Dictator DM D:<

[Hadesman]

So my DM, (used to be the old DM, but wanted to be a player) is getting pissed that I'm giving suggestions to him, and is calling me a back seat driver. I suppose I do have a bit more knowledge then him about D&D (Studied the DM handbook, player handbook, a bit of pathfinder stuff), so I guess I have a 'privilege' to make ideas, and so I guess my question is.... What should I do if he's not willing to take ideas (Funny, how he said he was).

[Seerow]

If you want to run a game, then run the game.

You're not the DM in this game. If he asks you for help, or suggestions, or advice, then you're free to give it. But there is nothing more annoying than giving unwanted advice, regardless of your experience.

[Hendel]

Sounds like maybe you just need to let him run the game the way he wants to run it. Either that or you need to run it.

I have been a DM for over 33 years and I still like to play. When I play do I quote the rules and tell the DM that he is wrong, no! I just sit back and enjoy playing. If he really flubs a ruling, try talking to him afterwards or maybe suggest that someone else talks to him. Just don't be pushy. Being a DM is not for everyone and if he can't handle it, then the group will let him know rather quickly.

[Da Beast]

What sort of ideas are you trying to give him? If you're strictly advising him on mechanics because you're a more experienced player then that doesn't seem to bad but you should still knock it off if he'd rather do things his way. If you're telling him how to plot and run his game then he has every right to be mad at you and you should either stop telling him what to do or go back to DMing your own game since that's clearly what you want to do.

[Crake]

So my DM, (used to be the old DM, but wanted to be a player) is getting pissed that I'm giving suggestions to him, and is calling me a back seat driver. I suppose I do have a bit more knowledge then him about D&D (Studied the DM handbook, player handbook, a bit of pathfinder stuff), so I guess I have a 'privilege' to make ideas, and so I guess my question is.... What should I do if he's not willing to take ideas (Funny, how he said he was).

i gotta say, i questioned your level of experience when you called it the DM handbook, also when your list was just that and the phb.

Also nothing gives you a "privilege" to push your ideas on someone else's story

[JusticeZero]

I guess I have a 'privilege' to make ideas
You don't actually have that priviledge. If the GM wants your advice, he will ask for it.

[Gnome Alone]

But there is nothing more annoying than giving unwanted advice, regardless of your experience.

Side note: this is true in almost any context.

[ArcturusV]

Basically. Unless your luck is quite different than mine, or anyone I've ever known, DMs are a hard commodity to come by. So it's nice to make games more friendly for the DM. If you haven't DMed before, I'd suggest you do it just so you can see how the game looks from the other side of the screen. It's seldom like someone who has never DMed imagines it.

... in fact I think they even pointed that out in the old Dungeons and Dragons cartoon...

But really? When I DM, one thing that just saps my desire to DM is dealing with players who constantly try to correct me or give me "notes" and such.

Once a session? Okay. When every 15 minutes I'm getting comments from the peanut gallery about something? I can feel my jaw clenching up and just wanting to say, "Okay, YOU DM THEN."

Note: The few times I have snapped like that, no one stepped up to DM.

[TuggyNE]

Side note: this is true in almost any context.

Now I want to go around reminding everyone I know of this important rule. Just in case they forgot or didn't know, eh?

[Asteron]

I fail to see how the DM is being a dictator... Seems to me like he doesn't like being undermined.

I just relinquished my 4e campaign to a friend after 4 years. He had never DMed before. At the start, I was constantly piping up during the session. After the second session, I stopped because I realized how annoying it was and how little confidence I showed in my friend. So I stopped. If I have any critiques, I save them for after the session.

[Drake2009]

Rule number one: the dm is always right. Rule two: if the dm is wrong refer to rule one.

[TuggyNE]

Rule number one: the dm is always right. Rule two: if the dm is wrong refer to rule one.

I would phrase this a bit differently, myself.

What the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players will go too.

(Borrowed from some other poster I don't currently remember the name of. :smallsigh:)

[CaladanMoonblad]

As a GM of over 20+ years, I too enjoy playing, however, I have always strived to have total rules clarity among my players, so I delegate rules investigations for little used tactics among my players. I try to increase knowledge of the game and GMing duties;

Example; We play with a glass counter and a grid underneath, and I let players organize themselves on the counter, draw the rooms or terrain (I will do it myself if they do not understand my verbal description), and keep track of damage on the glass counter top of enemies.

We play with a PC-TV set up in our living room, so we put the initiative order on a Word doc so everyone can follow along (as well as our campaign art, maps, music, etc.). This has led to lessened confusion about who is damaging what, and I can keep the action going without appearing overly secretive.

With said TV, we always have d20 SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/) open so players can quickly search for a rule or display a spell description on the screen for those unfamiliar with a section of the rules.


In this way, when I play, our culture of everyone helping allows me to monitor and help other GMs. Some take the help, others use their own devices (our group has an open GM policy).

[Humble Master]

I'm a DM myself and I can tell you there is nothing more annoying than players trying to change your game world. Sometimes I will accept their suggestions if I think it fits. Want me to mod the Pyrokineticist class for arcane? Sure! Want me to make some ranged Warblade maneuvers? Why not, sounds cool. But if you come up to me and say something like "I think your rule x needs to be changes because..." I'm probably going to say my game my rules. Nothing gives the players a right to encroach on the DM's world.

Edit: Of course one player asked for a Gelatinous Cube as a character. I said no.

Basline is that DM's might not like getting pestered with ideas. It's really a personal thing.

[RFLS]

So my DM, (used to be the old DM, but wanted to be a player) is getting pissed that I'm giving suggestions to him, and is calling me a back seat driver. I suppose I do have a bit more knowledge then him about D&D (Studied the DM handbook, player handbook, a bit of pathfinder stuff), so I guess I have a 'privilege' to make ideas, and so I guess my question is.... What should I do if he's not willing to take ideas (Funny, how he said he was).

...okay, I'm lost. How is what you're doing a) in any way helpful, and b) a privilege? If you're not DMing, then sit down, be quiet, and play the game the DM has constructed for you.

[Roclat]

Sometimes it's hard to not DM, I don't do it much. You need to learn to shut your mouth, or talk about stuff not during game (not specifically you, just in general)

On the same note tho, the GM should have the best understandings of the rules, and/or have the confidence to say, "shut your hole, my game!" Also, they should be consistent, if he said a nat 7 threatens a critical, it should always be that way.

Aside from that I think it just takes a little time to adjust to a new GM style, or being a player. I can't play in many games because I have a need for rules and willy nilly games drive me batty. That and it's hard to only play 1 character after GMing for so many years :smallbiggrin:

[chronomatophobe]

D&D isn't a democracy.

[Tanuki Tales]

D&D isn't a democracy.

Well, not after the game starts rolling of course. You're supposed to do that sort of stuff before the game officially begins.

[Averis Vol]

Going to throw my hat in with the "let the DM do his thing" ring. My group o friends have been playing of four years now, and after year one, I took over DMing duty as my system mastery was the best. I also have a player fresh off the MMO market who loves to be right and win. Now, this wouldn't be a problem, yes his characters never drop below the tier 2 marker and the extent of his character making knowledge comes from cookie cutter builds on the Internet. Now, I can handle this, better system mastery after all, but I also enjoy home brewing things for my game and he has this obsessive need to point out everything as "by the book" holding RAW as the one true path. So for a while I dealt with it, but after a while I just stood up from my chair and left it to him seeing as he liked to dictate the world I made.


And he surprised me and actually did.

For one session.

Then he came back and sat in his seat saying that it was too hard (especially with me doing the stuff he did. I got dropped to negative 8 once and had an ally drown me, the frustrated look on his face was priceless) and eventually learned to just go with the flow. We continued gaming happily for two more years after that.

tl;dr don't pester your DM, his job is hard enough as it is.

[NikitaDarkstar]

If you've DM'ed you should already know why DM's often don't like "suggestions", so sit down and shut up. If you want to suggest or discuss things do it before or after the game, but don't be surprised if the DM doesn't change his world to fit your whims.

Rules wise, as long as he's consistent and it's not a painfully bad/wrong ruling, don't pester him during the game.

And if you can't deal with that, well perhaps you should go back to DM'ing, some people do better behind the screen rather than in front of it.

[mangosta71]

Basically, the only time you should give him advice is when he asks for it or if he actually makes a mistake that needs to be corrected (like rolling 25d6 damage for a Disintegrate when the target makes his save).

[killem2]

D&D isn't a democracy.

Actually it kind of is.

[RFLS]

Actually it kind of is.

No...? No, it's not, really. The DM's word is law. The unwritten rule there, as with all dictatorships, is that if the dictator is abusive of his power, his subjects can overthrow him.

[Susano-wo]

in general, it sounds like you are having a hard time letting go of the DM chair. I would agree with the advice on cool it. restrict rules clarifications to critical issues, and only offer rules suggestions if he actively asks for them.

specifically: The DM is not always right. when s/he is being capricious, or changing rulings, s/he is certainly not right, for instance. Dnd isn't exactly a democracy, as you all don't get equal say in game, but its not a dictatorship either. Put up with BS or quit are not the only options.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I would phrase this a bit differently, myself.

What the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players will go too.

(Borrowed from some other poster I don't currently remember the name of. :smallsigh:)

I think I said that, although I wouldn't be surprised if someone else said that, given that
A) It's rules 0.0 and 0.00 in some TVTropes list about TTRPGs
B) Stuff tends to get repeated.

[JoshuaZ]

So, this may be a personality issue to some extent. I'm DMing my first campaign now, and one of the players is someone who was my GM in a long-running non-D&D campaign, and has a lot more experience DMing/GMing and a lot more experience with D&D than I do. I've relied on his advice quite heavily, but I told him in advance about that. I can reasonably see someone being uncomfortable with large scale unsolicited advice, and disregarding it doesn't make someone a priori a dictator. If you could give more specifics it might be easier to tell whether you have a valid concern here, but right now I'm inclined to agree with most of the rest of the people in this thread.

If you want to see an actual example of dictator DM maybe look at this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=275152).

[Nettlekid]

See, I'm conflicted here. On the one hand, if the choices a DM makes are done for the sake of the plot, or worldbuilding, or making things fair, then I'm all for Rule 0 and what the DM says, goes. But if the DM makes judgment errors, handwaves inconvenient rules only sometimes, and is playing for their own sake, then I think the player has the right to object. A couple of examples I've had (I've DMed and played often, so I have decent experience on all sides. I've had arguments overthrown by DMs, arguments agreed with by DMs, overthrown player arguments, and agreed with player arguments.)

A problem I have with a DM in a campaign I'm currently in is that the DM is, in my opinion, too focused on his own story and wants us to play along, as opposed to letting us forge our own way. He'll let us try to do whatever we want, but if it's not what he wants then he'll let us waste hours (IRL) trying every logical way to make things work out, without really saying a flat-out "nope." For example: We have a hostage, say, and we want control over a zombie horse that only the hostage controls. The hostage is tied and powerless, with no leverage. We bargain with the hostage. We command the hostage. We threaten the hostage with torture and death. We waste two hours and the horse runs away. It's just not fun for the players that way.

Which gets me to the point I think bears saying. D&D is a game. A game made to be fun. And it's my opinion that the DM should have fun too, but really the DM is there to make the players have fun. If a player is clever, using tools that they have and were given, then I see no reason that a boss encounter shouldn't be bypassed if it results in cheers and high-fives all around, even if I'm annoyed that my preparations have been torn asunder. In a game I DMed, I had planned to make a decently difficult encounter with three Inevitables. It was well within the strength of the party to deal with, but it was meant to put them on the ropes. They scratched two of them, and then the rogue took them all out at once with a flame breath from a Red Dragonsblood Elixir (made from the blood of a red dragon they killed the session before). Everyone loved it. Why should I try to wheedle out of it and say "Oh, they are immune/all made their save and have Evasion somehow/Your potion doesn't work" or something like that, as many DMs that I've had would, because I want it to happen?

Then again, players can get frustrating too when they cross that line between what is fair and what they want. In that same campaign, the players fought Mind Flayers and a Death Slaad wielding a Spiked Chain in Limbo. The low-HP Cleric changes gravity so he falls toward the Death Slaad, provoking an AoO as he passes through the square and falls unconscious from the damage. For the rest of the session the player kept whining at me about how if he knew he'd take an AoO he'd never have done that, that was so unfair, he should totally be allowed a redo, etc. After quickly losing my patience I replied that his character was in an alien world, fighting monsters he's probably never even read about, under the control of powers remaining obscure to him, wielding an Exotic weapon he doesn't know the prowess of, and when his bad-at-melee Cleric decides to literally fall at the melee-based enemy, something he doesn't expect to happen happens? I'm not going to baby someone if they don't get exactly what they want all the time.

So there are a few different schools of thought on the subject. None of which really have to do with the topic at hand. I think the OP is being annoying and pestering, and should be quiet if his help isn't wanted.

[Hiro Protagonest]

...Apparently, this is a second thread.

And given that the first one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278798) is two pages long and starts differently, it isn't an accidental double post.

Still, that thread does have more stuff in the opening title. It appears that the DM is trying to negate abilities that would ruin his plot (like, say, darkvision. He could've legitimately been using magical darkness, but given that he didn't say that right away and that his first counter was "it's pitch black", I doubt it), and the guy's trying to correct them on rules (that's debatable, but I'm in favor of following the rules so that it won't become more of a mess).

[RFLS]

...Apparently, this is a second thread.

And given that the first one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278798) is two pages long and starts differently, it isn't an accidental double post.

Still, that thread does have more stuff in the opening title. It appears that the DM is trying to negate abilities that would ruin his plot (like, say, darkvision. He could've legitimately been using magical darkness, but given that he didn't say that right away and that his first counter was "it's pitch black", I doubt it), and the guy's trying to correct them on rules (that's debatable, but I'm in favor of following the rules so that it won't become more of a mess).

This one is the first thread. He started the other one after he was told to sit down and be polite to his DM here.

[Susano-wo]

as confusing as it is, unless I am reading it wrong, the timestamp indicates that this thread is the first thread

[Hiro Protagonest]

as confusing as it is, unless I am reading it wrong, the timestamp indicates that this thread is the first thread

Yeah, I noticed that afterwards, but didn't bother to say anything about it.

[Killer Angel]

Given the additional infos in the second thread, and the fact that the DM has no care for the rules at all, I would say the OP has two main options:
- leave the game
- live with it