My DM's a Dictator

[Hadesman]

Question is at the very bottom..
Don't really know how to say this... but my DM is being a tyrant. Fantastic, story writer, great at making stuff, but thing is, he has no care for the rules at all. For example:
"You guys fall into a pitch black chamber and water is beginning to rise...."
First thing I thought was, "Hey, dwarves have darkvision, and so they could see the length of the chamber..." and I told him that, but he said "It's pitchblack. He can't see." And I'm like, "Er... Darkvision. Dwarves can see in the dark...." And he's still saying, "HE CAN'T SEE! IT'S DARK! PITCHBLACK! FINE THEN! IT'S MAGICAL DARKNESS! HAPPY???..."
And the rest of my group is calling me a backseat driver, when I'm just trying to help them out by telling them what's what....
Another example: I rolled a search check (Got a 19 + 9) for traps (I'm a rogue) and another player rolled for a spot check (15 + 4) (Also what's the difference between spotting and searching to clarify). My DM tells me "You found nothing suspicious" and tells the other player "You found a trip wire." And I'm thinking, "Whaaaaaat??????????...." After that, I told him he got his search and spot checks mixed up. He just got pissed.
Last example: This frustrated me the most... The reflex vs fortitude save. So after I supposedly found nothing in a corridor (rolled a search check for traps - 20 + 9), my DM suddenly said, "Make a fortitude save." And I think, "??? Okay..." So I make it (got a 8 + 1), he says "You get hit by acid from above and take 1D4 damage." When he said that, I told him "That should must definitely be a reflex save since it's dodging the acid, and not resisting it..." Then he got mad and ranted, "No it isn't! It's a fortitude save. You can't dodge it, it came out of nowhere, and went all over you, and you can't dodge it.!" I just shut up and said nothing for the next two hours.
So my question basically is what should I do? I don't think I can do another session (this was the first) playing, but if I left, then they wouldn't be able to play as the books they're using are mine. If I stayed, the group would keep calling me a backseat driver/DM when (at least in my defense) I'm just telling them what saves are what, and things that are blatantly stated in the Player Handbook and DM handbook... I know what homebrew is, and totally open to it, as long as it doesn't go really far out of the book. My DM's defense is "I'm DM. I can do whatever. You just suck it up. You're not DM anymore, so I don't need to listen to you." So what do I do? Stay, endure, and maybe have a good time or leave, and end the whole thing, by taking my stuff... Also correct me on the whole search spot thing, and if I'm doing something wrong, just tell me.

[Fates]

Well, for starters, search is actively looking for something, whereas spot is your passive vision. Sounds like your DM doesn't understand that, or else is antagonizing you needlessly.

[Hadesman]

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

[tensai_oni]

Vote with your feet. If he asks why you aren't coming to his games anymore, tell him why. Because he's being a jerk and making the game not fun for you. And if he demands you come anyway because you're the one with the books... well, all the more reason NOT to do that, no?

[Hendel]

Well, I recall that you just posted something like this a few days ago about your DM being a dictator and such. My advice at that time was to let him do his job.

What you are now describing is more of a DM who has an idea but does not really know how to get it done within the scope of the rules or else he really just does not like you.

Again, I would suggest that you talk with him away from the table and see why he is ruling in such ways as you describe. If you two cannot come to an agreement, you may have to leave the game. I know you don't want to be the guys who says, "I am taking my rules and leaving," but you may have to do so. Besides, all the improtant rules are available for free on line.

So decide if you want to remain in the group, talk with the DM and maybe the players, and then make your call. My philosophy is that if I am not having fun playing a game, I need to be doing something else.

[Gnaeus]

If you don't like the game, don't play. Life's too short. The adult thing to do may be to talk with the DM OOC (out of character) away from the game and express your concerns. But if you don't like it, don't go.

[Kish]

Stay, endure, and maybe have a good time or leave, and end the whole thing, by taking my stuff... Also correct me on the whole search spot thing, and if I'm doing something wrong, just tell me.
Um.

Everyone in the group but you is, apparently, having fun. Your defense isn't. If you cannot have fun without following the letter of the rules, or if you have...less stereotypical-rules-lawyer objections, like "he's favoring some characters over others," which still lead to "you can't have fun in that group," then you should drop out. Let them worry about where to find the books (unless one or more of them is a good enough friend for you to lend them your books for a game you're no longer in). But don't ask for advice on how to get them to treat the RAW as an authority, because that's not something you can do.

[Juntao112]

Question is at the very bottom..
Don't really know how to say this... but my DM is being a tyrant. Fantastic, story writer, great at making stuff, but thing is, he has no care for the rules at all. For example:
"You guys fall into a pitch black chamber and water is beginning to rise...."
First thing I thought was, "Hey, dwarves have darkvision, and so they could see the length of the chamber..." and I told him that, but he said "It's pitchblack. He can't see." And I'm like, "Er... Darkvision. Dwarves can see in the dark...." And he's still saying, "HE CAN'T SEE! IT'S DARK! PITCHBLACK! FINE THEN! IT'S MAGICAL DARKNESS! HAPPY???..."
And the rest of my group is calling me a backseat driver, when I'm just trying to help them out by telling them what's what....
Another example: I rolled a search check (Got a 19 + 9) for traps (I'm a rogue) and another player rolled for a spot check (15 + 4) (Also what's the difference between spotting and searching to clarify). My DM tells me "You found nothing suspicious" and tells the other player "You found a trip wire." And I'm thinking, "Whaaaaaat??????????...." After that, I told him he got his search and spot checks mixed up. He just got pissed.
Last example: This frustrated me the most... The reflex vs fortitude save. So after I supposedly found nothing in a corridor (rolled a search check for traps - 20 + 9), my DM suddenly said, "Make a fortitude save." And I think, "??? Okay..." So I make it (got a 8 + 1), he says "You get hit by acid from above and take 1D4 damage." When he said that, I told him "That should must definitely be a reflex save since it's dodging the acid, and not resisting it..." Then he got mad and ranted, "No it isn't! It's a fortitude save. You can't dodge it, it came out of nowhere, and went all over you, and you can't dodge it.!" I just shut up and said nothing for the next two hours.
So my question basically is what should I do? I don't think I can do another session (this was the first) playing, but if I left, then they wouldn't be able to play as the books they're using are mine. If I stayed, the group would keep calling me a backseat driver/DM when (at least in my defense) I'm just telling them what saves are what, and things that are blatantly stated in the Player Handbook and DM handbook... I know what homebrew is, and totally open to it, as long as it doesn't go really far out of the book. My DM's defense is "I'm DM. I can do whatever. You just suck it up. You're not DM anymore, so I don't need to listen to you." So what do I do? Stay, endure, and maybe have a good time or leave, and end the whole thing, by taking my stuff... Also correct me on the whole search spot thing, and if I'm doing something wrong, just tell me.

Old Man Henderson. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson)

[Namfuak]

Traps almost invariably have reflex saves, unless it's a save against a spell. Rogues also can't be caught flat-footed after 4th level (+9 bonus to search tells me you might not be there yet), but even if that were the case you probably wouldn't get a fortitude save anyway. As for the darkvision, that's blatant disregard for the rules, you should ask him if you can get something in exchange for darkvision if he is not going to let you use it. And honestly I don't see why he was so hostile to that, he could just say that you fell too far to reach the top.

EDIT: In my opinion, not playing perfectly by the rules is not such a big deal, so long as the players are allowed to use their abilities. The darkvision thing especially is a case where the DM is wrong. Not making a DM call, not playing his way, he is wrong. You have an ability, you had a good reason to use it, and you were denied on the grounds of "but I don't like it."

[Yogibear41]

IMO if your not having fun then their is no point in being there. Talk to your DM and say your peace, if nothing changes you should probably just leave.

[Drynwyn]

Your DM has some serious misunderstandings of the rules, or he feels like he has to screw with the rules to challenge you- likely both. The Fort save thing and the spot check thing both sound like he could have done it because he felt you rogue wouldn't be challenged by something usng your best skill/save, and then he messed up his execution.

My advice would be to point out the inconsistencies in his actions as though he meant to alter the rules like that before next session ("Hey, I noticed that some of the checks you called for were unusual...") and request a written list of his house rules. (..What all ways are you altering the rules?). If he does it, then he can't make arbitrary changes because you aren't failing. If he doesn't, look for a new DM.

[ArcturusV]

Well, we're just really hearing one side of things here. But in my own experience? When a player starts "correcting" or "helping" me as a DM, it ticks me the hell off. Sometimes, yes, it's an honest mistake and should be corrected. Not denying that. Sounds like it is in those cases. Sometimes, like with the hole thing, I think it's a case of forgetting about some ability which would negate the interesting concept/puzzle we have for an encounter. No one likes having spent time crafting some obstacle to be told "oh, I autopass it because of one spell/ability". And he could have handled the situation in ways that would have had the same effect but not really been an issue. That's a mark of a veteran DM. For example, if I wanted to blind a creature with dark vision in that I'd say something like:

The water is too murky to see through, your visibility in the water is barely past the length of your arm. Due to the large amount of dust and debris falling from the cave in that dropped you here, you cannot see further than 5' away from you above water.

Which would have the same effect. As the water is rising the condition could logically remain until you solved it anyway, without worrying about you waiting for it.

And these are the sorts of things that veteran DMs pick up on over the years. New DMs have to result to the infamous Rule Zero: "The DM is always right".

So, down to suggestions. I'm going to suggest next time you play, and since you said he was a great story crafter, it's probably worth riding out, just use one of your spare pieces of paper to take notes during the session. Don't argue with him, don't "point out his mistakes", or anything like that. Don't try to "help" him during the session, just let him run it. Afterwards, when everyone has cooled down, packed up, maybe heading out for the night, just say, "Hey, got some notes about the session, things you can work on or that I thought were kinda clunky or stuck out as odd. Along with why, and how you could alter them so they'd work out a bit smoother while having the same effect." And you know, keep your advice to that. Tell him how to make things work the way he wanted them to work. Not "Well this is how it DOES work." but "If you wanted it to work this way, then you should frame up the event as..."

And things like this goes a long way. It can help build him up as a better DM faster. Because it's not about rules mastery so much. It's about being consistent and knowing how to make what you want happen. Even if he gets rules wrong, it's not that important so long as he gets them wrong in the same way consistently.

[Urpriest]

The Darkvision example shows that he's not actually good at storytelling. A good storyteller takes the capabilities of their characters and their magic system into account.

[Tvtyrant]

The Darkvision example shows that he's not actually good at storytelling. A good storyteller takes the capabilities of their characters and their magic system into account.

He could just mean "worldbuilding" here. The two have a passing resemblance to each other.

[MagnusExultatio]

Old Man Henderson. (http://1d4chan.org/wiki/Old_Man_Henderson)

Old Man Henderson is not a way to go about doing things. The player of OMH has explicitly said that he did it to be a complete jerk to the GM in question. What you are recommending is for OP to relentlessly troll his GM. That is not the solution to his problem, and while it makes for a good story (debateably), that's all it makes for. It is terrible advice.

[Gnaeus]

A good storyteller does not necessarily equal a good DM. A good storyteller may be railroading things down ways he wants them to go. A good DM is concerned with player fun.

Also, while it may not be fun to have your obstacle short circuited by some character's ability, it is also not fun to have your abilities fiated away when they would help you bypass an obstacle. I mean, that is why you have abilities on your character sheet.

And even if he is a good storyteller AND a good DM, if his style of gaming involves a lot of making up rules, and if that is not fun for OP, walk away. Not every game is for everyone and if you are not having fun, don't play.

Talk to DM again. Give it another chance. If still not fun, don't go back.

[Barsoom]

The Darkvision example shows that he's not actually good at storytelling. A good storyteller takes the capabilities of their characters and their magic system into account.

To put a finger on the problem, he's not good at interactive storytelling. I know DMs like this: they just tell a brilliant story they have concocted in their head, and the characters are there along for the ride. Sometimes, the story is actually good, but in the bottom line, it's the interactivity that really make D&D into the game we love. To DMs like this, I say: go write a book and let us play our game!

[RFLS]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=278165) makes me wonder exactly how much of the full story we're getting.

[Gnaeus]

Who cares? Whether OP is in the wrong, or DM is in the wrong, is irrelevant. If op doesn't like the game, he shouldn't play. If OP is disruptive, thats a different problem.

[Spuddles]

Just leave and take your books. If the protest, just tell them that it doesn't really seem like they need the books, anyway.

[RFLS]

Who cares?

...me? I don't like that this DM is being condemned when I'm 98% sure we don't have the full story, esp. since he never came back to the previous thread after being told he was in the wrong.

[Karnith]

...me? I don't like that this DM is being condemned when I'm 98% sure we don't have the full story, esp. since he never came back to the previous thread after being told he was in the wrong.
Even if he's in the wrong, though, he should just leave if he's not having fun at the gaming session. Particularly if him not having fun is causing (or is at serious risk of causing) other people in the session to not have fun.

I get that he's pretty inflammatory about his DM, but he's asking for advice and the best that we can give is probably "Walk away." If he's not happy with his DM/playgroup/their playstyle, then no amount of telling him that he's wrong will make it better for him.

[Yael]

I'm not a Power Player, but I've been in a lot of games. I've had awesome DMs (such as the one I'm playing Call of Cthulhu with every friday), and I've had terrible DMs (whose rules state that he is a DM, we cannot said anything except for telling our roll totals).
So, now on-topic, try to talk to your fellow players, they should figure out what is happening, explain them why things shouldn't have happened (such as your Fortitude Save at the acid trap), and give them proof of it (Dungeon Master's Guide in this case).
When all of you are in the same line, try to speak to your DM, not in a war-like mood, but in a we-can-solve-this-peacefully mood.
If you cannot get in a deal, about your Dwarf's Darkvision or the correct use of traps' Saving Throws; then leave the game. It is for good, trust me. It have happened to me a lot of times (in different situations, where all our books had to be core only and the DM was using WoW and PF stuff...).

[Mutant Sheep]

Just leave and take your books. If the protest, just tell them that it doesn't really seem like they need the books, anyway.

Really, this. Nthis this this. If they don't even follow them, they don't need them.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I think the real issue to address isn't certain misapprehensions with regard to the rules, but rather his attitude when they're brought up. Anyone can make mistakes, and I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that every DM has, but the real trial is handling them with a kind of grace. Now, if he's DMing for the first time, or at least relatively new at it, someone who knows the rules better then him can not only be intimidating, but potentially derailing, and someone who points this out in front of the table in the wrong way can not only break the mood and action, but be humiliating for the DM, depending on his personality.

My first advice is the same as the advice I imagine is being given by everyone ninja-ing my post, which is to talk to the DM alone about it. I always recommend starting a conversation about a disagreement with an apology, even — especially — if you feel you did nothing wrong; "I'm sorry if I came across as" not only helps to establish that one meant well, but can go a long way to explaining a miscommunication that caused the conflict. After all, understanding the causes of the conflict are the most important step towards solving it. Thus, try to explain to the DM why you pointed out his potential misunderstandings with the rules, and ask him to explain why he (seemingly) reacted so harshly, even angrily, to you doing so. The problem might be as simple as your "helpful advice" striking him as "condescending instructions," which could be easily cleared up by you explaining your intentions and him explaining why he gets so upset.

For example, he's the DM now and he can do whatever, but it's important for everyone to understand the basic rules in place; if a player wants to make an expert trap-finder, it doesn't really matter which skill the DM has players use to look for traps, but it does matter that the players are aware of which skill they should choose to make the kind of character they'd like to make. Rules help keep everyone on the same page and keep things consistent. On his side, it may feel like you are trying to use your superior knowledge of the rules to take advantage of him; it's worth noting that, in all of your examples, your suggestions would benefit your character. Besides, pointing out rule mistakes can really break the momentum and the mood of the game; nothing ruins a tense moment like everyone flipping through rulebooks to make sure it's actually tense and not easily solved by some race or class ability the DM forgot.

In short, I wouldn't leave before at least trying to clarify the source of the conflict and how to best resolve it with the DM, privately. He may not understand that you have a perfectly good reason for correcting him about rules and you may not understand that there's a perfectly reasonable explanation for why he's getting so upset. If that fails, I don't see any moral obligation to stay in the group. Firstly, some of the other players may feel the same way and prefer to play in a campaign where this guy isn't DMing. Secondly, even if they'd all like to see it through, they should be able to continue with the SRD if you take the books. Yeah, the DMG isn't in the SRD, but the DM has also made it pretty clear that he's not overly concerned with following the letter of the RAW given in the DMG.

As for search (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/search.htm) and spot (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/spot.htm), the general difference is that spot is a quick look over a larger area (see someone hiding in a shadow, tell how far the party is from an enemy, &c.), possibly from a longer distance. Search is a focused look at a smaller area, usually from a distance of ten feet or less. Thus, search is generally the skill used to find traps.

EDIT: "Letter of the RAW" popped into my head and it seemed a necessary addition to the post. :smalltongue:

[Hyde]

Even if we consider the possibility that the DM is being misrepresented, there is enough concrete evidence to suggest the DM needs some coaching, at least. He should know the rules, at least as much as the players, anyway. Really, it seems the group needs to work through a module to see everything in action. They're almost universally bland, but the bulk of them are developed with at least everything in the core rule books in mind, so they serve as a decent introduction.

Personally, I despise modules, but I cannot deny that they have a place with new groups, especially those lacking an experienced DM.

[Haluesen]

Whether or not we have the full story, like someone above mentioned, we can still look at this without taking that into account. Really, the three events are kinda better handled on a case by case basis. The first thing was purely DM mania. Player has ability, DM shuts it down because he doesn't like it. Not exactly something that should be taken lightly. It's just blatant domineering.

The second thing, about spot and search checks, honestly sounds like either a small mistake on the DM's part, or just a disagreement on what does what. Nothing you can really do there, mistakes happen and people have different opinions on things.

And the last thing, sorry but that does sound a little bit like backseat DMing there. If he says Fort save, it can be Fort save. Again as number 2, just a difference in what is for what, moving past it is best.

So final diagnosis? What most everyone here has said: try to talk things through with your DM outside of the game peacefully, tell why you gave your views on things, and try to reach compromise. If, as in the second or third things, the DM just sees things differently or makes an honest mistake I think it is fair for you to give the campaign a bit longer, see how things go. If he refuses to see your way on things at all, is stubborn in a rude way or dismisses your concerns without care, just go. You won't find fun here, and that is what D&D is about. Let them look for rules elsewhere or go without. You shouldn't have to be a martyr for everyone else's enjoyment.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Gnaeus
Who cares?


Originally Posted by RFLS
...me? I don't like that this DM is being condemned when I'm 98% sure we don't have the full story.

Me too.



Also, note that the OP mentioned this was the first game session.

The first session of my last long campaign, I frakked up the very first encounter and ended up sending the entire orc stronghold at the party, all at once, rather than sequentially as I'd planned.

The party survived, in a legendary fight--in which, at one point, three petite women held off the massed orcs over the burly fighter's sprawled, comatose body--and the campaign ran successfully for years thereafter.

Did I make other mistakes? Yes. Did the table still have a blast? Yes.



The DM made a couple of mistakes. At the very least, give him the benefit of the doubt and show up for the next session.

[Hyde]

I missed this being the first session.

Also that line about you being "not the DM anymore" is a little suspicious. Did you previously DM the group? for how long?

Anyway, if it's the first session, cope with it for the time being, and perhaps encourage the DM to sign up for the forums.

[KillianHawkeye]

Just leave and take your books. If the protest, just tell them that it doesn't really seem like they need the books, anyway.

Damn, you beat me to it. :smallamused:

[AuraTwilight]

{scrubbed}

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I don't really understand all the harsh reactions for the DM shutting down Darkvision. Sure, his method was rather inelegant, but I don't see anything wrong with setting up a situation where the party is blind, regardless of their visual abilities. While spells like teleport have the reputation of being "story breaking" abilities, story breaking (or at least mood breaking) abilities aren't limited to the big, flashy spells; either tongues or the even humbler comprehend languages almost ruined an entire story arc in my first campaign. Similarly, darkvision can really ruin a cool encounter, and while it would be preferable for the DM to deal with Darkvision in advance, any new DM can get taken by surprise by an ability and end up having to deal with it on the fly. Again, "it's magical darkness" wasn't the most elegant solution to the problem, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it other than an aesthetic distaste for the "A Wizard Did It!" school of explanations.

[Susano-wo]

hadesman: why the heck are you making two threads about your DM?

and I will just second Haluesen said. I think he has broken down the specific issues succinctly and accurately :smallwink:

Oh and I also care if we are getting a false picture -- I don't like people being misrepresented :smallannoyed:

[Susano-wo]

Velsu: the issue isn't that he had them in a situation of magical darkness, its that he disregarded the ability, and made up a reason why he couldn't use it on the spot.

[nobodez]

Um.

Everyone in the group but you is, apparently, having fun. Your defense isn't. If you cannot have fun without following the letter of the rules, or if you have...less stereotypical-rules-lawyer objections, like "he's favoring some characters over others," which still lead to "you can't have fun in that group," then you should drop out. Let them worry about where to find the books (unless one or more of them is a good enough friend for you to lend them your books for a game you're no longer in). But don't ask for advice on how to get them to treat the RAW as an authority, because that's not something you can do.

I've been accused many times of being a rules lawyer, and while when I was younger I truly was, now I'm just a guy who cares about proper adjudication. By that I mean, if the rules aren't being followed by everyone, the world is no longer consistent, and it becomes difficult or impossible for some people who like an orderly world to cope.

I like to know what the effects my causes will have. In life that's why I have a solid math and science background and why I make sure to know what the rules are at work, so that I know exactly what the outcome of anything I will do will likely be.

In a game there are rules, those rules from a structure that defines the various effects from various causes. When the GM changes the rules, they change the way the world works.

A more experienced DM would have said something about the murky water, or falling debris, or even just let the dwarf be a dwarf and let him have his darkvision. A more experienced DM would have rolled the dice behind the screen after the various people gave him their bonuses and then told them what they saw, or could have explained that the trip wire wasn't where the rogue was looking. A more expereinced DM would have done it at a ranged touch attack, rather than a fort save (since a fort save isn't right in any interpretation of the rules, even the ones he gave).

I think the OP has two problems. One, he's like me in that he prefers to live in a structured universe, where there are rules and they make sense, and even the exceptions to the rules (like magic) make sense. Two, he's been the primary GM for too long, and while the current GM is a good stroyteller, he doesn't care as much about the rules, doesn't live in as structured a universe as the OP, and doesn't understand "why" the OP is being frustrated (it might also be a bit of revenge if the OP was seen as being too harsh).

[Amnestic]

Velsu: the issue isn't that he had them in a situation of magical darkness, its that he disregarded the ability, and made up a reason why he couldn't use it on the spot.

*shrug* It sounds like it was the guy's first session as a DM, that he had this thing planned and didn't know how to react when it wasn't gonna go like he envisioned it. Bad DMing? Yeah, but if it's his first session he probably gets a little bit of slack. I'd want some as a DM and give some as a player.

Chances are, OP, that your DM knows he's not perfect and knows he needs work, but doesn't wanna lose face in front of the group. My advice? Have him make an account on this-or-another-similar-forum and ask for DMing tips. Generally people are more than willing to help out newbie DMs with problems they're having.

O'course, making him aware of such places like the Playground might be more difficult, but hey-ho.

[Crake]

And the last thing, sorry but that does sound a little bit like backseat DMing there. If he says Fort save, it can be Fort save. Again as number 2, just a difference in what is for what, moving past it is best.

and to be fair, the trap could have involved a ranged touch attack as part of its activation, instead of a reflex save. Not to mention the damage of 1d4 is pretty pitiful, so there's no reason to complain.

[Haluesen]

hadesman: why the heck are you making two threads about your DM?

and I will just second Haluesen said. I think he has broken down the specific issues succinctly and accurately :smallwink:

Oh and I also care if we are getting a false picture -- I don't like people being misrepresented :smallannoyed:

Yay, I was smart today! :smallbiggrin: Officially made my day, just saying. And that you have a point, having both sides would be a good thing here. But I did make the best summary that I could with the given knowledge.

And what a few other people are saying makes sense too: if this is the person's first time DMing, he may deserve a little slack, unless again you try to discuss with him and he throws your words in your face. That is more a person issue than a gaming issue though, which isn't really want this is all completely about. But if he is new to DMing he could still be trying to get a grip on all this (took me half a campaign with my first one :smallbiggrin: ), but perhaps this does have the makings of being a truly great game either way.

@Crake Hmm good thought. Something that should possibly be mentioned to the target PC, but otherwise yeah that would make sense. Acid traps are tricky in that way. :smallwink:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

Velsu: the issue isn't that he had them in a situation of magical darkness, its that he disregarded the ability, and made up a reason why he couldn't use it on the spot.

Well, my point was that the DM probably made up a situation in which the party was supposed to be blind in advance, but either misunderstood, forgot about, or wasn't aware of darkvision when planning it. Thus, the DM had to come up with a reason why the player couldn't use darkvision on the spot or the ability would ruin/trivialize the encounter. As I said, my only complaint would be that the DM didn't come up with a very interesting or creative reason.

[Viachi]

I had a DM like that once: I got a natural 20 on a Hide check as well as +8 against five rolls that did not exceed that amount and I still got captured.

Some other people have given you some good adivce (talk to him out of game, ask for some written house rules), but if his play style irks you so much you should either leave, or find a replacement DM. My terrible DM and I had personal problems, so I asked my fellow players to take a vote and in a 3-1 descision we had him replaced (the next DM was thereafter replaced because of personal issues, and our current DM runs a smooth adventure; even if she botches the rules every once and a while she's receptive to double-checking the books and making adjustments). I guess what I'm getting at is, if you have to make an ultimatum to correct your DM's behaviour or replace him, you should do so because it IS a game and it's not fair if you don't enjoy it.

[Susano-wo]

Well, my point was that the DM probably made up a situation in which the party was supposed to be blind in advance, but either misunderstood, forgot about, or wasn't aware of darkvision when planning it. Thus, the DM had to come up with a reason why the player couldn't use darkvision on the spot or the ability would ruin/trivialize the encounter. As I said, my only complaint would be that the DM didn't come up with a very interesting or creative reason.

sure, and its not like its a mortal sin or anything, but I would be very frustrated if the DM did that to me. BUt as was said earlier, this is his first time ever DMing from what I understand, so some slack should be given :smallbiggrin:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

I guess I'd rather be told my ability doesn't work and get to play a fun encounter than get to use my ability and have to slog through some boring, trivial "challenges" because I used it. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't a "mortal sin," I'm trying to argue that it isn't a "sin" at all; in some cases, the DM has to shut down a Planar Shepherd being able to cast ninth-level arcane and divine spells at level 14, in other cases a DM has to shut down Darkvision.

Moreover, what's to say it wasn't magical darkness from the start? When I DM, I don't say "You guys all fell into a globe of deeper darkness cast by a sixteenth-level wizard you haven't seen yet, but who is down the hall," when the party falls into a globe of deeper darkness cast by a sixteenth-level wizard who they haven't seen yet, but who is down the hall, I say "The room into which you've fallen is pitch black, such that you cannot see your companion, or even your own hand held right in front of your face," because that's what the characters know.

[Susano-wo]

I guess I'd rather be told my ability doesn't work and get to play a fun encounter than get to use my ability and have to slog through some boring, trivial "challenges" because I used it. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't a "mortal sin," I'm trying to argue that it isn't a "sin" at all; in some cases, the DM has to shut down a Planar Shepherd being able to cast ninth-level arcane and divine spells at level 14, in other cases a DM has to shut down Darkvision.

Moreover, what's to say it wasn't magical darkness from the start? When I DM, I don't say "You guys all fell into a globe of deeper darkness cast by a sixteenth-level wizard you haven't seen yet, but who is down the hall," when the party falls into a globe of deeper darkness cast by a sixteenth-level wizard who they haven't seen yet, but who is down the hall, I say "The room into which you've fallen is pitch black, such that you cannot see your companion, or even your own hand held right in front of your face," because that's what the characters know.

ooookay. thought i was pretty much agreeing with you, but I guess not:smallconfused:
Its totally a sin (as much as RPG fopahs can be sins) to disregard a players abilities because they are inconvenient. You need to plan around those to make the challenges non-trivial. [if 9th lvl spells at 14 is a problem--which i think it is:smallamused:--then don't allow the player to get them. Tell them that that is OP and won't fly.

DM forgot about the dwarfs darkvision, which screwed up the encounter. DM adapted by trying to disregard the dwarfs basic racial features. (and we 'know' that because of the dialogue between OP and DM, which we kinda have to assume is basically accurate unless we conclude that OP is lying)

now this, again, isn't the worst thing in the world, but it isn't right for the DM to do to the player.

@Haluesen glad I could make your day better :smallsmile:

[JoshuaZ]

I don't really understand all the harsh reactions for the DM shutting down Darkvision. Sure, his method was rather inelegant, but I don't see anything wrong with setting up a situation where the party is blind, regardless of their visual abilities. While spells like teleport have the reputation of being "story breaking" abilities, story breaking (or at least mood breaking) abilities aren't limited to the big, flashy spells; either tongues or the even humbler comprehend languages almost ruined an entire story arc in my first campaign. Similarly, darkvision can really ruin a cool encounter, and while it would be preferable for the DM to deal with Darkvision in advance, any new DM can get taken by surprise by an ability and end up having to deal with it on the fly. Again, "it's magical darkness" wasn't the most elegant solution to the problem, but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it other than an aesthetic distaste for the "A Wizard Did It!" school of explanations.


Here's the thing: The DM's job is to make interesting encounters. If players find a way of changing the situation by using an ability, especially if it is a clever ability or it is a way for a specific character to shine (e.g. the one who is a dwarf), the DM should go for it. The game is about cooperative storytelling and having fun. And deliberately nerfing abilities to make an encounter go just as planned is railroading.

[nobodez]

I guess I'd rather be told my ability doesn't work and get to play a fun encounter than get to use my ability and have to slog through some boring, trivial "challenges" because I used it. I'm not trying to argue that it isn't a "mortal sin," I'm trying to argue that it isn't a "sin" at all; in some cases, the DM has to shut down a Planar Shepherd being able to cast ninth-level arcane and divine spells at level 14, in other cases a DM has to shut down Darkvision.

Okay, in no way shape or form is darkvision and a planar shepherd anywhere near the same level of needing to be "shut down". That right there is a straw man argument.

Hell, even deeper darkness doesn't cut off darkvision, and by a strict interpretation of the rules (RAW), darkness cast in an empty, light-tight room actually makes it easier to see, rather than more difficult (since the object "radiates shadowy illumination").

[Haluesen]

Still agreeing with the people about the darkvision thing. It is a legitimate racial ability, failing to take it into account is the fault of the GM. They shouldn't just make up a sudden ruling for why is doesn't work, unless it was already that way from the start. Which we can't know. The OP doesn't have the GM's knowledge of how the adventure was planned, they way he says it is that the GM just made it up the instant a player tries to do something he didn't like. Which is a big no no. Unless again he planned for it, which is possible. We have to work with what knowledge we have.

Like Susano said, unless OP is lying, which we don't and can't know. And like JoshuaZ said, denying a races basic abilities to make things go how you want is DM railroading and sucks. But everything else OP said about the DM doesn't make him seem like a constant railroader.

[Hyde]

Still agreeing with the people about the darkvision thing. It is a legitimate racial ability, failing to take it into account is the fault of the GM. They shouldn't just make up a sudden ruling for why is doesn't work, unless it was already that way from the start. Which we can't know. The OP doesn't have the GM's knowledge of how the adventure was planned, they way he says it is that the GM just made it up the instant a player tries to do something he didn't like. Which is a big no no. Unless again he planned for it, which is possible. We have to work with what knowledge we have.

Like Susano said, unless OP is lying, which we don't and can't know. And like JoshuaZ said, denying a races basic abilities to make things go how you want is DM railroading and sucks. But everything else OP said about the DM doesn't make him seem like a constant railroader. Hold on, now. There is a thread of being kind of a crappy player in this. Again, the way the DM is being represented throws everything in question, but what about this?

"You stare ahead into a corridor. The rough-hewn stone walls proceed twenty feet before disappearing into an inky darkness. You can hear a slow drip from somewhere further on."

"I'm a dwarf, I have darkvision."

"I know." (cue maniacal laughter.)

Anyway, this exchange would clue a savvy player into the fact that, yes, this is magical darkness, be on your guard and no one on the board would ever have a problem with this presentation. Two less than level-headed people would make this exchange look a lot more bicker-y, and given that the OP has created two threads to complain about one GM in one session doesn't really leave me wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt.

My advice remains- proceed with caution, and probably try to be a little more diplomatic about these things. If the DM didn't buy his own books, statistically he's probably not the kind of person to just explode over nothing.

Well, statistically. : )

[JoshuaZ]

Hold on, now. There is a thread of being kind of a crappy player in this. Again, the way the DM is being represented throws everything in question, but what about this?

"You stare ahead into a corridor. The rough-hewn stone walls proceed twenty feet before disappearing into an inky darkness. You can hear a slow drip from somewhere further on."

"I'm a dwarf, I have darkvision."

"I know." (cue maniacal laughter.)

Anyway, this exchange would clue a savvy player into the fact that, yes, this is magical darkness, be on your guard and no one on the board would ever have a problem with this presentation. Two less than level-headed people would make this exchange look a lot more bicker-y, and given that the OP has created two threads to complain about one GM in one session doesn't really leave me wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt.

My advice remains- proceed with caution, and probably try to be a little more diplomatic about these things. If the DM didn't buy his own books, statistically he's probably not the kind of person to just explode over nothing.

Well, statistically. : )
This is a really good point. We're mainly operating under the assumption that the OP has given a good summary of what is happening. I've had at least one very similar situation happen that I'd like to think went more like this than the OP's description. However, given the OP's apparently emotional reaction, they may not be a reliable witness. At the same time, there's not much for us to do than to presume that some close approximation of the story is roughly correct because we don't have any other viable sources of info. At most we can give advice or discuss things based on what we know.

[nobodez]

This is a really good point. We're mainly operating under the assumption that the OP has given a good summary of what is happening. I've had at least one very similar situation happen that I'd like to think went more like this than the OP's description. However, given the OP's apparently emotional reaction, they may not be a reliable witness. At the same time, there's not much for us to do than to presume that some close approximation of the story is roughly correct because we don't have any other viable sources of info. At most we can give advice or discuss things based on what we know.

As I said earlier, I like to live an a structured universe, and when I read both Hyde's and your posts I shouted into my otherwise empty apartment, "that's not how darkness works!"

[icefractal]

A lot of this can be put down to DM inexperience, but the fact that (from the data we have) the DM is being a jerk about it is the real issue. You can't help someone who refuses to accept any possibility of error, and "the DM is always right" is one of the more toxic memes in RPGs.

Now sure, maybe we're not getting the whole story, but it doesn't really matter - I have to agree with the previous advice: leave the game, at least for a while. Maybe after some more sessions, the DM will pick up some experience and become more tolerable, and you can try his campaign again, but for now, leave.

What would be the benefit of the OP staying, exactly? He can't help the DM, because the DM won't accept it. He can't enjoy playing, because - at the very least - he and the DM have incompatible styles. And if he is the problem - then all the more reason to leave. But from the OP, the DM sounds kind of dickish. Unless the info in there is a flat-out lie, there's not much that could be spun in the DM's favor.

[Haluesen]

@Hyde Well good point. I honestly see the darkness thing as being a definite DM mess up. He could have handled that way better. But with the other two things? I do think OP may have been being a bit nitpicky. Rules in D&D can be interpreted so many ways, so who really knows there.

Again I'm kinda just running with what knowledge I have. I saw that other thread. It wasn't very positive. :smallfrown: Trying to think this through as clearly as possible. I really hope all this is getting the OP to have some kind of good idea. I still think the two just talking things over and giving the campaign a chance is the best plan.

[Hadesman]

To answer some questions:
Yes, I was DM/GM for about sixish months.
I am being a bit critical.
Don't really know why I made that thread.
Am definitely a rules lawyer.


What I've resolved to do is to give him the benefit of the doubt, since it is his first official session (He's DMed for the very first two of the group's sessions). I'll write some stuff that he's not necessarily doing wrong, but "incorrect" (Lack of a better term). I'm having fun, but it's really hard to play something that he's making up on the spot.

Thank you everyone :smallbiggrin:

[Hyde]

As I said earlier, I like to live an a structured universe, and when I read both Hyde's and your posts I shouted into my otherwise empty apartment, "that's not how darkness works!"

It's how Deeper Darkness works, and in the context of my presentation and every dungeon ever, the distinction is understood and not worthy of note.

[edit: also, the RAW on every darkness effect ever is stupid, the SRD needs a section dedicated to the existence of the "darkness particle" that must exist in DnD for their light rules to begin to make sense. Pathfinder version is pretty beautifully cleaned up]

[RFLS]

I'll write some stuff that he's not necessarily doing wrong, but "incorrect" (Lack of a better term).

...what...? Why? You've been told already that giving unsolicited advice is just not cool -.- I'm really not clear on what this is supposed to accomplish.

[nobodez]

It's how Deeper Darkness works, and in the context of my presentation and every dungeon ever, the distinction is understood and not worthy of note.

[edit: also, the RAW on every darkness effect ever is stupid, the SRD needs a section dedicated to the existence of the "darkness particle" that must exist in DnD for their light rules to begin to make sense. Pathfinder version is pretty beautifully cleaned up]

It's not how deeper darkness works either (since it's just darkness with a higher level, larger area, and longer duration, the shadowy illumination effect and it's 20% miss chance whether you have normal, low-light, or dark-vision wasn't changed, unless it was after my second printing v.3.5 PHB).

But, I digress, PF has a lot of better rules (though as I've discovered recently on these forums, the lack of coherent level adjustment rules is a glaring flaw), and I recommend it to anyone (if only because there's a lot less cheese, or rather different cheese, in Pathfinder versus v.3.5).

[Hyde]

It's not how deeper darkness works either (since it's just darkness with a higher level, larger area, and longer duration, the shadowy illumination effect and it's 20% miss chance whether you have normal, low-light, or dark-vision wasn't changed, unless it was after my second printing v.3.5 PHB).

But, I digress, PF has a lot of better rules (though as I've discovered recently on these forums, the lack of coherent level adjustment rules is a glaring flaw), and I recommend it to anyone (if only because there's a lot less cheese, or rather different cheese, in Pathfinder versus v.3.5).

Yes, the rules where the CR of the monster= the +LA is basically broken. It works for very a few creatures, but once you start getting into things with weird powers, it gets very absurd very quickly.

for example, a +2 vampire template is a little stupid.

[Namfuak]

It's how Deeper Darkness works, and in the context of my presentation and every dungeon ever, the distinction is understood and not worthy of note.

[edit: also, the RAW on every darkness effect ever is stupid, the SRD needs a section dedicated to the existence of the "darkness particle" that must exist in DnD for their light rules to begin to make sense. Pathfinder version is pretty beautifully cleaned up]

I'm not entirely in the camp that darkness does not work as-is. Darkvision is taking what little light exists and using it to see, if you figure that darkness works by removing light from the area, people with darkvision will not see anything, because there is literally nothing to see. "Shadowy Illumination" is an awful, contradictory term to use (in relation to the intended effect of the spell), but the rest can make sense.

[Hendel]

Not to derail the thread any further but this is one thing that Pathfinder got right. They codified the light rules so that Deeper Darkness can indeed take an extra step below darkness into "supernatural darkness." Not even Darkvision can work there.

Headsman has never stated that he was running 3.5 or 4e, so in case it is Pathfinder, then Nobedez is incorrect. If it is 3.5 then he is correct. Just wanted to clarify that point.

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

DM forgot about the dwarfs darkvision, which screwed up the encounter. DM adapted by trying to disregard the dwarfs basic racial features. (and we 'know' that because of the dialogue between OP and DM, which we kinda have to assume is basically accurate unless we conclude that OP is lying)
Actually, that isn't really clear from the dialogue, which was my point. The DM informed the players that they fell into a pitch black chamber and could feel water beginning to rise. Their characters know that a) they can't see and b) the water is beginning to rise. Whether or not the DM had planned around darkvision in advance, this is all the information the players should have been given, in my opinion. If the dwarves, half-orcs, &c. want to know why their darkvision isn't working, the characters should be making skill checks to find out.


Okay, in no way shape or form is darkvision and a planar shepherd anywhere near the same level of needing to be "shut down". That right there is a straw man argument.
The number and variety of situations they will ruin are obviously incomparable, but darkvision can ruin certain situations as easily and totally and planar shepherd can, if the DM doesn't plan around it. Having players need to blindly navigate a hazardous chamber is a fun puzzle that darkvision would totally ruin, were the DM not to plan some way of negating abilities like darkvision.

My point is that puzzles should be solved by players coming up with clever ways to use their abilities, not by players coming up with rules the DM doesn't know. I agree with JoshuaZ in that I think the game is about cooperative storytelling and having fun, but I don't really think removing all drama and tension from an encounter because the DM forgot the fine print of one rule makes for very much fun or a very good story.


Hell, even deeper darkness doesn't cut off darkvision, and by a strict interpretation of the rules

Pretend I said "a wholly opaque, inky black version of fog cloud" instead of "deeper darkness" and the point remains that, regardless of any given player's metagame knowledge about which spells would block darkvision, all the characters know is that they can't see anything. Which is, in fact, the exact point I was making about not telling the players metagame knowledge beyond the fact that their characters can't see anything.

EDIT: What happened when I tried to type JoshuaZ the first time?

[JoshuaZ]

As I said earlier, I like to live an a structured universe, and when I read both Hyde's and your posts I shouted into my otherwise empty apartment, "that's not how darkness works!"

Confused. What in my post prompts that?

[Oscredwin]

My point is that puzzles should be solved by players coming up with clever ways to use their abilities, not by players coming up with rules the DM doesn't know. I agree with JoshuaZ in that I think the game is about cooperative storytelling and having fun, but I don't really think removing all drama and tension from an encounter because the DM forgot the fine print of one rule makes for very much fun or a very good story.


It's dark, no one can see, and danger is approaching. Everyone is worried, but the Dwarf can see! He gets them out of a dangerous situation. Leading them trough the maze of death traps.

This is a perfectly fine puzzle for a first session.

[Hyde]

Confused. What in my post prompts that?His is a world in which no man may ever see the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars.:smalltongue:

[VeisuItaTyhjyys]

It's dark, no one can see, and danger is approaching. Everyone is worried, but the Dwarf can see! He gets them out of a dangerous situation. Leading them trough the maze of death traps.

This is a perfectly fine puzzle for a first session.

Really? See, to me, that sounds about as fun and engaging as a two-piece jigsaw puzzle or one-character murder mystery.

[nobodez]

His is a world in which no man may ever see the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars.:smalltongue:

lol, well, okay, perhaps I didn't read JoshuaZ's post correctly and it should have just been a reply to Hyde.

Also, I use the Dragonstar Rules for extended Colossal sizes, so really, it's not that hard to see the moon and sun (the stars are right out, but only if you'd don't paint them on the celestial sphere).

[Squirrel_Dude]

I have questions about the game's background.

1. How experienced is the DM?
2. How experienced are the other players? What classes are they playing?

[nobodez]

Really? See, to me, that sounds about as fun and engaging as a two-piece jigsaw puzzle or one-character murder mystery.

Ah, but if you make sure that everything is the same shade of grey within darkvision, it's almost the same.

Right?

[Menzath]

Ah yes situations like this have happened to many of us out there.

well I know there are some low level slime traps that "auto" hit. I was hit by one as a rogue myself.
The tricky thing about ceiling traps is that you have to be in the room to search for them, stepping into the room via normal entrance triggers the trap most of the time. All of this can be blamed on lower levels sucking.(trap sense should add to ALL saves, not just reflex imo).

I know someone gave an explanation above about the differences of search and spot. But the quick and dirty for your DM should be
Spot is for obvious, but passable things(like a penny on the ground) or people hiding.
Search is for things that were actively hidden, like the traps in the movie Home Alone.


And how could a spot check that LOW spot anything?:smallconfused:

[Razanir]

Really? See, to me, that sounds about as fun and engaging as a two-piece jigsaw puzzle or one-character murder mystery.

*shrugs* Maybe it's not too good of a puzzle, but it certainly makes for an interesting story

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: One thread per topic please.