PDA

View Full Version : Dm and player mutual frustrated with each other, different expectations? Venting here



Warlawk
2019-01-13, 01:38 AM
I'm the player. So first up, talk to my DM, that's already in progress he just hasn't answered my texts yet. Probably waiting to cool down and think about it, which is fine. I'm just very frustrated and venting, figured I would get the playgrounds opinion if I did wrong. I've been gaming with this DM for longer than some of you have been alive, at 29 years of shared gaming history. He's a great DM and the behavior that frustrated me is out of character so I am honestly wondering if I did something that I missed and caused it. He reads here occasionally but doesn't have an account that I know (If you're reading, nothing but love buddy). Obviously all of this comes from my perspective so any opinion an outsider has based on such may be flawed... so I guess I'm just venting more than anything.

The game is D&D 3.5, undead themed in that all the PCs are undead using the Libris Mortic undead classes mixed with PC class levels starting at level 5. I am playing a ghoul/cleric 5 focused on minionmancy with a little love for Rebuking in my items as well. Right from the first discussion I clearly lay out that my vision for a character is leading hordes of undead to raze the land. I clarify that I am not interested in having a ton of skeletons for combat or anything, I want to use fodder for story purposes (go attack the village as a distraction while we go after the McGuffin kind of thing). My DM voices two concerns here, one is that I have invested a bit into Turn/Rebuke which may not see a lot of use and two, he doesn't want a horde of minions bogging down combat. I'm fine with both concerns.

My build is essentially Cleric into Lord of the Dead (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20021031x) with Corpse Crafter, Nimble Bones, Iron Will and Undead Leadership, the last two being primarily to enter the PRC. First several sessions I have rebuked skeletons who never engage in combat, I make it a point that they are my personal servants and not intended for fighting. They are all unarmed and armored. I use summon undead 2 a couple times in these adventures. About 3rd session I am given the opportunity to purchase bones for the purpose of animation and choose an ettin. No limitations were given on this, we are currently in an undead city housing a college of necromancy so the DM figured bones for animating would be a reasonable purchase, this was offered, not asked for on my part. I didn't try to buy more than one skeleton because I didn't want to abuse it and wanted to make an active effort to not bogging down combat.

At the end of this session we end up boarding a boat (Caravel specifically called out) for our next mission. I am then told, "Your ettin isn't going, it literally won't fit in the cargo hold or your quarters and will be in the way on deck." I try to point out that an undead can use the squeezing rules and won't be worried about comfort (being mindless and all) and get a hard "No, it won't fit, it's not going, end of story." We're both a bit frustrated at this point so I just let it go. Wondering why I was very specifically offered the opportunity that I never asked for only to be allowed to use it for a single combat and then be told no. Animating this type of a brawler (who is not nearly enough to outshine our melee types) is literally what every choice on my character sheet is built for, class selection, feats, PRC, items... all of it, and that was not a secret.

Pretty frustrated but oh well, we'll pick it up next week. I am honestly curious if I am just thinking about the wrong kind of ship when I think Caravel, so I go to trusty google. Turns out my thought was about right, it's not huge but far from tiny. Crew 30-50, total loaded weight up into the 200 tons range depending on source with references to carrying space for up to 100 slaves in real world history.

Game session starts tonight and there is some reference to how we could really use a big strong undead to do dirty work for us. I say something to the effect of "Well, I had this ettin I built (and paid to equip with armor/weapons) just for this kind of thing, but apparently it doesn't fit on a ship that can carry 200 tons and 100 slaves." Oh yes, I was snarky as hell. We've been gaming together for 29 years (the newest member of our group has been here over 10 years), we're snarky as a matter of principle and habit these days. He responds "It wouldn't fit, there was no space for it in the cargo hold and we are NOT having this conversation again!" in a harsh tone. Not at all what I expected from our normally very lighthearted and joking group, very out of character. Was I a ****? Damn right I was and that's how we've treated each other for almost 3 decades.

First encounter of the evening, we kill 3 trolls. Perfect, I set up my portable alter, cast desecrate and animate them. Next combat I announce my initiative and my 3 trolls using a singular initiative score. "No, they'll go when you go." I object that I've got a feat investment in improving their initiative (Nimble Bones, I have +5 they have +11). "No, I don't want them bogging down combat, they go when you do." We finish the combat, then finish the session.

As we're wrapping up I ask him if he would like me to rebuild my character and am told "No you're fine I just don't want it to bog down combat." and I let him know that I feel like I'm making a very active effort to not use minions a lot and I just keep getting shut down with hard NO's on things I've invested my character build into, and not secretly by any means, none of this is a surprise. "Well, I have to keep combat moving for 5 pc's and monsters and I just don't want it to bog down." I drop it for the moment since we're both frustrated and we call it a night.

At no point in the campaign have I ever had more than my initiative count +1 other (ettin and then tonight 3 trolls acting together). I've never called on my Undead Leadership, I want to save the cohort for something that will make a good story, not just call up something that has Feat/ability X that I want for my use. With 6 rebuke HD (cl5+1item), 8 leadership HD and Potentially 30 HD of animated dead (CL5x2 upgraded to x3 from Deathbound Domain doubled for desecrate) I could have 44 bodies on the field or 14 chumps and 3 10 HD ettins. I really feel like I've made a pretty active effort to not bog things down here. I'm extremely frustrated by being told my build is okay, and then getting hard NO responses when we're actually playing, and that is not usual for our DM. Like I said we've been gaming together for almost 30 years and this guy is my brother in everything but genetics which has left me questioning, is there something I'm missing here that I did wrong? I'm 100% open to that possibility. I've got some health issues right now that very often leave my cognizance quite clouded.

I've tried to make my accounting as impartial as possible and I'm honestly curious if there is something that I missed that I did wrong. And venting, must not forget venting. I've already texted him this (obviously much shorter since he doesn't need a recount of events) and am just waiting for the response. I don't want to keep pestering him obviously, but it's still rattling solidly in my head so here I be to vent.

Thank you all for reading and just being here.

Malifice
2019-01-13, 02:32 AM
Read between the lines bro.

The DM has clearly inferred (indeed expressed) a desire for you to avoid minion-mancy.

You've created a minion-mancer despite this, albeit one with 'self imposed' restrictions to limit the minion-mancy.

He doesnt want to shut your chararacter choice down completely, but has clearly indicated that he doesnt want minions and hangers-ons in his combats. It not only slows them down, and places a bigger spotlight on the summoner, it also throws CR's out of whack. The Ettin was given to you to allow your concept to come to life, not as something you could haul around with you forever. You're skipping the fact he did you a solid to let you use it once; it's not that he's being a jerk for taking it away now.

He's trying to accommodate your character concept, despite himself not wanting it in the game. He's limiting what you can do with your minions (remember when he said he would do that at character creation?).

Man up and switch the PC out for a direct damage brute type, or a Caster type. Without the undead minions in tow, your problems will go away.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 02:50 AM
Read between the lines bro.

The DM has clearly inferred (indeed expressed) a desire for you to avoid minion-mancy.

You've created a minion-mancer despite this, albeit one with 'self imposed' restrictions to limit the minion-mancy.

He doesnt want to shut your chararacter choice down completely, but has clearly indicated that he doesnt want minions and hangers-ons in his combats. It not only slows them down, and places a bigger spotlight on the summoner, it also throws CR's out of whack. The Ettin was given to you to allow your concept to come to life, not as something you could haul around with you forever. You're skipping the fact he did you a solid to let you use it once; it's not that he's being a jerk for taking it away now.

He's trying to accommodate your character concept, despite himself not wanting it in the game. He's limiting what you can do with your minions (remember when he said he would do that at character creation?).

Man up and switch the PC out for a direct damage brute type, or a Caster type. Without the undead minions in tow, your problems will go away.

Thank you for reading and responding. I've been gaming with this DM for 29 years and above and beyond that he's fairly blunt. He knows if he had just said no right out of the gates it wouldn't have been an issue. Do you know my DM? Because you're presenting your opinion as fact here. Your agressive and rude tone toward me isn't particularly appreciated.

Preemptively, yes I consider this a bit rude.

Man up and switch the PC out for a direct damage brute type, or a Caster type. Without the undead minions in tow, your problems will go away.
And for what it's worth, I did offer to change my build if he didn't want to deal with it and was told "No, your build is fine, I just don't want to bog down combat."

I appreciate that you read and responded, but if all you have to offer is insults and presenting your opinion as fact of the motivations for someone you do not know about a situation you have only a forum post describing, please don't.

Koo Rehtorb
2019-01-13, 03:14 AM
It's kind of impossible to tell who's being unreasonable based on the summary of one of the two parties involved, even with the attempt to be impartial. But with what you've presented:

1) He says he's fine with your build.
2) Then he imposes fictional restrictions that don't make sense to weaken the benefits of your build
3) Then he breaks the rules of the game to weaken parts of your build that he said he's fine with.

The simplest answer does seem to be that he's not actually fine with your build but didn't want to say so outright. That seems kind of weird. Possibly what he means is he's fine with your build as a general concept, but feels like you're pushing to get too much with it to the point where you're going to break the campaign if he doesn't aggressively work to keep a lid on it.

I don't have any particular advice for resolving the conflict. You're the one who knows him.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 03:18 AM
The simplest answer does seem to be that he's not actually fine with your build but didn't want to say so outright.

I think that's kind of why I'm so confused. As a person he is a blunt relatively aggressive extrovert. Not bothered at all by telling just about anyone his opinion, much less someone he's known for this long. As a DM he's never been afraid to just say no to something he doesn't like, or even something that just doesn't fit for the campaign he has in mind. We've done core only, we've done ToB only, we've done Everything but ToB etc etc.

Just confused.

Thanks for reading and responding! :)

Knaight
2019-01-13, 03:56 AM
There's a best practices issue here - don't setting lawyer someone else's setting. You basically did the player equivalent of a DM telling you you can't do something because your character wouldn't do that.

As for the ship, particular dimensions are a thing. A 3'x3' hallway of infinite length can fit infinite humans and exactly 0 ettins, and ships routinely have narrow corridors where there's no way to stick massive things on them without them being in the way if they're not specifically built for it. Combinations of sarcasm and wrongness tend not to go over well, they go over worse with setting lawyering.

Seto
2019-01-13, 04:16 AM
That seems kind of strange indeed. I don't see where the problem is either. Surely in 29 years of gaming together you've had disagreements in the past? Or you've seen him have disagreements of that kind with other players? Do you have any point of comparison?

But, further discussion between you two notwithstanding, if it keeps up, I would advise rebuilding nonetheless. Not so much for his sake as yours. Even if he says you don't need to rebuild - if some of your feats and choices are invalidated and it's frustrating for you, and you don't see it getting better, maybe you'd be more comfortable if you could change it.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 04:18 AM
There's a best practices issue here - don't setting lawyer someone else's setting. You basically did the player equivalent of a DM telling you you can't do something because your character wouldn't do that.

I'm 100% positive I don't understand what it is you're trying to say here, since this seems to be broken into two different statements. I would appreciate it if you could expand on this a little bit.


As for the ship, particular dimensions are a thing. A 3'x3' hallway of infinite length can fit infinite humans and exactly 0 ettins, and ships routinely have narrow corridors where there's no way to stick massive things on them without them being in the way if they're not specifically built for it. Combinations of sarcasm and wrongness tend not to go over well, they go over worse with setting lawyering.

Particular dimensions are absolutely a thing. A Caravel is also a thing, a thing that is specifically defined both by game stats and IRL. If something differs in a specific setting that's totally fine but the description of this as a mid sized cargo ship matches well. I agree that an ettin would have a hard time (likely impossible) fitting down any of the hallways and such, do you feel that an ettin squeezing to a 5 foot occupancy would not be able to fit into the cargo hold of a ship intended to carry between 100 and 200 tons of cargo? Do you feel that is an unreasonable expectation on my part?

EDIT:

That seems kind of strange indeed. I don't see where the problem is either. Surely in 29 years of gaming together you've had disagreements in the past? Or you've seen him have disagreements of that kind with other players? Do you have any point of comparison?

Oh absolutely, we've butted heads plenty of times as well as him with other players. He's never had qualms about telling me or anyone else "this is what I don't like, this is what I won't allow, etc" which is part of why the whole thing threw me so much I guess. 30 years of friendship and 29 years of gaming together has shown that he absolutely does not shy away from just telling me (or anyone else) "No, I don't want you to play a minionmancer."


"But, further discussion between you two notwithstanding, if it keeps up, I would advise rebuilding nonetheless. Not so much for his sake as yours. Even if he says you don't need to rebuild - if some of your feats and choices are invalidated and it's frustrating for you, and you don't see it getting better, maybe you'd be more comfortable if you could change it.

Yeah, I think that's the likely outcome here.

I appreciate everyone's talk on the matter. Even if it doesn't resolve anything it helps me work through things in my head and look at it from different angles. Thank you all for reading and responding.

Malifice
2019-01-13, 07:15 AM
Thank you for reading and responding. I've been gaming with this DM for 29 years and above and beyond that he's fairly blunt. He knows if he had just said no right out of the gates it wouldn't have been an issue. Do you know my DM? Because you're presenting your opinion as fact here. Your agressive and rude tone toward me isn't particularly appreciated.

What aggressive and rude tone are you on about mate? You're inferring something that isn't there.

Look dude, your DM has pretty clearly expressed a desire not to include minion-mancy in the game. He's trying to be nice and permissive by allowing your concept (subject to his own veto, and your own restraint). He's even demonstrated an ability to hand you a minion from time to time (obviously his intent wasnt for you to keep it).

Where your DM went wrong was allowing it in the first place. There are times when it's OK to say no, and ultimately he's the one with the ability to make that call. It's his game.

He tried to be accomodating of your concept, subject to the implicit understanding by you, that most of your class features arent going to function (either by his veto/ contrivance such as when he nixed your +Initiative feat, and barred your Ettin from the boat, or by you simply not using them that often).

Personally, if I were him, I would have just given you a hard 'No, please come up with a different concept other than a minion-mancer' instead of a soft No ('Yes, you can play that character, but I intend to block many of your class features, and want you to enter into a gentlemans agreement not to use them often in any event [so you should probably play a different character].')

That said, perhaps you should read between the lines here. Clearly he doesn't want minions or minion-mancy in the game. Work with the DM by creating something he doesnt have a problem with (and that you also want to play) instead of working against him and playing something he clearly doesnt want in the game, and nix the character for something else.


Preemptively, yes I consider this a bit rude.

Yeah, that's not an insult. 'Toughen up', 'Harden up' or 'Man up' just means you need to be the bigger person, and be the one to back down here, and let the DM have his way.

If you want to read that as an insult, that's on you. Im actually trying to suggest you be the better person here, and you be the one to back down, in what is clearly a (self described) antagonistic relationship.


And for what it's worth, I did offer to change my build if he didn't want to deal with it and was told "No, your build is fine, I just don't want to bog down combat."


Which is the DM saying 'Your build is fine, but I dont want any minions in my combat encounters.'

Yet your PC is a build that is built around employing minions in combat encounters. He's fine with you playing your character, but not fine with you using any of your class features and abilities related to minion-mancy aside from in the most basic of ways, subject to his veto and contrivances to stop you (which - as a pretty strong hint - are already flowing, thick and fast).

It's an antagonistic relationship between DM and Player (and coupled with a personal relationship outside the game, that you also describe as antagonistic and combative). He's just going to keep vetoing your minions, or coming up with contrivances to stop you ('Nope, you cant take your minions to area X because of reason Y, no further discussion allowed!).' Meanwhile he's just going to get increasingly annoyed that you're not reading between the lines, and you keep trying to introduce minions into his combat encounters (it's basically your entire builds single trick).

Just back down, and create a different PC. One that the DM is actually comfortable with. Before this situation devolves into a total train wreck.

The reason he's not letting you create a new PC is probably because as a minion mancer who cant actually use any minions, your PC is probably not very effective, and he feels he can control you a bit better (letting you have minions on such terms as he deems, such as with the Ettin). That sounds about on the money, based on the antagonistic relationship (and his personality) you describe above.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 07:40 AM
...Snip...

Lets just agree that you and I are very different people with different views on things.

Unless you are, or personally know my DM, please stop presenting your interpretation of things as fact.

Thank you for the feedback though, I do appreciate that you read and responded.

EDIT: Sorry, I just couldn't let this completely pass.


It's an antagonistic relationship between DM and Player (and coupled with a personal relationship outside the game, that you also describe as antagonistic and combative).

In no way is it antagonistic either in game or personally. We've been friends likely longer than you've been alive, we give each other ****, we've got each other's backs, and nothing will change that. He's my brother in everything but genetics and the feeling is mutual. If you and your friends can't handle a little friendly ribbing and good natured clowning, perhaps you need to man up. This approach you've taken to it reeks of fragile millennial feelings and doesn't apply in the slightest to either of us. Apologies in advance to all the millennials out there who don't cry about their feelings after every harsh word.

Let's just agree that I'm not going to get anything further from your posts aside from being antagonized. I would appreciate your polite withdrawal.

DeTess
2019-01-13, 07:52 AM
Lets just agree that you and I are very different people with different views on things.

Unless you are, or personally know my DM, please stop presenting your interpretation of things as fact.

Thank you for the feedback though, I do appreciate that you read and responded.

Hmmm, I'm reading pretty much the same thing into your explanation as Malifice though. Your DM is worried about minions bogging down combat, and has been taking action to insure that's kept to a minimum. He told you in advance that creating minions was fine, but that he didn't want them bogging down combat, and that's what he's been applying his rules too.

I think you're vastly underestimating what "At no point in the campaign have I ever had more than my initiative count +1 other" means for your turn-length. It means that, in practice, you take at least twice as long as any other player. If you're playing on a grid it becomes even worse when you've got more than one minion, even if those minions are dumb beat-sticks. Even if they all act on your turn it still takes a lot more time than with other players, effectively bogging combat down. The GM also has to include extra threats to account for your minions, once again increasing the duration of combat.

So, to echo Malifice's advice, I'd ask to retire your character and play something else if this constant discussion bothers you. Alternatively, start creating your minions for non-combat purposes.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 08:15 AM
Hmmm, I'm reading pretty much the same thing into your explanation as Malifice though. Your DM is worried about minions bogging down combat, and has been taking action to insure that's kept to a minimum. He told you in advance that creating minions was fine, but that he didn't want them bogging down combat, and that's what he's been applying his rules too.

I think you're vastly underestimating what "At no point in the campaign have I ever had more than my initiative count +1 other" means for your turn-length. It means that, in practice, you take at least twice as long as any other player. If you're playing on a grid it becomes even worse when you've got more than one minion, even if those minions are dumb beat-sticks. Even if they all act on your turn it still takes a lot more time than with other players, effectively bogging combat down. The GM also has to include extra threats to account for your minions, once again increasing the duration of combat.

So, to echo Malifice's advice, I'd ask to retire your character and play something else if this constant discussion bothers you. Alternatively, start creating your minions for non-combat purposes.

I appreciate the feedback, particularly the non-combative way it's conveyed, thank you.

We do not play on a grid. My cleric is built specifically not combat focused, my action is almost always A bless, negative energy heal if someone is in danger (automatic death at 0 HP makes in combat healing more relevant) or some other supportive action that is over very quickly. As soon as I acquired both the Ettin and the Trolls I immediately had notes for them on the back of my sheet with their combat stats for quick easy reference. Both my own and my minions turns were done more quickly than most of the rest of the party takes their individual turns.

I'm not saying that you're wrong about the situation as a whole, but all I can do is address my actions and how my turns may have impacted the table. I do appreciate the post though, every different viewpoint helps me see things a little differently, thank you.

Quertus
2019-01-13, 09:02 AM
IMO, what you need to ask the GM is, "what do you mean by 'bog down combat'? what kind of minionmancer won't 'big down combat'? Oh, and can I have my feat that I wasted on Nimble Bones back / some benefit that will actually work in your game instead?"

Clearly, your GM both thinks that your build could work, but has issues with the way that you are playing it. Equally clearly, your GM foolishly believes that the difference between this build played right and the way that you are playing it should be obvious (or some equivalent state exists that prevents him from using his usual explicit tactics).

So, get your GM to be very explicit on the details of where the lines are between a good and bad version of this character, and be very, very prepared to switch to a new character.

EDIT - has your group ever had problems with minionmancers / combat bogging down before?

zlefin
2019-01-13, 09:18 AM
hard to say; description-wise it does sound like the dm is being unreasonable. cargo holds tend to hvae lots of space, and are designed to support sizeable crates; so it really should've been feasible to fit on the ship.

My best guess would be that something out of game is causing the dm grief, and as a result they're being less reasonable about in game things due to out of game stress. displacement is a pretty common problem.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 09:30 AM
IMO, what you need to ask the GM is, "what do you mean by 'bog down combat'? what kind of minionmancer won't 'big down combat'? Oh, and can I have my feat that I wasted on Nimble Bones back / some benefit that will actually work in your game instead?"

Clearly, your GM both thinks that your build could work, but has issues with the way that you are playing it. Equally clearly, your GM foolishly believes that the difference between this build played right and the way that you are playing it should be obvious (or some equivalent state exists that prevents him from using his usual explicit tactics).

So, get your GM to be very explicit on the details of where the lines are between a good and bad version of this character, and be very, very prepared to switch to a new character.

EDIT - has your group ever had problems with minionmancers / combat bogging down before?

Thank you for the input. Our group has never had issues with minionmancers. No one has ever bothered with more than just a few summons/minions at once to keep it from being an issue, a tradition I fully intend to uphold.



My best guess would be that something out of game is causing the dm grief, and as a result they're being less reasonable about in game things due to out of game stress. displacement is a pretty common problem.

Not going into details, but yes there are several recent sources of stress and/or trauma.

Thank you for the posts! Much appreciated.

Malifice
2019-01-13, 10:54 AM
In no way is it antagonistic either in game or personally. We've been friends likely longer than you've been alive, we give each other ****, we've got each other's backs, and nothing will change that.

Im 44 years old brother. I doubt it.

As to why I presumed a relatively antagonistic gaming relationship:


Oh yes, I was snarky as hell. We've been gaming together for 29 years (the newest member of our group has been here over 10 years), we're snarky as a matter of principle and habit these days. He responds "It wouldn't fit, there was no space for it in the cargo hold and we are NOT having this conversation again!" in a harsh tone.


Was I a ****? Damn right I was and that's how we've treated each other for almost 3 decades.


As a person he is a blunt relatively aggressive extrovert.



Oh we've butted heads plenty of times as well as him with other players

I mean seriously? Your relationship isnt antagonistic.. Its just that (in your own words) 'you butt heads all the time, he's an aggressive extrovert, you and him treat each other like arses for almost 30 years, and you're both snarky at each other as a matter of both principle and habit.'

Please forgive me for assuming an antagonistic gaming relationship, but just going by your own words, that's a hard assumption not to make!


Let's just agree that I'm not going to get anything further from your posts aside from being antagonized. I would appreciate your polite withdrawal.

Im not antagonizing you! I'm trying to point out that he clearly tried to point out that the mechanics of your character (controlling minions via rebuke, undead leadership etc and the presitge class you were aiming for) is not something he wanted in the campaign.

Yet you went ahead and played it anyway, and subsequently he's now vetoeing your class features, and contriving reasons for your minions to be left behind or not otherwise participate in encounters.

Like dont get angry at me man. Thats what's going on here. Hate me all you want, but just pause and think about this for a second... maybe I'm right?

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 01:38 PM
Im 44 years old brother. I doubt it.

As to why I presumed a relatively antagonistic gaming relationship:

I mean seriously? Your relationship isnt antagonistic.. Its just that (in your own words) 'you butt heads all the time, he's an aggressive extrovert, you and him treat each other like arses for almost 30 years, and you're both snarky at each other as a matter of both principle and habit.'

Please forgive me for assuming an antagonistic gaming relationship, but just going by your own words, that's a hard assumption not to make!


Over the course of a 30 year friendship with strong personalities, yes we've butted heads plenty of times. Yes we are lovingly rude and snarky to each other non stop, as is everyone in our close group of friends. If your group of friends isn't comfortable enough for that, I'm sorry for you.



Im not antagonizing you! I'm trying to point out that he clearly tried to point out that the mechanics of your character (controlling minions via rebuke, undead leadership etc and the presitge class you were aiming for) is not something he wanted in the campaign.

Yet you went ahead and played it anyway, and subsequently he's now vetoeing your class features, and contriving reasons for your minions to be left behind or not otherwise participate in encounters.

Like dont get angry at me man. Thats what's going on here. Hate me all you want, but just pause and think about this for a second... maybe I'm right?

You continue to claim to know exactly what the DM is thinking, despite not knowing even his side of the conversation. You are presenting your opinion as fact, despite being asked repeatedly not to. You're continuing to post the same thing aggressively and insultingly despite being be asked not to repeatedly. Yes, you're being antagonistic. The point isn't if you're right or wrong, the point is that you're trolling in an otherwise civil thread.

Darth Ultron
2019-01-13, 02:42 PM
Well, you sure make it sound like he was one way...a fairly reasonable way...for decades, and now suddenly he has changed into a whole other person. Did he suffer a massive trauma in his life? He might have changed as he got older, have you noticed that? Are you maybe remembering the way he was decades ago?

When you describe the game play he sounds like a sneaky abusive passive aggressive power tripping bad DM......BUT, you say he is not like that, despite describing him exactly like that. So...where is the disconnect?

So, if he is normal person and not the above bad DM, why exactly can't you communicate with him?

If during the game he will simply target you and ignore the rules and break the rules and run his own little DM ego trip game; but when you say ''yo best bro what is up", he says ''oh nothing your good bro" THEN right back to the game where he is yet again going to say ''haha screw you!", you have a problem.

The easy fix is just to make a character he likes and approves of....not that he says(lies) he does, but one he really acts like he does.

He seems to be a DM that does not care about the rules at all and is a jerk.....BUT...if that is not true, you might be able to use the game rules. For example, find a way to shrink your giant skeleton.

He seems to be a DM that does not care about common sense and is a jerk.....BUT...if that is not true, you might be able to do things like tie the giant skeleton to the ships hull or rigging to keep it ''out of the way".

He seems to be a DM jerk.....BUT...if that is not true, maybe you can just make him happy by NOT having your character act in combat and just acting through your fast minions, you know so you won't ''bog down his special ego trip combat".

Or maybe you both just need to take a break from the game.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 03:02 PM
When you describe the game play he sounds like a sneaky abusive passive aggressive power tripping bad DM......BUT, you say he is not like that, despite describing him exactly like that. So...where is the disconnect?


That would be exactly the issue. Like I said, we've been gaming together 29 years and aside from 14 year old growing pains as we all learned the game, this is a new behavior pattern. Even way back in freshman year of high school, we all made our gaming mistakes but it wasn't this type of malicious feeling to it, just dumb kids being dumb and playing a game together.

And yes, we are talking about it. This literally happened last night so part of my letting off steam instead of pestering him for a more immediate answer was this thread. I appreciate the people who have been constructive and civil in their conversation. Thank you all.

icefractal
2019-01-13, 04:27 PM
My guess, from being in a similar situation, would be - he doesn't actually want any minion-mancy, but feels guilty about barring it entirely.

So he tries to be "impartial" about it when he really isn't, with poor results. Like giving you the Ettin skeleton because it seemed logical for the city to have one, and then regretting that choice so making a reason to get rid of it.

IMO though, saying you'd use them not for combat was a mistake. Mindless undead don't have much non-combat utility in most campaigns. And it sounds like what you really meant is: "I'll only use a small number for combat at once, treating the others as reserves". Which is not unreasonable, but it is minion-mancy.

My recommendation is to make a new character. With this one, you're either going to have friction with the GM, or frustration about using your feats for nothing.

Neknoh
2019-01-13, 05:22 PM
Honestly? Forgo the email.

Sit down with him.

If it's online, call him.

Be honest, sincere and approachable and ask him if he's feeling okay and if he needs to talk about anything.

If he IS feeling okay and he does not need to talk about anything, say that you do, and be calm about it, don't kick up a fuss or anything.

Also, you act out a lot when people write things, you seem to read into what people write on here, do not go the email-route with this DM, if there's tension, there's also a high risk of misinterpreting text. Call him, or sit with him.

Something might be bad for him, or he might feel there has not been a proper chance to talk about the character.

Is he really okay with minions?

If yes, why did he take away the ettin? No, not what the in-game reason was, what was his reason?

If he's sorry about that, drop it, forget it and then ask if you can change some of your feats around so that your minions aren't meant to go differently from you in combat etc.

If he's not sorry about that, then tell him how you're feeling shut down and that this isn't like him.

See if you can get a conversation going.

If not, switch character.

Geddy2112
2019-01-13, 06:23 PM
I'll echo the sentiments of most of this thread. Your DM very clearly does not want minions in combat, but did not want to ban you having minions.

I think he was on board when you came up with your character, and planned to use undead as background minions to cause general havoc or whatever.



Right from the first discussion I clearly lay out that my vision for a character is leading hordes of undead to raze the land. I clarify that I am not interested in having a ton of skeletons for combat or anything, I want to use fodder for story purposes (go attack the village as a distraction while we go after the McGuffin kind of thing). My DM voices two concerns here, one is that I have invested a bit into Turn/Rebuke which may not see a lot of use and two, he doesn't want a horde of minions bogging down combat. I'm fine with both concerns.
So far so good. You both agree how this is going to go down.


My build is essentially Cleric into Lord of the Dead (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd/dx20021031x) with Corpse Crafter, Nimble Bones, Iron Will and Undead Leadership, the last two being primarily to enter the PRC. First several sessions I have rebuked skeletons who never engage in combat, I make it a point that they are my personal servants and not intended for fighting. They are all unarmed and armored. I use summon undead 2 a couple times in these adventures.Again, so far so good. You clearly show that you are not going to abuse your power.


About 3rd session I am given the opportunity to purchase bones for the purpose of animation and choose an ettin. No limitations were given on this, we are currently in an undead city housing a college of necromancy so the DM figured bones for animating would be a reasonable purchase, this was offered, not asked for on my part. I didn't try to buy more than one skeleton because I didn't want to abuse it and wanted to make an active effort to not bogging down combat.
At the end of this session we end up boarding a boat (Caravel specifically called out) for our next mission. I am then told, "Your ettin isn't going, it literally won't fit in the cargo hold or your quarters and will be in the way on deck." I try to point out that an undead can use the squeezing rules and won't be worried about comfort (being mindless and all) and get a hard "No, it won't fit, it's not going, end of story." We're both a bit frustrated at this point so I just let it go. Wondering why I was very specifically offered the opportunity that I never asked for only to be allowed to use it for a single combat and then be told no. Animating this type of a brawler (who is not nearly enough to outshine our melee types) is literally what every choice on my character sheet is built for, class selection, feats, PRC, items... all of it, and that was not a secret.I will agree your DM giving you this and then taking it away is not great. In general DM's should never forcibly take away things they freely give. That said, an ettin is more than just your random skeleton in the background. Did you offer for it to just be akin to cargo-something that will not fight in combat, but be a background minion? It could even help lift boxes for the caravel, or lead your skeleton knights off on some other quest while the party does their thing. Making it for the purposes of being a monster in combat and explicitly using it for such means you broke the agreement. If you just wanted an ettin because you could, well, that's on your DM.


First encounter of the evening, we kill 3 trolls. Perfect, I set up my portable alter, cast desecrate and animate them. Next combat I announce my initiative and my 3 trolls using a singular initiative score. "No, they'll go when you go." I object that I've got a feat investment in improving their initiative (Nimble Bones, I have +5 they have +11). "No, I don't want them bogging down combat, they go when you do." We finish the combat, then finish the session.
Here you did the very thing you said you would not do. You made trolls, not just humanoid skeletons, but skeletal trolls, and you brought them into a combat. Your DM even allowed this, just saying for the sake of brevity(and something I agree with) they all go with you on your turn to make the game go faster.

Now, I don't think this is near that bad. Your DM is right to keep the game streamlined and should have told you when you said minomancy that your minions always act on your initiative count when you built your character. If they are going to change this mid game, they owe you the ability to retrain your nimble bones feat. I think your DM is fine with you having warrior minions now and then, but is worried about the game breaking power and you have used them explicitly in ways you said you would not. I can see both sides, but I think if you just talk it out and make sure going forward you are both clearly on the same page. If you can't resolve it, then at the end of the day you can either roll a new character or leave the game.

Also, did your ettin just go get lost to the background? If you still have it or got some mileage out of it that's slightly more okay. I would ask for it to at least have gone off to further your goals, or be waiting for you faithfully when you return. The DM said caravel, but can say the ship can't hold and ettin skeleton and is within their right to do so. It is not within their right to bolt it from the blue, so it should still be where you left it or doing it's last ordered task.

Warlawk
2019-01-13, 07:18 PM
Here you did the very thing you said you would not do. You made trolls, not just humanoid skeletons, but skeletal trolls, and you brought them into a combat. Your DM even allowed this, just saying for the sake of brevity(and something I agree with) they all go with you on your turn to make the game go faster.

This is completely on me, I missed the second part of the statement in my OP. I didn't want hordes but I did make it clear that I would want to animate a bruiser to have something to do in combat. I have no combat functionality in my direct character build aside from swinging a mace for d8+x. My spells are being used on party buffing and saving people from getting too close to the instant death at 0 HP. No DMM, no divinations to bring the magic bullet spell for encounters... deliberately trying to keep it low key. Neither the Ettin or a couple of trolls would have come as a surprise. Bolded part inserted below.


Right from the first discussion I clearly lay out that my vision for a character is leading hordes of undead to raze the land. I clarify that I am not interested in having a ton of skeletons for combat or anything, I want to use fodder for story purposes (go attack the village as a distraction while we go after the McGuffin kind of thing) and a bruiser for some combat actions. My DM voices two concerns here, one is that I have invested a bit into Turn/Rebuke which may not see a lot of use and two, he doesn't want a horde of minions bogging down combat. I'm fine with both concerns.



Now, I don't think this is near that bad. Your DM is right to keep the game streamlined and should have told you when you said minomancy that your minions always act on your initiative count when you built your character.

I don't actually have a problem with that, it was on top of already being frustrated and then in mid combat just being told "No, they're sharing your initiative" was a bit of a slap in the face.


Also, did your ettin just go get lost to the background? If you still have it or got some mileage out of it that's slightly more okay. I would ask for it to at least have gone off to further your goals, or be waiting for you faithfully when you return. The DM said caravel, but can say the ship can't hold and ettin skeleton and is within their right to do so. It is not within their right to bolt it from the blue, so it should still be where you left it or doing it's last ordered task.

Left under the command of an associate back in the home town. It's still a mindless undead after all, it couldn't have lead any other skeletons to anything or done anything useful on its own. From the way things are shaping up, we won't be going back there for quite some time.

We're chatting through text just fine and going through things and I appreciate all the civil responses in here to help me see things from perspectives other than my own, it has helped me be more open to concerns I may not have thought of.

Malifice
2019-01-13, 11:22 PM
Over the course of a 30 year friendship with strong personalities, yes we've butted heads plenty of times. Yes we are lovingly rude and snarky to each other non stop, as is everyone in our close group of friends. If your group of friends isn't comfortable enough for that, I'm sorry for you.


You continue to claim to know exactly what the DM is thinking, despite not knowing even his side of the conversation. You are presenting your opinion as fact, despite being asked repeatedly not to. You're continuing to post the same thing aggressively and insultingly despite being be asked not to repeatedly. Yes, you're being antagonistic. The point isn't if you're right or wrong, the point is that you're trolling in an otherwise civil thread.

I'm not trolling you, nor am I being antagonistic. Im just trying to explain to you what is going wrong here, and answer your question in the OP (Yes, you and the DM have different expectations - he has clearly expressed - both expicitly and implicity - that he doesnt want a minion-mancer, and yet you are playing a freaking minion-mancer, causing him to veto your class features and invent contrivances to stop you from using your minions).

You cant see this for some reason (actually I presume you can see it, hence your hostility to both me and him), and when it's pointed out to you, you become snarky, defensive, passive agressive and accusatory.

I think I can see what's wrong with your game. I've attempted to explain it to you, and you simply shout at me, and ignore my advice, so it's a pointless exersize. To be precise: Your DM made a mistake allowing the 'build' into the game to begin with, and you're now making a mistake by not seeing this and whining about him nixing your character through veto of your class features and contrivances to stop you from using your minions, despite being fully aware he doesnt want that combination of abilities in his game. The solution is simple, and that's retire the character and play something different that your DM doesnt have a problem with.

Be collaberative and instead of antagonistic. Retire the character, respect your DM and play something he's actually OK with.

I'll leave it there, because you're not someone I wish to engage with anymore, and wish you the best with your campaign.

Quertus
2019-01-14, 01:02 AM
So, OP, you've got multiple people claiming just from your account of events to understand that the GM did not like your character.

From my experience in the Playground, I'll say that they are almost certainly reading into events based on their own personal experiences; thus, while I would definitely sit up and notice if, say, several players who had been there said the same thing, I give several Playgrounders saying the same thing about divining the motives of someone that they probably haven't met less weight.

That having been said, I don't think that they're wrong.

Yes, your GM usually is perfectly capable of expressing himself. But your GM also usually is several other things that he currently isn't. And you've said that you already know that stuff is going on in his life.

So, throw away everything you think that you know about him. Don't be the captain the Titanic - realize that your experience may be working against you here.

Be there for him, help him through whatever is going on in his life. And be prepared to jump through hoops you're not accustomed to even existing.

The first being, he probably doesn't like your character concept.

Malifice
2019-01-14, 01:11 AM
The first being, be probably doesn't like your character concept.

He told him as much at the start of the campaign. And now he's not only vetoing class features (no, your feat doesnt work/ you cant use rebuke!), he's also inventing contrivances (no, the Galleon cant fit your skeleton in it!) to nix the classes features.

The DM is trying to be accomodating (Look man, I dont want minions slowing down my game, but if you really want to go for it you can... just be aware that I will nix your class features arbitrarily and remove your ability to rely on minions).

He should really have just said a flat 'No; I dont want minions in the game, please play something else'.

Really, the OP isnt reading between the lines here (and that message is really written in Neon so it's pretty hard to miss, but some people - and many roleplaying game players - arent great at subtext).

Put the DMs mistake to one side, and request to have the PC ride off into the sunset, and work with the DM to create a replacement PC that the DM is OK with in the game.

Warlawk
2019-01-14, 01:18 AM
Thank you to everyone who offered civil suggestions and discussion.

Two things I want to clarify, first: I don't think I've tried to deny that he might be opposed to the character build, just that it was not a surprise in any way shape or form and that not saying anything if that was the case would be 110% out of character for him. When I told my wife who has also known him for about 20 years now that this was the prevailing sentiment she literally laughed out loud. I'm not saying it's wrong as there are stress factors, just saying that it is VERY out of character for him.

Second: I don't think I ever stated that I have a problem changing my build or even switching to another character entirely. Several posters seem to feel that way, but I'm not sure where it came from because I don't have a problem with it and might even just prefer a completely different character to drop the baggage at this point.

This discussion has been going on during a bout of insomnia and I've only had a few hours sleep in the past several days so it's entirely possible that the tone of my posts conveyed either of those things without my intent behind it.

Again, thank you all for the discussion to help me see things from other points of view and please keep in mind that the point above that my supposed unwillingness to change characters came from other poster's in the thread, not from me.

Neknoh
2019-01-14, 02:57 AM
It may well be that you seemed to get very defensive and bite back very quickly on early posts pointing out that you might be wrong, this made it seem like you were saying "No, I'm in the right and I won't listen to your obviously wrong interpretation of this."

Which is often a sign of unwillingness to change characters.

"If I refuse to see that the character might actually be the problem, then I won't have to change and it's the DM's fault"

It's a strange time and you haven't gotten a lot of sleep.

Be there for your friend, try to get some rest (I know that struggle well) and come back to this thread when you have new things.

Just remember to take a step back and listen to the DM and to look over the situation with fresh eyes.

Warlawk
2019-01-14, 03:28 AM
It may well be that you seemed to get very defensive and bite back very quickly on early posts pointing out that you might be wrong, this made it seem like you were saying "No, I'm in the right and I won't listen to your obviously wrong interpretation of this."

Which is often a sign of unwillingness to change characters.

"If I refuse to see that the character might actually be the problem, then I won't have to change and it's the DM's fault"

It's a strange time and you haven't gotten a lot of sleep.

Be there for your friend, try to get some rest (I know that struggle well) and come back to this thread when you have new things.

Just remember to take a step back and listen to the DM and to look over the situation with fresh eyes.

I think the only bite was at Malefice and that's subject's been done to death but perhaps the tone of my text just doesn't match up to the intent in my head, a very easy thing to happen in this medium.

Turns out the concern is more of an issue of comparative optimization levels with the rest of the group (They don't and I try to keep mine under control) and it just happened to manifest in this format.

I really do appreciate all the civil discussion in the thread though, it certainly helped me view the whole situation from a lot of different angles, thanks to those who contributed!

mAc Chaos
2019-01-14, 11:09 AM
This happens to DMs a lot. The DM doesn't want something in the game (like a CE character in a LG party), then the player just goes ahead and wants that very thing anyway. The DM doesn't want to be mean, so he lets the player try out the idea, with the (sometimes implicit) assumption that they're only using it with whatever limitations the DM imposes, since they shouldn't be using it anyway.

He did say he didn't want it to bog down combat. That's exactly what stuff like trolls and different initiative counts do.

I don't think anyone is "wrong" here, he just should have probably said no outright, but I guess he wanted to try and be nice for your sake.

You should accept his limitations or try a different character that fits his idea for the campaign.

noob
2019-01-14, 12:10 PM
Watch out: lord of the dead reduce the amount of undead you can control by turning.

Jay R
2019-01-14, 03:22 PM
There is a wide, wide range between "I'm fine with your build" and "I'm fine with everything your build can do."

He says he's fine with your build. And he's vetoed two things your build should be able to do.

So ask him what he is and is not fine with about your character's abilities. Ask detailed questions, and ask him for specific answers.

If he won't give you any specifics, then my recommendation is that you shouldn't ask him if you should change your build; you should ask permission to throw it out and build something else. Not because he's wrong. Not because you're wrong. But because you won't ever be sure what will be allowed.

Mordar
2019-01-14, 06:28 PM
That would be exactly the issue. Like I said, we've been gaming together 29 years and aside from 14 year old growing pains as we all learned the game, this is a new behavior pattern. Even way back in freshman year of high school, we all made our gaming mistakes but it wasn't this type of malicious feeling to it, just dumb kids being dumb and playing a game together.

And yes, we are talking about it. This literally happened last night so part of my letting off steam instead of pestering him for a more immediate answer was this thread. I appreciate the people who have been constructive and civil in their conversation. Thank you all.

One thing that I don't think I've seen discussed is this: Working from the belief that he has acted differently toward *you* in this context than normal, I would want to know...has he acted differently towards anyone else in the group, as best you can tell? That might add some additional insight.

My read is totally this, taking as primary information the fact you guys have been at this for decades and are close friends, period: When you proposed the build, he didn't like it but didn't dislike it enough (or understand enough) to say no. As time has moved forward he has reinforced that opinion...but perhaps not enough to crush your idea/have broader conflict about it. And then when you (reasonably) pushed back, he got a little more upset...potentially at both of you.

So now you're in a pickle. Play the build as intended, which you know he dislikes, or ask for a new character. Maybe there's an option where you use the build to create/run minions that do non-combat stuff only, but that might leave you too ineffective in group combat...so maybe some feat-swapping or tweaking where the "Nimble bones" becomes something like "Observant bones" and gives a construct the ability to be a spy, or an alarm system...things like that.

Pizza it up. BS about not game, talk about game, talk about everything but game. Maintain the friend connection, work towards a good resolution and give both of you the opportunity to be wrong, right and forgiving.

- M

Warlawk
2019-01-14, 06:41 PM
Watch out: lord of the dead reduce the amount of undead you can control by turning.

Our dm quite reasonably decided that the turn resistance and similar class features only apply to allies which is far more representative of his normal way of doing things.

noob
2019-01-15, 06:36 AM
Our dm quite reasonably decided that the turn resistance and similar class features only apply to allies which is far more representative of his normal way of doing things.

Then you should watch: if your controlled undead are under turn resistance boost you will reach turn cap and need to drop undead from control faster when controlling undead.
So you need when you want to control new undead and that you are close to the cap to make your old undead drop their boosts to turn resistance(for example getting away in the case of lord of the dead) before turning or you will reach cap much easier and thus have to drop undead from your control.
Honestly it is not really a problem to just have to get your old undead away before turning new undead.

Maelynn
2019-01-15, 09:23 AM
After reading all that's been said, I think that it happened like this:

- during character creation, the DM initially wanted to accomodate your wishes and only expressed a few concerns regarding elements he didn't want in his game (bogging down combat, etc)
- during the game, he noticed that some elements of your build allow you to do stuff he'd rather not have (like your feat that gives your minions their own initiative)
- he doesn't want to tell you to change your build, probably because he already okayed it and doesn't want to go back on his word, but now he's trying to keep it in check in other ways, rubbing you the wrong way in the process
- these other ways feel to you as though he's gimping your build, and his behaviour is opposed to him okaying your build earlier

If this is correct, then I think the best way to solve this is by simply sitting down with him and adjusting your build together. Let him point out what aspects he finds too powerful/obtrusive to be used in his campaign, and find an alternative that works (so, he doesn't like the feat? Then look at the list of feats together and discuss what you could get instead). Tell him that you don't mind tweaking your build, just as long as you don't face a 'hard no' during play only for playing your build the way it's built.

One other thing that I wondered, just like Mordar:


One thing that I don't think I've seen discussed is this: Working from the belief that he has acted differently toward *you* in this context than normal, I would want to know...has he acted differently towards anyone else in the group, as best you can tell? That might add some additional insight.