Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[Ariosto]

In 4E, "roll initiative", or just mapping a site and placing figurines, may conventionally be a cue that what's up is "supposed to be" a combat scenario. Still, it is only by such a mutually agreed-upon limitation that one should feel forced to follow up by attacking. In themselves, none of those procedures prevent you from saying, "It's okay! Gary sent us!" -- or from beating feet if the bad dudes look too bad to tangle with. (Out of sight, cast Ghost Sound to lead pursuers astray.)

 

[Kez Darksun]

Certainly.



Rules are not set in stone and are always up to GM interpretation and fiat.

Understandable. However, as a player I would like the opportunity to give feedback on proposed rule changes before a final decision is made. After all, as a player, I'm the one being affected. I don't expect to have my views prevail every time, but I do expect my concerns to be listened to.

Feels entitled to XP at the rate listed in the book.

Guilty. Unless there is a good reason for it, I don't find it unreasonable to receive the standard amount of xp as designated by the rules. Having said that, I'm playing a game tomorrow where the group all agreed to essentially turn of gaining xp's for the last part of KotS since we don't want to plow through Thunderspire Labyrinth because we're higher than the recommended starting level.

Not actually any entitlement here, but I'd just like to say I don't entirely agree with his premise (that 14-17 means you should start the adventure at level 14 rather than starting at anywhere from 14-17) and also I don't really see what this bit has to do with anything else. Seems totally irrelevant.

Personally, I find it to be more fun to go through a module at the appropriate level starting point as opposed to starting it at a higher level. I can't comment on any difficulties starting a paragon level module early since I haven't gotten to play in that tier yet.

Feels entitled to treasure at the rate listed in the book.

Don't have enough games played with 4th edition to really comment on any difficulties from treasure acquisition progression through the levels, but as long as its somewhat reasonable, I don't have a problem with non-standard treasure distribution.

Again, not really an issue of entitlement here so much as I disagree with the assumption that 4e requires a more rigid interpretation of the rules than previous editions. In particular, I think 3rd edition suffers from that a lot more than 4th edition does.

I feel I should re-state that from what's been said, I do think there are issues with the GM. I'm merely explaining that, like most things in life, the story is not entirely one-sided and that there may be issues on both sides of the screen. Others in the thread have done a well-enough job of examining the DM, I just want to bring a bit of balance to the discussion.

Not a problem, and I do understand only one side has been presented. Its always helpful to hear from someone with an opposing viewpoint to try and understand where the other side might be coming from.

 

[Melan]

It seems to me the DM's mistake is one of not communicating his intentions clearly. Aside from being poor at tactics, his decisions strike me as legitimate: his tweaks on the rules don't seem excessive, and may have been used consciously to a stylistic effect. This should be discussed at the table to see where he was precisely coming from.

I also agree with Asmor in that the OP has an undue sense of entitlement to what the rules "prescribe". That's not a DM problem, but a player one.

 

[malraux]

I feel "entitled" to follow the rules when I'm playing D&D! The rules are a common baseline we can/should all be comfortable with, unless the DM announces he is purposely running a game with a modified or alternate ruleset.

Really, that's the best answer. If I say I'm running a 4e campaign, that sets up certain expectations. House rules should be open and all rules should be relatively transparent.

If I was playing with this guy, well, I wouldn't. Life's too short for crappy DMing! He's not altering the rules because he's designed a "better way", he's altering the rules because he doesn't understand them. To properly break rules, you must understand them first!

That's also really true. I once played under a DM that didn't understand the take 10/20 rules in 3e and insisted on fumble rules, which mean my monk sucked even more than he was supposed to. It just made things unfun.

 

[roguerouge]

Having read this thread through, I feel more strongly that the Neutral Evil response to this DM is the appropriate one.

You'll never win a vote with the DM's girlfriend, sister, and sister's SO. Open communication only leads to you being on the outside here. So, you need to start assuming that there are no rules.

After all, your DM has clearly stated that he's not going to follow rules of XP or monster abilities, and that he's going to re-write reality to say that you should have read his mind and RPed with monsters drawing weapons.

Well, there's only one way to read his mind consistently: read his module. The only way to give him what he wants--knowing what to fight or RP about--read the module and give it to him. If your character's life depends on knowing when the DM is about to start playing the monsters as written, then you should know what they're capable of when they do so.

If your DM breaks the social contract, you're a sucker if you keep the social contract while he breaks it when it comes to rules, rewards, tactics, encounter design and adventure design.

You're playing a new game, "guess what I'm thinking" and there's only one way to play that game... steal his notes.

If the name of the game is to have fun and the only valid reason for a DM to cheat is for the players to have more fun and you're not having fun... well, it's time to cheat or walk away.

If someone starts cheating at cards, you don't take the high road. You leave the table or you start counting cards.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

He's basically said that if he divided the XP by 4 (using encounters as-is) we would be higher than recommended - I mention that that's the whole POINT since we're facing encounters designed for 5 PCs, and in any event he's supposed to reduce the monsters for encounters to compensate for the fact that we only have 4 PCs and THEN divide by 4. He doesn't understand that concept at all and just blankly states that it would make encounters "too easy".

Ignore for a moment the individual actions the GM has taken and look at your DnD game from a zoomed out level.

You guys have played from 1st to 14th or 15th level and never lost a character. As a GM, I feel the need to adjust the difficulty level up tick-by-tick until I finally get a PC whacked. My goal is to balance the adventures so they aren't too easy (never lost a character) and aren't too hard (TPK once per adventure).

I could do so by whacking your XP and gimping your loot. I could also do so by giving you the levels you want and not gimping your loot, but instead altering all the encounters. I would choose the first, as its the easiest for me to do (although I hate gimping loot, and would rather whack even more XP).

I TOTALLY understand the "Make you fight all the time" complaint and fully sympathize. The other complaints of lower XP and loot I don't have the same sympathy for, since you guys seem to be doing OK without them...thus I don't see how you are claiming you are at a disadvantage.

DS

 

[Chainsaw]

Have him run a 1e campaign for you guys instead.

Based on what I've read so far, I'm not so sure changing editions fixes this group's problems..

 

[Darrin Drader]

It sounds to me like the DM is rebalancing things to fit his preference. Skimping on XP and treasure is the tactic you would take to keep players from gaining levels too fast. In 3rd edition, it's a perfectly valid approach and is in the rules. I really don't see why it wouldn't work for 4E as well. The only way you can deal with it is to accept that he's running the game the way he wants and if you can adjust, do so. Otherwise find a game run by someone who doesn't deviate from the pre-defined grid established by the 4E designers. "Old school" approach does not necessarily mean "worse".

 

[Doug McCrae]

All old school DMs should be treated the same way:

1) Get ahold of the Pathfinder rpg. That m----rf---er weighs like 4 lbs.
2) Say "Get with it, granddad!"
3) Using the aforementioned exciting new rpg system, strike the old school DM firmly between the legs.

Hope this helps!

 

[Nellisir]

Based on what I've read so far, I'm not so sure changing editions fixes this group's problems..

Ditto. I wouldn't want to play a 1e game with this DM. I doubt changing editions is magically going to make him understand tactics and the fine art of negotiation. And, if he's been DMing 4e for a year, I doubt he really cares to change how he's running the game. Willful ignorance is bliss and all that.

And, I think the rules are always up to the DM...but the DM should really -understand- those rules. This guy doesn't. He's just randomly ripping pieces out to suit his aesthetic.