| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have encountered a house rule or a split-decision change. Sorry. :/
All you can do is try to change his mind away from the game, but is sounds like he isn't going to budge anytime soon.
He is thinking of "Fighting Defensively," which is detailed in the Combat chapter. You can't even combine it with most types of spells, as it requires you be attacking. Your GM obviously confused the two concepts.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You should request that all house rules be explained up front.
|
Point him here and we will explain the difference. Maybe he is confused on the ruling.
Fighting Defensively is what he is speaking of. That is the -4 Hit with a +2 to AC. That is a Standard action that lasts until your next turn. So since it is a Standard Action you'd then be unable to cast a spell (most are atleast a standard action).
Casting Defensively is a check to allow you to cast a spell without incurring an attack of opportunity. The check is 15+twice the spell level. This can be done as part of casting a spell.
The problem with your GM's thought process is you can't combine casting a spell and fighting defensively because they are both Standard Actions (most of the time), and they won't carry over to your next turn.
If he wants to houserule that into effect, then I REALLY suggest you ask him to reread the rules and plead for a different ruling, because that is a pretty crazy houserule that not only slows combat to a crawl but makes it a pain to strategize.
|
"i don't care it's like this... i don't want you to question it!"
This is when you walk away from the table.
IMO the only way you should end a rule discussion when clarity isn't at hand (for the sake of play) should end like this: "I'm sorry we disagree, we will sort out the details outside of the session, but we need to keep things moving, so this is how it will be until then."
Then after the session you damn well find RAW and come to an agreed interpretation.
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?
+1.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?
Wow, really? Everyone starts somewhere.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?Wow, really? Everyone starts somewhere.
Yes, but that starting point should be reading the book.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?Wow, really? Everyone starts somewhere.
when we told him he was wrong he went out sayng "i don't care it's like this... i don't want you to question it!"
It's more a combination of not knowing the rules and being a complete dingus.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?
Everyone who GMs the first time screws up somehow, someway. It's the nature of the game. Ok, so that GM confused a rule. BFD. Talk to him outside the game without cornering him, clarify how it works as stated in the book and go with it.
I've been GMing for most of my 20 years of gaming, and I readily admit to missing rules. I don't care. My player's will either point it out during the game or in between sessions it'll be discovered. No harm, no foul.
My perspective as a GM: Rules are guidelines to be used, discarded, or modified as suits the needs of running the most enjoyable game possible at MY/YOUR tables for my/your players.
Personally, as to the OP, I'd just go with it and be done, especially if it keeps the game moving.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since you didn't know about this house rule ask him to re-build your characters, also ask him to re-do feats like combat casting, disruptive, spell breaker etc.
Oh and always ask about his house rules before the campaign begins.
My perspective as a GM: Rules are guidelines to be used, discarded, or modified as suits the needs of running the most enjoyable game possible at MY/YOUR tables for my/your players.
I agree, as long as everyone at the table knows the changed rules and there is consistency in them.
Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?Everyone who GMs the first time screws up somehow, someway. It's the nature of the game. Ok, so that GM confused a rule. BFD. Talk to him outside the game without cornering him, clarify how it works as stated in the book and go with it.
I've been GMing for most of my 20 years of gaming, and I readily admit to missing rules. I don't care. My player's will either point it out during the game or in between sessions it'll be discovered. No harm, no foul.
My perspective as a GM: Rules are guidelines to be used, discarded, or modified as suits the needs of running the most enjoyable game possible at MY/YOUR tables for my/your players.
Personally, as to the OP, I'd just go with it and be done, especially if it keeps the game moving.
+1
Being the GM you have a lot going on and IMHO if it is not killing a player with the rule, let it go and ask on a break. It can be very difficult if your players question every call you make. And while the RAW are one way, you always need to consider rule 0 (the GM is always right). If everyone can accept that then the game moves along nicely.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do as he says during the session, discuss it calmly and respectfully afterward.
If that's the way he rules, and he sticks to it consistently, then just learn to play the game that way.
It's not worth giving grief to the guy who makes your game possible unless the ruling is really unforgivably bad.
...My perspective as a GM: Rules are guidelines to be used, discarded, or modified as suits the needs of running the most enjoyable game possible at MY/YOUR tables for my/your players.I agree, as long as everyone at the table knows the changed rules and there is consistency in them.
Granted. However, I tend to fly by the seat of my pants as a GM and when in doubt or don't know, I houserule on the fly in the way that makes the most sense at that particular moment and have yet to hear a complaint voiced about it. I must be doing something right then.
|
Yes, but that starting point should be reading the book.Why is someone with no knowledge of the rules being the GM?Wow, really? Everyone starts somewhere.
I have respect for anyone who wants to take a stab at GMing, but if it was a prerequisite that a GM know every rule, there would be no GMs. We all learn at a different pace and it is absurd to think that anyone could memorize ALL of the rules. For most people, the best learning comes from doing.
The GM the OP is talking about just needs to loosen up and accept his players feedback and read up on the rules surrounding defensive spell-casting. If he stands by his decision and does not wish to change it, then it is up to the players to decide if they accept or move on. GMs that are too stubborn will sometimes find that they run out of players.
Of course, making a ruling that provokes the players' outrage is counter to the GM's mandate. I think one of the best skills a GM can have is the ability to politely, convincingly offer: "Let's just do it this way for now and we can look up the 'proper' rule later... I want to keep things moving."
If the GM is honestly working for the game and not merely power-tripping, then this little speech should do the trick.
That, and if you're going to house rule, make sure it's in a google doc or some shared reference before you spring it on your players. But you can't foresee every rule. The GM needs the leeway to rule on the fly or your game will take forever.
He is thinking of "Fighting Defensively," which is detailed in the Combat chapter. You can't even combine it with most types of spells, as it requires you be attacking. Your GM obviously confused the two concepts.This.
Best thing - don't call him on being wrong.
Pull out the rules on Defensive Casting and then the rules on Fighting defensively (which say an attack must be made) and say you respect a ruling made at the table on the day but that the rules do not support what he ruled at the time.
If he sticks to that, ask him how he would reconcile any impact to the Magus class and then have him confirm that this is a house rule.
Jot it down somewhere so it can be referred to when his BBEG tries it.
It could be inexperience as much as anything else.
Unless it a life or death situation, then I always suggest that any calls on the rules (rules lawyering) be held off until either the end of the session, between sessions or before the start of the next session. Go with it for that session.
I find that stopping the game for a rules clarification breaks the immersion, flow and excitement of the game. I am not trying to be a hardcase, but I don't appreciate non-critical rule lawyering questions during play.
That, and if you're going to house rule, make sure it's in a google doc or some shared reference before you spring it on your players. But you can't foresee every rule. The GM needs the leeway to rule on the fly or your game will take forever.
Although i agree that you can't account for everything you can certainly try, i have a 3 page document with house rules and clarifications for my rotr game.
...Unless it a life or death situation, then I always suggest that any calls on the rules (rules lawyering) be held off until either the end of the session, between sessions or before the start of the next session. Go with it for that session.
I find that stopping the game for a rules clarification breaks the immersion, flow and excitement of the game. I am not trying to be a hardcase, but I don't appreciate non-critical rule lawyering questions during play.
But what's a "life or death" situation? Oftentimes, while the GM knows that the boss is almost dead and the actual rule does not matter, the players don't. Along the same line of reasoning, why don't you take the player's interpretation and then check after?
If there is strong disagreement, I sometimes like the Warhammer solution. Flip a coin, and keep going. Then check after the combat :)
But what's a "life or death" situation? Oftentimes, while the GM knows that the boss is almost dead and the actual rule does not matter, the players don't. Along the same line of reasoning, why don't you take the player's interpretation and then check after?If there is strong disagreement, I sometimes like the Warhammer solution. Flip a coin, and keep going. Then check after the combat :)
Couple of things here,
1: The player knows when THEY are about to die. life or death for the player is what counts in my thinking, not the villain. I would be more likely to pause and look into the rules if the player will die as a result of the decision than the villain. Not that I would never look into it. If by the Villain living it could cause a PC to die then thats reasonable too.2: The reason you don't take the players interpretation and check after is because you are the GM. You made the game, you are the judge and facilitator of the game. This is not a competitive experience. If it was then flipping a coin would be fine, in this case the GM is always right. If you look in the core rulebook you would know that the GM can cheat, he can adjust the rules, he can make things work however he wants to. A good GM will not abuse this trust, he wants the players to succeed as well, because if they die so does his story.
I think you are looking at this game from the wrong perspective. The whole point is to speed things up and if you and your players agree to only argue when it matters then you as a GM will recognize that if they are arguing it probably matters.
...Unless it a life or death situation, then I always suggest that any calls on the rules (rules lawyering) be held off until either the end of the session, between sessions or before the start of the next session. Go with it for that session.
I find that stopping the game for a rules clarification breaks the immersion, flow and excitement of the game. I am not trying to be a hardcase, but I don't appreciate non-critical rule lawyering questions during play.
But what's a "life or death" situation? Oftentimes, while the GM knows that the boss is almost dead and the actual rule does not matter, the players don't. Along the same line of reasoning, why don't you take the player's interpretation and then check after?
If there is strong disagreement, I sometimes like the Warhammer solution. Flip a coin, and keep going. Then check after the combat :)
Ubercroz made some good points.
Yes, when I was refering to life or death, I was talking about player life or death, not the villains.
Most of my players are comfortable with that approach, as it has sped play by quit a bit.
One thing that I have done to encourage looking up the rules and discussing interpretation after the session is:
If I am wrong, there will be a boon to the player, if I am right, no harm done.
If the discussion happens during the game: if I am wrong, rule applied, if I am right, there is somekind of penalty applied (or a boon to the villains).
In my group, I am right over 3/4s of the time.
The players also do not know everything that is going on and will often jump to the wrong conclusion - I don't want the game derailed by people looking up rules, the wrong rules because they don't yet know everything that is going on.
And yes, in the rare times that I get to be a player, I abide by the rule above (providing coaching and guidance to the newbie and partime GM -after the session - if it is required).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How the hell is the OP's GM's house rule on the fly speeding up the game? To cast defensively you need to fight defensively for one round, then cast in the following round. If anything he is ruling to drag out combat. Hey I am all for fair GM rulings to keep the suspense of the game going, but if the GM rules idiotically in a way that totally screws a subset of players I'll b*tch harder than anyone.
It will speed play by people not getting out books, looking up rules and pointing out where they think the GM made an error. The GM will likely have to read the whole section, look up other areas, take time to decide who's interpretation is correct.
The time issue is in the real, not in game time.
No one has all of the rule memorized - people get things wrong, even very experienced GMs (like rolling a 1 when using UMD on a wand does not automatically mean that the wand is out of service for 24 hours; like dismissing a spell is a standard action; etc.).
My interpretation of what happened in the OP's game is that the GM got two rules confused. Big deal. If it is not killing your PC at the time, let it go and discuss it calmly and in a respectful manner after the game (or during a break). I don't think that the GM made up a house rule on the fly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It will speed play by people not getting out books, looking up rules and pointing out where they think the GM made an error. The GM will likely have to read the whole section, look up other areas, take time to decide who's interpretation is correct.The time issue is in the real, not in game time.
No one has all of the rule memorized - people get things wrong, even very experienced GMs (like rolling a 1 when using UMD on a wand does not automatically mean that the wand is out of service for 24 hours; like dismissing a spell is a standard action; etc.).
My interpretation of what happened in the OP's game is that the GM got two rules confused. Big deal. If it is not killing your PC at the time, let it go and discuss it calmly and in a respectful manner after the game (or during a break). I don't think that the GM made up a house rule on the fly.
Absolutely. I am sure that he probably got mixed up, and when inexperienced GM's get mixed up a lot of times they get defensive. Not a big deal, but the best thing to do with a GM, especially one thats new, is to bring it up respectfully. The same way that player would want the GM to address a concern the GM may have with a player or the players character.
Of course there is always a first time being a GM: when my came, I made sure 1) I already knew the rules better than everyone in the group 2) I still took all kinds of advice from those who GMed before me.
In this case there is a GM who clearly has poorer knowledge of the rules than his players and is not listening to them.
One of the newest player in my group is currently GMed: he does not know the rules very well yet, but he sure listen to us when he makes mistakes or when he come up with an houserule which implications he evidently does not comprehend.
Of course there is always a first time being a GM: when my came, I made sure 1) I already knew the rules better than everyone in the group 2) I still took all kinds of advice from those who GMed before me.
In this case there is a GM who clearly has poorer knowledge of the rules than his players and is not listening to them.
One of the newest player in my group is currently GMed: he does not know the rules very well yet, but he sure listen to us when he makes mistakes or when he come up with an houserule which implications he evidently does not comprehend.
That.
If you GM any game and your one or some of your players have a better understanding of the system than you do LISTEN to them.
Both are true, really. The trust and courtesy needs to come from both player and GM.
Players have more at stake, so they can be defensive about rulings, but everyone needs to evaluate just how important a given rules confrontation is before cracking open a book. As a player, I defer to my GM all the time, because I know he's not out to screw me (and if he were, he has infinite ability to do so).
In the OP, it definitely seems like the GM was confident in how he waned to handle it. This means that - while he may be wrong of the ruling may be lame - it is best to wait until after the session to discuss it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anyone that sayes they never make a mistake as a GM are lieing. There are far to many rules to memorize them all. I have been a DM/Player for around 10 years and still make mistakes all the time. I dont mind a player bringing up a rule. I simply ask that if I make a decision that they accept it untill after the game is over.
1. I would talk to the GM after the game. Show him the rule and let him make a decision. You can also show him this thread though a few of the post are rather harsh imo.
2. If he still wishes to leave it as a house rule I would suggest you ask him for a list of house rules so there are no more surprises.
3. Try and understand that being a GM is no small task. If he is new he might be overly defensive when it comes to rules lawyering. Try and let him know that the best method of handling rules questions are open discussion during breaks or before/after the game.
I hope that helps.
|
|
Unless it a life or death situation, then I always suggest that any calls on the rules (rules lawyering) be held off until either the end of the session, between sessions or before the start of the next session. Go with it for that session.
Of course, the fact that this particular rules interpretation is, indeed, something that is, IMO, going to potentially turn a situation into a life or death situation means that getting this rule right is vital.
Real rule:
Caster makes attempt, either spell goes off, with a noticable chance that the opponent in melee is dead instead of getting another attack on the low AC squishy caster, or they blow the roll, in which case they are going to have to take the attack anyhow.
This rule:
Opponent gets attack against minimally boosted low AC squishy caster. Ugh. Then, if the caster survives, they get to cast the next round, and the implication is that the caster's attacks would still get the -4 to hit. Ugh again.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, but for all we know the GM has lived through some martial-caster disparity incidents and is aiming to balance it. There's nothing wrong with that, but players deserve fair warning.
I am an AMAZING rules lawyer by most people's standards...and I've since lost count of my mistakes.
A newbie GM should be given a chance, provided they are understanding and not an asshat about his mistakes. Likewise, players should strive to be understanding as well.
|
|
DM mistakes are to be expected. It's those mistakes that they refuse to admit long after they have been proven wrong that bug me.
I also am fine with houserules. It's the "oh, and by the way" introduction of houserules that bug me.
Deciding my female dwarf has a beard 7 sessions in, whether I like it or not, is a fine example.
Deciding that "looking at it" as a free action, is enough interaction to get a Will save against my silent image wall is another.
So what happened?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let him know, if it effects you, it effects his NPCs.This isn't true in my games. I don't use character creation rules for npcs if I don't feel like it, and sometimes I use different rules for them all together. For example, a fighter who never takes AoO or a sorcerer who casts all spells as if they were spell-like abilities.
That is not something I would ever put up with.
I am taking a moment, mind you, to think about being a person who would enjoy this from a DM.I still have not fully wrapped my head around that.
Let him know, if it effects you, it effects his NPCs.This isn't true in my games. I don't use character creation rules for npcs if I don't feel like it, and sometimes I use different rules for them all together. For example, a fighter who never takes AoO or a sorcerer who casts all spells as if they were spell-like abilities.That is not something I would ever put up with.
I am taking a moment, mind you, to think about being a person who would enjoy this from a DM.
I still have not fully wrapped my head around that.
Likewise. If it were a monster or fey, that'd be okay. But one of the normal races and classes? Meh. As a player I find it lame and unfair. As a DM I find it lazy and unfair and a tad metagamey.