|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs. Because of this, I've grown incredibly paranoid of all GMs in general. I've also stayed to being the DM, which my players like because I'm more than fair. It's kind of like being the employee who's had so many terrible bosses that you want to become your own boss because you know you'll be 10x better than any of them.
Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
Another thing that's made me cautious is I've come to ask the group how many characters they've gone through before I joined. If the number is 2+ each, and they still haven't made it to session 10 yet, that's a valid concern.
Share your stories with the vast number of dickish DMs you've had to deal with in your lifetime? I've lost count how many I've had, but I know I've been in about six groups already.
Dick dms are a real problem for the hobby, and I, well I have been one in the past.
I really try to not be like that anymore, the world is harsh enough, it doesn't need a dick running it (or trying to run everything the players do).
Some really don't see it that way, I've seen cruel dicks dm and it isn't pretty.
The good news is, their games are doomed to explode.
|
|
Yes and no. I've seen dick DMs have whipped players so that the games keep going. I've left the majority of the groups, or been kicked out because of differences.
I'm not the best GM, I know that. I'm not that full of myself to think otherwise. I've even been called a boring GM. A railroading GM. More so when I was getting started and used pre-written modules because I thought that'd be safer. However, I wasn't good at thinking on my feet, and the players exploited this by not doing what I was wanting. Heck, one group purposely tried to kamikaze themselves because they were tired of following a pre-written progression. I prevented it by having the NPCs doing non-lethal damage which allowed them to survive. So, they got together, and usurped me via e-mail and I was more or less forced to leave the group. I even gave up gaming for a few years because of that.
I think what really got me was the dickish DMs got their games, and no one ever left theirs except me, and I wasn't even being harsh or not understanding of things. It was because the players were either whipped, or I wasn't "in" with the DM like other certain players were, and they were a dick to just me and people who were "in" with me.
|
|
I just saw your post in the PC death thread, and I'm right above yours. I wrote down the Top 4 dickish ways I got killed off by dick DMs.
Agree with 1-5, although from the groups I've been with, most house rules have been damn good.
3, you should laugh, expose this, and leave.
5, yep, you can imagine how much good stuff I allow given my name.
Well, I wasn't being a dick dm there, the pc didn't want to search for traps, and I make traps really deadly a la old dnd.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, on railroading, no attack on you personally but it can lead to a pretty dull game. If players can't make choices and choose their direction then they aren't fully roleplaying.
On thinking on your feet and not being good at it, ah well. I find it the most important part about being a dm, even more important than prep or knowing the rules absolutely. Got to roll with the punches, not get bogged down in what should happen, but what is happening.
Then you can create a fun and living world, where npcs react like people, and not scripted bots.
No wish to have a giant argument here, that is just how I see good dming. Movement, adaptation, although one of my dm friends sees it differently, and did stop a game because they weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
I thought this was 'MERICA!
Ahem, over to you.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
Is it at least okay that I start giggling when a player forgets to check for stuff and sets off the "Haunt of Unlimited Fiery Pain" or wanders into "That Boss Fight I Thought Was Really Cool And Looked Challenging"?
|
|
Well, I wasn't being a dick dm there, the pc didn't want to search for traps, and I make traps really deadly a la old dnd.
Oh no, I never said you were. Sometimes people do stupid things. And sometimes it's a good idea to remind the group that they shouldn't just waltz in to every room without checking things out first.
I have actually exposed 3 a couple times to one GM. The DM just shrugged it off. Hell, it was even a military campaign that it happened in with. It was his wife, his best friend, his best friend's wife, and his #1 employee and also good friend vs. me and my buddy who I had invited to the game. That's about when I got usurped and booted. My buddy didn't get booted, but he didn't get invited back to the games either.
And I agree with the house rules being good, sometimes. However, if you read a copy and it makes you go "What the hell is wrong with you?", that's when you back away slowly. I've got three pages of house rules. My players are totally okay with them. Mostly, it just explains in full detail what they start with (full hp and wealth), how many flaws they're allowed to take (which are optional and not forced), how much leeway I give for death to take affect for PCs only, etc. The only thing one player's ever questioned my sanity on is metamagic feats, and that's only because I don't understand wizards that well, and buffed the feats a little (you can add them to any spell as a swift action up to 3/day). I probably won't be doing that next campaign. Lesson learned.
|
|
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.Is it at least okay that I start giggling when a player forgets to check for stuff and sets off the "Haunt of Unlimited Fiery Pain" or wanders into "That Boss Fight I Thought Was Really Cool And Looked Challenging"?
Oh totally. I'm talking about the PCs are sleeping, with a single watch, and you decide that the random encounter is an army of small, invisible fey (yes, army) who steal all of your items and then coup-de-grace you if you're a particular race that they don't like. Or, if you get excessive amounts of joy to the point that you're practically wetting your pants, out of the fact that a player's on their fifth PC. >_>
|
|
Well, on railroading, no attack on you personally but it can lead to a pretty dull game. If players can't make choices and choose their direction then they aren't fully roleplaying.
On thinking on your feet and not being good at it, ah well. I find it the most important part about being a dm, even more important than prep or knowing the rules absolutely. Got to roll with the punches, not get bogged down in what should happen, but what is happening.
Then you can create a fun and living world, where npcs react like people, and not scripted bots.
No wish to have a giant argument here, that is just how I see good dming. Movement, adaptation, although one of my dm friends sees it differently, and did stop a game because they weren't doing what he wanted them to do.
I thought this was 'MERICA!
Ahem, over to you.
Truth is, that's the point of a module. If you as a GM choose to do a module (and I'm running one right now with my group), and your players know full well that that this is what we're doing, then there should be some leeway. If they don't like the module, then fine, let's leave it. Don't kamikaze yourselves and then usurp the DM because he chose a less than #1 Nobel Prize Winning module. And on that note, that same group that usurped me, was actually hypocritical because they too did modules from time to time, and if we were at all bored, we were told to suck it up. However, again, only I ever had issues with it because I had the crappy pre-made character that couldn't ever do anything compared to everyone else's god-like character. It'd be like giving you a level 5 drow rogue, and everyone else has 20th level wizards. You're not exactly equal. Especially if only they are using telepathy amongst themselves.
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
I pretty regularly run using Pre-gens.
Simple fact is that this approach means that I can build from the ground up, campaigns which hinge upon the PCs. Not just their success, but who they are, who their friends are, what their childhood was like.
I can get some of this without pre-gens, but the results are many times better with them, than without.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh yeah, I know all of those problems and hate that they still taint this game. I'd have to dig up that old tale of my problems with one jerk DM. However, I solved that problem with me getting up, telling him I'm done with his crap and walking away from that table. The other players followed along soon after, and the game ended there and then.
Before complaining about not being allowed to use all the splat books, do try to handle it yourself first. As in, run with all of it. Understand the concept of power creep. Understand that there are several thousand pages of crunch to keep track of, both in PF and 3.5.
Then I will accept your complaint.
I've allowed all the splat books, and my Kingmaker hasn't broken yet Sissyl. They just started Blood for Blood last session.
I've allowed all the splat books, and my Kingmaker hasn't broken yet Sissyl. They just started Blood for Blood last session.
I don't believe that for a second.
Kingmakers breaks at the drop of a hat. The power level is very low for a 15 point game, and any significant amount of optimisation allows the most of the campaign to be roflstomped by even remotely competent players.
The Cleric of the group died in Rivers Run Red. You can ask my players whether I'm lying or not.
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before complaining about not being allowed to use all the splat books, do try to handle it yourself first. As in, run with all of it. Understand the concept of power creep. Understand that there are several thousand pages of crunch to keep track of, both in PF and 3.5.
Then I will accept your complaint.
I do allow everything. My Friday DM allows everything. Hell, I allow nearly every 3pp item that you can access so long as it fits my game (ie. don't try to put the erotic books in the campaign because that's a "no"). I mean, if you want to play a 13 year old flat-chested blue-haired girl who only diddles herself and uses her quarterstaff for self pleasure, and wants to "spray" the local red dragon with their juices to put out his breath weapon, again, then I'm probably going to have to say no this time.
And yes, that honestly happened in a game with two hentai-obsessed players who decided to randomly derail a campaign, hard, before leaving.
|
|
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.
I have no problem keeping track because I make my players do it. Thankfully half of them have been doing PFS for quite a while so they're used to it. You want it, you keep a copy of it on you so I can referenced it every now and again should I forget exactly what it does. There's been no issues so far. And no one's broken my game except for me because last campaign I thought the PCs could use a bit of a power boost. I misjudged the template's power when I gave it to them. Oh well.
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.
Hm?
Simplest just to keep books on hand and then reference them when a player asks you about some obscure PrC or whatever than memorizing thousands of pages of stuff.
As my Chemistry teacher always told me "References are made for a reason. Work smarter, not harder.".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hm?
Simplest just to keep books on hand and then reference them when a player asks you about some obscure PrC or whatever than memorizing thousands of pages of stuff.
As my Chemistry teacher always told me "References are made for a reason. Work smarter, not harder.".
This ^^
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.
Actually, we cut out the Kingdom Building rules as per request from the players themselves and I will personally oversee fixes to the Mass Combat rules due to the absence of the resources and such. You should also pick your words more carefully rather than go about insulting others like that. I care about good preparations as much as the next DM, even if I do allow all the books. And while I am very open-minded as a DM, I can still ban and restrict when I see it as necessary.
Oh yeah, I know all of those problems and hate that they still taint this game. I'd have to dig up that old tale of my problems with one jerk DM. However, I solved that problem with me getting up, telling him I'm done with his crap and walking away from that table. The other players followed along soon after, and the game ended there and then.
Scrunching up your character sheet and throwing it at the dm is another way of demonstrating you are over their s@*&.
A tad dramatic, but the wasted time.
Before complaining about not being allowed to use all the splat books, do try to handle it yourself first. As in, run with all of it. Understand the concept of power creep. Understand that there are several thousand pages of crunch to keep track of, both in PF and 3.5.
Then I will accept your complaint.
I do allow everything. My Friday DM allows everything. Hell, I allow nearly every 3pp item that you can access so long as it fits my game (ie. don't try to put the erotic books in the campaign because that's a "no"). I mean, if you want to play a 13 year old flat-chested blue-haired girl who only diddles herself and uses her quarterstaff for self pleasure, and wants to "spray" the local red dragon with their juices to put out his breath weapon, again, then I'm probably going to have to say no this time.
And yes, that honestly happened in a game with two hentai-obsessed players who decided to randomly derail a campaign, hard, before leaving.
That is not how you put out a breath weapon.
Some strange folks about.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.Hm?
Simplest just to keep books on hand and then reference them when a player asks you about some obscure PrC or whatever than memorizing thousands of pages of stuff.
As my Chemistry teacher always told me "References are made for a reason. Work smarter, not harder.".
That would work fine, in a world where we didn't have a subset of anti-social players who consider it their right to make the most powerful character they possible can, regardless of setting, theme, their own concept, the concepts of other players, agreed power level of the game being played and any other concern, or if the system itself did not because of its complexity produce emergent properties in characters, where feats, class abilities and spells synogies in ways that produce significant spike in the power curve.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These are your choices:
1)Step Up and take charge! Gamemaster your own table for a few decades. Deal with hordes and endless streams of players all seemingly consumed by "Optomadness". Deal with passive aggressive spotlight gobbling players who gaslight you if they do not immediately get what they want.
Deal with antagonstic alpha-male rules-lawyering hardliners who have been playing since the dawn of time and actively spoil new players fun because they didnt get a certain feat combo green-lit or didnt agree with the GM's last audit of their disorderly and unreadable character sheet. Deal with player after player who feels that simply because some editor put it in a book somewhere then their character who isnt even from the appropriate plane, country, culture,regional ethnicity or even race is entitled to that option (right now!) because it is "better". Of course, while you are doing all that do not forget to run the game and tailor it for each of the players play style, class in play and personality. Plus be prepared to ad lib, because players tend to go where they want.And be prepared in general, because even if your players do go where you want they will not do what you expect...ever. All these problems...and more fun than you can possibly imagine ...can be yours, but you have to stop whining, hitch up your panties and jump into Gamemastering with both feet...and never look back because you might get to actually play once or twice a decade after that. Do a decade at a desk dealing with these issues and teaching players to be both better players and people too and I will personally give you my ear for ten minutes when you need to get it all off your chest.
2)Do not play.
Best of Luck,
Weslocke of Phazdaliom
I've allowed all the splat books, and my Kingmaker hasn't broken yet Sissyl. They just started Blood for Blood last session.I don't believe that for a second.
Kingmakers breaks at the drop of a hat. The power level is very low for a 15 point game, and any significant amount of optimisation allows the most of the campaign to be roflstomped by even remotely competent players.
We haven't broken the game and we even have had several close calls for TPK (but not for my part, I would have just... tactically retreated with teleportation) even with random encounters (wisps, mammoths, cycklops etc. etc.) we've survived those with god like rolls (ranger + animalbane-arrow + 2 20 rolls in a row and crit confirmation = about 70-90 damage).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs. Because of this, I've grown incredibly paranoid of all GMs in general. I've also stayed to being the DM, which my players like because I'm more than fair. It's kind of like being the employee who's had so many terrible bosses that you want to become your own boss because you know you'll be 10x better than any of them.
Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.Another thing that's made me cautious is I've come to ask the group how many characters they've gone through before I joined. If the number is 2+ each, and they still haven't made it to session 10 yet, that's a valid concern.
Share your stories with the vast number of dickish DMs you've had to deal with in your lifetime? I've lost count how many I've had, but I know I've been in about six groups already.
1: House rules can be good or bad... Since what is crazy is in the eye of the beholder this hardly seems a good measure of dickish behavior.
2: In every case I have seen this it was intended as a joke, not a dickish move at all.
3: Ok this is my number ONE hated thing bad GMs do. NOTHING good can come from favoritism. I agree 100% here.
4: I don't see this as a problem short term. Pre-made characters are a standard for tournaments and work great for short term games. I would only worry if the GM insists on using them in long term games.
5: Um... It is a GMs duty to determine what to use or not use. "core-only" is the best place to start as a GM. After you learn core you can start including more material with confidence. This is probably a sign of a good GM biting off only what he can handle and not over reaching rule wise.
|
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.Share your stories with the vast number of dickish DMs you've had to deal with in your lifetime? I've lost count how many I've had, but I know I've been in about six groups already.
Crap, I'm nearly completely the other way. I have players who created characters completely out of context of my settings, and I've allowed them. Man, I'm such a push over.
|
|
1: House rules can be good or bad... Since what is crazy is in the eye of the beholder this hardly seems a good measure of dickish behavior.
2: In every case I have seen this it was intended as a joke, not a dickish move at all.
3: Ok this is my number ONE hated thing bad GMs do. NOTHING good can come from favoritism. I agree 100% here.
4: I don't see this as a problem short term. Pre-made characters are a standard for tournaments and work great for short term games. I would only worry if the GM insists on using them in long term games.
5: Um... It is a GMs duty to determine what to use or not use. "core-only" is the best place to start as a GM. After you learn core you can start including more material with confidence. This is probably a sign of a good GM biting off only what he can handle and not over reaching rule wise.
1) Yes, they can be good or bad. I have house rules, and I consider them good. However, when I look at house rules like "Crafting a masterwork or composite weapon will take one year, not less than a day, because that's how it works in the real world" or "You must roll all stats in order with 3d6, then roll to determine your class", I'm going to second guess playing your game.
2) There have only ever been two types of cases for me. A) It's monologue for the NPCs and they're cackling because they're evil, blah blah blah. B) The GM asks you how many hit points left, realizes that he's about to kill you, and maniacally cackles as he finishes you off, then has you roll another character up while he goes to TPK the rest of the group.4) You aren't commenting on what I said, just the first half. Note that I said "Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.". That's pretentious. I'm not talking about tournaments. I know that's how that works. I've done is myself for 12 years at conventions. However, I'm talking about long term games. Why not sit down with me, and we can discuss what best fits in your game? Why can't I know this? What's so secret about your world that only you're allowed to know?
5) Again, you miss the point. I said that it was core only "Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed." Everything else is NOT broken. If it's because you only know core, fine. Tell me that. Don't just go off spouting "Oh it's broken." Because if you say that, I'll build me a "42" cleric, wizard, or druid, and I'll show you broken. Then what happens? You only allow non-spellcasters, ever?
However, this has just been my experiences during my 20 years of gaming in a small city.
|
That would actually be the point. Putting their money where their mouth is. Obviously they think they can run the show better. There's a chance they might even pull it off.Run a game.But then they wouldn't get to complain about what a giant dick the GM is being.
Here is the problem as I see it. There is in most groups at least 5 people.
If of those 5 people, none of us trust any of you enough to run the campaign, the fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars, but in ourselves.
If you aren't willing to allow a specific GM to be in charge, you shouldn't allow that person to GM.
If you aren't willing to allow anyone to be in charge, that is a whole other set of issues...
Run a game.But then they wouldn't get to complain about what a giant dick the GM is being.
Why can't you do both? Most non-slaadi players find it a bit unnerving though. ;)
|
|
If you aren't willing to allow anyone to be in charge, that is a whole other set of issues...
Agreed.
The only reason I'm GMing again at all is because my players trust me. One player was upset that he couldn't play a Pathfinder soulknife in a 3.5 game we were both in, so I said I'd run one so he could play one. Talked to a few co-workers that I knew played, they joined (two left because of transfers to other cities), met a new player looking for a game, and away we went.
I've been pretty fortunate in avoiding dick DMs, but...
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
Oh Gods, if I had a dime for every core-only DM I had between 2000 and 2008, I'd be able to drop out of school, buy a small radio station, and broadcast my rants about core-only games.
There would be no replays.
That would work fine, in a world where we didn't have a subset of anti-social players who consider it their right to make the most powerful character they possible can, regardless of setting, theme, their own concept, the concepts of other players, agreed power level of the game being played and any other concern, or if the system itself did not because of its complexity produce emergent properties in characters, where feats, class abilities and spells synogies in ways that produce significant spike in the power curve.
So what, if any of that stops you from looking things up in the book when they say "Can I be...." and then exerting your ability to say "No you can't, that's ridiculous/I'm not 100% sure how that works"?
How would said DM ever learn how it works if he's/she's too scared to try?
Hm?
Simplest just to keep books on hand and then reference them when a player asks you about some obscure PrC or whatever than memorizing thousands of pages of stuff.
As my Chemistry teacher always told me "References are made for a reason. Work smarter, not harder.".
This ^^
Good for you. I prefer not to have to manage thousands of pages of rules. It gets to be so much that I lose track of it between sessions. This cuts deep into prep time. If nothing else, I have to rebalance encounters to allow for hyper optimised characters. I think my players prefer good preparation than using all the books. What I do, though, is use the books as tools for making settings, and at that point I choose to include all of books X and Y. Everything else is specific approval.Actually, we cut out the Kingdom Building rules as per request from the players themselves and I will personally oversee fixes to the Mass Combat rules due to the absence of the resources and such. You should also pick your words more carefully rather than go about insulting others like that. I care about good preparations as much as the next DM, even if I do allow all the books. And while I am very open-minded as a DM, I can still ban and restrict when I see it as necessary.
It was not in any way meant as an insult. I merely stated that with me as GM, those are the two options. With too much extra rules, I can't manage good prep. Simple as that.
Alright then, apologies for the misunderstanding.
S'okay. I have nothing but admiration for the GMs who can juggle this. And I would love to play an incarnate. :-)
The same can be said of players. I find that sometimes as GM I am supposed to provide everything for players, dice, book, paper,minis in addition to everything else I need to do to prepare.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the original points raised:
1) house rules can run the full range of "WTF was the GM thinking?" to "Well that makes complete sense ... wonder why this was not part of the actual core?". If the balance of the house rules fall into the WTF realm, then yeah, there could be an issue.
2) um no ... unless it is for actual glee at killing off PCs. I've only ever seen this as a theatrical tool, nothing more.
3) favoritism sucks in every area, gaming included.
4) single shot adventures, not a problem. multiple year campaigns, problem.
5) I have no problem with "Core Only". In fact I tend to run with only core books allowed, everything else needs approval. Why? Because I do not want to have to purchase EVERY 3PP publication out there (my wallet would hate me if I even tried to do it); because there are certain classes/feats/items/etc. which are broken and I prefer to be able to kill the concept before a player invests time in building something they would not be able to use in game; because some things just do not mesh with the campaign one is running ... such as a gunslinger in a world without gunpowder ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to DM regularly for my group out of desperation: our one really good, long-standing DM of many years standing took one look at 3E and bailed on the entire group (I mean literally, he just left gaming altogether and hasn't touched any tabletop RPG since, though he's still a good friend). With no-one else in the group capable of the job, I had to step up. And it wasn't pretty for a while. The group consisted of power-gamers who weren't happy unless they could obliterate everything at every comparable CR, if not several levels above. To make things more entertaining, this was literally just as 3E was coming out back in 2000, so I didn't have the benefit of lots of online resources and help pointing out what rulebooks to avoid and what parts of the game were fundamentally broken, as everyone was discovering those things at the same time and in roughly the same way (i.e. by their players gaming the system until it snapped).
My problem wasn't being a dick DM as such, but more being way too ready to accede to the player's requests, which made the games not fun. It wasn't until I stood my ground a bit more, laid down rules and ensured they were followed that the games became more fun. When I went overboard into dick DM territory, the games were not so enjoyable. Eventually I found a good intermediate zone and we have several good years of campaigns. So DMs need to learn and get used to things and find their best way of doing things, and along the way you can have some crappy times. This really only becomes an insurmountable problem when the DM drifts into the dick zone (so to speak) and stays there, and is completely unaware of their weaknesses and will not change (even when the problems are pointed out to them, repeatedly).
For example, another member of the group would periodically DM and would always start really strong, but would always completely lose control of the campaign about four sessions in. One of his favourite techniques would be to discover that he was mis-using a rule and, rather than shrug it off and remember to use it properly next time, would be to insist we rewind time (sometimes by a whole session or more) and re-do the sequence 'properly'. Invariably we'd refuse and the campaign would die. What was bizarre about that was that he'd never learn. And because he was away at university a lot of the time, sometimes months would elapse between his campaigns and in the meantime he'd completely forget whatever rule it was he had trouble with.
In reference to the specific OP points:
1) House rules have to be agreed by the whole group before we start, or at least the DM must explain his house rules and the reasons for them. Since most house rules were created by the whole group anyway rather than any one DM alone, this was not usually a problem.
2) Agreed that this is unacceptable. However, as DM I would insist on being allowed at least one moderately-diabolical cackle per campaign and one wry smile per session.
3) Agreed this can be annoying, although sometimes misplaced. My best friend in the group was also the most insanely cautious, hanging-back-and-letting-everyone-else-do-everything player ever (he usually played mages to back this up). This meant he had a very low turnover of characters compared to other players in the group, which led to the occasional accusation of favouritism. Once I even set out to kill him to prove otherwise (not my most noble hour) and inadvertently killed another player instead (the rash, hotheaded, bull in a china shop guy who tended to die once every one to two sessions out of sheer stupidity), so that didn't pan out.
4) There is a place for pre-gen games, but these have to be agreed upon beforehand. Otherwise I think it's only fair that characters can create their own character for the game. I never used pre-gens, although we did once come close (with the Dragonlance 15th anniversary 2E campaign, but ultimately no-one wanted to play Tas and I'd be damned if I was NPCing him for ten weeks solid).
5) This I have a bit more sympathy for, though not for the 'broken' reason. Our rule was that all rules had to be approved by the DM (if possible 1-2 sessions in advance), and if he wasn't familiar with them and didn't fit the campaign they could be disallowed, at least temporarily until the DM had done more research.
1) Yes, they can be good or bad. I have house rules, and I consider them good. However, when I look at house rules like "Crafting a masterwork or composite weapon will take one year, not less than a day, because that's how it works in the real world" or "You must roll all stats in order with 3d6, then roll to determine your class", I'm going to second guess playing your game.
2) There have only ever been two types of cases for me. A) It's monologue for the NPCs and they're cackling because they're evil, blah blah blah. B) The GM asks you how many hit points left, realizes that he's about to kill you, and maniacally cackles as he finishes you off, then has you roll another character up while he goes to TPK the rest of the group.
4) You aren't commenting on what I said, just the first half. Note that I said "Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.". That's pretentious. I'm not talking about tournaments. I know that's how that works. I've done is myself for 12 years at conventions. However, I'm talking about long term games. Why not sit down with me, and we can discuss what best fits in your game? Why can't I know this? What's so secret about your world that only you're allowed to know?
5) Again, you miss the point. I said that it was core only "Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed." Everything else is NOT broken. If it's because you only know core, fine. Tell me that. Don't just go off spouting "Oh it's broken." Because if you say that, I'll build me a "42" cleric, wizard, or druid, and I'll show you broken. Then what happens? You only allow non-spellcasters, ever?However, this has just been my experiences during my 20 years of gaming in a small city.
1: But I was just saying it's too subjective to be a reliable test of badness. For example I love 3d6 in order, I would both run and play such a game. I don't like roll for class. You would assume I am being a dick if you see me running such a game when it would be far far from the truth. Some house rules look bad until you see the GM use them and create a lot of fun.
2: But wouldn't you end up walking out of a fun game if you heard the GM do this... when in reality he was just joking with you? Sometimes it's hard to read people.
4: Ok I will give you that... I find it's best to work with a player when adjusting their background to match the world. The only times I have seen this used were when the GM wanted to tell a specific story with specific characters in mind. I didn't like those games very much. I am a player's advocate when it comes to playing the character.
5: But that is an example for lazy GMing not dickishness. There ARE broken builds. This example shows a GM who would rather just ban a whole book rather than learn the broken build enough to ban the part that breaks it.
See, earlier today I took great glee in informing my player that the Ghast that had just paralyzed him was supposed to coup de grace at his earliest possible convenience.
The look on his face when he realized I didn't tell him about the overriding "flee if his buddies are dead" clause when the thing's turn came up was priceless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I never really take joy or glee to player deaths, even as a joke.
Usually I'm like "Oh man, I'm sorry bro, I'm rolling a crit!! ;A;" and whatnot.
That would work fine, in a world where we didn't have a subset of anti-social players who consider it their right to make the most powerful character they possible can, regardless of setting, theme, their own concept, the concepts of other players, agreed power level of the game being played and any other concern, or if the system itself did not because of its complexity produce emergent properties in characters, where feats, class abilities and spells synogies in ways that produce significant spike in the power curve.So what, if any of that stops you from looking things up in the book when they say "Can I be...." and then exerting your ability to say "No you can't, that's ridiculous/I'm not 100% sure how that works"?
Because reading a feat/spell/class feature out of context is almost pointless. It is the interaction of different materials that makes the magic happen, something that only has any chance of being understood with consideration, and time to reference everything happening in a group.
It is pretty easy for a player to keep their whole character in their head, but its pretty difficult for a GM to quickly absorb, understand and look of weird game breaking synergies across a full group, even when you stick with core only. Once you start adding in additional books it becomes increasingly hard.
I can understand people not wanting to have to do that extra work, so that the game they have put a fair amount of time into preparing has a chance of being fun.
I mostly trust to luck, and carefull selection of which games I run for which players. One player from my Cthulhu game, I would never invite to play either Pathfinder or CC2020 ever again, because it is his stated aim to 'break' both systems when he sits down to play those games. He as a similar view with Cthulhu, but with that system I am comfortable for him to do that to his hearts content(he is closed to madness right now...The man just doesn't know when to stop reading).