A powergamer in a non-powergame.

[Ozmar]

Is it defined as an enhancement bonus from the masterwork quality?

If not - if it's a non-magical +3 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls - then the weapon is, in fact, considered a magic weapon for the purpose of bypassing DR X/Magic.

Damage reduction may be overcome by special materials, by magic weapons (any weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus, not counting the enhancement from masterwork quality), certain types of weapons (such as slashing or bludgeoning), and weapons imbued with an alignment.

If it's a weapon with a +1 or higher enhancement bonus (save from masterwork), it's considered a magic weapon by the DR rules.

-Hyp.

That seems likely to be a clarification of what constitutes a magical weapon. In the standard D&D rules, there is nothing that gives a better than +1 enhancement bonus that is not magical. If a DM used some house rules, or some item enhancements from a Malhavoc product, he could have some non-magical enhancement bonuses greater than +1, and I wouldn't read the above quote to imply that these non-magical enhancements must necessarily bypass DR x/magic.

Ozmar the Pedantic

 

[Plane Sailing]

- 3.5 Power Attack's "x2 if wielding with both hands" rule

I'd consider getting rid of that just plain sense on the DMs part

The other stuff though... no.

Ha ha! The fool! He fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: If the players ask you whether or not they can do something, say YES rather than NO.

YES opens up possibilities in the game, and encourages creativity. NO closes options down (and rolling the dice and saying NO is pretty much the same as just saying NO, FWIW). Furthermore it goes against his apparent goals in wanting to promote a resource-poor yet cinematic game.

The other bad thing I see here is the 'stepping in puddles' syndrome - where a PC says 'I'll make sure I don't step in any puddles', and the DM then asks them to make a balance check or something, and they step in a puddle if they fail - when if they hadn't mentioned the flavourful activity, they never would have stepped in a puddle at all.

Bad lucky, Taky. I hope your wife continues to find it fun regardless.

Has he published his wide variety of house rules to you?

 

[takyris]

The other bad thing I see here is the 'stepping in puddles' syndrome - where a PC says 'I'll make sure I don't step in any puddles', and the DM then asks them to make a balance check or something, and they step in a puddle if they fail - when if they hadn't mentioned the flavourful activity, they never would have stepped in a puddle at all.

I was having a lot of trouble putting that into words, but yes. Yes, yes, yes.

And because I'm a rogue, I've got a bunch of skills, and I want to use them... and so, foolishly, I ask. Other people just say "I climb onto the roof!" and he allows it, and then halfway through the session says, "Well, I should really ask you to make a Climb check for that."

I'm going to stop asking, I think.

Has he published his wide variety of house rules to you?

Oh gosh, no. That would encourage min-maxers, I think. Min-maxers like me.

 

[Ozmar]

Also changed in this game: range penalties. In this game, they go 0/-3/-6/-12/-24. Apparently people in his last game tried to break his plots by fighting from a distance a lot, so he altered the rules to make things more fun. He also apparently changed the physics of his world (like how the sun moves across the sky, how gravity works) so that people can't "play physics" to declare that something should or shouldn't happen.

Now that's totally uncool. Is the "physics" of the game world consistent? If so, then the characters ought to know what to expect - after all, they've lived in that world all their lives. Its hard enough to accurately portray a character in a fictional world, without undermining the few reliable tools you have to do it. The character is intimately connected to his world in ways that the player can never fully experience: he understands the sights, the sounds, the smells, the feel of the air, he knows where his feet are on the path, and how close the arrow whizzes by his ear. He knows the creatures he faces and understands the dimensions of the battlefield in ways that the player can never fully appreciate. In other words, the character ought to know much more about his surroundings than we can glean through a DMs description or a battlemap. In order to help close this gap, players ought to be able to rely on some "knowns" in the game environment, whether its the known of consistent rules, interpersonal NPC relations, trends in politics, world physics, or just the DM's tendencies. Without knowns, its impossible to role-play a rational, thinking character. You can't make plans or predictions because you have no idea what to expect the outcome of any action to be. At best, you have to play Chaotic characters with no ability to plan, only to react to whatever random occurance is inflicted upon you.

Players need to have something other than DM's whim on which to hang their RPing hats. If he's going to change the laws of physics so you can't "plan", then that undermines the players' ability to play the game. He ought to at least give you everything that your characters know or believe about the world.

Ozmar the Lawful

 

[Gothmog]

I've very, very rarely ever played in a game I didn't enjoy. I am lucky right now to be in a game I like quite a bit, but that hasn't always been the case.

Basically, I manage by:

- Checking my preconceptions at the door
- Adapting my style of play to the GMs campaign
- Finding my niche or area of focus that allows me to comfortably fit into the game
- Concentrate on having fun with the game, not just the rules of the game

I realize that is kind of generic advice, and no, it's not ALWAYS going to work. But I can guarantee this, if you are playing with people you like, you can like the game. You don't even have to like everyone in the game, just 1-2 people.

Those few times I have been without a regular game, have firmly reminded me just what I am willing to put up with to have a game.

In the end, some of the most strange, outrageous or odd games I've played in have left me with some of the best stories and memories. Sometimes they are memories of how great the game was...sometimes they are memories of how broken the game was, lol.

Cedric

Exactly. Coming into a game saying "I'm playing D&D, so all the options of D&D should be there and all things should work as in the core rules" is setting yourself up for disappointment unless the DM explicitly states he is running RAW D&D. I use some houserules myself about spellcasiting, traditions of magic (which restrict what kinds of spells each tradition has, etc)- and it does take a different mindset to play. If the player accepts the change and works within the framework provided by that DM and adapts to the group's playing style, almost any game can be fun. I've done this many times, even in situations where I wasn't crazy about house rules, and still had fun. Give it a try, and don't just say "this DM sucks and is lazy because his game isn't RAW D&D." Maybe some DMs out there DON'T WANT RAW D&D as written.

I have to agree with getting rid of the 3.5 Power Attack though- that gets ridiculous.

And DM NPCs that are infallible, ultra-cool and never fail are extremely annoying. DM NPCs that fade into the background and act as support are fine though- and can add a lot to a game when used well. This DM NPC sounds like the first type though.

 

[takyris]

Exactly. Coming into a game saying "I'm playing D&D, so all the options of D&D should be there and all things should work as in the core rules" is setting yourself up for disappointment unless the DM explicitly states he is running RAW D&D.

If I'd said that, I'd be totally all defensive right now.

Generally speaking, though, and this could just be me being high-maintenance, my preference is:

1) Run things by the RAW unless you have a reason not to do so
2) If you change the rules, tell people what the new rules are

I was okay with changing magic. Heck, I was okay with having equipment be largely revised. I was okay with all the 2+Int Skill-Point classes getting bumped up to 4+Int Skill Points, while my rogue got nothing, and having all skills be class skills, subject to convincing the DM that the PC was justified in taking them. That's all fine with me, because he explained that.

I'm sort of less okay with the DM making changes like "no magical weapons" and then throwing monsters at us with DR x/magic, but I can hopefully assume that that's just because we haven't found out what actually hurts them yet. Those changes are unbalancing, and to have the DM then shrug and say, "Yes, vampires are dangerous in this world," as though vampires were a walk in the park in other games, strikes me as shortsighted. However, that's one where I'm willing to grit my teeth and acknowledge that not all gaming styles are my own.

I'm significantly not okay with the DM changing the rules, not telling people what the new rules are, and applying them unevenly. We're not playing Mao. I should at least get to know the rules without being penalized for asking the question.

 

[IcyCool]

So, if the game isn't about using the rules, what is the game about? The game is about expierencing all the cool things that the DM has set up for you. Literally, that's what you can do. He's the gatekeeper for all the cool stuff, and his cool stuff is the point of the game. It's something I've done, and I've been through a bunch. I think it's pretty normal (ie: not some strange occurance that rarely happens).

Now, what you're really going to have to do to enjoy this game is understand how it goes and look for the fun parts in that. Get it into your skull that this is how it will work, and look for the ways to enjoy it while playing along in the cool elements that your DM has put together.

[Old Codger Voice]Y'know, there was a time when a majority of players were like this. Those players were a joy to DM for, and playing in those games was a barrel of fun. Then, the auditors came. You know, those folks who can't have fun unless they know all of the rules, and the DM strictly follows all of those rules. They also lay awake at night worrying about whether or not some DM some where is "not following the rules".

But those were happier times back then.[/Old Codger Voice]

(That was a long and convoluted way of saying, QFT).

Tak, it sounds like your preferred style of GMing and the GM's preferred style of GMing are clashing. At the risk of sounding blunt, stop trying to GM and just play. I did that in a D&D game recently. The GM made up rules on the spot, called some questionable rulings, and the BBEG's had hundreds of hitpoints. Once I stopped fussing about how things weren't being played "according to the rules" (or more appropriately, not how I'd have done them), I had one of the most enjoyable gaming experiences of my life.

 

[Hypersmurf]

And DM NPCs that are infallible, ultra-cool and never fail are extremely annoying. DM NPCs that fade into the background and act as support are fine though- and can add a lot to a game when used well. This DM NPC sounds like the first type though.

I think this is the point of distinction between the 'DMPC' and an 'NPC'.

The NPC is not a player character, and is run by the DM. The DMPC is a player character, where the player happens to be the DM.

The purpose of an NPC in general is to further the game in some way. The purpose of a DMPC is the same as that of any other PC - to do cool stuff, to kill things and take their stuff, to provide the player with a means to interact with the world.

The problem is that since the DM chooses the situations the PCs encounter, they've a tendency to be situations in which the DMPC can do the coolest stuff... often at the expense of the other PCs.

"Oh, none of you guys can solve this puzzle? Well, fortunately, Mary-Sue can!"

NPCs have many uses. DMPCs, as a general rule, make decent kindling.

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

Oh gosh, no. That would encourage min-maxers, I think. Min-maxers like me.

I'm amazed you are staying with the game. It seems the DM is the anti you. No fun games are worse then no games.

 

[takyris]

At the risk of sounding blunt, stop trying to GM and just play.

Icy, at the risk of sounding blunt, read my other posts. I've tried to acknowledge the difference between "I'd do it differently" and "Bad DMing".