Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 2577247" data-attributes="member: 18280">First off, let me commisserate with you on a run of truly bad luck.  Unfortunate that you couldn't just (say) get your own DMG, or go read a book or something.  I haven't been in a situation where I was forced to torture myself weekly in the name of friendship.  (Daily, in the name of relationship, yes, but not in the D&D sense  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> .)I agree that the DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise" about PC actions.  About PC racial choices, class choices, feat choices, etc., especially when culled from non-Core books, though....."No unless I say otherwise" is the only sane policy.  Every campaign should have an approved "Yes" list, even if only part of the core RAW.  No DM is ever required to allow anything off that "Yes" list without careful review and consideration beforehand.  I think, actually, that you and I would probably agree on that.  This is no different than the DM introducing a complicated houserule mid-play.  Bad form, you know, simply not done.(Note, however, that I said "complicated."  I think it's perfectly fair to introduce a house rule mid-play, especially if it's simple and the PCs are allowed to decide their actions with the house rule taken into account.  Note that I do not mean a house rule designed to nerf a PC's ability, or to force the PCs to follow the DM's plan.  I mean a house rule designed to quickly handle a problem that comes up in play, is easy to understand, and moves the game forward.EDIT:  I have even had players suggest quick, usable house rules to deal with an unusual situation; if they seemed reasonable, we used them.)Oddly enough, I have encountered "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me."  Very short lived.  I could, indeed, stop the player.The problem is actually somewhere in "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class.  At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level.  The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved.  He doesn't mention it right away.  Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.Suddenly the entire group has to stop while either (a) the PC adjusts his character or (b) the DM reviews the prestige class.  Of course, the DM can just keep going blind, and house rule anything that seems like it needs to be house ruled as it comes up.  "You have what ability?  No.  It doesn't function.  Should have talked to me first.""I'll just do X...."Now the PC is arguing.  He should be able to do this thing.  It's part of his class.  How dare the DM introduce a rule mid-game that nerfs his ability.  "...and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why...."The DM says that he hasn't had the opportunity to examine the prestige class, doesn't own the book it comes from, and hasn't approved it.  The player points out that it is a WotC book, and that he meets all the prerequisites.  He spent good money on the book, it's balanced because it's from WotC, and it's not so hard to look up the rules mid-play.  "....even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."No one would make this mistake in my game twice.  Now, imagine instead that X is trying to climb a wall.  You have a good Strength and lots of ranks in the skill.  It seems to be a normal wall.  Wondering why you can't at least try to climb it seems to be sensible."I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."In one situation, an unreasonable expectation.  In another situation, a perfectly reasonable expectation.Now, there might be an in-game reason why your character can't make the attempt.  The wall might have some form of repulsion effect that you are being affected by.  That might be a clue that the wall is important, and that you should be trying to dispel the effect.Or it could just be that the DM is a dink.Now, DMs are (as you have indicated) a bit harder to find as players.  As a result, they deserve a small amount of additional lenience.  But, if this was the kind of call the DM continually made, and there was no other game in town.......I would still politely leave the group. There are too many good books for me to waste my time playing in bad games.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> 3.X makes DMs no more or less accountable than they ever were.  Accountability doesn't come from a ruleset.  Accountability is now, as it always was, a vote with the door.RCP.S.:  Player accountability is the same.  A vote with the door.  In this case, however, final accountability is the DM showing the player where it is.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /></blockquote>

Verification