Oops, I failed a Breathe check

[Systole]

That's for taking 20, not taking 10, per the RAW. The threshold for taking 10 is "not being threatened or distracted," such as combat.

Believe me, I know. And I've said as much, but the GM has declared his way to be a house rule. Because fumbles are so much fun.

 

[Elf Witch]

I guess I'm not seeing the problem.

Rolling a nat 20 for crit and nat 1 for failure has been around since, well, forever. The odds of rolling a 1 on the d20 represent that miniscule chance that your character encounters a worst case scenario, regardless of how great they are at something. It happens in the real world, it happens in the game.

Matter of fact my group has used and still does use that setup in all our D&D games, through every edition we have played.

And it far from qualifies the GM as a bad GM or the game as a bad game, sounds more like a personal issue.

We do the same thing but how it works in our games is if you roll a 1 you then roll again if you get if with your BAB you roll over a 10 your fumble but recover and nothing bad happens. If you fail the roll you either drop your weapon, lose a turn or fall down.

We do this with skills too a natural 20 is a 30 + modifiers a 1 is a -10 plus modifiers.

 

[jbear]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

Errr... this is wrong in so many ways. D&D is a game played by a group of people. The DM is not God. The DM has an important and fundamental role in the game, but you can't play by yourself now can you? Players are equally important, and each are responsable within their role to make the game enjoyable. There is no good reason that players can't communicate their playstyle preferences or issues with houserules with the DM. And the DM has no good reason not to take those preferences into account and meet the players half way so everyone is at a place where they are enjoying the game. If it becomes an issue of bruised and swollen egos, then you have a serious communication problem. A good DM will never let it come to that.

As to Systole's particular problem:

I think suggesting a confirmed critical fumble variation is more than reasonable. It's how I play the rule myself, and being a lover of brutal meat grinders with little breathing room for PCs to go shopping, it is still gritty enough to scratch the itch.

As to being under equipped and facing constantly difficult challenges, any chance of just ignoring the adventure and going to find a city? Or are you on a rail? Or you haven't found any treasure?

It sounds like what you want/need is just a bit more balance to the game in general. Again, I can't see anything unreasonable here.

It seems subtlety didn't work. But that doesn't mean it's hopeless. Have you tried sharing your concerns/ideas directly? If you can get your ideas in a calm, chilled out way, maybe the DM can sort it out with a few minor adjustments.

In any case, good luck

 

[TheAuldGrump]

It's not about what the players want....ever.

It's about what the DM/GM has decided to run and how he has decided to run it.

The only choice the players have is whether or not they play.

Piffle!

It is always about what the players want! If folks are not having fun then why play the game?

I include the GM in this - if he is not having fun then why run the game? But it is never about one player's wants, even if it is the GM.

To the OP - I would get together as a group and tell the GM that as a group this isn't fun. Do this instead of the game - not before, not after. Or get together on a non-game night, to let him know. If he gets stubborn then tell him that he should take a break from GMing for a while, say a year or three until he finds out what the other players want from a game. If he still wants to run the game his way then tell him that he will have no players.

If he doesn't fix the problem then tell him that he has been voted off the island. As has been said, life is too short for crappy games. If you would have a better time playing Clue then play Clue.

I run a good game - I run two games every weekend, with one of the slots alternating between a Pathfinder game for teens and a Fallout game using Spycraft 2.0 - for a total of three campaigns*.

I have never had an entire group talk to me about something that was going that badly. And I cheat - at the end of an arc I hand out a feedback sheet, giving XP for criticism. I look for complaints!

But you folks do kind of need to give him an ultimatum.

The Auld Grump

* Down from three games a week... I have a problem saying no to running games.

*EDIT* And just to be clear - I am not a soft GM, and have had more than one TPK when the party did something foolish. But when several players asked me to please hide my die rolls behind the screen then I listened.

 

[Elf Witch]

You need to talk to the other players and see how they feel if you all feel the same then as a group you need to talk to the DM.

If you talk to him it is important not to say he is wrong or he is a bad DM because first of all that is not true and second even if it is all that does is make the person not want to listen.

Make sure he realizes this is a just a matter of different play styles and that you don't find his way fun.

Come with solutions nothing is worse then hearing your players moan but not have a clue on how to fix things. For example you could suggest that if he is going to use fumbles make it more like a crit where you get a second roll to confirm the fumble.

If it turns out that the rest of the players are okay with the game then you have two choices either quit or continue to play using his rules.

 

[The Shaman]

Believe me, I know. And I've said as much, but the GM has declared his way to be a house rule. Because fumbles are so much fun.

I don't have an issue with fumbles being part of the rules - a 20 is always a chance of a fumble in the game I'm playing, frex - but nerfing take 10 takes a big whack at the way the rules are intended to work in d20 games.

And the idea that every fumble is over-the-top in its consequences is a bad call, in my opinion.

You need to let your referee know how you feel, in any case, and remember that no gaming is better than bad gaming.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

If it turns out that the rest of the players are okay with the game then you have two choices either quit or continue to play using his rules.

Ah yes, don't forget to talk to your fellow victims players first! It could just be you. (Doesn't sound it, but....)

The Auld Grump

 

[Elf Witch]

Ah yes, don't forget to talk to your fellow victims players first! It could just be you. (Doesn't sound it, but....)

The Auld Grump

LOL

I have had the experience where a player was upset with the way a game was being run and he approached the DM without talking to the rest of us and made it sound that we were all having issues.

The rest of us were having a blast. The Dm was so upset that he sent out emails and said since no one was having fun then the game was canceled. It took some diplomacy and a lot of emails to smooth things over.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

LOL

I have had the experience where a player was upset with the way a game was being run and he approached the DM without talking to the rest of us and made it sound that we were all having issues.

The rest of us were having a blast. The Dm was so upset that he sent out emails and said since no one was having fun then the game was canceled. It took some diplomacy and a lot of emails to smooth things over.

One of the worst that I have seen went the exact opposite way - nobody was happy with the GM of a Kindred of the East game, but each player assumed that everybody else was happy.

Then one week none of the players showed up, they were so annoyed.... A few weeks later the game was canned - the GM just could not accept that everyone thought that he was wrong.

The GM routinely gave half the suggested XP, then never gave an opportunity to spend the XP that he did give out. When confronted about folks wanting to spend XP he said that if he allowed folks to spend the XP then he couldn't be so generous with XP.

The final straw was his 'compromise' solution - he would spend the XP for the players, deciding where the points went....

The game itself was fun - when he allowed the players to actually play, but he was just way too controlling, and wanted to 'tell a story'.

The Auld Grump

 

[Dausuul]

Piffle!

It is always about what the players want! If folks are not having fun then why play the game?

I include the GM in this - if he is not having fun then why run the game? But it is never about one player's wants, even if it is the GM.

Agreed. I am generally of the old school as far as DM/player relations are concerned; I believe the DM should have fairly broad authority to set the rules and dictate what the game will or won't contain. Even so, the ultimate goal is for a gang of friends to have fun together. The "take it or leave it" attitude can be pushed too far.