is this GM bad or am i just a wuss?

[Pentius]

edit : I got a reply from the DM about my Campaign 101 suggestion. While he won't do that, he says the current campaign should be closer to our skill level in difficulty (I must admit the Goblin base we just went through was generally manageable in spite of a few close calls). He also says that all we really need is to ignore our experience from typical console RPGs and search every nook and cranny of what we explore (this could take a while).

I guess time will tell if he's right.

This went up while I was typing the post after it(y-yes, I sometimes spend 20 minutes writing two lines. Sh-shut up!).

Anyway, this says a lot to me, and not much of it is very good. It's a good sign that he's willing to 'go easier' on you guys. On the other hand, as someone who is desperately trying to get his players to give them their emails so that he can send out a Campaign 101, I look down upon his refusal to do so when asked. It's just bad form. Also, the snark against console RPG players seems unnecessary, even if you guys were all hardcore console rpg players.

I also have a personal dislike of the "search every nook and cranny" paradigm, sometimes called pixel-bitching, but as per my last post, I am also not a player in this game, so my personal distaste is irrelevant.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So I figured, hey, I have all 3 books. Wouldn't hurt to put them to use. So I did. From what I can tell, the players like the way I run the game in spite of my inexperience.

Glad to hear it

edit : I got a reply from the DM about my Campaign 101 suggestion. While he won't do that, he says the current campaign should be closer to our skill level in difficulty (I must admit the Goblin base we just went through was generally manageable in spite of a few close calls).

He also says that all we really need is to ignore our experience from typical console RPGs and search every nook and cranny of what we explore (this could take a while).

The problem here is what level of detail he wants you to search at. And I'd suggest sending him an e-mail to ask him this. If he just says every nook and cranny, there's a simple answer. Take along your ten foot pole and start tapping. Every brick.

"I tap the lowest brick on the right hand side archway."
"I tap the second brick on the archway."
...
"I tap the twelth brick on the archway."
"I tap the keystone."
"I tap the top brick on the other side of the archway."
...
"I tap the lowest brick on the left hand side of the archway."
"I slide my hand along the edge of the archway."
...
"I slide my hand along the front of the archway."

After ten minutes you aren't done searching the archway and the DM is about ready to tear his hair out. Then when you've done the archway you start on the wall. Starting with puffs of dust to find air currents. Then repeat the every brick policy. Because that's what searching every nook and cranny means.

That said, actually doing the above is a really bad idea - it's both boring and annoying. Although it might be worth enclosing in an e-mail. The issue here isn't one of searching. It's one of resolution. He doesn't want you to explore every crack between every brick - that's a nook technically. What he wants you to do is explore the details at the level of detail he thinks is right. And that takes time to home in on, and needs a lot of DM prompting. The DM just wants you to be more detailed than he thinks you expect, but knowing how far to go will take communcation - and I doubt it's something he expects.

 

[epicbob]

His exact* words on thorough searching are :

"You have to think about searching for secrets everywhere, to verify the possibility of secret passages, to search the different areas thoroughly (especially if you're looking for a particular object) and to remember that combat is not the only alternative."

* We speak french so hopefully this translation is accurate enough.

About his apparent disdain for cRPGs, he plays a lot of jRPGs himself so I think it's something else. I think it's because he considers D&D a completely different beast and so doesn't feel the two are compatible at all.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Several thoughts come to mind.

First off the campaign doesnt sound that coherent or thought out, this makes me wonder if he is doing it all on the fly since he is DMing for a bunch of new players. This actually makes things harder on the DM and harder on the players.

Second when it comes to the mocking just call him out on it. Right at the table when he mocks someone just ask him to his face in front of everyone if that was called for. He might not realize what he is doing and apologize. If he gets defensive or rude then you have a big hint that you could find better uses of your time.

 

[Vaeron]

I'm surprised there was even a second session, much less a second campaign. A lot of bad DMs have been enabled by the "DM is always right" screed, and a lot of players just put up with it. But they shouldn't, and all it does is empower bad DMs further.

I wouldn't have survived the "I attack the closest goblin" scenario. The DM nitpicking the word closest or subcategorizing it with an obnoxious "I shouldn't have to explain this" probably would have sent me into a sarcasm spiral of death.

 

[Tuft]

mispost

 

[epicbob]

He's a friend of the gang, which is why I assume we were a bit forgiving.

Perhaps too much...

The unfortunate thing is, the only other DM I know of doesn't feel too promising, either. (at least to me...)

Whenever someone metagames, he rolls a d6 and if he gets a 6, that character dies.

Hopefully he has a good reason for this.

 

[JamesonCourage]

He's a friend of the gang, which is why I assume we were a bit forgiving.

Perhaps too much...

The unfortunate thing is, the only other DM I know of doesn't feel too promising, either. (at least to me...)

Whenever someone metagames, he rolls a d6 and if he gets a 6, that character dies.

Hopefully he has a good reason for this.

I personally have a rule with my players: they can mechanically cheat if they want to, but the information must be written down on their sheet (that is, if they want to have +100 to attack rolls, they can get it, but it must be written down). However, for every one thing they add, I get to modify one thing on their sheet (oh, you get +100 to attacks? Too bad you're 110 as a human, where you die of old age and can't be resurrected). Obviously, I only do this if they purposefully cheat, not just mistakenly write the wrong value. This also tends to keep their sheets up to date.

At any rate, if your other GM finds metagaming to be cheating (which I can certainly see why he would, depending on the game and the style), him punishing it by cheating better makes sense to me. Sometimes, saying, "you can cheat, but if you do, I'll cheat better" is more effective than saying, "please don't cheat." It just depends on the players.

As always, play what you like

 

[Elf Witch]

He's a friend of the gang, which is why I assume we were a bit forgiving.

Perhaps too much...

The unfortunate thing is, the only other DM I know of doesn't feel too promising, either. (at least to me...)

Whenever someone metagames, he rolls a d6 and if he gets a 6, that character dies.

Hopefully he has a good reason for this.

I can understand why he does this. Nothing spoils a game faster then a lot of metagaming. At least you have a chance of living.

It sounds like he wants you guys to role play.

 

[Pentius]

He's a friend of the gang, which is why I assume we were a bit forgiving.

Perhaps too much...

The unfortunate thing is, the only other DM I know of doesn't feel too promising, either. (at least to me...)

Whenever someone metagames, he rolls a d6 and if he gets a 6, that character dies.

Hopefully he has a good reason for this.

This sounds like a very hamfisted approach to a 'problem' that could probably be solved in a more diplomatic way.

I wouldn't play in that game. For one, I'd lose about a character per session, at a guess. For two, that rule just makes wonder "What other playstyle differences that might come up are going to be handled with in-game beatsticks?" And three, isn't that rule sorta metagamey itself?