Do you like this play style?

[Korivan]

Sorry, internet goofed up.

our dm

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured, when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls. If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it. Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players). Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time. Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

Thoughts.

[Grinner]

Anecdotal evidence (blogs) suggest that keeping the players uninformed of the numeric state of their hit points is a fantastic idea. However, players should at least know the relative state of their health (Perfect, Fair, Moderate, Poor, Critical).

[Vortling]

Sorry, internet goofed up.

our dm

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured, when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls. If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it. Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players). Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time. Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

Thoughts.

I'm a little confused here. What are the players inputting into this game? I can understand DMs who obscure the mechanics to create an atmosphere conducive to "tell me what you want to do and I'll tell you what to roll to accomplish it" but it sounds like you don't even get to roleplay what your character is doing. Could you elaborate further please?

[Shadowknight12]

Wow. That playstyle has managed to perfectly combine everything I've ever hated in someone else's playstyle, and magnify it a thousandfold. I think I might actually spontaneously combust if I ever found myself gaming with such a person.

The core philosophy of that playstyle is tight, unflinching, unyielding and overt control of everything that happens in the game, without regard to the players' preferences, opinions or desires. And I hate being controlled.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured

So for all you know, you're in perfect health until you're dead?

, when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls.

...I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish outside of perception rolls, except more power to DM.

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

Just jokes? This makes no sense and just makes the game worse.

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

Mm hm, mm hm, does he do this for himself as well, or do his monsters get all the time in the world?

Because I actually saw this in the "evil houserules" thread. That thread was supposed to be full of joke stuff no one in their right mind would use.

Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time.

Do you get to see the result of your saves? Because otherwise he's likely to be cheating, and has already decided whether you'll succeed or fail.

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

This is the last straw. At this point, the players can safely assume he'll be just fine playing all by himself while they spend their time doing other stuff. Like playing without him.

[Jay R]

Some yes; some no.

I have occasionally asked a player to roll without telling him what he's rolling for. Consider the following two scenarios.

A. There's an illusion of a raptor, and he has to make a saving throw.
B. There's a raptor hiding in the bushes.

Since saving throws have to be high, and seeing something is low (in the game I'm playing), in either case if he rolls low enough he sees a raptor. But if I tell him it's a spot check, then he will know it's real, and if I tell him it's a saving throw against illusion he'll know it's not real. So telling him what he's rolling for is giving him information his character doesn't have.

I also roll saves if the character shouldn't know that he's in a situation that requires one, such as an odorless gas.

My current DM doesn't tell us the AC of the enemy; he just asks us what AC we hit. Pretty soon we have a pretty good idea what its AC is. (When we see the same monster later, he assumes we already know.)

On the other hand, if the DM started trying to ban out-of-character jokes, I doubt if I could play at all. Either I'd quit, or all my out-of-character jokes would be about killing NPCs who are innocent and crucial to the plot.

[Sutremaine]

Thoughts.

Your DM would probably be a lot happier without any players there messing up his gaming sessions. I suggest you oblige him.

If he's the only person you can get as a DM, then ask him why he needs to have so much control over the players' actions, especially character actions that don't have any dice rolls attached.

[Hyudra]

Sorry, internet goofed up.

our dm

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured.

This -could- work, provided you get an accurate sense of how hurt you are at any given point in time.

When you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls.

Skill check = can be ok. Better if the DM rolls pre-game, writes up a list for each character, and then consults the results in order.

Saves = Generally saving against something involves actively resisting/avoiding it, or gritting your teeth and bearing it. You should get a description of what just happened. Even if it's just, "You feel something prodding at your mind, stirring choleric emotions. You successfully shake off its influence."

Attack roll = no, that's dumb. You're the PC, you're attacking, you should roll, no ifs ands or buts.

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

I can appreciate doing this to keep a certain tone, but combined with some of the above stuff and I can see where it would chafe.

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

Five seconds is rather short, but I can see doing this to keep combat at a fast tempo and keep hemhawing to a minimum. A tad extreme as is. Even as someone that might theoretically employ this rule, I'd definitely waive it if there's newbies at the table.

Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time.

Ehh. I don't like the 'rolling your saves' for reasons stated above. Borrowing your sheet is metagame knowledge and is cheap. Maybe allowable if it's a BBEG with 30 intelligence and keen observational skills, but pretty lame outside of an exception like that..

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

No. Just... no. This is grounds to righteously walk away from the table with your head held high. If he has to control you to tell the story he wants, this entire game is just for his own gratification. Just... no. Be assertive and tell him it's not cool. If he persists, try, "No, I'm the PC, and I do this." If this becomes a problem, tell him there's no point to your being there if he's going to play for you, and walk away.

[Epsilon Rose]

Lets take this in order.

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured

I've seen stuff like this suggested before, and it makes some sense, after all you wouldn't know exactly how much health you have. How ever, that relies on the DM doing a very good job describing how much damage you've taken and you trusting your DM not to fudge things or otherwise cause you problems.

when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff)

I can understand this for some uses of spot, listen and knowledge (after all, you would't know you didn't hear something), but for any active skill (i.e. all of them) it makes no sense.

same for saves

I could understand this for some will saves where you wouldn't know what's going on (like illusions), but it's pretty easy to tell if you've dodged an explosion or forcibly resisted your blood getting ripped out through your skin and you'd definitely know how much effort it took.

and attack rolls.

That is just silly. You would know full well if you hit him and just how hard it was to do.

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

I can actually understand this one. If meta-game conversations are a problem (and they often are) this could be a good way to cut back on them. Of course it could also make the game really surreal. (I suggest you use it as an opportunity to shatter the fourth wall while in character [after all PCs are eccentric and who's the king to argue if they want to blame their woes on some hitherto unheard of over-deity called the DM].)

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

No. Just NO. At this point I'd probably walk out. Especially after seeing him do it to a new player. I can understand wanting to keep turns short, so the game keeps moving, and penalizing people for not paying attention but 5 seconds is waaay to short.

and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time.

Not only is that insulting it completely contradicts some of his other rules. If you don't get to know your HP then there's no way an enemy could know your saves.

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

There are times when it's ok for a DM to describe how your character does something (specifically if you're too lazy or unsure to do it your self) but only if they're following your intentions to the letter. Even then, they shouldn't be doing it constantly.

He had a few good ideas (maybe), but overall it's pretty terrible. You might want to talk with him and ask him to tone it back a little bit. Tell him why you don't like it and maybe talk to the other players first so you can voice their support.

[NikitaDarkstar]

I'm not against obscuring some things (I haven't tried a game run like that, but I'd like to), but your DM seems to be going overboard.

For saves I can agree with some things, especially perception checks, being rolled by the DM. Same with will saves. (If you fail you usually don't know you failed it.)

Saves? Will saves, as I said, yes, the DM can roll it, fortitude saves? Some cases, you'd feel yourself get weaker physically, but you might not know what's causing it (magic, poison, etc. etc.). Reflex saves? No reason the player shouldn't roll that one.

Attack and damage rolls. WTF? Isn't the DM busy rolling for the monsters already?! Sure he might roll if you fumble to see how bad it is (did you just "miss" or did you "miss, lose grip of your weapon, send it flying through the air and into a nearby rock and shattering it"-bad?) but other than that the DM needs to stay away from my attack and damage rolls.

Time limits on actions. It makes sense, especially in battle, but only within reason, and 5 seconds isn't reasonable. But a minute or two? Yhea that's reasonable, especially since you should have been figuring out what to do while everyone else was acting, it keeps the battle going. Outside of it? I don't see a point.

Controlling your RP? No, you decide what you do and when and how to do it. If you state your actions Out Of Character ("We follow them.") and he adds details about the environment ("You follow the thieves through the dark and cluttered alley, taking care where you step, only the gods know what is causing the awful smell, but whatever it is you probably don't want to scrape it off your boots later.") I'm fine with, but if the DM is actually deciding your actions and dialogue, just up and leave; He clearly doesn't need players anyway, and would probably be better off on his own, writing his story instead of forcing you to "play" it.

[Epsilon Rose]

That brings up a good point. What exactly did you mean by:

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

Did you mean he describes how your strikes fell after you've made an attack (how I interpreted it)?
Or does he decide and then tell you what your character is doing out of combat?

[Winter_Wolf]

Suffering through the playstyle described in the OP? Oh, hell no. As has been pointed out, the players seem to be completely superfluous to the session that GM is running.

I sure wouldn't keep showing up to those sessions. Honestly I'm not even sure I could be friends with a person like that.

[The Dark Fiddler]

I think my opinions line up with the majority of people in this thread, but I suppose another viewpoint wouldn't hurt.

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured,

The first I'm okay with, and it might actually take away some unintentional meta-gaming. I'm not going to lie, I've sometimes done actions based on the logic that, "Hey, I've got enough HP left to survive if he retaliates" or whatever. I'd complain if I couldn't get a general idea of how injured I was, though. My character should definitely know the difference between "I'm in a little bit of pain" and "I can barely stand."

when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls.

This confuses me, honestly. I mean, in the majority of cases, how the hell would I not know what I'm rolling for? (Especially attack rolls?) If it's something that I shouldn't know, then... that's pretty standard, but if he's trying to say I don't know that I'm trying to climb that rope or attack the goblin, I'd probably question his sanity.

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

...eh. I can see why he'd do this, but I'd hope that he'd have a bit of leniency.

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

Okay, five seconds is far too short. The principle I can understand, but in practice, it just wouldn't work, I think. Also, I'd hope that he'd give me time to ask questions about the situation and stuff, and not count that against my time. I mean, imagine the following:

Player: Alright, so how are the orcs arranged?
DM: There's two right in front of you, and a guard protecting the shaman.
Player: Right, so I-
DM: Time's up, took too long.

Not fun.

Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time.

The first is fine, the second is meta-gaming, and I'd tell him that if I can't do it, neither can he.

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

My reaction to this really depends on how extreme it is... if he just does stuff like say how my attack connects (or misses), minor details like that? Absolutely fine. If he tries to tell me how my character feels in a certain situation or, even worse, puts words in my character's mouth, though, I'd be quite upset.

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

I can see why you'd feel that way, especially if the DM is heavy-handed in implementing these rules. Like I said earlier, the premise behind most of these is sound, at least for a certain play style, but they could very easily be taken too far and made way unfun.

[Raum]

Thoughts.

Not my kind of fun. Some people like being an audience though.

[Mike_G]

I don't really have a problem with not knowing the numbers. If you as a player know that you have 50 HP and the enemy can only do 1d8 with a crossbow, then it's not a deadly threat. The character, however, won't know he can't die from it, and that's hard to separate.

All you need to know to realistically roleplay low HP is "You're feeling weak, tired, light headed from blood loss. You don't think you can take many more hits like that."

Also "It's a pretty long jump. You're not sure you can make it," is more immersive than "the DC is 25." A character won't know he has a 75% chance to hit so his damage output will be greater on average if he puts 3 points into Power Attack, but not if he puts 5 or more. That kind of thing can go away with no harm to roleplay.

I would draw the line at him describing who I do what I do or say what I say. That's the whole point of roleplaying.

[Mastikator]

Replacing crunch knowledge with fluff knowledge = I like. But it puts a lot of weight on the DMs shoulders, as I expect to be informed of EVERYTHING my character knows. If I get an arrow to the knee I expect to know how serious it is, so I can retire if needed.

[STsinderman]

Seems like a good general way to play that has been taken to an extreme. I like the lack of numeration but not even knowing how badly you have been damaged? (seems odd that the players cant even look down and examine themselves) Perhaps you could just talk to the dm and say that you like parts but maybe if he could take a slight step back.

[Lemmy]

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured
Thoughts.

Not knowing the exact numerical value could work, I suppose. But not knowing how injured you are is just stupid. It's like someone can't tell the difference between a paper cut and a spear through his chest.

when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff),

This makes sense for perception checks. (unless the character are actively looking for something (e.g.: "I search the room for trap and secret doors"). I usually pre-roll my player's sense motive and perception checks. I use these numbers for cases where they don't know there is something to look for or if someone is lying. If they say "I keep watch to see if anyone approaches us", then they roll their skill check and I roll a random die (in case there actually someone trying to sneak up on them).

same for saves...

Yeah, as everybody pointed out, that only make sense in cases you didn't know you had something to save against (an illusion or undetectable poison), and he should tell what happens if you save.

...and attack rolls.

What? Can't your character know if she just hit an opponent or not? What I (and my DM in another game) do is never tell the players the AC or to-hit of the monsters. They tel me their attack roll/AC and I tell them if they hit the enemy or were hit. Not rolling your own attack is a terrible idea!

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

Meh, as long as the jokes don't get in the way of the game, like taking too much time or making the players sidetrack, I don't see any problem with the jokes. It's supposed to be a fun game, right?

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

To be fair, you can think about your actions during other people's turn. But even so, considering how much the situation can change with a single action, 5 seconds is waaaaaay too little.

Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time

.

As it's been pointed out, it makes sense for him not to tell what you saved against, IF it's something you didn't know you had to roll a save (illusion, undectetable poison, etc). But why can't you roll the die? Unless he's cheating, it makes no difference.

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

This sentence alone makes me think you should stop playing with this DM asap. The only cases this could make any sense is if you described a general idea of an action that takes lots of time, and if something happens, he tells you what point of said action you were when the event happened.
e.g.:
Player: "I'll help our hosts to clean their house"
a few rounds later...
DM: "You are dusting off the room when suddenly, you hear a scream"
Anything more than that goes against the whole point of playing a character.

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

I don't blame you. I suggest you ether stop playing with this DM at all, change who's the DM, or tell him how his DMing style makes you feel and demand that he change his ways.

[navar100]

How dare players know anything. The DM is in charge. He is the Master. It is his game. The players are just pawns for his amusement.

[Slipperychicken]

Sorry, internet goofed up.

our dm

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured, when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls. If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it. Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players). Sometimes even rolls your saves, and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time. Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

Thoughts.

I *might* go for not knowing HP, if the GM was exceptionally good at describing this sort of thing, and I really trusted him not to screw me over. A character should know how hard he can push.

5 seconds to think about turns? This really could only work if you want everyone autoattacking the whole time, and neither ToB-type maneuvers nor spells are in play. I play casters and usually take a long time with my actions in any game, so this would be a serious issue for me. Also, don't expect anyone to get creative in combat. Ever.

Characters know how good they are at things. You have a good idea of how hard it is to hit things, especially if you trained for it. If I can't see my skill modifiers, it's GM Fiat all the way, and I had might as well have saved my time learning the system and played Pretend.

If he gets to see my character sheet to know the most effective tactics against my PC, I get to see his notes to know how to crush his campaign. It's metagaming, and stupid no matter who does it.

The "handles your roleplaying" thing is very ambiguously described, so I can't react to it other than to say I'm playing the damn game, so I better be choosing my guy's actions and conversation options. Describing it is fine, but not *telling* me what my character doing. The DM might as well be playing alone at that point.

[Hyudra]

I think the expectation with the turn limit is that you're paying attention & have used the delay before your turn starts to decide what you're going to do & get a book open to the right page, rather than mucking around for 1+ minute trying to find/decide on your spell/maneuver.

5 seconds is too short, though, because you could be put on the spot by whoever acts just before you do.

[LikeAD6]

I do not like this play style. If someone tried to make me play in a game with this play style I would give that person the finger.

[Siosilvar]

It sounds like the DM got ahold of some ideas for how to reduce metagaming and then took them a little too far. On their face, a lot of them are decent ideas (time limits on turns, hide rolls that the characters wouldn't realize they're making, hide the other numbers and try to immerse the players), but as implemented, they sound more extreme than is reasonable. All of it except the character-sheet borrowing, however, I'd be okay with if it were dialed back to an acceptable level.

[valadil]

I've never played a game like that and I'd be curious to try it. But I think it would be more of a weird novelty game than my playstyle of choice.

It'd have to be in a system I don't know yet. I've played enough D&D (any edition) that I already expect to know what's going on and wouldn't appreciate having knowledge taken away from me. In a system I don't know that wouldn't be an issue.

I actually like the idea of not knowing the numbers so long as I get some feedback. See above about not feeling threatened by a crossbow because I have more HP than it can dish out. I'd rather way the character's life based on a description of how he feels than on an abstract number.

Not sure how I feel about the 5 seconds to declare an action thing. Some turns require a bit of dialog just to figure out what's happening and/or how it will resolve. Even if I'm not thinking in terms of rules, I might want to ask the GM if I can swing from the chandelier and kick the bad guy in the face all in the same turn.

Surprisingly, I could live with the GM providing description for roleplaying, as long as I had the final say in what my character did. Something like, "You spend the night in town. Fighter ends up in the stables since he won't leave his horse's side. Cleric runs the confessional at church all evening in exchange for a bed. Thief scales the wall of the inn you all drank at and pries upon the window of the first unoccupied window he finds." "No I don't! Remember I stole that fat coinpurse two sessions ago? I'm checking in the the ritziest inn in town." Etc.

I think it's okay for a GM to supply description to the player's actions. Some groups have a standard operating procedure. If the GM describes that, I don't see a problem as long as he allows the group to deviate from SOP. Obviously a GM could overstep his bounds here, but I also think it could be done right despite the gut reactions of several other posters.

[dps]

It sounds like the DM got ahold of some ideas for how to reduce metagaming and then took them a little too far. On their face, a lot of them are decent ideas (time limits on turns, hide rolls that the characters wouldn't realize they're making, hide the other numbers and try to immerse the players), but as implemented, they sound more extreme than is reasonable. All of it except the character-sheet borrowing, however, I'd be okay with if it were dialed back to an acceptable level.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summation. In theory, at least, a lot of these are good ideas, but the way they are described as being implemented isn't. And a couple I just don't like--for example, while I can see why it can be a good thing to keep out-of-character chatter down to a certain level, essentially banning out-of-character jokes seems to me to eliminate the social aspect of gaming, almost to the point of forgetting that, in the end, you're playing a game and the point is to have fun.

[dps]

It sounds like the DM got ahold of some ideas for how to reduce metagaming and then took them a little too far. On their face, a lot of them are decent ideas (time limits on turns, hide rolls that the characters wouldn't realize they're making, hide the other numbers and try to immerse the players), but as implemented, they sound more extreme than is reasonable. All of it except the character-sheet borrowing, however, I'd be okay with if it were dialed back to an acceptable level.

Yeah, that's a pretty good summation. In theory, at least, a lot of these are good ideas, but the way they are described as being implemented isn't. And a couple I just don't like--for example, while I can see why it can be a good thing to keep out-of-character chatter down to a certain level, essentially banning out-of-character jokes seems to me to eliminate the social aspect of gaming, almost to the point of forgetting that, in the end, you're playing a game and the point is to have fun.

[Jarawara]

Question: How does one become a good DM?
Answer: By being a bad DM.

*~*

Simply put, you don't get to know how much HP you have, how much your injured...

This is ok, though you should have at least a reasonable idea of how damaged you are. Plus, I think the player should at least have access to the base numbers, how many hit points they started with, if only to compare stats with other players. But a body blow that momentarily stuns you and causes pain to your ribs? I could play without knowing exactly what that adds up to in HP loss.

...when you roll a skill check you don't know what its for (dm makes copies of all your stuff), same for saves and attack rolls.

I could live with that. I'd prefer not, though. Too much work for the DM I think. I'd rather have the DM concentrating on his guys and his story and his game, and not all my dice rolls.

Interestingly enough, in the original DMG (1st edition), there is an example of play that shows the players roll to hit on a giant spider - and the DM then rolls in secret how much damage the player scored. So this style of play seems to have been actually intended in the early versions of the game.

Nobody I knew ever played that way.

As an example of how hidden rolls can work, and how they wouldn't:

You come across a chasm. The other side appears to be a sheer wall, nothing to jump towards. Looks like a dead end. But there is a ledge over there, hard to see.

DM rolls secretly to see if you spot the concealed ledge. This is ok, since announcing that you have to make spot rolls would clue the players off that there's something they are missing.

But the DM rolling secretly to see if you spotted **and then also rolling your jump attempts without even asking if you're going across**, and then announcing to the startled players that they all sucessfully jumped across (except for Idil the Elf, who fell into darkness)... yeah, that's just not ok.

If you make a joke outside of campaign, your character does it in game even if you didnt mean it.

I understand the reason for this. Sometimes the non-game chatter goes to far. Some groups prefer to playing in character at all times.

I don't. For me, a gaming group is often my main social contact outside of work. I want to go see my buddies and say "Hey Cindy, how you been?", and not have to say "Greetings, Silvar Evenstar. Do the winds blow favorably upon your soul today?" I mean, I'm a geek, but not THAT much of a geek.

If I were required to stay in character all the time, I would simply leave and find another group. I understand why they might want it, but I simply don't. And I've seen it go to extremes. I had a DM once who handed out 100xp penalties for speaking out of character. One player, in character, described what cloak he was wanting to buy from a merchant. He said "I'm looking for a long, navy-blue cloak". DM hit him with a 100xp fine, because "Navy-Blue wasn't a term in the medieval age." Yeah... I quit soon after, as did the cloak-buyer.

Counts five seconds and you gotta give your action (even to new players).

5 seconds seems a little harsh. I've seen the 10 second rule used, though only in particular situations. If this was every session, every encounter, every round... well yes, I can see how some might want it.

I would not. I would quit.

Sometimes even rolls your saves,

Fine.

and even will borrow your character sheet to examine what to best use against you at any given time.

Unfair.

Alot of your role-playing is handled by him, as he likes to describe what you are doing and how.

On this I will actually buck the trend here and say it's ok. Two reasons.

One, if you've already stated your basic actions, and I find a funny and expedient way of handling the results, I might just go ahead and state it. This is partly due to my being an amateur author, in that I might see how a scene might play out, and just run with it instead of muddling it through in the traditional way. However, my players do know that if I should start taking the character down a path that they would not have gone, they are free to overrule me. Since I rarely do, they rarely intervene in my story-writing.

Two, and this is a whole other debate, but I believe in the fine art of railroading. If the DM has a story and the players have gone astray, and I can devise a simple little scene where the PC notices something interesting and follows it, and it leads him to information to put them back on the path of the story, then instead of fumbling around with "Do you follow the odd-looking man", I'll just say "The odd-looking man seemed to be watching you, and backed away when you noticed him. Your instincts tell you there is something important about him, and so you follow him for awhile. This leads you..." ...back to the story!!!

Not exactly the tactic of an experienced DM with experienced players, but neither I nor my players, nor your DM, (nor you?) seem too experienced. If it works and gets the game back on track, then it should be done.

Edit: OK, I stand by my answer, but I notice now that you say "Alot". Obviously, this should only be done now and then, not all the time. Most of the time, the players should be in control of their characters. Otherwise, why are the players even there?

Personally, I feel stifeld and hand held the whole game.

Thoughts.

Ah, and here lies the rub.

Nearly each of these items seem fine, taken individually. But all together, all the time, yeah, I can see why you seem stifled. You should talk to your DM, see if he can let up a bit. Don't try and get him to end every one of these practices - just try to get him to see he's overdoing it.

Get him to read this thread. Plenty of good responses here. He's not that great of a DM, but he seems to be honestly trying. He'll learn over time what works and what doesn't. If he's willing to listen to you, he'll learn from this and become better. Be patient with him, and maybe someday you'll be raving to us how great your DM is.

To rephrase the quote above: How does one become a good DM? By being a bad DM first, and learning from your mistakes.

*~*

[Hiro Protagonest]

Two, and this is a whole other debate, but I believe in the fine art of railroading. If the DM has a story and the players have gone astray, and I can devise a simple little scene where the PC notices something interesting and follows it, and it leads him to information to put them back on the path of the story, then instead of fumbling around with "Do you follow the odd-looking man", I'll just say "The odd-looking man seemed to be watching you, and backed away when you noticed him. Your instincts tell you there is something important about him, and so you follow him for awhile. This leads you..." ...back to the story!!!

If the DM is so obsessed with his story that he can't find another way to hook the characters without such blatant railroading, this is either his first campaign (maybe second if his first one was short), or he's bad.

[Jarawara]

If the DM is so obsessed with his story that he can't find another way to hook the characters without such blatant railroading, this is either his first campaign (maybe second if his first one was short), or he's bad.

Or it's his 15th-ish campaign since 1980, and he's really that good.

But this is a different topic, so let's not get derailed.

[The Glyphstone]

Or it's his 15th-ish campaign since 1980, and he's really that good.

But this is a different topic, so let's not get derailed.

If a person has been DMing for 30 years and still thinks that dictating a player character's feelings and actions without their consent and free of magical influence is even remotely acceptable...well, there's not much that can be done to salvage that attitude, so they might as well find players who will tolerate such things and have fun.


As for the OP - not sure if joking. That's just one giant pile of trainwrecks on top of one another - like someone said, it feels like a number of anti-metagaming measures turned up to 11....thousand, then tossed into a blender on puree speed and served on toast.