hi, I'm a player. maybe a difficult one and I'm currently in a game with a GM who I feel is being difficult.
I'm still relatively new to the game and was wondering, whats the best protocol when stuff people start butting heads.
I'll give a little more information. and being honest, it hasn't become an issue, mainly because I've just rolled over and gone with it, though I'm not happy with the GM's decisions and it negatively effects my enjoyment of the game.
just for some specifics. I wanted to get an Agile Breastplate, its a 400g breastplate that decreases the armour check penalty from -4 to -1 on climb and jump checks. he's disallowed them and I don't really know why. he just doesn't like them.
the second issue is that, I'm playing a ranger and I'm not allowed to have a wolf as an animal companion. so I have to settle with a dog. I said that I wanted a wolf so that once the wolf gets big enough (becomes large at level 7) I can ride it. he said no, and that I can't ride a large wolf or a large cat. He also didn't want me to have a wolf because it doesn't fit the theme (pirate) which, personally. I don't understand. the climate is tropical and wolves can live in tropical area's but yeah, I'm not allowed.
I guess my major issue is, I don't understand where or why he draws the line. it feels like i'm playing chess with someone whose changed the rules for arbitrary reasons. I don't understand why a magical halfling bowman is fine but a more highly flexible crafted breastplate isn't.
I also feel its important to note, that why'll this thread is detailing my issues I have with the gm. he is a good gm, he is passionate and puts a lot of thought into the game and for all of the few things that bug me theirs a lot he does right. the point of this thread is really just for advice on how to deal with clashes and hopefully learn how to pre-emptively deal with them.
Openly and honestly communicating how you feel is usually a good way of doing things. I would start by explaining your uncertainty - highlight that you do have certain ideas for your character, but because things are disallowed in a way you don't entirely understand, it's hard for you to plan out your character and this is making things more difficult for you than it should be.
Try explaining what you want to do, then asking what the best way of doing that would be. Good GMs are generally willing to cooperate and find something you can both work with, and since he does seem to be pretty good overall... ^^
yeah, I guess I'm just gonna have to bite the bullet and reopen the discussion. hope it goes well. I'm also quite new to the group so that makes it harder. I don't wanna be the new guy whose walked in and demand everything change for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The simple solution to that is don't demand everything change - make sure that you communicate that you're can accept his restrictions, but you can't really predict what they will be since he's not really explaining them and that's affecting your ability to plan ahead and form a cohesive concept that works for you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On the one hand, his restrictions are... odd, on the other hand I can certainly understand not letting you have an animal companion, as in my experience, pets, summons etc really just serve to clog things.
Since he isn't letting you take a wolf, then you should probably drop the dog, as it's not useful, and take something which is moderately more so, like the alternative companion bond with your party, or perhaps an archetype that replaces the bond with something more useful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the first step would be to ask for a COMPLETE list of all his house rules/changes.
Im impressed he didnt deliver this to you before you even made your PC.
After said list is given to you , then i would try to work out a deal where both parties can be happy.
He seems like a nice guy with a strong view of how the world should behave , which is fine , but he should have informed you the new guy exactly what he is changing to make it happen.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First off, nothing you have asked for is at all unreasonable, weird, or even slightly upping any sort of character power curve. Just wanted to get that out of the way.
As far as your concerns, you might try talking to him about what he is hoping this particular game is going to be like. This is something that players almost always fail to do. True, it would be nice if all GMs made a players guide to their games, but lets get real, most GMs arent going to do that. Doesnt mean they don't have an image in their mind of how their campaign is going to go.
It sounds to me like he has it in mind to do a pirate themed game, much like skull and shackles. Find out if this is true and how much he is focused on this aspect of the game. Perhaps this is why he balks at wolves as ACs, but might let you have a saltwater crocodile or and african cat with no problem. If this is the case, then my first suggestion is to make sure your character concept fits into that campaign image, and if not, try to come up with a character concept that does fit or see if you can adjust your existing character without sacrificing things that are important about it to you. Knowing what he envisions for his campaign should also give you a better feel for things he might allow or not allow. It also gives you an angle to argue for things you might want that he says no to initially :)
It sounds like you appreciate the work and energy the GM puts into the game, so consider jumping into the spirit of his game. The alternative of course is to butt heads or walk away.
I will say that the armor thing sounds like he is just unfamiliar with this new thing and his inclination is to say "no" because he doesnt know it or (if he is an old school player) its not traditional. If he has been playing a while, then you might find he tends to get traditional about things and not want to add in the latest and greatest rules and toys. If this is the case, then you and he may have to work this one out betwen the two of you regarding what is permissible.
I agree that he should try to give you what his houserules are in advance. As a longtime GM, I try to make sure any curveballs or major changes/subtractions to my campaigns are listed and clearly explained up front, usually in a players guide or campaign house rules document. That way you arent springing things on players 5 levels into their builds, and taking away things they have been dreaming about using since 1st level :) The unpleasant truth is that there are always things that will pop up that the GM may not have thought of in advance, so even with a house rules list, you might get some surprises.
Many Dms do not have the experience of being a DM to handle things they are not prepared for.
Me, I allow almost anything that is now letting the PC power well beyond the rest of the party. Also I know how to balance a party as a DM. It can be very easy to give items, curses and boons to players to balance things out.
Now your DM wants to mold fit you into his fantasy. I see this often on these boards. Honestly very few realize this or will adjust away from this. And if he does adjust it may take his heart from it.
My advice, adapt your game to what he wants. Try to live in his fantasy. Ask him what he is looking for and change. If that is not fun for you, you can leave the game.
It is hard to know how to deal with a situation when a player conflicts with GM constantly, I have had this happen a lot of times in my group, me being the one that causes it the most. Keep in mind the GM is the final arbiter when making decisions when it comes what to allow and disallow. And while no two GM's are the same it is still a GM's job to make sure the pathfinder game is both fun and fair to all the players involved. As another player pointed out to me one time during a heated discussion with my own GM:
The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
If the game still continues not to be fun for you after this, then as Finlanderboy said it may be time to leave the game.
Nox and everyone else who agree with him are correct: avoid present and future conflicts with the GM by getting his actual expectations up front.
No Pathfinder is better than bad Pathfinder. If you find the final set of expectations to be unreasonable, just walk away and save yourself a whole lot of pain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the sensible way to go.
I once had a GM who outright banned spontaneous casters, about a third of the way into a campaign with two sorcerers. He forced them both to become wizards and for the rest of the game the only spontaneous caster we met was a GMPC (until the wizards set off a magical nuke and destroyed ALL spontaneous casting life up to and including dragons).
Far better to talk about it like adults. You are doing the sensible thing - carry on!
While this may or may not have any relevancy to your past GM rulings, one possible avenue of his disallowance of the Agile Breastplate might be that it first came out in the Advanced Player Guide (and later got reprinted in Ultimate Equipment); so if he just wanted stuff from the Core Rulebook used, that might explain that little rules disconnect.
While this may or may not have any relevancy to your past GM rulings, one possible avenue of his disallowance of the Agile Breastplate might be that it first came out in the Advanced Player Guide (and later got reprinted in Ultimate Equipment); so if he just wanted stuff from the Core Rulebook used, that might explain that little rules disconnect.
nah its not that, one of the players is a magus and the other is playing a monster race, Lizardfolk.
You need to talk, and find out what the GM likes and dislikes.
You can start by asking 'how do I make sure my character fits your campaign?'
Follow that with 'how do I make sure I'm at the same power level as the other PCs?'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a GM runs a game he will usually have a definite idea of what type of game he wants to run. Some characters and idea’ do not fit in to the game he is running. The character or ability may be perfectly legal but just doesn’t fit the campaign the GM is running. While the idea of playing a greedy thief who’s is willing to sell his mother into slaver for a coper piece may be cool. Playing that character in a campaign where the players are freedom fighters trying t to bring down a corrupt tyrant is not going to work well. In some cases you may be able to modify the character so that it is acceptable, but other times the character simply does not fit. In that case the best thing to do is to save the character concept and play it in another campaign.
Another thing to consider is sometimes the GM has plans for how the campaign is going to go that make certain concepts or options less valuable or even totally useless. I can see a couple of problems with the wolf companion. First is that much of the game is taking place on ship, or if you are traveling by ship between adventures for a long time feeding and exercising the wolf is going to be difficult. Also many crew members may be unwilling to sail with a wolf the size of a horse on board. Another thing is if most of the adventures are going to be dungeon crawls taking the wolf with you may be a problem. Your GM may be simply trying to save you from having a totally useless companion, but not wanting to give away too much of the campaign.
I don’t really understand the reason behind the agile breastplate, but I also don’t have all the information either. In any event it is probably only relevant at early levels. Once you can afford it a mithral breastplate is going to be better anyways. A mithral breastplate has an armor check penalty of only -1. This can be totally eliminated by taking the trait armor expert which is probably a good investment for a range anyways.
When a GM runs a game he will usually have a definite idea of what type of game he wants to run. Some characters and idea’ do not fit in to the game he is running. The character or ability may be perfectly legal but just doesn’t fit the campaign the GM is running. While the idea of playing a greedy thief who’s is willing to sell his mother into slaver for a coper piece may be cool. Playing that character in a campaign where the players are freedom fighters trying t to bring down a corrupt tyrant is not going to work well. In some cases you may be able to modify the character so that it is acceptable, but other times the character simply does not fit. In that case the best thing to do is to save the character concept and play it in another campaign.
Another thing to consider is sometimes the GM has plans for how the campaign is going to go that make certain concepts or options less valuable or even totally useless. I can see a couple of problems with the wolf companion. First is that much of the game is taking place on ship, or if you are traveling by ship between adventures for a long time feeding and exercising the wolf is going to be difficult. Also many crew members may be unwilling to sail with a wolf the size of a horse on board. Another thing is if most of the adventures are going to be dungeon crawls taking the wolf with you may be a problem. Your GM may be simply trying to save you from having a totally useless companion, but not wanting to give away too much of the campaign.
I don’t really understand the reason behind the agile breastplate, but I also don’t have all the information either. In any event it is probably only relevant at early levels. Once you can afford it a mithral breastplate is going to be better anyways. A mithral breastplate has an armor check penalty of only -1. This can be totally eliminated by taking the trait armor expert which is probably a good investment for a range anyways.
well as of right now we have our own ship. and to be honest the maintenance of a wolf would only be an issue if the GM decides to make it an issue. I mean we don't have to detail every time we need to eat or go to the bathroom or anything so I don't see why we should demand that of an animal companion. and we haven't really had a dungeon crawl yet in the game. and if we did I don't see why a wolf couldn't come in. I mean if a dungeon is so small that a medium creature can just fit into then you can't really expect a medium creature to be able to fight in those conditions.
It depends on the GM and the level or realism he wants. If I were running a wolf would probably be ok until 7th level. At that point it is basically a dire wolf so feeding it would be a problem. Also where is it going to be kept? Even modern ships have very cramped quarters so keeping it in your quarters is not going to work. Having a giant wild animal out in the open is going to cause problems with the crew. The other PC’s are not the issue, but any NPC’s will more than likely refuse to get near it.
I don’t require details about meals and bathrooms, but I do require the characters to have a way to feed themselves. That means they either have to have rations or a good enough survival to live off the land.
In order to use an animal as a mount it has to be one size larger than your character. Unless you are playing a small race that means to use the wolf as a mount it has to be large. Wolves do become large at 7th level and that is where the problem would start occurring. Before that many people may not even recognize it is a wolf. But once it becomes large it has a lot of problems. Most dungeons are going to be built for medium sized creatures. That means a large animal is going to have a lot of trouble.
If you have ever been in an actual castle or other building from the medieval times you would be surprised at actually how cramped they are. Even modern buildings in Europe are often smaller than people realize. My wife’s family is from England and her relatives can’t get over the size of our house. After visiting them in England I can understand this. The stairs are usually just big enough for a single person to go up at a time. A wolf the size of a Clydesdale is going not going to be able to deal with that. It may be able to get into a couple of the first rooms, but will have trouble fitting through most of the doors.
Like I said I don’t know the details of the campaign, but talk to your GM and see if there is a reason. It may be because of something he has planned. I have also seen several GM run it so in order to choose or replace an animal companion it has to be something you can find nearby. I had a GM veto one of my choices for an animal companion for that very reason
...
we would have means of feeding it, we keep rations on board the ship. we'd just have extra. and I have been to a lot of old buildings and the occasional castle. but its important to remember back when those were built the average person was at least a foot shorter. so whilst I've seen lots of 5 foot doorways its important to note that people are exponentially a lot taller then we were when they were built.
in a pathfinder setting the average hight of a person isn't that of a person from two-hundred years ago. its the hight of us now. and the campaign were running is skull and shackles. we've just started the second book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Undersized Mount would also let you ride a medium sized mount as a medium sized race. Not that I think this GM would let you take it. You don't HAVE to take the large size upgrade either, you can take the stat boost instead.
Undersized Mount would also let you ride a medium sized mount as a medium sized race. Not that I think this GM would let you take it. You don't HAVE to take the large size upgrade either, you can take the stat boost instead.
don't you get both?
"7th-Level Advancement
Size Large; AC +2 natural armor; Attack bite (1d8); Ability Scores Str +8, Dex –2, Con +4."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As you gain levels, your animal companion improves as well, usually at 4th or 7th level, in addition to the standard bonuses noted on Table: Animal Companion Base Statistics. Instead of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can instead choose to increase the companion's Dexterity and Constitution by 2.
That should do it.
As you gain levels, your animal companion improves as well, usually at 4th or 7th level, in addition to the standard bonuses noted on Table: Animal Companion Base Statistics. Instead of taking the listed benefit at 4th or 7th level, you can instead choose to increase the companion's Dexterity and Constitution by 2.That should do it.
ah okay, well for a wolf its just way better to stick with the upgrade on the table haha.
Yeah, unless it's the large size your GM is vetoing based on.
Which is just a random bit of theorizing from upthread anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having a talk is not only about the topic itself but also to give both sides a stronger feeling of understanding each other. Even if both sides discuss for a while without changing their mind at all, they at least understand what's important for the other side. Which can help at future conflicts.
I am tempted to speculate about your GM's motivations, but I will restrict myself to say the following: Usually it's not personal. A GM's ruling comes from somewhere (past experiences, own thoughts, setting considerations, read recommendations etc.), but often he does not introduce rules just because of you.
Sometimes it simply doesn't fit, so it's best to leave the group. But it doesn't hurt to try to figure something out - even if it is futile for this group, the improved talking skills can help with the next. And it can have positive longterm effects on the GM of the left group - if you care about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whenever I've joined a group and asked for their house rules, the best I've ever gotten was a 2 minute verbal barrage of what are honestly maybes and depends. I've never gotten a document. It almost never fails that something fairly fundamental (to me) comes out well after character creation. It can either be a simple tweak to a certain rule or simply disallowing certain combinations. Most recently, it was allowed that you could mechanically change your character before level 2. I found that out after reaching level 2. It's truly frustrating.
In this regard, I've not had what I would call a "good" experience. All it would take for that is to be notified of the actual house rules when I've asked for them in at least a somewhat comprehensive and honest manner. That's not asking for much, imo. When I've GMed, I've stuck with rulings I've hated just because I gave them out at character creation and that was the tone I set for the game and what the players agreed to. I don't get why it's apparently a difficult thing to do.
Your plan to talk to the GM is the best option, as usual.
Imho the agile breastplate should be almost an everyday item in a pirate themed world. On the other hand the tropical pirate wolf seems a bit odd. That's more a Viking thing to me.
|
It could simply be about balancing too... I'm currently playing Carrion Crown, which was designed for 4 players but there are 6 of us. So, already we have a balancing issue; allowing pets would only exacerbate the situation. As a result, the GM ruled no pets and everyone is fine with that because we understand why.
I'm on the "Talk it over with the GM" side, but I would also advise you to hold him accountable to what he says. It sounds like he keeps changing things mid-adventure, which is not good. Also, is he similarly restrictive with the other players, or just you? If he treats everyone else differently than he treats you, that's a serious problem and you should leave the game. If he's consistent with everyone, then it's not such a big issue and I would stick with it if the game is otherwise fun.
I had a GM for a while who nerfed every character I made into oblivion, but let a couple of his "favorite" players run horrendously broken, overpowered, and even illegal characters. I bailed on that GM and that was the right decision for me.
I love everything Mysterious Stranger said. It is rare I see that attitude on these boards. Most players seem to think the GM legally bound to allow anything the rules allow.
You've said the GM has put a lot of thought and effort into his game. He seems to have a vision and knows what his world is like. I can tell you, in my experience, this is the type of GM you want to play with. I've been in too many games where the GM had a vision of the game, but allowed characters that didn't really fit that vision and everything was a complete mess. The GM is probably telling you no for a reason. You have to assume that his goal is for everyone to have fun, and he may be telling you no, to ensure that happens. You really have two choices: Trust him and assume that is the case, or don't trust him. If you don't trust your GM, you should probably find another game.
I'm on the "Talk it over with the GM" side, but I would also advise you to hold him accountable to what he says. It sounds like he keeps changing things mid-adventure, which is not good. Also, is he similarly restrictive with the other players, or just you? If he treats everyone else differently than he treats you, that's a serious problem and you should leave the game. If he's consistent with everyone, then it's not such a big issue and I would stick with it if the game is otherwise fun.
I had a GM for a while who nerfed every character I made into oblivion, but let a couple of his "favorite" players run horrendously broken, overpowered, and even illegal characters. I bailed on that GM and that was the right decision for me.
So far I'm the only one whose had stuff disallowed in this game but I've been assured by the other players that in another game they're playing he's disallowed a horse for some reason. I don't know the details of that situation so I can't really comment.
I love everything Mysterious Stranger said. It is rare I see that attitude on these boards. Most players seem to think the GM legally bound to allow anything the rules allow.
You've said the GM has put a lot of thought and effort into his game. He seems to have a vision and knows what his world is like. I can tell you, in my experience, this is the type of GM you want to play with. I've been in too many games where the GM had a vision of the game, but allowed characters that didn't really fit that vision and everything was a complete mess. The GM is probably telling you no for a reason. You have to assume that his goal is for everyone to have fun, and he may be telling you no, to ensure that happens. You really have two choices: Trust him and assume that is the case, or don't trust him. If you don't trust your GM, you should probably find another game.
well one of my major issues is that I'm struggling to understand what the theme is. were playing the skull and shackles campaign, just started book two. and we've fought a lot of monsters, we have elves, orcs and halflings. one of our PC's is a lizard folk and the other is a magus. so we have magic as well. theres just a disconnect for me. I don't understand why some major fantasy elements are okay whilst some minor ones aren't. thats basically my issue, I just want more clarification.
I'd guess that maybe the DM feels agile breastplates or people riding giant dogs is "cheesy". I thought that the old 3.5 artwork where dire animals have random bony plates and knobs sticking out of them was goofy, but another guy I played with thought it made them look cool and "prehistoric".
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ask for a complete and inclusive list of his changes from the published rules.
After he provides that, use it.
If he can't provide a list of changes, then he is just making stuff up on the fly.
You then have to choose whether or not you want to be in a game that has rules that change on the fly.
I love everything Mysterious Stranger said. It is rare I see that attitude on these boards. Most players seem to think the GM legally bound to allow anything the rules allow.
You've said the GM has put a lot of thought and effort into his game. He seems to have a vision and knows what his world is like. I can tell you, in my experience, this is the type of GM you want to play with. I've been in too many games where the GM had a vision of the game, but allowed characters that didn't really fit that vision and everything was a complete mess. The GM is probably telling you no for a reason. You have to assume that his goal is for everyone to have fun, and he may be telling you no, to ensure that happens. You really have two choices: Trust him and assume that is the case, or don't trust him. If you don't trust your GM, you should probably find another game.
If his goal is for everyone to have fun and enjoy the game, then why didn't he provide a list of the rule changes in advance? Dropping rule changes on people like that in the middle of the game is pretty detrimental to the whole fun thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If his goal is for everyone to have fun and enjoy the game, then why didn't he provide a list of the rule changes in advance? Dropping rule changes on people like that in the middle of the game is pretty detrimental to the whole fun thing.I love everything Mysterious Stranger said. It is rare I see that attitude on these boards. Most players seem to think the GM legally bound to allow anything the rules allow.
You've said the GM has put a lot of thought and effort into his game. He seems to have a vision and knows what his world is like. I can tell you, in my experience, this is the type of GM you want to play with. I've been in too many games where the GM had a vision of the game, but allowed characters that didn't really fit that vision and everything was a complete mess. The GM is probably telling you no for a reason. You have to assume that his goal is for everyone to have fun, and he may be telling you no, to ensure that happens. You really have two choices: Trust him and assume that is the case, or don't trust him. If you don't trust your GM, you should probably find another game.
Character creation is when rules are discussed.
The GM does have the right to alter things after that, but anything more than the occasional tweak is just...
a jerk move.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If in the campaign in question, the DM is trying to recreate a realistic/historical Skull and Shackles campaign using the Fire as She Bears rules to add a level of detail and realism, the key house rule should be that players pick abilities and equipment that fits a pirate campaign. While an animal companion sounds fine - as a ranger most of these are pet-like animals - chosing to create a giant wolf rider doesnt sound in keeping with the campaign for all the reasons Mysterious Stranger mentioned above. Of all the possible ranger pet choices it is the least pirate like.
It would be impossible for a GM to make a full list of all the inappropriate comnbinations in a campaign system as complicated as Pathfinder. Many GMs make an assumption that Core is safe but items for expansions need prior approval. He may feel particularly strongly about normal items that ignore sensible restrictions like armour weight and armour mods.
If you spend all your time trying to confound your GM's style of campaign you will just frustrate both of you. He will always 'win' because DM's are ultimate arbitrators of the game but in reality you both lose because of the ill feeling derailing the campaign.
It would be impossible for a GM to make a full list of all the inappropriate comnbinations in a campaign system as complicated as Pathfinder. Many GMs make an assumption that Core is safe but items for expansions need prior approval.
Yes, this is exactly what I do in my games. Everything in the CRB is fine, anything outside that can be requested but will be allowed or disallowed on a case-by-case basis. I say this to my players at the outset, so they know that's the way it will run.
|
|
He's the DM. It's his setting. He's the artist. You have every right to make your case if you don't like his judgements, but the DM always gets the final call.
What you (and everyone) ought to do is to take the "animal behavior" aspect out of this entirely, and view the DM as not a person, but as the laws of nature for the game: something you can't argue with, but because they're the facts of reality, not because they're an unreasoning "authority figure." They're not. They're not a person at all. They simply are.
Maybe riding a shark is less realistic than riding a wolf, but the shark is definitely more thematic for a pirate-based game like Skull and Shackles.