Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[Noumenon]

And then there's people suggesting that you read the modules and cheat?

Unlike in games like baseball, I think it's OK to cheat at D&D if it's more fun. Reading the module is just the equivalent of reading the walkthrough to a video game. If you have more fun not bumbling around and missing the secrets, that's what really matters.

I've never actually tried this, though -- first, there would be "spoilers," and second, it'd be hard to roleplay right with all that metaknowledge. You might screw up the game for all your friends, or they might just react badly even if reading the module did make the game more fun for them.

 

[Storm Raven]

The DM sets the rules....period. I don't care what the books say the rules are. If a DM wants to change those rules, he is in his right to do so. But if he changes something, he is obligated to alert the players of it beforehand. If he doesn't, he's commiting a crime and should be forced to listen to Miley Cyrus CDs.

Sure, as I said before, house rules are fine, and I don't have any problem with them. I use them often when I DM. But they need to be outlined ahead of time and agreed upon by everyone, or at least eveyone needs to get a chance to agree or decide the game isn't for them.

But that's not what happened in the situation being complained about, and not what many in this thread have advocated. They have advocated the idea that the DM should just rule however he feels, and any player who complains about that has "entitlement issues" because they have dared to challenge the perrogative of the DM to screw around with them at all times.

What you fail to grasp is that if a DM is using his own set of rules, then he should be allowing the player to use that same set of rules. If he isn't, then the DM is cheating. If the DM is allowing the players to use the same set of rules (which he should be), and a player goes and reads an adventure, the player is doing nothing but cheating. He's not getting "revenge" and he's not being evil; he's just flat out being a cheating prick.

I'm not failing to see that. I'm noting that this is not what has happened in the situation at hand. It is also not what those who's comments I have commented upon have advocated. They have advocated that the DM should change things at will, in the interest of "fun", and that players who think that is a problem are somehow whining complainers with entitlement issues. (Because back in the day, apparently, being a jerk of a DM was the way things were supposed to be - on the other hand, in my "back in the day" DMs who acted like that ended up by themselves in short order).

If the DM doesn't abide by the rules of the game, and it is okay for him to do so, why is he not a "cheating prick", but the player who decides what is good for the goose is good for the gander is a "cheating prick"?

Where did I say "more fun"? I said, "fun". All a guy can do is try to provide "fun" for other players.

So now the changes in the rules are just to provide fun? But if the players are complaining about the changes, are the changes really fun? Think about that for a bit.

I like it when people accuse DMs of having a sense of entitlement Who are the players that usually say that? The ones that have an overwhelming sense of entitlement , that's who.

Or, in my case, someone who spends about 90% of his game time DMing. Recalibrate your answers with than in mind.

 

[Oryan77]

If you come into my house in the middle of the night, I am fully justified in confronting you with my shotgun. I'm not sure how that takes diplomacy off the table. How about: "Wait! Don't shoot, we're here to fix the phone line!" That might make me click the safety back on. Or it might not, but the option for diplomacy remains.

I really like that analogy. I can sympathize with the OPs DM about roleplaying before combat, but I can also sympathize with the OP about the players not thinking about roleplaying before the combat starts.

I've found myself criticizing the players for not being diplomatic and instead going straight to combat. But then I realize it's a game where players are used to "murdering" tavern patrons during a bar fight where the PCs threw the first punch because the civilian mouthed off to him and made him look stupid. The combat is the fun part and is what we resort to quickly because it's exciting. So many times have my players killed first and then thought, "Crap, maybe we shoulda asked some questions first". Sometimes as a player you just don't think about it when the DM describes the BBEG as looking ready for a fight. So I've learned to be understanding towards my players and I realize that I need to put forth that extra effort to "nudge" them into roleplaying before the fight. It's not always their fault for killing first and Speaking with Dead later

Hell, it took him two adventures to scale up our armor to a manageable level; I had only a +1 suit of armor at 9th level (that I found at 2nd level during Keep on the Shadowfell) and then it got "upgraded" to +3 because I guess he realized our defenses were horrible.

Really, you should ease up on the guy. This is a completely common thing about running a game. The DM is but one man. He has an entire campaign to run & prepare for while you have a single character to look after. Being a DM yourself, you should be understandable that it's pretty difficult to keep up with every single PCs power level and character wealth...especially as they level up every time and these things change. Personally, I'd rather my DM bone up on making a cool adventure and providing some exciting gameplay opportunities rather than focusing on my character wealth & power level. If I notice a problem during encounters, then I feel it's up to me to let him know so he can prepare for it later when he gets a chance.

So lets see, you were underpowered due to lack of appropriate gear, the DM realizes this, and then gives you your much needed upgrade. And the problem is that he didn't do this fast enough for you? Were there character deaths due to the fact that you were under equipped? Did you not overcome an encounter because you were under equipped? If either of these were issues for your group, then I can understand your gripe. But if there were character deaths because of this, and nobody pointed it out to the DM, then I can't sympathize with you. But to complain just because you didn't get your goodies fast enough just sounds silly to me.

Reading the module is just the equivalent of reading the walkthrough to a video game.

The difference is, a video game isn't going to care if you're cheating

Nobody is saying that they are going to tell their DM that they are going to read the module so they can metagame. What they are saying is that they are going to flat out cheat. It doesn't matter what people say to justify it, it's still cheating and pretty childish. But if they are up front with their DM and the DM doesn't care, then I see nothing wrong with the cheating.

 

[Umbran]

Well, I guess it is lucky for you that you found some sheep/players desperate enough to put up with your entitlement issues.

Apparently, you feel entitled to call people who are not even present to defend themselves "sheep".

You probably want to rethink that. However much you don't like how the poster does things, you don't get to insult any and all who might be okay with it.

I hope that's clear. There's no call to insult... pretty much anyone around here. Really. There just isn't. Thanks for your attention.

 

[Storm Raven]

this is clear sign of someone who thinks an RPG can be "won" and that the way to "win" it is to min/max everything and squeeze out every possible advantage and argue for all rules interpretations to go in one direction.

No, it is a clear sign of someone who thinks that the DM should be expected to play by the rules too. And if he doesn't, then it isn't a sign of creativity, or genius, or some sort of DM entitlement. It is just a guy who wants to play a different game than the one everyone else thought they were playing.

Now don't think I don't think house rules are perfectly okay. But what we are talking about here aren't house rules (and they certainly aren't house rules announced ahead of time). We are talking about a DM who gets all huffy that the players at the table expect that the rules of the game will be the actual rules used.

I have been DM'ing since 1978 and this attitude does seem to become more prevalent all the time.

I have been DMing for about the same amount of time. I have found players have become markedly better in that time frame. And less willing to put up with DM crap stemming from DM entitlement. I discarded my sense of DM entitlement decades ago, so this has not been a problem for me.

If you dont allow the DM fiat and latitude - you might as well play on on-line game where the computer makes all the math decisions for you and there are no moments of discretion.

There are a whole host of reasons to play with a live DM that have nothing to do with fidelity to the rules. I suspect you know this already. The fact that players show up to a game table expecting DMs to follow the rules of the game they say they are going to use is not a measure of player entitlement. The fact that many DMs get bent out of shape that players show up with that expectation is a measure of DM entitlement.

 

[Storm Raven]

I suspect he's well aware that he's lucky to not have certain players.

Like say, players who come to a D&D game expecting they will play using the rules of the D&D game? Infidels!

 

[FireLance]

I've found myself criticizing the players for not being diplomatic and instead going straight to combat. But then I realize it's a game where players are used to "murdering" tavern patrons during a bar fight where the PCs threw the first punch because the civilian mouthed off to him and made him look stupid. The combat is the fun part and is what we resort to quickly because it's exciting. So many times have my players killed first and then thought, "Crap, maybe we shoulda asked some questions first". Sometimes as a player you just don't think about it when the DM describes the BBEG as looking ready for a fight. So I've learned to be understanding towards my players and I realize that I need to put forth that extra effort to "nudge" them into roleplaying before the fight. It's not always their fault for killing first and Speaking with Dead later.

Indeed. I think that if the DM wants the players to try negotiating after initiative is rolled and weapons are drawn, he has to do more than just complain to the players that they aren't negotiating enough. However, I get the feeling that many DMs are too firmly entrenched in referee mode to fully embrace their role as a teacher of the game (or at least, a teacher of their games).

 

[Lord Zack]

As far as I'm concerned it's the DM that decides the rules not the gaming company. The published rules are guidelines. But the DM and Players must be on the same page or... well stuff like this happens.

 

[Oryan77]

They have advocated that the DM should change things at will, in the interest of "fun", and that players who think that is a problem are somehow whining complainers with entitlement issues.

Hmm, I must have missed those replies. I'd say if a DM is trying to be open ended with the rules, I honestly see nothing wrong with that as long as he can pull it off and he is being fair...as long as he thinks it's for the good of the game. If a player isn't enjoying it, I can also understand that. But if the player isn't voicing his concerns to the DM and instead complains about it online, then he is being a whining complainer with entitlement issues. Not every game is the same. And if you can't deal with the way a DM runs a game, then don't play. The problem isn't with the DM, it's with the player that complains and still sticks around.

It's like playing a video game. If I don't like an MMO game because the gameplay sucks, then I simply don't play it. If I continue to play it and I complain every step of the way, who's to blame? Me or the game developers? No, if I don't like it, I'll find a new game that I do like.

So now the changes in the rules are just to provide fun? But if the players are complaining about the changes, are the changes really fun?

I'll just keep repeating myself, if a DM is attempting to do something in an attempt to make the game better, I have no problem with that and I would try to accommodate him. There is nothing wrong at all with a guy that cares to make a game funner. But if I think his changes are making the game bad, then I'll let him know so hopefully he can improve the game more to my liking. If he doesn't and I am still not having fun, then it's not the game for me and I'll gracefully leave. His changes could very well be fun for some people, just not for me. That doesn't mean this DM sucks and is a bad guy.

Or, in my case, someone who spends about 90% of his game time DMing. Recalibrate your answers with than in mind.

But not all DMs make great players. Not saying anything about you, I'm just pointing that out.

 

[Storm Raven]

As far as I'm concerned it's the DM that decides the rules not the gaming company. The published rules are guidelines. But the DM and Players must be on the same page or... well stuff like this happens.

Sure they need to be on the same page, which is why I said that house rules are okay, if announced ahead of time, and agreed to by the people involved. If the DM says he is playing 4e D&D, or 1e D&D, or whatever, and a player shows up at his table, he is entitled to expect that the rules of that game are the ones that will be used except where noted ahead of time. And that isn't an entitlement issue on the part of the player. It is simply the way things should be.

But if everyone shows up expecting to play D&D, and instead they end up playing "Bob's Personal RPG" (to which only Bob knows the rules) or worse still "Carl's Randomly Shifting Bag O'Fiat" (to which not even Carl knows the rules ahead of time), then when the players complain, they aren't the problem. And yet, we often have DMs saying that those players are the ones who are the trouble, and they need to just sit down, shut up, and respect the DM's authoritah.