PDA

View Full Version : Player Help Help with an Overly Controlling DM?



jpruzi
2016-11-26, 08:16 PM
Sorry for length

Hello fellow Roleplayers,
So i've been playing with this DM for a while now and I realize that he's being what I perceive as overly controlling. Now, to be fair, it isn't overly controlling, but he won't listen to anything I, or for that matter, any player characters suggest. Luckily enough, this group manipulation hasn't rolled over into the game.

The first time I felt he was being controlling was during our 5E campaign and I wanted to make a Wild magic Sorcerer. He wouldn't let me because he thought it would "create too much chaos and get PCs killed." (At this point you can skip to the next paragraph, otherwise read on for more examples) Another time was when I asked in our group-chat for opinions on whether or not I should bring my battle mat; because it has been said more than once that we need some sort of map to help visualize things, as settings can get very complex. Anyway, as soon as I asked for opinions, he immediately responds with "No." Even though I was just asking for opinions on it, and not declaring I was bringing it or forcing him to make use of it. Also, if myself or another person suggests another system, even just to try, he usually says something along the lines of "I don't want to DM a/an (insert game name here) campaign."

So I know its important for the DM to be having fun too and that he/she should be comfortable. But shouldn't the players also have a say in how the group operates? It just seems as if he has complete and absolute power over the group and can veto anything the players come up with, even if we all agree upon it.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Cluedrew
2016-11-26, 08:27 PM
Sorry for lengthAre you new here? (Length is fine in my opinion.)

More seriously:

The GM should not have absolute power over a group, overriding one player is one thing, but if the GM has actually vetoed an otherwise unanimous agreement, it is probably time to kick the GM.

You should check to see how the rest of the group feels about this first. If they are of the same opinion, try swapping out GMs. Which does mean someone else will have to step up, but one of you can do that (the GM however, can't become a group of N players). Perhaps try one of the other systems you wanted to.

I could go on, but I think that is a start.

jpruzi
2016-11-26, 08:53 PM
Yes, Im new here. I'll talk to the other players 1 on 1 to get their stances. Thanks!

Darth Ultron
2016-11-26, 09:30 PM
The good news is: your DM is not overly controlling.

1.Limiting classes or races or anything else for a game is an accepted part of any DMs job, and even the ''crazy players'' will say so. A player can't expect anything they want to be approved.

2.The mat is a little odd.....but maybe you could have asked him first?

3.A DM likes or dislikes things, and you can't expect them to run a game for something they don't like. Would you want to play in a game you did not like? Of course not.

In a general sense the DM can ''out vote'' the players, but then the players vote with there feet.

Mr Blobby
2016-11-27, 01:42 AM
Agree with Darth. It's the DM's playpit - they reserve the right to do what they wish. I for example loathe the whole 'prophecy' trope and will instantly flame any player who even thinks of wanting such a character. However, I will explain why to the players for this policy - it's a lazy & blatant DM crutch for railroading and deus ex machina. There are other things which I am very wary of but don't instantly ban; from vampire-mages to drow.

I'd say this; if they say no, ask why politely. They may have reasons for said no which you may be able to assure won't happen with you. I'd also say do this in private, 'cos some people get real touchy about being 'questioned in public'.

But as said before, you cannot simply expect them to DM a game which said DM does not like one bit. How does it feel for you to play a PC you don't like? Real killer of motivation, isn't it? A DM has to put in I'd guess at least 3 times the amount of effort as you do. An unmotivated DM is a crap DM.

Kalashak
2016-11-27, 03:24 AM
When your group suggests another system have any of you offered to run the game? I can see why he would say no if he's expected to run a game he isn't interested in. The mat thing isn't that odd either, you asked for opinions and he gave you his.
It wouldn't sit well with me if a DM told me I couldn't play a subclass out of nowhere though. Since you asked I assume he hadn't laid out any setting specific reasons you couldn't be a wild mage. I can live with a DM banning things because they don't fit the setting they want, but if a DM is changing things without warning it usually raises a red flag for me.

OldTrees1
2016-11-27, 03:35 AM
The person in question said
1)No, that class option is unavailable in games I run because I don't want to handle the friendly fire it can cause.
2)No, I am not planning on using a battlemap in the game I run therefore you do not need to bring your battlemap.
3)No, I do not want to DM that RPG.

All 3 of these are fairly reasonable statements. The person was politely turning down a request you directly or indirectly made of them(DM a class/battlemap/RPG for you).

The people choose who, among the volunteers, will DM.
That DM decides the game they will run.
The other Players decide the roles they will run.
Each of these decisions is ongoing and can change if circumstances change.
This is the way that prevents anyone from being forced to play a game they do not enjoy.

Perhaps you might want to run a game in the near future?

tensai_oni
2016-11-27, 04:30 AM
Examples given sound perfectly reasonable. The DM has a right to ban a class, especially one like the Wild Mage because the part where he said it would create too much chaos and unpredictability on the battlefield? That was true. As for the battle mat, there are DMing styles and games where you don't need or even want an exact grid to grid positioning of the game, it's enough to know where more or less everyone is so a mat is redundant.

As for the last part, like others suggested: if the DM doesn't want to run other games, maybe try to run one yourself? He's the DM so it's his decision on what kind of game he wants or doesn't want to run.

Andrewmoreton
2016-11-27, 06:25 AM
All of those sound perfectly reasonable.

As a GM I will often ban classes/character options which I consider Silly/Disruptive/overpowered. This has yet to be a problem in a game I run as there are very few times I have needed to use this ban, something like wild magic is one of the things I can see a GM banning(although as I am not familiar with 5th ed I cannot say if I would allow it)

Using a battlemap has advantages and disadvantages the GM may well consider that it does not fit his style of gaming and may later change his mind . It does tend to slow things down and some feel it encourages a 'wargaming' approach to a game instead of a narrative roleplaying approach. There is also the issue that depending on the venue it may be difficult or inconvenient to use a map. I find that for most encounters a map is too much effort but for some more complicated encounters where precise understanding of positions is important then it can be a good idea.

As to running games in another system. This is you the player being ridiculous. Running a game is time consuming and requires effort you need to have a game concept you like, be familiar with the rules and have an interest in that concept and the mechanics to implement it. If you really want a game based on a concept and system offer to run it, then the group can decide what to play Game X run by you or Game Y run by current GM (Or one now and one later or two groups etc)

Boci
2016-11-27, 06:26 AM
The person in question said
1)No, that class option is unavailable in games I run because I don't want to handle the friendly fire it can cause.

That seems like an overreaction though. Like he heard wildmagic and just assumed it causes you to friendly fire half the time, where as in reality, there are 3: fire ball centred on yourself, 1d10 necrotic damage to all creatures within 30ft and you and all creatures within 30ft gain vulnerability to piercing for 1 minutes. Each of those options has a 2% chance to trigger, so a total of 6%.

Its not a big problem, but it sounds like an overreaction from someone who hasn't properly crunched the numbers.

Keltest
2016-11-27, 08:01 AM
That seems like an overreaction though. Like he heard wildmagic and just assumed it causes you to friendly fire half the time, where as in reality, there are 3: fire ball centred on yourself, 1d10 necrotic damage to all creatures within 30ft and you and all creatures within 30ft gain vulnerability to piercing for 1 minutes. Each of those options has a 2% chance to trigger, so a total of 6%.

Its not a big problem, but it sounds like an overreaction from someone who hasn't properly crunched the numbers.

Even without affecting other players, the wild mage has a fairly significant element of "oops, our wizard is suddenly a squirrel" involved. Speaking from experience, it can be a pain to make sessions where at any moment one player can suddenly stop being helpful, especially a powerful spellcaster.

Boci
2016-11-27, 08:14 AM
Even without affecting other players, the wild mage has a fairly significant element of "oops, our wizard is suddenly a squirrel" involved.

No it doesn't. Its 3 options, so 6% 8% again, which can hardly be called a significant element: missing 1 turn from being in the astral plane, confusion cast on self, and being unable to speak for a minute, which indeed is devastating, though possible to mitigate through spell and metamagic selection.
Okay, I missed the sheep one. Which, yes is devastating if you fail the save, but it happens 2% of the time levels 1-13 and 0.004% of the time from level 14+, so still not enough to call it a "significant element".

This is what I'm getting. People seem to hear "Wild Magic" and imagine something much worse than what the rules actually say it is. Beyond the 14% 12% chance of something bad happening (and even then, the friendly fire can also hit enemies, so its not all bad, especially since the party can be prepared to exploit the piercing vulnerability), the DM decides how often wild magic is triggered.

Grod_The_Giant
2016-11-27, 08:57 AM
Self-harm aside, the Wild Mage is just... tonally inappropriate for a lot of games. I ban it too; I despise "lolrandom" humor and find its uncontrolled magic doesn't fit with normal D&D expectations for how magic works.

the DM decides how often wild magic is triggered.
Which is a valid reason to ban it in and of itself-- it's pretty reasonable to say that you don't want PCs that are going to make that sort of extra work for you.

hymer
2016-11-27, 09:02 AM
I'm with Keltest here. I don't even much care what the numbers are (though 8% sounds pretty significant to me; once every 12,5 times? How many wild magic rolls do you get per session?). Adding the risk of failure just because is not suitable in every campaign, and the inherent comedy in the mechanic is outright cringeworthy when the timing fails. Like someone farting loudly at a funeral. It's great in certain types of game, but it's facepalm-inducing in others. Seems a fine reason why the DM could say no.

Edit: Grod said it better than me.

Boci
2016-11-27, 09:05 AM
Self-harm aside, the Wild Mage is just... tonally inappropriate for a lot of games.

That is a completely reasonable stance. A significant portion of the wild magic results are indeed lol random, and I understand that. But citing the self harm aspects of wild magic as a reason to ban it implies to me a knee jerk reaction to the concept without checking the numbers.


Which is a valid reason to ban it in and of itself-- it's pretty reasonable to say that you don't want PCs that are going to make that sort of extra work for you.

Its not really extra work though. When the sorcerer casts a spell, the DM can choose to have a chance for wild magic, or grantee it if tide of chaos is spent. That...tell the player to remind you and it is literally no extra work what so ever.

Or always decide that it doesn't trigger, then its also no extra work. Now obviously the DM should check that the player is okay playing a wild mage without wild magic, but I don't think thats as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers.


I'm with Keltest here. I don't even much care what the numbers are (though 8% sounds pretty significant to me; once every 12,5 times? How many wild magic rolls do you get per session?).

As I said in a previous post, its up to the DM. Can be 0, X-1 where X is the number of times the sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell.

hymer
2016-11-27, 09:13 AM
As I said in a previous post, its up to the DM. Can be 0, X-1 where X is the number of times the sorcerer casts a non-cantrip spell.

Technically correct, but would you play a wild magic sorcerer if the DM said there would be no surges? Would you think it fair if the DM didn't announce it, but simply had no surges? Wouldn't it be better to simply be upfront and ban the thing?

Boci
2016-11-27, 09:15 AM
Technically correct, but would you play a wild magic sorcerer if the DM said there would be no surges? Would you think it fair if the DM didn't announce it, but simply had no surges? Wouldn't it be better to simply be upfront and ban the thing?

Its literally there in the post you quoted:

"I don't think thats (a wild magic sorceror without any wild magic) as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers."

hymer
2016-11-27, 09:17 AM
Its literally there in the post you quoted:

"I don't think thats (a wild magic sorceror without any wild magic) as dum as it may sound at first. Without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are draon blooded. It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror, and is fine with no actual wild magic. Or maybe they like the class features, tide of chaos even just 1/long rest, bend luck and ultimatly bombardment for high high numbers."

Sorry, I was reading the part that seemed adressed to me. But I see now that we have very different expectations of a game.

Boci
2016-11-27, 09:21 AM
Sorry, I was reading the part that seemed adressed to me. But I see now that we have very different expectations of a game.

How so? All I'm saying is that without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are dragon-blooded, to the point that they develop scaly skin. That might not be what someone wants from the class, so an alternate origin is probably a good idea. Wild magic without surges is an option for the players. That can only be a benefit and is at worst neutral as an option the player doesn't take. The DM just needs to be open and communicate with the player. And at the very least a DM who bans wild magic in an otherwise all core game should probably consider the storm origin, unless he wants all sorcery to be the result of dragons.

How do we have different expectations of the game? What are my expectations vs. yours?

AvatarVecna
2016-11-27, 09:37 AM
In regards to the Chaos Sorcerer, I know that the numbers on average tend to come out in your favor, but I've got bad juju from playing with them IRL. A Chaos Sorcerer is fine past lvl 6 or so, in my eyes - but before then, they're a ticking time bomb lulling you into a false sense of security by presenting itself as statistically player-friendly. One of my earliest 5e games was an AL adventure, and one of the other lvl 1 PCs was a Chaos Sorcerer. Our very first combat, his very first spell, he rolled a nat-1, and went to roll on the table...and got a 2, the "roll on this table every round for the next minute" result. We kinda laughed it off and kept fighting, because most of the effects were either harmless or positive, what's the worst that could happen?

08, Fireball. All PCs and most enemies are dying/dead.
65, Lightning Strikes. The rest of the conscious enemies are taken out.
41, Potted Plant. Sorcerer is already below 0 HP, we weren't sure what should happen, but figure he couldn't act anyway so it didn't matter.
83, Necrotic Wave. Killed off most of the PCs and re-dying'd the one dude who'd made his death save.
54, Sorcerers corpse became immune to intoxication. Yippee.

Everyone was dead at this point, so we just rolled next 5 real quick to see if the sorcerer could maybe get the reincarnate result; I don't remember exactly what those rolls were, but it wasn't that one, and I think that would've been the DM fiating something anyway. Okay, so that went about as badly as it could possibly go: it came within an inch of a TPK on the first round, and the remaining rounds guaranteed it. But hey, at least that "smiting from heaven" took out the enemies too!

So, about a month later, my more regular "at a friends house" game started up - also at 1st level - and one of the others wanted to play a Chaos Sorcerer. I had flashbacks, but figured "nobody can get so unlucky twice in a row". And to be fair, we didn't get quite that unlucky. No, we were just all trying to get past a puzzle door, and the Sorcerer got the bright idea to use Comprehend Languages to try and make sense of the weird writing around the door. Oops, 1, time to roll on the chart! ...fireball. Oh, but it gets even better: not only did he roll a nat 1 in the first session, not only was the result of it a Fireball centered on himself and affecting the whole party, but he rolled over 40 damage, and not one of the seven people in our party made their freaking save.

Our group has a standing rule about Chaos Sorcerers now, which we argued about for a little while: it's banned prior to being the level you actually pick up Fireball, and even then the Sorcerer has to warn everybody before they cast a spell, and stay away from the party when adventuring in case they need to cast a Feather Fall all of a sudden. It hasn't been a problem, though, because nobody has wanted to so much as play a non-Chaos Sorcerer for fear of that terrible luck following us.

I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, and I know that the numbers indicate it comes out in your favor in the long run, and I know that it gets easier to deal with as you level up...but I won't touch it, not without a nice big pile of hit points and Resilient Dexterity.

hymer
2016-11-27, 09:41 AM
All I'm saying is that without wildmagic or splat, all sorcerors are dragon-blooded, to the point that they develop scaly skin.

There's also refluff (have it be an always on, resource free mage armor, or just have the scales be unnoticeable) and homebrew. And possibly UA, depending on what you include under splat or homebrew.


How do we have different expectations of the game? What are my expectations vs. yours?

Does it matter? For what it's worth: Playing a wild mage without the wild magic seems entirely self-contradictory to me. Much like playing a rogue with Expertise in thieves' tools, but there are no actual traps in the campaign s/he can disarm. You still have other stuff you can do, but this is the thing you took the class for. This ability is central to the concept, and it's been that way since the concept was first introduced. A refluffed wild magic sorcerer, with no actual mention of wild magic? I could live with that, but I'd put something in instead of the surges as DM, and wouldn't touch with a barge pole as a player. Sorcerers need a buff more than a nerf.
I agree, by the way, that the subclasses for sorcerers are too few, and both may be unsuitable for a given campaign. But I don't see that as a reason to chain wild magic.

Boci
2016-11-27, 09:47 AM
There's also refluff (have it be an always on, resource free mage armor, or just have the scales be unnoticeable) and homebrew. And possibly UA, depending on what you include under splat or homebrew.

Homebrew sure, refluff? Kinda, but it will be awkward. You also have energy resistant unrelated to dragons, wings unrelated to dragons, that dragon ability frightening presence unrelated to dragons and expertise with social skills when interacting with dragons, completly unrelated to dragons. It...would be a hard sell.


Does it matter? For what it's worth: Playing a wild mage without the wild magic seems entirely self-contradictory to me.

I never said ever player will totally be happy with this, I'm sure many won't be interested in a wild magic sorceror without the wild magic. But they can just say no thanks. They are no worse off than they would be if the origin was flat out banned, and there could be some who would take the option, so there is literally nothing to lose by offering it.

hymer
2016-11-27, 09:57 AM
Homebrew sure, refluff? Kinda, but it will be awkward. You also have energy resistant unrelated to dragons, wings unrelated to dragons, that dragon ability frightening presence unrelated to dragons and expertise with social skills when interacting with dragons, completly unrelated to dragons. It...would be a hard sell.

You seemed to dislike the scales specifically, and they themselves would be easy to refluff. I didn't relize it was the dragon entire you disliked. So make it an elemental sorcerer, and have the social stuff be primordial and for elementals.


I never said ever player will totally be happy with this, I'm sure many won't be interested in a wild magic sorceror without the wild magic. But they can just say no thanks. They are no worse off than they would be if the origin was flat out banned, and there could be some who would take the option, so there is literally nothing to lose by offering it.

It seems you're assuming a player who already knows the class well, and probably all the classes. After reading over the exception, they would indeed have wasted little time and effort. At any rate, I'd rather the DM ban wild magic than do it badly. Certain classes could bear under it, but the sorcerer isn't one of them IMO.

Boci
2016-11-27, 10:04 AM
You seemed to dislike the scales specifically, and they themselves would be easy to refluff. I didn't relize it was the dragon entire you disliked. So make it an elemental sorcerer, and have the social stuff be primordial and for elementals.

"It could be the wild sorceror player in fact wants to be a not-dragon sorceror"

Also, I dislike the dragon entire? You're reading WAY too much into my posts here. I like the dragon origin. The one time I played the sorceror class, I played a dragon sorceror. I just think there should be options for players who don't want a dragon sorceror, and without homebrew or splat, there is none if you remove wild magic.

hymer
2016-11-27, 10:07 AM
I dislike the dragon entire? You're reading WAY too much into my posts here.

Likewise. :smallsmile:

Boci
2016-11-27, 10:11 AM
Likewise. :smallsmile:

Such as? I have made 0 assumptions about what your posts mean beyond the fact that we would deal with this specific example differently.

You think flat out banning wild magic is okay, I think the DM should offer a compromise first. That's it. I'm not reading anything else from your posts.

hymer
2016-11-27, 10:16 AM
You think flat out banning wild magic is okay, I think the DM should offer a compromise first. That's it. I'm not reading anything else from your posts.

:smallbiggrin: Okay, you understood everything perfectly.

Boci
2016-11-27, 10:27 AM
I think I did. If I didn't, free free to correct me. My understanding is you feel it is pointless to offer wild magic origin without wild magic, which I agree sounds weird, but I highlighted two circumstances in which I feel it could be valid choice (wild origin magic class features and doesn't want to be a dragon sorcerer where wild is the only other option), with the reasoning that worst case scenario they aren't interested, and then they are no worse off than if wild magic had simply been banned.

That is it, I drew no further conclusion, but you seemed to think that based on our differing opinion on the matter, we have widely different expectations of the game, which I found weird because I'd personally struggle to extrapolate anyone's broader game expectations based on how they deal with this one issue. You also seemed to think I was objecting to the dragons origin, when I wasn't, merely stating a desire that it not be the only option. So yeah, I am a little confused as to why you would then say I was reading too much into your post, since you don't actually seem to have gotten that impression.

Keltest
2016-11-27, 10:48 AM
One of the more common problems that seems to crop up on these forums is when a DM decides that they don't like such and such feature, item or ability and decides to remove it without actually banning it. They make it worthless, or theoretically possible but functionally inaccessible, or some other unnecessarily complicated way of saying "no" without actually using the word "no". As a DM, you have the right to say No to something you don't want to deal with. Putting obstacles in the way of accessing it or otherwise rendering it useless is just disrespectful to the players.

If a player doesn't like the existing fluff options, they can either work with the DM to create an alternative, or play something else. Well, I guess they could suck it up and play it anyway, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. Without the wild magic surges, a Wild Mage sorcerer is, well... boring. Its the 'nerf to oblivion" method of saying no without using the word.

Boci
2016-11-27, 10:51 AM
If a player doesn't like the existing fluff options, they can either work with the DM to create an alternative, or play something else. Well, I guess they could suck it up and play it anyway, but that doesn't seem like a good solution. Without the wild magic surges, a Wild Mage sorcerer is, well... boring. Its the 'nerf to oblivion" method of saying no without using the word.

"The Wild Magic table doesn't fit the the kind of theme I want for this game, so I will never use it. Do you still want to play a wild magic origin sorceror, or are you not interested if there's no wild magic surges?"

How is that going to end badly? What kind of player is going to be mortally offended by the above, but be fine with being told outright that wild magic is banned? Its not a stealth nerf if you are open about it.

Keltest
2016-11-27, 10:54 AM
"The Wild Magic table doesn't fit the the kind of theme I want for this game, so I will never use it. Do you still want to play a wild magic origin sorceror, or are you not interested if there's no wild magic surges?"

How is that going to end badly? What kind of player is going to be mortally offended by the above, but be fine with being told outright that wild magic is banned? Its not a stealth nerf if you are open about it.

its not "mortally offensive" Mr hyperbole, just disrespectful. "Yes, you can have your toy, but I took all the fun parts off and wrapped it in bubblewrap". Youre getting them to say no so that you don't have to.

Boci
2016-11-27, 10:57 AM
its not "mortally offensive" Mr hyperbole, just disrespectful. "Yes, you can have your toy, but I took all the fun parts off and wrapped it in bubblewrap". Youre getting them to say no so that you don't have to.

That's one way to interpret it sure, but the other way would be that the DM is willing to at least try and compromise.

hymer
2016-11-27, 11:02 AM
Wow, you've really got nothing better to do, huh? :smalltongue: Well, me neither:
You informed me what I read into what you wrote. You believed yourself able to read my mind (figuratively speaking), but didn't stop for a minute to think whether I meant what you decided I meant, when you were accusing me of doing the same to you. The 'dragon entire' as opposed to merely the scales? You really thought I was accusing you of hating the concept of dragons? Hilarious! :smallbiggrin:

Well, that wasn't very long. I'll offer some notes on what you wrote:


I think I did. If I didn't, free free to correct me. My understanding is you feel it is pointless to offer wild magic origin without wild magic

Nitpicking: I don't think it's pointless, I think it's outright counterproductive to offer a bad option.


I'd personally struggle to extrapolate anyone's broader game expectations based on how they deal with this one issue.

Two things you're implying with what you write:

1) Trap options in character design can be okay.
There isn't supposed to be any traps in 5e character design. You're supposed to get pretty much what you expect. A fighter is someone good at fighting, taking the Archery style makes you better at shooting, and a bard is skilled with music.
Now, you could avoid the really trappy part of the proposal you gave. You could add an explanation to this line in the house rule sheet, something to the effect of: "You really shouldn't take this, but if you really want to play a non-draconic non-refluffed PHB-only sorcerer (all of which I can recommend over this), there's a reduced version of a weaker subclass as another option." Or you could simplify and just ban it, and if they want to know why, you can explain it to them, and show them the subclass you made, and where they can find the Storm Sorcerer. That way they will be spending their time reading up on stuff it makes the best sense for them to play.

2) No homebrew or refluff.
5e is perfect for both those things, to the point of having a DM's workshop part of the DMG. Just make a better option already.

Now, just so there's no misunderstanding, I'm smiling while I'm typing this, and while I typed the above. I don't think this is a particularly serious discussion, but I'm just sitting around waiting anyway, so why not? I don't think you're a bad person, I don't think the way you want to game is wrong, I don't think your method of debate is a problem (though I do find it kinda funny), I don't even want to persuade you that you should do things my way. Really, I'm mostly wondering which one of us is going to run out of time first, because it seems to me this discussion is going absolutely nowhere. Which isn't a bad thing! :smallsmile:

Keltest
2016-11-27, 11:11 AM
That's one way to interpret it sure, but the other way would be that the DM is willing to at least try and compromise.

In theory, but such a "compromise" comes out with the DM getting what he wants, and you not getting what you want. That's not a compromise, that's just sugar-coating things while leaving you with a weakened class.

Boci
2016-11-27, 11:24 AM
Wow, you've really got nothing better to do, huh? :smalltongue: Well, me neither:
You informed me what I read into what you wrote. You believed yourself able to read my mind (figuratively speaking), but didn't stop for a minute to think whether I meant what you decided I meant, when you were accusing me of doing the same to you. The 'dragon entire' as opposed to merely the scales? You really thought I was accusing you of hating the concept of dragons? Hilarious! :smallbiggrin:

You said you hadn't realized what I meant, and I wasn't sure how that was possible unless you completely misunderstood me. I think I had made it quite clear I didn't want dragon to be the only option, so I couldn't understand how you could think only the scales were the only problem from that. The only way I could imagine going from "dragons shouldn't be the only option for a sorceror" to "this one dragon class feature is bad" was if you thought I didn't like the whole origin.



1) Trap options in character design can be okay.

I don't think trap options are okay, and by your own admission you can word it to not be a trap so....shrug?


2) No homebrew or refluff.
5e is perfect for both those things, to the point of having a DM's workshop part of the DMG. Just make a better option already.

I don't think homebrew isn't an option, I just don't assume it will be there for players by default. Refluff is an option yes, but in the specific case I was talking about, core only sorceress, refluffing dragons is a hard sell. Not impossible, but difficult.


In theory, but such a "compromise" comes out with the DM getting what he wants, and you not getting what you want. That's not a compromise, that's just sugar-coating things while leaving you with a weakened class.

So a reasonable player says no and remembers that at least the DM tried, even if the options they offered over banning was a pretty crappy one. Whilst the unreasonable player gets stuck on them ultimately having to say no, like that's a big deal. COntext is also important here, this compromise/disrespect doesn't happen in a vaccum. If the Dm follows up with

"Yeah, kinda ruins the origin doesn't it? I'm sorry, but the table is just too lolrandom"

That should smooth things over.

hymer
2016-11-27, 11:35 AM
I'll try to do it like you, ok?


I don't think trap options are okay, and by your own admission you can word it to not be a trap so....shrug?

The option you propose, a nerfed wild mage, is a trap option. You proposed it, you don't think trap options are okay, therefore you must have misunderstood everything I said and I must assume you hate the whole game! :smallfurious: <-- Play-acting.


I don't think homebrew isn't an option, I just don't assume it will be there for players by default. Refluff is an option yes, but in the specific case I was talking about, core only sorceress, refluffing dragons is a hard sell. Not impossible, but difficult.

So you admit there is a solution, you think it's difficult when it's actually not, and your assumption on the game is specific to the point that it has never applied to any 5e-game I've ever played, and which will become ever rarer the longer the game exists. Oh, and the DM's workshop is core.


"Yeah, kinda ruins the origin doesn't it? I'm sorry, but the table is just too lolrandom"


"create too much chaos and get PCs killed."

If you had only read what was in the thread, you'd have seen that those are pretty much the same thing.[/satire]

Keltest
2016-11-27, 11:39 AM
So a reasonable player says no and remembers that at least the DM tried, even if the options they offered over banning was a pretty crappy one. Whilst the unreasonable player gets stuck on them ultimately having to say no, like that's a big deal. COntext is also important here, this compromise/disrespect doesn't happen in a vaccum. If the Dm follows up with

"Yeah, kinda ruins the origin doesn't it? I'm sorry, but the table is just too lolrandom"

That should smooth things over.

I think youre missing the point here. Yes, its entirely possible to come up with a scenario where the player avoids the trap and isn't unhappy with the DM, but theres no reason for the trap to be there in the first place. Offering somebody some half-baked unfulfilling version of what they wanted to play isn't conciliatory. It isn't generous and doesn't show that youre open to compromise. Compromise requires both parties to get something they want. Creating the trap option runs the risk of somebody falling into the trap and being miserable for it. Its a needless risk and you shouldn't do it.

Boci
2016-11-27, 11:45 AM
I think youre missing the point here. Yes, its entirely possible to come up with a scenario where the player avoids the trap and isn't unhappy with the DM, but theres no reason for the trap to be there in the first place. Offering somebody some half-baked unfulfilling version of what they wanted to play isn't conciliatory. It isn't generous and doesn't show that youre open to compromise. Compromise requires both parties to get something they want. Creating the trap option runs the risk of somebody falling into the trap and being miserable for it. Its a needless risk and you shouldn't do it.

I don't feel comfortable deciding what ever player ever wants out of the wild magic origin. I am confident the majority want at least in part want the wild magic surges yes, but I'm not going to decide that I know they all want, so I think offering the option is still good. Just be open, friendly and understanding about it.

And yes, compromise involves both sides getting what they want. So if the player wants tide of chaos and bend luck, or to not be a dragon mage in a core game, this is a compromise. If they primarily wanted wild magic surges, then yes, it isn't really a compromise, but the DM isn't a mind reading and so couldn't have known that in advance.

Hell, I'd play a wild magic sorceror without wild magic surges. If splat or homebrew weren't an option, and I didn't want my character to be dragonblooded, I'd play a luck manipulating sorcerer.

Keltest
2016-11-27, 11:59 AM
I don't feel comfortable deciding what ever player ever wants out of the wild magic origin. I am confident the majority want at least in part want the wild magic surges yes, but I'm not going to decide that I know they all want, so I think offering the option is still good. Just be open, friendly and understanding about it.

And yes, compromise involves both sides getting what they want. So if the player wants tide of chaos and bend luck, or to not be a dragon mage in a core game, this is a compromise. If they primarily wanted wild magic surges, then yes, it isn't really a compromise, but the DM isn't a mind reading and so couldn't have known that in advance.

Hell, I'd play a wild magic sorceror without wild magic surges. If splat or homebrew weren't an option, and I didn't want my character to be dragonblooded, I'd play a luck manipulating sorcerer.

If theyre so determined to write "wild mage" on their character sheet, chances are they will ask if they can play without the wild surges. At which point, if they want to that badly, go ahead and let them, I guess. Or don't, and tell them it sets a precedent they would prefer not to have. Youre right, there is no catch all argument for how to handle every possible person in this situation, but youre planning for an increasingly unlikely scenario at the expense of all the other people who are just fine with taking "no" for an answer.

Boci
2016-11-27, 12:03 PM
If theyre so determined to write "wild mage" on their character sheet, chances are they will ask if they can play without the wild surges. At which point, if they want to that badly, go ahead and let them, I guess. Or don't, and tell them it sets a precedent they would prefer not to have. Youre right, there is no catch all argument for how to handle every possible person in this situation, but youre planning for an increasingly unlikely scenario at the expense of all the other people who are just fine with taking "no" for an answer.

No, I'm planning for an increasingly unlikely scenario at the expense of anyone who would interpret such an offer as bad. Which seems like a pretty small group, and an unreasonable one at that, given that this conversation doesn't take place in a vaccuum, and they other instances on which to judge the DMs character.

Friv
2016-11-27, 12:30 PM
Sorry for length

Hello fellow Roleplayers,
So i've been playing with this DM for a while now and I realize that he's being what I perceive as overly controlling. Now, to be fair, it isn't overly controlling, but he won't listen to anything I, or for that matter, any player characters suggest. Luckily enough, this group manipulation hasn't rolled over into the game.

The first time I felt he was being controlling was during our 5E campaign and I wanted to make a Wild magic Sorcerer. He wouldn't let me because he thought it would "create too much chaos and get PCs killed." (At this point you can skip to the next paragraph, otherwise read on for more examples) Another time was when I asked in our group-chat for opinions on whether or not I should bring my battle mat; because it has been said more than once that we need some sort of map to help visualize things, as settings can get very complex. Anyway, as soon as I asked for opinions, he immediately responds with "No." Even though I was just asking for opinions on it, and not declaring I was bringing it or forcing him to make use of it. Also, if myself or another person suggests another system, even just to try, he usually says something along the lines of "I don't want to DM a/an (insert game name here) campaign."

So I know its important for the DM to be having fun too and that he/she should be comfortable. But shouldn't the players also have a say in how the group operates? It just seems as if he has complete and absolute power over the group and can veto anything the players come up with, even if we all agree upon it.

Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

So I'm going to dodge the whole "wild mage" tangent.

The core of this dispute comes down to - what level of veto power does the group have? If the DM says that he would like to run a zombie game, everyone else says that sounds fun, but one player says "No, I really hate zombies", do you all agree not to run the zombie game, or do you say "Well, everyone else wanted to, so we're in"?

If the veto rests with everyone, your DM isn't in the wrong. They might be a bit brusque, and a discussion could potentially be had about asking them to be more polite, but in the end, when they say "I'm not running this game", they're effectively declaring their own desire to vote with their feet if the campaign in question is chosen.

If only the DM gets a veto, and they browbeat unhappy players into decisions those players are actively opposed to, you have a problem, and it's worth discussing with them.

(And for what it's worth, toss me on the pile of "no wild magic please" and "I don't really feel the need for battlemats as a rule.)

jpruzi
2016-11-27, 02:46 PM
Wow, I honestly did not expect to get this much popularity out of my post. Just so you all know, the "Wild Magic Sorcerer Ban" issue happened months ago, and if anyone wants to know, I instead chose a Storm Sorcerer from an official DND supplement (I don't remember which). \

But I think the real issue might be our DM is trying to be too nice. We have a group of 7, 6 players (including myself) and our DM, unfortunately whenever someone presents ideas for one-shots or new campaigns (the DM owns all the Star Wars RPG books and I own Force and Destiny) one player "isn't a fan of Sci-Fi" so we have to throw out any Sci-Fi RPGs, which I think is a shame because many there are a lot of great ones out there. Now, I know that said player's wishes should be honored (Majority rules with Minority Rights) but is it really necessary to throw out an entire genre? Again, I would think it would be best to take a 1-on-1 approach here, rather than having a whole public forum on such issues.

To most of you (probably the DMs), I would appear as an unruly player, but I just can't take some of this sitting down. Our group is fairly new (We've been meeting for roughly a year now) and we've yet to find the balance between DM and players, which I understand differs from group to group.

Once again thank you for all the feedback and interesting debate about Wild Magic Sorcerers.

prufock
2016-11-27, 04:18 PM
But I think the real issue might be our DM is trying to be too nice. We have a group of 7, 6 players (including myself) and our DM, unfortunately whenever someone presents ideas for one-shots or new campaigns (the DM owns all the Star Wars RPG books and I own Force and Destiny) one player "isn't a fan of Sci-Fi" so we have to throw out any Sci-Fi RPGs, which I think is a shame because many there are a lot of great ones out there. Now, I know that said player's wishes should be honored (Majority rules with Minority Rights) but is it really necessary to throw out an entire genre?
Yes it really is. This game is voluntary. Being a DM is not a job. The DM is under no obligation to run a game that he won't enjoy. The other player is under no obligation to play in a game that he won't enjoy. If you want a sci-fi game, YOU (or one of the other players) can run it, and play with just those who will enjoy such a game. This is much more reasonable than expecting a DM or player to partake in a game that they won't enjoy.

OldTrees1
2016-11-27, 05:54 PM
Now, I know that said player's wishes should be honored (Majority rules with Minority Rights) but is it really necessary to throw out an entire genre? Again, I would think it would be best to take a 1-on-1 approach here, rather than having a whole public forum on such issues.

To most of you (probably the DMs), I would appear as an unruly player, but I just can't take some of this sitting down. Our group is fairly new (We've been meeting for roughly a year now) and we've yet to find the balance between DM and players, which I understand differs from group to group.

Once again thank you for all the feedback and interesting debate about Wild Magic Sorcerers.

It is not so much an appearance of being unruly, it is more that you do not fully realize the impositions that were requested. Their scale is not the issue since all of them were reasonable requests. However someone turning down a request to accept an imposition is one of several reasonable responses.

To help combat the difficulty you are experiencing, try viewing every case from the other person's position. You would not want to choose between playing a game you hate or finding another game. So it behooves you to help ensure the game you all play is a game you all can enjoy, even if that means throwing out dozens of genres.

Cluedrew
2016-11-27, 07:30 PM
On My Pervious Post: In hindsight where I had just come from (a different thread) may have biased me a little. Good points by many.

Kalashak
2016-11-27, 07:49 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable for you to be frustrated at throwing out an entire genre if the other 6 are ok with it. That player can always just...not play in that one shot.

Machinekng
2016-11-27, 08:10 PM
I'll admit, it's seems that the DM mentioned in the OP is operating at a normal level of DM control. Restricting options that give them a headache. Has made up his mind how he wants to display the game, and wants to stick in his comfort zone when it comes to settings/systems. Also, these decisions seem to have been made at an appropriate time. It's one thing to make restrictions at the beginning of the campaign, and another to ban things mid-game. which would be inappropriate.

I think that the best option, if you're still frustrated, is to offer to run a game sometime, or have a like-minded player run one. Your DM and group don't sound dysfunctional, which is good.

Solaris
2016-11-27, 09:25 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable for you to be frustrated at throwing out an entire genre if the other 6 are ok with it. That player can always just...not play in that one shot.

I agree with this. While your DM isn't wrong in any of the things he's done so far, I can see where they can get frustrating.

How does your group's schedules look for firing up another game? If these issues are a big deal to you, OP, why not start up a game that uses some of the things your DM doesn't want to use? Most particularly, the genre that one player doesn't like. It could be useful for demonstrating that these are social games where half of the fun comes from hanging out with the group, and the rules/setting are less important than the GM for the other half.

prufock
2016-11-28, 09:05 AM
I don't think it's unreasonable for you to be frustrated at throwing out an entire genre if the other 6 are ok with it. That player can always just...not play in that one shot.

Nothing the DM is doing is preventing jpruzi and the rest of the gang from playing a sci-fi game. DMing is a voluntary position that anyone can take up, not the sole realm of one group member. Assuming that only one game is possible (due to scheduling, for example), then jpruzi et al are making a conscious decision to prioritize a fantasy game with that DM over a sci-fi game without that DM. Directing the frustration at the current DM is unfair.

kyoryu
2016-11-28, 11:07 AM
I understand that this is anecdotal evidence, and I know that the numbers indicate it comes out in your favor in the long run

While it may come out "in your favor", it's worth looking at what actually happens.

Most D&D games presume the players will win most fights - winning is the expected condition. So something working out for you means maybe you win a bit easier. That's not really that significant.

But when it works out *against* you, it can turn an expected win into a loss - randomly. That's huge.

So while the upside may trigger more often than the downside, the upside is comparatively minor while the downside is often HUGE.

(caveat: Haven't done the math myself)

kyoryu
2016-11-28, 11:09 AM
I'll admit, it's seems that the DM mentioned in the OP is operating at a normal level of DM control. Restricting options that give them a headache. Has made up his mind how he wants to display the game, and wants to stick in his comfort zone when it comes to settings/systems. Also, these decisions seem to have been made at an appropriate time. It's one thing to make restrictions at the beginning of the campaign, and another to ban things mid-game. which would be inappropriate.

I think that the best option, if you're still frustrated, is to offer to run a game sometime, or have a like-minded player run one. Your DM and group don't sound dysfunctional, which is good.

Absolutely. The system thing is kind of a given, and I don't think banning classes is a bad thing at all. D&D, as a system, encompasses a wide variety of settings, and there's nothing saying all options are available in all settings.

As far as the battlemap thing, I really think the best way would have been to talk to the GM first, rather than just be all "hey, I can bring my battlemap" in group chat.

Corsair14
2016-11-28, 11:21 AM
As a DM I have no issue banning a class/race option in my campaign setting or world I am running. I prefer the Krynn setting and use races and classes that pertain to that realm although I make the world my own. I despise monks in DnD and never allow this unless we are playing Oriental Adventures where the class actually fits the period. In Krynn I have no paladins but have the archtype for Solamnic knights as a fighter type at 3rd. I dislike druids but allow them seeing no practical reason not to. I actually encourage wild mages since all sorcerers that aren't draconians have to be wild mages in my world. But then all draconian sorcerers have to be dragon bloodline so theres that.

Not sure what to make of the battle mat thing. Is he playing theater of the mind for combat or are you guys just plonking minis on the table and roughing it?

As for the latter, if a DM doesn't want to play in X world, you really cant make him. There are worlds I have a really tough time in running. Spelljammer is a tough world to DM as is modern stuff like shadowrun where players can run amok and go wherever. Without some hard core railroading, its really hard to keep players on track and run the world. If he doesn't want to run it, find a volunteer to do so and let him play. GMing sucks in a world you do not like to run. Players just have to show up. GMing in a modern world is stupidly difficult as players can use modern thought processes and common sense to come up with off the wall plans the GM then has to counter.