D&D 5E DM purposely gimping my Warlock

[Elf Witch]

In the story as it was related, the DM tried to stop the player from legally using both Dark One's Own Luck and Hellish Rebuke in the same session. These are both very basic components of a warlock's arsenal, and in both cases, the DM was incorrect in his assumptions about how the power in question worked. "Every time" may have been a bit of an exaggeration, but my point still stands that the DM should have known what he was talking about before telling the player he couldn't use his abilities. This is especially true after his ignorance had already been proven once during that session.


No one is tarring and feathering anyone. Apart from the OP, none of us has any contact with this DM. This could be one big hypothetical as far as we know. What we are saying is, if a DM acts as described by the OP (whether it's the truth or not, whether it's the full story or not), that DM, as described, is not good at his job.

The only thing resembling fact in this discussion is the story this player relates, so that's the only set of premises we can base our conversation on. And that's what I'm doing. If it makes you feel better, you can mentally add "If what the OP says is true" to the beginning of every post.

If this DM did things the way the OP says he did, then he is a bad DM. That's my opinion, and I don't see what bearing the lack of a DMG has on the matter. If he's so new to D&D that he's never read a DMG from any edition, he probably shouldn't be running a game on roll20.

I only saw this post on this forum. Not sure what you are referring to multiple forums... unless you are referring to the roll20 post for their game. I will not fault him for asking advise, which is clearly what he did in the OP.

What do you all think about his crazy house rules and how it would affect you if you were playing the human Warlock?

You explained all the context of the situation without any of the actual content. The player NEVER bashed his DM. Never said he was a loser, or a neanderthal. He simply posted his gripes with the house rules and how they affected him. Was he a little overzealous on how much it impacted his character? Maybe a bit, but I wont fault him for emotionalism. And none of it was blatantly false. Those changes would and did negatively affect him.

Facts:

• DM sprang impromptu house rules
• DM restricted access to weapons, armor, and races without jsutification
• DM tried to ban his warlock abilities
• DM never tried to appease the player, but instead told him to leave

In response, the player tried to seek help in reaching an agreement to continue with the game. Everyone said leave the game, which is the right thing to do. Now we are talking about the actions of the DM.





You said all new DMs should stick with pre-published material.

I said, and I quote:


If the DM wants to run a game, they should be competent in the material.

This also isnt a situation where the DM and friends just picked up a book and sat down to play. This is an online RPG community site with plenty of time and opportunity for clear and concise communication. The PDF and PHB has been out for months. Any self-respecting prospective DM would have a basic grasp of that material. And if he was 'new', maybe he should have stuck to published adventures or core homebrew for the first game, instead of a module conversion from a previous edition.

Would you care to twist my words more? I see how well it's doing proving your case.




My Point, and has been, that you dont grow a community/game by promoting this style of DMing.





My Agenda, is to to protect players and ensure they have a valid, worthwhile, and fun experience in a game. It is NOT to protect the self-interests of power hungry, draconian DMs. In fact I go further to say my agenda would to educate said DMs and players about the ins and outs of DMing, to ensure my agenda serves to propagate a positive, fulfilling experience with Dungeons and Dragons.



Wrong.

If there's a victim here is Ravenloft. Because for as evil and nasty as Strahd is, he did nothing to deserve this DM.

Joe Liker first of all can we get rid of the term legally. DMs have the right to restrict things in their games. Now they need to tell the players upfront when creating characters. Though I didn't read that he stopped the spells he stopped him from getting slots back because of the way he was doing rests. That is not the same as saying you can't do X spell.

Really no one is this thread has used the words bad DM, incompetent DM, draconian DM? That is making a judgement on a DM that you have not met not talked to and who has not shared his side of the story. Though from the private group discussion that the OP posted here I see a DM saying words like I am sorry, I did say from the beginning this would be a different and difficult campaign. The DM did point out the exaggeration of the player and pointed out all the things he could still do showing that he was not as gimped as the players was saying.

Astrosicebear

Excuse me a DM does not have to justify why he is starting the party with limited resources. I have played in many a game where we started with nothing. The player had to know this at the very beginning and if he didn't like it or the fact that the DM said human only he shoud have said no thank you and found another group on Roll20 that fit his playstyle better.

You were not there we don't know when the DM discussed house rules but like I said it was during the first session so that is hardly springing it on the players. Now in a perfect game the DM would have a list of house rules ahead of time. But bringing up a house rule in the first session has often happened in the games I play in. DMs get busy and they forget things. The player does not like this house rule because he thinks it gimps his warlock well maybe it does but to the the point he is claiming. At this point the player should have talked to privately to the DM and if he couldn't reach an agreement that worked then he needed to leave the game. I don't have an issue with coming to another forum to vent about it but I do have major issues of him posting conversations from a private talk with him and the other player and DM.

So you think you are superplayer whose goal is to fly around and save poor players from mean draconian DMs. The best advice to give an unhappy player who can't work things out with their DM is to simply find another game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Also, because I think this is relevant when talking about just how allegedly horrible this DM is. I'm not going to provide links or names because I don't want to start any cross board drama, but at least for the past 4 years (that I'm aware of), this is daddystabz's MO. He's been permabanned from more than one forum because he creates threads about someone in a group he is in who is horribly unfair to him, and they're a jerk, etc etc, and goes off with exaggerated hyperbole in his complaints. Every single one. I'm not saying this to take a shot at daddystabz, but to simply say, "If every single group you've ever gamed with over the past few years results in blow ups and conflict, then maybe the problem isn't with the groups. And before you (general you) automatically believe daddystabz's accusations and jump in with the insults yourself, maybe you need to step back and realize the source of where the information is coming from."

And I for one am pretty disappointed that folks would give someone with such a reputation the benefit of the doubt, while not doing the same for the person who's actually been accused, especially since what little proof we do have clearly points to which one was the more rational. And no, that's not up for debate or interpretation. One side used personal insults and hyperbole, and the other did not. That comparison is black and white. SMH.

 

[MoonSong]

And I for one am pretty disappointed that folks would give someone with such a reputation the benefit of the doubt, while not doing the same for the person who's actually been accused, especially since what little proof we do have clearly points to which one was the more rational. And no, that's not up for debate or interpretation. One side used personal insults and hyperbole, and the other did not. That comparison is black and white. SMH.

Things aren't as black and white. On retrospective, well perhaps what you say is true -it kind of makes sense on hindsight- but it isn't my fault, I didn't decide to defend a bad person, nor trolling for the evulz. I don't frequent that many boards and I'm only familiar with some of the most active names out there. And the situation resonated with me. I couldn't help but feel empathy, and by taking his side I could get some catharsis I didn't have because I never told my own horror stories (shaming specific people and revealing private conversation aren't nice things to do), and if I ever came out as insulting it wasn't intentional, I promise.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Things aren't as black and white. On retrospective, well perhaps what you say is true -it kind of makes sense on hindsight- but it isn't my fault, I didn't decide to defend a bad person, nor trolling for the evulz. I don't frequent that many boards and I'm only familiar with some of the most active names out there. And the situation resonated with me. I couldn't help but feel empathy, and by taking his side I could get some catharsis I didn't have because I never told my own horror stories (shaming specific people and revealing private conversation aren't nice things to do), and if I ever came out as insulting it wasn't intentional, I promise.

I wasn't so much referring to the initial reactions in the beginning, because we all do that. I was more referring to the folks who insisted on still giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP and not the DM even after seeing the the continued hyperbole from the OP and the chat logs from the DM.

 

[MoonSong]

I wasn't so much referring to the initial reactions in the beginning, because we all do that. I was more referring to the folks who insisted on still giving the benefit of the doubt to the OP and not the DM even after seeing the the continued hyperbole from the OP and the chat logs from the DM.

I was the one to bring the "Generally I'm the first to give the benefit of the doubt..." thing, specifically I said I tend to give it by default but that in this case I couldn't give it to the DM and all I could assume was malice or poor DMing skills. Everybody responding to me told me my post wasn't giving the benefit of the doubt -ignoring the "...but this isn't the case" part right after, past experiences make it very hard to me to empathize with the DM in this situations-. And you were among the first to call me on it.

 

[Joe Liker]

Joe Liker first of all can we get rid of the term legally. DMs have the right to restrict things in their games. Now they need to tell the players upfront when creating characters. Though I didn't read that he stopped the spells he stopped him from getting slots back because of the way he was doing rests. That is not the same as saying you can't do X spell.

Maybe you need to read a little more carefully. I'm not going to waste my time going back to quote it for you, but the DM did try to stop him from using two of his abilities. In the same session. And the other players had to step in and point out that the DM didn't know what he was talking about.

Really no one is this thread has used the words bad DM, incompetent DM, draconian DM? That is making a judgement on a DM that you have not met not talked to and who has not shared his side of the story. Though from the private group discussion that the OP posted here I see a DM saying words like I am sorry, I did say from the beginning this would be a different and difficult campaign. The DM did point out the exaggeration of the player and pointed out all the things he could still do showing that he was not as gimped as the players was saying.

Yes, I said bad, draconian, and incompetent, and I'll say it again. I'll also point out again that I'm not talking about a real person here because for all I know this whole story is made up. So it simply does not matter what we say about him because his reputation is not actually at stake.

What we are discussing (what I am, anyway) is a set of circumstances that might have happened -- maybe they did and maybe they didn't, in this particular case. But I can tell you for certain that things like this do happen all the time with power-hungry amateur DMs who are far more interested in shoving their precious narrative down players' throats than participating in an entertaining game based on mutual respect. Maybe you disagree; maybe you think the DM's absolute control over every aspect of the game is more important than respect or fun or even having the courtesy to understand the very game you are trying to run. You're entitled to that opinion, I suppose, but I wouldn't ever want to get caught at the same table as you if that's the case.

 

[Greg Benage]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the different perspectives in this thread are often about the player empowerment vs. entitlement thing again. I could be wrong because I'll admit I can't really get my head around it. We're arguing about how often PCs should get their statutory one-hour rest in the Domain of Dread? Really? Is there a union?

And so much seems to hinge on when exactly the DM announced his house rules, as if it's written in a contract somewhere that the players shall receive a certain period of advance notice in such cases where variances may be imposed upon The Rules. To which I say, who cares? I haven't created the Mona Lisa only to have the DM force me to paint a mustache on her -- I've rolled up a D&D character, one who might just as easily be eaten by a wolf the first time he sets foot outside his hovel. If I don't like how my warlock will play mechanically without his union-mandated smoke breaks, I can roll up a new character. Is my warlock so bloody precious that this represents some affront to my human dignity? It has no bearing on whether or not I want to play with this DM or in his game -- maybe I realize the guy is a dink and I actually despise Ravenloft, so I find another game. That's cool. Has nothing to do with whether the DM lets Erlic of Darknibone have nappy time often enough.

I fully admit, I don't get it. I literally cannot think of a house rule -- or god forbid, an actual in-game "ruling" -- that would make me quit a game. If I felt the DM was targeting me personally, as a player or person, I'd have a problem with that, but it would have nothing to do with house rules, rulings, or DM fiat. I'd have just as big a problem with it if he were repeatedly beating me over the head with the RAW. I'd try to get him to stop. If he didn't, I wouldn't play games with him, because obviously I'm not the chocolate to his peanut butter. But I find it really weird to say, on the one hand, "I think this DM will make a fun game and I'd like to play in his campaign," and on the other, "But not if he throws in some house rules about how often I can take short rests -- then he's history's greatest monster." WTF?

TL;DR Old man yells at clouds.

 

[Uchawi]

I would blame the game first, before I blame a DM. If the game has a skewed representation of a certain mechanics across the game like what classes can heal, are dependent on short rests, use magic, or rely heavily on daily abilities, then whatever balance was in place starts to topple when a change is made. And the knowledge of how previous editions worked in relation to the mechanics is well known if you have played D&D for a while.

 

[MoonSong]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the different perspectives in this thread are often about the player empowerment vs. entitlement thing again. I could be wrong because I'll admit I can't really get my head around it. We're arguing about how often PCs should get their statutory one-hour rest in the Domain of Dread? Really? Is there a union?

And so much seems to hinge on when exactly the DM announced his house rules, as if it's written in a contract somewhere that the players shall receive a certain period of advance notice in such cases where variances may be imposed upon The Rules. To which I say, who cares? I haven't created the Mona Lisa only to have the DM force me to paint a mustache on her -- I've rolled up a D&D character, one who might just as easily be eaten by a wolf the first time he sets foot outside his hovel. If I don't like how my warlock will play mechanically without his union-mandated smoke breaks, I can roll up a new character. Is my warlock so bloody precious that this represents some affront to my human dignity? It has no bearing on whether or not I want to play with this DM or in his game -- maybe I realize the guy is a dink and I actually despise Ravenloft, so I find another game. That's cool. Has nothing to do with whether the DM lets Erlic of Darknibone have nappy time often enough.

I fully admit, I don't get it. I literally cannot think of a house rule -- or god forbid, an actual in-game "ruling" -- that would make me quit a game. If I felt the DM was targeting me personally, as a player or person, I'd have a problem with that, but it would have nothing to do with house rules, rulings, or DM fiat. I'd have just as big a problem with it if he were repeatedly beating me over the head with the RAW. I'd try to get him to stop. If he didn't, I wouldn't play games with him, because obviously I'm not the chocolate to his peanut butter. But I find it really weird to say, on the one hand, "I think this DM will make a fun game and I'd like to play in his campaign," and on the other, "But not if he throws in some house rules about how often I can take short rests -- then he's history's greatest monster." WTF?

TL;DR Old man yells at clouds.

You are pretty spot on, yes, in a way this is such a discussion. But things aren't as simple. One just don't just take a side out of the blue, the circumstances play a big role. And the level of peer pressure on the DM is something unsaid here. The bigger the effect of peer pressure, the more the worries about player entitlement are justified. But on the flipside, imagine you are a DM free of peer pressure, in an environment where you have a warantied flux of new players and you can easily replace them even if all of them revolt, why listen to them? The entitled bastards should be grateful you let them to play in your game, they should just suck it up and entertain you. Whereas in a normal table such jerkish DMs would quickly be left with noone to play with -and no friends-, in primarily online environments that isn't a risk. Such DMs aren't worried about entitlement, they hold so much power without checks it doesn't matter. That is why we make it a big deal, explicit house rules before the game are an indicator of transparency, and those springing in the middle of the game are a bad sign.
Think of the following situation:
Imagine you wanted to play a healing PC just not with a cleric, you send a petition to join making explicit that you want to play a druid/bard but want to play healbot, DM says yes and that he is using defaul AL for PC creation, and that he only wants one of a kind. You roll a PC within rules who can be a decent healer. DM says it is broken and forces you to change it. You change it and make up for it with the healer feat by switching to human. DM forces you to go back to elf you munchkin and outright bans healer, you comply and have something that will have a hard time healing the full party but that could still work. Then the DM suprises you by introducing a new player who plays a healbot cleric, with you guessed right the healer feat, you calmly ask why. He tells you your PC wasn't enough for the group, and since you are redundant with the newcommer you have to reroll yet again to druid and play scout. You prepare a cure wounds just in case, but when you want to use it the DM tells you that you can't, don't you dare to steal the spotlight! You then at least try to have some fun with wildshape and make the best you can, but everytime you do that the DM has a hunter or a bigger animal ready for you, then you enter a town and it is filled with people who hate druids and somehow every third person is capable of casting counterspell at will, and they will target you whenever you do anything that isn't a cantrip. Oh and he springs a rule midcombat that you have to use your action to draw a weapon, he also won't let you dualwield without the feat -which he told you before you couldn't have-. Tell me then, would you keep paying on this game?

 

[Sacrosanct]

KaiiLurker, the solution to the problems you present is incredibly simple: Don't play with dick DMs.

Seriously. I see this get trotted out often, that these horrible selfish tyrannical DMs are just ruining the game for everyone. Why do you keep playing with them? At some point you gotta stop blaming the DM for being a jerk, and start blaming the player for continuing to play with them. The whole "fool me once" thing. No one needs a certification or license to be a DM. DM your own game the way you want.

There. Done.