A powergamer in a non-powergame.

[Plane Sailing]

2) If you change the rules, tell people what the new rules are

Yep, this would be the big one for me. The game I play in at the moment has some changes from the expected rules (no prestige classes, expanded deaths door, the way languages work, racial differences and a few other things). Some of the things are not how I'd run a game, for sure, BUT at least it is all there on the table, and I can plan based upon what I know I can expect.

I couldn't care less with it is RAW or not, as long as it is consistent and fair (and published to us in as far as that is possible). That doesn't mean I need to know everything about how everything works, just so long as I know what I can do and (most importantly), which 'rule reflexes' should be turned off.

Cheers

 

[Gothmog]

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.

1) I understand that, but flavor reasons ARE a good reason to change rules. If paladins in a world must worship a god to get powers, then thats a change from RAW thats justified. If the DM has no place in his world for elves, again thats justified. Less common magic is another perfectly legit change to the rules, but with that the DM also has to remember to not toss around too many DR baddies without giving the PCs some means of escape or another way of dealing with them (ie a holy charm to ward them off, etc). Restricting ways to counter DR without consideration and using lots of DR baddies is a bad idea though.

2) Agree with you here completely. If the rules are changed, then the DM needs to tell everyone what the new rules are. Now some folks don't need to know all the new rules (for example, a fighter knowing all the spellcasting rules) but if they want to read up on those, thats fine too. But the new rules need to at least be available for the players to look at.

On the other hand, having been a DM most of my gaming career, sitting back and letting a DM do things his own way is hard to do sometimes, especially if he is doing something differently than the way you would, or differently than the RAW (whether house rules or core rules). But keep in mind you're in his game, and his rules apply- and most of the time DMs have a reason for changing how things run, even if you might not agree with it. Most DMs (including myself and most likely you too) don't really appreciate players saying "but...its not supposed to work this way!" or have players undermine rulings. Its one thing if the DM makes a mistake ("hey, don't I get a save to resist the poison?"), but another entirely for players to insist on things their own way ("the RAW clearly states poison saves use Fort, and your house rule that poisons are only resisted with Con modifier is screwing my character, even though you lowered poison DCs to compensate!").

 

[Crust]

Takyris,

Based on your OP, I don't consider you a powergamer. Rogues should build toward improved feint and spring attack to be able to handle themselves in combat, and for a DM to hamstring the game like that, he's making your character ineffective. No flanking? I insist that my party rogue move/tumble in order to get that sneak or use improved feint every round in combat. Your DM, in fact, is the powergamer, as it's clear he wants to exert power over you and the others, augmenting the rules (rules he appears to be rather ignorant of) to suit his own desires. Very unsettling. :\

He's a poor DM in my opinion. I understand completely when you're forced to grit your teeth and sit through the ridiculousness for the good of the game. If he's all you've got, and you're having fun, good for you, but if I were a player, I'd voice the ridiculousness of his DMing, and I'd probably not play, as he doesn't seem like one to listen to relevant suggestions from an experienced player.

And let me say that when a player of mine corrects me at the table, I stand corrected. I would never bristle, huff and puff, and berate the player for daring to question my DMing. If I did that, my players wouldn't play, and it would be my fault for literally embracing ignorance just because "it's my game." No, speak your mind and let him know how you feel.

Maybe you should be DMing. See how he responds to that, and you'll see whether it's about power or about a better game for everyone.

 

[Graf]

Some people who run games are control freaks.
They don’t tell very good stories and spend most of their time making changes to the rules.

They use words like “banhammer” and think that “games are fun because I get to say no to people”.
They wish they were management.

Avoid these people in your gaming life just like you would avoid them in your normal life.

 

[IcyCool]

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".

Well, I'm not saying you are a bad person, or picking on you, so I hope you didn't get that impression. (Hence my comment about sounding blunt).

I have read your other posts, and perhaps I'm missing something. It seems to me like you are still failing to acknowledge the difference. I suppose he could be a bad DM, but you claim that you have fun with the game, save for the questionable rulings and rules. Thus, as I understand it, you are stressing about the GM not following the rules. Your options are fairly simple, I should think. Quit the game, or drop your preconceptions and try to have fun. Maybe, maybe you can talk to the GM and get him to change, but that is highly unlikely. I understand that this is just you venting for the most part, so any advice here is probably mostly pointless, but it is offered in good faith.

Call it what you like, Rules Lawyering, Backseat GMing, or Being a Good Player, if you don't stop worrying about the rules, you aren't going to have much fun in this GM's campaign. It's a simple thing to do, but it isn't easy. And a lot of people don't like to do it.

But that's just my opinion. There's plenty of other advice in this thread.

 

[monboesen]

if you don't stop worrying about the rules, you aren't going to have much fun in this GM's campaign

I think that hit the nail right on the head. Your DM obviously don't care much about rules, but wants a cool story. Luckily and very importantly he is not going for a predetermined story, but allow gamers to influence the story. This is good.

The trick that might work for you is to stop trying to influence the game and the story from a rules oriented perspective and instead use a story oriented perspective and just describe in cool and movielike detail what your character do and never bring up required skill rolls and the likes.

It is another way of gaming, but it might work in this game.

 

[delericho]

Sadly, being a "great guy" and an "excellent storyteller" don't necessarily make you a great DM, or even a good one. And, if your description of the campaign is accurate, it seems to me that the DM just isn't that good.

Heavily changing the system is a warning flag for me, but not a deal-breaker. It can be done, and work well. More often than not, though, it works really badly. The most common outcome I've seen is that the DM sacrifices 90% of the fun of the game in favour of a 2% increase in 'realism' as he sees it.

Not publishing the house rules, especially in a heavily house ruled game, is a deal-breaker, however. The players have an absolute right to know the rules of the game as they relate to their characters, and they have that right before they create the characters. If, for example, casting defensively is disallowed, the player of the Wizard needs to know before he selects Combat Casting as his feat.

(Plus, I'm not sure I accept the assertion that the DM should create the house rules, and the players then meekly accept them. There should be some sort of debate there.)

Additionally, using a DMPC is a deal-breaker for me. I've seen it go badly wrong on several occasions, and I've never seen it add anything to the game. The only time I've seen it even add to the DM's fun is on those occasions where he's used the DMPC as a vehicle for his own wish-fulfilment fantasies, which automatically makes it a game I want no part in.

I have no recommendations for how to deal with this, though. The only options I see are to have a quiet word with the DM to get him to publish the house rules (and enforce all the rules evenly) and retire the DMPC, or leave the game.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

Danke. I'm not really looking for solutions, because, well, I'm not quitting the game, and I'm not going to do a one-man "I can make the game change" campaign.

That's good. Because I was going to explain how hopeless it was to try and change the game.

- The OOC table talk.
- Actually getting to play a game, not just GM one.
- Varied environments for combat
- A fun "kill it, then eat it" system that uses snacks for miniatures

Focus in on this stuff here. That and the fact that you're getting to play with your wife are going to be the sources of your enjoyment.

Someone else made the good suggestion of learning to work with his house-ruled combat system as best I can. I'm working with that, as I am with runic magic, but in order to keep elements of mystery and surprise in the game (paraphrasing the DM's words), the DM has refused to tell us how things work beyond the introductory levels. We weren't allowed to see the high-level combat maneuvers.

So yes, this would be like being able to see Dodge and Power Attack and not getting to read the descriptions for (or even know about) Spring Attack or Great Cleave. I have no idea what the rules are like up there -- just that those rules make bad guys screw us over from time to time.

Thanks, everybody. Good to know I'm not just crazy.

Yeah, your DM is pulling a power trip on you. Don't worry, it happens to lots of people. But my guess is that it basically means that you won't be able to actually learn the system, because doing so would give you too much power over the situation. That and a lot of it is probably arbitrary.

Anyway, focus on the good, accept the bad, have as much fun as you can, and feel free to keep venting.

 

[Ian Demagi]

Dm

Takyris:

This guy really is not playing D & D. He is playing another game that he borrows D & D rules from.

IMHO-deleting or changing things from the core books is bad play or poor DM'ing. It would be a deal breaker for me. DMPC-not for 3rd editition-just too much to keep track of anymore-deal breaker too.

One thing I did in a really bad game (that I could not leave either) was engineer a TPK. Then when we were all dead, I said "OK I am running a game- core books are the rules."
Everyone else started making characters including the DM!

You're not a power gammer, Your just a guy who has read and understands the rules.

Ian

 

[Allandaros]

IMHO-deleting or changing things from the core books is bad play or poor DM'ing

Sooooo, not big on the "house rules" concept?