The "bitch about your GM" thread

Bards are hot stuff! I remember 3E had some insane stuff if you were using the Book of Exalted Deeds, for instance...

They were also the class that almost everyone complained was unplayable due to weaknesses.

Here's how it went: We had a rogue in the party who'd gotten himself mixed up in something, and a sorcerer who was considering a marriage of convenience to a minor aristocrat/high-ranking guildswoman in a clannish little town. Add to the mix some major paranoia about a diabolic cult, and the fact that the paladin leading a rival party was claiming that the sorcerer was standing in the way of true love.

Anyway, the paladin started trying to make deals with my cleric and our resident avenger (a class from Dragon Magazine; something like a paladin of freedom or a base-class version of the holy liberator), allegedly because he thought the rogue was evil, or because the party's wizard had created an amulet of undetectable alignment for an unknown patron. We finally started thinking he'd gone completely overzealous and lost his paladin abilities; there seemed to be clues pointing us in that direction.

Then the wizard metagamed, Leeroyed, broke reality, and got the guildswoman killed. We decided to get her resurrected and let her do her own explaining; in the meanwhile, we acquired a divine relic belonging to the paladin's alleged patron.

No sooner were we back in town than the paladin cornered us—with the town guard behind him—and demanded to know the whole story. We called him out and accused him of having lost his paladin abilities, he denied it...and then, we discovered that the amulet was in his possession (despite the fact that he'd previously decried its very existence as blasphemy).

The relic gave us a cryptic message about something that was "not lost." While we were all trying to puzzle this out, the avenger and I (the only ones he wasn't actively harassing) managed to get the guildswoman resurrected, and then let the rogue know about the message. He Sleight of Handed the amulet off the paladin...and, a few detect spells later, we knew that the "paladin" was neither lawful nor good (and therefore, not a paladin at all in the usual sense).

So we started plotting to confront him again...but he looted the phony church he'd set up, disguised himself, and tried to run away. But, as it just so happened, the relic wasn't fooled by his illusions. And it wanted the sneaky bastard dead.

The GM spilled it after the adventure: The guy wasn't a paladin; he was a bard...therefore, he could wear light armor (such as his mithril chainmail), wield certain weapons that a paladin might also use, and cast a few cure spells. He had all of his performance skills in Perform (Oratory), which is why he'd had such an easy time conning the town. And he was the one who'd commissioned the amulet to begin with.

I don't think any of us will talk smack about bards again.

edited 12th Jul '10 10:33:57 PM by FarseerLolotea

But Lolotea, that was TRULY FUCKING INGENIOUS! The guy played it out really good!

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Well gee, he shoulda just used diplomacy. After all, in 3E, with a high enough diplomacy score, you can convince an elder red dragon to be your best buddy.

Most recent meeting wasn't very much fun. (Okay, most of it was pretty entertaining, but only because we have one player who really loves to get into his ridiculous roleplaying.)

Anyway. We ended up in a Hopeless Boss Fight, which I don't have a problem with normally. The part I have a problem with is when we're put in a Hopeless Boss Fight where the only option is to wait around.

We tried fighting for a while (level 3 party of Fighter, 2 Rogues, Cleric, and Barbarian against a massive horde of minions with 19 AC that kept hitting for 10 damage apiece). I almost died twice.

The Big Bad was hanging around during the fight and generally doing nefarious things. I said, "Can I attack him? Maybe stop him or something?" DM: "Weeeeeelll... if you want the plot to get moving, then no. Also, I don't have stats for him yet."

Eventually I started advising that we just scram. (My character is approaching Only Sane Man territory in the party.) This went through short discussion before everyone at the table ended up just getting distracted again and we did nothing. Also, I heard the DM say: "I have a plan if you guys try to run anyway."

Overall it just sort of pissed me off that our only option was "sit around and wait for plot to happen." I don't have a problem with a little railroading (especially since our group really lacks focus), but I do appreciate feeling like I'm actually affecting the story.

...Tomu, did third edition kill your mother or something?

edited 13th Jul '10 11:37:31 PM by Ezekiel

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

Third edition, at least pre-pathfinder (I haven't tried pathfinder) just didn't have very good concepts of balance and all. Everything was save-or-die save-or-die. Of course, this only actually becomes an issue at higher levels, when these effects come into play, but it's also that because characters attack bonuses scaled at different rates, the difference in ability to actually *do* anything became more and more pronounced as you approached 20th level. Epic then had things scale linearly but...

... then we get into the issue of monsters. My god monsters. I remember that 3E trolls were notorious in my games, because they were just way too deadly for their challenge rating. I had one basically one-shot the monk PC (henceforth naming all trolls "Nickslayers." Nick has since stopped playing with me). They built up this idea that a monster of CR X is suitable for a party of level X, and there was a level differential where +2 levels is x2 difficulty, but the math was all just one big load of baloney.

Personally, I think d20 Modern worked a lot better, mostly because it didn't have anywhere near as many of the extremes. But frankly, its core mechanic was the same, and it suffered from a lot of the same problems when you got into more advanced gameplay-I'm looking at YOU, d20 Modern.

That being said, 3E works pretty well for lower level gameplay, but since I prefer caster types, I hate having to actually use a dagger instead of magic missile due to limited resources. I will confess I really got a kick out of Tome of Battle though.

Also, yes: Diplomacy in 3E was just flat out broken, if you did it by the book. Very few sane DMs did it by the book so, so it was de-facto errata'd.

edited 14th Jul '10 7:22:50 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

I bought a monster book for some unofficial D&D3 setting, and early one at that. The CR of most monsters was too low (by as much as four for the really high-level ones) compared to their abilities, and as far as zombies go... let's just say Blue Oni and me had real trouble flooring two when they appeared (we were both at level 1), even if the GM gave them only 1 HD instead of the usual 2.

edited 14th Jul '10 1:54:50 PM by NotSoBadassLongcoat

"what the complete, unabridged, 4k ultra HD fuck with bonus features" - Mark Von Lewis

Yes, it was. That GM kicks illegal amounts of ass, and we all aspire to win even a quarter as much as he does (I say that entirely without snark). And he did everything by the book—no more house-ruling than he would have allowed any of us to get away with.

Nonetheless, it kind of gave all of us the idea that the problem is less with the 3e bard than with people needing to learn to play. Despite the fact that bards are eminently suited to being highly effective con artists (see above), people tend to underestimate them.

edited 15th Jul '10 6:20:59 AM by FarseerLolotea

I've said it before and I'll say it again, it really just depends on what type of campaign you're playing in. 3E Likes to consider itself really versatile and open to anything even remotely medieval fantasy-esque, which means you could play characters stocked up on skills but with crap for combat skill. But since a majority (not necessarily a vast majority, but a majority) of games are heavy combat, those classes which sacrificed combat capability for skill use were essentially useless for a majority of campaigns-outside of a few specific builds, of course.

Compare to 4th edition, which really doesn't even try to support that kind of non-combat oriented gameplay. It's not that you can't play that way, it's just that, you really wouldn't want to-the skill rules are a lot more simplified, after all.

Really, bards have, then and still, the most versatility of any class. They are the Red Mage of Dungeons and Dragons. And in cases where versatility is key-as in the case of "I'm pretending to be a paladin," that makes them Godkings on Earth. But that doesn't really mean that the common interpretation of a Bard's usefulness is wrong-merely that, perhaps, it's important to remember to keep things in their proper context.

Then again, as was previously alluded to, 3rd edition killed my mother, so I have to dump on it at every opportunity.

...which mostly seems to involve blaming the system for GM-related problems.

In a topic about GM fuckups.

Oh yeah, that reminds me: My Sunday GM is running a Star Wars Saga Edition campaign.

He told us that the game would be mostly skill-oriented, and we should come up with builds that allowed us to maximize our coverage of important skills.

So of course guest what we've been doing pretty much nonstop for the last three or four sessions.

edited 15th Jul '10 10:38:08 AM by Ezekiel

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

A sufficiently good GM can compensate for a bad system. But he shouldn't have to, and if a GM is using a system where he doesn't have to compensate, presumably, he'll end up doing a better job. But I'm not even trying to make subjective statements like good or bad. Just that 3E had certain issues-as 4E does. I had a lot of fun playing it at the time, don't get me wrong, but looking back with the 20/20 awesome superpowers of hindsight, it had some seriously stupid parts to it.

Which is natural. All systems are fundamentally flawed-and I don't just mean RP systems. But if you want to be upfront about things, you recognize the flaws and how to deal with them.

Fundamentally, the problems with 3E were, in my experience, what the system tells you to be the case, and what is, in practice, the case. If the system is telling you something that's wrong, then obviously, if you're an experienced GM, you've hit the fact that it's wrong ahead of time, and can compensate. But that extra "hit" that a GM has to go through is definitely a flaw-it's not somehow less of one by virtue of the fact that with skill and training, a GM can overcompensate.

It's like saying that a rule isn't broken, because every sane GM has a house rule that ignores it. Honestly, how many GMs do you know who actually played by the Diplomacy rules as written? The "I can convince anyone to do whatever I want because I have magic items that give me a +whatever bonus" type? I don't know a single one.

I suppose you can make an argument that the sort of "Common Law" of 3E was sound, and I'd probably agree with that. Once the players (as in, participants-G Ms and otherwise) made their own adjustments, things spread around, and like actual common law, it tends to move towards the most efficient outcome, hardening and improving the system. However, the base of the system-RAW-do not actually get improved. And to the extent that these are what I criticize, I would think it to be a bit misguided to become indignant about said criticism.

Though, I suppose you are right in the sense that it may not well be well placed for this thread-unless I was bitching about a GM who played by RAW when the RAW was clearly in "the wrong."

Ooo ooo! Have you been participating in non-skill based epic combat?!

edited 15th Jul '10 10:46:36 AM by TheyCallMeTomu

BTW: Let me make something very clear.

I am a very tongue-in-cheek type of writer. I will often subvert my own posts. I do not use smileys because I think they look stupid. That does not mean that everything I am saying is Serious Business.

After all, 3E did not kill my mother... except in the sense that she fumbled on her fortitude save.

This wasn't a problem with the system, or a GM fuckup. It was a GM almost fucking us up, while going entirely by the book, because his NPC successfully conned almost everyone.

Let's say that I were to use this GM as the basis for a military strategist character in a work of fiction. Said character would indubitably be accused of Mary Tzu status.

edited 15th Jul '10 7:49:32 PM by FarseerLolotea

I'm not certain, but I think he was responding to my rant.

Ah, I see. It was somewhat hard to tell.

On a note of personal disappointment, the GM who likes running Star Wars games (the same one I've complained about before, the one with the Balor) won't let me play a Jawa anymore. I like playing Jawas. I played two Jawa characters before and they were awesome.

(If anyone's wondering how I was able to play a Jawa at all, I found ways of communicating with the party - the first one had a translator built into a cybernetic arm.)

But, pretty much arbitrarily, the GM declared a blanket ruling a while back that disallowed any race that couldn't speak Basic unaided. Since I'm the only one who's ever PLAYED such a race, my assumption is that this was specifically targeted at me, which annoys me because Jawas are one of my favorite races to play.

(The second was a Jawa Jedi. Pause and let that image sink in.)

He's actually told me he doesn't like the kind of characters I like, which is to say... small-sized characters (fuzzy also preferable but not required). It's vexing. I guess I'll have to take out my frustration over this matter on the NPCs with a Squib tensor rifle.

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

Sorry Ezekiel, I'm with your GM on this one. In the same way that midichlorians are bitched about as having "ruined the franchise" small furry creatures create an entirely different atmosphere for a game or setting. It's (one of) the reason(s) there are no halflings in the Dn D game I run...

... Though, there ARE gnomes. But they're badass mad scientist gnomes, so it's okay. Honestly, the important thing to ask is, does your character fit into the overall "flow" of the game? If you're met with a situation where you cannot create a character that you want to play that simultaneously fits into the overall flow of the game, said game is probably not for you.

edited 27th Jul '10 5:22:55 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I already said this was something that just bugs me personally about the GM's style. I don't agree that the type of character is disruptive to gameplay and you sound argumentative when you just butt in to say that. It's just a personal gripe about a GM in a topic, once again, specifically for griping about GMs. It's not even an accusation, just... a matter of annoyance.

Part of the appeal of tabletop games for me is the ability to fit any type of character. And in a fantasy or sci-fi setting, it's really already pretty much anything goes. And I can't participate in many roleplaying games - so why shouldn't I have the right to be annoyed if I can't use the kind of characters I like to use in the ones I am able to play in?

edited 27th Jul '10 7:09:27 PM by Ezekiel

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

Let's try to keep it civil here.

I'm bad, and that's good. I will never be good, and that's not bad. There's no one I'd rather be than me.

Well, I suppose, you could always join my game.

Then you could bitch about me :D

Edit: That being said, do you have an off-line games only policy, or have you tried online gaming?

Edit edit: I confess I completely gave up on offline gaming a long time ago. I basically never join up with other people's games online-I guess it's just some sort of social anxiety thing where I don't want to have to get into a new group. I have my own little niche of online friends, and I confess, I get pissy too when games are organized in a way that necessarily excludes me from them.

My apologies if I come off as preachy-I have this standard "problem solver" mentality where I try and analyze the source of conflict and address it directly in a way that leads to "answers," but that often completely misreads the mood.

Edit Edit Edit: So, bitching about my DM, the new game I'm in has this weird "Wild Magicy" system for arcane magic. Basically whenever you cast an arcane encounter or daily power, you get "corruption" and you have to fight off against that corruption. Okay, fun, I'm sure. The problem is that the game starts this Thursday, and we still don't have any idea of the actual specifics of the game. I mean, it's like a defacto ban on arcane characters because no one has any idea as to whether or not the system is a deal breaker or not. Kind of a pain.

Edit Edit Edit Edit Edite Edi-oh fuck it: Considering that you and I don't seem to get along, how I apparently have this ridiculous Problem Solver attitude, wanna be my The Rival to my Messiah Complex?

It may have seemed funny at the time, but suddenly that feels too much like trolling.

edited 27th Jul '10 7:13:02 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

As far as online vs. offline, I tried playing online D&D - the only campaign I ever got to join online that actually managed to get started just kind of fell apart shortly thereafter. I also have this thing about not liking voice chat like most people do - partly because if anyone overhears you you end up sounding insane, partly because I just don't like broadcasting my voice over the internet unless it's in prerecorded form.

edited 27th Jul '10 7:14:12 PM by Ezekiel

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

I use IRC and Maptools. There's no voice interface involved at all. Most of the people in my "clique" actually were really against the idea of using Vent when I brought it up.

I kind of feel that Vo IP based RP moves faster (Edit: I have never TESTED this theory)-4E, for instance, tends to take me 2 hours or more for each individual battle, and I know a lot of that is probably due to the transaction costs of rounds when it comes to people having to realize it's their turn.

Sorry once again if I've been a bit of an asshole BTW.

edited 27th Jul '10 7:17:25 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

I don't use IRC much, but if I could join a D&D group that's actually active and that I can keep up with, I might. I prefer 3.5 to 4E, though, partly because of familiarity, partly because it seems to me that 3.5 allows greater control over the minutiae of character mechanics, partly because it seems like a lot of 4E players have a kind of elitist attitude about it... I'm not totally opposed to 4E, though.

And, it's alright, if the topic were intended for something else my statements would basically have been setting up for a debate, I just really don't feel like calmly debating that particular subject, especially here.

The comics equivalent of PTSD.

Understandable.

I mean, I think 3E has serious problems. I hear good things about pathfinder, but for whatever reason, have never looked into it.

3E and 4E have really substantially different design philosophies. 3E is made to be able to do anything. 4E is made to be a bit more self-contained. You can really get a grasp of their respective marketing styles. 3E was the open source gaming license, after all-4E doesn't try to do that. So I can definitely sympathize with the more "political" concerns about the editions.

Dn D online can be fun, but it's all about Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. But the saving grace is that because you don't have to spend a truckload of energy meeting new people in person, buying a bag of chips, etc, as players and GMs, we can join or start a game (respectively) and if things go south, so what? It's sort of a machinegun approach I suppose.

Personally, as I said, I've developed a closely knit group of friends I play with. I'm occasionally looking for new people myself-though, I wouldn't recommend you join my group, just because I tend to be a bit of an asshole (I try and at least be a self-aware asshole), but, a lot of places are always recruiting. After all, groups aren't formed from stardust-everyone's gotta start somewhere.

Edit: For the record, as a 4E player, I tend to hear 3E players being elitist. The line that most 4E haters will drop is something along the lines of "4th edition is not a roleplaying game!"

Edit Edit again because I can never say everything I want to at one time: You know, come to think of it, a lot of the issue is how much energy does it take to get involved in a game? I occasionally get inspired to run "one-shot" or "throw away" games. Things that I can just sort of play around with and experiment, but don't put too much emotional energy into. However, a lot of people reject that style of gaming.

That being said, 4th edition has become increasingly targeted towards people who "Left the game because they didn't have the time." Wizards has made statements about how some of their tournament play stuff was based on that idea as well. So, if you're one of the many people who insists on enduring deep play, you may find that the marketing strategy just isn't towards you.

I personally radically prefer deep play, but because it can be so hard to get and then KEEP a game going, especially online, sometimes I resolve to start a "throwaway" game up, just for a few weeks. But those rarely get very far. Still, the act of designing a campaign keeps me busy.

edited 27th Jul '10 7:50:11 PM by TheyCallMeTomu