Dealing with a DM who takes things too literally

[ExploderWizard]

It also seems to me that a few folks are saying that it is wrongbadfun for the DM to run 4e in an "old school" way.


RC

I don't consider the idea wrongbadfun (or badwrongfun ) to play 4E this way but I don't really see the point of it myself. 4E PC's are superheroes and should get to do superhero stuff. If that isn't the style of game desired then it's simply a matter of the right tool for the right job.

 

[Mallus]

I was given to understand that some folks thought that any game could be played in an "old school" way.

Sure. I'm one of those people.

Part of running a game in an "old school" way is interpreting powers and abilities in ways that seem plausible.

Yes, but how big a part is a matter for some debate (and more disagreement). For instance, combat in our campaign hews pretty close, if not exactly to, the 4e RAW. Everything else, not so much (and in our group that's a whole lot of else). Since most of the game's action takes place in a DM-mediated --as opposed to rules-mediated-- space it seems old-school to me.

It also seems to me that a few folks are saying that it is wrongbadfun for the DM to run 4e in an "old school" way.

I didn't mean to give that impression. But I do think a 4e DM should learn the rules before he or she breaks/modifies/reinterprets them. That's just good advice no matter what game you're playing.

 

[MichaelK]

If you always follow the letter of the RAW, even when what the RAW says happens doesn't make sense to you (be it tripping oozes, swimming while immobilized, getting archers to jump off battlements to fight you, or halfling fighters pushing giants around), the game will become an exercise in maniuplating the rules and you'll lose the gameworld and the fiction to the mechanics.

Agreed, but with two provisos.

1) You should have a decent understanding of why the rules work the way they do before you try to change them.
2) If the vast majority of the rules don't make sense to you in the way that you describe, you're probably using the wrong system. You should consider using one that you're a bit more comfortable using as written.

I suspect that the described DM may be tilted towards situation number 2 and may be more comfortable running a different system. From the very limited description we've had so far, I suspect that they may enjoy 2nd edition AD&D if they want to stick with the D&D line.

 

[Barastrondo]

I'd consider it a troublesome point, and I'm a firm believer in a game that rests heavily on judgment calls. Essentially, 4e is predicated on the idea that you can reskin mechanical effects. You can use the stat block of a hobgoblin soldier to represent an orc, and as long as you give him a more orcish racial ability instead of the hobgoblin one, nobody should even notice.

The DM here is saying that you can't reskin mechanical effects based on context or situation. He's reading the maneuver in questions as one specific maneuver, instead of a variety of potential maneuvers that the character can execute that are represented with the same mechanical effect. For example, 4e assumes that if you have a power that does damage and knocks the target prone, you can elaborate on how you knock the target prone in different ways each time. Maybe last time you delivered a blow to the back of the opponent's knee. But you can also use the same mechanics to overbalance a giant spider or shove an opponent's feet out from under him. Or to strike a giant in the ankle while his foot's descending. You can have different in-character actions that are mechanically represented with the same exploit, and in fact that's a great tool for encouraging players to get into their character's heads and visualize the combat as more than just tokens on the table.

I'm all for judgment calls, but the idea that a player isn't allowed to creatively reskin maneuvers to make combats look visually differently — and to keep his character as useful as it's expected to be — is pretty much on the harsh side.

A question: Has he ever used good old Page 42 of the DMG to adjudicate interesting stunts? Getting him to wrap his head around that might help him see the value of being able to represent a variety of different in-character actions with a simple core mechanic.

 

[EATherrian]

I think this thread really helped me figure out what about 4th Edition bothered me the most. Some of the powers I also ask myself why or how and the OPs example is one where I would. I still play it, but I know I couldn't DM it because the rules don't exactly make sense to me. I am a bit of a literalist though, and I admit my faults freely.

 

[Obryn]

I think the immobilization thing is simply poor DMing. He's basically turned Immobilize into Stun, and that's (IMO) a big no-no.

As for not being able to push a giant? Well, like I've said before, that's a judgment call. I agree with Mallus that basically the DM should try to allow powers to work on just about everything, unless it's pretty clearly absurd. In this case, I don't see what's crazy about a powerful fighter being able to knock a Large foe back a bit.

-O

 

[Mallus]

...a variety of potential maneuvers that the character can execute that are represented with the same mechanical effect.

Great description of a 4e martial power.

Maybe it's just me, but 4e exploits seem very similar to a 1e 'attack', which was really an array of (unspecified) actions that occurred during a whole minute's worth of time, potentially including, but not limited to, weapon strikes, feinting, tripping, intimidating, kneeing the privates, and so on.

A successful roll resulted in damage, but what that process looked like in-game was was left to the DM's narration (or the player and DM agreeing jointly on the narration).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't consider the idea wrongbadfun (or badwrongfun ) to play 4E this way but I don't really see the point of it myself. 4E PC's are superheroes and should get to do superhero stuff. If that isn't the style of game desired then it's simply a matter of the right tool for the right job.

I would agree, but let me point out how many people have said that the DM in question is "lazy", "wrong", or "broken" (using those or similar terms).

If someone says "I don't like playing 4e because the PCs are superheroes" the first thing trotted out is that the game doesn't have to be played like that -- you can simply restrict powers on the basis of makes sense.

Yet, as soon as one hears of a DM restricting powers on the basis of what makes sense, he is a poor DM, lazy, and wrong. Or simply doesn't know the rules.

Catch-22.



RC

 

[Obryn]

What's the Catch-22? That different groups play 4e differently and therefore think about martial powers differently?

I don't think of that as a contradiction so much as simple differences in playstyles. :shrug: 4e players are not a monolithic entity who are expected to agree on everything.

-O

 

[vagabundo]

Unfortunately he is the DM and his rulings are final - rule 0 and all that.

However, you could point him to the part that allows players to reskin powers* and come up with narrative solutions of your own.

Playing a different class could be a solution, something non-martial, maybe a primal class.

* I know this is in the players handbook II but is it in the DMG?

 

[Barastrondo]

If someone says "I don't like playing 4e because the PCs are superheroes" the first thing trotted out is that the game doesn't have to be played like that -- you can simply restrict powers on the basis of makes sense.

Yet, as soon as one hears of a DM restricting powers on the basis of what makes sense, he is a poor DM, lazy, and wrong. Or simply doesn't know the rules.

It's not really a Catch-22. Rather, it's that the DM isn't giving the player a shot to play 4e not like a superhero.

Yes, a directly literal read of the "push" mechanic as "you shove someone with pure physical strength alone" makes such a power come across as superheroic. But it doesn't have to be. The player's looking for a shot at describing the power use in a "not superheroic" fashion, by describing it in terms of a deft maneuver or a strike at a vulnerable part that forces the giant to take an involuntary step back. But because the DM takes the word "push" literally, he's assuming that the only way to use the power is in "superheroic" fashion.

And it doesn't have to be that way at all. Directly banning power use based on an overly literal intepretation of game effects isn't really giving the game, and its capability for narrative reskinning, a fair shake.

 

[Nebten]

What do the other players feel about this? I'm sure you are not alone in how you feel things are being handled. I would recommend talking with the other players and how they feel about what is being done. If the feeling is mutual, then you all should discuss these points with the DM. That way you don't have to go at it alone.

 

[wayne62682]

The other players are newbies and casual players so they don't really understand the implications.

 

[MercuryCrash]

Push This!

Yay for fantasy vs. logic. So what I'm seeing is a word, describing a mechanic, that is part of an ability, used by a capable character, played in what I am hoping is still considered a role playing game, that failed to work by definition. Role play the push, what happened? Backlash from the strike, off hand/shield get too close to for comfort, step on his toe. This may help him see what's going on in the fight.

The mechanics are in place to enhance the game play. Logically an armored up mini me flailing sharp objects may have me take a step back to re adjust, I'd rather take him out withouth the shin splints.

If there are other obsticles that may damage the enemy like a cliff or wall of fire I believe there is a saving throw for them to avoid, either way the amount of damage done would come into play for me, I'm not sure I would let a 300 hp brute go flailing off a cliff when just taking its first 4 hps of damage, though its not impossible.

If the trip to the tavern doesn't work out try serving him a dirty martini with a couple bleu cheese stuffed olives as he's drawing out the encounter. Otherwise, take over the dm spot and run it how you want to.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Well, it doesn't tell you how you push the target.

The blow is deep but not as deep as it would have been had the target not moved away!

You make your blow and prepare a follow up attack but the creature moves back.

There are a few ways to explain how the powers actually work.

Ironically, on RPG.net, I'm arguing that no power sources are 'not magical' in that they almost all have similiar abilities and that martial is no different. To me, the effect is what counts, not what 'power source' it comes from.

I'm wondering how to deal with my DM. The issue I have with him is that he often takes the wording in conditions or effects far too literally and then raises issues that don't exist by the RAW.

I'll give you an example: My Dragonborn Fighter/Iron Vanguard has the power Frontline Surge which lets me push an enemy back a square and shift into that space. My DM reads the word "push" as meaning I physically push the target, and raises issues that it's not realistic for me to push something that's much larger than myself - last week we were fighting a Fomorian (Giant-sized creature) and he would not let me push him as a result of Frontline Surge, despite there being no size restrictions for the power (in fact the only pushing power that has a restriction I'm aware of is Tide of Iron and that seems to be just because it's an at-will and infinitely spammable). I pointed out there was no rule saying this and he's like "Well, I don't like the idea of a medium-sized Dragonborn pushing a 20-something foot tall giant". He's said the same thing in regards to my Fighter's ability to stop enemies from moving.

Another example: He reads the word "immobilized" and takes it literally, thinking it's like paralysis. He once ruled that when you were immobilized in water, you automatically started to drown because you couldn't move, and he doesn't think you should get a save against bursts.

In short, how do I explain that, for instance, the word "push" is a status effect and a metagame term - it doesn't necessarily mean that I shove the dragon away, but that my blow makes him back up. I know the DM is always right, but...

 

[Doug McCrae]

Ironically, on RPG.net, I'm arguing that no power sources are 'not magical' in that they almost all have similiar abilities and that martial is no different.

D&D needs to come out and say fighters *are* magic. Even in 4e they're not safe from DMs' attempts at realism. Roll on 5e!

 

[jbear]

Good Advice: Talk to him. Not at the table, having a beer as suggested above. Explain your frustration and see if you can find a middle road.

Maybe you can come to a conclusion that the mechanics are as per the rules (Push moves the enemy away independant of size but it doesn't have to be a literal push), but you will invest your creativity describing your action so it makes sense to the DM in terms of logic.

'I drive my sword into the nervy area of the giants ankle causing him to hop back a step in pain'

I agree with Obryn that turning Immobilize into Stun is an error. An immobilzed creature can still attack freely. Only the legs don't move. In the water you could still move your arms. Actually it may even be simpler to move in water without using your legs than on solid ground.

I can swim without moving my legs. It's not as easy as when I use my legs so a penalty being imposed on the athletics check would seem very reasonable.

Logically I could drag myself across the floor as well. But then I'm not really immobilsed am I, unless my feet are stuck to the ground. But then how can your feet get stuck to water?

I think there is a call for consistency, if your DM is going to overrule game-mechanics to make a situation more plausible. I don't think he should seiously over-power an effect like immobilize. That can throw the game out of balance.

As a DM I really appreciate player feedback. When I mess up I keep that in mind the next time the situation arrives. Noone is perfect and and the DM is trying to keep a handle on a lot of things at once. I'm not sure what kind of guy your DM is, but hopefully reasonable enough to listen to your explanation of your feelings, especially if you do it calmy and respectfully.

 

[Parlan]

Don't I remember some text explaining what happens when flying creatures are tripped and go Prone?

It seemed like a good starting point for explaining that the default assumption in 4e is that the effects WILL apply to all creatures.

If your DM is unreceptive, I would also try saying, "will you let the effect stand if I can come up with a reasonable explanation?" That would at least mitigate some of the effects.

 

[howandwhy99]

I agree with a lot of the posters above. In 4E the combat game isn't considered part of roleplaying at all. Or really, it is considered the "scene resolution" between the story parts. You could as well drop the miniatures game and race dragsters to see who won the fight. It's as relevant to roleplaying and you would still be considered to be "roleplaying" throughout. As 4E's combat system is strictly resolution, then the rules should be known and followed by everyone at the table. The DM isn't a "DM" in that instance. Once the minis hit the table and the game board is exposed the DM has no authority over how that narrative resolution game plays out. EDIT: Not unless you consider him playing his minis as "DM" control. Combat in 4E is a competition between you and the DM where he can attempt to do anything he wants to against your PCs, but he still must follow the rules of the miniatures game before getting back to "roleplaying".

 

[arscott]

There's an important aspect of this that's being ignored: The flavor description.

The italicized description of Frontline surge doesn't actually use the word "push" at all. For the GM to ignore the description of what the power does in-game and instead derives his descriptive understanding from a power's technical shorthand is ridiculous.

The power says that the opponent is "beat back", and I'm happy to let the OP and his GM argue about whether or not that's possible. But to skip past the Italics and make your call based on the word that WotC happened to choose for a specific effect is as silly as saying "The monster doesn't loose any hit points to your fireball because you burned him instead of hitting him with something."