If the DM isn't bothering to play by the rules, why should the players be expected to? Explain that first.
The DM sets the rules....period. I don't care what the books say the rules are. If a DM wants to change those rules, he is in his right to do so. But if he changes something, he is obligated to alert the players of it beforehand. If he doesn't, he's commiting a crime and should be forced to listen to Miley Cyrus CDs.
If you don't like his rules, explain to him that you don't like the rules. If he won't compromise, then don't play. Why is that such a hard concept for players to grasp? Instead, players would rather go online and talk about how crappy their DM is. It would be as silly as if the DM came online and complained about how that player sucks cause he needs to "go by the book" and can't handle roleplaying without proper "rules".
What you fail to grasp is that if a DM is using his own set of rules, then he should be allowing the player to use that same set of rules. If he isn't, then the DM is cheating. If the DM is allowing the players to use the same set of rules (which he should be), and a player goes and reads an adventure, the player is doing nothing but cheating. He's not getting "revenge" and he's not being
evil; he's just flat out being a cheating prick.
In the OPs case, unless I have missed something, he's not even talking about his DM using rules that the player is unable to also use. From what I've read, it sounds like the DM is just handling xp awards differently, using imbalanced encounters (but if player death is still uncommon & they are defeating the challenges, who the hell cares?), and finally, I think he was saying the DM accuses the players of not being diplomatic before an encounter, even though the DM isn't giving them the chance to be diplomatic first.
If I'm missing where he's saying the DM is using rules that the player does not get to use, then please correct me if I'm wrong. I could have honestly missed that. But if not, then your argument towards this guys DM is misguided.
If the game was more fun, do you think the players would be complaining about it?
Where did I say "more fun"? I said, "fun". All a guy can do is try to provide "fun" for other players. I personally find adventuring, fighting, roleplaying, & character development the most fun parts about playing D&D. "Rules" are on the bottom of my fun list. I play D&D to have fun, and if I'm going to DM, then "I" want to have fun. So I will provide the players with what I think is fun and hope they'll have a good time. If a player finds the rules to be the most fun part of the game (which is sounds like the OP does), then all I can do is hope he'll still get enjoyment out of the fun I try to provide him with what I think are my strong points as a DM (providing fun adventures, interesting NPCs, and cool encounters). If the player can't suck it up and enjoy that, then there is nothing wrong with him finding another game.
Perhaps it is that the attitude of players is only now catching up with the overwhelming sense of entitlement most DMs seem to have.
I like it when people accuse DMs of having a sense of entitlement
Who are the players that usually say that? The ones that have an overwhelming sense of entitlement , that's who.
For every 1 DM that you can accuse of having the "it's me or nothing" attitude, I can point out a dozen players that have the "it's me or nothing" attitude. The players I knew when I was younger always had respect for the DM. Sure, we'd argue about something every so often (only cause nobody is perfect & neither are DMs), but overall, we went with what the DM said and
somehow managed to have a blast playing D&D. I never had a problem just going with the flow as far as rules are concerned. I never see players posting online and mentioning how they respect the effort a DM puts in to provide a good game. But man, how many times have I seen players say, "If I take the time out of my precious life to attend the DMs game, he
better be running a perfect game for
me!"
Except we aren't talking about house rules here. We are talking about simply ignoring a chunk of the rules by fiat.
Wouldn't ignoring a chunk of rules still be a house ruling?
The overwhelming sense of entitlement most DMs seem to have to make random rulings, jerk their players around, and change things without notice always amazes me...................the players have the right to expect that you will play using the game rules of the system you said your were going to use, or house rules that are clear and announced ahead of time.
I agree, if the DM isn't playing by the rules that he set forth for the players, he's being a crappy DM. I must have missed something in this thread then, cause I don't remember seeing the OP state this about his DM
Well, I guess it is lucky for you that you found some sheep/players desperate enough to put up with your entitlement issues.
There's no reason to speak to Melan like that. I haven't seen him disrespect you in any way in the manner that you're disrespecting him now. You're also just proving my point entirely. You sound no better than the DMs you're accusing of having a sense of entitlement; you're sounding like a player with a sense of entitlement.
To be frank, if my players gave me that attitude, I would pack up my campaign and either find a new company or get out of gaming.
