I'm interested to hear what you as a group think of the way my table handles rules disagreements (which are what spawn most of the DM demands in my experience). I'm not talking about "I should get to play this or that character" arguments. I think the My Little Pony thread exhausted that topic nicely. I've been playing since ODnD, and my players are all also veterans. Our problem is versions bleeding into one another. Can you take an AOO in pathfinder for drinking a potion? Someone remembers you can't (4e) someone remembers you can (3e), noone agreed. We settle the debate with a show of hands until after the game. Do you like "Tiny Democracy" as a vehicle for rules adjudication over DM fiat/stopping play to look the rule up?
Our problem is versions bleeding into one another. Can you take an AOO in pathfinder for drinking a potion? Someone remembers you can't (4e) someone remembers you can (3e), noone agreed. We settle the debate with a show of hands until after the game. Do you like "Tiny Democracy" as a vehicle for rules adjudication over DM fiat/stopping play to look the rule up?
If I'm in doubt as GM, my preference is to just flip a coin/roll a die for odds and evens to determine it.
If I'm disagreeing with players, then we tend to find a way to agree on something quickly and sort it out afterwards. I've never called a vote, I'm more likely to find a compromise answer that everyone can accept for now (which again can be as simple as agreeing we'll flip a coin.)
More often than not though, we don't really care that much about whether we're following the rules or not as long as my GM judgements make sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm interested to hear what you as a group think of the way my table handles rules disagreements (which are what spawn most of the DM demands in my experience). I'm not talking about "I should get to play this or that character" arguments. I think the My Little Pony thread exhausted that topic nicely.
Wait, what. When? Where? How did I miss that thread?!
The thread is "Gaming the System versus Imaginative Creativity" in Gamer Life. Sorry I fail at links.
Demanding anything in the middle of the game is bad form. Wait until the game session is over then raise the issue. In the middle of the game just accept what the GM says.
Yeah, no. I'm not spending 4 hours sucking at what I built a character to be good at because the DM doesn't remember a rule, or spending another 3 weeks leveling a character because something gets a party member killed. Especially in (as the original poster asked about) PFS where correcting the DM after the game won't help you as you progress through he campaign (since you keep switching DMs)
I think a lot of people forget that when they stop the game to argue with the GM, they are not only interrupting the GM's fun time, but the fun time of every other player.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
Oh, they started talking about ponies there? I hadn't been checking it--Outrageous! I might as well turn in my Brony Badge right now!
But I won't. It's too sparkly to part with.
I have 37 years of memories as a Dungeon master, and most of those are filled with scenes of uncontrollable players making fun of everything and everyone at the table, arguing not only about the rules and how they apply to each situation but also arguing with me about every conceivable thing I am a fan of, occasionally broken up by brief moments of actually playing the game
Sweet mother of...
Please tell me you had fun somewhere in all that. I would nominate you for GM sainthood for putting up with that for that long a time!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's also great to be at a table full of GMs. I think my Sunday morning game at RinCon was that way.
All but two or three people in our group GM at least occasionally. Nothing gives you more patience or compassion for a spot ruling than being on the other side of the screen.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All but two or three people in our group GM at least occasionally. Nothing gives you more patience or compassion for a spot ruling than being on the other side of the screen.
Sometimes I feel old when I'm looking at a player and thinking 'why don't you sit on this side of the screen and see if you still feel that way?'
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I plan on doing something complicated, I tell the GM well in advance so we can discuss it and work out the kinks.
If the GM can't understand something simple, I don't let them GM for me anymore.
Organized play is different obviously, but I would assume the same basic idea applies.
More or less. I mean, if your local GM pool is on the small side, then "don't let them GM for you" might mean "don't play at all" or "only play very rarely when the stars align to have the right GM running something in the right level range". On the flip side, though, if a GM makes an egregious error that needs fixing (i.e., your character died or something), you can take it "up the chain" and find an amicable resolution.
30 secs to discuss a rule in the middle of a game is not typical.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
True, that is why if a GM wants to house-rule something away from the RAW they should inform the players well in advance and not spring on them in the middle of the game.
|
|
True, that is why if a GM wants to house-rule something away from the RAW they should inform the players well in advance and not spring on them in the middle of the game.30 secs to discuss a rule in the middle of a game is not typical.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
Assuming the GM is all knowing and knew what you were going to try before you did it...
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing gives you more patience or compassion for a spot ruling than being on the other side of the screen.
I bet that's true in most cases, but my experience was the opposite: I started out as a new-to-the-system player, always taking the GM at his word.
"Whoa, [NPC] can do X? I'd better figure a way to deal with that!"Then it wasn't too long before I started GMing, at which point I found myself less and less okay with some of the things I encountered as a player.
Thus, it's been a goal of mine that at MY tables, nobody NEEDS to weaponize the rules to defend themselves from silly nonsense, so we can all just play a fun game together. So far, it's been working pretty well. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Assuming the GM is all knowing and knew what you were going to try before you did it...True, that is why if a GM wants to house-rule something away from the RAW they should inform the players well in advance and not spring on them in the middle of the game.30 secs to discuss a rule in the middle of a game is not typical.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
For obscure builds, I'm right there with you. On the other hand, I've been at tables where the affected PC tactic was "do anything other than deal damage". I.e., if a GM is going to houserule that 3rd-level NPC cleric can use a swift action to pick up a fallen weapon without provoking, the onus is not on the players to mention that they might want to perform a disarm maneuver at some point in the campaign. This is probably what pres man was talking about, moreso than weird builds. And yes, that was a real example.
For obscure builds, I'm right there with you. On the other hand, I've been at tables where the affected PC tactic was "do anything other than deal damage". I.e., if a GM is going to houserule that 3rd-level NPC cleric can use a swift action to pick up a fallen weapon without provoking, the onus is not on the players to mention that they might want to perform a disarm maneuver at some point in the campaign. This is probably what pres man was talking about, moreso than weird builds. And yes, that was a real example.Assuming the GM is all knowing and knew what you were going to try before you did it...True, that is why if a GM wants to house-rule something away from the RAW they should inform the players well in advance and not spring on them in the middle of the game.30 secs to discuss a rule in the middle of a game is not typical.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
Right, I don't think it requires an all knowing GM to expect the players might want to follow the RAW for an ability, action, spell, etc. I would say that if anyone wants to deviate from the RAW, GM or player, that should be informed and discussed well in advance. Not knowing a rule is no excuse for a GM to house-rule away a player option. That is just being willfully ignorant.
I never get offended when I player brings up an error I have made. I prefer to know the right way, then to continue looking dumb by doing it wrong. Likewise, if the player brings something up and they are wrong about it, I want to get the understanding corrected immediately while it is fresh on their mind. Later it might not have the same impact.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have demanded a few things from a DM as a player before. Things like, allowing the use of saving throws vs spells that list that the target gets a saving throw. When that was ignored, and the DM argued that a level 1 spell his NPC had cast worked like a level 7 spell, and had to DM fiat it, I chose the highway.
Good luck with 2 players and no healer!
Two players and no healer can be the best of games. Buddy action flick/comedy.
If I was your GM, I'd kindly, but quickly, reply to you (if you tried this in the middle of the game) that you and I will play at different tables, so that you can play by the rules you like and I can play by the rules I like. I'm okay with that.
Half the point of a game system is to make those the same thing.
If, on the other hand, you're willing to wait for a more opportune time, we can discuss it latter.
After a character is dead, or spends 4 hours (or longer) not achieving the intent... hell no.
30 secs to discuss a rule in the middle of a game is not typical.
If its as strait forward as I recommended It shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. Bathroom breaks are longer.
Its very doable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I was your GM, I'd kindly, but quickly, reply to you (if you tried this in the middle of the game) that you and I will play at different tables, so that you can play by the rules you like and I can play by the rules I like. I'm okay with that.Half the point of a game system is to make those the same thing.
The other half is to a have a system with lots of options that you can make for your table that fits what the group there wants, without worrying if it is compatible with the next table over.
To me the rules are tools to make my game the way I like. If houserules and rulings fit the intent or style of the game, and the players and GM go with it, I have no concern for RAW. That kind of detail is for PFS or other organized play situations.
The other half is to a have a system with lots of options that you can make for your table that fits what the group there wants, without worrying if it is compatible with the next table over.
And if you go and change things, you talk about these things WITH your players, and if something you've changed alters or affects their characters then presumably you let them change their characters to match it.
That, and having the conversation between games so you don't have it in the middle, effectively don't exist in organized play. Thats why you might get the player "demanding" more at the table in pfs.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
but the second rule is that we actually don't use cheesy movie references in our rules...
You, my good sir, are performing a gravely serious form of badwrongfun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See the violence inherent in the system!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arthur: "Rule 0 of the Lake, her arm clad in purest shimmering samite, held the DMG aloft from the bosom of the waters to signify that by Divine Providence....I, Arthur, was to carry the DMG...that is why I am your DM."
Player 2: "Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing over DMGs...that's no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the players not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."
Arthur: "Be quiet!"
Player 2: "You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a DMG at you."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "I mean, if I went round saying I was a BBEG because some moistened bint had lobbed a Monstrous Manual at me, people would put me away.
Arthur (grabbing him by the collar): "Shut up, will you. Shut up!"
Player 2: "Ah! Now...we see the violence inherent in the d20 system."
Arthur: "Shut up!"
Player 2: "Come and see the violence inherent in the d20 system. Help, help, I'm being repressed."
*Note: This is not my original content*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Poor Arthur... That Lady of the Lake Comic and Game shoppe just LOVES to sell anyone willing on the glory of GMing. And poor player who never got it.
Oh, they started talking about ponies there? I hadn't been checking it--Outrageous! I might as well turn in my Brony Badge right now!
But I won't. It's too sparkly to part with.
Re: topic, it has happened to me before as a dm and as a player. We're a garrulous bunch. Hard feelings are rare, but they do happen.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first time you made this claim, I'd probably let you prove it to me. I doubt you could read the relevant rule in 30sec, let alone state your case. Proving your case would take even longer.
Its very doable.
If rules discussions routinely take significantly longer than 30 seconds, you need to increase your rules proficiency.
|
|
If rules discussions routinely take significantly longer than 30 seconds, you need to increase your rules proficiency.The first time you made this claim, I'd probably let you prove it to me. I doubt you could read the relevant rule in 30sec, let alone state your case. Proving your case would take even longer.
Its very doable.
Or find people who don't argue at the table and trust the GM to work it out in the next break.
I admit I've never played PFS, but in my entire gaming career, I've never seen a player "demand" the GM do anything. Never ever ever.
So how often does this really happen? Or is this just the hypothetical straw-man for the sake of internet argument?
I've not only seen it happen, I've done it.
"Let me or Coleman DM the next game or else I'm gonna go play Mario Kart instead, cause you suck at DMing."
I think it was something along those lines, though the Mario Kart threat may have been implied. I dunno. It's been a while now since I was 15.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Or find people who don't argue at the table and trust the GM to work it out in the next break.If rules discussions routinely take significantly longer than 30 seconds, you need to increase your rules proficiency.The first time you made this claim, I'd probably let you prove it to me. I doubt you could read the relevant rule in 30sec, let alone state your case. Proving your case would take even longer.
Its very doable.
When a GM has sufficient rules proficiency, the players become "people who don't argue at the table and trust the GM to work it out in the next break".
If you find someone doesn't trust you, it's almost never their fault.