Suddenly I'm reminded of a time in highschool where playing tennis (badminton?) this one pair basically would change the rules so they didn't have to do so much work (also win the pseudo-tournament, which had no prize). If the ball hit the ground anywhere on our side of the field, it was their point ("You didn't hit the ball back before it bounced"). If the ball hit the ground anywhere on their side of the field it was their point ("You hit it out of bounds").
Long story short I walked out, back to the changing rooms and just sat against the lockers to wait for next period (you know, instead of punching the a$!+%+~). The hilarious part is that it took the teachers twenty minutes of active searching to figure out where I went (the other two kids must have pointed them in the wrong direction, probably to get me in trouble). Hadn't even occurred to me that I was hiding.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
AD&D 2nd Ed Monster Manual had a typo in the entry for either the Cyclops or the Cyclops-kin. I can't remember which. Instead of saying the bugger could hurl rocks for 4d10 damage, it said it would do 410 damage. Our DM refused to believe that it was a misprint for years. At least once per campaign he would use that creature in an ambush situation and if anyone got hit he'd enforce 410 damage.
He also pronounced "rune" and "ruin" the same. We had no idea if it was ruins off in the distance or runes drawn in the desert sands.
I was playing a Paladin in a group heading to the Worldwound. We entered a town and were set upon by brigands. These weren’t the "bad guy" brigands, just the desperate trying to get stuff to make it out of the area. My Paladin decided to deal non-lethal damage and subdue the brigands (the rest of the party proceeded to massacre everything that could find - Chaotic Good never looked so rabid). The brigand I was fighting had 1 HP left and I hit with my sword (flat of the blade, -4 to attack, etc.). I dealt 12 points of damage and the DM said the brigand died. His explanation - the rules say any damage over the total hit point turns to lethal damage, so the brigand to 1 point of non-lethal damage and the other 11 were lethal and took him to -11, so dead. I tried to explain how the non-lethal damage works, but he was having none of it. The crusaders went down from there.
-Doomn
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He also pronounced "rune" and "ruin" the same. We had no idea if it was ruins off in the distance or runes drawn in the desert sands.
Guilty of this one..
Spooky-DM: "You see a ruined (ruuhnd) pillar."
The Unfortunate Players: Aww crap, its probably trapped. Lets smash it!
Spooky-DM: "Due to your actions, its even more ruined.."
TUP: Oh God, its just getting stronger!
Spooky-DM: . o (Why are they beating on that pillar so hard?)
My bad DM stories are...myriad, but I'll just add in the one where a guy decided you had to make will saves to oppose 'obvious actions your players would do' and forbade alignment.
He called me out for acting inappropriately because I didn't want to murder a prison warden (I had never met before) because he was an 'oppressor' and 'the oppressed have an innate urge to rise up against oppressors.' My rogue kept making will saves though, although he finally died when I failed a check to avoid opening up a door because 'I'd really be curious about what the evil sleeping lich creature looked like' and got my soul trapped.
He was also a fan of 'I keep adding hp to the monster because it'd be boring if it got killed before it could do its thing,' which resulted in a mind flayer demonstrating 245hp because the players' dice were hot and nobody was failing the saves he was throwing. He's sort of solely responsible for my dislike of 4e and its similar (but far more reasonable and less jackholish) ethic towards creature design.
An actual Rockfallseveryonedies would have been preferreble to this. This was purely Small Name, Big Ego. "I AM GOD! DO NOT QUESTION ME!"
Spent the rest of the fight looking up the rules regarding AoOs and 5 foot steps, and the withdrawal action, only to be told that at THIS table, no one stops play to reference stuff in the books. Being a rules lawyer is disruptive. Last time I played with that DM.Wow, not only playing the game wrong, but actively preventing a player from looking up said rules which could prove him wrong even when said player can't even play anymore?
That's about as low as you can go. Y'know, short of RocksFallEveryoneDies
Agreed that I would have preferred that, I think. Although, it wasn't JUST the DM on this...the whole group had this attitude of, "you don't question the GM during the game; what he says goes." The only other time I played with that group was in the aforementioned Mutants & Masterminds game (different GM). You can see how well THAT went.
I was playing a Paladin in a group heading to the Worldwound. We entered a town and were set upon by brigands. These weren’t the "bad guy" brigands, just the desperate trying to get stuff to make it out of the area. My Paladin decided to deal non-lethal damage and subdue the brigands (the rest of the party proceeded to massacre everything that could find - Chaotic Good never looked so rabid).
I had the opposite problem, the old "monster kids'. This time it was gnolls. My PC was LN(g) and he was striking to subdue. (After trying to talk to them, and failing) One of the kids attacked with a 'rusty knife" and got a confirm crit. So my PC then just killed him. The DM thought that was a "evil act" since the knoll was "just a kid".
Otherwise a good DM, but honestly, have "monster kids" is a very bad thing, and IMHO the game should be STOPPED right there and a OOC discussion held.
Now I could roll my eyes and tolerate that for a game. But then... 'we'll let John GM for a change because he's been wanting to for a while. We'll use the same characters.'
I had a GM do that once. He swapped out with one of the players in the group and left for the day. The player then proceeded to decide to play a different game and we had to put up with supermonsters that ignored anything we threw at them. Homebrew monsters with 500 strength we're supposed to survive for 10 rounds before we're allowed to kill them. Homebrew monsters count as houserules right?
|
Some gamers have fun playing rifts
Fixed that for you.
I had fun playing Rifts. Next to 2E it was my other gateway rpg. Its not the best set of rules. But one can have fun with them. I dislike how PF treats martial characters. Im not going to say no one has ever had fun playing one.
On topic. A DM that refused to allow crticals espcially if it was on his pet npcs. Also had his npcs prepared for everything and anything. Which is possible at higher levels. Not so much at lower levels and versus opponents with low or no int.
Another A DM that threw impossible odds at the party. Make it so that the party was almost TPKed. Then had the high level npc arrive just in time to save the day. To this day the GM cant understand why that bothers players.
Another A DM that threw impossible odds at the party. Make it so that the party was almost TPKed. Then had the high level npc arrive just in time to save the day. To this day the GM cant understand why that bothers players.
I had a GM do that well.
Only it was more like "you know those sandworms from Dune? yeah, there's a bounty on one of its organs. 15 million pp. There's an expedition heading out."
A couple of NPCs were on it as well, including a bard. We were level...7, IIRC, the bard started up a bardsong of "everyone has a BAB equal to my level." He was level 15.
He was eaten second (right after one of the other NPCs).
I think the entire party survived, plus on NPC, we tried to save one of the others (no luck). The only reason we survived was because of Lingering Song.
Anyway, the GM also had a really good way of baiting us with epic loot and then taking it away. That 15 million plat? Eaten up in auction house fees, paying out shares to the NPCs (or the dead one's families), etc. We made off with appropriate level wealth for an encounter.
|
The need to search every 5 foot square individually.
That reminds me of the time our party stumbled across a pit trap in an underground tunnel. We made the saves, so nobody fell in. However, traps in places where the PCs have no reason to suspect them is a pet peeve of mine.
To teach the GM a lesson, I decided to have my character search every 5 foot square in front of him for the rest of the (mile long) tunnel.
Turned out the next square but one was ALSO a pit trap (part of the cunning ambush plan of some monsters we didn't know about). So instead of looking like a sulky child, I ended up looking like a tactical genius.
Sorry if I'm reopening the can of worms but I had a terrible problem with the critical fumble rules.
Context: It was my first PF character, a rogue who specialized in TWF, it was before the patch that allowed Rogues to SA undead and constructs, and it was the a+%~%$$ GM from my last post.
Since Rogues couldn't SA the undead and Constructs, he naturally made his campaign focus of undead, contructs, elementals, swarms, and even a g*%@$*n protean. I hadn't even met the guy before this and I think he was trolling me.
Due to the lack of appropriate enemies and my inexperience, I didn't do appreciable damage to any single enemy in the whole game. In fact, the most damage I ever did was to my teammate thanks to the magic of the critical fumble.
This was actually during the fight with the construct. I figured I may as well do something if only to avoid being bored. I make my only attack and get a natural 1. The GM jumps to his computer with relish as he rolls his die. The roll comes up that I hit myself and everyone around me for max damage and a crit. We had a house rule that crits meant 1d4 x2 meant the damage was multiplied. Also sneak attack was applied for some reason I think My kukri did 24 damage to the fighter next to me, negligible damage to the construct due to DR, and 24 damage to myself.
TL;DR My jackass GM made it so that the only damage I did was to myself and my teammate because of a critical fumble that I didn't have to confirm.
|
|
Sorry if I'm reopening the can of worms but I had a terrible problem with the critical fumble rules.
Context: It was my first PF character, a rogue who specialized in TWF, it was before the patch that allowed Rogues to SA undead and constructs, and it was the a~+*#** GM from my last post.
Since Rogues couldn't SA the undead and Constructs, he naturally made his campaign focus of undead, contructs, elementals, swarms, and even a g+%#+*n protean. I hadn't even met the guy before this and I think he was trolling me.
Due to the lack of appropriate enemies and my inexperience, I didn't do appreciable damage to any single enemy in the whole game. In fact, the most damage I ever did was to my teammate thanks to the magic of the critical fumble.
This was actually during the fight with the construct. I figured I may as well do something if only to avoid being bored. I make my only attack and get a natural 1. The GM jumps to his computer with relish as he rolls his die. The roll comes up that I hit myself and everyone around me for max damage and a crit. We had a house rule that crits meant 1d4 x2 meant the damage was multiplied. Also sneak attack was applied for some reason I think My kukri did 24 damage to the fighter next to me, negligible damage to the construct due to DR, and 24 damage to myself.
TL;DR My jackass GM made it so that the only damage I did was to myself and my teammate because of a critical fumble that I didn't have to confirm.
This is like 'guilt for Spook by association thread.'
I used to use the Middle Earth crit fumble chart. That being said, I've always been a believe that you only trigger if you roll a one on your first interative (so if you have 7 attacks, what matters is if the 1 is on the first roll) and I added a weird saving throw mechanic to avoid it.
I'm still responsible (from making the players use the table) for a paladin accidentally critting his friend the bard with a scythe, thus starting the legend of Sir Zerrick "Friendslayer" Sturron.
This is like 'guilt for Spook by association thread.'
I used to use the Middle Earth crit fumble chart. That being said, I've always been a believe that you only trigger if you roll a one on your first interative (so if you have 7 attacks, what matters is if the 1 is on the first roll) and I added a weird saving throw mechanic to avoid it.
I'm still responsible (from making the players use the table) for a paladin accidentally critting his friend the bard with a scythe, thus starting the legend of Sir Zerrick "Friendslayer" Sturron
I could get behind the idea of a critical fumble if you use it right. If I have to confirm a critical hit then I should have to confirm a critical miss as well.
I also think that one Nat 1 should be something like dropping your weapon or even shooting yourself in foot for regular damage. Max damage to yourself and everyone around you should be like three Nat 1s in a row. Even then, it's not like three Nat 20s leads to guaranteed max damage to every enemy in reach.
One of the worst rulings I'll never forget was during a Birthright game. The DM had sent two hundred enemies at our castle, because he incorrectly thought that we only had 30 guards or something. In truth, we had 400 soldiers stationed at the castle.
When we told the DM that, he got upset, said "Fine, then there are 600 enemies."
In another situation with the same DM, he explained things happening before us, and when we tried to do something to stop them, he said we couldn't. When asked why, it was stated that these things were part of the intro, and we couldn't alter them. Another time part of the intro involved all of us being turned to stone, even when I rolled a natural 20 on the save.
All in all, I don't consider the DM a bad one, just a DM more comfortable with rails than I enjoy.
|
|
"Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rules Lawyers: Saving your game since always.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
In my experience, one out of every two society GMs barely has a clue as to what they are even doing. One in four society tables has one or more rules lawyers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, one out of every two society GMs barely has a clue as to what they are even doing. One in four society tables has one or more rules lawyers."Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
I think the solution is clear then; what we need is more (Rules) lawyers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
The need to constantly defend something from examples of bad behavior within it, even when the mentioned bad behavior is not blamed upon being inherent to the item, is usually ample signs that the problem actually exists, the person is aware of it, and the person is trying to convince themselves the problem isn't real.
In plain language: If there's no problem, there's no need for you to defend PFS GMing every time someone mentions a bad call from a PFS GM. The fact you are provides evidence that there most definitely is a real problem with PFS, and in turn provides evidence for what I said about PFS earlier.
So, if there is no problem, please relax on defending on PFS. If there is a problem, then your lack of relaxing on it is understandable.
|
|
Rules Lawyers: Saving your game since always.
Yup. I'll call GMs on big stuff. Nobody knows all the rules, so pointing out mistakes is everybody's job. A good GM knows to listen, but also knows not to let the session get derailed by a big argument over a tough call. Sometimes, you just have to say "Just to keep things moving, let's just play it this way for now, and look it up later to be sure."
But again, that's if it would take more than a minute or two to clarify and make sure you're not doing something obviously wrong. That's actually the biggest theme in the stories in this thread: GMs who insist on doing things their way, instead of listening to their players.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
The need to constantly defend something from examples of bad behavior within it, even when the mentioned bad behavior is not blamed upon being inherent to the item, is usually ample signs that the problem actually exists, the person is aware of it, and the person is trying to convince themselves the problem isn't real.
In plain language: If there's no problem, there's no need for you to defend PFS GMing every time someone mentions a bad call from a PFS GM. The fact you are provides evidence that there most definitely is a real problem with PFS, and in turn provides evidence for what I said about PFS earlier.
So, if there is no problem, please relax on defending on PFS. If there is a problem, then your lack of relaxing on it is understandable.
I don't defend PFS every time someone mentions a bad call by a PFS GM. My own first post on this thread was to post two examples of bad calls by Society GMs. It happens. We all know it.
I do post to defend PFS when someone says "I've never gone back" (see the newly bolded text in the quoted post above). I just wanted to point out to that specific individual that what they describe really isn't the norm in Society play, and they should give PFS another chance.
As I said, I've played/GMed roughly 150 tables in PFS, and had bad GM experiences exactly twice. Granted, roughly half of my PFS experience was with a home group of friends, so it wasn't as random as public games, but that's still only 2 bad experiences in roughly 75 tables. Given the random nature of people showing up to PFS, a 5% bad GM rate isn't awful. I also had a few GMs who weren't particularly good or bad, just kinda mediocre, but for the most part, I'd say the rate of GMs I'd describe as good, or better, is higher than I'd expect from such random groups.
I don't defend PFS every time someone mentions a bad call by a PFS GM. My own first post on this thread was to post two examples of bad calls by Society GMs. It happens. We all know it.
I do post to defend PFS when someone says "I've never gone back" (see the newly bolded text in the quoted post above). I just wanted to point out to that specific individual that what they describe really isn't the norm in Society play, and they should give PFS another chance.
As I said, I've played/GMed roughly 150 tables in PFS, and had bad GM experiences exactly twice. Granted, roughly half of my PFS experience was with a home group of friends, so it wasn't as random as public games, but that's still only 2 bad experiences in roughly 75 tables. Given the random nature of people showing up to PFS, a 5% bad GM rate isn't awful. I also had a few GMs who weren't particularly good or bad, just kinda mediocre, but for the most part, I'd say the rate of GMs I'd describe as good, or better, is higher than I'd expect from such random groups.
You defended PFS over someone saying they never went back when they never clarified if it was PFS or the group in question they never went back to.
So, stop and ask yourself... what compulsion is it that makes you automatically assume that it had to be PFS that they never went back to? Because it hints strongly that there is something wrong with PFS. After all, to automatically assume they never went back to PFS when they never stated it was PFS or the group suggests there is a serious issue with losing players. Which, in turn, is reflective of a problem with PFS.
That you had to reply to post all of your experience with playing and a rate of bad GMs to defend it further when I'm hinting that the way you are defending it is potentially not working well is typical of someone used to arguing that PFS doesn't have problems. To have to argue that much that you have a reaction like that... well, that usually indicates the problem is real.
Stop and think about what I've said. I think you'll see the point I'm hinting at. Nothing unfriendly, but I'm saying that you're proving the exact opposite of the case you're making. I didn't argue with you earlier on this because you made a good point at the time, but right now you are undermining your point. Trust me on this one ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Reading this thread has made me grateful to the fair and balanced GMs who introduced me to the hobby many years ago.
The capriciousness evident in some of the rulings listed is downright scary.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't defend PFS every time someone mentions a bad call by a PFS GM. My own first post on this thread was to post two examples of bad calls by Society GMs. It happens. We all know it.
I do post to defend PFS when someone says "I've never gone back" (see the newly bolded text in the quoted post above). I just wanted to point out to that specific individual that what they describe really isn't the norm in Society play, and they should give PFS another chance.
As I said, I've played/GMed roughly 150 tables in PFS, and had bad GM experiences exactly twice. Granted, roughly half of my PFS experience was with a home group of friends, so it wasn't as random as public games, but that's still only 2 bad experiences in roughly 75 tables. Given the random nature of people showing up to PFS, a 5% bad GM rate isn't awful. I also had a few GMs who weren't particularly good or bad, just kinda mediocre, but for the most part, I'd say the rate of GMs I'd describe as good, or better, is higher than I'd expect from such random groups.
You defended PFS over someone saying they never went back when they never clarified if it was PFS or the group in question they never went back to.
So, stop and ask yourself... what compulsion is it that makes you automatically assume that it had to be PFS that they never went back to? Because it hints strongly that there is something wrong with PFS. After all, to automatically assume they never went back to PFS when they never stated it was PFS or the group suggests there is a serious issue with losing players. Which, in turn, is reflective of a problem with PFS.
That you had to reply to post all of your experience with playing and a rate of bad GMs to defend it further when I'm hinting that the way you are defending it is potentially not working well is typical of someone used to arguing that PFS doesn't have problems. To have to argue that much that you have a reaction like that... well, that usually indicates the problem is real.
Stop and think about what I've said. I think you'll see the point I'm hinting at. Nothing unfriendly, but I'm saying that you're proving the exact opposite of the case you're making. I didn't argue with you earlier on this because you made a good point at the time, but right now you are undermining your point. Trust me on this one ;)
There's probably a name for the logical fallacy of "The fact that you're defending your position proves that there's a reason to be defensive", but I just don't enough about that stuff to know what it is. The only point you're making is that you're reading too much into my posts. I tend to trumpet PFS because I enjoy playing it and want to spread the joy, and help the PFS campaign do well. My only question is why you seem to want to try to make PFS look bad by pretending there's more to my posts than that.
As for why I responded to you, I have a tendency to do that when people quote me and try to twist my posts into something they're not. I don't like being misrepresented.
|
I was playing a Paladin in a group heading to the Worldwound. We entered a town and were set upon by brigands. These weren’t the "bad guy" brigands, just the desperate trying to get stuff to make it out of the area. My Paladin decided to deal non-lethal damage and subdue the brigands (the rest of the party proceeded to massacre everything that could find - Chaotic Good never looked so rabid). The brigand I was fighting had 1 HP left and I hit with my sword (flat of the blade, -4 to attack, etc.). I dealt 12 points of damage and the DM said the brigand died. His explanation - the rules say any damage over the total hit point turns to lethal damage, so the brigand to 1 point of non-lethal damage and the other 11 were lethal and took him to -11, so dead. I tried to explain how the non-lethal damage works, but he was having none of it. The crusaders went down from there.
-Doomn
Damn I was about to correct you but you are right. Nonlethal has to be equal to your maximum hp before it starts to kill.
I swear to all things holy the nonlethal rules need to be printed in bold in the earliest section of the book they make sense in (probably the equipment right beside the first discussion of nonlethal weapons like the sap). This is the 3rd time I've had to correct myself on how the hell that conversion works.
|
|
This one is from PFS.
Back not long ago when faction missions were required, my Dwarven Fighter was given the mission of finding a lost book and copying a passage from it before it was to be returned to the Pathfinder Society in Absalom. Of course, the book was written in a language that my character did not know and I had no linguistics ranks.
Finding the book was also supposed to be kept secret from the other factions, so I could not consider asking anyone in the party for assistance...
Fortunately for me, we would have to pass through a good size town (5000 people) before traveling back to Absalom. Excellent! My solution was to pay either a Linguist or a Wizard a fee to help find and translate the passage I needed (and perhaps a bribe to keep his lips sealed). The GM simply said 'you can't find anyone'. Huh../
OK, solution #2: Find someone in Absalom to do the same (and probably have to pay a bit more of a bribe). The GM again said 'no' with the explanation that faction missions should be done by the characters. I said I had no way of completing the mission, so I was looking for other ways of getting it done. He then said that not all faction missions should succeed and that's just the way it is. Rejected!
This from a four star GM and Venture Captain who 6 months earlier ran a GM101 class and talked about how GMs should try to avoid saying 'no' to players and instead be open to creative problem solving.
That was not the only poor call I had seen him make, so from then on I avoided his table. Later when one of the event organizers tried to sit me at one of his tables, I flat out said 'no, I will not play at his table'. Funny enough, he stopped coming a month or so later. to this day, I have little respect for the man.
There's probably a name for the logical fallacy of "The fact that you're defending your position proves that there's a reason to be defensive", but I just don't enough about that stuff to know what it is. The only point you're making is that you're reading too much into my posts. I tend to trumpet PFS because I enjoy playing it and want to spread the joy, and help the PFS campaign do well. My only question is why you seem to want to try to make PFS look bad by pretending there's more to my posts than that.
As for why I responded to you, I have a tendency to do that when people quote me and try to twist my posts into something they're not. I don't like being misrepresented.
I checked. It's not a logical fallacy with the way I'm using it. Nor did I actually state it that way; notice you defended it earlier (page 3) directly to me and I did not challenge your defense. If merely defending it were the issue, I would have argued with you two pages ago.
I could also call you on using the straw man logical twice, but that is not friendly conversation. And it would detract from my point.
And, no, I'm not reading too much into your posts. I'm saying that you are coming across as evidence of a problem in PFS because you read too much into someone else's post, and you are continuing to defend PFS and continuing to assume my intent is to make PFS look bad when I've been saying all along that your assumption is the problem.
Don't believe me? Go back and quote Scavion's post. Bold it with the part highlighted where Scavion specifies he didn't go back to PFS.
After you have done that, let me know. I'll tell you what I have observed on here about GMs and how I think the issue could be fixed, both for PFS and for normal GMs.
This from a four star GM and Venture Captain who 6 months earlier ran a GM101 class and talked about how GMs should try to avoid saying 'no' to players and instead be open to creative problem solving.
This is why I love Dogs in the Vineyard.
The entire set of rules for the GM to run a game is one sentence:
Say 'yes' or roll dice.
(Dice indicate an opposed conflict: GM rolls his dice, player rolls his dice, each one antes up until one side runs out of dice and is declared the loser)
"Constructs are objects and not subject to critical hits."
The PFS GM is shaking her head at me and the whole table is pointedly looking down at this point. To this day I've never gone back. Though I did write an angry email.
Like I said earlier, you shouldn't judge PFS for a single bad example. Most PFS tables are great, but in any random mix like that, there's going to be the occasional bad one. In my experience, most PFS tables have at least 2 rules lawyers, so GMs rarely get away with blatantly bad calls. I'm really surprised nobody called your GM on that one.
It apparently had been talked about before in the group and the conclusion was that constructs are objects and therefore not subject to critical hits.
Though really, that is only one issue of many I have with PFS after the matter.
Also theres no need to derail this topic about PFS, it has it's issues like any other game.
And no I have never tried PFS again. There's no point since I can find games online.
Playing a game of second edition my dual classed mage-cleric was stripped of his cleric abilities after following the plot into a demi plane, where we were trapped. The DM's reasoning was that I had lost contact with my deity...which, I understand, but half of my character was invalidated. In that same game all elven players had to constantly disguise themselves, as dwarves and elves swapped places with orcs and goblins in this plane. It wasn't a terrible experience, but the DM was a drunk, so the continuity was constantly in question.
I've also experienced a tpk that amounted to a GM saying "rocks fall, you all die" with a straight face. Our ranger decided to start pulling levers randomly and botched a puzzle..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fromper, you have my apologies for what I said and for my argument on here.
This from a four star GM and Venture Captain who 6 months earlier ran a GM101 class and talked about how GMs should try to avoid saying 'no' to players and instead be open to creative problem solving.This is why I love Dogs in the Vineyard.
The entire set of rules for the GM to run a game is one sentence:
Say 'yes' or roll dice.
(Dice indicate an opposed conflict: GM rolls his dice, player rolls his dice, each one antes up until one side runs out of dice and is declared the loser)
Two enter, one leaves. And then the other leaves slightly later, complaining about how someone has used up the luck in their dice, and that this is unfair.
But it generally seems fair. If you don't want to slow down the game by having someone thumb through the rule book constantly, just use a fair decider- for the moment. But I think that there should still be room for revisiting the argument between games, so that it can be cleared up. Still, the consequences of the dice roll should be maintained (to keep this from becoming a waiting game where you can hit the redo button later). Because really- shouldn't we all live by the luck of the dice? At least when someone doesn't fudge rolls/learn rather impressive skills at dice fixing?
One of the worst rulings I'll never forget was during a Birthright game. The DM had sent two hundred enemies at our castle, because he incorrectly thought that we only had 30 guards or something. In truth, we had 400 soldiers stationed at the castle.
When we told the DM that, he got upset, said "Fine, then there are 600 enemies."
I had an early experience of something similar in 1st Edition, but this was 1981/82 and neither I nor the DM were very experienced.
Due to a lack of suitable players I was the only player and running two characters. They had set up a base near a village using the 1st Edition base construction rules. It was a small castle with high crenelated curtain walls a strong central keep boasting an swivel-mounted arbalest, and was garrisoned by 20 bowmen and 10 men-at-arms.
The DM decided that my PCs' behaviour had upset the locals (which was probably a good call) and that they would revolt and storm the castle. These villagers managed to swarm the castle with scaling ladders and a fanatical morale, completely overwhelming the professional (and alert) defenders! I have no idea why medieval castles took so long to take, all the besiegers required was a few hundred badly armed peasants and most castles would be captured in minutes.
Two enter, one leaves. And then the other leaves slightly later, complaining about how someone has used up the luck in their dice, and that this is unfair.
But it generally seems fair. If you don't want to slow down the game by having someone thumb through the rule book constantly, just use a fair decider- for the moment. But I think that there should still be room for revisiting the argument between games, so that it can be cleared up. Still, the consequences of the dice roll should be maintained (to keep this from becoming a waiting game where you can hit the redo button later). Because really- shouldn't we all live by the luck of the dice? At least when someone doesn't fudge rolls/learn rather impressive skills at dice fixing?
It's a little more nuanced than that, you'd have to play Dogs in the Vineyard.
But there are four stages to combat, and you can start in any one of them: Talking, Physical, Brawling, and Gunfights. You can reference traits, brandish items, do whatever you want, and you get the dice associated with that Thing. But in any given conflict you can only get the dice from something once. Physical here is "tarzan beating his chest" kind of physical: you're bringing objects into the equation and generally getting belligerent, but aren't throwing punches yet.
So it tends to go something like this:
Player: "I'd like it if he told me what his plans are."
DM: "He's not going to, roll dice."
Player: "I attempt to talk reason into him." *Rolls "Talking" die and persuasion merit. Antes up
DM rolls appropriate dice, match-or-beat, or find more dice. "He argues against you, what he was doing was Right and for the Good of the town."
Player: "Well that's going so well, I pull out my bible and start quoting scripture." *Rolls exquisite bible dice, antes up*
DM: "He quotes scripture back at you, he's a priest." *DM rolls a die related to profession. Antes up*
Player: "This is getting stupid, I pull out my gun and threaten him with it." (advancement to Physical)
DM, rolling more dice: "He's not intimidated by that. He tackles you and tries to wrestle it out of your hands" (advancement to Brawling)
Player, rolling more dice: "Shame my character has training in martial arts! I've got the scars to prove it!" *dice for both the background and the scars*
And so on. It's very action-movie-y until you've pulled in all the dice you can and you're just down to anteing up the dice that rolled low. The GM is doing the same with the NPCs. Oh, and remember how I said anyone not possessed by a demon generally loses against the PCs? Yeah, the demon has its own dice it can add. Generally a fair number of significant size.
It works pretty well, the rules are just a little lacking in the character creation. I.e. there's nothing that says you can't have all your equipment be both Big and Expensive(each granting a slightly different bonus: Big means it gets two dice while Expensive makes the dice bigger).
I had a DM/GM (this was for 3.0) rule based on what you rolled, not what your total was. If you rolled low, didn't matter if you passed the skill check, etc.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems that a common theme here is that the GM treats the game as his own personal sandbox, and treat the players as people who are lucky enough to be along for the ride, but use the opportunity as a way to be an all-powerful god that dictates their every action to fulfill their need to control others. I'm afraid to say that I was like that in my early days of DMing, but after I had a chance to be with experienced players I learned that it was about the story that we all create together, and to have a balance between checking the rules and making a gut decision so that too much time isn't wasted, and then checking the rules together later. Some may be bad DMs, but that is sometimes from inexperience or not having the proper role models to show them how it's done, it's just a matter of them willing to learn from others for the enjoyment of all.
To all the terrible GMs out there: stop being terrible!
The power is within you.
shouldn't we all live by the luck of the dice?
We should indeed, my friend. We should indeed.
|
You note yourself that critical fumbles penalize martials. If I play a caster that doesn't role dice, the critical fumble rule won't apply. Therefore the superior choice for the campaign. That's not a subjective statement, it's an objective one. It does not only exist in my head, it exists in the math that makes up the rules of the game. Unless you can point me to a martial build that doesn't roll dice to attack.
I noted that critical fumbles penalize characters with a high attack rate (TWF), more than characters with a lower number of harder hits (THF).
Using critical spell failure (Rolemaster does, and so did my homebrew spellpoint system for AD&D) puts casters in the same position as a fighter with a two-handed sword.
In my group's first Pathfinder game, nobody realized you couldn't have more ranks in a skill than you have hit dice. Things got very weird, very quickly.
You note yourself that critical fumbles penalize martials. If I play a caster that doesn't role dice, the critical fumble rule won't apply. Therefore the superior choice for the campaign. That's not a subjective statement, it's an objective one. It does not only exist in my head, it exists in the math that makes up the rules of the game. Unless you can point me to a martial build that doesn't roll dice to attack.
I noted that critical fumbles penalize characters with a high attack rate (TWF), more than characters with a lower number of harder hits (THF).
Using critical spell failure (Rolemaster does, and so did my homebrew spellpoint system for AD&D) puts casters in the same position as a fighter with a two-handed sword.
So you agree that when there are critical fumbles rules casters are better then martials, yes? Because we are talking about that and not your homebrew system for AD&D. That's a pretty easy, objective question. And the answer is "Yes."
|
|
In 2nd ed the DM noted that invisibility is from the illusion school.
Anything wrong so far? No?
He ruled that you can't see through an invisible wall.
Wait, what?
The players wanted to know what was in the next room. One player had the bright idea of turning the wall invisible so we could see what was there.
'Doesn't work!'
Why?
'Invisibility is an illusion spell.'
So?
'So you only think that you're seeing through the wall, but really you're just imagining what's on the other side, and since you don't know anything about the other side then your imagination is showing you nothing.'
Oooookaaaay!
So some bad guys are invisible. Works as you would expect.
So we are all invisible for a later encounter, where we scout out the hobgoblin barracks. Invisibility works as you would expect, right?
Wrong. ''The hobgoblins attack you. It's obvious that they can see you.'
How? 'When you distracted them with those fireworks, they couldn't see who caused it.
'Therefore, the people who caused it must be invisible.
'Therefore they are not fooled by the illusion.
'Therefore they can see you.'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 2nd ed the DM noted that invisibility is from the illusion school.
Anything wrong so far? No?
He ruled that you can't see through an invisible wall.
Wait, what?
The players wanted to know what was in the next room. One player had the bright idea of turning the wall invisible so we could see what was there.
'Doesn't work!'
Why?
'Invisibility is an illusion spell.'
So?
'So you only think that you're seeing through the wall, but really you're just imagining what's on the other side, and since you don't know anything about the other side then your imagination is showing you nothing.'
Oooookaaaay!
So some bad guys are invisible. Works as you would expect.
So we are all invisible for a later encounter, where we scout out the hobgoblin barracks. Invisibility works as you would expect, right?
Wrong. ''The hobgoblins attack you. It's obvious that they can see you.'
How? 'When you distracted them with those fireworks, they couldn't see who caused it.
'Therefore, the people who caused it must be invisible.
'Therefore they are not fooled by the illusion.
'Therefore they can see you.'
I wouldn't argue with that.
My mother taught me two things:
1) Never argue with crazy people.
2) Always wear clean underwear.
Coming to think of it, if she only taught me two things in an entire lifetime she probably wasn't that good a teacher...
In general, doesn't matter what modifiers you have, if your dice score is high, you succed, if it's low you fail.I had a GM who did the same sort of thing. It was utterly ridiculous and frustrating.
I do something similar in my games after a pair of particularly obnoxious gamers refused to attempt *anything* unless success was guaranteed and built their characters accordingly.
A different group DM once ruled you needed CHA checks or Diplomacy checks to do ANYTHING social related, even talking to people. Made me stop roleplaying with my Fighter completely since there were constant checks involved.
As above.
I had 'fun' in a rifts campaign once trying to play a power armor character.
Things like attempting to camouflage myself with extensive Resources expended and being told hiding in an iron man scale armor was impossible, being unable to maneuver indoors in the same, etc were one type of bad.
To be fair, you are wearing motorized full plate. If your armor wasn't the kind designed for stealth, you usually shouldn't bother. But this and the other depends on your model of armor. If you're packing one of my namesakes, for example, you got a very large thruster pack and great big wings hanging off your back.
Being told I could not wear my armor 'in town' because it was unreasonable was the real kicker. In any other setting, sure. In this one, half the people on the street could vaporize me with a thought because most of them were some sort of monster, cyborg or mage. Power armor was my equivalent of a tazer, but I ended up being the only one in the party required to walk around helpless most of the time (because everyone else was one of the aforementioned monsters).Well, they're half right here. Most towns and cities don't let people walk around with Mega-Damage weapons and armor within their walls. This is explicitly stated in the books. One book even shows why, with a story of a psychotic SAMAS pilot who slaughtered an entire village with just two missiles, a railgun, and his bare hands.
Now the question is: Did he apply that to everybody? Even cyborgs have to have their onboard weaponry deactivated if not removed, and a lot of predominantly Human settlements wouldn't even let monstrous Mega-Damage beings in, at least not without keeping an eye on them. Of course, if that all only applied to you...
The character retired after his first badass attempt at an ambush ended with him being given no chance at Stealth against enemies who used Magic (which normally does not function this way) which simply ignored his armor (in this...
As expected by someone named SAMAS, you ninjaed me almost fully.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The use of Critical Fumbles is universally, no, omniversally a bad GM call.
Different strokes for different folks. I have waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much fun with it in my games to ever remove it.
|
I am a noob to ttrpg in that I am approaching my 2 year anniversary. I have never seen stuff this bad but I mainly play pfs. The only thing close was a kid who is relatively new to GMing thinking that if the party is traveling as a group in a dungeon and the lead triggers a pit trap, all 5 PCs fall into the trap as if a force is pushing everyone in. He rolled damage for everyone 3 or 4 times before we were able to get his head around the notion that if we were in a 1-2-2 formation down a 10 foot wide hallway and if the lead is the only one over a trap door opening, only the lead falls in. But this was a mistake on his part and he was able to see the light so no comparison to what ya'll have seen.
If it gets me around rules that punish an already weak class and actively deviate from the rules that allow the weak classes to compete at high levels; Yes.
Teaching lessons to improve others GMing is something I consider to be very important.
FOR THE ONE TRUE WAY!!!!!