Be kind to your DM at a Con or Gameday event.

[noretoc]

Pulling this from another Thread about taking 10 and taking 20, sorry to Nosig that he may not see it to comment himself. Want to hear other people's opinions

nosig wrote:

I want a procedure to figure out how each Judge will do it at his table in a timely a fashion as possible. I'm already working on the questionaire - I'd like to keep it as short as possible, perhaps I'll just start with a list of Skills and a check box for which I can't use T10 or T20 with.

Why would people do this? All this does is make a judge waste time when he should be setting up, marks you as the type of player who is going to get in his face if he rules something against what he wrote, and add another level of frustration to a guy who is already taking time out of his playing to run a game for you.

How about ....
player:I Take ten to sneak past the guard.
DM: can't take ten on thoes.
Player: ok, my roll is .... (or) Ok, instead I am going to throw a stone to distract him...

Why is it so difficult to get a ruling and move on.

I have been on both sides of the table at cons, and have found most of the time when running, I am handed an adventure a few mins before the game. Barely have time to set up at a table with way more players than should be there. I don't know any of them, so I don't know when they are being serious, sarcastic, frustrated, or what, and I just have to go by what I can tell from thier responses/actions. I can tell you for a fact that somone handing me a questionaire to help them decide which rules I follow and which I get wrong is going to tick me off.

Now as a player, I have played in many games that stink. (The games where the DM does his best to kill everyone, since it's not his "real" game. The DM that anything you say is in game, so if you say "stick me with a fork" you just stabbed yourself with a fork, take damage. Yes for real). I learned that at cons the person responsible for my enjoyment is ME. I can either get mad at everything the dm does differently, or I can ignore that, and have fun playing and doing what I can. It's one game with strangers. Make the best out of it. Also if the DM does that bad of a job, you CAN't have fun. (I have had them). Don't make an issue of it. Do the best you can, and next slot, go on to something else. Next time, make sure you don't go to that dm's table.

Anyone who has been to a con has been at the group where one guy is arguing or "explaining" the rules. Everything stops, or the DM ignores him and he starts bugging everyone around him or makes a scene. Or he starts with the "Can I cast spells? Is that ok at your table. I just want to check before I try" etc. Don't be that guy.

[Jiggy]

noretoc wrote:

Why would people do this?

Well, nosig's stated reason was that he wanted to keep things running smoothly - he wanted to get it out of the way right off the bat so as not to waste time discussing/debating during the game.

It's to avoid debates and arguments. Had you read what he had to say, you'd know that.

You'd also know that your suggested idea of...

noretoc wrote:

player:I Take ten to sneak past the guard.

DM: can't take ten on thoes.
Player: ok, my roll is ....

...is what he originally tried to do, but within seconds the table erupted into a debate that he never intended to start.

Maybe you should read up on the facts at hand before making a "how could you think that?" thread.

[Chris Mortika]

There are shades and degrees of this.

If I'm running a character who depends on odd corners of the rules (a tripping fighter, or a Synthesist) or I intend to pull some particular stunts, I'll want to check with the GM before the situation requires it. It's also polite to let the GM know ahead of time that he'll need to be up on the sub-system in question.

But it can get out of hand, and it can get obnoxious. "Can I cast spells" is well into the obnoxious territory. If you're playing a sorcerer, yes. If you're playing a fighter, no.

[Jiggy]

Chris Mortika wrote:

It's also polite to let the GM know ahead of time that he'll need to be up on the sub-system in question.

That's a good point. I'd completely forgotten about this, but when I played PFS First Steps recently, the opening of the scenario made it clear that [creature type] would be showing up, potentially a lot. With my character being a Menhir Savant, I knew that the Spirit Sense ability would come in handy. Since I didn't want to ask "Are there any As, Bs, Cs, or X-Y-Zs nearby?" every time I entered a room, I politely asked my GM to read the ability (which I handed to him) so that I could just say "I activate Spirit Sense".

He was totally cool with it.

So although a questionnaire might be over the top, a polite inquiry as to how your GM handles mechanic X does not seem out of line at all; in fact, quite the opposite.

[Major_Tom]

I agree, a polite question at the beginning is fine. A questionaire with a list of skills and a check box. I think, if I was being polite, I would crumple it up and throw it at his head (not seriously, but it is what I would like to do). What I would do is hand it back to him immediately, and tell him I'll think about filling it out after the game is over:)

This would immediately mark him as a rules lawyer who is going to spoil the fun for the others at the table, and I would do my best to ignore/keep him as quiet as possible, so that he doesn't spoil the fun for the others. Even if that is not his intent, as it clearly seems it is not.

Ditto to what others have said as well - that's the last thing a DM usually has time for, especially if it is multiplied by six different requests.

Good intent, really, really awful, terrible, unworkable idea.

[Liz Courts]

Moved thread.

[noretoc]

Jiggy wrote:

Chris Mortika wrote:

It's also polite to let the GM know ahead of time that he'll need to be up on the sub-system in question.

So although a questionnaire might be over the top, a polite inquiry as to how your GM handles mechanic X does not seem out of line at all; in fact, quite the opposite.

First to answer your first reply, I should have made it clear it was not personal to nosig. I just used his post. I wanted people's opinions about a situation like that, or about treating con DMs in general, It wasn't meant as a jab at him. That is why I said sorry in the beginning, but I should have been more clear. Second on that reply, If you have a situation like that, and the whole table starts arguing, there is a problem with that partifular group that a qustionaire isn't going to help. Next time you will most liley not get the same thing. But, you should also step in and tell everyone, "Hey, let the GM make the decisions, and let's continue"

Last, Asking how something is handled is a lot different from giving a DM a form to fill out on his style. Though even then, there can still be an issue. If you character is built on a situation that a lot of DM have trouble with, maybe you should build him differently. Remember this is not your home game. You are playing with a lot of strangers, and for a short amount of time. Why make it more complicated? Save the wierd builds or the corner cases for your home game. You may not like that answer, but these games are not about you. They are for everyone, and the more you realize that your actions affect everyone at the table (Even if you try to make you DM fill-out form "short") you are still taking away from everyone's time, and possibly frustrating a DM that may already be irritated. That certainly isn't going to help the fun of the game. Is it fair, no not all the time, but it dosen;t have to be for you to still have fun, if you don't freak about it.

(Also, before anyone gets thier feeling hurt, think of the "you" above as me saying someone, one, anyone. I am not addressing this to anyone in particular, just talking about actions in general.

[Lincoln Hills]

Considering the time restraints of a con slot, I'd say you would be justified in asking the two most important questions on your list, checking "yes" or "no" on your own papers, and letting all the other questions ride until the situation arises in the game (if it ever does.)

Use the modified MST3K mantra: "It's just a con game / I should really just relax."

[Jiggy]

@noretoc: Thanks for the thorough reply. I guess I misunderstood your intent and position. My apologies.

Yes, giving the GM a form to fill out is a bit much. But regarding "corner cases"... There are things which I (and others I've met/talked to) have tried that are very far from corner cases and still run into troubles.

A "corner case" is when you have an interaction (possibly an unanticipated one) between multiple moving parts, possibly from different books. But most of the areas of contention I run into (either at the table or on the messageboards) are as simple as employing a single mechanic from the core rules.

I'm sure you can see, then, why "leave your corner cases/weird builds at home" isn't a satisfactory answer. I shouldn't have to leave "Take 10" at home. I shouldn't have to avoid ever using a combat maneuver. Sadly, the list goes on.

The issue that inspired nosig's thread and resulted in this one (don't worry, I realize now you're not jabbing at him) was a case of him wanting to employ a single core mechanic and running into trouble because he was the only one at the table who knew how it worked.

That shouldn't be happening. Or if it does, it should be from an inexperienced GM who (hopefully) is aware that he's a fallible human being who is willing to listen to a brief case from the player, announce a temporary ruling, and offer (not be asked, offer) to look into it more after the game. GMs should either be pretty familiar with core rules, or be in the process of actively and deliberately learning them.

Even so, yes, GMs (at a Con or elsewhere) should be treated with respect. If something goes wrong, the player should accept it and move on (if it's not too serious) and discuss it with the GM later. As long as this is done respectfully, the GM should be open to it.

I've kind of forgotten where I was going with this, so I guess I'll just click submit.