Bummed out...I'd like some input

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TheYell]

im sure we'd like more details about the issue in conflict

BUT

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

[SethoMarkus]

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

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

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

[Vitruviansquid]

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

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

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

[Pugwampy]

In your defence , the DM sounds like a narrow minded uncreative and inflexible prick afraid of players especially DM players .

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

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

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

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

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

[Vitruviansquid]

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

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

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

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Quertus]

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

[Koo Rehtorb]

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darth Ultron]

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

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

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

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

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

[TheYell]

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

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

[Fenrazer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SirBellias]

Sounds like a bummer situation. Just seems like a bit of a disconnect in play styles.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mr Beer]

Game flow is more important than rules, nothing worse than getting into an extended debate about some petty detail for 30 minutes while the fantasy world you should be creating sails away on all the hot air.

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

[Fenrazer]

-SNIP-

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

[Âmesang]

I can't stand "because I said so." I'm not three years old anymore. I want to know why "you say so."

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

I'm also very lazy, and forgetful.

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

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

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

[Quertus]

nothing worse better than getting into an extended debate about some petty detail for 30 minutes

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

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

[Mr Beer]

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

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

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

[Geddy2112]

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

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

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

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

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

[IShouldntBehere]

Here I thought "The Golden Rule" was to you treat others as you'd like to be treated. I thought "The DM is always right" was "Rule Zero".

[Raimun]

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

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

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

[OldTrees1]

@Fenrazer

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

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

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

[Cluedrew]

Here I thought "The Golden Rule" was to you treat others as you'd like to be treated. I thought "The DM is always right" was "Rule Zero".

The Golden Rule is actually more than that just that but it is so connected to so many religions that is all I'm going to say. At least for now.

[Darth Ultron]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Cluedrew]

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

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

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

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