I am a bad DM, help me out.

[Kenneth]

So after reading some threads haveing to do with various questions and roles and such about DMs actions and such I have found out that I am a terribel DM. I need help it seems for I have been doing it wrong for a few decades now.

I am going to give examples of scenarios that have happened in my Games over the years, and that I have went one way, which was appearntly teh incorrect way to go about it. I am asking for exactly how I should have went about it and why my stance on such in inherently wrong.

First

I was starting an aquatic campaign after a couple of my friends were talking about how they have never had one, and thouhgt it would be intersting to be in a wholey alien environment.

long story short. One of the players created a Sea elven Druid who was afraid of most of the surface races and very homebody-ish (i.e he never hardly left the sea elven city and when he did it was only to teh nearby trading post of the tritons). yet he chose a camel as his animal companion.

I look at him confused for a moment and said "no, that makes no sense for you character" Now what I did was wrong, I should have allowed him his camel sicne I am not allowed to tell a player that something about his character is not right. But I do not see how it was wrong. Just need soem clearification on what I am doing wrong in this situation.

Second
A player wanted to be an Enchanter going into the mind bender PrC. I told him 'well you already figured out that one of the bad guys is an artificer ( not the class a wizard who makes golems other constructs) and at some point you are going tohave to fight him and your charm persons, suggestions and dominate are useless against constructs. so maybe you should just saty straight enchanter instead of going all the way into mindbender, I'll even allow you to trade you mindbender levels back for regular wizard levels) " He said he knew and that he wanted to be a mind Bender. so the time came for them to get into teh artificer's stronghold (an old tin mine the PCs were lvl 17 by this time and would probably have been lvl 18 close to 19 by the end) anyways h as I told him earlier his charm persons and such did not work againts the goelms and clockworks guards the artificer had, and of course he spent the last 1/3 of the dungeon whining (the player not teh character) about how none of his abilites and most of his spells were not working.

Now I know that I should have allowed him charms, compulsions and such to work against the golems and other constructs. but again I am at a loss to figure out why I would do such a thing. You help would be appreciated in enlightening me agin to my incorrect style of DMing.

Third
Unearthed Arcana had just been released and my group was excited about the maybe new rules of awesome. Unfortunatly most of us did not like the whole gestalt idea. but one guy did. so our next campaign ( we started at lvl 7) everybody made their character and the guy asked if he could be a gestalt monk/rogue. I aksed if everybody was into using teh geslalt rules and the rest of them said no. the guy looked unhappy about that so I said this " K hows about a half way deal? you can geslat but only at half level so you 7monk/4rogue..? I think it is only fair as nobody else is interested in playing gestalt." A little later ( actually about 3 or 4 session later) we got into teh first combat he had been given a speical abilty that when he strikes with an unarmed/natural attack he deals 1d4 str damage if they fail a save(think touch of golden ice like) he attacks and deals hsi dmg +fire damage+str dmg to which i said, "no str dmg" he askes why not it is an ability of his and i say 'becuase you are attacking with your fiery gauntlets. then i had to explain to him the difference between attacking with a natural attack/unarmed attack and puching somebody wearing gauntlets. summed up i said ' whne you attack with your gauntlets equipped it the gautlets that are doing teh damage and the fire damage. you are not touching them so your debuff does not process through. he then argued that a neckalce can give his hands the ability to be flaming so why can't his gauntlets do the same thing? I siad refer to my previous statement. he thne got up and left never to come back to play with any of us again.

Now I know I should have let him go full gestalt and be able to use his needed unarmed/natual attack only special ability work when using something besides his unarmed/natural attacks. again i am at a complete loss on understnding why I was wrong. Please playground steer me in the right way so that I might be a much improved and 'cooler' DM for my players.

[Boci]

Assuming this isn't a joke thread.

1. Depends on the sea elves. I read one novel where they were very advanced and would certainly have had the resources to know of a camels existence. For water creatures a camel may be a fascinating creature, which is why he chose it as his animal companion.

2. You warned the player, you didn't do anything wrong. If it happens again maybe allow him to delvelop an ability to affect constructs with his enchantment spells, like a metamagic feat or something.

3. Gestaltwise you could have substituted it with the monk and rogue stacking feat, or allowed him to full gestalt with a +1 or 2 LA, depending on the part's optimization levels.
Gauntlets is a tricky case since it is in many ways a natural weapon. Maye an inchantment to allow the golden ice to work through them?

[The Underlord]

1. Did he have some back story to explain why he has a camel? If not, you should have asked him to include it in his backstory but let him have it.

2. If he was fully aware of the fact that his spells werent going to work and you offered to let him trade the levels, it is not really your fault.

3. I wouldnt have let his gesalt but it wouldnt have been too much of a problem because one side was a monk. I dont think you should have let him use the special unarmed only attack with a guantlet but you could have worked out a house rule to make it work.

Overall, I think your main problem is you feel bad if you restrict your players too much. One of the jobs as the dm is to enforce the rules but also change or fix rules as necesseary.

[0nimaru]

I'll be completely honest and say I'm unsure whether you are actually looking for advice, or using some form of sarcasm I'm not picking up on, but I'll try to help anyway.

1) A camel does not make sense for a homebody sea-elf. Saying "No, that's bad" is not the solution. You should ask the player why they want a camel. If you need to, come up with an aquatic horse/camel that would fit them better. Maybe they ride it to those trading posts they visit, but it has to fit what they've seen and their environment.

2) Your player was bad and you should NOT have made the constructs vulnerable to mind powers. You seem to have dropped enough hints for him, and he should have adjusted accordingly. In this scenario, the mindbender would voodoo up a couple of grunts, and bring them in to the construct lab with him. Then they proceed to hammer away at the mindless constructs. Also, he still gets non-enchantment spells, even with 2-3 banned schools. If a Wizard preps every slot with Prestidigitation, he'll be ineffective. Proper planning is part of the class.

3) He shouldn't have been Gestalt. He agrees to be the same as everybody else, or you tell him that's too bad. Obviously, for balance it matters what the other classes were in tier and optimization, but overall, letting a player gestalt just because they want to whine the loudest about it means they've got a personality that is probably going to conflict with the group later anyway. I can't comment on the fist/fire/STR-damage comment as it was hard to follow.

[Malimar]

1.) "No, you can't do that because it doesn't fit your character" is wrong. "Yes, but only if you can come up with a sensible, satisfying explanation as to why it fits your character" is right.


2.) The player's own fault, yes.


3.) Where you went wrong here was in allowing gestalt in a non-gestalt campaign at all. I'm not convinced there's any way to balance the two against each other. Or, for that matter, to balance gestalt against anything at all, even other gestalt.

I was going to say you were right, a gauntlet is a weapon, but then I looked it up and no, it turns out:

Gauntlet
This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.
Unless the ability specifies you need to physically touch your foe with your skin or something, anything that works with an unarmed strike should, by RAW as far as I can tell, work with a gauntlet.

[kamikasei]

Maybe I'm just a suspicious sort, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide links to where you were told you were badwrong and stupid, especially for 2 and 3. I have this wacky suspicion that you be taking one or two things in entirely the wrong way.

[Maralais]

You were most certainly right on all the situations above, but perhaps wording could make them better.

On the first problem, you could have said "I will only allow this if you can find an interesting reason why" or something like that. It would deepen his character as well.

Well, the second one had it coming. Though you could modify the encounter to make his character be able to do something, but still, he knew that was going to happen.

On the third one, well, what the hell. The rules are on your side, not to mention that the DM's word is final. I suppose making these clear before starting a campaign and making sure everyone's ok is the only thing to do.

[Kenneth]

Maybe I'm just a suspicious sort, but I'd appreciate it if you'd provide links to where you were told you were badwrong and stupid, especially for 2 and 3. I have this wacky suspicion that you be taking one or two things in entirely the wrong way.

Oh lord.. Im old and cannot remember what the exact threads were for each of the above examples EXCPET for the first one, as that was yesterday in the thread DM's reasonable Limits. I gave the aquatic elf druid having a camel animal compnain adn me saying 'no that make no sense" then being told for the next page how that is doing it worng. and to everybody in this thread saying if he had it in his backgroundand hwo its fits.

how would a sea elf who never left his home city and ever seen a land creautre EVER have a camel as an animal companion? You see my dilemma here. I have no idea why what I ruled in that case as not happening is wrong. I feel that if you have never seen, heard of, read about or dreamt of a tiger. let laone be in a ecosystem that is anithesis of its own. how could you have that as a companion?

[Shpadoinkle]

1: I don't think you should have outright said "no," but he really ought to have a pretty good backstory for something that off the wall. I think you should have asked for one.

2: Uh... I'm not really seeing how this is a problem. Player makes a character, you warn him that this character is going to have a damn hard time contributing, player ignores you. If it's anybody's "fault" it's his. If nothing else he should have picked up some wands of Fireball or Summon Monster or something so he'd be able to contribute SOMEHOW.

3: This is really iffy territory because you were already houseruling to hell and back, but by RAW you can make a touch attack with a gauntlet (which is considered an enhancement of your unarmed strike, NOT a weapon in itself) - you do NOT have to make skin-to-skin contact with the target. I wouldn't have ruled the way you did, but I also wouldn't have allowed him to have the Strength damage ability apply to every hit ever, either.

I wouldn't call you a bad DM, I'd just say you're still getting the hang of it and finding your style.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh lord.. Im old and cannot remember what the exact threads were for each of the above examples EXCPET for the first one, as that was yesterday in the thread DM's reasonable Limits. I gave the aquatic elf druid having a camel animal compnain adn me saying 'no that make no sense" then being told for the next page how that is doing it worng. and to everybody in this thread saying if he had it in his backgroundand hwo its fits.

how would a sea elf who never left his home city and ever seen a land creautre EVER have a camel as an animal companion? You see my dilemma here. I have no idea why what I ruled in that case as not happening is wrong. I feel that if you have never seen, heard of, read about or dreamt of a tiger. let laone be in a ecosystem that is anithesis of its own. how could you have that as a companion?

It sounds like you never told them what the elf's background was, and they assumed that the player had come up with a background for it.

[Boci]

how would a sea elf who never left his home city and ever seen a land creautre EVER have a camel as an animal companion?

Well he would have needed to leave the city at least once in all likelyhiid, but that seems like a small detail that is easy enough to add to a background story.


I feel that if you have never seen, heard of, read about or dreamt of a tiger camel.

Why would the character have never read or heard of a camal?


It sounds like you never told them what the elf's background was, and they assumed that the player had come up with a background for it.

More that instead of denying it he should have asked for a background story if one wasn't provided.

[kamikasei]

Oh lord.. Im old and cannot remember what the exact threads were for each of the above examples EXCPET for the first one, as that was yesterday in the thread DM's reasonable Limits.
I read that thread. I question your interpretation of what was said in it. I seriously doubt your framing of the other issues as cases where "the Playground's infinite wisdom shows you're obviously wrong", and find your martyr's pose absurd.

How I read what happened in that thread: there was much criticism going around of the idea that DMs should tell players "no, you can't take that feat because it doesn't make sense for your character", on the basis that players should be the ones deciding what makes sense for their characters. Your example of a character choice that seemed out of place in the setting had you telling the player "that doesn't make sense for your character". Not "that's out of place, explain to me how it came about" or "that doesn't fit the tone I'm going for here, please change it for the sake of the setting aesthetic", but something perilously close to "I know your character, his past, and his personality better than you do - play him the way I want you to, your intentions be damned".

I also see that you go several replies but never engaged with any of them, so I'm not sure why you felt a new thread was required if you actually wanted to understand the criticism you were receiving.

how would a sea elf who never left his home city and ever seen a land creautre EVER have a camel as an animal companion? You see my dilemma here. I have no idea why what I ruled in that case as not happening is wrong. I feel that if you have never seen, heard of, read about or dreamt of a tiger. let laone be in a ecosystem that is anithesis of its own. how could you have that as a companion?
I don't know. Did you ask the player?

[Lord Vampyre]

Oh lord.. Im old and cannot remember what the exact threads were for each of the above examples EXCPET for the first one, as that was yesterday in the thread DM's reasonable Limits. I gave the aquatic elf druid having a camel animal compnain adn me saying 'no that make no sense" then being told for the next page how that is doing it worng. and to everybody in this thread saying if he had it in his backgroundand hwo its fits.

how would a sea elf who never left his home city and ever seen a land creautre EVER have a camel as an animal companion? You see my dilemma here. I have no idea why what I ruled in that case as not happening is wrong. I feel that if you have never seen, heard of, read about or dreamt of a tiger. let laone be in a ecosystem that is anithesis of its own. how could you have that as a companion?

I have to admit that I tend towards the old style of DMing, and tend to equate DMing for whiny players to parenting. My stepson, like many of my former whiny players always had this sense of entitlement that I find annoying.

I do love your sarcasm, and don't find anything you've done as being wrong. If it wasn't sarcasm, I'm sorry you've had such a difficult time with the views of others. Were there ways that you could have worked with your players? Yes. Should of worked with your whiny players? Only if you really wanted to. The problem with giving players everything they want is that it becomes unfair to the players who don't complain, and want a different sort of game.

1. The player who wanted a camel for an animal companion: I mean really, you could have refluffed the animal to be some sort of underwater camel. But why bother? They can just as easily pick a different animal that makes more sense.

2. The player who wanted to play a mind bender: You could have created some feat that gave him a chance to take over one of the golems. Or you could of added minions that he could of used his mind bendy powers on. But, once again, why bother? You had given him a fair warning. Putting that much work into the campaign, gives you the right to not need to put more into it. Some people will argue otherwise. They'll say that it would have been a simple change here and there. However, as the DM we have lives too, and don't always have time to cater everything to our players. When we warn them that certain abilities may not be in their best interest, it is their responsibility to find a use for them when they go against our advice.

3. The gestalting, glove attack: GESTALT, IN A NON-GESTALT CAMPAIGN, UGGH!!!! I mean really this guy must be a munchkin and simply bad at optimizing. Otherwise, he wouldn't have wanted to play a monk//rogue. The issue with the gloves is another matter, and is really dependent upon your own views of certain types of attacks. You were well within your rights to tell him that it didn't work the way he wanted. However, people will read the rules and interpret them in many different ways. Personally, I agree with your original decision.

The important thing is that you and the majority of your players are enjoying the game. There is an old saying that says: You can please some of the people all of the time, all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. As long as you can come to some form of conclusion that doesn't kill the campaign (as in disrupting the enjoyment of the game for everyone else by catering to the desires of one individual) we're good to go.

[Kenneth]

I guess that maybe the real probelm is I am just old. and thereing lies the problem, it wasn;t untill I joined this forum that I found that the majority of poeple thought the way I DMed was wrong. Not to msyelf specifically but in ways that I have seen other did somethnig or had something ruled against them by their DM that I would most certainly agree with. in just about every case, everybody in the thread was against it and I the lone voice For.

It goes bck to the odl saying ;can't teach a old dog new tricks' If people are playing an underwater campaign and have camels and hawks and whatever else as druid animals compans then good for you, it will not be a game I would be joining but hey anybody playing D&D is a win in my book.


and to kameksis or watever your name is , yes i did ask the player, mayhaps you s kippe dover teh part where i summarized his backstory.


I just think that as a DM i have a right to say "yes" or "no" to something that comes up in my games, the first session i have with any group is charater creation where I help them build " i wanna be a melee and rage" a player tells me to which i reply " be a druid and become a wolverine and at higher level dire wolvering" then for the next couple of hours i epxlaint ot hem that though i know this is a fantasy world soem thing needs to make sense, and then I of course use teh undewater druid with camel animal companion as an example.

[Greenish]

it wasn;t untill I joined this forum that I found that the majority of poeple thought the way I DMed was wrong.That's quite a claim, care to back it up?

[Boci]

It goes bck to the odl saying ;can't teach a old dog new tricks' If people are playing an underwater campaign and have camels and hawks and whatever else as druid animals compans then good for you, it will not be a game I would be joining but hey anybody playing D&D is a win in my book.

Wait, you don't think an underwater hawk is ausome? Strange...


and to kameksis or watever your name is , yes i did ask the player, mayhaps you s kippe dover teh part where i summarized his backstory.

You know I'm pretty sure in the time it takes to write "or watever your name is" you could have scrolled down and checked kamikasei's name, plus it would have been more polite that way. On a more related note: what did the player respond when you asked him how his character would have a camel?

[SowZ]

I guess that maybe the real probelm is I am just old. and thereing lies the problem, it wasn;t untill I joined this forum that I found that the majority of poeple thought the way I DMed was wrong. Not to msyelf specifically but in ways that I have seen other did somethnig or had something ruled against them by their DM that I would most certainly agree with. in just about every case, everybody in the thread was against it and I the lone voice For.

It goes bck to the odl saying ;can't teach a old dog new tricks' If people are playing an underwater campaign and have camels and hawks and whatever else as druid animals compans then good for you, it will not be a game I would be joining but hey anybody playing D&D is a win in my book.


and to kameksis or watever your name is , yes i did ask the player, mayhaps you s kippe dover teh part where i summarized his backstory.


I just think that as a DM i have a right to say "yes" or "no" to something that comes up in my games, the first session i have with any group is charater creation where I help them build " i wanna be a melee and rage" a player tells me to which i reply " be a druid and become a wolverine and at higher level dire wolvering" then for the next couple of hours i epxlaint ot hem that though i know this is a fantasy world soem thing needs to make sense, and then I of course use teh undewater druid with camel animal companion as an example.

I don't think you have said any individual thing that has happened in your campaigns that most people would think makes you a poor DM... Maybe there are other things you do people disagree with. Maybe some stuff happened in another thread. BUt the 3 examples? I don't think most of the playgrounders would say your GMing style is bad.

Most people might say that with the 1st example you could have presented your disagreement better and in the 3rd example you gave a player too much leeway, (who hasn't at least once?) but I don't hear you talking about passive agressive DMing, arbitrary rules interpretations that change as to the DMs mood, or railroading which are the things people here really seem to dislike...

[Kenneth]

I might have a tenative fourth example. I say tenative becuase my 'old-school' ( pre 3rd ed) players play this way while the new-school players seemt o have a hard time wrapping their heads around the concept.

I tend to play dicelessly. To me a fighter is just as if not more of a bad a$$ as a wizard or cleric. to support my dieas look at th heroc in myhtology, Hercules, gilgamesh, Beowulf, Sir Lancelot, Conan etc and that forces such as love and a pure heart are more powerufl weapon than twinned maximized, empowered, mirrored, heitened spells could ever hope to be. ala Krull or a ton of old mythology tale and folk tales

Yes i explain this to my player (well ne wone at least) before we ever get to start playing. as well as you can say your character is a Justicar withouth actually being FORCED to take said prestige class. Ive had a player play as a wizard who was saved as a child by a high priestess and dedicated his life to the those of her patron deity. that one would think him a paladin.

SO technicallly by the rules the crusader ( not the class but the role the player gave to the character) who charge the group of feinds with some having a longspear should have died from the combined attacks and possible crit before he landed a blow I just could not allow it. as the way he described his charge and the momentum behind his whole action I said " You charge into the band of demons, how hear your batle cry and brace themselves aginst you. too focused in yourhatred for such beings and unable to stop becuase of the moment behind you, you find yourself impaled on one o the creatures spear, as fate would have it though, you moment is also a boon allowing you to strike down the fiend holding the spear and almost cut in twaid his adjactent 'friend' You slump to the forest floor, eyes teh tops of the mountains, your last thought and vision is of your friends rushing down the hillock towards you screaming something though your hearing has grown so dim, then you hear nothhing at all, and the world becomes black."

The player in question was liek 'YEAH!!! awesome at least took two fo them with me" a couple others were like ' awesome man that is cool, hopeuflly you are not too far gone" "yeah great job bro, i just hope we cna save your rekclesa rse before its too late" and then we had playes saying " attack of oppurtunity from teh demons and with his HP he should have died before he reached melee range" "how can he kill one let alone two demons when he was impaled before he even got a swing!"

Also when it come to skill chekc like say.. bluff and what not I have another example. Player a says " i rolled a 13 and my bonuses for that are.. including sunergy and circumsatnce comes to .. 38" and I sya whats your bluff. to which he replies " i got a 38.. does it matter" and gets mad when I sya 'no doesn;t work" and then when someboyd with only a +2 bluff actually roleplays his bluff I say 'wow that is crazy good. it works!"

[Gavinfoxx]

It sounds like you shouldn't actually be USING D&D 3.5e at all. It is a system that is not appropriate for your gaming style. It is a miniatures combat wargame system where the default assumption that people going into it is that they are ACTUALLY PLAYING THE SYSTEM SHOWN IN THE BOOKS.

You don't want that default assumption in the games you run. Previous editions of D&D did NOT HAVE THIS ASSUMPTION IN THEM. You should either spell that to EVERYONE out BEFORE GAMING STARTS 'We aren't really playing D&D 3.5e the way it is 'meant' to be played, I just use those books when I have to. This game is not a miniatures combat game, and I ignore most of the rules most of the time.' or switch to another game that does not have that inherent assumption.

In other words, you don't as much have a list of Houserules as you sometimes use D&D 3.5e rules whenever it suits you to tell the story you want to tell.

As long as EVERYONE is on that same page and the same assumption, and has bought into that play style, you'll be fine. It is when people are under the assumption that the numbers on their character sheet means what the books say they mean in YOUR game that there is a problem.

[Kenneth]

I cna see your point but I say the following to all of my players whether new or old. ' D&D is a roleplaying game and first and foremost that is how I play it. I am going to reward somebody who cna actually roleplay and do it good or at least attempt to if this is your first time, as opposed to somebody just crunching numbers., if you just want to crunch numbers and not roleplay then maybe my game is not the right one for you, if you enjoy ptting yourself in the mind frame of another character and doing hwat he or she would do in a given situation then mayhaps it is the game for you."

[Greenish]

I cna see your point but I say the following to all of my players whether new or old. ' D&D is a roleplaying game and first and foremost that is how I play it. I am going to reward somebody who cna actually roleplay and do it good or at least attempt to if this is your first time, as opposed to somebody just crunching numbers., if you just want to crunch numbers and not roleplay then maybe my game is not the right one for you, if you enjoy ptting yourself in the mind frame of another character and doing hwat he or she would do in a given situation then mayhaps it is the game for you."What if someone wants to do both? I mean, freeform is not the only way to roleplay.

[Edit]: Some people prefer a world where everything doesn't necessarily go just like they want it to, where those fiends wielding spears can actually kill you.

[Boci]

I cna see your point but I say the following to all of my players whether new or old. ' D&D is a roleplaying game and first and foremost that is how I play it. I am going to reward somebody who cna actually roleplay and do it good or at least attempt to if this is your first time, as opposed to somebody just crunching numbers., if you just want to crunch numbers and not roleplay then maybe my game is not the right one for you, if you enjoy ptting yourself in the mind frame of another character and doing hwat he or she would do in a given situation then mayhaps it is the game for you."

Problem is some of your players do not like it, and with reason. Whilst it is common to request that players elaborate on their social interaction rather than just statting dice rolls, it is generally considered bad form to auto-fail/suceed depending on how good the player is at acting, since it makes skill ranks useless. And why stop their? What if my wizard described his attack better than the fighter? Does the wizard hit and the fighter miss?

If you have a steady group that enjoy your DMing style then the above is of no problem, it will just seem unuusal to outsiders. However if regular players often complain, you might want to talk to them about it.

[kamikasei]

and to kameksis or watever your name is , yes i did ask the player, mayhaps you s kippe dover teh part where i summarized his backstory.
You know, if you're willing to spend more time calling attention to your unwillingness to check something as basic as my name when you don't know it than it would have taken you to actually check, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in your willingness to give other people's arguments enough thought to justify our spending any effort trying to talk to you at all.

By "summarized his backstory" are you referring to the "sea elf who never left his home city and never saw a land animal" bit? That sounds like what you knew when he said he wanted a camel. It doesn't sound like what he offered as an explanation when you asked him for one. A good many possibilities occur to me, depending on how both druids and animal companions work in the setting. If the animal companion has to be a normal animal from nearby which attaches itself to you, then yes, having a camel in an aquatic environment requires a fair bit of explanation. If it's more like a called animal, then it requires very little explanation. How does the druid even know what a camel is? Well, I would expect druids to know about more animals than just the ones they've seen with their own eyes. For all I know, and depending on how acquiring a companion works, they're like spirit animals and the druid ends up with one he knows nothing about because it complements his own nature in some ineffable druidic way.

Some of these ideas may not fit how you see druids working in your game. Some of them may work fine, but still result in something that you just don't like for thematic or aesthetic reasons. That's fine. Where there's a problem is in telling a player what makes sense for his character rather than finding out from the player how his character makes sense to him.

I just think that as a DM i have a right to say "yes" or "no" to something that comes up in my games, the first session i have with any group is charater creation where I help them build " i wanna be a melee and rage" a player tells me to which i reply " be a druid and become a wolverine and at higher level dire wolvering" then for the next couple of hours i epxlaint ot hem that though i know this is a fantasy world soem thing needs to make sense, and then I of course use teh undewater druid with camel animal companion as an example.
Believe it or not, I agree that you should be able to say "no, I don't want that in the game". I value that ability in my own games. What people are criticizing, I think, is the perception that players are telling you what they want to do in the game you're running for them, and rather than seeing how you can accommodate what they want, you're telling them not merely that you don't think it'll fit with how you see the game but that it won't fit with how they see their characters, which is not something you control as the DM.

Also, I'm sorry, but I honestly cannot parse out the meaning of everything past the first comma in the quote above. Perhaps you might restate it more clearly?

[Malimar]

I tend to play dicelessly. To me a fighter is just as if not more of a bad a$$ as a wizard or cleric. to support my dieas look at th heroc in myhtology, Hercules, gilgamesh, Beowulf, Sir Lancelot, Conan etc and that forces such as love and a pure heart are more powerufl weapon than twinned maximized, empowered, mirrored, heitened spells could ever hope to be. ala Krull or a ton of old mythology tale and folk tales

Then you aren't playing 3.5e. Why is this in the 3.5e forum?
(The rest of that post was a too incoherent for me to divine its meaning.)

[Jude_H]

Kenneth, I suspect I am putting several times more effort into trying to decipher your posts than you are in typing them. I gave up on a couple of them, so I may not be getting the full story.

I'm not sure what you're trying to get out of this. You ask for input from people who play differently than you in the OP, but you attempt to rhetorically trivialize their positions.

Speaking for myself, I like to have input in at least my character and my character's background. I prefer to have input in the game world and the direction of the campaign plot and themes. It's not very fun to recite lines for a stock character in somebody else's story.

Your first example demonstrates that your games would likewise not be enjoyable for me. In a game with owlbears, space hamsters and yakmen, I don't see why an aquatic camel is too outlandish to consider. I also don't see why an aquatic elf would be any less likely to be familiar with camels than a terrestrial elf would be with sharks.

It sounds like the second and third examples are supposed to be passive-aggressive misconstruals of dissent you received in another thread. They are different circumstances: in the first, you reject player input; in the second, a player loses interest, lacks motivation and stops having fun. I won't comment on the third, because its point seems to be lost on me.

[Gavinfoxx]

Not only are you prizing roleplay over rollplay, what you are actually DOING is NOT PLAYING DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS 3.5E. AT ALL. The two concepts are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. You are NOT playing D&D 3.5e. You NEED TO MAKE THIS CLEAR!!! Saying "I prefer roleplay to rollplay" does NOT mean what you think it means to everyone. Saying, "I play a freeform diceless game, where I sometimes use D&D 3.5e rules when it suits me. I ignore most of the rules in the rulebooks, so don't worry too much about what the numbers say. Otherwise just describe what you do and tell me lots about your character and his backstory and how he does things." is FAR FAR more accurate for how you actually play the game. If people don't know this, you are NOT setting expectations appropriately!

I, for example, am perfectly capable of following the rules stringently and roleplaying my character and having a deep backstory and doing lots of awesome in character stuff. Where you and I differ is that I USE the rules to further my character concepts... while you just happen to throw them away if they don't fit your vision. Which is FINE, but you REALLY have to make this clear!!

[Kenneth]

first off I am not 100% free form I just as you said gavin value roleplay over number crunching. of course I ue the rules, and to behonest it took me a quit a while to get over the fact that everyting had a mathmatically formula to it, ( and by extrapolation ability to be broke wide open by somebody who can figure out said formula) In the roleplaying. 3rd ed was definately not the same game I grew up playing in a mechanics sense.


And I am sorry that I cannot give you teh whole multi page background of the sea evlen druid that wanted a camel as an animal companion. as it was not my character I do not access to it, and I doubt that that player still does. Maybe i needed to somehow emphasize even more so the whole anti-landwelling belife that particular character held.

and for the 2nd example Jude, what player input? He wanted to be a mind bender I told him the facst of what one of the bad guys they had to chase and take down was and that maybe he should just sya wizard to be better use. all his input was annoying my players and myself but doing something againts advisement and fully knwoing teh rules, ( the rules being that mind affectint spells are weak in the fact so many things are immune and/or very resistant to them) When we has dominating other creatures in other parts of teh prticualr campaing he never once complained.


in teh 3rd I allowed him to be gestalt (on a limited basis that is) when the rest of the players voted using gestalt down. and making a ruling that when you hit something with a gaunltet its the gauntlet not your fist so your str drain strike does not proc.


and for th record the sea elf druid player smiled and said " I know, its is just weird that 3rd ed does not have any limitation on how to pick your animal compaionsso while a cmale cannot breathe underwater or even exists in the world, i can still have one as a companion "

and I am pretty sure than somewhere in the DMG or playerhandbook (though It could just be in my mind) that the players and DM are encouraged to throw out a rule if it would make for abetter story and enjoyment. for bluff I just don't get why getting your skill bonus up to rediculosu heights while not actually be able to come up with a bluff at all allows one to win. here is a scenario where I was a player. I was playing a rather dirty mouthed and generally uncouth S&B fighter ( actually my 1st 3rd ed experince) and a couple o sessions into it (the particular camaign that is) we were fighting some orcs i asked if intimidate could also be used as taunt since there is no feat or skill that is anywhere that mentions taunt. the MD ruled yes it could be used for a taunt so there we are everybody is pretty beat up, except for me and we come to the big hulking Orc boss on his worg mount. I knew that if he got close to the other party members they be in troulbe, and probably dead. somehow I managed to win initiative (something which I cna actually say ive done a coupl ehandfulls of time since i started playing back in 1st) and I told the dm this " I brace myself for the incoming impact of the orc and his mount while I shout a taunt to get his focus on me " then POW i rolled a 20, my first of 3rd ed. the DM then asked what I said and I said " wait a minute and let me think of something that is worhty of my first natural 20 on the new edition." so.. long story short about 30 minutes later (a couple guys decided that then was a good time to get drinks fromt eh store around the corner but yes partly during that 30 minutes id wager 15-20 of them I was thinking of my taunt of all taunts) when the game resumed I declared I had my taunt the DM nodded and aske what it is to which I rpelied " hey big greend and ugly, you know the real reason why Gruumsh only has one eye.. cuz I stuck My **** in the other one!" to me just rolling the 20 and saying ' i taunt' is boring and lame. Now did i take too much time thinking of a good taunt, yes I would say so. that was bfore I knew teh dice roll didn't mean anything past level 5 and that it was your bonuses that really mattered.

and I was trying to get people to tell me how I did things wrong not that i did things wrong. every counterpoint to my examles were basically the same thing
for teh first it was ' was it in his backstory, you are not allowed to tell the player what does and does not make sense in your game"

well I guess not telling players what does and does not make sense in my world is how I am doing it wrong.

for the 2nd people who disagreed with me said that I should have given him a feat that allowed him to charm person, or dominate a golem. So I guess the how I did it wrong there is, I should never allow a PC at any time to feel worthless even when they know the background story and what is about to take place and build there characters that a way none theless.

amd the 3rd I made a buff and made a ruling on something I created. but what I did wrong there i guess was not let teh player have creative control of the game thereby letting the power work the way he wanted it to.

and Kami sorry but I have dyslexia hence why my posts are bad and honestly whnever I look at your name other than the Kami part there different letters there all the time.

"Believe it or not, I agree that you should be able to say "no, I don't want that in the game". I value that ability in my own games. What people are criticizing, I think, is the perception that players are telling you what they want to do in the game you're running for them, and rather than seeing how you can accommodate what they want, you're telling them not merely that you don't think it'll fit with how you see the game but that it won't fit with how they see their characters, which is not something you control as the DM."

I think in my example i have shown I am very accomidating allowed the guy who wanted to play gestalt even when the rest of the group wanted none of it for example is pretty accomdating.

I do not 'ignore dicerolls completely' But if somebody is able to describe what their characters action is in a complteely amazing way, youd be i would ad hoc soem number adjustsmet to the roll. To me Imake it a point that yes while you roll a d20 to do everything in this world, that does not give you teh excuse to roll the dice get a arbitary big number and assume you succeed. Like i had a player, a wizard I think.. could have been a sorcer. who had a phobia of spiders ( not teh oh lookie i get a feat cuz I have a flaw kind of phobia) but a roleplayed one. we were at middling levels ( i think around 8-10) and he could have easily passed the will wave it called for (the DC was 15 I do beielive) so yes he could have rolled his will save and been able to do more than running cry to his friends ( he had teh idea of going down the left corridor alone while the party was busy fighting over which way the map was actually facing) of course he runs right mack into a spider web and hears teh spider scuttling in teh diatnce. instead of rolling he just said " I start to whimper then go into full out cry I turn ripping the strands of the spider web and run as fast as my legs can carry me scremaing " help they are in my hair.. Its in my hair" back to my companions ( 100 pts if you get teh Ace Venture reference there)

sorry I think i went off on an unrelated tangent on that last one...

[Gavinfoxx]

first off I am not 100% free form I just as you said gavin value roleplay over number crunching. of course I ue the rules, and to behonest it took me a quit a while to get over the fact that everyting had a mathmatically formula to it, ( and by extrapolation ability to be broke wide open by somebody who can figure out said formula) In the roleplaying. 3rd ed was definately not the same game I grew up playing in a mechanics sense.

Okay. a few things. First, you are using a different definition of the term 'roleplaying' than other people are. To both of us, it means 'Acting out what your character does' and 'describing what your character does' and 'being consistent in how the character behaves' and 'making the story of your character be consistent with the setting, awesome, and a great story that sets the character up for good storytelling'. But to this, you add the PLAYER'S ability to do this as the primary arbiter of what happens in the story, to the extent that this GREATLY overshadows the actual GAME part of this role playing GAME. Where you and I differ is that I view roleplaying as doing all of those things... but the numbers and the game are the arbiters of how well anything works; I roleplay and then let the numbers also take their part in telling the story of how things work. After all, the reason they are there is to explain what happens whenever there is any chance of failure.

Unfortunately, your style of throwing the numbers away when it suits you -- and it suits you quite often -- is against the inherent social contract you said when you opened your mouth to say, "Hey guys, I am going to run a game of Dungeons and Dragons, edition 3.5. Do you all want to play in my game?" This is because people who actually read the books expect it to be a GAME of D&D, edition 3.5. THAT is why your player is getting upset, because you are giving him an experience that is directly against the social contract implicit where you said you are DMing a game of D&D 3.5.



and I am pretty sure than somewhere in the DMG or playerhandbook (though It could just be in my mind) that the players and DM are encouraged to throw out a rule if it would make for abetter story and enjoyment. for bluff I just don't get why getting your skill bonus up to rediculosu heights while not actually be able to come up with a bluff at all allows one to win.

....

to me just rolling the 20 and saying ' i taunt' is boring and lame. Now did i take too much time thinking of a good taunt, yes I would say so. that was bfore I knew teh dice roll didn't mean anything past level 5 and that it was your bonuses that really mattered

Okay, about that, here is the thing. Just like you have a neurological difficulty with letters, so to do people have some difficulties with certain social things. D&D is a roleplaying game so that people without certain skills can pretend to be people WITH those skills. Do you have to know how to wear armor and swing a sword to be a fighter? No! Neither do you have to be a smooth talking con artist to be able to get people believe you and follow you and do crazy things. Your character JUST has to have the skills to do so. THAT is why saying, "no, you can't bluff him with a 32" was wrong. Because a player obviously wanted to have the world react to their character as if they WERE skilled at these things, and they put significant effort toward that end, but you said, 'no, you have to have real life skill in order to be able to do this. You can't pretend you do and get by like the rest of us."

Did you say, 'Okay, you aren't as smooth a talker as your character. Do you want to have a few minutes to think of something? Or do you want to open up to the group so we can discuss the things he might say out of character, and then you can decide what he says?" When that guy didn't know what to say with the bluff? Some people need certain types of coaxing to learn the skills and do this stuff, and even then they do it slower than other folk. But you still have to try to accommodate them, at least to a reasonable degree. If they still look like a deer in the headlights, you can just say something like, "Okay, since after all that you couldn't come up with anything, I'm just going to say that you take a 5 point penalty on your bluff skill. Roll it." And then you ROLL and see if the modified bluff ACTUALLY beats the target's ROLLED Sense Motive, and have the NPC react appropriately. See how that is different than what you did? You don't just THROW OUT the results of a die roll the way you did, a 32 is supposed to be an INCREDIBLE success on a skill!

[Shpadoinkle]

I just don't get why getting your skill bonus up to rediculosu heights while not actually be able to come up with a bluff at all allows one to win.

That's like saying "I don't get why a fighter taking a bunch of feats to make him better at fighting allows him to win without the player actually getting up and fighting the DM." or "I don't see why wizards and sorcerers can just automatically cast a spell without the player actually having the components at the table for whatever spell they're casting while they recite the magic words and wave their hands around."

It's because PLAYERS ARE NOT THEIR CHARACTERS that skills like Bluff and Diplomacy exist- so players who suck at being persuasive or lying can play characters who are good at it, just like the stick-thin player who's so scrawny he can barely lift his own weight can play the mighty barbarian who can crush a foot-thick stone door with a sledgehammer and jump a dozen feet from a standing start.

I think the player ought to come up with the basics of the bluff he's using, yes. "I tell the guards they'd better let me pass because I'm the duke's cousin" is fine, but the player shouldn't have to give you something more detailed or more believable than that because his character is going to be able to spin it in a way that sounds better and more convincing, in exactly the same way the scrawny guy playing the barbarian shouldn't have to get up and wrestle the strongest person at the table when his character fights an orc.

[Thespianus]

for bluff I just don't get why getting your skill bonus up to rediculosu heights while not actually be able to come up with a bluff at all allows one to win.
Let me ask you about the other skill checks people do in your game: Do you treat all the skills like this, or is it just a few? What about Jump checks? Will the player have to perform an actual Jump next to the table, to role play it? What about Disable Device checks? Use Magic Device, Ride or Survival checks?


Is it just Intimidate, Bluff and Diplomacy that warrants 30 minute pauses before you return to the game?

If I was in a game where one player took 30 minutes to come up with an insult to an orc - in the middle of combat - and the rest of the players had to take a break to wait for that player, I might not have returned from the break.

[kamikasei]

Kenneth, I suspect I am putting several times more effort into trying to decipher your posts than you are in typing them.
Ayup.

And I am sorry that I cannot give you teh whole multi page background of the sea evlen druid that wanted a camel as an animal companion. as it was not my character I do not access to it, and I doubt that that player still does.
...
and for th record the sea elf druid player smiled and said " I know, its is just weird that 3rd ed does not have any limitation on how to pick your animal compaionsso while a cmale cannot breathe underwater or even exists in the world, i can still have one as a companion "
And there you go. You've managed to give us the player's response without having to dig out "the whole multi-page background" at all.

Let me submit to you a totally off-the-wall scenario: if you had described this exchange in its own thread, with that much context, and without the "oh woe is me I am the most hated of all DMs I guess I should just take my game style and head off to the Grey Havens because this is no longer our world" nonsense, and asked "was I doing something wrong here?" you would have received little criticism.

and Kami sorry but I have dyslexia hence why my posts are bad and honestly whnever I look at your name other than the Kami part there different letters there all the time.
My sympathies. It's still rude of you. Use copy-paste.