Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run Pathfinder but actually run a homebrewed E6 super low magic railroad campaign....
-Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run a certain game system, but have all these weird @$% wonky home brew rules concerning stuff the game doesn't ACTUALLY have, because they read some #@^& sci-fi novel (WH40K), Shoe-horned it into a FANTASY game, runs all these weird @$# rules OUT OF HIS HEAD WITHOUT GIVING THE PLAYERS A SINGLE INKLING OF WHAT THEY ARE!
That wasn't very nice, let me fix it for you -
Idiot Game Masters who say they want to run Pathfinder but actually run a homebrewed E6 super low magic railroad campaign and don't bother telling you in advance.
OK, that's what I meant. Good point.
Idiot gamemasters who seem to think that a set of strict houserules will solve the issue of the campaign being run straight into the ground by the end of the first fight... instead of realizing the group is doing it because the GM insulted one to their face and refuses to apologize.
|
Idiot gamemasters who seem to think that a set of strict houserules will solve the issue of the campaign being run straight into the ground by the end of the first fight... instead of realizing the group is doing it because the GM insulted one to their face and refuses to apologize.
Good communication is always critical. I treat my job as DM/GM as that, it's job. I'm a player - but I have a different responsibility - and what I do every so often or after an mod is take a survey of what they liked, disliked - points of concern or issues with how I'm handling my houserules or changes.
In your above example MJ, I blame both parties - the GM for his inability to perceive what is going on and detect issues with his players and for the players continuing with a futile low-intensity war with the GM. Poor communication and grudges is just a waste of time.
Hey. I offered the guy a chance to apologize and the entire group offered to let him off the hook.
He didn't take either option.
So, if the guy wants to suffer, who are we to deny him his fondest wish?
|
I had a sidecar GM once that drove me crazy. By sidecar I mean he was a player but he was cosntantly telling the GM to do things outside the rules because they "made sense" to him. The GM was fairly new so he was reluctant to say back off and make his own rulings which broke the game down to arguments every session.
I was playing a rogue and he was always trying to find reasons my evasion shouldnt work but were not supported by the rules. "I just dont see how a rogue is going to evade on a rope bridge?"
Of course he was playing a sorc who had a soultion to every problem. "Well we are in the jungle and rules say when frightened we run in a straight line as fast as possible. That means the rogue jumps in the fast moving river probably risking death while my sorc casts levitate at the river bank and just goes up...."
The final straw was a giant bat in a cave we fought. He convinced the GM that my rogue would drop his weapon when the bat grappled him. Once the fight was over he told the GM since the floor was covered in mud and crap that there should be a 50/50 chance of my rogue finding his weapon. I had had enough at that point and quit.
I had a GM who, after two of my characters died or were moved from active play, ruled that when rolling a character after level 1, you only got half the level appropriate gold. I made an Oracle with craft wondrous item, and came back with a beastly build and items so he had a hissy fit about it and changed the rules around.
This meant that my character was sorely behind the others and the encounters we were facing, and
This was common. Basically any time he didn't like something, the rules changed without him so much as consulting the group. He then changed the item creation rules so that it cost full price, thus negating the point of the feat entirely.
He was like a toddler throwing a tantrum, it was hilarious because I kept thwarting him even after he changed the rules.
I'm a GM now, and while I do make adjustments sometimes, I always talk it out with my players and get their feedback.
|
It wasn't a rules thing per se, but I had one GM who couldn't decide what genre or style of game he was running. One day the game would operate as a simlationist game, the next narrativist, one day a superhero setting, the next horror, the next basically a video game (boss fights and all). And so on and so forth. And strongly enforced the genre conventions of whatever it was this week. It made making actual sensible plans nearly impossible, and was annoying as hell and damaging to verisimilitude to boot. He also tended to have nigh-omnipotent NPCs (usually either angels or Lucifer himself) who would mess with the PCs however they felt like with nothing said PCs could do about it. Which was also a definite problem...
Another GM I knew had omnicompetent villains. They never made mistakes, always knew what the PCs were doing as well as the GM did, and were all always willing to suicide to avoid being questioned (in a modern game, they all had implanted explosives). And that's just to start with. This was true across multiple games, and highly annoying.
That second GM also once assassinated a character of mine purely for non-IC reasons (they were game related, but purely meta, and I had no real chance), which led to my leaving their game and never returning.
Actual rules changes, while potentially bad especially if not noted in advance, are pretty much never as bad as s+&~ like this.
. . .
I was playing a rogue and he was always trying to find reasons my evasion shouldnt work but were not supported by the rules. "I just dont see how a rogue is going to evade on a rope bridge?"Of course he was playing a sorc who had a soultion to every problem. "Well we are in the jungle and rules say when frightened we run in a straight line as fast as possible. That means the rogue jumps in the fast moving river probably risking death while my sorc casts levitate at the river bank and just goes up...."
The final straw was a giant bat in a cave we fought. He convinced the GM that my rogue would drop his weapon when the bat grappled him. Once the fight was over he told the GM since the floor was covered in mud and crap that there should be a 50/50 chance of my rogue finding his weapon. I had had enough at that point and quit.
I'd tell the jerk a rogue's evasion works in a 10' by 10' room when a 20' radius fireball falls on him. Deal with it.
Tell the cheater levitating straight up is a 90 degree change in movement, not a straight line, and stopping to spend six seconds casting a spell does not seem like running away as fast as possible.
Show that slimy simpleton, the opinionated idiot, that addled @$$, that grappling is not disarming and that "Instead of attempting to break or reverse the grapple, you can take any action that doesn’t require two hands to perform, such as cast a spell or make an attack or full attack with a light or one-handed weapon against any creature within your reach, including the creature that is grappling you. . . . "
. . .
Another GM I knew had omnicompetent villains. They never made mistakes, always knew what the PCs were doing as well as the GM did, and were all always willing to suicide to avoid being questioned (in a modern game, they all had implanted explosives). And that's just to start with. This was true across multiple games, and highly annoying.That second GM also once assassinated a character of mine purely for non-IC reasons (they were game related, but purely meta, and I had no real chance), which led to my leaving their game and never returning. . . .
Metagaming is Metagaming even when the DM does it.
Such... ridiculous... douche-baggery...
I've encountered one tonight, from a game I just quit (partially to the below rulings, partially to the fact that I felt like I was babysitting one of the players rather than playing with him).
I cast Sleep on two adjacent wolves, one of them saves, the other doesn't. Our Aegis kills the one that was awake.
DM: "As you kill that wolf, you knock it into the other wolf, waking it!"
Then my witch (white-haired archetype) makes an attack at a wolf, rolls a 1.
DM: Crit fumble! Roll fort save or be blinded for 1d4 rounds!
There was no mention of using crit fumble rules in the game posting (I wouldn't have joined it in the first place).
Yeah critical fumble tables are crazy bad for PCs.
It isn't that NPCs do or don't make more rolls, it IS that after a bad roll the next NPC just steps over the remains of the former one while if a PC makes a bad roll then they have to suffer with the consequences sometimes for quite a while.
And meanwhile there is one less opponent on the board. Arguably existance failure is a worse penalty.Yeah critical fumble tables are crazy bad for PCs.
It isn't that NPCs do or don't make more rolls, it IS that after a bad roll the next NPC just steps over the remains of the former one while if a PC makes a bad roll then they have to suffer with the consequences sometimes for quite a while.
GMs have a limitless supply of new NPCs. If there are too few on the board for a proper challenge the GM can just add more. If there are too few PCs on the board it usually just makes things harder for the survivors.
|
I suppose if you view it that way. An odd way to do it. There are more npcs, making more rolls, and usually worse at them, so their chance of confirming fumbles is higher. So the nods will make more rolls, and confirm them as fumbles a higher portion of the time. And usually the pcs can absorb a short temporary penalty that the majority of the npcs won't.And meanwhile there is one less opponent on the board. Arguably existance failure is a worse penalty.Yeah critical fumble tables are crazy bad for PCs.
It isn't that NPCs do or don't make more rolls, it IS that after a bad roll the next NPC just steps over the remains of the former one while if a PC makes a bad roll then they have to suffer with the consequences sometimes for quite a while.GMs have a limitless supply of new NPCs. If there are too few on the board for a proper challenge the GM can just add more. If there are too few PCs on the board it usually just makes things harder for the survivors.
When you're talking about such fumbles as 'lose an eye', or some other maiming, it's totally irrelevant that the goblin you just killed suffers from vision penalties, but it would be a long-term nerf to a low level PC.
One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.
Had that been the only bad ruling I would have been upset but I would have given him another chance. Unfortunately it was a series of rulings like that that made my character swallow a chromatic orb and end my time gaming with him.
Earlier in the same session we had found a minotaur who was looking for a fight. It was just myself and another thief so we ran. The minotaur yelled, "I smell dwarf!" and started chasing us. We hid in a small whole and I cast an illusion of a dwarf down the corridor so he would run past us. Instead he turned to us and attacked. No rolls to see if we were hiding in shadows. No rolls to see if he disblieved the illusion. Not even initiative. He simply attacked me. He didn't even randomly decide if he was going to attack myself or the other thief.
One of the worst GMs I've ever had.
An odd way to do it. {snip} And usually the pcs can absorb a short temporary penalty that the majority of the npcs won't.
I bolded the part that is in my experience the lie. Have you read some of the typical critical fumble results? Cut off an arm or leg, put out an eye, smash your weapon to pieces, ect. All of which have long term debilitating consequences for any PC that doesn't have a well prepared cleric or wish wizard standing right behind them.
Now if GMs used far more sedate results like: -1 to your next attack, -1 to your AC for the round, or simply drop your weapon where you are standing; then I can see that such things wouldn't be a big deal.
One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.
Had that been the only bad ruling I would have been upset but I would have given him another chance. Unfortunately it was a series of rulings like that that made my character swallow a chromatic orb and end my time gaming with him.
Earlier in the same session we had found a minotaur who was looking for a fight. It was just myself and another thief so we ran. The minotaur yelled, "I smell dwarf!" and started chasing us. We hid in a small whole and I cast an illusion of a dwarf down the corridor so he would run past us. Instead he turned to us and attacked. No rolls to see if we were hiding in shadows. No rolls to see if he disblieved the illusion. Not even initiative. He simply attacked me. He didn't even randomly decide if he was going to attack myself or the other thief.
One of the worst GMs I've ever had.
I don't know how scent worked in 2nd edition, but in 3e it would have been pretty legitimate, especially if the minotaur was adjacent to the dwarf's hiding hole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dunno, even short term effects like being blinded for 4 rounds through no effort of the enemy made me quite mad. How can someone possibly be that bad at a combat style they're trained in?
I don't know how scent worked in 2nd edition, but in 3e it would have been pretty legitimate, especially if the minotaur was adjacent to the dwarf's hiding hole.One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.
Had that been the only bad ruling I would have been upset but I would have given him another chance. Unfortunately it was a series of rulings like that that made my character swallow a chromatic orb and end my time gaming with him.
Earlier in the same session we had found a minotaur who was looking for a fight. It was just myself and another thief so we ran. The minotaur yelled, "I smell dwarf!" and started chasing us. We hid in a small whole and I cast an illusion of a dwarf down the corridor so he would run past us. Instead he turned to us and attacked. No rolls to see if we were hiding in shadows. No rolls to see if he disblieved the illusion. Not even initiative. He simply attacked me. He didn't even randomly decide if he was going to attack myself or the other thief.
One of the worst GMs I've ever had.
I should have been given a chance. He smelled dwarf and saw dwarf. I was a gnome and the other character was human. He pin pointed us without hesitation down a hallway. We should have been given a chance. At a minimum we should have had the chance to roll initiative. One or both of us could have had a chance to back stab. This GM ccontinuously targeted me no matter what character I played and his friend always was given favorable conditions. He was allowed to make Intelligence checks with an average intelligence but my illusionist with a much higher Intelligence was never allowed one.
I dunno, even short term effects like being blinded for 4 rounds through no effort of the enemy made me quite mad. How can someone possibly be that bad at a combat style they're trained in?
It's not that someone is that bad at it. With confirmation rolls, you very much have the opponents AC playing a part. I see that as them knocking your sword back into your face as you try to strike them. If you just had a 5% chance to stab yourself, though, I'd agree with you.
I dunno, even short term effects like being blinded for 4 rounds through no effort of the enemy made me quite mad. How can someone possibly be that bad at a combat style they're trained in?
Also, something like blinded is going to either A: be a one round deal or B: allow an appropriate save to get rid of it at a not too difficult DC. Bad things happen even to good players. Prople come down wrong and their hamstring pulls. Etcetera. Even experts make some odd flubs.
I dunno, even short term effects like being blinded for 4 rounds through no effort of the enemy made me quite mad. How can someone possibly be that bad at a combat style they're trained in?It's not that someone is that bad at it. With confirmation rolls, you very much have the opponents AC playing a part. I see that as them knocking your sword back into your face as you try to strike them. If you just had a 5% chance to stab yourself, though, I'd agree with you.
So, if I can unintentionally blind myself for 4 rounds, it should be fairly easy to intentionally blind my opponent for 4 rounds, right?
I've encountered one tonight, from a game I just quit (partially to the below rulings, partially to the fact that I felt like I was babysitting one of the players rather than playing with him).
(SNIP)
There was no mention of using crit fumble rules in the game posting (I wouldn't have joined it in the first place).
If you're playing a witch, you can make fumble rules work for you: Just take Misfortune, and give your opponents something you can laugh at.
Personally, I dislike fumble rules in PF - partly because I signed on to play Prospero or Conan, not Laurel and Hardy, and partially because some critical tables will let characters screw themselves up in ways that an enemy battleaxe to the face couldn't do, which just seems _wrong_.
I went with White-Haired Witch, so I traded out hexes (yes, a suboptimal choice even in normal games, I know). I definitely would've stuck with hexes if I knew that was going to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In 30 years of gaming and using fumble rules I have never seen the problems I read about on forums. Maybe the rules aren't for some people but many of us have not had them be a negative experience.
Epic Arbane, totally epic.
The problem with fumbles usually comes down to most GMs not having a degree in (or, sadly, a basic understanding of) statistics. Even with confirmation rolls, the chance of a fighter fumbling increases as he gains levels, which to me just seems farcical. Woe to the poor giant octopus!
Furthermore, in my experience, GM's who introduce fumble rules tend to be of a... certain kind, which I would normally prefer to avoid. I'm making no extrapolation to forum users here - personal experience is a poor indicator of a general rule!
I've had a GM, admittedly back when we were quite young, decide that my natural 1 followed by natural 1 meant I instantly disembowled myself and had to write up a new character. That's an extreme experience admittedly, but I've never had a fumble be anything but a) annoying or b) rage-inducing.
|
|
| 25 people marked this as a favorite. |
To try to get us back onto the topic as opposed to 'fumbles, they be mean' which is another topic entirely... I offer more horror stories from Spook's past as a player.
I call this the Poison Chronicles. Its a part of the 'Why Spook ends up the DM instead of other people' file too.
Spook walks into an inn, interacts with a barmaid, discovers she is coated in fatal contact poison (as a matter of course) and immediately dies. When inquiring why a food and beverage provider would be coated in poison, is informed that it is a 'rough part of town.' Apparently barmaids are immune to their own contact poison, so they're like jellyfish apparently.
Spook beds down for the night, discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous adders, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag.
Spook again at an inn, during the initial 'you meet at an inn' is required to make a save vs poison along with the rest of the party, two party members die from 'fatal argot poisoning' from the bread. Is informed this is a 'risk of the middle ages.'
Spook beds down for the night, checks his bag for snakes, and discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous scorpions despite being in the frigid north, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag for scorpions .
Spook manages to find an inn that does not have argot bread, or poisonous jellyfish barmaids, and he and the group again are required to make saves vs poison. Apparently the latrine is populated by poisonous five inch wide (!) black widow spiders. Two party members, including Spook, perish. When questioned on why we would enter into a chamber of horrors populated by half-foot wide poison spiders instead of burning said place down for the good of mankind, are informed 'you just had to go that bad.'
And the topper..
Spook purchases anti-toxin. He takes it when the party has expectation of encountering poisonous situations, fails his poison save, and dies. Anti-toxin was apparently, unbeknownst to Spook, made by the alchemist's apprentice who mistakenly filled the vial full of a virulent 'ant toxin' instead, resulting in me drinking insecticide.
I will add, these were Forgotten Realms 2e games, not paranoia.
To try to get us back onto the topic as opposed to 'fumbles, they be mean' which is another topic entirely... I offer more horror stories from Spook's past as a player.
I call this the Poison Chronicles. Its a part of the 'Why Spook ends up the DM instead of other people' file too.
Spook walks into an inn, interacts with a barmaid, discovers she is coated in fatal contact poison (as a matter of course) and immediately dies. When inquiring why a food and beverage provider would be coated in poison, is informed that it is a 'rough part of town.' Apparently barmaids are immune to their own contact poison, so they're like jellyfish apparently.
Spook beds down for the night, discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous adders, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag.
Spook again at an inn, during the initial 'you meet at an inn' is required to make a save vs poison along with the rest of the party, two party members die from 'fatal argot poisoning' from the bread. Is informed this is a 'risk of the middle ages.'
Spook beds down for the night, checks his bag for snakes, and discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous scorpions despite being in the frigid north, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag for scorpions .
Spook manages to find an inn that does not have argot bread, or poisonous jellyfish barmaids, and he and the group again are required to make saves vs poison. Apparently the latrine is populated by poisonous five inch wide (!) black widow spiders. Two party members, including Spook, perish. When questioned on why we would enter into a chamber of horrors populated by half-foot wide poison spiders instead of burning said place down for the good of...
more proof of Forgotten Realms evil.
Furthermore, in my experience, players who bring up statistics with respect to dice rolls tend to be of a... certain kind, which I would normally prefer to avoid. I'm making no extrapolation to forum users here - personal experience is a poor indicator of a general rule!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spook walks into an inn, interacts with a barmaid, discovers she is coated in fatal contact poison (as a matter of course) and immediately dies. When inquiring why a food and beverage provider would be coated in poison, is informed that it is a 'rough part of town.' Apparently barmaids are immune to their own contact poison, so they're like jellyfish apparently.
How did people survive long enough to breed in these games, if they have to make saves against lethal poison when interacting with other people, eating food, attempting to use the privy, attempting to sleep, and attempting to resist poison? These are all kind of...daily things except for the last one (which probably would be a normal daily activity in this world).
... I call this the Poison Chronicles. Its a part of the 'Why Spook ends up the DM instead of other people' file too.
Spook walks into an inn, interacts with a barmaid, discovers she is coated in fatal contact poison (as a matter of course) and immediately dies. When inquiring why a food and beverage provider would be coated in poison, is informed that it is a 'rough part of town.' Apparently barmaids are immune to their own contact poison, so they're like jellyfish apparently.
Spook beds down for the night, discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous adders, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag.
Spook again at an inn, during the initial 'you meet at an inn' is required to make a save vs poison along with the rest of the party, two party members die from 'fatal argot poisoning' from the bread. Is informed this is a 'risk of the middle ages.'
Spook beds down for the night, checks his bag for snakes, and discovers that his sleeping bag (which he purchased recently and which has been on his horse) is infested with a variety of poisonous scorpions despite being in the frigid north, being 2e, he fails a poison save and dies. is informed that he did not expressly indicate he was checking the bag for scorpions .
Spook manages to find an inn that does not have argot bread, or poisonous jellyfish barmaids, and he and the group again are required to make saves vs poison. Apparently the latrine is populated by poisonous five inch wide (!) black widow spiders. Two party members, including Spook, perish. When questioned on why we would enter into a chamber of horrors populated by half-foot wide poison spiders instead of burning said place down for the good of mankind, are informed 'you just had to go that bad.'
And the topper..
Spook purchases anti-toxin. He takes it when the party has expectation of encountering poisonous situations, fails his poison save, and dies. Anti-toxin was apparently, unbeknownst to Spook, made by the alchemist's apprentice who mistakenly filled the vial full of a virulent 'ant toxin' instead, resulting in me drinking insecticide.
I will add, these were Forgotten Realms 2e games, not paranoia.
In all fairness, I know some people (game masters AND players) who enjoy games like this. I'm not one of them, but they are out there.
|
One of the worst rulings a GM did to me was in a 2nd edition game. I was playing a gnome illusionist/thief. We were sneaking past a bunch of sleeping goblins. The GM ruled that I made so much noise that I woke the goblins. It wasn't the paladin in full plate (his best friend) or anyone else. It wasn't the prisoners we had just freed. It was the completely silent, unarmored, no metal carrying or wearing character trained to be silent. He used it to cut me off from the rest of the party.
This was a common thing, in 1E and 2E games.
Because the rules didn't include an official skills system, except for the handwavy 'secondary skills/professions', or the 'non-Weapon Proficiencies' of 2E and late 1e (from Oriental Adventures , Wilderness/Dungeoneers Survival Guide), there were wide swathes of the game for which no rules existed, and you had to rely on GM fiat.
One of the ways GMs got round that was to ask for ability checks, after all, the NWPs were ability checks, so there's precedent, right?
And the skills a Thief got as part of his class were things that, strictly speaking, there was little reason to disallow other people doing...so...
The player of a Thief would cross-ref his level on the table (or in 2E, he'd spend a pool of points), to find his success chances.
The Thief would either be great at one or two things, or 'meh' across the board, till he'd got some levels.
The non-Thief PCs? They didn't have a Move Silently skill, or Hide in Shadows, or anything else. And that can't be right. So the GM says "Roll a Dex check" with the aim of rolling less than their stat.
Result? Everyone in the party is allowed an attempt, at chances of (stat x 5%).
The Thief?
"No, you've got a skill listed for this. Use that."
"I've got Dex 16, so I should pass 16 times out of 20."
"No, you've got a skill listed for this. Use that."
"But that skill is only 30%. I stand a better chance at 16/20."
"No, you've got a skill listed for this. Use that."
Deciding to play a Thief made you worse at thieving than an untrained Dex 10 Commoner.
How old was the GM Spook? Didn't any of the players voice their disapproval at this treatment?