PDA

View Full Version : Bummed out...I'd like some input



Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 02:09 PM
I'm a former DM/GM. I ran campaigns in both Shadowrun 2-4, and D&D Advance-3.5. Did so for twenty years nearly, and decided to be a player for a while. Earlier today, I was asked to leave the game, because the DM and I have very different gaming styles, that seem incompatible to one another. I've always been as close to the book as possible, and even when I got away from the book, it still adhered to a system that was based on the book I was using. If I absolutely needed something to happen in the story, I would call it a cinematic, so that the players would know dice rolls would not impact it, and that it was important to story.

A lot of my gaming buddies keep citing the golden rule, but honestly, every time I've used the golden rule, and every time I've seen another GM/DM use it, its been kind of a disaster. Not really immediately, but down the road we would find out why they had rules in the game. For instance, early on in our 4E campaign, out DM said he wasnt worried about Temporary HP stacking, and it was five years later we found out why. By then, we had forgotten that it was a house rule, and I made a Bugbear Avenger with tons of healing surges, and powers that give Temporary HP. I wound up having more than twice my HP pool, and wound up being a damage sponge. Well, lesson learned. And its usually something like that, and because of those experiences, I've seen that the book rules tend to hold the players, and the DM accountable.

Needless to say at this point in time, hearing a DM saying something like "Because I said so", to me, seems like it basically turns the game off, and becomes a game of pretend where one person is in charge of everything, and nobody is allowed to change it. That in mind, I tend to challenge things when I feel its abandoning the book rules, because the slippery slope that the golden rule is, absolutely.

No, I didnt rules lawyer anything. Some in my group would say that I did (not the DM), but its usually the people that automatically jump to the golden rule to justify the reason your character sheet is as good as Toilet Paper. The DM has even said to me in private "I hear what you are saying, and I know it's absolutely right", and anytime he needed to know something, he would even ask me what was in the books.

I guess I just feel like it's not shared storytelling when one person can and DOES undo, retcon, or just make all of your well earned stats irrelevant. Am I in the wrong here? I mean, I absolutely understand that I can be frustrating, but I think that maybe I wouldnt be if we were actually playing the game by the rules.

Am I just a bad player? Sorry if I'm just being dramatic. Just trying to be constructive, and figure out what I can do in the future.

TheYell
2016-08-14, 02:20 PM
im sure we'd like more details about the issue in conflict

BUT

I cant imagine he was right to ask you to leave over a game issue. The furthest a DM should go regarding a game issue is a flat "No your character can't". Asking a guy to leave, in my opinion, is only appropriate for the same pertonal behavior issues that get you thrown out of a bar.

SethoMarkus
2016-08-14, 02:33 PM
I think irreconcilable-differences is probably accurate from what you described and think that it may be a good opportunity to step back and evaluate what you enjoy in the game. It doesn't mean either way is right or wrong, just different, and knowing what you enjoy and why, and then communicating that before game start, is a good way to all be on the same page before an issue comes up.

I think the most important element for the Golden Rule to work well is a combination of trusting each other (DM and players), and a willingness to give up some control; the DM giving up ultimate control of the world they built, and the players (temporarily) giving up (full) control of their characters in situations the DM feels are important (such as those "cinematic" scenes mentioned).

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 02:59 PM
Right, and that (cinematics) is my preference, because the players understand that rules are turned off. It's a way to avoid railroading against the stats, because of that understanding. What happened most recently was the DM gave us a roll to perceive some enemies, and he was basically just going to say it didnt hit, but I got a natural twenty. Because of this, I was alerted to something that he planned on us not being alerted to. Since he didnt plan on it, we just werent given the benefits that he usually awards us. I noticed them, and I wasn't surprised, and I told my squad, and usually this alerts them. He said that they (the enemies) would normally have advantage, but they didnt due to my roll. This is fine, but in the past, if only one person spots the enemies, they could alert their allies to their presence, per DM ruling. Still, nobody was allowed to act other than myself, against his normal ruling.

Where the contention was, is I was frustrated because I knew it was a TPK scenario, and everybody else did too, including people that werent actually playing. I was mainly the one that said it out loud, and it wasnt to be toxic or anything. I was just being a realist, and trying to encourage our teammates to think outside the box, since we were outnumbered 4-1, and two characters were dying in the first two rounds, one of them never survived the surprise round, though they could have if my alerting the team were permitted to do what it always has per his usual ruling.

TBH, I'd have rather not been allowed to roll. I have very poor luck, and get a single twenty like every seven games, so I expected to cash in on the gore (Nat20) but it was negated. If it were a cinematic, I wouldnt have been cheated out of my roll. But of course, he (rightly so) makes sure to honor my four consecutive natural 1s in a mission.

This is basically one of a plethora instances of shucking the rules that I get frustrated by. I guess it's for the best. I dont know that I can work with a DM that isn't flexible enough to work with the rolls we are granted.

Vitruviansquid
2016-08-14, 03:06 PM
Look, I hear ya about following the game's rules. Especially in a game as complicated as something like 4e, the possibility of he game breaking when you mess with rules is quite high. To me, a mere philosophical disagreement like this is not a big enough deal to kick a player or leave a table (still, based on what you'vre written in OP, I'd consider lightening up about it).

But. There has never been in the history of tabletop RPGs, a session that ended with everyone happy and having had a great time where the table then talks about booting a player.

Think back and ask yourself, is it possible that you were being annoying in another way that made the game unfun? Maybe you felt you weren't rules lawyering, but the situations where you had complaints about how the game was run all ended up to the detriment of one or two players, so hey felt they were being picked on? Maybe people at the table were like, "look dude, just drop it" and you hadn't realized that's what they meant and you pushed the issue a bit too much? Maybe it's not necessarily even you who did something conventionally considered socially unacceptable and you were lucky to be uninvited or you would catch more of this groups's crazy later.

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 03:20 PM
Think back and ask yourself, is it possible that you were being annoying in another way that made the game unfun? Maybe you felt you weren't rules lawyering, but the situations where you had complaints about how the game was run all ended up to the detriment of one or two players, so hey felt they were being picked on? Maybe people at the table were like, "look dude, just drop it" and you hadn't realized that's what they meant and you pushed the issue a bit too much? Maybe it's not necessarily even you who did something conventionally considered socially unacceptable and you were lucky to be uninvited or you would catch more of this groups's crazy later.


I appreciate the perspective. I would have to say that my challenging him is where this came from. We talked about it a lot earlier. We talked about way back when I did rules lawyer, and how I eventually lightened up. To get myself to stop, I stopped carrying the book with me, and I didnt answer any questions about the game because I didnt want to be considered a know-it-all. Later, if I disagreed with something, I would say something like "I guess if thats how it has to be", and the DM admitted that they took this personally, even though they knew I didnt intend it to be personal. After being told that I was super negative, I stopped saying anything at all when I was frustrated, and the DM said they noticed, and that the silence was deafening, and that I kept to myself.

I feel like I couldnt do anything to appease them. Im damned if I voiced a rule, even when the DM acknowledged that it was accurate, and even during a time when I was his personal game encyclopedia. I'm damned if I dont say anything at all, because I'm keeping to myself. I'm damned if I respectfully point out I disagree, but will respect the ruling in spite of that. Was I doing something else annoying? Certainly. The DM was annoyed by everything I did, I guess. The main answer to my problem was essentially that I couldnt hold an opinion contrary to his ruling, even if I didnt voice it, or at least thats how I feel.

Pugwampy
2016-08-14, 03:23 PM
In your defence , the DM sounds like a narrow minded uncreative and inflexible prick afraid of players especially DM players .

In DM,s defence , he is allowed to use "because i said so rule " , he is allowed to TPK and he can toss any rule out the window if it does not suit his personality . He is not obligated to do as you did when you were DM . He is not obligated to take any of your advice . There is only one DM at the table and you must accept that .

Retired DM players should try and sit back and play the shy violet and give newbie players time to shine . If you saw something you totally objected to you could just say . My dude is running for the hills bye bye . Its much better then arguing or trying to change the situation to your benefit .

Have to learn to bite your tongue and go with the flow for the sake of the game .

Yes its frustrating and annoying especially if you can see the battlefield and know the exact answer but you can always not play with him . Arguing with newbie DM does not help , it just makes the other guys uncomfy .

btw what is this "golden" rule ? Forgive my ignorance .

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 03:35 PM
btw what is this "golden" rule ? Forgive my ignorance .

I appreciate your input Pugwampy. The golden rule is that they can change anything that they want, and no rules are set in stone.

Vitruviansquid
2016-08-14, 03:37 PM
I appreciate the perspective. I would have to say that my challenging him is where this came from. We talked about it a lot earlier. We talked about way back when I did rules lawyer, and how I eventually lightened up. To get myself to stop, I stopped carrying the book with me, and I didnt answer any questions about the game because I didnt want to be considered a know-it-all. Later, if I disagreed with something, I would say something like "I guess if thats how it has to be", and the DM admitted that they took this personally, even though they knew I didnt intend it to be personal. After being told that I was super negative, I stopped saying anything at all when I was frustrated, and the DM said they noticed, and that the silence was deafening, and that I kept to myself.

I feel like I couldnt do anything to appease them. Im damned if I voiced a rule, even when the DM acknowledged that it was accurate, and even during a time when I was his personal game encyclopedia. I'm damned if I dont say anything at all, because I'm keeping to myself. I'm damned if I respectfully point out I disagree, but will respect the ruling in spite of that. Was I doing something else annoying? Certainly. The DM was annoyed by everything I did, I guess. The main answer to my problem was essentially that I couldnt hold an opinion contrary to his ruling, even if I didnt voice it, or at least thats how I feel.

Well, my observation is that sometimes folks get it in their mind that they should hate someone, and no matter what the other does, it'll seem unpleasant to them. That's what seems like happened here.

Sucks, but such is the fickleness of the human heart. I would chalk this up as a "fortunately, I don't have to deal with any future craziness" and move on.

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 03:42 PM
Well, my observation is that sometimes folks get it in their mind that they should hate someone, and no matter what the other does, it'll seem unpleasant to them. That's what seems like happened here.

Sucks, but such is the fickleness of the human heart. I would chalk this up as a "fortunately, I don't have to deal with any future craziness" and move on.

Its so weird though. We're still good pals. After we talked over the gaming thing, and his respectful request that I not join any longer, we talked about a lot of other things, from School, to his vacation, to Marvels various netflix series. I guess gaming just isnt for us :smallfrown:

Darth Ultron
2016-08-14, 04:31 PM
I guess I just feel like it's not shared storytelling when one person can and DOES undo, retcon, or just make all of your well earned stats irrelevant. Am I in the wrong here? I mean, I absolutely understand that I can be frustrating, but I think that maybe I wouldnt be if we were actually playing the game by the rules.

Am I just a bad player? Sorry if I'm just being dramatic. Just trying to be constructive, and figure out what I can do in the future.

Well do you think it is ''not shared storytelling when one person can and DOES undo, retcon, or just make all of your well earned stats irrelevant'' when it is a player doing that to the plot? Or do you think the players can do anything? For example all the players pick to ''slay the dragon for the king'', are you ok if player X suddenly just slays the king?

It sure does sound great...I guess to some...that you put the rules so high up on a pedestal and everyone follows them to ''play the same game'' or whatever. But the ''rules'' don't exactly work like that for every one. For example: if a Pc does not have a potion of water breathing, they must find one in the game, but if the DM needs any NPc to have one, they simply will have one.

The idea that some how the rules are prefect is just silly? Your thinking the creators climbed some mountain and got them from a divine hand? And sure any time a DM makes changes it can have bad side effects...that is life. And it is also true of ''the rules'' too. Games are full of out right broken thing that the ''almighty creators'' somehow missed.

You note that you have ''changed the rules'' yourself...but only in a way, that in your view follows the rules. So, when you do it, in your own view it is ok....but when others do it they are always wrong?

''Because the DM said so'' is a valid thing, and dare I say it is even in the rules. The DM says ''five orcs guard the door'', it is so. And it is just silly for a play to say ''I'm turned off that the DM makes guards..and the whole game world out of thin air.." Or are you talking more about when a DM says ''Everyone gets max HP per level, because I say so'' or ''Just ignore material components, because I say so'' or ''Play any race and ignore the LA, as I say so''?

Though that all being said, there are a lot of bad gamers out there. And naturally it is no fun to play in a game with a bad DM. But if you want to play you must either just go along, find a game that fits your view or run your own game.

Quertus
2016-08-14, 05:12 PM
So, you're outnumbered 4-to-1, the enemy has surprise (which the DM cheats breaks their own rules to keep), the DM kills one of the PCs in the first surprise round... and you're sad about leaving this group why, exactly? Did anyone survive that fiasco?

Koo Rehtorb
2016-08-14, 05:52 PM
Anyone who ignores the rules of the game, GM included, is a **** player. The GM does not have the authority to do that. If you want to change rules because they're not working, you do it in advance, and you have a discussion with the players and ask for their input. You don't get to decide it arbitrarily, and you especially don't get to do it arbitrarily on the spot.

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 07:40 PM
Well do you think it is ''not shared storytelling when one person can and DOES undo, retcon, or just make all of your well earned stats irrelevant'' when it is a player doing that to the plot? Or do you think the players can do anything? For example all the players pick to ''slay the dragon for the king'', are you ok if player X suddenly just slays the king?

It sure does sound great...I guess to some...that you put the rules so high up on a pedestal and everyone follows them to ''play the same game'' or whatever. But the ''rules'' don't exactly work like that for every one. For example: if a Pc does not have a potion of water breathing, they must find one in the game, but if the DM needs any NPc to have one, they simply will have one.

The idea that some how the rules are prefect is just silly? Your thinking the creators climbed some mountain and got them from a divine hand? And sure any time a DM makes changes it can have bad side effects...that is life. And it is also true of ''the rules'' too. Games are full of out right broken thing that the ''almighty creators'' somehow missed.

You note that you have ''changed the rules'' yourself...but only in a way, that in your view follows the rules. So, when you do it, in your own view it is ok....but when others do it they are always wrong?

''Because the DM said so'' is a valid thing, and dare I say it is even in the rules. The DM says ''five orcs guard the door'', it is so. And it is just silly for a play to say ''I'm turned off that the DM makes guards..and the whole game world out of thin air.." Or are you talking more about when a DM says ''Everyone gets max HP per level, because I say so'' or ''Just ignore material components, because I say so'' or ''Play any race and ignore the LA, as I say so''?

Though that all being said, there are a lot of bad gamers out there. And naturally it is no fun to play in a game with a bad DM. But if you want to play you must either just go along, find a game that fits your view or run your own game.

Great points here. When I GM/DM, I made the players suffer the consequences of their action. If they chose to slay the king in my campaign, I would love the tenacity and the decision making power of the player. Ive seen a TPK done by players who made such decisions, and in the campaign, everybody that played agreed that our reservoir dogs style ending was epic. I think a DM should be flexible to the decisions players make, and if they arent, then they arent worth their salt. I think that masters need to be open to constructive criticism, and if they cant be held accountable to the book, then you shouldnt be held accountable to the book either, and then there are just no rules.

Because I say so is just a bad idea, no matter how it flies. If a DM can diverge from the rules, deny you the 20 you roll, or railroad you just because, and you have no say so, they may as well just be writing a book, because they clearly have a script in mind, and there is no room for players in a scripted scenario. Its not fair to the players, or the work they put in, if you abandon their stats because you have more fun when they cant fight back. At that point you are just a bully, bossing everybody around in a game of pretend where you're the boss. There are SO many ways to fix this.


So, you're outnumbered 4-to-1, the enemy has surprise (which the DM cheats breaks their own rules to keep), the DM kills one of the PCs in the first surprise round... and you're sad about leaving this group why, exactly? Did anyone survive that fiasco?

Still going on. I save them from a TPK with a lucky roll on intimidation with a hardcore illusion, and I feel that, since everybody knew it was a TPK scenario, that he went with my solution. Ive gotten pretty handy with illusions and thaumaturgy, but honestly I only think he let it work as well as it did because everybody knew what was up. There were no rolls vs the save except for one, and only one guys stuck around. Pretty sure it was a fudged result, but since I am removed from the game he did reveal that it was intended to be a capture. I just dont think our actions would be honored after I left.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-14, 08:27 PM
Because I say so is just a bad idea, no matter how it flies. If a DM can diverge from the rules, deny you the 20 you roll, or railroad you just because, and you have no say so, they may as well just be writing a book, because they clearly have a script in mind, and there is no room for players in a scripted scenario. Its not fair to the players, or the work they put in, if you abandon their stats because you have more fun when they cant fight back. At that point you are just a bully, bossing everybody around in a game of pretend where you're the boss. There are SO many ways to fix this.


The big problem is that ''the rules'' don't apply to the DM. The DM can do anything. The DM can make a high roll miss or fail on a whim. The ''whatever it is'' can simply have a high enough AC/DC. And it does not matter if the DM makes up the ''whatever'' a year before the game or just seconds before the roll.

And sure if the DM does it ''the dumb obvious way'' like saying ''the door can't be opened'' then the players will know what is up....but if the DM does it the ''smart way'' and simply ''uses the rules the players obsess about so much'' then the players will never know. If the DM can open a book and say ''look I'm using this here rule on page 93'' then all the players will just shrug and say ''ok-day''.

And the even bigger problem is that like half the game is ''beyond the rules''. Does the NPC send bounty hunters after the PCs? There is no ''rule'' for that, it is totally at the DM's whim. Now, sure a lot of DM's will say the line that ''they just do what makes sense(to them)" and act like they are not doing anything....but, of course, they are doing everything.

And calling the DM a bully is a bit pointless. How does a player decide the DM is a bully? Can the DM do any action without being called a bully? How is anything that is even vaguely negative not ''bullying the players?" It comes down to just ''if the players like it or not''.

TheYell
2016-08-14, 08:33 PM
I think he blew the game scenario. I agree with your comments about novel writing; he could have let your 20 mean you see too many bad guys to fight. Saying that you'd be captured by X number of bad guys and getting in a snit when you resist that number is ridiculous. They're mooks; bring up another dozen.

I still dont see any basis to bounce you. But i agree with the guys who say you are better off out of there.

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 09:04 PM
And calling the DM a bully is a bit pointless. How does a player decide the DM is a bully? Can the DM do any action without being called a bully? How is anything that is even vaguely negative not ''bullying the players?" It comes down to just ''if the players like it or not''.

If the player has a valid point, and the DM agrees that it is right, and their only argument to the contrary is "because I said so", and one gets kicked out for disagreeing, then it is pretty much just bullying. "My way or the highway" mentality at it's worst. This isn't a matter of my liking it. I've gone a long with much that I disagree with in these campaigns, so I recognize that my liking it is not the issue.

The only things that REALLY comes into play is if the DM is being fair and consistent, or if they are just abusing their power.

Redacting my nat20 because he just didn't expect it, and was to inflexible to make room for it. That is not being fair, and using his power to redact it just because he didnt want it is bullying.

As I said above, I would have been fine if it were done in the manner of a cinematic, where the players understood that dice had no real value. It was the fact that he allowed us to roll in the first place, and just said NO when it was an automatic success. Not only did he allow us to roll perception, but WAY after the fact, he said that actually shouldn't have been the roll, but it should have been something closer to composure to see if we were surprised.

Tricking us into thinking that we had the power to use our earned stats, and then snatching victory as soon as we have success, is just being unfair, and when the only justification is "because I said so" then it is just bullying.

Fathom having a team captain that was on one team, but was also umpire or referee, and they just undo your points because they dont like it. I see little difference in the "because I said so" mentality, and I wouldnt use as an after the fact scenario. I would respect my players rolls, and I wouldn't undo something because the team beat me.

SirBellias
2016-08-14, 10:17 PM
Sounds like a bummer situation. Just seems like a bit of a disconnect in play styles.

Take heart, as there are definitely games out there that match your playstyle. The one I'm in currently is fairly by the book, and while there are several houserules to fit the tone of the game, the DM explained their reasoning before hand, they got debated, and now people don't die immediately, so progress. But our game definitely has cinematic scenes like the ones you describe. A lot of our time is just role play, with dice roles not forcing any particular outcome, and usually only asked for for the purpose of amusement (how bad am I at lying to a fellow PC?). When in the wilds, though, we play by the rules, get brutally maimed in the process, and suck it up.

Probably not really what you were thinking of, but it came to mind, as personal experiences do.

Your former DM's style is one that is often given a bad name by my fellow playgrounders, though it does work for some groups, such as Darth Ultron's. Different things work for different people, and it's usually best not to argue about it for 3 pages or more (seems to add to the frustration, I've noticed).

Bear in mind that this style does work for some people, and works better in some games than others. Paranoia is a good example of a game where this is encouraged to the point of all the rules being downplayed unless you can't decide what solution would be most amusing. Powered by the Apocalypse games are an example of the exact opposite, in that it states at the beginning of the book that if the rules are getting in the way of having fun, you need to find a different game. You may want to look into those, if you haven't already. While they don't typically have any Cinematic scenes of no dice, the Master of Ceremonies is given clear instructions on how to run the game, and the rules are made to be strictly adhered to (loose interpretations aside). The Golden rule is crushed underneath monster guts and combat boots, in all cases I remember.

You aren't a bad player for having the opinions you do. I'm the rules monkey in my game too, but my group just seems more receptive to that type of play. Looks like you just need a different group.

To address another point you've made, some people can be great friends while being horrible if they try to play RPGs together. A lot of my friends are completely horrible players when it comes to most games, balking at character creation and murderhoboing the world over. I deeply dislike those types of games, and thus only ever run Paranoia with them. These things happen, and they're still great friends and fun when it comes to other activities.

Mr Beer
2016-08-14, 10:19 PM
Game flow is more important than rules, nothing worse than getting into an extended debate about some petty detail for 30 minutes while the fantasy world you should be creating sails away on all the hot air.

I settle any rules questions quickly. Generally I'm right and explain why and that's it. If a player can quickly convince me they are onto something, I will either agree with them or say 'well we're doing it this way for now and can look into it later'.

Fenrazer
2016-08-14, 10:48 PM
-SNIP-

Thank you for your encouraging words, my friend. I really needed that.

Âmesang
2016-08-15, 07:13 AM
I can't stand "because I said so." :smalltongue: I'm not three years old anymore. I want to know why "you say so."

…but that's the heart of the matter for me; I like knowing the why and the how of the working of things, which is what inflamed my interesting in website design/computer programming/amateur radio/science/&c., at which point I like being able to take what I know and have it serve me. "Knowledge is Power" and what not. Probably why I liked playing SoulCalibur so much (that, and the later games' character creation modes).

I'm also very lazy, and forgetful.

I don't like bothering with making rules on the fly when I've got whole books full of rules that I can reference without having to remember too many myself, rules that anyone can reference at any time to put us all on the "same page."

With that said I have contemplated making a list of house rules or minor tweaks, such as allowing monks to be proficient with the ward cestus and making it a special monk weapon (from the Arms and Equipment Guide), just so they can have an easy unarmed strike-based weapon that can be enhanced. That's the thing, though; I appreciate any and all house rules to be laid out before the party ahead of time and not sprung on them in the middle of the action based solely on someone's whim (baring something that would be DM knowledge only, like taking an un-updated D&D 3.0 monster [white and black slaadi, for example] and attempting an update [giving them DR 15/epic and lawful and 20/epic and lawful, respectively]).

…granted, I think it's 'cause I tend to look at the "Dungeon Master" as more of a "referee," merely providing the plot, challenges, and treasures and letting the major decisions of story fall to the characters (including consequences of their actions; I likewise don't favor the expendability of NPCs just because they're NPCs—there are 7+ billion people in the world; the vast majority of us are NPCs in the grand scheme of things; but then I also love the roleplaying/storytelling aspect of these games, too, since it fuels my creativity).

Quertus
2016-08-15, 07:55 AM
nothing worse better than getting into an extended debate about some petty detail for 30 minutes

FTFY ;) Although, personally, I prefer 3 hour rules debates.

So, what do you do when you establish some stupid, setting-breaking rule, and, several sessions later, it comes back to bite you even harder than if you had spent the time and ruled it correctly to begin with? I've seen this happen too many times to too many DMs, so I gotta ask, what's your recovery plan in that scenario?

Mr Beer
2016-08-15, 06:16 PM
FTFY ;) Although, personally, I prefer 3 hour rules debates.

So, what do you do when you establish some stupid, setting-breaking rule, and, several sessions later, it comes back to bite you even harder than if you had spent the time and ruled it correctly to begin with? I've seen this happen too many times to too many DMs, so I gotta ask, what's your recovery plan in that scenario?

I don't remember that exact scenario happening but if I've managed to introduce something that breaks the setting, it's up to me to fix it. If I can do it elegantly, I will, but I have no problem simply saying 'Hey guys, I totally effed up by allowing x, so I'm removing it from the setting'.

Geddy2112
2016-08-15, 06:49 PM
The "golden rule" as you say it is the rule that says "the DM is always right". It is not carte blanche for the DM to abuse the power and DM fiat whatever the heck they want "because they said so". The DM does need final authority in all rulings for the sake of running a ttRPG. Bad DM's abuse this power to railroad their intended plans on the group and ensure the outcome ends the way they wanted.

You were in said situation, given a spot check as a false sense of agency-you were going to fail regardless of modifiers, unless you beat the other house rule of just getting lucky with a 20. But, even if you did, you were also false screwed as only you get to watch it coming as rules get trumped on the fly to keep that plot train on the rails and getting to the station on time. The fact that you could obviously see an intended TPK(which I am assuming just happened by DM fiat, not the party foolhardedly running into obvious danger) but could not warn the group is further reinforcement that it was a cut-scene, but you got the false hope of struggling. And since the DM intended it as a capture to further their storytime, I bet those other characters who died are going to magically be just fine. Unless your DM is JRR Martin, the author never kills their prized protagonists, and look how much cooler it will be when they cheated death that one time and escaped capture just cause.

I would not play in this kind of garbage. This was not a dangerous random encounter, this was not an eventful scenario with any other possible outcomes. This was a sit back and listen to the DM tell you a story. Some people like that, but I certainly don't and you don't seem to either. I have quit games over it, and I outright refuse to play in a game DM'ed by certain people in my gaming group because they think fiat storytime is the only and best way to DM.

There are other rule zero's, such as don't split the party(this applies to philosophically, logistically, OOC, IC, or any way that would create a schism in the group) and the most important one IMO, have fun.

If you were not having fun anyways, why even want to go back?

IShouldntBehere
2016-08-15, 07:14 PM
Here I thought "The Golden Rule" was to you treat others as you'd like to be treated. I thought "The DM is always right" was "Rule Zero".

Raimun
2016-08-15, 07:45 PM
Yeah, I know what mean. Why would anyone even bother buying rpg-books with hundreds of pages of rules and setting info if most, if not all of it, is held inferior to "Magical (Randomly Arbitrary) Story Time"?

Now, imagination (roleplaying) is integral part of rpgs but so is the other part, ie. the rules (game). The trick is to make them work together, as equally valuable parts of the whole.

I know I might be weird but I think close adherence to game rules makes the whole experience more interesting and fun. Seriously. The game rules act as an impartial arbiter that makes everything more unpredictable and more organic than any player or gm could come up with in the long run. This is why there are game rules to begin with. And this still leaves lots of room for imagination and player/gm-agency. In fact, free agency is the whole point of any game. You just have to find the happy balance between them.

OldTrees1
2016-08-15, 07:46 PM
@Fenrazer

It sounds like you did not get kicked out for disagreeing. You reacted to an initial disagreement with a policy that unintentionally fostered negative emotions between you and the DM. Eventually those negative emotions resulted in you being a net drain for the DM and so they removed that net drain by ceasing to include you.

This says nothing about who was or was not in the wrong at the initial disagreement. Nor does it say that it wasn't out of your control once the negative emotions got in a feedback loop. It merely notices the gap between the perceived cause and the actual cause.

PS: Boards like these are not ideal places to get honest input. We have an irrational tendency to view the visible party through a golden halo. Which is good since it is usually a bad idea to presume malice. Unfortunately this also leads to the irrational tendency to side with the visible party against the invisible party. Thus it becomes more a way to signal loyalty than to display honesty.

Cluedrew
2016-08-15, 09:51 PM
Here I thought "The Golden Rule" was to you treat others as you'd like to be treated. I thought "The DM is always right" was "Rule Zero".The Golden Rule (https://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1600&bih=805&q=golden+rule+poster&oq=golden+rule&gs_l=img.3.4.0l10.376.5101.0.8831.16.14.1.1.1.0.24 5.2136.0j10j3.13.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.15.2170. fbVXRlKnbUU#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=golden+rule+poster+all+religions) is actually more than that just that but it is so connected to so many religions that is all I'm going to say. At least for now.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-16, 07:42 PM
The only things that REALLY comes into play is if the DM is being fair and consistent, or if they are just abusing their power.

But this is just pointless. Who says what is ''fair'' or anything else?



Redacting my nat20 because he just didn't expect it, and was to inflexible to make room for it. That is not being fair, and using his power to redact it just because he didnt want it is bullying.

A good DM would have a good reason for doing something like this, but of course jerk DM's are jerks. A lot of times for a story things have to happen. And before you say the crazy ''it's not the DM's story'', let say the DM did it as part of the players story.

And the question is: are you against the DM changing any roll any time? Should the ''dice always fall as they may?"




Fathom having a team captain that was on one team, but was also umpire or referee, and they just undo your points because they dont like it. I see little difference in the "because I said so" mentality, and I wouldnt use as an after the fact scenario. I would respect my players rolls, and I wouldn't undo something because the team beat me.

Well, this is why the referee is not on any team....just like the DM.

Cluedrew
2016-08-16, 08:45 PM
But this is just pointless. Who says what is ''fair'' or anything else?I don't think the fair part is as important as the abuse of power. If the GM tries to force something that they want then it is an abuse of power and that is bad. Generally, if a player has fought for something and gets it, you should just take it away again.


Well, this is why the referee is not on any team....just like the DM.Actually if we are using a sports metaphor I think the coach may actually be a better analogy (assuming the players are a team, if not then the referee thing works). The GM throws things at the players to make it hard on them but ultimately there job is not to make sure the teams play fair, because there is only one team, instead they are supposed to make the game interesting, provide tension and challenge but also make sure that there is a payoff.

LudicSavant
2016-08-16, 09:29 PM
Needless to say at this point in time, hearing a DM saying something like "Because I said so", to me, seems like it basically turns the game off Because I said so is generally a big red flag. Not just for DMing, but for pretty much anything.

OldTrees1
2016-08-16, 11:04 PM
Actually if we are using a sports metaphor I think the coach may actually be a better analogy (assuming the players are a team, if not then the referee thing works). The GM throws things at the players to make it hard on them but ultimately there job is not to make sure the teams play fair, because there is only one team, instead they are supposed to make the game interesting, provide tension and challenge but also make sure that there is a payoff.

A coach is a better example but only because it adds detail. A coach does still act as a referee between the players and the simulation/challenge. However calling it a coach does capture the benevolent bias towards the players.

Or at least every coach I knew would not let me cheat during practice. :smalltongue:

Darth Ultron
2016-08-17, 03:55 PM
I don't think the fair part is as important as the abuse of power. If the GM tries to force something that they want then it is an abuse of power and that is bad. Generally, if a player has fought for something and gets it, you should just take it away again.

Sure, this is easy to agree to in a vague and theoretical way. The problem is that in reality the players can just whine can complain any time anything happens in the game. When is the ''DM forcing things on the players'' and when is he just having a world that makes sense like ''the bank vault door is locked''.

And I think when the DM gives the players special treatment is wrong. Like when a character falls off a ship at sea, dropping everything in their hands and washes up on an island....their super special great sword of sharpness floats up on to the beach with in five feet of the character.

Cluedrew
2016-08-17, 04:25 PM
Sure, this is easy to agree to in a vague and theoretical way. The problem is that in reality the players can just whine can complain any time anything happens in the game. When is the ''DM forcing things on the players'' and when is he just having a world that makes sense like ''the bank vault door is locked''.Sure players can whine, just as the GM can abuse their position to dominate the flow of the game and rob the players of their initiative. But that doesn't mean that those will happen.

In the bank example, if the players sneak in during the night it makes sense for the vault door to be locked. If on the other hand the bank workers were half way through a delivery the bank the bank vault being closed, let alone locked, would be weird. So when is it one or the other? Look at the situation, figure it out, does it make sense? If that has a clear cut answer you can stop there. If the answer is not so clear then you might have to think about it for a while.


And I think when the DM gives the players special treatment is wrong. Like when a character falls off a ship at sea, dropping everything in their hands and washes up on an island....their super special great sword of sharpness floats up on to the beach with in five feet of the character.I could see that happening if it was the sword was somehow bound to its owner. If it is just a regular +X sword yeah that doesn't float.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-17, 05:49 PM
If the answer is not so clear then you might have to think about it for a while.

The thing is 99% of the time it won't be so clear cut, and even more so to the players as they don't have all the game information. And most often the players will jump to the conclusion that ''the DM is against us'' when anything they don't like happens. So unless you stop the game every couple of minutes to explain things and can get the players to agree with everything the DM says, your game will grind to a halt.



I could see that happening if it was the sword was somehow bound to its owner. If it is just a regular +X sword yeah that doesn't float.

But see Klgar the optimized one trick pony is only a useful character if he has a great sword...otherwise he is useless. So then the DM has to make sure his sword is never lost.

Mr Beer
2016-08-17, 05:56 PM
But see Klgar the optimized one trick pony is only a useful character if he has a great sword...otherwise he is useless. So then the DM has to make sure his sword is never lost.

This problem (or possibly 'problem') is solvable in a number of ways which are preferable to having steel swords suddenly behaving like floating homing pigeons.

Cluedrew
2016-08-17, 08:46 PM
The thing is 99% of the time it won't be so clear cut, and even more so to the players as they don't have all the game information. And most often the players will jump to the conclusion that ''the DM is against us'' when anything they don't like happens. So unless you stop the game every couple of minutes to explain things and can get the players to agree with everything the DM says, your game will grind to a halt.Actually I think 99% of the time it is so clear cut you don't notice it at all, so you are thinking of the 1% of remaining cases where it was not clear cut and so came up. No I don't have actual numbers on that but just approximating out from the games I've played.

Also I would totally explain it even if it slowed the game down. Because after a half dozen completely reasonable explanations as to why this or that happened than they will be begin to understand how you think and understand later decisions as well. And even if that doesn't happen if you continue to provide good reasons and at the end of the day the outcome was good, they might {gasp} just learn to trust you.

OK yes there can be that one who will continue to be a problem. Problem players do exist and one type is the one who tries to weasel every last advantage out of every situation at the expense of just about anything. It is not worth playing with them, the ones worth keeping will shape up.


But see Klgar the optimized one trick pony is only a useful character if he has a great sword...otherwise he is useless. So then the DM has to make sure his sword is never lost.Why does the GM have to do that?

SirBellias
2016-08-17, 11:20 PM
And most often the players will jump to the conclusion that ''the DM is against us'' when anything they don't like happens.

I'd like to report that this is not the case in most of the groups I've been in. If things we don't like happen, that adds to the game. If things we want to happen happen without a problem, I'd be very surprised and a lot more paranoid from then on. Sure, we question his reasoning on some things, and he usually gives us a decent explanation on his ruling. Our DM adds complications to our characters lives to see how far he can push them, and when they'll break, and if they'll keep breaking after that. We appreciate the challenge.

If Klgar is useless without his sword, and he loses his sword in a fairly explainable way, Klgar better figure a way he can contribute. Maybe it's time for Klgar to grow as a character and develop new talents besides "using swords that magically hit easier to kill various creatures."

Darth Ultron
2016-08-17, 11:31 PM
Also I would totally explain it even if it slowed the game down. Because after a half dozen completely reasonable explanations as to why this or that happened than they will be begin to understand how you think and understand later decisions as well. And even if that doesn't happen if you continue to provide good reasons and at the end of the day the outcome was good, they might {gasp} just learn to trust you.

I see it as a waste of time. I'll just tell players up front that if they don't ''trust me'', they can leave right now. Stopping to explain every little detail to keep the players happy is just crazy.




Why does the GM have to do that?

So the poor players character is not useless.

Cluedrew
2016-08-18, 07:50 AM
I see it as a waste of time. I'll just tell players up front that if they don't ''trust me'', they can leave right now. Stopping to explain every little detail to keep the players happy is just crazy.If your game doesn't "keep the players happy" (which sounds like "is fun for people other than me") than what are you doing with it?

Actually don't, bother replying, just trust me that you want to go home and rethink your life. And your GMing style. Because I said trust me and that is sufficient to build a trusting relationship.

NO IT'S NOT! That was argument by counterexample, don't take it at face value. The words I say don't mean what the words mean. Well the question in the first paragraph can still be considered, do you run games primarily for entertainment or are you running a game for... say educational purposes (even then people with generally gravitate towards fun, so it can be a useful tool).

Back to trust, if the players already trust you that's great, but then they will not ask you all those questions in the first place. But if you don't start with a trusting GM<->player bond you have to build it somehow, and just saying "you got to trust me" isn't really a solution. At best it is a patch-job.


So the poor player's character is not useless.I'm surprised, I thought you would be big on letting players face the consequences of there actions. Then again you do a lot of 'protect them from themselves' stuff so actually that makes sense.

To OldTrees1: Missed it previously, but I'm glad you like the coach metaphor.

Vitruviansquid
2016-08-18, 09:28 AM
I don't at all understand why y'all are having this discussion going on right here.

The GM can concoct reasonable explanations for any manner of set backs or rewards he wants the players to have. If he wants Klgar to have a sword, it washes up next to him, or if that's unrealistic, he finds another sword in a cave by the beach, or one thing or another. If he doesn't want Klgar to have the sword, it's straight up gone. Situations always have multiple reasonable ways of playing out anyways so the smart GM is going to dole out those set backs and rewards based on what is narratively appropriate.

People throw around "consequences" as if that's a thing that can even exist on a meaningful scale. It is all GM judgment in the end, so what are you even trying to accomplish at a table if you don't trust the GM in the first place? If you think your GM's out to get you, trust me, he can get you without doing anything that didn't seem like a reasonable consequence of your own actions.

OldTrees1
2016-08-18, 10:23 AM
I don't at all understand why y'all are having this discussion going on right here.

The GM can concoct reasonable explanations for any manner of set backs or rewards he wants the players to have. If he wants Klgar to have a sword, it washes up next to him, or if that's unrealistic, he finds another sword in a cave by the beach, or one thing or another. If he doesn't want Klgar to have the sword, it's straight up gone. Situations always have multiple reasonable ways of playing out anyways so the smart GM is going to dole out those set backs and rewards based on what is narratively appropriate.

People throw around "consequences" as if that's a thing that can even exist on a meaningful scale. It is all GM judgment in the end, so what are you even trying to accomplish at a table if you don't trust the GM in the first place? If you think your GM's out to get you, trust me, he can get you without doing anything that didn't seem like a reasonable consequence of your own actions.

Hyperbole (whether knowingly hyperbolic or an honest extreme position) tens to be met with hyperbole rather than a more reasonable position. Even your post is an example of this. If I were to respond to your claim that "For all cases there exist multiple reasonable consequences" I would respond by showing extreme counterexamples in order to have the most likely chance of the most people agreeing with my counter example.

As far as Trust: There is incomplete information between the Players and the DM so Trust is important to extend, likewise if someone does not trust you then demanding trust is not going to work. However this is a convoluted answer so arguments normally result in the hyperboles of the facets of the answer.

Quertus
2016-08-18, 04:52 PM
A coach is a better example but only because it adds detail. A coach does still act as a referee between the players and the simulation/challenge. However calling it a coach does capture the benevolent bias towards the players.

Or at least every coach I knew would not let me cheat during practice. :smalltongue:

A better coach would have taught you how to cheat and not get caught... for certain definitions of better. ;)


I see it as a waste of time. I'll just tell players up front that if they don't ''trust me'', they can leave right now. Stopping to explain every little detail to keep the players happy is just crazy.

Well, we've already established that I wouldn't enjoy playing in the games you run because of other stylistic differences, but I personally enjoy breaking immersion to discuss little details.

But.

I don't like having constant trust-based conversations, either. I just take the opposite approach to solving this problem. If I tried to write down as a formulaic approach, it would look something like this:

Step 1 - establish advanced knowledge of the rules.
Step 2 - appear to break the rules.
Step 3 - demonstrate how the event in Step 2 actually followed the rules.

Ideally, all of this happens in game, within the first season or two. Ideally, steps 2 and 3 are things the players learned in character. Step 1 is important to demonstrate that you aren't just making things up out of ignorance; steps 2 & 3 demonstrate that you aren't doing so as a stylistic choice.

Step 4 - Repeat steps 2&3, perhaps drawn out over several sessions between the introduction of the inexplicable and the resolution of its cause

This sets the tone for the campaign: yes, there are mysteries for you to solve - and, yes, you are capable of solving them.

An important... tidbit: these aren't DM handouts, they are things you expect them to earn. If, for some reason, they fail to earn this info, I give it to them OOC: gee, it's a pity you burned that book without reading it - your characters would have learned <that thing that makes the world make sense>. This also tests their ability to role-play differences in player and character knowledge.

Once properly... "trained"... to trust me, my players will occasionally ask, "you do know that X, right?" All I have to do is smile knowingly, and they know that the game's afoot!


Back to trust, if the players already trust you that's great, but then they will not ask you all those questions in the first place. But if you don't start with a trusting GM<->player bond you have to build it somehow, and just saying "you got to trust me" isn't really a solution. At best it is a patch-job.

I prefer trust but verify, personally. I prefer that players do ask questions when something seems out of place. Not just for the rules, but for all aspects of the game, including how their fellow players are role-playing their characters. I personally believe that it makes for a much healthier and much more educational environment that way.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-18, 07:43 PM
I don't like having constant trust-based conversations, either. I just take the opposite approach to solving this problem. If I tried to write down as a formulaic approach, it would look something like this:

Step 1 - establish advanced knowledge of the rules.
Step 2 - appear to break the rules.
Step 3 - demonstrate how the event in Step 2 actually followed the rules.

I prefer trust but verify, personally. I prefer that players do ask questions when something seems out of place. Not just for the rules, but for all aspects of the game, including how their fellow players are role-playing their characters. I personally believe that it makes for a much healthier and much more educational environment that way.

Guess I'd go with

1)Establish I know all, just like you said.
2)Play the game
3)Have the players understand ''the so called rules'' are just suggestions made up by some normal people who were not so good at their job.

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-19, 09:03 AM
Guess I'd go with

1)Establish I know all, just like you said.
2)Play the game
3)Have the players understand ''the so called rules'' are just suggestions made up by some normal people who were not so good at their job.

Quick reminder that the only difference between Blackjack and Poker is the rules.

The only difference between D&D 5e and Pathfinder is the rules.

The only difference between any two games, actually, is the rules.

So to discount the rules as just suggestions is too far. At some point you are no longer playing D&D and are now playing... some other game made up on the spot and influenced by the ideas within D&D manuals, but isn't D&D. While going exclusively by RAW in some games leads to Tippyverse levels of silliness, Rule 0 is meant to give the DM the ability to quickly hotfix the game whenever a previously unforseen event occurs. Other systems handle this better than D&D does (Apocalypse World being a good example. It has no rule 0, but does allow the MC to make custom moves if they are needed, and tells them to pass the decisionmaking responsibility away from themselves whenever possible. (To the dice, or to the group at large. The former when something is at stake, the latter when nothing is at stake, in my experience.)

As for establishing trust, I actually diffuse responsibility for remembering things throughout my group. I have a player who remembers minutiae better than I do, and so while I will look up his claims to verify, if it takes longer than about a minute I just write down that I need to look it up and go with what makes sense. (He doesn't use that stuff to boost his own position unless I'm unwittingly denying them something they ought to have.)

So basically, I'll sometimes just say something like "Hey, this badguy does X thing, I'll probably forget. Remind me." And they always do.

I still fail to understand the assumption that players behave, by default, like whiny children in need of a proper smack on the bum rather than like rational adults who all enjoy the same hobby and want to chill on the weekends. Maybe I'm unbelieveably lucky, or something, because the one time we ended up losing players we parted amicably and it was due to those players not enjoying the systems the rest of us were currently playing. And there was no yelling, no arguing, just a quick PM and some wellwishes from both sides.

Maybe my naturally laid-back GMing style makes this easier. I dunno.

OldTrees1
2016-08-19, 09:51 AM
So to discount the rules as just suggestions is too far. At some point you are no longer playing D&D and are now playing... some other game made up on the spot and influenced by the ideas within D&D manuals, but isn't D&D. While going exclusively by RAW in some games leads to Tippyverse levels of silliness, Rule 0 is meant to give the DM the ability to quickly hotfix the game whenever a previously unforseen event occurs. Other systems handle this better than D&D does (Apocalypse World being a good example. It has no rule 0, but does allow the MC to make custom moves if they are needed, and tells them to pass the decisionmaking responsibility away from themselves whenever possible. (To the dice, or to the group at large. The former when something is at stake, the latter when nothing is at stake, in my experience.)

The RPG I play with my group has never been and never will be the same as RAW. RAW really is just a set of suggestions that in their totality defines WotC's D&D in contrast to any arbitrary DM's D&D or any arbitrary other RPG. There might be a sematic argument in the vein of the True Scotsman fallacy to be made here but that is besides the point. Large overhauls/revisions of D&D treat RAW as just suggestions in crafting the rules they will run their campaign by.

So rather than take a position similar to the True Scotsman fallacy, I would have attacked Darth Ultron's argument by pointing out that "establishing knowledge of 'the so called rules' and then showing 'the so called rules' to not be the rules the game is running by" is neither sufficient for communicating the rules the game will be running by nor sufficient for building trust that the DM knows the rules they will be running the game by.


I still fail to understand the assumption that players behave, by default, like whiny children in need of a proper smack on the bum rather than like rational adults who all enjoy the same hobby and want to chill on the weekends. Maybe I'm unbelieveably lucky, or something, because the one time we ended up losing players we parted amicably and it was due to those players not enjoying the systems the rest of us were currently playing. And there was no yelling, no arguing, just a quick PM and some wellwishes from both sides.

Your failure to understand is a result of you not being named Ultron. Darth has a particular disrespect for players than is an anomaly and is frequently criticized whenever he relies on it to support his arguments. If I had to theorize the source of that disrespect I would attribute it to a positive feedback resulting from confirmation bias. He sees players as children -> he treats them as children -> they react in a way he interprets as childish -> repeat.

ImNotTrevor
2016-08-19, 11:40 AM
The RPG I play with my group has never been and never will be the same as RAW. RAW really is just a set of suggestions that in their totality defines WotC's D&D in contrast to any arbitrary DM's D&D or any arbitrary other RPG. There might be a sematic argument in the vein of the True Scotsman fallacy to be made here but that is besides the point. Large overhauls/revisions of D&D treat RAW as just suggestions in crafting the rules they will run their campaign by.
I wasn't arguing that RAW is best or that using common sense/some houserules/ a homebrewed game is wrong.

Basically, if you're gonna throw all the rules out willy nilly then you're playing the tabletop rpg version of Calvinball, as opposed to a game.



So rather than take a position similar to the True Scotsman fallacy, I would have attacked Darth Ultron's argument by pointing out that "establishing knowledge of 'the so called rules' and then showing 'the so called rules' to not be the rules the game is running by" is neither sufficient for communicating the rules the game will be running by nor sufficient for building trust that the DM knows the rules they will be running the game by.
I also agree with this reasoning.




Your failure to understand is a result of you not being named Ultron. Darth has a particular disrespect for players than is an anomaly and is frequently criticized whenever he relies on it to support his arguments. If I had to theorize the source of that disrespect I would attribute it to a positive feedback resulting from confirmation bias. He sees players as children -> he treats them as children -> they react in a way he interprets as childish -> repeat.

I comprehend the how, and even the why. I just can't put myself in that headspace. The only time I could imagine such problems is while playing with my neices and nephews, the oldest of whom is 16, though I'd likely play with the 8-10 year olds by this point. In that case I can see maturity issues,.nut seriously. I can't imagine looking at an adult person and asserting that they are incapable of enough rational thought for me to not need to wrangle them entirely. (Barring legitimate mental handicaps)

OldTrees1
2016-08-19, 11:58 AM
I wasn't arguing that RAW is best or that using common sense/some houserules/ a homebrewed game is wrong.

Basically, if you're gonna throw all the rules out willy nilly then you're playing the tabletop rpg version of Calvinball, as opposed to a game.


I also agree with this reasoning.
Calvinball is like the card game Fluxx, the rules are constantly changing. I don't think that is the same as throwing out all the rules willy nilly & settling on some set of rules. To be fair I think Darth is the 2nd kind.




I comprehend the how, and even the why. I just can't put myself in that headspace. The only time I could imagine such problems is while playing with my neices and nephews, the oldest of whom is 16, though I'd likely play with the 8-10 year olds by this point. In that case I can see maturity issues,.nut seriously. I can't imagine looking at an adult person and asserting that they are incapable of enough rational thought for me to not need to wrangle them entirely. (Barring legitimate mental handicaps)
What if you pretend the DM seat deserves 100% more respect than you currently believe it deserves but you only encounter the people you previously gamed with. After cycling through enough players you would conclude "obviously players must be chronically and inherently insufficiently respectful". (or you might reassess your beliefs but not everyone takes that path)

Cluedrew
2016-08-19, 01:45 PM
Or maybe Darth Ultron lives in Talakeal's Bazaro World of Bad RPG Players and this is how he deals with it. Now even Talakeal managed to find some good players so in that case there is still hope... although I often feel Ultron has given up on that hope.

Don't give up Darth Ultron, there are players out there who you can set free and they will do beautiful things with it.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-19, 05:19 PM
Or maybe Darth Ultron lives in Talakeal's Bazaro World of Bad RPG Players and this is how he deals with it. Now even Talakeal managed to find some good players so in that case there is still hope... although I often feel Ultron has given up on that hope.

Don't give up Darth Ultron, there are players out there who you can set free and they will do beautiful things with it.

I don't have any problem finding good players. My play style weeds through players fast.

digiman619
2016-08-19, 05:53 PM
I don't have any problem finding good players. My play style weeds through players fast.

Forgive me, but that just sounds like code for "If you don't immediately bend to my whims, you can get out." and "I have a group that knows better than to question me."

Darth Ultron
2016-08-19, 08:15 PM
Forgive me, but that just sounds like code for "If you don't immediately bend to my whims, you can get out." and "I have a group that knows better than to question me."

Well, the first ''code'' is accurate. The second, well players can ''question'' things (that is code for whine and complain, right?) as long as it does not disrupt the game. Players are free to question stuff any time we are not playing the game. And even if a player ''questions'' something, they should understand they might not always like the ''answer''.

Koo Rehtorb
2016-08-19, 09:02 PM
Someone needs to locate Darth Ultron's poor players and rescue them from the hell dimension they've been stranded in.

Cluedrew
2016-08-20, 10:16 AM
I don't have any problem finding good players. My play style weeds through players fast.OK, I am going be civil but I have to agree with the other posters: You are not painting a picture of a healthy play environment.

Now I have never talked to your players, I have never watched you run a game. I don't know what they actually look like. But I can make an educated guess, using all the posts of yours I have read. I will tell you what I see.

I see someone who has a lot of complaints. So many of your posts contain complaints about your players, about how they don't know what they want, how they can't play meaningful characters (either special snowflake or murderhobo), how they complain when anything bad happens or when you bend the rules. The list goes on. From this I conclude that there are problems. Because if they were no problems I think I would be hearing about success stories, about good times and exciting games. But I never even get a hint of that.

Some people, a lot of people, point to you as the source of this problem. But I defended you, that post was really about, yes the call to keep looking for good players, but also a reminder to everyone, including myself some times, that we don't know the full story and we shouldn't assume. Maybe you are stuck with bad players and your complaints were completely justified given your situation.

And now you claim that is not the case. Which puts the responsibility for the situation right back on your shoulders. Every complaint you have ever forwarded here on the forum now comes back to you.

Now I can guess what your counter argument would be, "But all players are like this, by weeding out the bad players you can reduce it but you can't cut it out completely." But you can, I have seen it. I have seen bad players who do all the bad things you talk about... actually I've never seen one that does all of them, but I have seen most of those things happen first hand. But I have also seen games go by without any of them happening. I have had players create completely reasonable characters that fix perfectly into the setting, I have seen them lead the plot in new and interesting direction and at other times throw me hooks to make things I was working toward happen. When they complain, it is because I messed up (they never whine though), in fact I use the word question as code for "looking for information to expand their understanding of the game & world".

They exist Darth Ultron, good players that are a joy to play with. If you come here with all these complaints with the best players you can find, I think you have given up, or are not even looking for the right thing.

But I said it before and I will say it before and I will say it again, I have never spoken to your players and I have never sat at your table. I do not know what is actually going on, but this is what I hear every time you post.

No don't have to justify why your game is great to me or anybody else. In fact if you feel the need to justify it at all it can be the sign of a problem. But I want you to the ask this question of yourself, every time you sit down for a game, when you stand back up after a game and a few times during the game.

Is everyone having fun? To be really high level use: Is everyone glad they are here?

Don't tell me the answer, I don't need to know. This is for you and your group. And I spent a hunk of last night thinking about this and about 2 hours writing it, so please at least credit me with trying and take this seriously.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-20, 11:09 AM
Because if they were no problems I think I would be hearing about success stories, about good times and exciting games. But I never even get a hint of that.

Well, you might note all the posts you read are in threads where some DM has a problem. Often it is a problem i have had and can relate too. So I post about that. Posting something like ''my game is great and has no problems ever'' is a bit pointless?





Now I can guess what your counter argument would be, "But all players are like this, by weeding out the bad players you can reduce it but you can't cut it out completely." But you can,

I do weed them out. The ''problem'' players are often ones I only game with a couple times. Too often one of my good players will do something like ''my cousin Zack wants to play'' or ''my husband wants to see what this game is all about''. Also I game a lot of games for strangers.

I have my two regular groups, a bunch of once in a while players and play by post ones. All come back for more, so they must be having fun. And plenty of them say so often, so that is a plus.

I have a play style and stick to it. If you want to play in my game, you have to play my way...it's very simple. I don't go of the idea that a player says something and the Dm just rolls over and says ''yes master'', I'm never going to do that.

And a player is free to complain outside the game all day long if they wish....but I don't ''suddenly'' change my mind just as someone complains.

A lot of my posts are about ways to trick or even force players to have fun. I have found them to be very effective. There will always be tons of the ''cry and give a group hug'' posts to balance out my, often all alone, alternative. But after a DM cries and ''talks'' to the players and ''asks'' them to do something...and they don't do it....they might give my way a try.

Friv
2016-08-20, 11:46 AM
The thing is 99% of the time it won't be so clear cut, and even more so to the players as they don't have all the game information. And most often the players will jump to the conclusion that ''the DM is against us'' when anything they don't like happens.

I don't have any problem finding good players. My play style weeds through players fast.

Have you considered that there might be a direct connection between your play style weeding through players fast, and your experience that players always assume that the DM is against them?

Cluedrew
2016-08-20, 02:15 PM
Well, you might note all the posts you read are in threads where some DM has a problem. Often it is a problem i have had and can relate too. So I post about that. Posting something like ''my game is great and has no problems ever'' is a bit pointless?And that is a reasonable answer. They have all been places where problem players would be relevant.

Personally I think it may be a matter of how you communicate the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. But I don't have the energy to go through that right now. It may not even be necessary.

Darth Ultron
2016-08-20, 04:20 PM
Have you considered that there might be a direct connection between your play style weeding through players fast, and your experience that players always assume that the DM is against them?

Well, sure any player that assumes that the game is ''them vs the DM'' won't be in my game for long.



Personally I think it may be a matter of how you communicate the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. But I don't have the energy to go through that right now. It may not even be necessary.

Well, I think everyone is just way to sensitive and on edge. Just ''society'' in ''some places'', right?

Velaryon
2016-08-20, 05:00 PM
So, interrupting the current discussion RE: Darth Ultron and whether or not his players are actually happy people having fun at the game, I'd like to get back to the OP's situation.


I appreciate the perspective. I would have to say that my challenging him is where this came from. We talked about it a lot earlier. We talked about way back when I did rules lawyer, and how I eventually lightened up. To get myself to stop, I stopped carrying the book with me, and I didnt answer any questions about the game because I didnt want to be considered a know-it-all. Later, if I disagreed with something, I would say something like "I guess if thats how it has to be", and the DM admitted that they took this personally, even though they knew I didnt intend it to be personal. After being told that I was super negative, I stopped saying anything at all when I was frustrated, and the DM said they noticed, and that the silence was deafening, and that I kept to myself.

I feel like I couldnt do anything to appease them. Im damned if I voiced a rule, even when the DM acknowledged that it was accurate, and even during a time when I was his personal game encyclopedia. I'm damned if I dont say anything at all, because I'm keeping to myself. I'm damned if I respectfully point out I disagree, but will respect the ruling in spite of that. Was I doing something else annoying? Certainly. The DM was annoyed by everything I did, I guess. The main answer to my problem was essentially that I couldnt hold an opinion contrary to his ruling, even if I didnt voice it, or at least thats how I feel.

I believe what's happening here is some incompatibility in the ways you and your DM like to play, compounded by a problem in communication.

My own preference for gaming is that the rules should stand as written unless there's a good reason to change them. There are poorly-thought-out rules, rules that conflict with each other, rules that didn't account for supplemental material that was released later, and just plain bad rules. There's nothing wrong with changing them, but before you make that change, you should have a good understanding of said rule, why it needs changing, and what impact that change will have on the game. And whenever possible, you should make that change before it comes up in game, with buy-in from the players in whatever way that's best accomplished at your table (DM explaining, putting it to a vote, whatever).

The impression I've gotten of you is that your preferences are more or less similar to mine, that you are irked by on-the-spot changing or ignoring of rules because they feel arbitrary, even lazy, and because they often screw over player agency in order to arrive at a predetermined conclusion that the DM wants to happen. Your DM, by contrast, appears to be doing exactly that and sees the rules as guidelines that should be changed in service to "the story," by which we mean what he wants to happen. If you can't tell, my sympathies mostly lie with you.

However, the problem is that there's been a communication breakdown and you've both started a cycle of annoying each other without realizing your respective roles in the problem. You realized that constantly arguing that "the rules say X" and that he shouldn't change them was bothering the DM and possibly the players, so you made an effort to stop. However, when you'd say something like "I guess that's how it has to be," that sounds pretty passive-aggressive and that's poison to a fun gaming environment. And then when you stopped saying anything at all, from the way you described it your silence was speaking volumes. I could hear the frustrated sighs and feel the annoyed looks right through the internet, as if I were right there at the table. It may not have been as bad as it sounded to me, and you may not have intended this kind of nonverbal communication, but it seems pretty clear that it was happening.

So, it may be too late now but it may not. You are friends with these people outside the game, right? It may just be that your gaming styles are incompatible, in which case nothing you say or do is gonna change that. However, if you want to try and repair the situation in such a way that you can rejoin the game, then I'd suggest having a frank, polite talk with the DM outside the game, away from the other players, to see if you can come to a mutual understanding and compromise. Recognize that there is fault on both sides, and try to talk to each other with open minds about why each of you were unhappy with the way things were going.

The best possible solution would be for you both to come away with some things you can do to work with the other person. The DM can try to find ways to avoid having to suppress the rules to make things happen, maybe instead trying out the "cinematic" thing you mentioned. You can try to school yourself to not get frustrated when the DM makes a ruling that you feel is unfair. But if a compromise can't be reached, then you can always just bow out of this game gracefully and either join back in with the next one (when you or someone else is the DM), or just hang out when doing non-RPG things instead.

Please let us know how it goes!

Cluedrew
2016-08-20, 06:55 PM
Well, I think everyone is just way to sensitive and on edge. Just ''society'' in ''some places'', right?The world is filled with too many wonderful people to go around making enemies.

And if by "society" in "some places" you mean "the culture" in "Giant in the Playground", I'm going to say that is actually important. It's where we are after all.


So, interrupting the current discussion RE: Darth Ultron and whether or not his players are actually happy people having fun at the game, I'd like to get back to the OP's situation.Woops. I completely forgot what the thread was actually about. Well I think we are done for now anyways.

Guancyto
2016-08-21, 02:04 PM
Personally I think it may be a matter of how you communicate the ideas rather than the ideas themselves. But I don't have the energy to go through that right now. It may not even be necessary.
Isn't.

Was thinking about this a little bit. Ultron's approach to gaming is actually totally reasonable in one very specific situation: if the local gaming culture is ugly and toxic, and you're not allowed to have quality control over who shows up at your table. If, for instance, you game at the friendly local game shop, and the shop's rules are that you have to give anybody a shot if they sign up for your game (this is the setup roleplaying horror stories are made of, and for good reason). Let's say you sit down for a first session and get three normal people and then a creep who wants to walk all over people's personal boundaries, a fishmalk whose only motive is "lolrandumb" and a spiteful little idiot who only cares about disrupting everything possible.

Under healthy circumstances, you'd just tell the last three to get out and not come back. But suppose you're not allowed to do that! Ultron has all the subtlety of a vuvuzela symphony but that's actually a bonus in that situation; the slapstick, arbitrary tyranny and direct divine intervention make it exquisitely clear that these three chuckle****s aren't welcome at your table without giving them the means to complain to the game store owner that rules have been broken. The result is that they ditch because the power-fantasy isn't there, and the three normal people don't have to put up with their crap, and a game with a weird and arbitrary GM is superior to one where half the group could individually create a D&D horror story.

The problem is that this is a solution to a problem that might exist and might not, but Ultron (or whoever he learned it from) is trying to generalize it to gaming in general. He is the proverbial man who, having experienced a toothache and pulled out the tooth, now thinks that happiness is found in not having toothache. (Lemme tell you as a man that got an extraction a couple of days ago, not having toothache is frigging amazing. But it's only a solution to one thing.)

His approach sounds insane to a lot of posters because, well, most of us don't come from that place of madness? It's like suggesting euthanasia as a solution to a bite wound. Normally that's crazy! But what if you come from the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE?

Vogonjeltz
2016-08-25, 09:58 PM
Right, and that (cinematics) is my preference, because the players understand that rules are turned off. It's a way to avoid railroading against the stats, because of that understanding. What happened most recently was the DM gave us a roll to perceive some enemies, and he was basically just going to say it didnt hit, but I got a natural twenty. Because of this, I was alerted to something that he planned on us not being alerted to. Since he didnt plan on it, we just werent given the benefits that he usually awards us. I noticed them, and I wasn't surprised, and I told my squad, and usually this alerts them. He said that they (the enemies) would normally have advantage, but they didnt due to my roll. This is fine, but in the past, if only one person spots the enemies, they could alert their allies to their presence, per DM ruling. Still, nobody was allowed to act other than myself, against his normal ruling.

Where the contention was, is I was frustrated because I knew it was a TPK scenario, and everybody else did too, including people that werent actually playing. I was mainly the one that said it out loud, and it wasnt to be toxic or anything. I was just being a realist, and trying to encourage our teammates to think outside the box, since we were outnumbered 4-1, and two characters were dying in the first two rounds, one of them never survived the surprise round, though they could have if my alerting the team were permitted to do what it always has per his usual ruling.

TBH, I'd have rather not been allowed to roll. I have very poor luck, and get a single twenty like every seven games, so I expected to cash in on the gore (Nat20) but it was negated. If it were a cinematic, I wouldnt have been cheated out of my roll. But of course, he (rightly so) makes sure to honor my four consecutive natural 1s in a mission.

This is basically one of a plethora instances of shucking the rules that I get frustrated by. I guess it's for the best. I dont know that I can work with a DM that isn't flexible enough to work with the rolls we are granted.

So, edition rules aside, are you saying the DM simply put the characters into a deliberate TPK scenario from which they intended there to be no escape or win condition?

Why would anyone do that? That doesn't sound fun for anyone if you're relaying the intent correctly.