barbarians rage - who is my friend?

[James McMurray]

With respect, this dm sounds like a fool.

Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?

 

[Flyspeck23]

If bezerkers couldn't tell the difference between friend and foe, all barbarians would have killed themselves off years ago.

Beg your pardon? I'm mildly confused here. Did you mean...

1. If bezerkers couldn't tell the difference between friend and foe, all barbarians would have killed themselves off years ago out of envy.
2. If bezerkers couldn't tell the difference between friend and foe, all berzerkers would have killed themselves in ritual suicide years ago.
3. If barbarians couldn't tell the difference between friend and foe, all barbarians would have become berzerkers years ago.

?

 

[jgsugden]

Is this DM friend your DM? If so, he is 100% correct, no matter how much you might disapprove of his logic. A DM interpretes the rules for his game.

 

[Flyspeck23]

Is this DM friend your DM? If so, he is 100% correct, no matter how much you might disapprove of his logic. A DM interpretes the rules for his game.

Unless, of course, he's plain wrong

Granted, arguing with the DM while the game's running is a big No-No. But after the session I'd talk to my DM about it, and then it's a matter of arguments.

If DM is god, however, I would like to know beforehand of any changes he made, or else I'd go "If I had known that, I wouldn't have picked the barbarian" all over him.

In this case, however, it's clearly a misinterpretation of the rules by the DM. He didn't change rage because he thinks it would improve the game / his world / whatever - he changed rage because he didn't understand the rules (in a way that's no fun for all involved).

 

[Endur]

Plane Sailing might be wrong. The GM might not be a fool.

The GM might be making a flavor-based ruling on an interpretation of Rage that is not supported by the rulebooks. That is within the discretion of the GM as a story-teller, as many fantasy novels that include Raging Barbarians have Rage cause the barbarian difficulty in telling friends from enemies.

Story-reasons always trump rule-interpretations. But the better rule interpretation would be to allow the Barbarian's player to tell friends from enemies.

With respect, this dm sounds like a fool. For all the reasons outlined above there is absolutely no support in the core books for this kind of reasoning.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Plane Sailing is wrong. The GM is not a fool.

The GM is making a flavor-based ruling on an interpretation of Rage that is not supported by the rulebooks. That is within the discretion of the GM as a story-teller, as many fantasy novels that include Raging Barbarians have Rage cause the barbarian difficulty in telling friends from enemies.

hmmm.... are you a) the dm in question speaking in third person, b) a friend of the dm in question who has discussed this before, c) psychic, or d) making an unwarrented assumption?

nothing that the orriginal poster has said leads me to assume that this is a decision on the dm's part as opposed to a (faulty) understanding of the rules as they are written. No "In his campaign", no sign of a "he likes to do it as", just the dm saying that thats the way it actually works.

now, if there was any reason to believe this was "flavor based ruling" I'd agree that the dm can't be "wrong" in making up house rules. But since there's no sign of that being the case, I don't see any reason to give the guy a pass on bad knowlege of the rules, especially if he's expected to enforce them.

on the non house rules angle, I'd agree that telling friend from foe and deciding to do subdual and such are more wisdom based than inteligence, so even if the underlying theory was right, the results still wouldn't pan out that way.

Kahuna Burger

 

[Endur]

You are right, I was making the same unwarranted assumption someone else was making. I modified my post to say "might be" instead of "is"

hmmm.... are you a) the dm in question speaking in third person, b) a friend of the dm in question who has discussed this before, c) psychic, or d) making an unwarrented assumption?

 

[BSF]

Hey! I am all for house rules and flavor mods. But, this is in the 'Rules' Forum. As well, a house rule like that should be mentioned up front in the game. After all, if I go by the book, I should be able to have my Barbarian get really focused on knocking down his enemies to protect his friends. If there is a house rule in affect that means going into a rage puts my friends at risk ... perhaps I will look for a different character option.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

You are right, I was making the same unwarranted assumption someone else was making. I modified my post to say "might be" instead of "is"

ah, I appologize for any unwarrented snootiness in my reply then. Its certainly a valid flavor choice to make, though as others have said, I hope it would be put front and center when anyone considered making a barbarian...

Kahuna Burger

 

[jgsugden]

Unless, of course, he's plain wrong

Granted, arguing with the DM while the game's running is a big No-No. But after the session I'd talk to my DM about it, and then it's a matter of arguments.

If DM is god, however, I would like to know beforehand of any changes he made, or else I'd go "If I had known that, I wouldn't have picked the barbarian" all over him.

In this case, however, it's clearly a misinterpretation of the rules by the DM. He didn't change rage because he thinks it would improve the game / his world / whatever - he changed rage because he didn't understand the rules (in a way that's no fun for all involved).

Based on one side of the discussion, you can say what clearly occurred? I think not.

The DM is God. He makes the rules. A wise DM listens to advice from players, but he is the final judge. If players don't accept that - without question - the questions that arise lead to harsh feelings and resentment. Pointing out a difference between the RAW and the words of the DM is fine, but if he says that he has a different interpretation, accept it and move on. If you find this makes his game into something you'd rather not play, ask if you can change characters and play something you'd enjoy or respectfully bow out and leave the game. Arguing never does any good.

Here, apparently, the DM saw the rules and drew a conclusion that the player (and most of us) do not share. The player shoudl point out the difference of opinion once, but if the DM decides to go with his original interpretation, the issue should be considered resolved.

A DM is never "plain wrong" unless he (or she) decides he was plain wrong.