PDA

View Full Version : How do I convince my DM that he is an idiot?



EvilRoeSlade
2008-08-24, 01:12 AM
To lay down some background, it's near the end of our session at my gaming group, and we're in a dungeon cruising around with an iron golem we found and activated. We run into a gelatinous cube and during the fight the golem picks it up and lifts it over its head in order to throw it into a bottomless pit in the middle of the room. Before that happens though, I want to continue slashing it with my greatsword. The DM says that I can attack it from beneath, but since that isn't cool enough I say that I want to run up the side of the golem and leap through the air, slashing it in half. I roll an athletics check and get a 17.

So far so good, but then...

My abysmal DM says that he needs to check and see if my character gets his foot stuck in the golem's joint. He does this by making an attack roll for the golem using its normal attack bonus. He gets a natural 20 and tells me that since I got my foot stuck I take 20 damage (apparently he also decided it would be appropriate to deal the golem's normal slam damage. I'm not in top shape at that point (I'm only level 1) so that's enough to knock me unconscious. I manage to complain enough to get my hit points back up to 5, but I'm still not satisfied.

So, being reasonably sure that my DM won't read this, I turn to my fellow playgrounders. How would you explain to my DM that he's an idiot?

Pink
2008-08-24, 01:20 AM
Ask him why he felt that was necessary?

It's one thing if you had rolled a natural one. I sort've use fumbles on occasion (Actually, my tabletop group seems to expect and encourage it. They seem more happy if that natural 1 just broke that magical weapon they found then if it had just been a miss), but only in situations where, let's face it, the character rolled low and therefore there should be a chance of them falling flat on their face.

Also, ask, How exactly getting your foot stuck deal damage. Let alone 20 damage. It would be one thing if it was "Your foot gets stuck, you trip take <1d6> damage." It makes sense. What exactly happened that hurt you to such a degree that you take probably more than half your hit points in damage?

That being said, if this was last session, i suggest ignoring it. It might've been a one time thing, perhaps you guys didn't get as hurt as he wanted. Immature but hey, Vengeful DM happens to the best of us. (I was particularly hurt once in my 3.5 game when a well placed web and scorching ray destroyed 20 some mooks before they had a chance to swarm). Anyway, if it occurs again, and it definately seems unfair, I'd confront him, most of all by saying "Randomly dealing me damage for things that don't make sense is not my idea of fun." I mean, it's one thing if he wants to make things harder. He could fudge damage results, hurt you more than what it would really be. A player of mine who was the former DM says that he often rolled the dice just for the effect and he's constantly surprised that I actually use the results (most of the time...)

I'll probably be ninjaed somehow.

Knaight
2008-08-24, 01:28 AM
You're character was running up an iron golem, and got his/her foot stuck, and then crushed, dealing. I fail to see the problem here, assuming that the GM would have let you do some damage had you pulled the move off successfully.

Kiren
2008-08-24, 01:33 AM
my dm makes my blind char run into trees, he was robbed of 9k of potions and thats the first two sessions

Deepblue706
2008-08-24, 01:35 AM
Tell him "You're an idiot", and punch him in the nads.

Although, if you want to try to fix the DM, explain how an attack roll has nothing to do with fumbling - you should argue that his rule makes no sense unless everytime you miss an orc in combat, you take a fall that deals damage equal to his weapon die roll. 'Cuz you happened to be doing something involving an orc, and therefore should you fail it means you got smacked by him, regardless of what was actually going on. In fact, I think you should argue this should carry on to outside of combat, when you're making, say, Diplomacy checks.

And if anything, fumbles should be determined by a degree of failure (nat 1's suck only in attack rolls and saves). He owes you an explanation of why you might take that much damage, in fact, PRIOR to your attempt - such as "Well, honestly I think that's a rather extraordinary thing to do - that'll probably take your very best, and you could get hurt if you fail". And, then, proceed to allow you to rethink your actions, based on what he says (I think this counts as your character having some vague awareness of his own abilities).

Akimbo
2008-08-24, 01:41 AM
You're character was running up an iron golem, and got his/her foot stuck, and then crushed, dealing. I fail to see the problem here, assuming that the GM would have let you do some damage had you pulled the move off successfully.

I'm sorry, did you pay attention. He ran up a friendly creature and succeeded in a check to do so.

Then the Dm for absolutely no discernible reason decided that for a "foot stuck" mechanic (which shouldn't even exist in the first place, seeing as he succeeded) he should have the Golem role an attack with no penalty and then do damage as if he had slammed the guy in the face with his fist.

Sorry not buying it.

And he pretty clearly was not going to allow him to do damage on a success, because he did succeed.

That's like after every single attack role saying: Well you did hit AC, but before we roll damage, I'm going to have to see if you accidentally hit yourself, so we'll roll the enemies attack against your AC, and if he hits, you take the damage from your own attack.

tyckspoon
2008-08-24, 01:41 AM
You're character was running up an iron golem, and got his/her foot stuck, and then crushed, dealing. I fail to see the problem here, assuming that the GM would have let you do some damage had you pulled the move off successfully.

I think it's the bit where he had the Golem attack the character as the means of seeing whether or not he succeeded, apparently instead of referencing the character's own skill check. And then had the golem, which pretty much can't miss any level 1 character I know of, deal its own normal attack damage, which is far more than a level 1 character is supposed to be trying to tank. That's a level of unplanned, unfun, and frankly dumb danger up there with having critical fumbles mean the character somehow drives his own sword through his eyes.

Back to Original Poster:
Then again, you're apparently a level 1 party that has acquired (at least temporarily) an Iron Golem buddy. That was about to pull a SPAARTAAAAA on a Gelatinous Cube, despite your typical Cube being too heavy and too awkwardly shaped for your typical Golem to lift. I think you're probably going to have to get used to off-the-cuff rulings that don't make very much sense from this GM.

thubby
2008-08-24, 01:53 AM
You're character was running up an iron golem, and got his/her foot stuck, and then crushed, dealing. I fail to see the problem here, assuming that the GM would have let you do some damage had you pulled the move off successfully.

i think its more a matter of how this was decided. the golem is more likely to crush her (an ally) because it is a good combatant?!?
and why is the golem's abilities involved at all? it isn't trying to hurt her, if anything it wants to avoid it.
and full slam damage, it's not attacking, this is incidental damage if it's relevant at all. thats like saying me punching you and me elbowing you while reaching for change in my pocket are the same thing.
its very simple really, if she succeeded on the check she successfully scales the golem. she did that, having her foot crushed is clearly an indication of not just not succeeding, but full on failure.

Waspinator
2008-08-24, 02:06 AM
I suggest the Red vs Blue approach.

"You are a (censored) idiot and I'd like to prove this mathematically if I may. Take your current age. Now subtract ten years from it. Were you smart back then? Of course you weren't! You were a (censored) idiot! Fact of the matter is, you're just as big an idiot today; it's just going to take you ten more years to realize it."

drengnikrafe
2008-08-24, 02:23 AM
What DM makes you do stuff that's more cool? That's absurd. I recall one time, a fellow PC in a campaign... (I know you're all thinking "here comes another weird story. Oh well, let's humor him...) he ran away from the battle a bit, bluffed he was actually fleeing, climbed onto a roof, balanced across the rickety roof quietly, hid on the edge of the roof for a second, then jumped down to surprise the enemy. All this for his Sneak Attack bonus. We practically gave him a standing ovation.

"Cool attacks" in D&D are the choice of the PC, and should be lightly applauded, not a requirement by the DM.


For actually fixing the problem, show him this thread, and how a bunch of us think he's a bonehead.

Malicte
2008-08-24, 02:27 AM
I'd simply ask him why he thought it was necessary for you to even have to deal with some sort of failure since your skill check was successful.

If he gives you a decent reason, you'll have somewhere to start talking.

If he says, "Because I said so.", it's time to find a new DM.

Admiral_Kelly
2008-08-24, 02:33 AM
My recommended solution: Get a new DM.

skywalker
2008-08-24, 02:36 AM
Tell him very politely and away from the other players that you don't think that was fair. First of all, for a level 1 character, 15 should be the hardest athletics check you have to make unless you are doing something epic. Then again, you were running up the side of the golem...

Regardless, tell him you don't think it was appropriate to roll an attack roll for the golem, that your athletics check should probably suffice.

Also, what everyone else has said about how getting your foot stuck is not getting punched in the face. However, realize that your DM's eyes probably lit up when he saw that nat-20. Every DM gets carried away sometimes when he sees those.

I recommend specifically that you speak to him away from the other players. This will limit the possibility that he sees what you're doing as questioning his authority.

What I think you've got here, however, is a DM who thinks he can get away with occasionally screwing you because he gives you cool stuff way before you're supposed to have it(Iron Golem at level 1?) You might have to accept it so you can get your zany fun stuff.

Starshade
2008-08-24, 06:06 AM
Unless that is an Abyssal Foot Stucker Golem i think it sound as you annoyed your DM somehow :smallbiggrin:

He might think you rollplaying too much, or somehow got annoyed at the thing? Id not make much out of it, new DM perhaps? If so, i think he just need time to get used to DMing, to sit back and let the players have fun messing around a little. :smallsmile:

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-24, 06:11 AM
To lay down some background, it's near the end of our session at my gaming group, and we're in a dungeon cruising around with an iron golem we found and activated. We run into a gelatinous cube and during the fight the golem picks it up and lifts it over its head in order to throw it into a bottomless pit in the middle of the room. Before that happens though, I want to continue slashing it with my greatsword. The DM says that I can attack it from beneath, but since that isn't cool enough I say that I want to run up the side of the golem and leap through the air, slashing it in half. I roll an athletics check and get a 17.

So far so good, but then...

My abysmal DM says that he needs to check and see if my character gets his foot stuck in the golem's joint. He does this by making an attack roll for the golem using its normal attack bonus. He gets a natural 20 and tells me that since I got my foot stuck I take 20 damage (apparently he also decided it would be appropriate to deal the golem's normal slam damage. I'm not in top shape at that point (I'm only level 1) so that's enough to knock me unconscious. I manage to complain enough to get my hit points back up to 5, but I'm still not satisfied.

So, being reasonably sure that my DM won't read this, I turn to my fellow playgrounders. How would you explain to my DM that he's an idiot?

Well he did give your party control of a Iron Golem at first level.

He told you how you could attack the gelatinous cube safely which your PC ignored.

He is the DM perhaps this is not an isolated cool incident and he is tiring of it. (DMing is a lot more work than playing a PC (Perhaps some of the other players have talked to him privately))

He did not kill your PC and let you talk him into lowering the damage he received.

You can always find another DM or take turns with him I'm sure he would enjoy playing occassionally.

Tengu_temp
2008-08-24, 07:38 AM
Present him a simple problem from a field he's weak at and ask him to solve it.
DM: "I don't know how to do that."
You: "Because you're an idiot!"

Alternatively, cover his favorite food in sharp, but hard to see spikes, leave it in plain sight and observe.

MartinHarper
2008-08-24, 08:42 AM
Perhaps this is not an isolated cool incident and he is tiring of it.

Or he's trying to run a gritty, non-cinematic campaign, and is taking an in-game solution to cut down on acrobatic stunts, rather than being open and saying so. Regardless, talk to him about whether he wants his game to have cool tricks in or not.

Knaight
2008-08-24, 09:34 AM
i think its more a matter of how this was decided. the golem is more likely to crush her (an ally) because it is a good combatant?!?

That is an issue, but there are several ways of handling that, and the golems roll could have been part luck, as in it was built for that, and while throwing the cube the way it was built caused the foot to get stuck. Thats not how I would have run that, as I would have given a save, and probably double damage for success too.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-24, 09:55 AM
Or he's trying to run a gritty, non-cinematic campaign, and is taking an in-game solution to cut down on acrobatic stunts, rather than being open and saying so. Regardless, talk to him about whether he wants his game to have cool tricks in or not.

Maybe he is taking things out of context like you are quoting my point out of context. :smallsmile:There are always two sides to a story.

We weren't there and the DM isn't here to give his side of the story. The encounter was clearly resolved until the PC had to do something cool beyond a final attack and the DM had to adapt his tactics on the fly. Maybe the DM is a stickler for holding PCs accountable for what they say in game. He stated he was running up the side of the iron golem to make an attack, unless the PC can levitate the DM is within his rights to have him make a check on the way down when gravity kicks in after the attack. Maybe the DM was going to have half the gelatinous cube fall on the PC unless he made a save to make the encounter really cool but rolled the dice in front of the players getting that Nat 20 so the PC just caught his foot in the iron golem.

Gavin Sage
2008-08-24, 10:34 AM
Making an attack roll in this situation is utterly ridiculous and you should refuse to take any damage from this. For that matter getting the foot stuck should be handled in the initial roll if you say fail the DC by a substanial margin or get a 1.

As such you should refuse to take the damage and simply say the attempt fails and move on. Though for that matter whether you could have done such an attack is something I'd question allowing to begin with. I mean how does one run up an Iron Golem, and aren't Gelatinous Cubes rather big to cut in half?

That said the Golem getting an attack make zero sense, an attack is an action requiring time and effort. It should have its actions taken while holding the cube, which seems odd to begin with but in anycase it can't attack without effort.

Refuse to take the damage, fail, and move along. If the DM does this often find a way to hijack/derail the game and watch him squirm before having rocks fall.

Jayabalard
2008-08-24, 10:41 AM
How would you explain to my DM that he's an idiot?I wouldn't

What exactly are you trying to accomplish by convincing him that he's an idiot?

You'd be much better off focusing on convincing him that he made a ruling that felt unfair, and working on getting him to make rulings that are more fair and more fun in the future.

Akimbo
2008-08-24, 10:58 AM
So are we all just going to ignore the fact that he rolled a successful check? Are we going to pretend that the DMs job is to set up eight roles and if you fail at any one then you fail at your action?

Seriously:

DM: Roll an Athletics to see if you can do it.
Player: 17
DM: Excellent you succeed, but I hate you so the Golem punches you in the face.

Jayabalard
2008-08-24, 01:49 PM
So are we all just going to ignore the fact that he rolled a successful check?The OP didn't actually say that he succeeded; from the DM's reaction, it looks to me like he was ruling that 17 was not a success.

Pink
2008-08-24, 02:04 PM
The OP didn't actually say that he succeeded; from the DM's reaction, it looks to me like he was ruling that 17 was not a success.

Whether he succeeded or not, a 17 does not seem to qualify as a failure that should warrant getting the equivalent of being attacked by the golem. If it failed, well then, he simply would fail to properly climb the golem in the first place and just not be able to attack. The fact that instead of this, the DM ended up doing 20 damage to a first level character, seem like maliciousness.

Jayabalard
2008-08-24, 02:13 PM
it seems a lot more likely to me that it's as MartinHarper suggested... the GM is trying to run a more realistic, less cinematic campaign and is trying to discourage the player from trying ridiculous (to him) acrobatic stunts.

So the fix for that is to talk to the GM, discuss your discontent over the ruling, come to a meeting of minds as to the style of the game, and then enjoy the game or don't play. Trying to convince the GM that he's an idiot is counter productive.

skywalker
2008-08-24, 02:39 PM
it seems a lot more likely to me that it's as MartinHarper suggested... the GM is trying to run a more realistic, less cinematic campaign and is trying to discourage the player from trying ridiculous (to him) acrobatic stunts.

This theory doesn't seem(to me) to jive with the iron golem at first level, followed by the iron golem chucking the gelatinous cube into a pit...

But maybe that's just me.

lord_khaine
2008-08-24, 02:52 PM
this sounds a bit like the golem is the gm's pc, and he was annoyed over having the OP running around on his golem.

BRC
2008-08-24, 03:02 PM
Though the way the DM handled it was kinda off, I don't disagree with the premise. First off all, I think it would have been a Dex check, maybe climb or tumble to avoid getting your foot caught in the joints, and secondly, it shouldn't have counted as a slam attack in terms of damage.


That said, WTF is a level 1 party doing with a pet iron golem?

TheElfLord
2008-08-24, 03:08 PM
What DM makes you do stuff that's more cool?

The PC decided that simply slashing it wasn't cool enough, and decided to show off his awesomeness by climbing up the golem. The DM did not make the PC up the coolness.

chiasaur11
2008-08-24, 03:22 PM
Hmmm...
That Golem says DMPC to me. Way overpowered compared to party, Cool, does all the work...

I doubt it'll get much better.

ColonelFuster
2008-08-24, 03:23 PM
Sounds like he just wanted to make an AOO without calling it an AOO. Idiotic, but ultimately forgivable.

DiscipleofBob
2008-08-24, 03:24 PM
You know, I bet somewhere on some other forum, a guy is posting something along the lines of this:


"So I'm DMing this level 1 game, except that one of the players just annoys the crap out of me. He's always trying to hog the spotlight from other players, and even worse he does so in completely stupid ways. Like last time, the party was fighting this gelatinous cube. It was just supposed to be an obstacle, so the Iron Golem the party had befriended specifically for this dungeon and for plot reasons picked up the cube and chucked it into a bottomless pit.

This guy however wasn't satisfied. He wanted to attack the gelatinous cube despite the fight being clearly over, so I said he could hack at it from below as the golem wound up for the pitch as it were, but the PC wasn't satisfied. He decides he's going to run up the iron golem, leap and slash it in half in midair.

What should I do?"

Random Poster: "Well, I'd just try to drive the point home by making sure bad stuff happens to him when he starts pulling these kinds of shenanigans. For the last example you used, I'd roll some kind of check to see if his foot gets stuck in the golem's joint and cause damage to him. Use the golem's slam damage if you really want to get the point across."


Yes, I realize that the DM probably didn't have the time to go on a forum and post his conundrum and get advice. Point is, before you go blaming the DM and trying to prove he's an idiot, I'd ask yourself this: "Is there any possible chance that I might be the one at fault here? Perhaps my shenanigans might be grating on the DM's and possibly other's nerves?" I'm not saying either you or your DM is automatically at fault here. Just give it a little bit of thought before you cry foul.

chiasaur11
2008-08-24, 03:26 PM
Sounds like he just wanted to make an AOO without calling it an AOO. Idiotic, but ultimately forgivable.

AOO, from your own party member?

Shazzbaa
2008-08-24, 05:42 PM
I seem to be in the minority, but I really don't find this so utterly unreasonable.

In the described situation, I see you trying to pull some kind of stunt, in a campaign where clearly impossible things are already happening*, and when it was resolved in a kind of wacky way you were dissatisfied. You had no reason to think you shouldn't be allowed to do that, but the DM, in the absence of actual "run up a golem" rules, had to come up with whatever he thought would happen, and there's no reason his were more ridiculous than anything else.

The only thing I can see that needs to be discussed is to talk with your DM about how he handles these attempts at crazy stunts -- if this sort of thing happens all the time, then you could tell him that you'd like to know how he's planning to adjudicate such actions before you try them -- if there was a chance of getting your foot stuck in the golem's joints, your character would probably be able to see the danger of it, so it would be less frustrating and arbitrary for you if he'd tell you "I'll let you try, but if you're not really good with your athletics, your foot's gonna catch in the joints," before you decide to go for it.

Some DMs run things with this kinda arbitrary style, and that doesn't make them idiots, it's just bad if you're expecting things to be resolved in a less... crazy way. Rather than trying to convince him he's totally wrong and stupid, try to find a compromise that'll let you pull the stunts you want to pull without being frustrated by the arbitrary rulings (which are, honestly, going to happen if you're trying to do stuff that the rules don't cover).


*Gelatinous cubes are heavy, and difficult to pick up. My last barbarian, may he rest in peace, was killed when a gelatinous cube fell on his head. I find it hard to believe that picking them up and throwing them about is the norm. :smalltongue:

BRC
2008-08-24, 05:48 PM
My conclusion, after thinking about it, is this. You performed an unnecessary action because you wanted to look cool, your DM took offense at this and made you take some unnecessary damage in a stupid way. Whose fault is it, probably your DM's for trying to penalize you for trying to have more fun in a way that didn't really have any statistical impact. Now I can think of a few extenuating circumstances
1. Your DM is a big believer in principle, and didn't want to let you do this NOW, so as to prevent you from trying it later in a situation that might give you mechanical benefit.
2. Your DM may think you've been grandstanding and making things less fun for everybody else, so he decided to bring you down a notch.

Either way, my advice is to forget it, it's not that big a problem (it would be if he'd killed you, but he didn't) and it would probably be best to move on.

Shazzbaa
2008-08-24, 06:06 PM
your DM took offense at this and made you take some unnecessary damage in a stupid way.

Real quick, let's remember a couple things:

1) We have no evidence that the OP pulls stunts all the time, that's just theorising.

2) We have no evidence that the DM didn't like the OP pulling such a stunt, that's just theorising.

All we know is that the OP pulled a stunt and the DM resolved it in an out-there way... but some DMs do enjoy making wacky stuff happen. We don't even know the tone of the campaign -- all we have is a golem tossing a gelatinous cube into a pit, followed by a PC running up his side and catching his foot in the golem's joints for enough damage to knock himself out. That could be vengeance, but looking at the context, it could also be crazy antics that the DM never expected anyone to take personally.

We don't know. All we know is that there are differing expectations in how the OP expects such a thing to be ruled, and how the DM thought was reasonable for such a thing to be ruled -- naturally, then, the only thing that can be reliably addressed is that these two need to figure out a compromise to this disparity, so that the DM doesn't pull weird rulings out of the air, since that seems to be what irked the OP the most.

EDIT: I wanted to add, I agree with you on the "let it go if this is an isolated incident" bit.

Deepblue706
2008-08-24, 06:17 PM
Let's also remember that the DM in particular decided that using an attack roll using the golem's bonus was appropriate for emulating the damage one takes through screwing up on a stunt that happens to involve a golem. And, he then decided that an attack roll of 20 actually meant something, too. Who the hell cares if the campaign is over-the-top or grim-and-gritty? That's just a stupid ruling, no matter how you look at it.

It's either out of spite (which is fairly stupid when you're the damn DM - nobody is impressed by you bitch-slapping your players just because you can), or it's just a lack of consideration. Stupid.

So, I still say he's a damn wanker.

bosssmiley
2008-08-24, 06:57 PM
Sounds like there are quite a few DMs out there who fail at Rule of Cool (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RuleOfCool) ("The limit of the Willing Suspension Of Disbelief for a given element is directly proportional to its degree of coolness").

So disgruntled players, I suggest you check if your DM thinks he is running a gritty, pseudo-realistic campaign or not. If the world you are gaming in isn't supposed to be GRIMDARK LIEK 40K then politely point your DM in the direction of this article (http://chattydm.net/2007/09/04/the-rule-of-cool/) by Chatty DM and this one (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2006/09/how-to-awesome-up-your-players.html) by Jeff Rients.

Together all these things should remind your errant DM that you roleplay to do heroic and awesome stuff, not to be life's butt monkey (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ButtMonkey) (which most of us get enough of IRL). If this doesn't work, seek a new DM: life's too short for bad game.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-08-25, 06:54 PM
Yes, I realize that the DM probably didn't have the time to go on a forum and post his conundrum and get advice. Point is, before you go blaming the DM and trying to prove he's an idiot, I'd ask yourself this: "Is there any possible chance that I might be the one at fault here? Perhaps my shenanigans might be grating on the DM's and possibly other's nerves?" I'm not saying either you or your DM is automatically at fault here. Just give it a little bit of thought before you cry foul.

Okay I've given it some thought.

For the entire session I never did anything similar to trying to run up a golem. I used standard attack actions and my class powers, nothing else. I helped the DM with the rules a great deal, since he doesn't own a PHB. This was not unsolicited, he asked me to do it before the session began.

Objectively I think that his ruling was stupid. He could have said that my athletics check wasn't high enough and I fell down and took 2 damage, and that's the end of my action. I could have dealt with that. Instead he invented a system on the spot that failed to take my character's high Athletics skill into account and basically gave me no chance of not seriously injuring myself. And then when it unsurprisingly yielded ridiculous results (my character becoming mortally wounded because he got his foot stuck in a golem) he expected me to take in stride, which I didn't.

He didn't do this out of spite, we're good friends. Not good enough that I'm going to put up with another instance like this next session, but good.

I asked him why he did it and he said "well I had to." I said, "no you didn't" and he insisted that he needs to come up with improvisation when I say that I want to do an off-the-wall stunt like that. I should have explained that while yes improvisation is necessary, in that case the only improvisation that was required of him was to set a DC for my Athletics check. I could have also explained why the decision he made was unfair and nonsensical. I didn't do either of these things, I was still shocked by his idiocy. And I'm only saying these things because I'm reasonably certain he's never going to visit this website or read this post.

On the side-issue of the golem, yes it is a DM PC. Supposedly the golem is under my character's command, but he only asks me what I want it to do about half the time. The "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" moment was one of those times when the golem mysteriously decided to make a decision of its own.

It doesn't help that he also has an official DM PC, a dragonborn warlord. But I don't fault him for that since only two players showed up to this particular session (our first one). Although I suspect he would have played his DM PC even if all five of the people he invited showed up.

What I really want to do is get him to step down so I can DM, since I think I can do it better. The only thing left to figure out is how to do it tactfully.

Raum
2008-08-25, 07:27 PM
So, being reasonably sure that my DM won't read this, I turn to my fellow playgrounders. How would you explain to my DM that he's an idiot?Don't. Not even if (especially not if) you have completely convincing proof. All convincing someone they're an idiot will do is trade a friend for the temporary satisfaction of proving someone foolish. Besides, that doesn't sound like the root of the problem.

To me as an outsider, the core issue appears to be a disagreement over game play styles. You're playing an over the top game of cinematic action while your GM appears to be expecting a more gritty or simulationist game. Your group as a whole needs to decide what style of game you're playing. I suspect there will be fewer disagreements once you set expectations.

Pink
2008-08-25, 07:42 PM
What I really want to do is get him to step down so I can DM, since I think I can do it better. The only thing left to figure out is how to do it tactfully.

Well, he certainly seems like he wants to play. A straight out suggestion might work "Hey, I have this idea of a game that I'd really like to try. You mind if we switch out for now and see how it goes?"

Dunno how easily he takes offence but, well...It worked for me.

tyckspoon
2008-08-25, 07:45 PM
To me as an outsider, the core issue appears to be a disagreement over game play styles. You're playing an over the top game of cinematic action while your GM appears to be expecting a more gritty or simulationist game. Your group as a whole needs to decide what style of game you're playing. I suspect there will be fewer disagreements once you set expectations.

This is.. really confusing me. How are people extracting 'GM wants a more gritty and/or realistic game' from 'GM gave level 1 party a friendly Iron Golem and had it wrestle with a Gelatinous Cube'?

The most obvious interpretation to me is that the GM likes to run things very spontaneously. He's not bothering to reference actual rules or even check the guidelines on what is appropriate for a level (x) character; his rulings and ideas just go in whatever direction 'seemed right' at the time of ruling. This can be a very rewarding GM style to play with, but at the moment it seems like he doesn't quite understand either the game or what the players want, so it's probably going to be more frustrating.

Raum
2008-08-25, 07:49 PM
What I really want to do is get him to step down so I can DM, since I think I can do it better. The only thing left to figure out is how to do it tactfully.Or perhaps this is the core issue.

Either way be honest as well as tactful. Tell him you're not having fun with the mismatch in gaming styles. Tell you'd like a chance to GM once this adventure is complete. Even tell him you'd like to get rid of the golem and concentrate on adventures the player characters are capable of defeating without the help. Just don't say what you've said here - it boils down to calling him an idiot while stating you're better than he is. I suspect it wouldn't go over well.

Raum
2008-08-25, 08:01 PM
This is.. really confusing me. How are people extracting 'GM wants a more gritty and/or realistic game' from 'GM gave level 1 party a friendly Iron Golem and had it wrestle with a Gelatinous Cube'?I don't know, I certainly didn't get it from that. Of course that's not all that was said. If this is a pattern, the GM is actively discouraging cinematic stunts. Try something cinematic and bad stuff happens. Not my cup of tea but then I'm not defending the GM's actions either. (I have yet to meet a GMPC I liked.) I'm simply saying a confrontational approach is probably counterproductive.

Frankly I suspect there are larger problems. Use of a GMPC and the need to "come up with an improvisation" to match a player's improvisation point to potential control issues. But I'm really reading between the lines here...it could as easily be a disgruntled player.

Frankly the players (including the GM) need to talk about the game. Game expectations should be known up front. That's more than just what system are we using.

EvilRoeSlade
2008-08-25, 11:15 PM
Just don't say what you've said here - it boils down to calling him an idiot while stating you're better than he is. I suspect it wouldn't go over well.

Yeah... that's why I'm using this particular forum to vent my frustration.

Anyway he just called me and told me he doesn't want to DM anymore, so I guess wishes can come true.

Burley
2008-08-26, 03:49 PM
Anyway he just called me and told me he doesn't want to DM anymore, so I guess wishes can come true.

This, by the way, is a horrible way to think. Mostly, because he's your friend.
Just because he made a mistake doesn't mean he's a bad DM. Even if he's a bad DM it doesn't mean that you should say things like the above.

Why did your DM suddenly call and quit anyways? After one session? Are you going to pick up the slack? Are you sure you can do it better? The point is that he tried, and nobody who genuinely tries should be the subject of these kinds of threads.


I have to go apologise to a couple people now, to wash away the giant Hypocrit stamp that mysteriously just appeared on my forehead.

Kompera
2008-08-26, 08:29 PM
You're character was running up an iron golem, and got his/her foot stuck, and then crushed, dealing. I fail to see the problem here, assuming that the GM would have let you do some damage had you pulled the move off successfully.I'll try to explain the problem:

The rules for making an attack, no matter how dramatically described, do not include such things as NPCs getting attack rolls against you except in the case of maneuvers defined as offering an AoO to the opponent (for example Disarm or Trip). And in those cases it is the NPC being attacked which gains the AoO. In no case should the purely fluff description "I run up the Iron Golem and slash the Gelatinous Cube in half" carry such a harsh penalty as the OP described.

First, there is no basis in the rules for this penalty. Second, the penalty is arbitrary. The player had no concept that his description might expose him to this kind of penalty when he described his attack, because the rules don't provide for this kind of penalty. And third an arbitrary penalty for a descriptive attack is a harsh disincentive for further role play in the campaign.

There is good GMing, and there is bad GMing. Everyone will draw their lines at different points, but for me it's very clear that inventing attacks against the PCs for providing imaginative descriptions is bad GMing. Consider that the drone player who said in a monotone "I attack the Gelatinous Cube. I roll a X. Do I hit? If so, I'll roll my damage." would have received no such penalty. With this fact in mind, how is assigning a penalty to the player who gives a colorful description for their attack in any way beneficial to the game? Answer: There is no benefit to the game for this GM ruling.

This penalty arbitrarily assigned by the GM is not conducive to role play, and should be avoided at all costs.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-26, 11:10 PM
This is.. really confusing me. How are people extracting 'GM wants a more gritty and/or realistic game' from 'GM gave level 1 party a friendly Iron Golem and had it wrestle with a Gelatinous Cube'?

Are you kidding? I can't even count the number of episodes of The Wire where they've had an iron golem throw the bad guys in a cell.

chiasaur11
2008-08-27, 12:12 AM
Are you kidding? I can't even count the number of episodes of The Wire where they've had an iron golem throw the bad guys in a cell.

Yeah.
I heard HBO and FX had to get bulk rate deals for all the Iron Golems needed for a bare minimum of gritty reality.

The episode of "The Sopranos" with the Gelatinous Cube was really good too.

CASTLEMIKE
2008-08-27, 12:20 AM
Yeah... that's why I'm using this particular forum to vent my frustration.

Anyway he just called me and told me he doesn't want to DM anymore, so I guess wishes can come true.

I know most of my friend's online alias. You are absolutely positive he doesn't know who you are here on the boards.

Knaight
2008-08-27, 07:35 AM
I'll try to explain the problem:

The rules for making an attack, no matter how dramatically described, do not include such things as NPCs getting attack rolls against you except in the case of maneuvers defined as offering an AoO to the opponent (for example Disarm or Trip). And in those cases it is the NPC being attacked which gains the AoO. In no case should the purely fluff description "I run up the Iron Golem and slash the Gelatinous Cube in half" carry such a harsh penalty as the OP described.

First, there is no basis in the rules for this penalty. Second, the penalty is arbitrary. The player had no concept that his description might expose him to this kind of penalty when he described his attack, because the rules don't provide for this kind of penalty. And third an arbitrary penalty for a descriptive attack is a harsh disincentive for further role play in the campaign.

Give me a break. Ignoring the fact that odds are the description wasn't purely fluff, and the GM would have given a significant bonus to attack or damage if it worked, and were talking about someone trying to run up a moving iron golem. So they get their foot stuck when it moves, between plates of armor. It makes perfect sense, and the rules just don't cover it. While 20 damage was unnecessarily harsh in my opinion, and I would probably have just handled that as what happens if you fail the DC by 10 or more running up, but thats beside the point. Sure, there is no rule for getting your foot stuck, but it makes sense, and should be an option. Had there not been 20 damage taken, and it had been described differently everyone would have been saying how awesome it was. Not to the extent as if the player pulled it off, kicked off the golems shoulder, drew his sword, and cut the cube in half dealing triple damage, but had the characters foot been grabbed, the cube thrown, launching the character at the ground at which point they rolled behind the cube, it would have been viewed as awesome.

yrm2
2008-08-27, 08:40 AM
To lay down some background, it's near the end of our session at my gaming group, and we're in a dungeon cruising around with an iron golem we found and activated. We run into a gelatinous cube and during the fight the golem picks it up and lifts it over its head in order to throw it into a bottomless pit in the middle of the room. Before that happens though, I want to continue slashing it with my greatsword. The DM says that I can attack it from beneath, but since that isn't cool enough I say that I want to run up the side of the golem and leap through the air, slashing it in half. I roll an athletics check and get a 17.

I'm reading this and thinking you guys have to be very high level to be running around a dungeon with Gelatenous Cubes, Iron Golems, and Bottomless Pits. Plus, running up the side of a Golem isn't a beginner move.


So far so good, but then...

My abysmal DM says that he needs to check and see if my character gets his foot stuck in the golem's joint. He does this by making an attack roll for the golem using its normal attack bonus. He gets a natural 20 and tells me that since I got my foot stuck I take 20 damage (apparently he also decided it would be appropriate to deal the golem's normal slam damage. I'm not in top shape at that point (I'm only level 1) so that's enough to knock me unconscious. I manage to complain enough to get my hit points back up to 5, but I'm still not satisfied.

There should possibly have been more than one DC15 athletics check for doing something crazy like running up a Golem but your DM didn't make the right choice.

When I read that you guys are level 1, and running around a dungeon with an Iron Golem, I think you all must be very very new to this game. I don't mean offense but, it's not designed to be played like you guys are playing it and have it work well.

I know that the game is what we make it and rules are meant to be broken but, I highly recommend running through a few modules and things that are professionally written first and sticking to the normal challenges and mechanics until everyone gets the feel for the game balance.

There's just no way that L1 characters should be running around with Iron Golems, G Cubes, Bottomless pits, etc. It just is way too power-creepy.

Maybe an expert, highly experienced DM could pull off a situation where L1 characters run into stuff like this but your DM isn't.


So, being reasonably sure that my DM won't read this, I turn to my fellow playgrounders. How would you explain to my DM that he's an idiot?

Also, if your DM is new, maybe back off a hair on fancy pants moves or discuss them with him away from the game table between sessions. You're probably giving the poor guy mental fits.

Good luck with this.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-27, 10:46 AM
Give me a break. Ignoring the fact that odds are the description wasn't purely fluff, and the GM would have given a significant bonus to attack or damage if it worked, and were talking about someone trying to run up a moving iron golem. So they get their foot stuck when it moves, between plates of armor. It makes perfect sense, and the rules just don't cover it.

Why did he get his foot stuck? He apparently succeeded on the Athletics check. What's the logic of resolving the does-your-foot-get-stuck as an attack roll by the golem? How is it a function of the ability of the creature to deal damage to enemies? (Which, incidentally, puts the odds of getting-your-foot-stuck at 50+ % for characters that are the same level as the golem. That's a bit much.) And how is the injury caused by getting your foot stuck a function of the ability of the golem to deal damage to enemies?

It's a bunch nonsense.


I know that the game is what we make it and rules are meant to be broken but, I highly recommend running through a few modules and things that are professionally written first and sticking to the normal challenges and mechanics until everyone gets the feel for the game balance.

What a load of crap. The whole reason people play tabletop RPGs rather than computer games is that you can do anything, and the DM will find or invent a way to resolve it. (And remember that there's no "No", there's just "Yes - but".)

Half the fun of RPGs is doing unusual stuff with cool or hilarious results.