Frustrated at GM - Just Venting

[Thomas Long 175]

GreyWolfLord wrote:

Alex Smith 908 wrote:

GreyWolfLord wrote:

It really depends on the player too.

No it doesn't. If they enjoy powerful builds what's the problem? If they're being a jerk and refusing to work with the party that's an out of game problem. Solve it by talking out of game like reasonable adults. Trying to solve out of game problems in game is always a bad idea, and usually a sign of extreme immaturity. Nerfing someone to make the game less fun until someone leaves is just passive aggressive cowardice. If the player was bad enough that they're making "everyone else miserable" talk it out and as a last resort ban them.

Also the idea that there is some level of rules mastery that make someone "deserve" to no longer have fun is toxic. That sort of attitude is the worst part of this community. It is just as bad as the idea that people who have difficulty with the rules need to "suck it up", and needs to leave just as badly if we are to have a healthy gaming community.

There's a difference between a jerk and someone who optimizes. There's a difference between powerful builds, and powerbuilding for the sake of powerbuilding.

A prime example is a story someone posted of their group a while back. They were playing a roguelike who liked to steal. One evening, they waited for everyone to sleep, then started killing them while they slept, turned ethereal so it was harder to hit them when the characters started to wake, and abused a few rules to TPK the party.

Understandably everyone else was upset...but the player who killed them all didn't understand why. Afterall, they used the rules and roleplayed exactly what type of character they were...some jerk who would kill their fellow party members and steal their stuff.

Personally, if the DM started making houseruling such as, they get a roll to suddenly wake up if they feel some sort of threat, and then automatically hit ethereal creatures or some nonsense....as a player I'd probably be relieved.

It was probably obvious the rest...

And the problem is in no way his build, or the rules, its his behavior at the table. Part of the general social contract, unless stated otherwise by the group is that you don't kill teammates.

[GreyWolfLord]

@Thomas Long...

I'm not going to argue with you over what it means to be a jerk and a powerbuild, there are enough examples of what some do like that on these boards.

We'll just see things differently.

I have no problem with a DM houseruing on the spot to stop abuse of the rules or stopping someone from destroying others fun.

From what I gather you would rather have a player abuse the rules and stop others from having fun than houserule to stop it...OR stop the entire game itself and toss everyone else out of the house in mid game so that you and the problem player can "talk."

At least that's what I'm gathering from it.

That's okay, gaming preferences differ, and opinions differ. I don't think I can really understand why you'd have the position or opinion on this that you do, and it could be that you can't understand mine.

It is more than likely we probably wouldn't play in each other's games due to these differences (at least if a jerk player ever showed up to play in either of our groups),

But that's okay.

We can agree to disagree on this.

Either way, it's dragging this topic off topic into a much discussed item found in multiple threads other places.

More on topic, it would be more apt for the GM to have waited till the end of the session to enforce the rule...and probably also allow for a rebuild...

But we are only hearing one side of the story. From what the player describes there was no such abuse (of players and rules...remember...I combine them both for the toxic combo) going on by them...so I'd like to hear the GM's reasonings for deciding what they did. I hypothesized one reason...but without the GM it's impossible to know what the nuances of the decision were or what was behind it.

It's okay for the player to vent considering the situation...as long as they didn't storm off at the table...

That said, I'd still be interested in what the GM's viewpoint was and why the decision to do that was made.

On the other topic that the thread was slightly derailed in, once again, I have no problem agreeing to disagree on those ideas.

[Diminuendo]

I kind of don't like how people are accusing me of being a jerk, they dont know the situation.

Now, I didn't get a single combat with the Shield Mastery feat, we were talking before the game and he said he wouldn't allow it.

My shield also had not enchantments yet.

I actually didn't intend to get advice on this issue, I just wanted to vent my frustration. I did accept the houserule after calling BS on the ruling.

A Skirmisher Ranger is effectively a Fighter, as he has no spellcasting.

I also want to point out that this GM is known for powergaming himself, im my ROTRL campaign he tried to take the Magical Knack Trait twice for his Mystic Therge.

[GreyWolfLord]

Diminuendo wrote:

I kind of don't like how people are accusing me of being a jerk, they dont know the situation.

Now, I didn't get a single combat with the Shield Mastery feat, we were talking before the game and he said he wouldn't allow it.

My shield also had not enchantments yet.

I actually didn't intend to get advice on this issue, I just wanted to vent my frustration. I did accept the houserule after calling BS on the ruling.

A Skirmisher Ranger is effectively a Fighter, as he has no spellcasting.

I also want to point out that this GM is known for powergaming himself, im my ROTRL campaign he tried to take the Magical Knack Trait twice for his Mystic Therge.

Sorry if you mistook my comments. I specifically stated it did NOT sound like you were abusing or being a jerk from what you described.

It was a side joint where I listed reasons why GM's may make on the spot houserulings while trying to figure out the GM's reasoning.

It devolved into another discussion into that arena. My last post before this one was an attempt to get back on topic from that.

My main thoughts are what was the GM's reasoning, and I'm guessing that he wants fighters to be the best at fighting in his world, and things that go counter to that, he nixes?

That's a wild guess on my part though.

If the GM is a powergamer himself, it could be that he sees something that could be abused later on that he himself would take advantage of and is trying to close the lid before it is opened?

In anycase, it's impossible to know what the GM's reasoning for the decision was without having the GM give their side.

AS I previously stated, it's okay to vent as long as you didn't go storming off.

It also probably would have been more tactful if the GM had let you do a rebuild and only reinforced the houserule after the gaming session was over so you'd have a chance to rebuild the character in light of the new houserule.