Dealing with a DM who takes things too literally

[Barastrondo]

If were to run 4e, I would base off of Fort, Ref,and Will. If a player want to ignore certain stats, they should pay the price- my opinion of course.

If you base those three off one specific stat in each pair, rather than the higher stat in each pair, you're basically rewarding certain classes. You punish people for ignoring Wisdom if they have a Charisma-heavy class like the bard, but you're not doling out an equivalent punishment for people who ignore Charisma and take a Wisdom-heavy class like the cleric.

Which is your prerogative, of course, but I think it's actually a good move on their part to make all stats equally useful. Having a high Charisma and low Wisdom might be a great roleplaying move, and I think it's balanced out quite nicely by, say, the low-Wisdom character's lower Insight, Perception and other skills. The need to penalize the character in combat just seems unnecessary.

 

[MichaelK]

When you can't talk plain English but instead some sort of game-speech where every mundane word is redefined in ways that have bearings on the rules of the game themselves, it's become WAY too abstract for my tastes. That's a problem with RPGs (whether that's just recent RPGs or not is up for grabs), it makes them all the more nerdy for the outsider.

I find it ironic that you've abbreviated Role Playing Games to RPGs in a post condemning the use of group-specific terminology.

I certainly appreciate when I purchase a core book and they've reduced the number of pages I have to read (and purchase, printing is expensive) by conveying the information in an efficient way.

Explaining a complex concept once, and then using a single term to invoke the entire concept again later on is very efficient. For example do you object to the book saying "D20" rather than "a twenty sided dice"?

Nor is it 'Nerdy' as you put it. Case in point, 'The Offside Rule'... or is football suddenly nerdy? I may have missed a memo.

Whoops, forgive me. A memorandum.

 

[Fifth Element]

I find it ironic that you've abbreviated Role Playing Games to RPGs in a post condemning the use of group-specific terminology.

You mean we're not talking about rocket-propelled grenades? That explains a few things.

Explaining a complex concept once, and then using a single term to invoke the entire concept again later on is very efficient. For example do you object to the book saying "D20" rather than "a twenty sided dice"?

This is precisely it. What "push" means in game terms is defined in pretty basic language, but rather than write that out for every power that includes the effect, it's defined once elsewhere and the word "push" is used. It's efficient, not nerdy.

 

[Hairfoot]

For example do you object to the book saying "D20" rather than "a twenty sided dice"?

I don't, because the singular is "die". I'd rather the authors didn't embarrass themselves with those sorts of errors.

 

[WalterKovacs]

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

Or, what the situation actually is:

When the DM is playing the game ONE way, while his players expected to be playing the game a different way, there are going to be problems.

You CAN run 4e in an "old school" way. However, if you run it that way, but DON'T tell your players that you are doing so, you have to expect some resistance.

It's not that old school is badwrongfun. It's not telling your players what to expect that causes problems. Cause if the players aren't having fun ... there is a problem.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't, because the singular is "die". I'd rather the authors didn't embarrass themselves with those sorts of errors.

Dice is also acceptable as the singular form. See for example, definition 1a here.

Edit: I think it's one of those "language changes over time, dude" things. If people would realize that, it would make me absolutely gay.

 

[gribble]

Asking how the man in armor pushes a giant is like asking how the man in the pointed hat shoots fire out of his hand. It just happens. You can explain it any way you like, in fact, that's a big part of the 4e DM's job.

The challenge for a 4e DM isn't to determine whether a martial exploit is reasonable in a given situation, it's to create a reasonable description of it occurring. It's a creative challenge, not a logical one.

I don't see this as a challenge for the DM, I see it as one for the player. Regardless of the text of a power/spell/feat/etc, every version of D&D (heck, every RPG) I've played/run is open to rule zero and DM's interpretation. If a DM says that he doesn't see how something can work in a given situation, then it's up to the player to describe to the DM how it *could* work, and convince the DM of the feasibility.

It shouldn't be the DM's job to figure out how a player's power works, when the player is the one trying to make it work in a situation that the DM thinks is nonsensical. The DM has a busy enough time of things anyway - the players only have to worry about one PC.

That's my take on it anyway.

 

[Jhaelen]

Or, what the situation actually is:

When the DM is playing the game ONE way, while his players expected to be playing the game a different way, there are going to be problems.

Funny, I was going to write exactly the same thing

I can see how players who believe RAW to be equivalent to the holy script would be irritated by a DM trying to inject a bit of common sense when interpreting the rules.

I'd definitely make sure to let the players know beforehand if I decided to interpret certain conditions differently in my game.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Funny, I was going to write exactly the same thing

I can see how players who believe RAW to be equivalent to the holy script would be irritated by a DM trying to inject a bit of common sense when interpreting the rules.

I'd definitely make sure to let the players know beforehand if I decided to interpret certain conditions differently in my game.

But it's not common sense.

It's a poor reading of the game mechanics and how the effects work.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I daresay most groups describe the powers and abilities in plausible ways, regardless of whether they're "old school" or not. Plausible being defined, of course, in relation to the game world.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

It would be like refusing to allow a 3.X character to take a "5-foot step" in combat, because you feel that 5 feet is just too much ground to cover in a single step.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

Specifically, the example was that the DM didn't think that the fighter character could actually cause the giant to move. Plausibility is specifically the issue, so one has to assume that the power was not described in a way which the DM felt was plausible.

Specifically (if one goes by the OP), the DM is saying that the plausibility of the world is more important than the rules of the game. I.e., the sequence of importance is "plausibility then rules". This is the definitive "Old School" sequence of importance.

Now, in previous discussions (more specifically focused around CAGI), many 4e defenders claimed that 4e could be run in an "Old School" way. Specifically, it was claimed that if the use of a power didn't seem plausible in a particular circumstance, the DM could veto its use. We now see that, for a number of EN Worlders, this statement simply isn't true. In both the circumstances of the CAGI discussion and the OP, the question is whether or not a character can compel a creature to move if the DM rules that it makes no sense for it to do so.

IOW, in 3e "5-foot step" can (should) be interpreted as more than one step (and is explicitly vetoed where it makes no sense, i.e., rough terrain), but in 4e that "push" still has to be interpreted as something. It is as much the player's responsibility as it is the DM's (more, I would say) to offer an interpretation that is plausible. Clearly, the OP did not offer an interpretation that the DM found plausible.

If the "push" isn't a physical push (i.e., the character is not physically forcing the creature to move), then either the creature is in some way compelled to move or it is not. This is exactly the same argument as with CAGI.

So, perhaps it is an "apparent lack of familiarity with the rules", or perhaps it is an unwillingness to allow rules to interfere with what makes sense (to the DM) in the game world.


RC