GM doesn't care about the rules : what to do ?

[Yorkblack]

Hello everyone !
Recently I found a GM and recruited some players for a Star Wars rpg (saga edition, a d20 system).
We have not started playing yet, but we habe done the character creation (if you can call it that way), and already all my alarm bells are ringing.
First, he said that the rules were not that important because he preferred a more cinematographic play. Okay, nothing wrong about that. Then, we started making the characters. For the feats and tallents, he pretty much said "take whatever you feel is right for your character, just don't be too OP", so we proceeded to take like 5 feats and 3 talents (a class specific feat if you want) for a lvl 1 character. A lvl 1 char is supposed to have 1 talent and 1 or two feats, depending on the specie.
One of the players took some feats and talents without watching for the prereq, forgot some important things to add on his sheet (like the defenses, in saga you have three differents defenses, which are pretty much a mix between AC and saves from a d&d game). I corrected him (politely), and he began whining. There are so many rules, how can anyone in the world have fun with that, this kind of thing (when the most basic rules, which he clearly didn't read, were all clearly explained on three pages in the introduction of the book).
Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."
I am definitely not fond of this kind of method but it would be fine if the GM knew just a little about the rules, but many times he called skills what really are feats, he didn't know at all what the abilities (you know, strength, dex and the like) were supposed to do in terms of play, he clearly didn't understand at all what was the meaning of the in-game effects of feats, to be short, he has no idea how does the system work.
Now I don't want to sound elitist but in a RPG I like to build ly character, decide what he can or can't do in playing terms, and simply play the game the way it's intended (not against a few house rules though), especially when it is known to be very good and balanced.
So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?

[Koo Rehtorb]

I don't think fixing a person's playstyle, who you just met, from the ground up, is a realistic possibility. I'd leave.

[Temperjoke]

Well, you did the legwork to form the group, right? Why don't you give it a session or two and see how it actually plays out? If it doesn't work, then you have actual basis to discuss your concerns with the group, which if the others agree with you, might lead to finding a new DM. If the groups likes what the DM is doing, then you might need to leave. You might also decide that you like what he's doing after all, despite it being different from your usual preference.

[kyoryu]

So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?

His playstyle doesn't need "fixing". It is what it is.

You have three choices, really.

1) Talk to him about your concerns, and what you would prefer to see the game like, with the goal of finding a *compromise*.

2) Accept that his playstyle is quite different than what you're used to, go with it, and see what the experience is like.

3) Find another game (or another GM for your game).

You *cannot* change him. Won't happen. You can talk to him and find a compromise, but "make him do what you want" is something that doesn't happen, ever.

[KillianHawkeye]

First, don't play in this game or with this DM. It won't work out.

Second, sometimes we have to refer to the old adage: "If you want something done right, do it yourself." Start your own game and DM the way you know it should be done.

[tensai_oni]

I understand the feeling of playing it loose with character builds.

But this is why we have systems that have less strictly defined mechanics, ones that prioritize flavor over crunch - like FATE. Or lacking that, you can always play freeform, nothing wrong with that.

Taking an existing, crunchy system and doing something like this with it is pointless. You end up with a party of ridiculously varied power and competence levels, and doing any kind of mechanical (as opposed to strictly roleplayed) challenges turns into a nightmare both for the GM and players.

Tell the GM to run a different system, one that will fit his playstyle better. Same Star Wars fluff, less mechanics. Or if you really want to play saga Star Wars, change the GM. Vote with your feet, possibly taking other players with you if they feel similarly.

[Mechalich]

Part of being a GM is being willing to read and to at least try and learn the rules. Note that some systems are complex, GMs may make mistakes, misinterpret rules, or complete misjudge the power level of any combination of abilities and powers, but a GM needs to make a good faith effort to learn a system. This is especially important if the GM intends to house rule extensively. It sounds very much like the GM is unwilling to put forth a minimum level of effort to learn the system. That's an insurmountable problem.

It sounds like some of the other players are unwilling to commit to a minimal level of rules awareness as well, which is also not acceptable.

If this is even salvageable, running the game yourself it probably necessary, at least long enough to make everyone learn the system.

SAGA's not even that complicated as a system, and can easily be simplified by the means of not including certain sub-systems in play (the Force, space combat, licenses, and several other mechanics can just not show up).

[Yorkblack]

Well, thank you for your answers, ans it pretty much confirms what I was thinking about : it's an accept or leave situation. I don't think finding a compromise is something possible here, though it doesn't hurt to try. I think I will see how it goes for the first session, and if it's bad, which it will probably be, I will try to talk him out of it or find a compromise, though I don't have much faith. If it's still bad I'll just leave, and maybe as someone said, GM my own game, though I'm not very fond of GMing, I prefer playing.

[Psikerlord]

why dont you play and see if you have fun. if no, you GM the next adventure instead.

[GungHo]

You're just gonna have to go with it with this guy or leave. You're not going to be able to tell him "I wanna play rulesy" and force him to become (or enjoy) rulesy. It's possible he doesn't know much about the system or it's possible that he does but simply doesn't care. Personally, I end up being a lot like the latter where I know how everything works, but I simply "de-complicate" things (from my perspective).

The difference I guess between me and that guy is that I really do know the rules, I just have a reason for ignoring them (usually either because they're calling for multiple rolls where one roll will do or because it's something that annoys me [e.g. permanent level/ability drain, because eff that noise]). I try my best to be consistent and tell people what I am ignoring and why. I have not done "do whatever you want for feats", but I have done that for ability scores, and sure enough people have given me a bunch of 16s, 17s, and 18s, and I really didn't care, and I know very well the implications early on, particularly for casters. I will fight harder for race, class, alignment, & general theme choices, because no, we don't need any Munarvi ninjas that have major daddy issues.

I do take input, but I go from patiently explanatory to irritating as sand in the nether regions when someone starts pulling out books, ipads, or whatever and persists with telling me that I am doing it all wrong. I know I am doing it wrong. I did it wrong on purpose. If you're only happy when things are RAW, then you can run the game and I will play right along... unless you were particularly nasty, in which case I will be insufferably RAW.

[CharonsHelper]

I understand the feeling of playing it loose with character builds.

But this is why we have systems that have less strictly defined mechanics, ones that prioritize flavor over crunch - like FATE. Or lacking that, you can always play freeform, nothing wrong with that.

Taking an existing, crunchy system and doing something like this with it is pointless. You end up with a party of ridiculously varied power and competence levels, and doing any kind of mechanical (as opposed to strictly roleplayed) challenges turns into a nightmare both for the GM and players.

Tell the GM to run a different system, one that will fit his playstyle better. Same Star Wars fluff, less mechanics. Or if you really want to play saga Star Wars, change the GM. Vote with your feet, possibly taking other players with you if they feel similarly.

This. If the GM wants to play this way - d20 is not for him.

But - you aren't going to change things as a player. I don't think that you're going to have fun with this game - I'd try again. (I think that you - like me - likely enjoy the tactical as much as the role-playing.)

[Hawkstar]

And, d20 Star Wars Saga is notoriously bad for leaving low-level characters with stupidly few abilities at low levels (Probably a flaw in d20 in general).

Why do you have to be able to survive a TIE fighter crash to the face to be able to qualify for basic proficiency abilities? And god forbid you try to have more than one area of almost-competency.

[CharonsHelper]

And, d20 Star Wars Saga is notoriously bad for leaving low-level characters with stupidly few abilities at low levels (Probably a flaw in d20 in general).

Why do you have to be able to survive a TIE fighter crash to the face to be able to qualify for basic proficiency abilities? And god forbid you try to have more than one area of almost-competency.

I haven't really seen that be an issue. You can't make Han Solo at level 1 - but you aren't supposed to be able to. They do a pretty good job of this in the fluff, such as explaining that those in the Jedi class are really just padawans until level 7-8ish.

[Jay R]

This is what the game will be. You can play. Or you can choose not to play.

And the choice to play is not binding forever.

My recommendation is to go into the first game, expecting an unusual experience that might be lots of fun.

If you enjoy it, keep coming. If not, quit.

But one thing is clear: This is what the game will be. You can play. Or you can choose not to play.

[kyoryu]

This. If the GM wants to play this way - d20 is not for him.

Probably not, but a lot of people don't realize there are games besides D&D.

[WbtE]

I'm definitely with the folks who are saying that it's the wrong system. Have a word with the GM and suggest that there's no point in having a whole stack of rulebooks if the game is going to be fast-and-loose.

[2D8HP]

...Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."....

Sounds great to me, are you kidding?

As a player I prefer the DM handles that mess!

I just want to know what my PC perceives, the rest is rules minutiae, I'm well rid of. If the DM wants to add up the modifiers etc. instead, welcome to it!
If I don't trust the DM to game right, why would I sit at that table?

Anyway:

Spoiler: DM's eyes only

Show

You are a DM aren't you? Because

As this book is the exclusive precinct of the DM, you must view any non-DM player possessing it as something less than worthy of honorable death.

[kyoryu]

Sounds great to me, are you kidding?

As a player I prefer the DM handles that mess!

Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.

[CharonsHelper]

Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.

In this thread & others 2D8HP has pretty clearly said that he's dismissive of anyone who enjoys different play-styles to his own and considers them to be inferior. So...

[Kish]

Hello everyone !
Recently I found a GM and recruited some players for a Star Wars rpg (saga edition, a d20 system).
We have not started playing yet, but we habe done the character creation (if you can call it that way), and already all my alarm bells are ringing.
First, he said that the rules were not that important because he preferred a more cinematographic play. Okay, nothing wrong about that. Then, we started making the characters. For the feats and tallents, he pretty much said "take whatever you feel is right for your character, just don't be too OP", so we proceeded to take like 5 feats and 3 talents (a class specific feat if you want) for a lvl 1 character. A lvl 1 char is supposed to have 1 talent and 1 or two feats, depending on the specie.
One of the players took some feats and talents without watching for the prereq, forgot some important things to add on his sheet (like the defenses, in saga you have three differents defenses, which are pretty much a mix between AC and saves from a d&d game). I corrected him (politely), and he began whining. There are so many rules, how can anyone in the world have fun with that, this kind of thing (when the most basic rules, which he clearly didn't read, were all clearly explained on three pages in the introduction of the book).
Then the GM, seeing that, just said "ok, don't worry about the rules, just tell me what your character is like and I will worry about the rules. In game I will just tell you what to roll and whether you succeed or fail, don't worry about anything."
I am definitely not fond of this kind of method but it would be fine if the GM knew just a little about the rules, but many times he called skills what really are feats, he didn't know at all what the abilities (you know, strength, dex and the like) were supposed to do in terms of play, he clearly didn't understand at all what was the meaning of the in-game effects of feats, to be short, he has no idea how does the system work.
Now I don't want to sound elitist but in a RPG I like to build ly character, decide what he can or can't do in playing terms, and simply play the game the way it's intended (not against a few house rules though), especially when it is known to be very good and balanced.
So, my question is, what should I do, aside from just leaving the table ?

Leave the table. This all amounts to, "The GM isn't running the game the way I think he should!" and there's nothing you should do about that, whether he's running the most awesome game anyone has ever run or is actually doing an awful job.

[2D8HP]

Yeah, there's nothing inherently wrong with that style of play. It's fairly counter to the expectations of 3.x/PF, which are pretty strongly rules-first.

Why is that? DM discretion has always been a part of the game:

Dungeons and Dragons, The Underground and Wilderness Adventures, p. 36: "... everything herein is fantastic, and the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it that way."

AD&D 1e, DMG, p. 9: "The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play."

AD&D 2E, DMG, p. 3: "At conventions, in letters, and over the phone, I'm often asked for the instant answer to a fine point of the game rules. More often than not, I come back with a question -- what do you feel is right? And the people asking the question discover that not only can they create an answer, but that their answer is as good as anyone else's. The rules are only guidelines."

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

(Sorry I don't have 4e)

D&D 5e DMG, p. 263:: "As the Dungeon Master, You aren't limited by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual

In this thread & others 2D8HP has pretty clearly said that he's dismissive of anyone who enjoys different play-styles to his own and considers them to be inferior. So...

Ouch!

I wouldn't say "dismissive" so much as bewildered.

Page 6 of the 5e PHB, pretty much lays out the essence of the game:

1. The DM describes the environment...

2. The players describe what they want to do...

3. The DM narrates the results of the adventures' action....

The O.P.'s description of his GM's approach sounds like fun to me, and also how I remember games of the 1970's and 80's being like.
You get to play a character and experience an adventure while being spared rules minutiae, and the drudgery of making a "build".

I don't understand the problem.

Please enlighten me.

Thanks!

[Koo Rehtorb]

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

Yup, unfortunate quotes like that have done a great deal to damage tabletop roleplaying as a hobby in general by embedding that mindset in a lot of players. Fortunately we've started to get away from that.

[2D8HP]

...Fortunately we've started to get away from that.

What's the alternative like?

(For reference, the games that I've played and somewhat remember the rules for are:
Oe D&D,
1e AD&D,
'77 & '91 "Basic' D&D,
Runequest,
Call of Cthullu, and
5e D&D.

The game I have never played but remember the rules for is:
Pendragon.

I've played a bunch of games, the rules of which I don't remember, the one I most played was:
Traveller (I still remember the "fluff" though).

And I own a lot that I haven't played, and don't really remember the rules for, most recently:
Dungeon World,
FATE, and
7th Sea (the setting of which looks awesome!)

Thanks!

[Koo Rehtorb]

What's the alternative like?

There's quite a variety of game types out there, I guess. One example is Apocalypse World/Dungeon World/Anything else PbtA. One of the most notable features about that series of games is the idea that the GM has their own set of rules which they are constrained by. The rules are not "DM advice" like a lot of older games, they are straight up explicit rules and if the GM doesn't follow them then they are cheating. The games tell the GM, in no uncertain terms, how they're supposed to be run.

[kyoryu]

What's the alternative like?

I consider there to be three primary interaction types in RPGs.

Type 1:
GM: "This is the situation."
Player: "I do the thing!"
GM: "This is now the situation."

Type 2:
Player 1: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 2: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"
Player 3: "I move my pieces in accordance with the rules"

Type 3:
Player 1: "A thing happens!"
Player 2: "And then another thing happens!"
Player 3: "And then another thing happens!"

No game is really purely any of these. What you're describing is a pretty strongly "type 1" game. Pathfinder and 3.x are usually played, still on the Type 1 to 2 line (not mixing in much Type 3), but much closer to the Type 2 part.

[Jay R]

Yup, unfortunate quotes like that have done a great deal to damage tabletop roleplaying as a hobby in general by embedding that mindset in a lot of players. Fortunately we've started to get away from that.

The "damage" done with these rules was to create the hobby of role playing games, make them popular, and help them spread to millions of players who have had decades of delightful games that Koo Rehtorb wishes we hadn't been able to enjoy.

Unlike Koo Rehtorb, I think it's great to have games the way he likes them and the way I like them, and I won't insult the mindset of players who enjoy playing differently than I do.

Koo Rehtorb, play the games the way you want to, and have fun doing so. Please stop being so insulting about us playing the way we want to.

[TheCountAlucard]

What Jay said.

[Koo Rehtorb]

The "damage" done with these rules was to create the hobby of role playing games, make them popular, and help them spread to millions of players who have had decades of delightful games that Koo Rehtorb wishes we hadn't been able to enjoy.

Unlike Koo Rehtorb, I think it's great to have games the way he likes them and the way I like them, and I won't insult the mindset of players who enjoy playing differently than I do.

Koo Rehtorb, play the games the way you want to, and have fun doing so. Please stop being so insulting about us playing the way we want to.

As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules. Fortunately, many people were able to cover for poor early decisions enough that the hobby developed despite them. And games reversing those poor early decisions are helping to make it better now.

[2D8HP]

As I've said before, you can have a bad time with good rules, and a good time with bad rules. The group is at least as important as the rules for making an enjoyable experience. That doesn't mean bad rules aren't bad rules.....

Maybe it was the age I was when I mostly played the games, (10 - 13 for OD&D, and '77 "Basic" 12 - 17 for 1e AD&D, 14+ for most everything else), but when I first played Runequest while my initial impression was "why couldn't D&D be like this? It's just more rational.", I soon wondered, "Why isn't this as fun as D&D?".

From 11 to 17, I mostly played with the same circle, while my initial OD&D DM, went away to college and took up other hobbies (Kendo especially), his brother (who became my best friend) was my second GM and they had very similar styles, and the rest of the players were mostly the same (they really seemed to like me GM'ing Call of Cthullu and my version of "Top Secret"), but nothing has matched the fun of those earliest games of D&D.

But yeah, group matters, if I could cast "True Resurrection", and have my old best friend back, I'd even play Villians & Vigilantes, or Cyberpunk with him.

[Koo Rehtorb]

Maybe it was the age I was when I mostly played the games, (10 - 13 for OD&D, and '77 "Basic" 12 - 17 for 1e AD&D, 14+ for most everything else), but when I first played Runequest while my initial impression was "why couldn't D&D be like this? It's just more rational.", I soon wondered, "Why isn't this as fun as D&D?".

From 11 to 17, I mostly played with the same circle, while my initial OD&D DM, went away to college and took up other hobbies (Kendo especially), his brother (who became my best friend) was my second GM and they had very similar styles, and the rest of the players were mostly the same (they really seemed to like me GM'ing Call of Cthullu and my version of "Top Secret"), but nothing has matched the fun of those earliest games of D&D.

But yeah, group matters, if I could cast "True Resurrection", and have my old best friend back, I'd even play Villians & Vigilantes, or Cyberpunk with him.

One thing I will say, nostalgia is a hell of a drug. I have plenty of fond memories of playing a lot of 2e back in the day. It's a god awful system, completely irredeemable, for oh so many reasons, but I'd still be hard pressed to turn down a chance to play it with some old friends again even now. System matters. But yeah, group matters a whole lot too.