A bore for you. Not for the other players, the GM, or the PC it was centered on. So maybe you need to lighten up and let them have some fun instead of trying to smack them with rulebooks.
I am not trying to smack anyone with rulebooks, nor did I.
Many minutes later, we finally got her char out from the sealed monster.
I think we can all agree that there are reasons to bend the rules; but with this dm I am just hoping you choke for cinematics (CFC) doesn't become a recurring theme.
When you introduce rules at your table you are saying "these are the rulings I shall make, barring extraordinary circumstances". You are giving your approval to certain player actions and choices and your reactions to situations they get into in advance. Turning around and saying "nuh uh" is basically lying.
Now there are some players who don't really mind if you fiddle with the rules here and there, so long as everything is fun and they don't feel you are intentionally screwing them over. Some players feel you should stick to the rules you presented in the beginning and try to be consistent in your rulings.
Really, the underlying problem as far as I can see is that some people feel as though the DM is cheating if he changes/breaks the rules, and this can easily be fixed by saying "the rules are suggestions. Mostly they will be followed but sometimes there will be significant changes for the good of the game" at the beginning of the game.
I am torn on the issue. On the one hand I like having lots of rules that can suggest how I handle certain situations and make everything on both sides of the screen equal - why should only non-PCs be able to do X and break the rules? On the other hand, sometimes breaking the rules leads to more fun for everyone than if the DM rigidly sticks to RAW.
I don't see the underlying problem as players feeling that the GM is cheating; the underlying problem is that the players don't trust the GM.
In this case it probably has something to do with the GM making a change to a rule on-the-fly that is against the player's interest and almost gets the character killed.
Either way, how is that fun? I didn't turn up just to watch the DM masturbate his narrative at us, I came to play my part and make the decisions by which I live or die.
My decisions, not his!
This... 100% this i'm dealing with a DM like that right now. Great group but the current DM is a nightmare.... he does a lot of oh you were killed instantly oh you got resurrected well you were killed instantly again. Oh you were resurected again well a global magic silence falls over the land you're all deleveled six levels and hit by a plague. Ok i'm a Damphire i should recover my levels in 24hrs, nope you're deleveled permanently because of the plague.
Nat 20 rolls? Nah forget that you fail to hit the enemy anyways and they hit you for enough damage to kill you....
sadly most of the party is being far to passive about the situation so i'm at a loss.
I dub it the "yo-yo death" style.
I dub it the "yo-yo death" style.
Either way, how is that fun? I didn't turn up just to watch the DM masturbate his narrative at us, I came to play my part and make the decisions by which I live or die.
My decisions, not his!
This... 100% this i'm dealing with a DM like that right now. Great group but the current DM is a nightmare.... he does a lot of oh you were killed instantly oh you got resurrected well you were killed instantly again. Oh you were resurected again well a global magic silence falls over the land you're all deleveled six levels and hit by a plague. Ok i'm a Damphire i should recover my levels in 24hrs, nope you're deleveled permanently because of the plague.
Nat 20 rolls? Nah forget that you fail to hit the enemy anyways and they hit you for enough damage to kill you....
sadly most of the party is being far to passive about the situation so i'm at a loss.
i view it as the DM confusing pathfinder with whack-a-mole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the GM could have definitely handled the situation better, I don't think this is a case of a terrible GM. I like to mod monsters or throw special odd things like this into the game. I also let the players do stuff like this as well from time to time.
While it clearly is a numbers game, I don't want the players thinking in terms of the numbers. When the PCs approach a battle, I don't want them to say OOC "Oh, its this type of monster, CR x, we can take care of them." So whatever rule changes/artistic changes I can do to foster that type of experience, I do.
Because adventurers wouldn't consider what type of monster it is and whether they can take care of them?
:/
No metagaming when you are playing your monster hunter!
I mean, if you want to keep them all in the dark you design wholly new monsters but there are checks to be made on any critter to be in the know.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Did I miss the part where this became an issue again? Last time I checked this thread, it wasn't the player who's character almost died who was having an issue...they actually seemed fine with it.
The player with the issue/original poster was ANOTHER character, who DIDN'T almost die, and is essentially offended on behalf of the rules themselves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Did I miss the part where this became an issue again? Last time I checked this thread, it wasn't the player who's character almost died who was having an issue...they actually seemed fine with it.
The player with the issue/original poster was ANOTHER character, who DIDN'T almost die, and is essentially offended on behalf of the rules themselves.
If the DM pulls that kind of s%+@ with another player, that's a strong indication that he's going to pull that kind of s#!* with ANY player.
I wouldn't be happy with this just because it was someone else's PC. Mine could be next!
I think most of this falls under the "don't be a jerk" rule...for both GMs AND players.
It also comes down to trust across the table.
If there isn't trust at a table, if one side or the other is being a jerk, then it ceases to be a game and a fun experience.
Everything else is moot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yay for Player paranoia. He's out ta get mee!
That sort of talk is bordering on treason, Citizen. Please report to the nearest IntSec office.
If the DM pulls that kind of s#%@ with another player, that's a strong indication that he's going to pull that kind of s&~# with ANY player.I wouldn't be happy with this just because it was someone else's PC. Mine could be next!
And when he is, detective, we'll have a case. Until then, this is a victimless crime.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And when he is, detective, we'll have a case. Until then, this is a victimless crime.
If the DM pulls that kind of s#%@ with another player, that's a strong indication that he's going to pull that kind of s&~# with ANY player.I wouldn't be happy with this just because it was someone else's PC. Mine could be next!
which raises the question: Is a victimless crime still a crime?
For the record: yes.
Yes, it sure does have the word "crime" in the name.
In other news, did you know a double negative is the same thing as a negative? And inflammable and flammable are synonyms?
Did I miss the part where this became an issue again? Last time I checked this thread, it wasn't the player who's character almost died who was having an issue...they actually seemed fine with it.
The player with the issue/original poster was ANOTHER character, who DIDN'T almost die, and is essentially offended on behalf of the rules themselves.
If the DM pulls that kind of s~!~ with another player, that's a strong indication that he's going to pull that kind of s&~! with ANY player.
I wouldn't be happy with this just because it was someone else's PC. Mine could be next!
Quite possibly, hence my concern; and kobold cleaver, please don't try to be the agitator and piss people off, there is a discussion going on here.
So I'll have a discussion with the dm, and suggest they use the rules. Especially as the sorcerer was a high con sorc, and therefore had a lot of breath to hold. It isn't fair to take away a character's strengths, that sort of thing. I know he wants to make things realistic, he has given more than a few hints of this, but his ideas of realism and how long you can hold your breath don't really accord with heroic characters capable of extremely impressive physical feats.
"Ok so like I was talking to the rules laywer brigade on the forums and we want to tell you how to run your game k? RAW or gtfo."
Might be easier to state it as "Hey, I don't really have fun with that kind of thing. I really feel like I'm cheated if... so can we not have that kind of thing?"
I haven't read all the posts here, but the OP's complaint reminded me of this podcast I listened to this morning.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Ok so like I was talking to the rules laywer brigade on the forums and we want to tell you how to run your game k? RAW or gtfo."
Matt, I would never say that, please don't suggest I would as it sounds crude and ugly. It will be all calm and measured and may involve tea.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, I could care less for codified rules. When I run Pathfinder I make it very clear to the players that the rules are there to provide structure and consistency, but they get out of the way when trying to tell a good story. If the PCs ask an NPC a question, I'm not going to roll that NPC's knowledge skill if the information is very plot-relevant. I'm not going to waste 10 minutes trying to figure out how fast players can drain a lake using certain spells. And if no one at the table knows suffocation rules, then I'm just going to make a call, then and there. (Obviously not have it just be two rounds, though.)
With THAT being said, when I bend or break the rules, it's generally in the PC's favor. I won't ignore rules if it means the life or death of a character, or at least putting them out of commission for an encounter, since nothing is more frustrating than sitting there at the table with nothing to do while everyone else does combat purely because of some half-assed ruling.
If a dead cloaker that the sorcerer killed is still wrapped around said sorcerer, I'd call for an easy CMB. If they fail, I'd go, "While you're still wrapped in the cloaker, you are able to rip the top half of it off and poke your head out of it. You are now wearing a grotesque cloaker dress. Take a penalty to movement and you have a 15% spell failure chance, but gain a bonus to AC for the rest of the encounter." Nowhere in the rules does it say that's what happens when you wear a dead cloaker...but I don't care. Of course, they can still try a CMB check to break free of their new, beautiful dress.
"Ok so like I was talking to the rules laywer brigade on the forums and we want to tell you how to run your game k? RAW or gtfo."Matt, I would never say that, please don't suggest I would as it sounds crude and ugly. It will be all calm and measured and may involve tea.
I know I'm another Matt altogether, but I have to ask...
What kind of tea, exactly?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On one hand, I could care less for codified rules. When I run Pathfinder I make it very clear to the players that the rules are there to provide structure and consistency, but they get out of the way when trying to tell a good story. If the PCs ask an NPC a question, I'm not going to roll that NPC's knowledge skill if the information is very plot-relevant. I'm not going to waste 10 minutes trying to figure out how fast players can drain a lake using certain spells. And if no one at the table knows suffocation rules, then I'm just going to make a call, then and there. (Obviously not have it just be two rounds, though.)
With THAT being said, when I bend or break the rules, it's generally in the PC's favor. I won't ignore rules if it means the life or death of a character, or at least putting them out of commission for an encounter, since nothing is more frustrating than sitting there at the table with nothing to do while everyone else does combat purely because of some half-assed ruling.
If a dead cloaker that the sorcerer killed is still wrapped around said sorcerer, I'd call for an easy CMB. If they fail, I'd go, "While you're still wrapped in the cloaker, you are able to rip the top half of it off and poke your head out of it. You are now wearing a grotesque cloaker dress. Take a penalty to movement and you have a 15% spell failure chance, but gain a bonus to AC for the rest of the encounter." Nowhere in the rules does it say that's what happens when you wear a dead cloaker...but I don't care. Of course, they can still try a CMB check to break free of their new, beautiful dress.
Now this is the kind of thinking I like. As I indicated earlier, I felt the OP's GM had absolutely the right idea in principle (throwing in something unexpected that isn't just a standard thing out of the rulebook), but suffered on the implementation side (such as completely ignoring established suffocation rules even after having them pointed out, with no real explanation for the rather extreme modification that made the ingame reality feel completely out of whack with player expectations.) - this feels like a far better way of handling it through penalties as opposed to a death timer. It's far more flavorful and far less "woah, where did the game world physics suddenly disappear to?"
Admittedly, not knowing the experience level of the OP's GM, that's not something I'd necessarily berate them for, there's a huge gap between "not handled particularly well" and "terrible", and everyone needs time to learn the art of GMing (although again, it's not my table, and if the players weren't agreeable to that kind of ruling-on-the-spot, it could be far more offensive to them.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Ok so like I was talking to the rules laywer brigade on the forums and we want to tell you how to run your game k? RAW or gtfo."Matt, I would never say that, please don't suggest I would as it sounds crude and ugly. It will be all calm and measured and may involve tea.I know I'm another Matt altogether, but I have to ask...
What kind of tea, exactly?
Matt, I'm a different DM altogether, but I have to say darjeeling with bergamot. Natch.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lady Grey with the finest honey I can get from the local producers.
I... don't know how to feel about the DM's actions (as outlined by the OP).
If the suggestion is that the DM simply can't modify monsters, then I definitely am shaking my head at that. Modifying monsters is a time-honored tradition, and even Paizo themselves do it with some of their gooftastic rules and changes (their mini-slap-dash-templates, like the "fear" creature thingy in City of Golden Death, etc. And if someone is suggesting that it's fine for Paizo to do that sort of thing but not DMs, well, that's wildly hypocritical. (And if the suggestion is instead to never do that sort of thing, ever - "Bestiary or GTFO", then that's just sort of sad.)
The shrieking about a high Str check is also a bit amusing for me. There are multiple example of Break DCs, for instance, being in the mid-to-high 20's. So howling about at Str 10 character failing on a "natural 20" illicits not much more than an amused chuckle and "meh" from me.
With all that said, though, I have great discomfort with the strange changing of holding one's breath rule. That's taking away a clear and unambiguous character strength... I'm not okay with that.
*************
Or... did this thread already deal with the OP and now just went weird? Ah well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A DM can be factually wrong about the Pathfinder rules.
A DM can be morally wrong if he pretends he's invited you to play Pathfinder and proceeds to ignore the Pathfinder rules during play, without informing you of any houserules first, especially if he's just doing it to f~++ you over.
I doubt that the DM in the OP told the players before character creation that he's changed the stat for adjudicating suffocation from Con to Str (allowing players to take this into account during creation), or that he's changed the time to suffocate to two rounds.
A DM can be factually wrong about the Pathfinder rules.
A DM can be morally wrong if he pretends he's invited you to play Pathfinder and proceeds to ignore the Pathfinder rules during play, without informing you of any houserules first, especially if he's just doing it to f~++ you over.
I doubt that the DM in the OP told the players before character creation that he's changed the stat for adjudicating suffocation from Con to Str (allowing players to take this into account during creation), or that he's changed the time to suffocate to two rounds.
Morally wrong? Wow dude. I'm all for following the rules but talk like this makes me feel like a Grognard, and I just started playing 5 years ago!
Jesus Christ.
I knew there was something off about your insane tilting-at-windmills over the whole reach weapon/ adjacent improvised deal. You seriously were looking to take a road of moral superiority over those who disagree with your rules interpretation.
You really really need to take a break from the game for a while and get some perspective.
|
|
A DM can be factually wrong about the Pathfinder rules.
A DM can be morally wrong if he pretends he's invited you to play Pathfinder and proceeds to ignore the Pathfinder rules during play, without informing you of any houserules first, especially if he's just doing it to f~++ you over.
I doubt that the DM in the OP told the players before character creation that he's changed the stat for adjudicating suffocation from Con to Str (allowing players to take this into account during creation), or that he's changed the time to suffocate to two rounds.
Morally wrong? Wow dude. I'm all for following the rules but talk like this makes me feel like a Grognard, and I just started playing 5 years ago!
Jesus Christ.
I knew there was something off about your insane tilting-at-windmills over the whole reach weapon/ adjacent improvised deal. You seriously were looking to take a road of moral superiority over those who disagree with your rules interpretation.
You really really need to take a break from the game for a while and get some perspective.
The situation in this thread's OP isn't about rules interpretation, but about 'Rocks fall, you die!'
The cloaker falls on you, and the str check of 20 won't get it off you. Lol. When others get above 20, that doesn't get it off you either (we got 23 and that wasn't enough either).
No, you must keep making more strength checks, while you suffocate faster than the rules say you do.
Thanks for your input Arnwyn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The cloaker falls on you, and the str check of 20 won't get it off you. Lol. When others get above 20, that doesn't get it off you either (we got 23 and that wasn't enough either).
No, you must keep making more strength checks, while you suffocate faster than the rules say you do.
I would chalk it up to stylistic differences. If you don't like a GM that deviates from the rules as written, then it is probably a good idea for you to mention that to your GM one on one and let him/her give feedback on the situation.
For as long as I have been a GM, I have constantly deviated from the rules. Sometimes its because I don't quite recall how something works, so I'll wing it (quicksand most recently.) Other times its because the experience will be enhanced by doing so. Knowing when to do it and when not to do it is key - and it takes GM experience.
Ah quicksand, that old danger in fantasy and adventure stories.
We always make it stronger than it actually is. :)
|
|
I would chalk it up to stylistic differences. If you don't like a GM that deviates from the rules as written, then it is probably a good idea for you to mention that to your GM one on one and let him/her give feedback on the situation.
Some things are stylistic differences, others are half-remembered or misunderstood rules, but others are the DM ignoring any rules and simply narrating what happens in a way that both screws the player over and is in contradiction to the rules which the players had every reason to believe they were using.
If the DM allows you to build a rules-legal monk without comment, then during play makes the monk take damage every time he uses unarmed attacks against armoured opponents (because punching metal hurts IRL), then this is not an honest mistake, it's just screwing the player over. There's no way you'd've made a monk if you'd've known about this 'rule', especially since he just made that rule up right now!
This reminds me of the time I had a wight's level drain work though it's bow and arrows. Scared my players despite their rules lawyering. Not like it even managed to do much to the group anyway.
I do agree that multiple checks was a bit much.
Edit: I hate autocorrect.