The "bitch about your GM" thread

I did mention the possibility of trying a different system to my DM before. He dismissed it out of hand. He didn't fully clarify why (At least sufficiently) but it's a mix of reasons. The difficulty of relearning an entirely new system. He likes the bare bones of D&D and the D20. The one argument that really got to me is that he barely even considered other systems worthy of consideration because they "lack support." I don't get it, and perhaps he didn't explain himself well, but essentially the lack of support for other systems (Which may tie into the sheer amount of 3.5 and Pathfinder books we have) is a reason to not change.

Worse than RIFTS? Dear Sweet Gygax, that system must have been atrocious!

Not sure if I mentioned it, but he did say that some of the rules of Pathfinder really hampered his own enjoyment of the game (I think he was referring to the above lack of consequences for actions.) He has mentioned a willingness to balance between what the players want and what he wants. After all, if he's not having fun D Ming, then what's the point of doing so?

It's why I mention thinking I should drop out of the group before I storm out in anger. If the rest of the group is happy enough, no need for me to drag them down.

Well, make sure there's not a compromise where everyone can be happy first.

One thing to consider: if he wants damage to have consequences, perhaps he should look at changing the massive damage rules? d20 Modern has rules for massive damage that make suffering hits potentially devastating for instance.

Well, Trigger, they are your old gaming buddies. Were I in your position (at least, what you describe here), I would try my best to stay with them, too. After all, tried and true circle of friends usually makes for some very fun times.

One thing I would recommend as a viable alternative is maybe running a game of your own with your group sometime, if you feel like you are up to the challenge. There is no better way to diversify your group's (and, in fact, your DM friend's) perspective than have them try another system and like it.

And really, if he wants a more down-to-earth feel while still being semi-magical, maybe try out d20 Past?

Combining d20 Modern, Urban Arcana, and d20 Past allows you to treat magic as more mystical, teleportation and the like is waaaay harder, but you can still level up. Higher defense values (not from gear, but rather from level) mean characters get hit less, but the massive damage rules mean that when they do get hit, there's a chance of them being reduced to 0 (which can get deadly if not treated properly! Especially with Coup de Grace).

Though again, "Lack of Support" is a major issue there I suppose. I absolutely loved d20 Past conceptually-I made a pirate game using it once-but it's a bit ad hoc at times.

Thanks for the advice, everybody. I'm going to see about a quick meeting next game, see what the group thinks.

I know this is the 'bitch' not the 'boast' thread, though I will say I like his rationale for why there's going to be a fundamental shift in how magic works. Right now, we're nearing the end of the campaign, fighting against one of the three beings who are supposed to protect this plane. He's gone rogue and is now trying to reshape reality in his own image. The DM has pretty much stated that he's gone far enough in his plan that even if we stop him, there will be a huge backlash that changes Magic.

Aldheim, you mentioned something about healing magic and being ignored. I assume you meant this line:

I have brought it up with my DM as well that I question if he's really thought about the long-term effects of his rules, and changing the nature of the game. Pretty sure I mentioned as well that he needs to watch his encounters and the powers of some spells that he's changing. Namely, if he's nerfing them, be sure to drop them a level or something equivalent. I don't quite remember what he said, though he's probably aware these new rules are a work in progress. Still seems confident that they will work.

I was mostly picking a fight with Tomu.

...what game are you referring to?

Oh. Right. The horrifyingly misogynistic/racist one? FATAL or whatever.

I'd say there are lots of systems worse than RIFTS, but few as well-marketed despite its glaring flaws.

So, the DM for my Wednesday game has allowed the psion to use Forced Opportunity, meaning that the two and a half strikers can all basically attack twice per round, dealing insane damage, UTTERLY demolishing any semblance of game balance.

/is the DM for his Wednesday game...

I see many monsters immune to forced movement in your future.

Why would there be monsters immune to forced movement?

It's granted attacks that have become the problem. Knew I shoulda prohibited lazylord styles from the get go, but the psion is pretty useless in situations where I throw high will enemies, so I figured I'd let her be part lazylord. But the effect is doubling party DPR!

It's uncanny.

All this talk about DPR makes it sound like you are playing somekind of highly complex raid in an MMO.

As a Game Balance Freak, I care about the numbers. Being able to objectively quantify the output of the party is helpful to that end. A lot of people complain about 4E for being an MMO ripoff or whatever, but honestly, all it is is a game that more easily allows for meaningful analysis. I don't think that's a bad thing at all.

It's like the allegory of Plato's Cave. Now that I'm out of the cave, I can see "holy shit, that stuff back there was super broken." 'cause I have the numbers.

I guess you can argue ignorance is bliss though. That's probably the case for a lot of people when it comes to game balance issues.

So... I'm usually not one who complains about railroading. I've used it more than a few times, I was subject to it as a player even more, and all was fine and dandy. My players aren't usually very comfortable with too open-wide games anyway. But what happened to me last week was just too much for me to handle. I'm still pissed about it.

We were playing Anima Beyond Fantasy. Long story short, we had to intercept a package during a city-wide riot; we succeeded, but one of us got caught for unrelated reasons. So, we were looking for him afterwards, under our respectable and seemingly innocent identities. We are intercepted by an Inquisitor, someone you don't really want to mess with (I mean, is there a single sympathetic inquisitor anywhere, ever?). He told us our friend has spilled the beans and confess we had stolen an item from him. In all innocence, we say we never did such a thing (we honestly didn't know who this crate belonged to).

My DM then said: "Alright then, you get thrown in a chamber, and get tortured until you confess every single thing you did that night."

I was... surprised by this sudden turn of events, to say the least. We then had a conversation that went something like this:

• Me: Huh, I'm not really sure my character would appreciate that. Can I resist it, somehow?
• DM: Sure, you can attack him if you want. Go ahead.
• Me: *roll pretty high*
• DM: *roll* Okay, roll for dodge.
• Me: Huh... I was the one who attacked, you're aware of that?
• DM: Roll anyway. [Rules-wise, it's possible, he would just have to roll a parade twice as high as mine or something, something who'd need tremendous amounts of skill considering my roll]
• Me: Okay then. *roll pretty high again*
• DM: You're knocked-out. You're dragged to the chamber and tortured, you squeal every information he wants. No need for a Willpower check.

... WOW. That has to be the most blatant disregard for rules and narration I have ever seen. Not only the Inquisitor must have been so overpowered he wouldn't fit in any campaign to achieve that kind of combat feat (he didn't even list the damage I took, just instant KO; and no, he wasn't using a blunt weapon, he had a freaking knife), meaning we had absolutely no chance to resist him; but also, he uses torture so lightly, as casually as going grocery shopping. We didn't get to roleplay it, we didn't get to defend ourselves, we didn't get any chance to lie or sweeten the truth. No, "you're tortured, you squeal, the end".

It gets better: we obviously didn't suffer at all out of that torture session. Because right after that, the day after to be exact, he decided to send us in a mission in order to clear our names and get out of town alive, because he really wanted his crate back. And we were all in condition to do just that, apparently! It's funny, when you say "Medieval torture conducted by a fanatic man", I'm inclined to imagine some physical and psychological scars that goes with it. You know, broken ribs, fingers cut off, inability to stand up for weeks, massive blood loss, and several mental traumas to go with it? But nope! We're apparently just fine, full HP even, and got right back on duty.

He didn't even try to make this part impact in any way on the story. It was just a plot device to railroad us to the next mission, which is apparently getting back what we had so much trouble stealing in the first place, under the orders of Mr. Awesome-Unbeatable-NPC-of-the-day.

It's a good thing I had to go early and didn't get to play the end of the game. Because I was too pissed off at this to do any constructive play after that. I would have probably tried to piss off the DM and end up dead.

edited 6th Mar '12 9:19:22 AM by Talden

Someone needs to remind my GM what 7 successes means in new Wo D. I rolled it, and she was all "okay, that doesn't work, but you buy some time".

huh? Meanwhile, other players are running roughshod over the story with far less.

My theory: never let numbers get in the way of a good story.

More to the point, never let a player roll for something if there's literally no possible set of rolls that you're going to allow have any meaningful effect.

This is just a minor thing that's bugging me about our GM. It's trivial compared to the bulk of the stuff in this thread, and overall the GM does a good job, but one thing that bothers me about him is that in our Savage Worlds Campaigns that he runs, he always requires that everyones Player Characters have the Loyalty and Heroic hindrances (granted, he allows the regular hinderance additions as well, but still).

He says it's because he likes having characters in his campaign that fit that role or something to that effect, but it just strikes me as off and I'm not keen on the idea of every character in every campaign fitting into those two particular roles.

edited 7th Mar '12 11:47:08 AM by SpaceJawa

Yeah, that's kind of my point. If it wasn't going to work no matter what I rolled, it would have been nice to know. And if another player can totally derail the plot with 4 successes, I ought to be able to help it along with 7.

My current campaign has had two D Ms so far. Number 1 and number 2. Number 1 enforces powergaming and optimizing builds to ridiculous levels, with no bother for any justification. Quests and battles are only a means to gaining levels, the plot is, well, when its not completely absent it happens very far away from the actual P Cs and said P Cs in no way are able to affect it, to the point where we are not even entirely sure what the objective is. As a story oriented guy, this is incredibly frustrating. Also, this campaign has turned him into a [1] and rarely does a week goes by when he doesnt kill a Pc, leaving his individual plotlines unresolved. Also, said PC is usually mine.

Still, could be worse. Game Master number 2 caused a total party wipe with a sand trap that came out of nowhere and for no apparent reason. He does care about actually having a plot more, but usually its convoluted to the point of being incomprehensible. Still, could be bitterness on my side since he spawned my Half Orc Barbarian right next to a red dragon in a very dark cell, bereft of all his equipment. Naturally he died.

Tell them both they suck, flip the table, and leave. Not necessarily in that order.

Yeah-leave first, THEN flip the table.

After you've done this, take up the Randi Challenge. If you can do it again in laboratory conditions, you can make a cool million bucks. Now that's a lot of sourcebooks.

I am sure there is psyonic class that canuse telekinesis to flip the table from outside the actual room.

Also, it depends on the table. Card table, sure. Coffee table, okay. Banquet hall table that seats twenty, you might want to skip that part and just knock down his GM screen instead.