PDA

View Full Version : DM Issues: Dealing with a DM with much less experience.



Drynwyn
2014-11-03, 04:51 PM
For a plurality of reasons, I find myself in a play-group with a DM that has a basic grasp of the rules- enough for a DM by most definitions- but much less experience with them then I, personally, do. (For reference, the rule-set is 3.5, the current level 1). This his led to some strain in the following situations:


-Rules that he misinterprets in a way that I can spot: He has stated after-the-fact with regard to these situations that he does want to follow the rules and does not object to being corrected on principle. However, thus far, the various manners in which I have corrected him during play have often been met with resistance or anger.

This is mainly a problem when I am correcting him based on supposed or assumed information that is hypothetically invisible to PC's, but that an experienced player has a good idea of in generality.

In-play, a key occurrence of this was dealing with a trap:

EDIT: Critical context here- We had previously spoken and he had expressed a desire for me to make sure he was handling the rules properly, and rules corrections from me had been accepted in-play on the understanding that I only dealt with issues that could be corrected quickly. His anger was not due to the fact that I was correcting him, but that I was doing so based on what he thought was information unknown to me (The Disable Device DC of the trap).

Me: "I attempt to disarm the swinging-scythe trap."
*rolls, gets a 19, including bonuses.*
Him: "You are struck by the trap. Take 6 points of damage.
Me(Internal):Hang on, traps usually only get triggered if you miss the disable device DC by more than 5. A CR 1 or lower trap most likely doesn't have a DC of 24 to disarm.
Me: "Wait, what? I think you have something wrong, I only trigger the trap if-"
Him: "Look, you don't know everything"
Me: "Yeah, but under the trap rules I only trigger if-"
Him: "Take 8 points of damage"
Me: "Look, you don't understand"
Him: "E-mail it to me"
Me: "But it's-"
Him: "Just e-mail it to me, I want to keep playing"
After the session, I discussed this with him. He acknowledged that he had been a bit hasty, and that I was correct, but requested that I handle correcting him differently. When I asked him how I should go about this, he dithered but did not provide an answer.

Less critical issues have sprung up with his annoyance at:

-My selection of obscure (not overpowered, just obscure) character options.

-My heavy use of dungeoneering gear (10-foot poles, acid, rope etc.) and similar tactics to bypass the risk of actually rolling a Disable Device check in trap-related encounters. This was initially REALLY funny, especially the part when he asked why I had listed 200 feet of rope and a grappling hook in my gear, but is becoming more of an issue.

He has stated that he feels like he "can't keep up with me".

The guy is really quite reasonable and I enjoy his campaign, so I'd prefer to resolve these issues rather than simply find a different group.
Any advice for accomplishing that?

Kid Jake
2014-11-03, 05:04 PM
I'm inclined to agree that in the name of expediency it's best to take up rules debates after the game has ended. DMing is often a thankless enough task without having to halt the game for rules arguments.

Since you enjoy his game and as you said, he isn't that experienced, why don't you try and take it easy on him until he acclimates? Lay off on the obscure stuff so that he doesn't have to go poring over more rules than he has to and try not to outright bypass the stuff he's planned out. If he feels like he can't keep up with you, slow down and give him a chance.

cobaltstarfire
2014-11-03, 05:12 PM
Well you could offer to help him out with things he's unsure of, outside of the game.

I think in the case of the trap I'd have just let it go, or waited till the end of the session to ask the GM about it.

As far as him getting annoyed that you're picking out obscure things and stuff, maybe instead ask him if it's ok instead of taking obscure stuff, he may not want to deal with obscure things while he's new to DMing.

And explain to him that what you're bringing with you are dungeon tools, if your character was expecting to go into a dungeon of course they would bring the required tools to get through as safely as he can. You could even explain to him how not everything has to be a skill check using the dungeon tools as an example.

The guys new, help him out, don't rules lawyer him into annoyance.

Dimers
2014-11-03, 05:27 PM
Accept imperfection. Your precision and preparedness both hint that you want things done right, and the simple fact is that they won't be, not often enough. So accept that some stuff will be wrong and keep enjoying the rest of it.

DireSickFish
2014-11-03, 05:31 PM
If you are trying to develop him into a good DM I'd advise slowing things down for him. 3.5 has a lot of things someone could know between all the splatbooks and even core spells can be tricky.

It sounds like he at the very least can control a table. While it may be annoying that he was shutting you down from correcting you, he kept play moving forward. If he kept making the traps wrong after you talked to him post-session that's when I would worry and take a more hands on approach to teaching him DMing. It's a lot easier to correct things between sessions than it is at the table.

You may actually need to gimp your character on purpose. Try sticking with a "schtick" and applying it consistently to problems instead of having a grab-bag of versatility. That way he can plan sessions better and know how you are likely to respond to situations.

Sorry if it sounds less fun, but training up a new DM should be worth the effort.

Galen
2014-11-03, 05:56 PM
For a plurality of reasons, I find myself in a play-group with a DM that has a basic grasp of the rules- enough for a DM by most definitions- but much less experience with them then I, personally, do. (For reference, the rule-set is 3.5, the current level 1). This his led to some strain in the following situations:


-Rules that he misinterprets in a way that I can spot: He has stated after-the-fact with regard to these situations that he does want to follow the rules and does not object to being corrected on principle. However, thus far, the various manners in which I have corrected him during play have often been met with resistance or anger.

This is mainly a problem when I am correcting him based on supposed or assumed information that is hypothetically invisible to PC's, but that an experienced player has a good idea of in generality.

In-play, a key occurrence of this was dealing with a trap:
Me: "I attempt to disarm the swinging-scythe trap."
*rolls, gets a 19, including bonuses.*
Him: "You are struck by the trap. Take 6 points of damage.
Me(Internal):Hang on, traps usually only get triggered if you miss the disable device DC by more than 5. A CR 1 or lower trap most likely doesn't have a DC of 24 to disarm.
Me: "Wait, what? I think you have something wrong, I only trigger the trap if-"
Him: "Look, you don't know everything"
Me: "Yeah, but under the trap rules I only trigger if-"
Him: "Take 8 points of damage"
Me: "Look, you don't understand"
Him: "E-mail it to me"
Me: "But it's-"
Him: "Just e-mail it to me, I want to keep playing"
Let's separate the issue into two parts:
1. The fact he didn't, apparently, know the rule
2. The way it was handled.

(1) is of course unfortunate. It would have been much better if the DM knew all the rules all the time. Especially rules regarding something as simple and often occurring as traps.

However, (2) is a perfectly reasonable response by the DM. Admittedly, he didn't know the specific rule, but the way he handled his own lack of knowledge was admirable. Cutting off the player so the game can continue, and encouraging them to talk after the game, is absolutely correct.

EDIT: now that I got to read it second time, going from 6 damage to 8 (unless it's a typo by the OP) is a bit of richard-ish move. He should have gone through "email me" before increasing the damage, really.

Drynwyn
2014-11-03, 07:19 PM
OP edited with some context: We had discussed the fact that I might notice rules mistakes during play prior to the trap event.

Prior to this, rules corrections/clarifications had been accepted during play (Most notably some misunderstandings on his part in the rules for shooting into melee) without incident. His issue wasn't that I was correcting him, it was that I was correcting him based on information that, in his mind, I shouldn't know- the trap's Disable Device DC.

Honest Tiefling
2014-11-03, 07:24 PM
Perhaps make it clear that you don't know those things. "Hey, I don't know the exact DC of this trap, but this might be relevant." This way you acknowledge that you don't know the trap, but you are just handing out a snippet that might be helpful. I only suggest this because the DM has expressed an interest in getting better, mind you.

Or perhaps show that you want to help them get better. Make them some flash cards, everyone loves flash cards.

Talyn
2014-11-03, 07:26 PM
Frankly, you shouldn't have known that. There is no rule that requires the DM to provide you with level-appropriate traps - that is gamism in it's most obnoxious form. Not only does your character not know how difficult the trap was, you, the player have no way of knowing - and you telling him that he is doing it wrong because he doesn't make the same assumptions that you do was absolutely the wrong thing to do.

A more appropriate response might have been: "Damn, guys, there must be a really expert trap-maker here in this dungeon if I missed that one!" That would a) provide the DM with an in-universe "excuse" to cover up his error (if, in fact, he made an error), b) notify the DM that you, the player, were expecting trap DCs to be significantly lower, and c) promoted your character's development, since you are clearly playing him as a veteran dungeoneer.

Honest Tiefling
2014-11-03, 07:29 PM
A more appropriate response might have been: "Damn, guys, there must be a really expert trap-maker here in this dungeon if I missed that one!" That would a) provide the DM with an in-universe "excuse" to cover up his error (if, in fact, he made an error), b) notify the DM that you, the player, were expecting trap DCs to be significantly lower, and c) promoted your character's development, since you are clearly playing him as a veteran dungeoneer.

I...Actually disagree with this. I think being honest is better, as this can easily seem very passive-aggressive, snarky or just plain insulting. A good DM will probably come up with their own explanations, through if you feel the need to pitch an idea I suggest discussing it with the other characters, in character. That way the DM can snipe good ideas, but you do so while interacting with the rest of the party.

Galen
2014-11-03, 07:52 PM
A more appropriate response might have been: "Damn, guys, there must be a really expert trap-maker here in this dungeon if I missed that one!" That would a) provide the DM with an in-universe "excuse" to cover up his error (if, in fact, he made an error), b) notify the DM that you, the player, were expecting trap DCs to be significantly lower, and c) promoted your character's development, since you are clearly playing him as a veteran dungeoneer.Allow me to balance out the previous poster and say I absolutely agree with this one. It's always better to at least make an honest attempt to address a situation ingame before you go to break immersion and complain about it out of game.



Also, remember, one man's "honesty" is another's "whinery".

NichG
2014-11-03, 07:53 PM
Based on what the DM has spoken to you about, I'd say the best way to handle things is to do what he asked here - email him a list of things that seemed off to you after every session. That covers both his request that you help him with the rules, but keeps it from bogging down gameplay (especially in cases where he might have a reason to disagree, such as things that aren't actually rules such as encounter design and balancing - that kind of thing can turn into very long discussions which really don't belong during game).

Edit: And yes, as a DM I prefer the in-world response to the out-of-game response. Not just because of pacing, but because 'hey, I figured something out about the dungeon based on my intuition and experience' is an awesome thing for a character to do.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-03, 08:27 PM
Let the DM make snap rulings on anything that might be disputed during the game, and then look it up together afterward. This is important because it speeds up play, reduces confusion, prevents breaking a session, and most importantly, keeps the two of you from killing each other.

Get together with the DM and decide on what materials he will approve for the campaign. Advise that the DM only approve materials he's got access to to prevent confusion in the future. After that, only use things from the DM's approved list of materials.

Cut it out with the dungeoneering gear stuff. Your DM probably finds it obnoxious that your character seems to know exactly how to circumvent traps without even rolling a skill check, and you know as well as anyone at the table that you're bypassing the traps in those ways because you have prior knowledge of them.

Honest Tiefling
2014-11-03, 08:28 PM
Actually, why not ask him how he would like you to present potential ruling issues that would make him the most comfortable? Perhaps show him this thread for ideas that would work for him.

jedipotter
2014-11-04, 03:18 AM
Right off it might be better for you to ''play under your experience'', it is just not worth it to cause problems in the game endlessly. It is like back seat driving or second guessing.


And the whole rules lawyer thing is always a bad idea. I flat out don't allow it in my games. If a player wants to bring something up, they can do so after the game.

In your example, sure he was a DM that did not know any better. But an experienced DM would tell you: You can make a Scythe Trap of DC 24 and make it CR1. You can make the trap very easy to spot, but hard to disarm, for example.

And once you get beyond 1st level, and even more so 5+, there are just endless things on top of endless things. So when you star saying this DC should be this or that AC should be that, well it depends on lots and lots and lots of things that as a player you don't know. Sure the book says on page 42 that the monster has an AC of 18, but that is not absolute. The DM could give the monster improved natural armor twice and raise it's AC to 20. And as a player, you would not know that detail. So to make a big deal and stop the game as you say the AC should be 18, will just make you look silly when the DM says it took the feats. (and if your going to say your character can ''know feats'', I'd point out there is not rule for that)

Nightgaun7
2014-11-04, 04:21 AM
I would expect few things to annoy me, were I a new GM, as much as a player who waltzes through all the stuff I put in front of him with a bunch of mundane items I don't know the rules for.

valadil
2014-11-04, 06:21 AM
Actually, why not ask him how he would like you to present potential ruling issues that would make him the most comfortable? Perhaps show him this thread for ideas that would work for him.

I like this idea in theory. In practice it doesn't really work. If someone doesn't like being corrected, even if they want to learn, that doesn't necessarily mean that they can articulate how you can correct them without bothering them. The DM may not have that knowledge and it's not fair to expect that of him. By all means, brainstorm with him and find out if there's a way to help without ticking him off. Just expect that the things he suggests are based in speculation and you'll have to try them out and see if they work.

Other ideas...

Point out your shenanigans to him in advance. If he knows the basics, but not the obscure, show him the new stuff you're using so he can see it coming. It sounds like he doesn't like to be surprised by things he couldn't have anticipated, so show him what you're using so he has a chance to anticipate it. It'd be kinda like playing Magic with an open hand, letting him see what you have but only sometimes figuring out how you'll use it.

Has he tried premade campaigns or dungeons? I think GMs sometimes get too attached to their own adventures, especially when they've spent a lot of time prepping. It's easy to get flustered if the players bypass it with their cleverness. But if you're running World's Largest Dungeon, who cares if that new spell bypasses three rooms?

I also think he should up the difficulty and not necessarily give you solvable puzzles/obstacles. One of the things I did in my early games was always write a way out of any situation. Even when the players didn't use my approach, they were solving my puzzles easily because they were already half defeated. Instead I wrote things I thought would be relatively bulletproof. This obstacles got solved too, but they were much more challenging. Even if I'm smarter than all my players, I'm not smarter than the 5 of them combined. They'll thing of stuff I won't, and that's a good thing. I think your GM needs to accept this immutable fact of the game table.

Nobot
2014-11-04, 07:44 AM
Why would you even want to correct him if you're having fun and he's reasonable?

GoblinGilmartin
2014-11-04, 08:29 AM
I would say that it would be a good thing for your DM to learn DM rule Number 1. Communication is key.

To me, DMing is a very philosophical thing. Not everyone can be a good DM without understanding the way they approach it.

Jay R
2014-11-04, 08:41 AM
Do not correct a nervous DM in-game unless it's important enough to be worth causing him lots more difficulty and stress. 6-8 hit points doesn't qualify. Save it for private discussion outside the game.

I also recommend that you drop all obscure character options. You're good enough to thrive in this guy's dungeon with the Player's Handbook and nothing else. The unusual stuff is adding to his stress level without helping you particularly.

cobaltstarfire
2014-11-04, 09:05 AM
You may also want to like, balance out things he's doing "wrong" with things you like and feel he is doing "right".

Most people are much happier and open to criticism if you can also give them some positive feedback. You said you're enjoying his game and such so that should be pretty easy.

prufock
2014-11-04, 10:00 AM
Me(Internal):Hang on, traps usually only get triggered if you miss the disable device DC by more than 5. A CR 1 or lower trap most likely doesn't have a DC of 24 to disarm.
To be fair, as a player (and character) why did you assume it was a CR 1 trap? Why did you assume it had the same Disable DC as the one in the book?

Drynwyn
2014-11-05, 12:21 AM
Answering some miscellaneous questions:

-The DM is using a pre-made adventure. (Specifically, the Sunless Citadel). This was part of the reason I was fairly certain the trap wasn't some sort of bizarre concoction.

-To those who have suggested asking him about the best way to bring up corrections: As mentioned in the OP, I attempted this. It led to dithering and an absence of clear answers.

Right now, I'm thinking about inviting him to guest-play for a few sessions in the campaign that I do DM (Shares no players with his campaign). Hopefully, this would ease tensions between us and give him a more clear idea of what I look for in a DM, as well as make it clear that my criticism comes from a place of caring. Thoughts on this plan?

Milodiah
2014-11-05, 12:37 AM
More experience never hurt anybody, I say. And playing can help quite a bit.

I first DM'ed after about half an hour of actually playing D&D (thanks to one of the players wasting the rest of the session time demanding the DM help him homebrew what eventually turned out to be "all the good things a monk has, but with paladin class features too" before joining as said class.

Obviously the next time I played D&D again I learned quite a bit. For example, I had been doing attacks of opportunity based on movement entirely wrong.

NichG
2014-11-05, 05:35 AM
Answering some miscellaneous questions:

-The DM is using a pre-made adventure. (Specifically, the Sunless Citadel). This was part of the reason I was fairly certain the trap wasn't some sort of bizarre concoction.

-To those who have suggested asking him about the best way to bring up corrections: As mentioned in the OP, I attempted this. It led to dithering and an absence of clear answers.

Right now, I'm thinking about inviting him to guest-play for a few sessions in the campaign that I do DM (Shares no players with his campaign). Hopefully, this would ease tensions between us and give him a more clear idea of what I look for in a DM, as well as make it clear that my criticism comes from a place of caring. Thoughts on this plan?

I guess the question is: are you sure that what he's looking for is to correspond to your style, or is he looking more for factual information about the rules? Inviting him over will show you what you like to do as a DM, but it may not actually help him at all with rules confusion or lack of rules experience if his goals as a DM are aimed at a different style than yours. So I think its important to be clear whether what kind of help he actually wants, because if he's asking for one kind of help and you provide another then it's very easy for someone to misinterpreted that as a form of passive-aggressive criticism on your part.

lytokk
2014-11-05, 11:44 AM
My advice would be to ask him what he would like you to do. I'm in the same situation right now with someone who has never DMed before, and this is how we're handling things so your mileage may vary.

I never question what he does while a session is going on unless its something incredibly blatantly wrong, like when he threw a monster at me that only ever hit with a lick attack. I thought he might be reading something wrong and maybe it was supposed to be dealing acid damage to me instead of bludgeoning, which my DR resisted.

I keep a notebook full of the questionable rulings he makes during a game, such as arbitrarily strange DC's for simple tasks. I talk to him about the important ones of these sometime after a game, usually a few days so that he knows I'm not talking out of anger. This is also the point where I let him know when something is a really bad idea, such as his new "luck" system.

I try to back him up with knowledge I've got in regards to rules, and combining complicated skill checks, but only when he asks. Otherwise I let him make the rulings on his own. Its his game and I'm just the player.

Also, I try to tone down my characters as much as possible so I'm not bypassing puzzles he puts in front of us.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-05, 01:00 PM
Answering some miscellaneous questions:

-The DM is using a pre-made adventure. (Specifically, the Sunless Citadel). This was part of the reason I was fairly certain the trap wasn't some sort of bizarre concoction.

-To those who have suggested asking him about the best way to bring up corrections: As mentioned in the OP, I attempted this. It led to dithering and an absence of clear answers.

Right now, I'm thinking about inviting him to guest-play for a few sessions in the campaign that I do DM (Shares no players with his campaign). Hopefully, this would ease tensions between us and give him a more clear idea of what I look for in a DM, as well as make it clear that my criticism comes from a place of caring. Thoughts on this plan?

Imagine you're trying to sit down and DM a game, but you have this one problem player who's always contradicting you and slowing down play to question you or try to tell you that you're doing things wrong. Imagine that, every once in a while, on top of just telling you that you're wrong, he whips out a cheap exploit to get through a trap without taking damage, or resolve an encounter an 1 minute when it should've taken 20 minutes. It's like he's trying show how much better he is at the game than you, and obnoxiously, do it in front of the entire table like a public humiliation. Maybe he gives you a judgmental stare as he pulls one of his prior-knowledge bombs. Oh, and when you try to spice the campaign up with some homebrew or improv, he accuses you of running things incorrectly so he can keep exploiting his prior knowledge. Even his character is set up as if to remind you that he's better and more knowledgeable at the game than you, since he uses these features from books you never heard of. And now this guy's telling you, "why don't you come to one of my sessions, where I run a much better game than you do, and you can see how a real DM does things."

Your DM could see the situation this way if he's less reasonable than you perceived him to be, or if you're being less gentle than you perceive yourself to be. My advice is to stop trying to make the DM better.

Lord Torath
2014-11-05, 01:40 PM
My advice is to stop trying to make the DM better.Bite your tongue, and never say that again! (Okay, you didn't actually say it, so maybe you should slap your typing fingers instead. Bad fingers!) There's a shortage of perfect DMs in this world, so anything you can do to help those around you learn to be better is something you should do.

That being said, be careful how you do this. Perhaps you could invite him to sit in on a session, not as a player, but in a place behind the screen, so he can see what you're doing and how you do it. I have not actually tried this, and I don't know your DM, so I can't tell you how effective it will be. Tell him he can see how you, as DM, deal with players who play like you do.

We don't want him to show up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363545-What-was-your-worst-DM-ever-This-thread-is-impervious-roll-to-disbelieve!), or you to show up here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?373664-The-Worst-player-you-ve-ever-had-seen-been-heard-of).

Galen
2014-11-05, 02:52 PM
Listen to Vitruviansquid, he has much wisdom. I suggest you tread very carefully here. Try to see things from his side.

Sartharina
2014-11-05, 02:59 PM
... actually - I don't think the DM did handle it well. At least not if he said he didn't mind being corrected. It also didn't 'keep the game moving' - instead, he stalled the game to assert power by cutting you off.

If he had let the player finish what he was saying, he could have saved time spent on several lines of argument. Cutting someone off mid-sentence almost always is more trouble than it's worth.

It would have gone faster if he'd said "(bluff) ...yes, I know that. *mentally readjust DC to 25* Or (Truth) "Sorry - maybe next time."

Talakeal
2014-11-05, 03:05 PM
I am in a similar situation to the OP, except in my case I am playing under another DM who has a lot of experience and thinks he knows the rules when in reality he is wrong as often as he is right. It is very frustrating as he frequently tells me I can't do something which is perfectly legal by both RAW and RACSD, either in game or when I am simply telling a story about a past gaming experience.

It is somewhat frustrating. I agree that the player probably shouldn't call the DM on their mistakes / BS during the game, but I am not sure how to react when he tells me that I am doing it wrong mid game and forbids my perfectly viable actions and choices.

hifidelity2
2014-11-07, 07:53 AM
As a DM what I do when running a new system or one I have not used for some time is restrict the game to the core books – so in the case the PHB only and I tell the players this
As I get more confidence I start to allow other source books – and normally introduce them by creating an NPC with one


As a player if I have more knowledge than the DM then unless its a “you are dead” I will tell them after the game.

In your situation I probably would have said something along the lines of “Damn that means the trap is at least a DC of XX – that’s almost impossible for me to disarm”. That tells the DM that maybe he has made it a bit to hard.

Thrudd
2014-11-07, 12:56 PM
A.) As a player, I would only offer help with rulings during play if the DM asked for it, unless it was a clearly game-breaking mistake. You can let a lot of things slide until afterward, to keep the game going. Something not being done exactly according to the book is not a big deal. Give the DM the benefit of the doubt when it comes to DCs and monster stats, those are things that should be invisible and unknown to players.

B.) ten foot poles, rope and grappling hooks are some of the most standard D&D equipment there is. They are all in the core rules for the last 40 years. Every adventure should assume players have this sort if equipment. This is something the DM must learn and plan for, if he wants to create challenging dungeons. You would be doing no favors by not playing to your best ability. That's how people learn

Milodiah
2014-11-07, 01:14 PM
B.) ten foot poles, rope and grappling hooks are some of the most standard D&D equipment there is. They are all in the core rules for the last 40 years. Every adventure should assume players have this sort if equipment. This is something the DM must learn and plan for, if he wants to create challenging dungeons. You would be doing no favors by not playing to your best ability. That's how people learn

I agree, but you'd be amazed how often people look at me like I just had some creative new idea when I say "I flip my glaive and prod at the [problem] with the rear of it."

I've always found it quietly amusing to imagine all these adventurers stopping at the tavern door to rearrange their ten-foot poles so they can fit through.
So as to not bother that part of my imagination (it's not very helpful in D&D, after all), I sometimes use my ranks in whatever craft I went for to make a two-section unscrewable ten-foot pole, like the ones on flags.

Thrudd
2014-11-07, 01:39 PM
I agree, but you'd be amazed how often people look at me like I just had some creative new idea when I say "I flip my glaive and prod at the [problem] with the rear of it."

I've always found it quietly amusing to imagine all these adventurers stopping at the tavern door to rearrange their ten-foot poles so they can fit through.
So as to not bother that part of my imagination (it's not very helpful in D&D, after all), I sometimes use my ranks in whatever craft I went for to make a two-section unscrewable ten-foot pole, like the ones on flags.

I always assumed the taverns frequented by adventurers just have a rack outside the door, next to the place where you tie up the horses, where everyone leaves their poles. you write your name on it, so some other party doesn't take yours by mistake. 50% chance in the morning you are left with a pole with someone else's name on it. Roll a 1 on the d20 and your pole is just gone.

Galen
2014-11-07, 01:41 PM
I agree, but you'd be amazed how often people look at me like I just had some creative new idea when I say "I flip my glaive and prod at the [problem] with the rear of it."While holding it by the blade? :smalleek:

Lord Torath
2014-11-07, 02:20 PM
While holding it by the blade? :smalleek:Or, perhaps, the shaft just below the blade. :smallwink: That's one of the reasons I like my characters to carry more than a single spear.

ProphetSword
2014-11-07, 09:03 PM
Me: "I attempt to disarm the swinging-scythe trap."
*rolls, gets a 19, including bonuses.*
Him: "You are struck by the trap. Take 6 points of damage.
Me(Internal):Hang on, traps usually only get triggered if you miss the disable device DC by more than 5. A CR 1 or lower trap most likely doesn't have a DC of 24 to disarm.
Me: "Wait, what? I think you have something wrong, I only trigger the trap if-"
Him: "Look, you don't know everything"
Me: "Yeah, but under the trap rules I only trigger if-"
Him: "Take 8 points of damage"
Me: "Look, you don't understand"
Him: "E-mail it to me"
Me: "But it's-"
Him: "Just e-mail it to me, I want to keep playing"
After the session, I discussed this with him. He acknowledged that he had been a bit hasty, and that I was correct, but requested that I handle correcting him differently. When I asked him how I should go about this, he dithered but did not provide an answer.


You probably should have responded this way:

"That's cool. I'll drop you an email about the rules questions I have and we'll discuss it later. How much damage was that again?"

I can relate to this DM's position. Even though I'm an experienced DM (with 30+ years under my belt), the first time I ran a game of Pathfinder I was a bit fuzzy on some of the newer rules and went with what I knew from 3.0. Unfortunately, one of the guys at the table was a real rules lawyer who wouldn't let things go. I made a judgment call about something to keep the game moving. Everyone at the table was fine with it and felt it was fair. But, not the rules lawyer.

Instead of just accepting the judgment I made, he spent the next hour arguing with me over some minor rule and refused to let the issue go. The other players at the table just wanted to play, and he wasted the hour just to nitpick over something that might have resulted in an additional +2 bonus on something he would have failed anyway, even with the bonus.

Don't be that guy, no matter how much you know the rules. Keep the game moving instead. Bring up the issues afterwards.

In my current group, I have another rules lawyer, but he trusts me enough as a DM that if something is different than his interpretation, he'll just talk to me about it after the game. Usually, we'll look up the rule together and decide which of us has the best interpretation (even getting the other players involved), and decide how the rule will be handled in the future. Everyone wins that way.

Be that guy instead.

Nightgaun7
2014-11-08, 02:06 AM
Instead of just accepting the judgment I made, he spent the next hour arguing with me over some minor rule and refused to let the issue go. The other players at the table just wanted to play, and he wasted the hour just to nitpick over something that might have resulted in an additional +2 bonus on something he would have failed anyway, even with the bonus.


After a couple of minutes it's time for him to shut up and sit down or get out.

Sartharina
2014-11-08, 02:27 AM
Well... who are you keeping the game going for?

I've been told to shut up and 'keep the game going' after a bull**** ruling leads to the complete incapacitation of my character, stopping the game for me.

The situation becomes:
1. Hear me out for 30 seconds, and get the game moving again.
2. Effectively lock me out of the game for the rest of the session.

Or, something that happens too often:
3. Drag that 30 seconds into an hour through constant interruptions, then get pissy that the game's been held up for an hour.

NichG
2014-11-08, 04:04 AM
Well... who are you keeping the game going for?

I've been told to shut up and 'keep the game going' after a bull**** ruling leads to the complete incapacitation of my character, stopping the game for me.

The situation becomes:
1. Hear me out for 30 seconds, and get the game moving again.
2. Effectively lock me out of the game for the rest of the session.

Or, something that happens too often:
3. Drag that 30 seconds into an hour through constant interruptions, then get pissy that the game's been held up for an hour.

This is combining two separate issues. Having your character completely incapacitated would not be any more fun for you even if it turned out that by the rules that was the 'correct' outcome. Completely blocking a player from the game for the rest of the night is generally a bad idea even if it is supported by the rules, but that actually has nothing at all to do with how to communicate a disagreement with an interpretation of the rules. So yes, it sucks to get shut out of the game, but that could just as well happen in totally legit ways, and that's something which you independently have to decide how to deal with.

But, just because you have nothing better to do with that hour now doesn't mean that everyone else at the table has nothing better to do with that hour. So the graceful thing to do is not to hold everything up for everyone else just because you're put out, but instead to go elsewhere for that hour, return later, and discuss the entire thing with the DM when it's just your time and theirs being involved. And at that point, it makes sense to not just talk about the rules adjudication but generally about how it sucks to basically not be able to play at all for a night. But that conversation is something that should happen after game, both after you and they have had a chance to cool down, and also when it isn't interrupting game. If you try to have that discussion during game, you're going to have to deal with the fact that the DM is dealing with the tension between making you happy and making everyone else at the table happy (e.g. they get to play) - and you're far less likely to get them to listen to you seriously instead of just trying to get you to shut up.

Nagash
2014-11-08, 08:40 AM
I'd chill on the rules lawyer stuff.

No one likes a rules lawyer and I would bet very, very, few of us actually play 100% RAW.

For myself I flat out say at the beginning I am the rulebook and anything you read is a guideline. Not a rule and the #1 rule of the campaign is the rule of cool. A good idea that seems fun? I'll come up with something you can roll for it. A stupid idea? I dont care what the book says, its stupid. You fail.

Dont like it? Walk.

Dont trust GM's with that power? You have 2 choices.

A. ask existing players, I dont screw the party and while yes sometimes bad things happen good things happen more often. If you dont trust them or me, walk. Bye.

B. Ask me. I will give examples, ask me hypotheticals and I will tell you how I would handle it. Dont like it? Walk.

I run a fair game where I want the players to be challenged hard but succeed and have the freedom to play a sandbox where a lot of crazy stuff can happen. That requires the players to trust me to run a good, fun campaign where yes you may die, you may fail sometimes, but at the end with perseverence, good decisions and luck you will end up as the great heroes.

But if you keep bothering me with nitpicky rules lawyer crap I will tell you not to come back. Flat out, bye. I and my long term players all play lots of systems and dont have any attachment to the nitty gritty rules of any of them and prefer a much more freewheeling game. If thats not for you, good luck, no hard feelings, but BYE.

*** except the dead guys, they are dead. The characters who replaced them get to be the heroes unless the other PC's make an effort to have them remembered.

Talakeal
2014-11-08, 04:11 PM
I'd chill on the rules lawyer stuff.

No one likes a rules lawyer and I would bet very, very, few of us actually play 100% RAW.

For myself I flat out say at the beginning I am the rulebook and anything you read is a guideline. Not a rule and the #1 rule of the campaign is the rule of cool. A good idea that seems fun? I'll come up with something you can roll for it. A stupid idea? I dont care what the book says, its stupid. You fail.

Dont like it? Walk.

Dont trust GM's with that power? You have 2 choices.

A. ask existing players, I dont screw the party and while yes sometimes bad things happen good things happen more often. If you dont trust them or me, walk. Bye.

B. Ask me. I will give examples, ask me hypotheticals and I will tell you how I would handle it. Dont like it? Walk.

I run a fair game where I want the players to be challenged hard but succeed and have the freedom to play a sandbox where a lot of crazy stuff can happen. That requires the players to trust me to run a good, fun campaign where yes you may die, you may fail sometimes, but at the end with perseverence, good decisions and luck you will end up as the great heroes.

But if you keep bothering me with nitpicky rules lawyer crap I will tell you not to come back. Flat out, bye. I and my long term players all play lots of systems and dont have any attachment to the nitty gritty rules of any of them and prefer a much more freewheeling game. If thats not for you, good luck, no hard feelings, but BYE.

*** except the dead guys, they are dead. The characters who replaced them get to be the heroes unless the other PC's make an effort to have them remembered.

A question and a comment if I may:

Why do you use a rules system at all then? Why not just play freeform RPG? I have played plenty in my time and had great fun with them. If you just want to tell a story without all sorts of fiddly rules getting in the way I would think this would be superior than sitting down to a crunch heavy game like D&D and then having to be constantly changing everything / getting used to the changes.



I have never met a DM who I would trust to just change the rules on a whim, including myself*, not have I ever met a group of friends who are all so in-sync with one another that they all want the same thing. You say you want challenge, but that is very hard when the goal posts keep shifting. If I don't know how the rules work how I can I try and improve or make a sound decision? If the rules will change to let me fail / succeed regardless why should I bother?

My current DM has a similar attitude, but he always uses it to railroad and make the PCs look bad / NPCs look awesome. We always win in the end, but none of our decisions matter getting there, and it is always some cool NPC or deus ex machina that causes it. Now, you are clearly better about it than he is, but the vast majority of groups aren't, and I don't think anyone is completely empathic and unbiased that it won't cause issues now and again.


*Please don't throw this back in my face later in the thread and say something like "You admit that you are untrustworthy so why should I listen to you?" I am just saying that DM's are not always perfectly detached or adept at reading their players, and that what I think is an awesome story simply won't line up with what the rest of the table days, and a lot of the time I (and every other thinking human) is biased into thinking their own opinions about what constitutes fun and more correct than other peoples.

Thrudd
2014-11-08, 04:38 PM
I think this thread is not really about the DM changing things on a whim, but about spending playing time nitpicking things like "level 3 commoners have +X on their saving throws, not +Y! That guy should not have been hit" or "that trap should be a DC 15, not 20". Little things like this really don't matter and aren't breaking the game. As long as the GM is consistent, it can wait until afterwards. It's not like playing freeform, it's just that people make mistakes sometimes, and it usually isn't a big deal. If their mistake results in characters dying, yeah, maybe I'd open the rulebook and say "hey DM, wait a minute...". Otherwise, let it go.

In other words: a rules lawyer who can't get over slight deviations from the book ruins everyone's fun, because almost every player and DM makes rules mistakes sometimes. Wait until after to satisfy your need to nitpick, most things aren't important enough to waste game time talking about rules, flipping through books, and undermining the DM's control of the game.

ProphetSword
2014-11-08, 04:53 PM
People need to stop treating RPG rules like inflexible laws that can't ever be broken. The DM was well within his rights to do whatever he saw fit in that moment, and the player really should have let it go.

NichG
2014-11-09, 01:07 AM
People freeforming whatever they feel like isn't going to give rise to a perfect game. Slavishly following a set of rules written down years ago to cover a large market segment of interests and with no specific knowledge at the time of how the game would evolve, the tastes of the people at a given table, or the particular in-game situation isn't going to give rise to a perfect game either.

Mixing the best aspects of both extremes allows one to make a game which is better than either extreme taken on its own. But perfection just isn't on the table no matter what you do. Yes, things can go wrong, but there are always things that can go wrong. You can't ever avoid that. But what you can do is try to make the best game you can by flexibly combining all approaches. Maybe that means that there are a few bad sessions where you miss the mark, but on the long term the game will improve. If you plan to run 500 sessions over the course of your gaming career, then making a mistake that sours one of those sessions in order to discover ways to improve the next 499 is a great trade.

And pulling that off means listening to criticism and taking it into account. But it means doing so at the right pacing and weighted the right way - that is, when you have time to actually think deeply about the reasoning behind the criticism and also think about how to integrate it with what you're trying to accomplish. A 30 second discussion during game isn't the best time to be doing that kind of adjustment, unless the problem is really really severe and/or has lasting consequences.

Sartharina
2014-11-09, 01:19 AM
A question and a comment if I may:

Why do you use a rules system at all then? Why not just play freeform RPG? I have played plenty in my time and had great fun with them. If you just want to tell a story without all sorts of fiddly rules getting in the way I would think this would be superior than sitting down to a crunch heavy game like D&D and then having to be constantly changing everything / getting used to the changes.Rules provide a framework and support to fall back on and assist in resolving conflict of ambiguous outcomes.

The only thing that makes D&D 'Crunch Heavy' is the developers deciding to try and log/record all the little miscelaneous stuff that came about in their games.

As Alexander Macris put it: (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/tabletop/checkfortraps/8154-Judgment-Day-After-Day) "A rules-light games are just games that hasn't been played enough yet."

Milodiah
2014-11-09, 01:53 AM
"A rules-light games are just games that hasn't been played enough yet."

I agree, a lot of the more rules-oriented games like 3.5e came about in the same way as precedents in the legal system made it more complex as time went on: an interesting thing nobody thought of came up, and the publisher decided to make an official ruling next time around rather than...ignore it entirely, I guess. Example from last night: player wanted to cast Dispel Magic on a Dread Guard from MM2. Didn't see anything in the entry going one way or the other, no spell resistance on the thing either, so being able to just 'switch off' constructs like that seemed a bit broken to me. Just to make sure, I hit the Internet real quick since someone had to go to the bathroom anyway, and yup. Posts from 2009, 2008 discussing the issue and eventually leading to a more or less official ruling (which is that the animation process is an instantaneous effect at the time of creation and therefore there isn't any ongoing magic to dispel).

On a half related note, I think the term 'rules lawyering' in and of itself is actually a bit misleading, in that with a game like 3.5 having someone who can pull out obscure rules from the depths is just as useful as...well..hiring a lawyer to do the same in our complex legal systems. I'm one of those linguistics-type people who demand precision from words, though...I'm used to ranting about how (in my ideal world) people would stop using popularly accepted colloquialisms like 'rules lawyering' because someone like me thinks it's not entirely accurate in terms of denotation.

Douglas
2014-11-09, 02:30 AM
For a situation like the trap one, you might get a better response if you lead as early as possible with the exact probable inconsistency. If the first words out of your mouth were "this trap has a DC of 24 or higher?", he likely would have instantly noticed that doesn't match the actual number and been receptive to hearing why his ruling would imply that.

Nagash
2014-11-09, 05:58 AM
A question and a comment if I may:

Why do you use a rules system at all then? Why not just play freeform RPG?

Simplicity sake. I've found grownups playing cowboys and indians totally freeform tends to create more arguments then it solves.

And some rules systems create a different feel. We might play exalted if we're feeling like being demigods, do any of us learn the rules well enough to nit pick? No. We look at the character creation rules, the basic combat rules and the spells and use that framework to run a game of demi gods.

When we play PF do we use strict alignment crap? No. Do I have some simple houserules to avoid a lot of rules arguments and stuff I feel is punitive in the rules? Yes.

If you say "I wanna run along the balcony, jump off onto the big monsters head and stab it" do we stop to look up what rules would do that?

NO. Athletics check, cause your running and jumping and stuff, DC? I dont know, roll it, If you roll real good, you made it, if you roll real bad, you didnt, if you roll somewhere in the middle I'll think about it. Something will happen, even if you fail it wont suck too bad.

Then a charge attack, his AC is lower if you made your athletics check, cause you jumped on his head. But either way its a BIG monster, your not gonna just flat out miss without a roll. So roll it.

* if your on the monsters head athletics check to see if you fall off after stabbing it, possibly a second to avoid falling damage depending on how tall it is. *

Is this in the RAW? Dont know, dont care. Its a fast, easy, and reasonable way to adjudicate the situation that doesnt penalize you for trying something cool.

Thats what I mean by not nit picking. I'm the GM. I referee the rules and the game. Trust me to make it reasonable and fun and it will be.




I have never met a DM who I would trust to just change the rules on a whim, including myself*

A yes you have. Because the rules were written by a GM. They werent handed down on a stone tablet by some diefic angel. A GM wrote them down and then happened to get hired by a game company. Trusting the rules as written is just as much trusting some GM to decide the rules for your game as trusting the guy your playing with to do is.

And B. Work on your trust issues dude.




, not have I ever met a group of friends who are all so in-sync with one another that they all want the same thing.

Gods no. How dysfunctionally co-dependent would any group of 5 or 6 people have to be in order to ALL be on the same page that much all the time?

Part of being an adult in a group activity of any kind is knowing that sometimes you get what you want and sometimes you dont. And being okay with that. And trusting the leadership to know that you'll have the opportunity to get what you want about an equal amount of time, in proportion to everyone else at the activity.



You say you want challenge, but that is very hard when the goal posts keep shifting. If I don't know how the rules work how I can I try and improve or make a sound decision?

ASK.

IE " hey mister GM, i think this seems like something I would like to try, how would I do that?"....... GASP, EGADS, COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR GM? WHAT IS THIS SACRILEGE? ITS ALMOST AS IF A GROUP OF ADULTS ARE ALL ENGAGED IN A GROUP ACTIVITY WITH GROUP GOALS AND NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT..... SOMEONE GET ME OUT OF THIS CRAZYHOUSE...................


My current DM has a similar attitude, but he always uses it to railroad and make the PCs look bad / NPCs look awesome. We always win in the end, but none of our decisions matter getting there, and it is always some cool NPC or deus ex machina that causes it. Now, you are clearly better about it than he is, but the vast majority of groups aren't, and I don't think anyone is completely empathic and unbiased that it won't cause issues now and again.

No empathy needed. Empathy is non verbal communication.

What is needed is VERBAL COMMUNICATION.

End of story. Do not assume, ASSUME makes an ass out of you and me, dont be an ass. Communicate, verbally and clearly without emotion.

Its a lot like spanking your kid. Dont wait till your furious and barely in control. One swat to get attention the first time they dont listen, 2 swats next time to remind. Do not wait till your mad. Emotional decisions are usually bad decisions. Communicate logically and verbally first.



*Please don't throw this back in my face later in the thread and say something like "You admit that you are untrustworthy so why should I listen to you?" I am just saying that DM's are not always perfectly detached or adept at reading their players, and that what I think is an awesome story simply won't line up with what the rest of the table days, and a lot of the time I (and every other thinking human) is biased into thinking their own opinions about what constitutes fun and more correct than other peoples.

Thats back to assuming. Dont make the DM "read you" its a bad idea to assume other people can understand what you feel and want without clear communications. Doesnt matter if it D&D, work, relationships, or even the bum who wants to wash your windows.

NEVER assume someone else can read you. Clearly and unemotionally, verbally, communicate early. And 90% of problems absolutely vanish.

Talakeal
2014-11-09, 03:28 PM
Lots o' stuff.

I find the problem to be inconsistency. I think it is absolutely fine to make rulings and house rules (although you should be open to player feedback when doing so), I just prefer to be made aware of them before they come up. I like to be able to plan for a situation and feel like my choices made a difference, which isn't something I can do with DMs who arbitrarily change things without telling me beforehand.

So yes, I agree, communication is the key here. And it goes both ways.

This reminds me of a time many years ago when I was a player in another DM's game. We were exploring a dungeon to kill some cultists, and the party monk was a seeker of knowledge, and the cultists had a huge library he wanted to plunder when they were gone. He didn't explicitly tell the DM this. At the end of the dungeon the cult leader, a huge mutant troll, went into a berserker rage as he was dying and the DM described him smashing up the support columns and bringing the whole place down on him. The monk player got really mad at the DM because by the rules the troll shouldn't have been strong enough to tear down a dungeon, and certainly shouldn't have been able to do so at negative HP. The DM just thought it was a really cool way to take out the rest of the cult and close the book on the chapter, but the monk saw it as deliberately screwing him out of the reward that was, to him, more important than the mission. A huge fight ensued and the game broke up. IIRC the monk player ended up leaving the group as a result.

In this case communication about wants and expectations certainly would have alleviated the conflict as neither side really understood what the other wanted from the scenario.

Still, too much communication slows down the game, removes some element of surprise and spontaneity, and can even result in misunderstandings that make the problem worse. So I still find it best to play by the rules you have agreed to beforehand without a damn good reason. If someone goes Pun-Pun on me you can bet I am going to step in with some house rules (or just an unusually non-permissive reading of the rules).

NichG
2014-11-09, 11:08 PM
In your example, the DM was bad at reading and understanding his player, and the monk's player was bad at expressing the actual reason for his dissatisfaction, and so the verbal conflict ended up being about the rules rather than the real source of the problem. Let me put it this way - the DM could have built the entire dungeon over a sea of lava with an ancient mechanism in place to drop the dungeon into the lava, and there's nothing at all in the rules to prevent that. It could even be justified in-character if the library were a repository of dangerous knowledge that the curators were more worried about falling into the hands of evil than they were about preserving.

But in that case, the monk's player would have been exactly as upset as they were with the troll knocking down the support columns.

Let me give you a counter-example from one of my games. I had a player whose character's gimmick was to use all the ways in the system that let you spontaneously either not-die or auto-rez yourself in a fight. The Races of Destiny 'Fearless Destiny' feat, some of the luck feats from Complete Scoundrel, etc. He had about seven different ways to do this by the end of the campaign. In one situation, the party was illicitly investigating something on an airship owned by a known character of a much higher level than the party, were caught in a secure area by that character, and refused to leave (provoking a fight). The self-rezzing character decided to try to make it a duel, but the higher level character used non-lethal damage in his attacks (logically, because he was apprehending suspects who were in a high security area in his airship). By the rules, the way nonlethal damage works is that if you have NL damage exceeding your remaining hitpoints, you are unconscious. This bypasses things like Diehard, etc. The player wasn't aware of this rule, and was incredibly frustrated that this guy could bypass his cool ability to keep on getting back up after being slammed down. In contrast, he had shaken off all sorts of crazy stuff in the past, but a guy using the flat of his blade took him out because of a rules technicality.

The rules don't guarantee that people are going to be satisfied with the outcome, they just deflect accountability away from the DM. But a DM shouldn't be trying to escape accountability for the choices they make.

If you create an expectation that the rules are going to be followed closely, then violating that expectation is like a lightning rod. People fixate on it rather than the real reason they're unhappy. Someone gets their character dominated for an entire session and blames an obscure facet of the ruling that made them fail the save (maybe they try to nitpick the wizard's build to see 'what the saving throw DC should have actually been'), rather than simply blaming the DM for being heavyhanded with dominate effects and not planning a way to keep them involved in game.

On the other hand, if you very strongly establish early on what aspects of the rules you as a DM will try to preserve, and what aspects may be completely thrown out, then it at least lowers the chance that people mis-attribute their unhappiness. And that means you've got a better chance of actually addressing the real reason they're upset.

Talakeal
2014-11-09, 11:39 PM
In your example, the DM was bad at reading and understanding his player, and the monk's player was bad at expressing the actual reason for his dissatisfaction, and so the verbal conflict ended up being about the rules rather than the real source of the problem. Let me put it this way - the DM could have built the entire dungeon over a sea of lava with an ancient mechanism in place to drop the dungeon into the lava, and there's nothing at all in the rules to prevent that. It could even be justified in-character if the library were a repository of dangerous knowledge that the curators were more worried about falling into the hands of evil than they were about preserving.

But in that case, the monk's player would have been exactly as upset as they were with the troll knocking down the support columns.

Let me give you a counter-example from one of my games. I had a player whose character's gimmick was to use all the ways in the system that let you spontaneously either not-die or auto-rez yourself in a fight. The Races of Destiny 'Fearless Destiny' feat, some of the luck feats from Complete Scoundrel, etc. He had about seven different ways to do this by the end of the campaign. In one situation, the party was illicitly investigating something on an airship owned by a known character of a much higher level than the party, were caught in a secure area by that character, and refused to leave (provoking a fight). The self-rezzing character decided to try to make it a duel, but the higher level character used non-lethal damage in his attacks (logically, because he was apprehending suspects who were in a high security area in his airship). By the rules, the way nonlethal damage works is that if you have NL damage exceeding your remaining hitpoints, you are unconscious. This bypasses things like Diehard, etc. The player wasn't aware of this rule, and was incredibly frustrated that this guy could bypass his cool ability to keep on getting back up after being slammed down. In contrast, he had shaken off all sorts of crazy stuff in the past, but a guy using the flat of his blade took him out because of a rules technicality.

The rules don't guarantee that people are going to be satisfied with the outcome, they just deflect accountability away from the DM. But a DM shouldn't be trying to escape accountability for the choices they make.

If you create an expectation that the rules are going to be followed closely, then violating that expectation is like a lightning rod. People fixate on it rather than the real reason they're unhappy. Someone gets their character dominated for an entire session and blames an obscure facet of the ruling that made them fail the save (maybe they try to nitpick the wizard's build to see 'what the saving throw DC should have actually been'), rather than simply blaming the DM for being heavyhanded with dominate effects and not planning a way to keep them involved in game.

On the other hand, if you very strongly establish early on what aspects of the rules you as a DM will try to preserve, and what aspects may be completely thrown out, then it at least lowers the chance that people mis-attribute their unhappiness. And that means you've got a better chance of actually addressing the real reason they're upset.

I mostly agree with everything you have to say. However, I find that a lot of the time it is the inconsistency itself that is the problem.

I play under several DMs who frequently pull the rug out from under me when I do something they don't like by changing the rules on the spot without any warning so my plan fails, and if I argue about it I am a "rules lawyer". The opposite is not true, however, and when they want to deny me the use of an ability because of a technicality or letting their NPC do something stupid and then using the RAW as a shield.

For example, I had a DM tell me a few weeks ago to not bother writing down my encumbrance because "He doesn't enforce encumbrance unless you are trying to do something ridiculous." I took this to mean trying to carry a bank vault or 30 swords with me or something. Two sessions later I try and take cover behind my tower shield. The DM tells me that I can't wear full plate and use a tower shield at the same time because it weighs too much. I tell him that with my strength score I can easily carry both of them without being encumbered, to which he responds "I told you, I don't use the encumbrance rules unless you are doing something ridiculous, and I consider wearing plate mail and wielding a tower shield to be ridiculous. End of discussion."

Again, it is poor communication here, but I have a strong feeling that the DM didn't actually care about encumbrance (he looked over my equipment when I bought the shield and didn't say anything); he just didn't like that I found a way around his encounter that he didn't plan on and was floundering for an excuse to put a stop to it.

The core problem is that the DM wants to put the campaign on rails and doesn't like it when it gets disrupted. Maybe communicating would solve the issue, more likely it would just turn passive aggressive actions like the above into a shouting match the ends with people leaving the campaign as neither side wants to back down. Either way, a "the DM is always right" environment tends to encourage this sort of mentality.

NichG
2014-11-10, 04:08 AM
I mostly agree with everything you have to say. However, I find that a lot of the time it is the inconsistency itself that is the problem.

I play under several DMs who frequently pull the rug out from under me when I do something they don't like by changing the rules on the spot without any warning so my plan fails, and if I argue about it I am a "rules lawyer". The opposite is not true, however, and when they want to deny me the use of an ability because of a technicality or letting their NPC do something stupid and then using the RAW as a shield.

For example, I had a DM tell me a few weeks ago to not bother writing down my encumbrance because "He doesn't enforce encumbrance unless you are trying to do something ridiculous." I took this to mean trying to carry a bank vault or 30 swords with me or something. Two sessions later I try and take cover behind my tower shield. The DM tells me that I can't wear full plate and use a tower shield at the same time because it weighs too much. I tell him that with my strength score I can easily carry both of them without being encumbered, to which he responds "I told you, I don't use the encumbrance rules unless you are doing something ridiculous, and I consider wearing plate mail and wielding a tower shield to be ridiculous. End of discussion."

Again, it is poor communication here, but I have a strong feeling that the DM didn't actually care about encumbrance (he looked over my equipment when I bought the shield and didn't say anything); he just didn't like that I found a way around his encounter that he didn't plan on and was floundering for an excuse to put a stop to it.

The core problem is that the DM wants to put the campaign on rails and doesn't like it when it gets disrupted. Maybe communicating would solve the issue, more likely it would just turn passive aggressive actions like the above into a shouting match the ends with people leaving the campaign as neither side wants to back down. Either way, a "the DM is always right" environment tends to encourage this sort of mentality.

All of these problems are due to something deeper than the issue of following the rules or not. The problem is that, loosely speaking, 'the DM wants to screw you over'. This problem will not go away with a DM who perfectly follows every rule to the letter, because even just going by the rules the DM has plenty of rope to hang you with. If the DM wants to mess with you, they don't need to violate the rules - they can throw a CR 20 encounter at you and it's completely legit. They can just as well throw a CR 1 encounter at you that combines all sorts of LA+0 templates to have the same statblock as that CR 20 encounter. And they can just as well cherrypick the monsters that will create longterm problems for your character - enemies that use sundering, rust monsters, level drain, etc.

You can't resolve that with the rules. You have to address the reason why the DM is doing it in the first place.

Chd
2014-11-10, 05:18 AM
I mostly agree with everything you have to say. However, I find that a lot of the time it is the inconsistency itself that is the problem.

I play under several DMs who frequently pull the rug out from under me when I do something they don't like by changing the rules on the spot without any warning so my plan fails, and if I argue about it I am a "rules lawyer". The opposite is not true, however, and when they want to deny me the use of an ability because of a technicality or letting their NPC do something stupid and then using the RAW as a shield.

For example, I had a DM tell me a few weeks ago to not bother writing down my encumbrance because "He doesn't enforce encumbrance unless you are trying to do something ridiculous." I took this to mean trying to carry a bank vault or 30 swords with me or something. Two sessions later I try and take cover behind my tower shield. The DM tells me that I can't wear full plate and use a tower shield at the same time because it weighs too much. I tell him that with my strength score I can easily carry both of them without being encumbered, to which he responds "I told you, I don't use the encumbrance rules unless you are doing something ridiculous, and I consider wearing plate mail and wielding a tower shield to be ridiculous. End of discussion."

Again, it is poor communication here, but I have a strong feeling that the DM didn't actually care about encumbrance (he looked over my equipment when I bought the shield and didn't say anything); he just didn't like that I found a way around his encounter that he didn't plan on and was floundering for an excuse to put a stop to it.

The core problem is that the DM wants to put the campaign on rails and doesn't like it when it gets disrupted. Maybe communicating would solve the issue, more likely it would just turn passive aggressive actions like the above into a shouting match the ends with people leaving the campaign as neither side wants to back down. Either way, a "the DM is always right" environment tends to encourage this sort of mentality.

It sounds like your DM was being a **** here. His attachment to an encounter meant that he was grasping at straws.

I DM myself, and play under several DM's offline. As an old-school style player, I have found that the DM's may me annoyed the 1st few times you 'derail' an encounter, but provided that you made the derailing sufficiently fun for the DM, he'll accept the challenge of making it (your name)-proof.

Example 1 include my Half-orc Cleric of Iomedae in plate-mail and Tower shield chasing a Bad-guy's Courier down a muddy hill.

Instead of tripping, falling, and flailing in the armor, allowing the Courier to escape, I used the shield as an improvised toboggan, slid down and crashed into the courier.

Example 2, a Kobold Fighter (with improvised, Ranged, thrown proficiencies) Threw a Grapple around a Behir's neck, climbed on, used arrows to make 'ladder rungs in it's neck. That Kobold held on as the Behir tried to throw him off, before using an arrow to stab it in the eye. The Creature Died

Example 3, an Oracle uses his staff (crook) to Jimmy open a locked door, breaking the old lock. Seeing the room as being pitched darkness, he threw in a torch and quickly pulled the door closed. (Turns out that the DM had booze smugglers setting up an ambush. By throwing the torch in, I ignited the booze, and the explosion killed the 18 person operation.)

McBars
2014-11-10, 08:56 AM
Couple thoughts:


I think the best thing to do it almost every case of correcting the DM or having a rules discussion is to do it after the session. I would argue this should be done even in the situation you described, in which the DM has prompted you to correct him. Regardless of inconsistencies or errors pertaining to rulings, it's never fun for anybody at the table to have the game stall and stagnate...
... The exception to this of course happens when an erroneous ruling leads to major consequences (Death, disability, etc.)
Be tactful in your approach; Nobody likes to be made to feel stupid, and that can happen very easily in situations like this even if it's not your intent to do so.
As a DM, I treasure and appreciate a rules lawyer at the table; It's a powerful resource to have somebody who is very familiar with the rules and frankly cares far more about them than myself... Provided of course that there's an understanding that they don't interrupt the flow of play and do it in a manner that doesn't become obnoxious. (See above)

TL;DR Be considerate, handle things between rather than during sessions

Thrudd
2014-11-10, 11:48 AM
The core problem is that the DM wants to put the campaign on rails and doesn't like it when it gets disrupted. Maybe communicating would solve the issue, more likely it would just turn passive aggressive actions like the above into a shouting match the ends with people leaving the campaign as neither side wants to back down. Either way, a "the DM is always right" environment tends to encourage this sort of mentality.

You got it. The problem is the rails. DM is running a story that you are supposed to cooperate with by guessing what it is they want you to do. D&D is misused in that sort of game, and using the wrong system for the game you want to play is the source of many problems.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 12:21 PM
As a player, I will always alert my DM to the appropriate way to handle a situation if the rules are not being followed. If they send something at us that is grossly imbalanced I alert them to ensure they realize it. If they don't, they will usually correct their err in judgment. If they do, then we play through it. No harm no foul.

As a DM, I encourage my players to alert me when I've done something incorrect or don't know a rule. I've been corrected before, and usually I say, "Oh yeah, I forgot that. Okay nevermind, X happens instead." Also no harm, no foul.

The DM can be as wrong as anybody else and ideally you have one that can accept that. Other times, a situation may call for blatant rule modification to have a situation arise which achieves its end goals. I once had a monster deal over 200 damage to the party's Paladin in one hit, which would have killed any of the squishies. When the paladin told me that this was a ridiculous amount, as it could have killed any other player outright, I informed him that the monster was specifically after him, thus the obscene damage amount. He then realized that it made sense and accepted the threat.

In short: Have a conversation. Just have a conversation. It will get rid of every problem you ever have in D&D if the right words are said.

Jay R
2014-11-10, 02:06 PM
Why do you use a rules system at all then? Why not just play freeform RPG?

Because what he described is nothing at all like playing freeform RPG.

Exaggerating DM rulings to make them sound more arbitrary, or more common, than they are, is a component of the kind of rules lawyering that shuts down games.

To the OP: If you are trying to convince the DM about a ruling, keep the discussion on that ruling, and don't exaggerate the DM's actions beyond what he's really doing.

Ettina
2014-11-10, 03:06 PM
Just enjoy the game and stop worrying about the rules. The rules should be a crutch, not a straightjacket. As long as it makes a good story and you're having fun, who cares if you're not following the exact wording of the rules?

Talakeal
2014-11-10, 03:21 PM
Because what he described is nothing at all like playing freeform RPG.

Exaggerating DM rulings to make them sound more arbitrary, or more common, than they are, is a component of the kind of rules lawyering that shuts down games.

To the OP: If you are trying to convince the DM about a ruling, keep the discussion on that ruling, and don't exaggerate the DM's actions beyond what he's really doing.

I don't think I am exaggerating anything, NichG was saying that he is the rulebook, anything else is a guideline, he doesn't care what the rules say, and if you don't like it leave. I was simply stating that I think with that level of apathy towards the game's rules in favor of a DM's ability to tell a story you might as well run a freeform game. I don't think that is a bad thing, I have played a lot of freeform over the years (I was actually my first RPG experience as back in grade school they banned dice on campus) and have had a great time with it.


As for me personally, in my current D&D game I am playing a single classed core only human fighter with my highest stats in charisma and wisdom. Hardly game-breaking or exploitative by anyone's definition, yet I honestly don't think I have ever gone two encounters without having a rules legal action vetoed and sometimes as often as three or four times in one scene. I try and correct the DM maybe half the time, but I have never continued arguing after the point where he tells me that his ruling stands.
Honestly though, I think I have a bit of a special case and am therefore overly sensitive to this sort of thing. Because the DM I deal with actually insists that his rulings ARE RAW, and that I am simply misreading or misremembering it (and I DO NOT whip out the book and continue to argue as that would be disruptive and disrespectful). He actually goes so far that when we the group is sitting around shooting the poop before or after the game he corrects people's stories about previous campaigns telling them that there actions were illegal or should have been banned by the DM.


Just enjoy the game and stop worrying about the rules. The rules should be a crutch, not a straightjacket. As long as it makes a good story and you're having fun, who cares if you're not following the exact wording of the rules?

It depends on whether you are using your leeway to allow things or shut them down. This goes both ways. I have seen games end because a player wouldn't allow a DM to give their NPC a unique ability or perform a difficult task without rolling, but I have also seen games end when a DM wouldn't allow a player to do something they wanted to do that was rules legal.
In my experience problems arise from the DM or players not only using the rules as a straight jacket and then adding a few manacles of their own for good measure.

Jay R
2014-11-10, 07:25 PM
I don't think I am exaggerating anything, NichG was saying that he is the rulebook, anything else is a guideline, he doesn't care what the rules say, and if you don't like it leave. I was simply stating that I think with that level of apathy towards the game's rules in favor of a DM's ability to tell a story you might as well run a freeform game.

None of which changes this one basic fact:

Having the rules as guidelines is different from not having the rules as guidelines.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-10, 07:39 PM
Talakeal is technically right. If I'm the DM, and what I say goes, we are playing a kind of freeform game. Technically.

But it's not like I'm going to poop all over the game and make insane rulings just because I claim the power to. That'd be idiotic and my players would walk. Even if I get to be the game's dictator, if I claim to be playing DnD 3.5 to a group of players, I better deliver something at least close enough to 3.5 that everyone finds agreeable.

So, in practice, it's not really anything like a freeform RP.

If this kind of environment ends up being unfun for you as a player, then I would think it's much easier and more fun to get a better DM than to give up on the DM dictatorship style and make yourself play only freeform games or pure RAW games.

Talakeal
2014-11-10, 08:47 PM
It is a continiuum. I prefer to play games that follow mostly RAW but with pre arranged house rules and enough DM leeway to fix exploits and unusual situations.

I am fine with pure RAW or pure freeform. What I dont like is people who play with a very rigid but still up to DM fiat setup because that usually boils down to a "no you cant" style of game which in my experiance is frustrating for whomever is on the receiving end of it be they player or dm.

The game Nagash described seemd to be so far down the continuum that I wonder why he doesnt just play freeform as that would, in my experiance, allow him the relaxed and adaptible situation he seems to prefer.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 09:05 PM
It is a continiuum. I prefer to play games that follow mostly RAW but with pre arranged house rules and enough DM leeway to fix exploits and unusual situations.

I am fine with pure RAW or pure freeform. What I dont like is people who play with a very rigid but still up to DM fiat setup because that usually boils down to a "no you cant" style of game which in my experiance is frustrating for whomever is on the receiving end of it be they player or dm.

The game Nagash described seemd to be so far down the continuum that I wonder why he doesnt just play freeform as that would, in my experiance, allow him the relaxed and adaptible situation he seems to prefer.

You also have serious trust issues after being screwed over by terrible players as both a DM and player yourself.

Nagash
2014-11-12, 12:57 AM
It is a continiuum. I prefer to play games that follow mostly RAW but with pre arranged house rules and enough DM leeway to fix exploits and unusual situations.

I am fine with pure RAW or pure freeform. What I dont like is people who play with a very rigid but still up to DM fiat setup because that usually boils down to a "no you cant" style of game which in my experiance is frustrating for whomever is on the receiving end of it be they player or dm.

The game Nagash described seemd to be so far down the continuum that I wonder why he doesnt just play freeform as that would, in my experiance, allow him the relaxed and adaptible situation he seems to prefer.

a couple reasons.

1. freeform kinda sucks IMO. I like having a framework to build around. Thats not the same as having that framework be a maximum security cell in pelican bay i am locked into though. Which is what a RAW game is.

and 2. Pathfinder DOES allow me to have exactly that relaxed and adaptable situation I prefer. I have a quick chat with any new player that basically goes "dont worry too much about the rules, just tell me what you want your character to do in any situation and I'll let you know what to roll.

*** I do this also because we play lots of different systems and usually most of the group doesnt know any given system all that well and telling players "heya this game is cool, go buy a new 300 page rulebook for 50$, read it through, and then we can play it and you'll see" usually does not go over real well.

Its a lot easier to just have players describe their characters intentions and either let them know what to roll or quickly ad hoc if I'm not sure myself.

Garktz
2014-11-12, 01:12 PM
Don.t talk, just write whatever rule he.s getting wrong in a paper and hand it to him, this way, you two dont argue, he just reads it and keep playing...