's know rules or not.
The term game in Role Playing Games is a bit of misnomer actually, reminder of the fact that creators had background in wargaming and created term that appealed to initial target group.
The point is that rules are suggestions to GM not laws that bind him. If GM abuses that authority and he cannot be reasoned with then players are free to not play and organizing their own games - nothing forces them to play with that particular GM.
And I write this as both GM and player (and actually mostly from the point of player currently as I play more and GM much less these days).Of course changing rules in the middle of session might be disruptive and changing rules between the rolls just because so isn't good.
Still I both had done it and agreed with GMs doing it when the rules were disrupting the groups entertainment or the story because entertainment of players and GM is what is all about and if the rules stand in the way of fun...
He was saying that if you are playing under a system with rules the DM has to authority, but not the right, to change the rules on a whim. Otherwise why even have books. You may as well just make random things up, and hope the DM agrees with you.
The player's right to leave does not mean the DM can do what he wants..
Nobody is saying rules are binding laws. What we are saying is that the rules should be followed unless the DM openly changes them.
PC:I am going to craft item X
DM:You have to be a level 14 caster to cast for items that cost Y amount of gold
PC:What!!???. Caster level and gold prices are not married to each other.
DM:It is just how things work in my world. I just made it up.
PS: If the OP is still around--> I would talk to the DM, and try to get a list of houserules.
|
I feel your pain.
I'm a GM who has ALOT of houserules. That said: My houserules are available for download for my players pre-game, and I bring a paper copy with me TO game.
If someone calls me on a rule; if it's in the houserules, then I point it out to them. The houserules supersede the rulebook.
But if it's not something I intentionally houseruled or if it's a houserule that I've had for a while that I forgot to write down, I either:
1. Run with the rule in the book.
2. Tell them that it was an oversight on my part to not have it written down, but is not a new ruling, and let them change what they were doing accordingly.
3. Introduce a rule that works more the way I want it to for the next session, giving the players full disclosure during this session that it will happen.
That said, I run as a houserule: Rule 1. If the official rules are illogical or self-contradictory or internally inconsistent, an on-the-fly house ruling will ensue when the situation comes up.
Enlarge Person and Reduce person have some inconsistencies(reduce: Projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them vs. enlarge: projectiles deal normal damage.), so I ruled on the fly that projectiles are affected the logical way: an enlarged bow fires arrows that deal more damage.
I've had some BS calls from the DM before too though, and I'd never game with that guy again because of them. One example of this GM.
- "I cut through the rope with my rapier."
- "A rapier does piercing damage. That means it isn't sharp. Just pointy."
- <I pull up a historical document from a reputable source showing rapiers as bladed weapons, as well as several pictures.>
- "Doesn't matter. The book says piercing damage, so you can't cut with it."
I wouldnt play in a game he ran after that.
And because of things since then that have happened, he's not welcome in my games either. Or on my property. And it's been made pretty clear that if he runs into me around town it's in his best interest to leave line of sight as quickly as possible.
|
snip
You can actually warn the GM with this.
Make a list of the houserules he has come up with and talk to your GM in friendly, out-of-game conversations about how you think your character can exploit these new houerules (i.e. you never need to prepare magic aura when a cantrip will do).
I think the 'held actions are simultaneous' idea is ripe for exploitation and your caster can hide behind the melee guys whenever you face an enemy caster.
Most obviously, constructs are a lot cheaper and easier to create than golems, and now they're extra awesome - go get one!
Boguns are now much cooler and an iron cobra only costs 4,000gp
If you get to the level where you can summon a retriever then they are now mage-slayers.
Best of all though is your magic-immune homonculus for only 2,050gp.
|
stuff and To summarize: bad ruling.
@Anguish - I am not sure I am following you here - are you saying the DM made bad rulings or the player? if its the DM then I agree if its the player then I disagree with you
@Meat - Dms are not gods or always right - as others have said they can make mistakes & sometimes do. There is a reason to have rulebooks - to provide the rules for how the world works. if the Dm wants to make houserules thats fine & is his right but he MUST make sure all players know what they are, particularly if the player is new to his game or has not played with the DM before!
others have said take the DM aside & speak to him - I disagree on this. as a player & DM I would advise the following - speak to the players in the group with the situations so far, like you have already mentioned - explain/remind what happened & what you think should have happened (back it up with rules even pointing them out in the book if need be) & ask them how they feel about it. This will make sure all players are in agreement, are happy with what you point out & then confront the DM in a civilised discussion about it, bring the other players in if it is not working to show the DM he is interpreting wrong
If they dont agree with you then quite simply you are stuffed as you will be fighting the DM & the other players & maybe it is you who is wrong although the situations presented are mostly correct in favour of you & against your DM (1,3 & 4 - 2 is against you sorry)
as for posts about you creating a player to be confrontational I also disagree. to believe casters are underpowered is wrong - maybe at low levels but at higher levels they become close to gods if played right - Treantmonks guide sums it up - "How to play a GOD". I had a DM/player believe a class was useless or underpowered so I played that class to show them they were wrong & show how the class could work - not make it overpowered just that it was not underpowered. This worked & the player had a new respect for the class as they had not seen it played that way & did not realise how it worked properly. the character played well with the other characters/players & they did not feel like I was trying to steal the show. I am in a current campaign where a player thought the new druid class was inferior & not worth playing (yes a druid) and she challenged me to play it & prove her wrong - so far I have not even used SNA or wildshaping & I am still equal to the others in the party - I will ask her soon if she thinks the druid is still inferior or not
in summary your options are -
1) leave the game
2) accept the DM is going to continue to be wrong & keep playing
3) speak to the players & then the DM & show the DM how he is wrong out of game time - if corrects his ways great but if not then do 1 or 2 as above
good luck
Cee
Let me be clear. The GM is a player, just like all the PC players. He or she has no more validity or importance in any key fashion than any of the other people sitting around the table. The GM's role in a game of D&D is to enforce the rules, process them, and act as a central reality "hub" from whence the fictional elements of the game find consistency. That's it.
Take any other player out of the game. Can you still play? Yes. Now take out the DM. Can you still play? No. Does the DM never prepare the adventures in advance? of course he does, or it's going to be a crappy game.
The DM is the player who puts more work in than the other players, and foregoes playing his own character to be "the rest of the world". He has to prepare the game, he has to adjudicate the decisions. He has, basically, the hardest job at the table - especially when players constantly throw curve-balls at him.
Another job of the DM is to try and ensure everyone has a good game, including himself. This means not doing things like changing the rules of the game half-way through a session because the player did something you didn't like the sound of that you didn't think they would manage and that throws a spanner in the works. There are better ways of dealing with such problems after all.
I just want to add that I am totally 100% fine with houserules, whatever they may be, even if it is something off the wall...as long as I get prior notice. It doesn't seem fair to get stuff sprung on you. If I design a character around certain strategies, then am told those strategies won't work, I feel cheated.I didn't want to sound too unsympathetic. I just wanted to play GM's advocate. I had a GM once that frustrated the Hell out of me, because he was running a 3.5 campaign by converting (on the fly) 1st edition adventures, but was using a mix of 1st/2nd/3.0/3.5 rules, and often didn't explain under what conditions each set of rules would apply.
"The adventure calls for you to improvise using something specific for weapons, so your feats that let you improvise weapons don't work."--after we were already in the adventure, after I had already taken the feats.
"I don't like adamantine magic weapons hurting Golems. I like you to need +3 weapons to hurt them,"--in the middle of a fight with an Iron Golem.
"Fireballs automatically destroy magical treasure, you have to be careful using them,"--after our spellcaster used fireball on some bad guys and apparently destroyed a +1 longsword when no one in the party had any weapons (see above).
"Fireballs fill up their total volume once they go off, so you guys are all in the blast radius now,"--again, after our caster had used the spell in a relatively small space.
So I feel your pain, I do. I just wanted to get across that someone that actually has certain changes or a legitimate difference on how a rule should work shouldn't be told that he "can't" run his game the way he prefers.
I think you're right here, but as a DM, I have to say that often players make that sort of mental calculations and keep those for themselves to use a rule gap in the middle of an important combat to put a DM on disadvantage. This is not the case I know, but I remember many times my players hiding some tricks from me, which is silly. As a DM, I'd like to know your calculations in advance instead of waiting for the last second and start debate in full combat. Just my 2 cps.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
eventually leading me to leave his game years ago.
1) He wouldn't allow me to use Prestidigitation to hold a copper piece with Light on it so the human rogue could see to disarm a trap
2) Myself and a fighter had held actions to cast a spell/attack respectively a target that came into sight. I greased, he fell, the fighter didn't get the bonus to hit the now prone target under the logic that it happens simultaneously
3) Forcing me to make a perception check to successfully target a Sleep spell to save the party, because there were people fighting between me and the target.
4) he said that my Glitterdust didn't work on a construct because all constructs are blanket immune to magic
I consider myself a bit of a rules lawyer
1-3 are all valid rules interpretations since none of these are explicitly covered in the rules. What I mean is they are left to GM interpretation, and your DM is interpreting.
#4 is the first rules error, but everyone makes mistakes. Or he could be going on the concept that GD is "like" a Fort save thing or "like" a mind effecting thing and therefore Construct immunities they have in general would apply.
I'm a firm believer in voting with feet, if you don't like the game don't play.
I'm also a firm believer in Rule 0, so I tend to be perfectly fine when the DM blatantly violates the rules. The best recent example is a game I played that the DM thought touch spells didn't require attack rolls. So I got spammed with spells that he didn't roll to hit.
So in summary, if you (as a rules lawyer) point out the rules text where he is wrong after the game and he still continues to play the game in a different way then you don't have any options but to vote with your feet and not return. It is wrong to want to override how the GM is adjudicating the rules in my humble opinion.
I just want to add that I am totally 100% fine with houserules, whatever they may be, even if it is something off the wall...as long as I get prior notice. It doesn't seem fair to get stuff sprung on you. If I design a character around certain strategies, then am told those strategies won't work, I feel cheated.
That assumes he was using house rules instead of using his interpretations. You don't always own the right to choose between alternate rules interpretation unless the rule is explicitly one way. For example, you can't argue Longswords deal 1d8 in the hands of a Medium, but you can argue whether or not Brass Knuckles can be used with AoMF or Weapon Focus Unarmed Strike.
Also, regarding 2 . . . actually the fighter should have said he's holding his action until you had completed your spell, instead of waiting to act at the same time.He didn't know what I was doing. My initiative is higher, so I reacted first. The point is that there's no simultaneity, but rather an order of operations. I cast a spell, its effects are instantaneous. The DM had already rolled the save and placed the miniatures in the "prone" position.
@Starbuck Re: Being blind. Exactly. His position seems to be that if there is anything that would provide cover "or soft cover" between the caster and where he is placing a spell it should require a perception check for it to land properly. What ended up happening is I targetted it in an adjacent hex, forcing the aforementioned fighter to make a save vs. sleep and not enough of the spell leftover after his 2HD to affect the targets I really wanted.
Never mind that the sleep spell effects the lowest hit die creatures in the AoE first, so if a 3 HD fighter was adjacent to 2 2HD enemies, you can throw is on the fighter, and the 2 HD creatures will be affected first by the literal wording of the spell.
The GM is not always right. The GM is not god.This is very true. However, how many of us who DM like it when a player challenges every ruling we make right there at the table, rightly or wrongly?
The queen of Binary World called and asked when you're coming back ;-P
Just because I say the GM is no god doesn't mean I say he's the players' slave.
There are more than two possibilities to this, as usual.
Defending one b%&**&* extreme by pointing out that those who don't like it are the opposite b%$##*& extreme is tiring.
The GM has the right to change any rule he wants, anytime he wants...that's the perk of being GM.
He has the right? Where does it say that?
I know I sound really confrontational, and I apologize for that
Why do it in the first place?
I've learned to respect a GM's purview.
Respect goes both ways. All this sounds a lot like the GM has all the cards, and the players better shut up and be happy they're getting a game.
Roleplaying is a group activity, and unless your GM happens to be your CO, boss, or dictator, he really has no special privileges here.
Sure, he can stick to his rules, but does that mean he should? Even if it pisses off 80% or more of the people involved?
Goth Guru has hit the nail on the head: There is an unwritten agreement between player and GM. A social contract. It basically says that everyone does his best to have fun without ruining everyone else's day, that the group should work together to find a way of playing everyone is happy with.
If you stick to rules nobody but you likes, you're breaking the contract. The GM is not exempt from the contract. Sure, the players can't force him to change, but they can all quit his game and not invite him to the next game they're running, or parties, or anything really (since we're talking about extreme measures)
But RPGs ARE exactly "something in between 'cowboys and Indians' and 'GM story hour.'
Nope. Your typical RPG also has rules, which neither of the above really does.
IMHO: Houserules are fine, houserules that you spring on the players without their input after character creation are not.
(I also think "I'm making a ruling on it this way, but between games we can look at the rules and figure out what the real rule is if you disagree, and if this is wrong we'll use the real rule in the future." is the GM response to a rules question that is just about guaranteed to resolve all rules questions without rancor or serious game delay.)
For most of the 3.X years, one DM I sometimes played with had a houseruled version of Sneak Attack that basically only worked on humanoids and had a few other restrictions that "real" SA doesn't. However, no one threw a fit about it because we all knew that was his take on it. Sure, you rarely if ever saw a character with more than one level of rogue in his games, but none of the players had a problem with it.
If, on the other hand, he had sprung that on me out of the blue at level 5 or 6 after getting fairly invested in playing a straight rogue, I'd probably have just left the game.
Unless you live far out in the boonies where this GM's game is literally the only game in town I'd give serious thought to finding a different one, though I'd also tell him why in a diplomatic way.
If, on the other hand, he had sprung that on me out of the blue at level 5 or 6 after getting fairly invested in playing a straight rogue, I'd probably have just left the game.
The 'goose is on a nail head hitting streak here!
Everyone who compares Pathfinder (a notably rules-heavy game) with "Cowboys and Indians" needs to get someone to explain to him what Pathfinder actually is.
It's not really a rule problem, but more of a "meta rule" problem. That might not be a problem in those rules-light or rules-free games where the actual rule is to come up with something on the spot, but in Pathfinder, pulling stuff that changes the rules out of one's arse is really rude.
And why? Because those rules define (and simulate, more or less) how the game world works. Players learning rules means characters learning how the world works. We read the stuff in books, the characters to the same thing we do in our world: Figure stuff out.
And before someone can feel clever by pointing out that you can get stuff wrong in real life, too even though you thought you knew how things work, we're not talking about doing something you have seen working on a thousand animals failing on animal 1001, or remarks you were sure were quite innocent starting a major row.
No, we're talking about the equivalent of "If I drop things, they fall down." or "I can just step over this small gap in the ground" or "Sunlight does not burn my skin after 10 seconds of exposure".
We know this stuff instinctively, and as long as we're staying on this planet, in this reality, they'll almost certainly remain true for as long as we live and long after.
Now imagine stepping out of the house tomorrow, and for no reason, you're suddenly harmed by sunlight. Or you drop an egg and falls upwards, or you try to jump a really small stream but find that even though you did the same three seconds ago, you suddenly can't even get close to walking across and you fall into it and break every single bone in your body after falling down about 40 inches.
Arbitrary changes in the most basic rules, without telling someone before they come into play is the same: As the players learn and then with certainty know things like "spells that don't allow spell resistance are not impressed by spell immunity", "when I roll a natural 1 on my attack, nothing bad happens other than that I miss" or, rules like this, their characters learn that their world is one where some magic can affect everything, since only the method of causing things is magic while the effect is not, or that for a trained combatant, handling weapons is not something that makes you mutilate yourself and others 5% of the time.
So when a GM suddenly blurts "Magic immunity means no magic thing can harm this creature", or "well, you rolled a natural one on your attack roll, roll this d10 to see whether you destroy your weapon, hit yourself, or hit an ally", he takes the character's experiences and observations of the world they live in and takes a nice, big s+&# on them.
And when doing that, getting a nice feeling that "I AM GOD AND THEIR CHARACTERS' LIVES ARE IN MY HAND!", remember that in this world, you are no god, and certainly not immune to the Stick of Pain....
The GM is not always right. The GM is not god.This is very true. However, how many of us who DM like it when a player challenges every ruling we make right there at the table, rightly or wrongly?The queen of Binary World called and asked when you're coming back ;-P
Just because I say the GM is no god doesn't mean I say he's the players' slave.
There are more than two possibilities to this, as usual.
Defending one b#&&*** extreme by pointing out that those who don't like it are the opposite b#&&*** extreme is tiring.
It wasn't my intention to do so, my apologies if it came across that way. I agree the best course of action is between the two extremes. At the end of the day, treat one another with respect and don't be confrontational and 99% of problems disappear.