New Gaming group?


Advice

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

First, for the most part i like the group im with. My gm is fair most times, however when he pulls something it is big.
For instance, level 3 witch and group got ambushed by kobolds. all 6 of them attack my familiar on the ground next to me, 2 of them taking AoO to do so. When i questioned why they would avoid the 4 humanoids that will do more damage and are more of a threat i got the I am DM speech...

Recently my Alchemist was said to be unbalanced because the enemy we were up against had SR and the bombs that were thrown at him bypass SR because they are SU in origin. SO now in the middle of the next fight the bombs have been changed to SP instead of SU. My argument was that alchemists do not have anything to lower SR like our mage could have used. Again the I am DM speech...
(what he and everyone in the group forgot was that every enemy up until now was healed by fire and draining the heat from us and i just watched the fighters ko them from a distance, and heal them after the fight)

When we were playing another game, i was told i could not do something because it was a house rule. When i asked how come i didnt know about the rule before the decision, i was told it was a house rule for years. (i've only been with the group for maybe 2 years) I asked for a listing of houserules and "have become the rules lawyer" at the table.

Last game i had to defend the levitate spell. the spell ended because the character pushed off a wall and went horizontially. I pulled out the spell description and explained that the spell itself does not do horizontal movement, but that doesnt mean the spell ends if someone does.

I am there on time (99% of the time) have my spell list ahead of time, books earmarked, index cards made, dice ready to play, and know my character almost inside and out. *sigh*

What i originally wanted to know was should i be looking for another table, but i guess the answer is clear (or not so clear). I dont care if anybody responds, sometimes its just better to get it out, and not at your party mates.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes.

The DM sounds like a tool, and if it doesn't go his way he bends the rules to re-balance the game in his favour.

The personality type you describe is pretty common among the nerd and geek subrace, and when coupled with the modest power gained DMing a game one afternoon a week can, and has in this instance become a pain in the arse.

If you're not enjoying it, change groups.


Grrrr..... Just got a text from the GM that he is balancing the game by making all PC supernatural abilities (SU), spell like instead...That just made the decision for me. That makes pathfinder characters more like 3.5 instead of pathfinder.

Grand Lodge

Usually I would expect to see something like that when a player abuses a power to the point that the GM gets frustrated.

If you are sure that it is not a misunderstanding, that there is really no grounds for it, then maybe it is time to move on. You need to look at it from both perspectives, as does he. But he is right, he is the GM, and it is his right to do anything he wants. He may not have any players by the end of it, but it is his game.

I am less conservative as a GM, and as a player, like you, I like to know what rules are being used. If a rule is not being used, I like to know about it. I'm not out to rules lawyer my way through a game, or looking for the rule to exploit, but it's nice to know my options.

Some people already have the mindset already, and are not willing to change... but a reasonable person will try to talk it through.

I wish you the best of luck, man... I feel like I have rambled enough, and I don't even know if I helped any. Probably not... Good luck!


As a GM with a previously optimized Alchemist in the group... they really mess up your plans. Even a moderate level Alchemist can Confuse a high level dragon causing it to suicide, with only a single save (and no SR)

I can understand where your GM is coming from, but he should be working with you rather than against you.

Edit:
In my case I brought it up with my player, and we scaled him back (within the rules). The rest of the party is still unhappy with the character, but we're near the end of the campaign and I don't want to force my player to change now.

In your case:
I'd accept the SU > SP of bombs for starters, because SU bombs are poo to plan against (reoccuring villain? Not this time!). The only option available to wizards is Spell Penetration, that I can think of. But you should be able to make changes to your character to reflect the change in the gaming world, even if that means as little as being able to swap out some feats to get those. If he refuses to allow that, that's what I think the line should be (since he already crossed making changes without consulting you)

Remember: The GM is part of the party, and part of the group. If you're making the game not fun for him, that's as fair as him making it not fun for you.


Before bailing I would talk to the GM in person, alone. Tell him how you feel and let him know that his rulings seem unfair to you, and that you are strongly considering looking for another group. Don't yell, don't swear, don't point your finger...just explain it to him, and then LISTEN when he responds. If he isn't willing to explain it (I AM THE GM only works so far in my book) or you don't like what he has to say, then tell him "thanks for the game" and find another group. There's no point being miserable, and if you try to communicate and work through the problem like an adult, anyone who faults you for leaving is a child.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aeshuura wrote:

Usually I would expect to see something like that when a player abuses a power to the point that the GM gets frustrated.

If you are sure that it is not a misunderstanding, that there is really no grounds for it, then maybe it is time to move on. You need to look at it from both perspectives, as does he. But he is right, he is the GM, and it is his right to do anything he wants. He may not have any players by the end of it, but it is his game.

Bolding mine. And I'm not singling you out, Aeshuura. I've heard this statement from many other people.

That statement is the kind of thing that helps to create the sort of GM that is being discussed.

And it is highly inaccurate.

GM's with the "might makes right" attitude are not there to have a good time, they are there to "win".

Pathfinder (and all other RPG's that involve a GM and PC's) are team games. The GM isn't on the other team, he's simply there to challenge his team into interacting with the story he set out with in interesting ways.

Whenever a GM uses "I'm the GM" it's an excuse. I don't understand why GM's have a hard time with the phrase "Because at this current time, I do not have a plan for this."

I've left groups for the exact reasons you specify in your post Zakur.

While you could indeed decide to talk it out with the GM, I have a feeling it won't do you much good. What it essentially comes down to is how your friendship with this person is, if it exists at all (I've played with groups I wasn't friends with outside of the group). If it isn't strong, or doesn't exist, cut the cord. If it's strong, or at least retain-able, bow out gently. But don't make excuses, make your reason be heard. But explain that you're not going to stir the pot for the rest of the group if they enjoy his style of GMing.

Also, before it's brought up, I've been a GM for over 6 years now. So I can speak from experience of being "that guy". Being the controlling GM doesn't work out in the end. I expect it of new GM's who believe it's all about power. But seasoned GM's should understand that it's a team effort on everyone's part to tell a story and have fun for all.


Icaste, you should read the sentence after the one you bolded.

Sczarni

Fraust wrote:
Icaste, you should read the sentence after the one you bolded.

I did. Regardless, it is not "his game". He simply plays a different roll in a group game. The game itself is reliant on a group of at least two people (player and GM)


Guess I dissagree. The GM, in my mind, is the one in charge of the game, the rules are filtered through him (or her), the world is as he makes it. The player's are free to get up and walk obviously, and there isn't much game without players, but there is NO game without a GM.


Practically, I can see your point, Fraust. Functionally, that's incorrect. A group could elect itself to arbitrate rules decisions. There would be no central story teller and no central arbitrator but it could go on regardless. The GM is simply an efficiency tool: a single source of story and arbitration. It's not crucial for there to be a game though. Unorthodox, yes, but the rules aren't so intrinsically tied to the concept of a GM that it would make a play session literally impossible without one.


The group I play in has 3-5 potential GMs in it. We've never come close to a situation where a GM might walk (or since I've been there, a player) but if they did there would be plenty of people happy to step up to the plate. So "there is NO game without a GM" does not always apply, and I personally think it's healthier if they recognize that even though they're in the hot seat, they're not a dictator.


The problem is not with the dictatorial position some GMs take, but when they abuse that position by unfairly targeting someone with rule changes.

It just sucks when your character is singled out to be nerfed when you had approval for everything. If you're going to do that, at least allow the player an out either by letting him retire the character or changing it.


In my group, generally the gm will make a call AT the table if a rule needs to be arbitrated, but any CHANGES IE bombs are spell like instead of supernatural must happen prior to the game. We usually will discuss any rules changes as a group and even if we dont come to a consensus there is usually input from several people. Part of that I think is that we have several people dming at once. Several people can and will be gming. What that means is, if you push for something you will be on the other side of it at some point in the near future. I have found it has greatly reduced any antagonism in my group as opposed to years past when 1 person was the dm the vast majority of the time. Collective gming tends to lead to more compromise and less sweeping declarations.

To the OP i would ask, have you ever spoken to the gm about these issues away from the table? As a dm I dont allow any arguments longer then a sentance or two during the session, but we will often discuss things via email or in person afterwards where it wont interfere with the game.


My point about there being no game without a GM is there is no game without a GM. Wheather it's another player stepping up to the plate, or the guy who regularly GMs, if someone is GMing, then there is a GM.

As for the idea of a democratic game with no one incharge...I can say that is a possibility sure. I also remember playing cops and robbers as a kid. If there is no one in charge, and no rules, you're not really playing a game then are you...I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's not really a game.

I do agree the OP's GM went too far, which I think is obvious from my original post in this thread. I've walked out of games before because the GM was a control freak, and I've had players discuss rulings I've made, at the table and away. It's a team game, that's for sure, but one of the team members is the final word on in game rulings. If you don't agree, try rereading the core book.


Fraust wrote:

My point about there being no game without a GM is there is no game without a GM. Wheather it's another player stepping up to the plate, or the guy who regularly GMs, if someone is GMing, then there is a GM.

Certainly with no gm there is no game. But that does not mean the gm is a special class of person and all the players are less then him at the table.

I believe as GM you are the host of the game, it is certainly your game, but you as host are not doing it because it makes you awesome, but because you enjoy creating a place to have fun and enjoy the company of your friends. That is how I was raised to host a gathering, and I believe it very strongly applies to rpgs. If you are gming purely for your own kicks, it can only end in disaster. If if dms ego starts to grow, only bad feelings can follow.

Quote:


As for the idea of a democratic game with no one incharge...I can say that is a possibility sure. I also remember playing cops and robbers as a kid. If there is no one in charge, and no rules, you're not really playing a game then are you...I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying it's not really a game.

There is a difference between no rules and total anarchy, and a gm not being a dictator. Even my game is not a democracy, I am the final arbiter of the rules at my table (and other dms at theirs), we all have our own style of game, but the rest of the group has a say in the rules (again away from the actual game session) that I or the other dms actually listen to and then make our choice. The dm is in charge, but he isnt a dictator and that makes all the difference in the world.

Quote:


I do agree the OP's GM went too far, which I think is obvious from my original post in this thread. I've walked out of games before because the GM was a control freak, and I've had players discuss rulings I've made, at the table and away. It's a team game, that's for sure, but one of the team members is the final word on in game rulings. If you don't agree, try rereading the core book.

I think the problem is that people love to use rule zero, but they should probably read the whole thing

Quote:


The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.

If you follow rule zero as actually presented in the pathfinder core rules I think it is a very good thing. But as written I dont think it leaves a lot of room for 'because i said so' does it? Seems to me it says the dm is responsible for not just telling the players what changes he is making but also giving some explanation as to why and discussing it. Certainly the dm makes the final choice on every rule he wants to make or change, but there would be a lot less tension in alot of tables if people read and followed the whole paragraph.

Grand Lodge

My basic point is that, as GM, you have to have final say. That is not to say that you cannot listen to your players, and I encourage it, but if you do not agree, and are not willing to compromise, the GM needs to have the authority to put his foot down.

Now, if he is unfair, unwilling to listen, or otherwise abusing that authority, he needs to realize that he gets that authority from the players.

Icaste, I understand your concern with my wording, but it needs to be true for the game to work. Please understand that I believe it is the unspoken covenant between Player and GM, when you start. The Player agrees that the GM will have final say, and the GM agrees that he will do his best to provide a fun experience. If either of these sides fail, and they are not able to come to an accord, then one side or the other is under no obligation to continue.

I hold GM and Player to have a responsibility toward making sure that the game is fun (GM maybe more than Player)... but GM has authority in all things regarding HIS game.

Of course, these are only my beliefs, they are not truths to anyone but me.

EDIT: Without Players, the GM is nothing. Without a GM, the Players are twiddling their thumbs. It is a symbiotic relationship.


Kolokotronic...I think you and I are of the same mind (roughly), just expressing things a little differently. I'm not trying to say I think GM's should tell people "because I said so" as any sort of a default answer. As I said above, it doesn't go very far in my book. I'm cool with it at the table, as a "this is how I want to run it" type answer, and then talk about it later when it's not talking up game time. I'm just saying the GM is well within their rights to run a poor game, just as a host is well within their rights to host a poor event, and those who attend either are well within their rights to not participate.

And no, I don't think there is much of a difference between no rules and anarchy. Just because everyone is getting along in a situation without rules does not make it any less of an anarchy. These types of things are ever flowing and changing, and sure we could arbitrarily hit pause and say "see, everyone is having fun and no one is arguing" as our "proof" that a game can happen without rules/a GM, and someone else can arbitrarily hit fast forward to the point someone wants to do something someone else doesn't want them to do...


Fraust wrote:

Kolokotronic...I think you and I are of the same mind (roughly), just expressing things a little differently. I'm not trying to say I think GM's should tell people "because I said so" as any sort of a default answer. As I said above, it doesn't go very far in my book. I'm cool with it at the table, as a "this is how I want to run it" type answer, and then talk about it later when it's not talking up game time. I'm just saying the GM is well within their rights to run a poor game, just as a host is well within their rights to host a poor event, and those who attend either are well within their rights to not participate.

I dont agree with this mentality at all. No one is within their rights to intentionally be a jerk. Saying its their right just encourages it. If you are running a poor game, you should make an effort to change it. Not because you are worried about losing players, but because you should want to be a better dm.

If the idea of trying to improve your game, and make it more fun isn't palatable to you, you shouldnt be trying to dm in the first place, whether or not you have players. We dont need bad dms in our community, just like we dont need bad players. It is bad for pathfinder, or for the hobby in general to make the claim that anyone has such a 'right'. We should all strive to be better then that, and encourage everyone else to do likewise.

When we sit behind that screen we arent just in charge of the game (which we are), we are also responsible for it. Each and every dm AND player needs to learn the distinction between those two things.

Quote:

And no, I don't think there is much of a difference between no rules and anarchy. Just because everyone is getting along in a situation without rules does not make it any less of an anarchy. These types of things are ever flowing and changing, and sure we could arbitrarily hit pause and say "see, everyone is having fun and no one is arguing" as our "proof" that a game can happen without rules/a GM, and someone else can arbitrarily hit fast forward to the point someone wants to do something someone else doesn't want them to do...

Sorry, i didnt punctuate my sentance well there. What i meant to say was there is a different between a situation with [no rules + anarchy] and a situation where the dm is a dictator. I assure you at my table there are rules, and there is no anarchy, but I dont rule with an iron fist either.

I agree that we are looking at things very similarly, but speaking about it in different ways. Like I said in another thread on rule zero the other day, I think people who talk about this are worried about erosion of the way they want to play their game and not what is actually being discussed.

I think its high time we all took a long hard look at Rule zero and figure out what it means to us, the game, and our gaming groups, because it seems to me that misunderstanding, ignorance, and heavyhandedness around rule zero is one of the top causes of negative gaming experiences.

It seems to me every day we see a post on these boards about either 'my dm is unfairly banning/nerfing x and refuses to talk about it', OR 'my players wont listen to me and cry and moan every time i make a ruling they dont like'. That is never a good thing. Every time that happens we are potentially losing part of our community. That is never a good thing.


Great GMs don’t pull out the rule zero card when questioned. They don’t need to. They have good reasoning behind their decisions and want player input. If there is time to give speeches, there is time to explain yourself.

MY vote: Yes. Well, the group may be fine. Change the GM though.

Shadow Lodge

Gorbacz, get in here so we can argue DM styles again!

As for the OP, you've made the right choice. This DM isn't working for you, so you need to find a new one.


Zakur Opzan wrote:


What i originally wanted to know was should i be looking for another table, but i guess the answer is clear (or not so clear). I dont care if anybody responds, sometimes its just better to get it out, and not at...

I would say yes...and if you are in the Indianapolis area, let me know. I could use a good reliable player.


Time to step up and take the GM seat yourself. It isn't an easy job, but if he is changing rulings on you in mid combat and having enemies specifically target your familiar with no good reason then it makes it hard to play let alone enjoy the game. Don't worry if the GM is a control freak then it's likely he won't like being sent to the players chair and he will simply quit playing.

Sczarni

Aeshuura, I'm in agreement with your last post. I suppose our disagreement is the idea that it is the GM's game. As though he possesses a complete ownership over it. That I don't agree with. I see the GM as an elected official who does have the final say (as you say) but is given that right by the players (again, as you say).

However, as you said, these are my (strong) opinions and I meant no disrespect towards you personally.


Perhaps we're looking at the word "rights" differently. So if a GM isn't within his rights to be a jerk, what happens? James Jacobs comes down with a ski mask and an extendable baton (tell me you couldn't see him doing this...)? I'm talking about the same level of "rights" that says I have the right to pick my nose in public, or walk around with vomit on my shirt. I strongly suggest people don't do these things, but they are within your rights.

Again, word useage. I assume there are rules at your table, like the rule that states "when you make a d20 check, you roll a twenty sided dice, and not the cat".

Personally I rarely say "because I said so". I have said "this is how I'm ruling it for now, and we can get together and talk about it later." But I've sat at people's tables where, from time to time, "because I said so" was the answer. This wasn't always the answer, and they weren't some otherwise child touching, dice stealing, douche bag. Yeah, the game could have been better, and it could have been worse. All games, yours, mine, Monte Cooks, could be better, and they could be worse. Making the occassional jerk call doesn't turn you into some public enemy number one, vilest scourge the gaming community has ever seen. Hell, there've been times when I was more upset at someone after they explained why x or y was banned (so you're telling me this whole time, five or so years I been gaming with you under the rule that web is not to be cast the whole reason is because you're too bloody lazy to deal with people being entangled?!)


I did in fact try to talk to him privately. I don't yell (almost never). and was as polite as someone passionate about what they were talking about could be.

I made all my points and all i got was the i have 24 years experience (as opposed to my 18) with d&d and i know overpowered characters blah, blah,blah. I was thinking about giving it a try anyways until i got the, this is a win win situtation for me [him]. either you quit or obey my rules. I told him no thanks, I don't need the attitude.

All said and done, any one in northeastern PA looking for an additional player? My preference is crowd control/team support (no clerics though...lol) don't need to do highest damage, but love buffing and debuffing...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And I quote.

Iced2k wrote:
The DM sounds like a tool

Dark Archive

Well the board peps seem to have it covered but I might as well throw my 2 cents in...

I am a DM and have been for many many years. Its A responsibility of the DM to know the game, the rules in general and the player classes. If you set up your classes before a game session, you simply adjust to the changes the choices the PC's make. PF is (was) very good at limiting broken builds. The alchemist is by no means "broken". The most trouble i have ever had in PF with a class is Gunslinger (adv. firearms) the fighter BAB w/ranged touch and a standard summoner (15 pt buy in) in the PF adventure path Legacy of Fire. I was easy able to adapt to those PC's and the game went on...

I guess what i am saying is as a DM you have to be flexible and makes changes so the game is fun and challenging for all.


You should leave this game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Whenever someone quits my group because of the gaming experience, I consider myself a bad GM and get to more reading.

Grand Lodge

Icaste Fyrbawl wrote:

Aeshuura, I'm in agreement with your last post. I suppose our disagreement is the idea that it is the GM's game. As though he possesses a complete ownership over it. That I don't agree with. I see the GM as an elected official who does have the final say (as you say) but is given that right by the players (again, as you say).

However, as you said, these are my (strong) opinions and I meant no disrespect towards you personally.

Oh, I was sure you didn't, I just wasn't sure you understood my intent. It is good to know that I am not alone in my philosophy toward GM-Player relations. ;)

Grand Lodge

Squawk Featherbeak wrote:
Whenever someone quits my group because of the gaming experience, I consider myself a bad GM and get to more reading.

Though, I have to admit, I have had some players that I really would not want to run.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Zakur Opzan wrote:
I was thinking about giving it a try anyways until i got the, this is a win win situtation for me [him]. either you quit or obey my rules.

This tool's reaction to you having a calm discussion about the problems was to say that you obeying his (stupid) rules or leaving is a "win win situation"? Yeah, leave that group and be thankful you'll never have to deal with him again.


Have you tried a) asking what kind of character would fit in better with the group, or

b) acting as guest GM, and having this person be a player? That would force them to see it from the player's perspective.


alientude wrote:
Zakur Opzan wrote:
I was thinking about giving it a try anyways until i got the, this is a win win situtation for me [him]. either you quit or obey my rules.
This tool's reaction to you having a calm discussion about the problems was to say that you obeying his (stupid) rules or leaving is a "win win situation"? Yeah, leave that group and be thankful you'll never have to deal with him again.

He shoulda been looking for a win-win-win.


rkraus2 wrote:

Have you tried a) asking what kind of character would fit in better with the group, or

b) acting as guest GM, and having this person be a player? That would force them to see it from the player's perspective.

When I joined this adventure, I had 2 character possibilities. He wanted me to play the alchemist.


Squawk Featherbeak wrote:
Whenever someone quits my group because of the gaming experience, I consider myself a bad GM and get to more reading.

I actually met a GM once who considered it a win when a player would quit. I totally didn't understand his attitude.


Zakur Opzan wrote:

I did in fact try to talk to him privately. I don't yell (almost never). and was as polite as someone passionate about what they were talking about could be.

I made all my points and all i got was the i have 24 years experience (as opposed to my 18) with d&d and i know overpowered characters blah, blah,blah. I was thinking about giving it a try anyways until i got the, this is a win win situtation for me [him]. either you quit or obey my rules. I told him no thanks, I don't need the attitude...

+1 This. Get out.

Up intil this post I thought there was a chance (not likely, but a chance) the GM was just not explaining things well.

I have been in groups where there was an In Game reason the monsters would do something like target the familiar. (A bad guys was scrying them and trying to force them to make given decision.)
Or that a spell needed nerfed to match up with the created world and the GM had not noticed it ahead of time. (But the character was allowed to rebuild around the rule.)
But it doesn't sound like this is even close to a reaonable situation for most gamers. His group likes it and can stay with him. Get yourself gone.


Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:

I have been in groups where there was an In Game reason the monsters would do something like target the familiar. (A bad guys was scrying them and trying to force them to make given decision.)

I would agree with attacking a familiar as a viable option for a returning villian, but for a level 3 ambush, with kobolds that we just met... Its like going in to rob a bank and attacking someones seeing eye dog and ignoring the armed cops all around you....


Zakur Opzan wrote:
... I would agree with attacking a familiar as a viable option for a returning villian, but for a level 3 ambush, with kobolds that we just met... Its like going in to rob a bank and attacking someones seeing eye dog and ignoring the armed cops all around you....

For us that is what it was. An early intro for a reoccuring kinda/sorta bad guy. And it actually started earlier than that. (for us it was goblins). The boss was lying to his disposable goblins to give them reason to perform what seemed like stupid tactics. It was easy to win, but it was burning up party resources and options.

However, like I said I at first thought there was a chance it was a legit in game reason. But his response to discussion shows it was not. He was just being a jerk.


Yeah, bail. Honestly, what are the other players thoughts? What's the chances of you getting everyone but the regual GM together and you running a game?

I've played for a while now, and one thing blows my mind..."I've been playing for 24 years, and I know..." no, you haven't. Pathfinder hasn't been out for 24 years, nor has the version of the game that it was based on. Even then, even assuming this guy had been playing Pathfinder longer than you have...doesn't really matter much. Some people are dumber than others, sometimes people make mistakes, sometimes one of another billion other things happen, that give someone an idea in their head that isn't always fact. If he can't set down and listen, and come up with something beyond "I'm right, you ain't", well, chances are good he's going to wind up as our next president...but that's a whole nother rant...


Zakur Opzan wrote:

I did in fact try to talk to him privately. I don't yell (almost never). and was as polite as someone passionate about what they were talking about could be.

I made all my points and all i got was the i have 24 years experience (as opposed to my 18) with d&d and i know overpowered characters blah, blah,blah. I was thinking about giving it a try anyways until i got the, this is a win win situtation for me [him]. either you quit or obey my rules. I told him no thanks, I don't need the attitude.

He said THAT?!

He is lucky I wasn't playing in that game. I had a similar GM once. I actually am fairly popular outside the game. The GM, if you could call her that, was being just as bad toward me with the stated intention of forcing me out of the player group. I started out by getting out my books and planning my own game. But I wasn't just going to steal all her players... nope. I wanted her to know in no uncertain terms just how bad a GM she was before I left with all her players. So I brought my Astrology books to the next couple sessions. As an Astrologer I simply waited till she side lined my character (usually by knocking my PC out), then I started discussing horoscopes and birth charts with the players who weren't taking their turn at the moment. It wasn't long before people were deliberately delaying taking their turn to keep talking with me. Her game ground to a near complete halt as nobody wanted to take a turn. By two sessions of that she quit in a rage and never came back. I took over as GM and thanked my players.

It was mean of me to end her game that way... but she asked for it.


The other players were his "original crew" or friends who through one thing or another hadnt played or been able to play in almost the 2 years ive been playing. I do believe in Treating others the way i want to be treated, Kharma if you will, and I am looking forward to a new group whatever that new group may hold. Being that we were friends (during that 2 years) it hurt more than it should have. Thats kinda why I put it on the boards here, to get an unbiased opinion on it. I wasn't originally looking to continue the post, but am glad now that everyone contributed what they did. Thanks~


Aranna wrote:

He said THAT?!

He is lucky I wasn't playing in that game. I had a similar GM once. I actually am fairly popular outside the game. The GM, if you could call her that, was being just as bad toward me with the stated intention of forcing me out of the player group. I started out by getting out my books and planning my own game. But I wasn't just going to steal all her players... nope. I wanted her to know in no uncertain terms just how bad a GM she was before I left with all her players. So I brought my Astrology books to the next couple sessions. As an Astrologer I simply waited till she side lined my character (usually by knocking my PC out), then I started discussing horoscopes and birth charts with the players who weren't taking their turn at the moment. It wasn't long before people were deliberately delaying taking their turn to keep talking with me. Her game ground to a near complete halt as nobody wanted to take a turn. By two sessions of that she quit in a rage and never came back. I took over as GM and thanked my players.

It was mean of me to end her game that way... but she asked for it.

If there's one thing that's dumber than that GM, it's astrology.


Trikk wrote:
If there's one thing that's dumber than that GM, it's astrology.

Why would you say that? That's a pretty biased and rude thing to say.


Aranna wrote:
Why would you say that? That's a pretty biased and rude thing to say.

Yeah, I have a reality-bias.

Anything that is purely designed to give false hope and take money away from my elderly relatives deserves no respect.


I dont mind houserule, but sudden houserules are an issue. He should get you a written list. For now I would start to look for a new group though. You might want to run a game(a few sessions) also. If you the group likes your rules better then maybe that will help get things changed.


Trikk wrote:
Anything that is purely designed to give false hope and take money away from my elderly relatives deserves no respect.

Well since Astrology is neither of those it doesn't explain anything.

It's designed to highlight the strong points and weak points in our lives.
And it is mostly practiced for free these days.


wraithstrike wrote:
I dont mind houserule, but sudden houserules are an issue. He should get you a written list. For now I would start to look for a new group though. You might want to run a game(a few sessions) also. If you the group likes your rules better then maybe that will help get things changed.

The best houserules never come from the GM, they come from the group as a whole. I've never played a game where the GM dictated a houserule and everyone went "yeah, that's great!"

Quote:

Well since Astrology is neither of those it doesn't explain anything.

It's designed to highlight the strong points and weak points in our lives.
And it is mostly practiced for free these days.

Astrology is just like Scientology designed to suck money out of those who have problems and are at a weak point in their lives. It's a horrid practice.


Trikk wrote:

The best houserules never come from the GM, they come from the group as a whole. I've never played a game where the GM dictated a houserule and everyone went "yeah, that's great!"

Astrology is just like Scientology designed to suck money out of those who have problems and are at a weak point in their lives. It's a horrid practice.

The best house rules are designed to plug a fault between your group and the rules. It doesn't matter where they come from.

And since I don't know anyone who charges for astrology readings, your point about money is patently false.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / New Gaming group? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.