Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[Nifft]

we (the players) regard rolling initiative as meaning there is no longer an option for discussion, while the DM seems to think otherwise.

I've done this as a DM, but I made it really clear that we're rolling initiative so we know what order we'll be going in if the negotiation fails.

It made for a very tense negotiation -- which was kinda the point.

I wouldn't do this for every negotiation.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

From what I can tell, there IS a communication issue in that we (the players) regard rolling initiative as meaning there is no longer an option for discussion, while the DM seems to think otherwise. The issue is that he normally has creatures act hostile to us, so naturally we attack them, and then there really is no longer a chance to negotiate (because we've attacked them, and they've attacked us).

Maybe your DM is a Startrek (TNG) fan? They usually wait to be shot at (not just threatened), and even then, they try to keep negotiating. Of course, in TNG this usually works out because of [insert fanwank for saying the authors say so].

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, and that advice was a giant pile of crap then, and remains a giant pile of crap now. Is this unclear?

ummm. OK. So you think every rule in a core book has to used as written?

If the DM creates a monster to use in a game there should be a "ZOMG!! You can't use that. It's not in the monster manual" from the players?

And that's simply silly from my perspective. The player's should be able to expect that the rules of the game are the rules being used unless they are informed otherwise, regardless of which core book those rules are in. Saying "that's DM territory, player's don't need to know" changes the game into nothing more than a lottery.

Not really. It allows for a degree of customization per campaign that gives the game a human element. I game at the tabletop to play with people that can contibute ideas beyond those presented in a book. If I wanted to play a game run by a server I would just log in and start questing.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yes, and that advice was a giant pile of crap then, and remains a giant pile of crap now. Is this unclear?

Are you sure it's crap? It could be doodie or poopie.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

Introduction of a cursed item that looks otherwise like something that was included in the original treasure sometimes curbs that inclination.

Cursed items? Does 4e have those?

joe b.

 

[Storm Raven]

ummm. OK. So you think every rule in a core book has to used as written?

Perhaps you haven't read my posts. That is not what I think. I have pointed out that house rules are fine about a dozen times in this thread. I am commenting now on the silly idea that the DMG is somehow off-limits to the players. The fact that it was written this way in earlier editions of the game was stupid then, and the notion remains stupid now.

(Heck, in the post you quoted I said :"[t]he player's should be able to expect that the rules of the game are the rules being used unless they are informed otherwise, . . . " If you aren't going to actually read the posts you are responding to, how do you think you can actually understand what the person your are responding to is saying well enough to discuss it with them?)

Not really. It allows for a degree of customization per campaign that gives the game a human element. I game at the tabletop to play with people that can contibute ideas beyond those presented in a book. If I wanted to play a game run by a server I would just log in and start questing.

This is a silly justification. As I pointed out before, there are a host of reasons to play with a human DM that have nothing to do with the myriad ways they can modify the rules without telling you. Every time I see this goofy argument, I wonder if the person making it could possibly really believe that the only difference between playing World of Warcraft Online and playing in a FtF pen and paper game is that the Warcraft servers don't change the rules.

As I pointed out before, house rules are fine, so long as the DM, lets the players know about the changes ahead of time, and that the players have the opportunity to agree with the changes or decide the game just won't be to their liking. But the ideas that the DM should randomly change the rules "just because" and without notice, or that there are rules that the DM should change and not worry about what the players think "because they are rules from the DMG" are just silly.

 

[Storm Raven]

Are you sure it's crap? It could be doodie or poopie.

I would have used stronger language, but you know, Eric's grandmother.

Gygax made a great game and had many great ideas. He also had some ideas about the relationship between people at a gaming table that were, how should I put it, extraordinarily dumb.

 

[roguerouge]

I wonder if the person making it could possibly really believe that the only difference between playing World of Warcraft Online and playing in a FtF pen and paper game is that the Warcraft servers don't change the rules.

OT:
Actually, Blizzard changes the rules all the time without prior notice. It's just as popular online as it is at the table, which is to say, not at all popular. The players get viscerally upset and protest the nerfing of their hard-won features or the company "cheating" in up-grading or down-grading monsters.

/OT

 

[ExploderWizard]

Perhaps you haven't read my posts. That is not what I think. I have pointed out that house rules are fine about a dozen times in this thread. I am commenting now on the silly idea that the DMG is somehow off-limits to the players. The fact that it was written this way in earlier editions of the game was stupid then, and the notion remains stupid now.

(Heck, in the post you quoted I said :"[t]he player's should be able to expect that the rules of the game are the rules being used unless they are informed otherwise, . . . " If you aren't going to actually read the posts you are responding to, how do you think you can actually understand what the person your are responding to is saying well enough to discuss it with them?)

As a player, I like a bit of mystery and a hint of the unknown. I would be quite sad if the DM handed me a notebook filled with monster statblocks and custom magic item properties that will be used in the campaign to make sure I was informed about thier inclusion prior to the game. According to your methods my sense of mystery would have to be crushed as player to ensure the game was "fair" and to my liking before I agreed to play. That to me is a bigger load of crap than having DM only information.

 

[Umbran]

Yes, and that advice was a giant pile of crap then, and remains a giant pile of crap now. Is this unclear?

Dude, what is clear is that you need to chill out a bit.

Upthread, you said (and I quote), "I have never understood the idea..." The fact instead seems to be that you understand quite well, but you simply disagree. There's no cause to get nasty about it.

You are free to like or dislike what you will, but try not to dump vitriol on other posters when they don't deserve it.