Follow TV Tropes

Following

The "bitch about your GM" thread

Go To

CrazyLogic from USA Since: Sep, 2009
#601: Oct 29th 2011 at 7:26:27 PM

I hope former G Ms count in this conversation, because I had a horrible one at my old College. And really, the entire group wasn't helping matters either. I was a newbie to D&D (I normally played O Wo D) at the time, and I needed the rules to be explained to me a lot. By week three (the third session) he threatened to start subtracting from my XP if I asked more than two rule questions.

Also, he hated getting side tracked, so we weren't allowed to crack jokes, or even laugh at jokes he wrote into the game! There was one time I giggled a what was clearly a joke when he wrote the story line, and then he gave me six extra hours on a crit Gather Information role for it.

And don't get me started on the other players. Personally, I like to have my characters develop personalities, and then go through character development. Most of the other players' thoughts on how the game should be played can be summed up as this "XP XP XP, I wanna level up into an epic character with no personality!" Which the GM encouraged whole heatedly, while all but calling me stupid for wanted to play the style I usually play.

The final straw was when my character died. Instead of letting me roll a character that was level 10 to match the rest of the group, he had me roll a character at level 1. Naturally, I stopped going to the sessions after that.

If what I say doesn't make sense, please refer to my name. Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE! http://orkinet.lefora.com/
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#602: Oct 29th 2011 at 7:31:05 PM

So, we just did a battle with a boss with over 3000 HP. I think I mentioned some of the specifics earlier.

We won-we always do, since the party has retarded DPR-but I basically accomplished virtually nothing all fight. I finally managed to take down three of the added creatures at once, and had a decent crit, but overall, I'd say I was half as effective as everyone else. Though really, I can't blame the DM for that, as my build is the one that's not as retardedly twinked.

Granted, I like powergaming, but generally not to the point where we've gotten in this campaign. Ugh.

Rationalinsanity from Halifax, Canada Since: Aug, 2010 Relationship Status: It's complicated
#603: Oct 29th 2011 at 8:09:24 PM

[up][up]Your only mistake was not leaving earlier...

Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
CrazyLogic from USA Since: Sep, 2009
#604: Oct 29th 2011 at 8:26:05 PM

[up] I was trying to tough it out, and they were the only RP group I could get to. And it was more of a "they're getting worse and worse" situation.

Also, it was only two months into the game when I left. I'll admit, the players were skilled in milking out xp from every little thing...

If what I say doesn't make sense, please refer to my name. Dyslexics of the world, UNTIE! http://orkinet.lefora.com/
Aldheim Heathen from Saint Louis, MO Since: Sep, 2010
Heathen
#605: Oct 30th 2011 at 10:20:50 AM

Tomu: Wait, have all your recent bitchings*

been about the same encounter? How many sessions did that encounter last?

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#606: Oct 30th 2011 at 11:15:12 AM

We had three encounters

1.) A demon lord thingy spawned Faustian Golems (the things that deal Max HP damage on a hit to everyone nearby)

2.) A couple more Faustian Golems with some otherwise largely non-remarkable bosses (except for, you know, PETRIFY COUNTER ATTACK)

3.) The "Gatekeeper" battle which had 3100 HP. I was pretty much worthless for much of that one. I pulled out something nifty near the end, but in terms of total contributions, I was pretty much meh.

TriggerLoaded $50 a day, plus expenses from Canada, eh? Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
$50 a day, plus expenses
#607: Oct 30th 2011 at 4:20:45 PM

Starting to wonder more and more if I should drop out of my current group.

This isn't a group I joined yesterday, either. Our current campaign has been going on for six or seven years, I've lost count. We meet every Friday (Though we've missed quite a few Fridays, it's still quite consistent.)

The DM is a friend of mine from high school. Hell, we're playing in the same campaign world he used back then, and one of my characters is the descendent of my character from our high school days.

Despite this, I'm getting more and more fed up with his style, as well as dreading the house rules he wants to implement after we're done the big arc in our current campaign. The system is Pathfinder. My DM has been complaining that he doesn't think the system is "realistic" enough. His proposed rule changes include... Let me recall here.

  • Nerfing or outright removing of quite a few spells. Nearly any form of transmutation, teleportation barring a much shorter-ranged Dimension Door, and most forms of overland travel (Flight, notably.)

  • Damage that doesn't heal when dealt a critical hit. I believe it causes penalties as well. Requires heal checks or Regenerate to actually remove.

  • Cumulative benefits to flanking. If eight enemies surround a target, they'll all get a +16 bonus.

  • Nerfing Heal to require a check to remove conditions, and will restore damage over five rounds instead of instantly. ("It encourages players to act stupid the way it is.")

And quite a few other ones.

I really don't understand why. He claims he hates how unrealistic the game is. I find this argument ludicrous, since there's plenty of unrealistic things he doesn't mind at all, such as giants and dragons able to stand without crushing their ankles.

The other thing I get the feeling is that he hates heroics. His rules sound like he wants to take the Heroic out of Heroic Fantasy. And a bit of the Fantasy as well. And I don't understand why. I want to be the hero. I want to take on hordes of enemies. He thinks this is ridiculous and unrealistic.

Other issues with his gameplay style include it being hard for him to admit he screwed up. Several times when we tell him about a special ability outside of the character classes he gave us (Due to Divine/Demonic blessings or artifacts), he'll claim "Oh, you must have copied it wrong. That's not what I told you." Maddeningly, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I Did copy it down wrong, I don't remember specifically what he said originally. But it's still aggrivating that it's always our fault when we try to do something awesome with our abilities, and he says we can't.

*Sigh* Well, I'll stick through with the current campaign. Maybe these new rules won't be too bad, but I'm not looking forward to them.

edited 30th Oct '11 4:21:44 PM by TriggerLoaded

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#608: Oct 30th 2011 at 4:30:34 PM

"realistic" isn't the word he's looking for. What he's concerned about is that there aren't really a lot of "consequences" of battle. He thinks that damage shouldn't have a "I fix it" button. Likewise, the teleport/flight spells are just sort of plot breakers. One thing that was very obvious in 3.5 was that you could get around just about any problem with a utility box wizard. I mean, as much as power gamers optimize for combat, if all you want is to get things done, the solution is to avoid everything and anything, and certain high end spells really do allow for that.

I can sympathize with some of those concerns, but I'd warn him that the game becomes unplayable at that point simply due to all the extra rules, having to rest after every fight, etc. I think there are ways to run a game like that-for instance, if instead of dungeon delving, you tend to face villains in standoff encounters, but with traditional Dungeons and Dragons style of encounters per day, it's just not really feasible.

My recommendation to you is to get him to put what his real concerns are, get them on the table, and try and work out something with him that addresses those concerns instead. For instance, Wound Points was a system created to differentiate normal hit points from "tissue damage" and had the effect of being a bit more gritty and "real" in that damage was sticky.

If he wants flanking to stack, remind him that that's what the Aid Another rules are for, and that if he counts flanking as stacking multiple times over, he's double counting, which is unrealistic.

Also, heroes are heroic. Being able to feasibly deal with being surrounded is what Great Cleave is all about.

Aldheim Heathen from Saint Louis, MO Since: Sep, 2010
Heathen
#609: Oct 30th 2011 at 5:01:50 PM

Frankly, it sounds like he really wants to run something like Burning Wheel instead of Dungeons And Dragons.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#610: Oct 30th 2011 at 5:02:58 PM

Eh, I reject arguments like that. "OH THEN PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME"-no, it's the game system he wants to use, and it just needs tweaks.

The trick is finding the right tweaks that make the DM happy without isolating the players though.

Aldheim Heathen from Saint Louis, MO Since: Sep, 2010
Heathen
#611: Oct 30th 2011 at 5:06:39 PM

It's not an insult to say that if D&D doesn't fit the view of the fantasy world he wants, he should consider using a system that hews closer to the vision he does want. If nothing else, it's a hell of a lot less work to use a system that fits your imagination better than it is to house-rule the hell out of a system that doesn't. (Not that I have anything against house-rules — I love 'em — but it doesn't sound like he's houseruling just because he likes to tinker.)

As an example: the whole thing where he makes magical healing work over time, because otherwise it gives players incentive to "act stupid." Well, yeah - that's quite true. D&D encourages the fighter to go up and get hit with swords and fireballs, because he knows that he can take more stabbings and third-degree burns than his buddies. And he plans to get into four or five fights EVERY DAY, when "realistically," outside of being trapped in a warzone, even skilled combatants try to give themselves adequete time to heal between fights. This is a really stupid method of combat, from a "realistic" standpoint. But instant magical healing makes it reasonable, and D&D's combat system is theoretically balanced, in any edition, around the idea that the cleric can instantly save the fighter if the fighter's been stabbed too many times. Get rid of that element, and a lot of other elements have to be re-examined to make sure they still make sense.

Whereas, if the DM starts off with a game that already has an assumption that combat is not something to screw around with, the players will play more "intelligently."

(NOTE: I'm not advocating a game-switch midcampaign, obviously, because that would be an enormous pain in the ass. Just in the future.)

edited 30th Oct '11 5:18:55 PM by Aldheim

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!
TriggerLoaded $50 a day, plus expenses from Canada, eh? Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
$50 a day, plus expenses
#612: Oct 30th 2011 at 5:25:27 PM

That's one thing that gets me about the changes. I can see where he's coming from. It's not a clear-cut case of the DM being a dick, it's a differing view of the gameplay.

Good call on the consequences part. I'll have to mention that to him. Since 'realistic' is a rather broad concept. That is very much what he's looking for. I know he wants to nerf Create Water and Create Food as well. He did as much during one desert adventure. The desert was under the protection of Ra, so Create Water spells didn't work. We did actually have to pack water.

Likewise, the teleport/flight spells are just sort of plot breakers. One thing that was very obvious in 3.5 was that you could get around just about any problem with a utility box wizard. I mean, as much as power gamers optimize for combat, if all you want is to get things done, the solution is to avoid everything and anything, and certain high end spells really do allow for that.

I do know another player has said as much. He said that when he D Med, he got rid of the Flight Spell. Never really had a problem with a Utility Box wizard in our campaigns. Prepare one spell to deal with this situation, and you end up with one less spell to deal with another situation. Heck, I think at times he actually sets up such challenges that he's expecting a spell to be used. Certainly there were times when a simple spell could have bypassed the problem, but instead we had to stumble and suffer damage and failures because my Cleric doesn't have climb or a similar physical skill.

I can sympathize with some of those concerns, but I'd warn him that the game becomes unplayable at that point simply due to all the extra rules, having to rest after every fight, etc. I think there are ways to run a game like that-for instance, if instead of dungeon delving, you tend to face villains in standoff encounters, but with traditional Dungeons and Dragons style of encounters per day, it's just not really feasible.

Hmm, I'll keep that in mind. We do tend to have very few encounters per day, now that you mention it, so that might not be a huge issue.

My recommendation to you is to get him to put what his real concerns are, get them on the table, and try and work out something with him that addresses those concerns instead. For instance, Wound Points was a system created to differentiate normal hit points from "tissue damage" and had the effect of being a bit more gritty and "real" in that damage was sticky.

Not sure what you mean here. As you've put to better words, what he wants is more consequences for actions. I have had sit down discussions, but I'm not sure what 'real' reason I could get him to admit to. Far as I know, he's not hiding some ulterior motive for trying to make combat more gritty.

Wound points? What book is that from?

If he wants flanking to stack, remind him that that's what the Aid Another rules are for, and that if he counts flanking as stacking multiple times over, he's double counting, which is unrealistic.

Also, heroes are heroic. Being able to feasibly deal with being surrounded is what Great Cleave is all about.

I've tried mentioning that. He just doesn't agree. He thinks if you're surrounded, you should be royally screwed, no matter how much more powerful you are to everyone else. This rule I especially hate. Notably because he keeps telling me it'll probably never come up, despite me recalling at least three times, and probably a lot more, that my fighter was in the thick of it.

As for Aid Another, that wouldn't work. It takes a standard action (Barring special abilities and perhaps a feat or two.) He'd likely dismiss it out of hand.

How it works is every set of flanks beyond the first cumulate the bonus. So two attackers flanking get the standard +2. If there's another two flankers, they'll all get +4. Another two, +8. Maximum of eight, +16.

Certainly there is Cleave and Great Cleave. I just keep forgetting to use them. As well as I keep forgetting how Pathfinder changed the wording on them.

Eh, I reject arguments like that. "OH THEN PLAY A DIFFERENT GAME"-no, it's the game system he wants to use, and it just needs tweaks.

The trick is finding the right tweaks that make the DM happy without isolating the players though.

I've thought of mentioning that same argument myself, though. "Are you sure you still want to play Pathfinder, then? Plenty of other systems out there." Then again, it is the rule set we're all familiar with, so your point stands.

As for isolating the players, I'm worried that I'm the only one feeling isolated. Leastwise I haven't heard anybody else agree with me during such discussions.

edited 30th Oct '11 5:26:23 PM by TriggerLoaded

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#613: Oct 30th 2011 at 6:26:29 PM

My guess is that your fellow players are probably "Smile and nod" types then. They see what he's trying to do, don't immediately have any better ideas, so they just say "Sure, Why Not?." It's letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. Or not good, as the case may be.

TBH, I don't know how Pathfinder works, as I've never played it. I'm more of a 4E gamer. My solution to every problem is "Dump vancian spellcasting!"

edited 30th Oct '11 6:27:07 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

Aldheim Heathen from Saint Louis, MO Since: Sep, 2010
Heathen
#614: Oct 30th 2011 at 6:32:25 PM

Anything you can say about 3.5 you can probably say about Pathfinder. Pathfinder just polished up some of the scuffs and gave a soft-reset to the more broken options in 3.5.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!
TriggerLoaded $50 a day, plus expenses from Canada, eh? Since: Oct, 2011 Relationship Status: Healthy, deeply-felt respect for this here Shotgun
$50 a day, plus expenses
#615: Oct 30th 2011 at 9:25:17 PM

My guess is that your fellow players are probably "Smile and nod" types then. They see what he's trying to do, don't immediately have any better ideas, so they just say "Sure, Why Not?." It's letting the good be the enemy of the perfect. Or not good, as the case may be.

Some of the members, perhaps, though the other fellow (The one I mentioned who did say that as a DM he banned the Fly spell) has butted heads with the DM on other issues. Kind of weird, the two of us have been the only ones (That I can recall, at least) to challenge the DM's rule calls, though we never agree with each other when we do so. That is, if he protests one rule, I think it's fair. When I protest a rule, he thinks it's fair. Every once in a while we both agree the DM is hosing us, and that's the point the DM usually compromises.

I may bring it up with the group if we all support, or at least agree, with the changes the DM is bringing up. Still, you probably are right in that they don't find the changes as annoying and deal-breaking as I do.

edited 30th Oct '11 9:25:51 PM by TriggerLoaded

Don't take life too seriously. It's only a temporary situation.
Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#616: Nov 2nd 2011 at 1:05:29 PM

Yeah, that DM certainly needs to find a new system more to his liking.

Houseruling is perfectly fine, and I do plenty myself in the games I run, but there is a difference between houseruling and rewriting the system completely, especially when his primary issue is with core components of it. Sounds like he just doesn't want to take different player approaches into account and wants you to do things the "realistic" way. As in, the way he wrote it.

You can suggest FATE system, maybe. Anima is also pretty realistic about damage and very restrictive about magic. So, y'know. It really doesn't sound like Pathfinder is for him.

But then again, that might be a bandaid rather than a cure.

edited 2nd Nov '11 1:10:01 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#617: Nov 2nd 2011 at 1:27:45 PM

Insisting that anyone who wants to make major overhauls to the system shouldn't use that system is basically begging the question. It doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the overhauls being implemented are in any way beneficial or not, it's just saying "Oh hey that's different therefor you're wrong." I've dealt with this a lot as a DM, because there's a certain vitriol towards changing the rules from a lot of players. Long story short: remain objective. Think about it in terms of, if this is how the game was originally written, would that be workable?

For some of the variant rules stated earlier, I'd say "no," but that's the point. The gut reaction of "tell him to run a different system" contributes nothing to the discussion, unless the DM and players really are just unsure as to what system they want to run with.

Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#618: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:01:43 PM

. It doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the overhauls being implemented are in any way beneficial or not, it's just saying "Oh hey that's different therefor you're wrong."

You can put shiny rims and spoilers on your mother's '84 Civic all day, but that still doesn't make it a race car. It's just a ricer with lots of tacky shit attached. Likewise, you can extensively modify a D&D system to be all "realistic" and "gritty" and "no players being clever with spells to bypass the plot elements I wrote" all day, but it still doesn't make it a very functional (or fun) system to play for anyone. It's just D&D with lots of arbitrary bullshit attached. Note how none of the changes mentioned go towards making the system any simpler, but just complicate it more? Yeah. DM Protip: don't do that.

This all fails to address the root of the issue, of course, which is the DM, and not the system. But maybe he'd be happier with a different system that is more congruous with his view of what fantasy gaming should be like, which seems to be inclining towards the grimdark side of the equation. He certainly will not find that in D&D, and while he can put a titanic amount of effort into "fixing" it, he'll just end up with a byzantine and arcane rewrite of the game which will prevent most people from ever fully understanding it, and will certainly discourage any player that may have thought of joining.

edited 2nd Nov '11 2:03:56 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#619: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:05:58 PM

But that's not proven. Or true. You're just making assertions about game design that can't be backed up. You're not addressing the rules variants on their own merit, you're just saying that, by virtue of being substantially different from the root game, they automatically have to be bad.

I mean, I concede that I generally disagree with his way of implementing many of the things he wants, but this is the same kind of non-argument argument against house rules I see all the time.

Aldheim Heathen from Saint Louis, MO Since: Sep, 2010
Heathen
#620: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:12:50 PM

I take it my analysis of why changing the rules about magical healing is somehow only visible to me, then.

My book, THE LIVES OF THE APOSTATES, is out now!
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#621: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:26:17 PM

YOUR argument is just fine. I already discussed some of the impacts of it, the appeal, etc.

But Koro is doing the age old "If you don't like the system don't play it!" False Dichotomy fallacy. And I have a policy of calling that out whenever I see it.

Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#622: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:31:29 PM

As I said before, I'm actually all for houserules. I use them extensively as a DM, all the D Ms I do have regular sessions with use them, and it generally works fine. This is not an argument against house-ruling at all, as was previously stated.

There are, however, a few simple points about house rules that should almost always be followed, and the person is discussion is hitting none of those points from what we are told.

1. Simplify if possible. When complicating, do so at popular request. Just because there is no advanced critical chart doesn't mean you absolutely need to have one. Then again, if you think it can be beneficial, run it by players first. If nobody is really interested, then, y'know. Maybe you just do not need an advanced critical chart in that Maid RPG campaign, after all.

2. Always work with full awareness of the players and unanimous consensus. Unless you are trying to drive them away or you hate them all. Or you hate the campaign and want it to die ignominiously.

3. Do not punish success. Write your stories better and get to know your system.

That's really it, in a nutshell.

That said, another reason I'm suggesting that he look at a different system is because it sounds like D&D just ain't his style. It happens a lot, actually. People start playing one system, usually D&D, and stick to it, even when they are using it to try and do things other systems do better.

I knew a guy who started with third edition D&D and eventually was taking great pains to redesign his system into this post-apocalyptic dark-ish but heroic setting. So I showed him RIFTS, bless its convoluted, horribly designed heart, and he's been happy ever since. Mostly because what he was making was even worse.

So really. Change of pace is a good idea. Certainly better than redesigning an entire system's combat and magical mechanics from ground up, with at least two of your players being generally dissatisfied by the whole affair.

edited 2nd Nov '11 2:34:21 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#623: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:34:31 PM

Well, let me clarify: I'm all for opening people up to a wider world of gaming. But I think that there are circumstances wherein a heavily modified system is better than an alternative system, even if the alternative is written for what the heavily modified system is trying to become. The trap is falling into the mindset where modifications to the core are inherently wrong.

That being said, it does require open communication with your players and, frankly, some very good understanding about what makes the game.

Korochun Charming But Irrational from Elsewhere (send help!) Since: Jul, 2011
Charming But Irrational
#624: Nov 2nd 2011 at 2:43:58 PM

But I think that there are circumstances wherein a heavily modified system is better than an alternative system,

Absolutely. I've run a very rewarding steampunk campaign when 4e just originally came out in WWI-ish era world setting (what else, of course? It's steampunk!) where I basically redesigned the system to include things like firearms, vehicle combat and squad and section-level mass combat.

But I only did so because I ran the idea by my group, and they were all not only positive about the idea, but wanted to help me get it right. Which was a good thing, because while my experience as a DM is pretty varied and extensive, I could've never redesigned it in a functional — or fun — way if my players weren't helping me the whole way.

And in the end, that's really the biggest thing. The houserules should mostly originate with the players, not the DM. If there is a mechanic that's dragging the whole thing down, or someone complains that something is clunky and doesn't feel right, well, that's a whole different level from "Here, let me redo this to fit my vision. Oh, and no teleports ever again." I maintain that if the DM really feels a serious need to do that, the problem might be with the system as a whole, and would usually be better remedied by looking at alternatives.

edited 2nd Nov '11 2:46:46 PM by Korochun

When you remember that we are all mad, all questions disappear and life stands explained.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#625: Nov 2nd 2011 at 3:12:15 PM

If the players don't want to play in the GM's vision, they can find another GM-but by the same token, the GM can find new players.

It's not that only the GM or the players matter. They both do.

I mean hell, if it was me, I'd be much happier with weird HP rules than everyone up and deciding to play Rifts instead.


Total posts: 937
Top