Help please. Complaints by players!

[JacktheRabbit]

My only point was that when there is a rule to cover a situation it should be followed to maintain a consistent game.

And I DM as much as I play.

Of course. IF the rule covers every possible situation. Since a flat out +5 to the DC for slippery could never cover all the degress of slipperiness.

So expecting the rule to be used 100% of the time is dumb.

 

[Tsyr]

1. Yes the DM is God. If you have a problem with that then reinstall Baldurs Gate and stick to it instead of games with actual humans in it.

However, as opposed to the view you seem to put forth, I subscribe to the view of "The DM doesn't have to be a tyranical, self-centered ego-maniac."

2. No the rules do not say the DC is 15. Unless you are going to tell me that no matter how slick something is the DC only goes up by 5 which is what you are saying. The rope bridge could be wet from rain which would make the bridge slick it could also be covered in rendered animal fat intentionally by the villian to make it much slicker. Is that a DC +5 also? I will hope you say no.

Just quoting the rules, not making judgement calls, so stop being so damned confrontational about every bloody thing.

3. You are falling into a VERY common player trap. You are assuming you know ALL the details. The player thought so as well and started to complain and argue about the situation and puts the DM in a very ty position. He now has to either ruin the moment by explaining all the facts the players character doesnt know or tell him to politely drop it and hope he does.

I'm not falling into any trap, thank you very much. How many times have I asked for details in this thread, saying I don't know enough to make a true judgement, and been told I think about it to much?

Read my bloody posts next time.

 

[Salad Shooter]

Once again, this has devolved into a chorus of "DM is God, smite insolent players!"... *sigh* And once again, this could have been such an interesting debate.

I'd like to argue the point that the DM is god. As my friend once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I used to think the DM was a god. I was wrong. God is merely an NPC. The DM controls God."

 

[Tsyr]

I'd like to argue the point that the DM is god. As my friend once said, and I'm paraphrasing, "I used to think the DM was a god. I was wrong. God is merely an NPC. The DM controls God."

Missing the point.

My view is that, yes, DM has ultimate say on a situation. That does *NOT*, however, mean he cannot be *WRONG*. A DM can make bad choices as easily as anyone else. Unfortunatly, the attitude of too many people here is, "It doesn't matter how bad a call it is, the DM made it, so it's the right call."

I'm a DM, mind you. But I'll freely admit I can screw up. Being a DM hasn't changed that in the slightest.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

However, as opposed to the view you seem to put forth, I subscribe to the view of "The DM doesn't have to be a tyranical, self-centered ego-maniac."


Just quoting the rules, not making judgement calls, so stop being so damned confrontational about every bloody thing.


I'm not falling into any trap, thank you very much. How many times have I asked for details in this thread, saying I don't know enough to make a true judgement, and been told I think about it to much?

Read my bloody posts next time.

I did read your post. Twice you quoted a rule that obviously cannot cover every possible situation.

I fail to see though how any of this is the actions of a self centered ego maniac. He set the challenge with reasons for that level. He never said he put it at that level specifically cause he wanted to screw the rogue. He specifically said though it was a trap set for the party.

I will also say it one more time just one more time to be clear. You say you ask for more details but at the same time you TWICE quoted the rules with a very obvious tone that the rules should have been used.

 

[Tsyr]

I did read your post. Twice you quoted a rule that obviously cannot cover every possible situation.

Did you miss me saying that *FOR SOME PEOPLE* this was all that mattered? Evidently you did.

I fail to see though how any of this is the actions of a self centered ego maniac.

When did I use that phrase specificly in reference to him?

He never said he put it at that level specifically cause he wanted to screw the rogue.

When did I say he was doing that?

I will also say it one more time just one more time to be clear. You say you ask for more details but at the same time you TWICE quoted the rules with a very obvious tone that the rules should have been used.

"A very obvious tone"? Actualy, if anything, I was trying for quite the opposite. But, then, I don't think you have ever failed to not read the worst possible thing into anything I say, so this comes as no surprise...

My entire point is that, *by the rules*, and hush for a second, because there are rules, there *are* rules to cover this that I feel do a perfect job for this situation. And when there are rules to cover a situation, I generaly frown on changing them if the existing rules cover the situation at hand. Sure, going wildly outside the expectations of the rules, you have to change things. Buuuut.....

Yes, you can always skew the DC check... But nothing about this bridge screamed "This is a really really hard bridge"... Just a normal slippery bridge, with nice hand rails, that had an unusualy high DC. Hence why I was asking for more details; to see if I was misunderstanding something before

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Missing the point.

My view is that, yes, DM has ultimate say on a situation. That does *NOT*, however, mean he cannot be *WRONG*. A DM can make bad choices as easily as anyone else. Unfortunatly, the attitude of too many people here is, "It doesn't matter how bad a call it is, the DM made it, so it's the right call."

I'm a DM, mind you. But I'll freely admit I can screw up. Being a DM hasn't changed that in the slightest.

No one has said the DM cannot screw up. What most people do not enjoy is a rules lawyering player who continues to argue a rule this way or that in the middle of a game.

I have been wrong before, rules are forgotten or misconstrued. I have also been right while the player is wrong. A player should not though argue them at the time. Rules problems should be brought up after the session.

Here is an example why.

My party was in a large battle against a small war party of drow and their human rogue/assasin ally.

The human ally gets into a melee battle with the twin sword ranger tank of the party. In the opening round that they face off the rogue foe misses the tank badly. The following round though he hits with two devestating attacks that include full sneak attack damage.

Now at this point the party tank's player starts bitching about how BS this is and arguing.

I tried to be polite and tell him we can talk about it later and that I knew what I was doing. The player continued to complain and grumble. Finally after several minutes that had completely disrupt the rather climactic battle I had to tell the player to shut up.

What was going on?

Simple. The rogue in question had used a misc standard action in his first round to bluff the tank. The following round per the bluff rules the rogue was able to attack the tank flat footed and thus get sneak attack damage.

Now the tank had failed his sense motive roll horribly when I had casually asked him to make one the first round. So he had no idea what was going on.

Did I do anything wrong? No not at all. But if I had explained everything rules wise to the player it would have made it impossible to continue the battle the way I had intended it. Since the player could have used meta knowledge and run like crazy every round his tank had failed his sense motive roll even though the character himself wouldnt have realized it.

(Now just to explain a bit further I wasnt going to roll the tank through the whole battle. While the opposed bluff roll vs sense motive roll would have stayed the same I was going to give the tank a free intelligence check every round with a progressively easier DC till he figured out the rogues particular fighting technique, assuming of course the player didnt finally figure it out on his own.)

 

[Urbannen]

The party must cross a slime (regular slime, not a monster) covered rope bridge. Under the bridge is the real threat. I gave the bridge a Reflex DC of 20.

Gallo22 later said it was a Balance check DC 20. I do find this to be unreasonable if the party MUST cross the bridge, and they have no other way to do it. A DC 20 is very high, especially for a skill such as Balance, which is low for many characters. A DC 15 is no certainty, either. Apparently this bridge was 7-12 inches wide, angled, and slippery. This would justify the DC 20 Balance check. Since these were all mundane reasons, it would be fair to share all of them with the players. If Gallo22 did, then it's the player's own fault for not knowing the rules. If Gallo22 didn't, then the fault lay with him. It is not unreasonable for a player to know the DCs of skills that he invests in. Without knowing the DCs, there is little way to judge the relative value of the different skill ranks. If a situation has a DC that is clearly not in line with those given in the PHB, then that could alert the PCs that arcane forces are involved. I think players should accurately be given the visible DC of physical tasks if they want to know.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

My entire point is that, *by the rules*, and hush for a second, because there are rules, there *are* rules to cover this that I feel do a perfect job for this situation. And when there are rules to cover a situation, I generaly frown on changing them if the existing rules cover the situation at hand. Sure, going wildly outside the expectations of the rules, you have to change things. Buuuut.....

Buuuut... D&D is a system of guidelines, not rules.

The DM is not infallible, and should have the maturity and good grace to admit his or her mistakes. Having said that, the DM is the final arbiter in any in-game situation. The DM's judgement calls may be questioned, in a mature and constructive manner, after the game. But any player who seeks to quote a "rule" at the DM during the game, and allege the DM "got it wrong", does not trust the DM to provide a fair, balanced, and entertaining game. Accordingly, either the DM or the player can leave to find a game more to their liking, where there are no arguments about "rules" - like checkers.

Cheers, Al'Kelhar

 

[mmu1]

Did I do anything wrong? No not at all. But if I had explained everything rules wise to the player it would have made it impossible to continue the battle the way I had intended it. Since the player could have used meta knowledge and run like crazy every round his tank had failed his sense motive roll even though the character himself wouldnt have realized it.

a) Getting Bluffed in combat doesn't make you flat-footed, it makes you lose your Dex bonus against the next attack from the enemy that feinted.

b) The idea that a trained fighter needs Sense Motive or Intelligence checks to realize he just got faked out after getting sneak attacked twice as a result of a Feint is just a prime example of your patented "Player can't find own ass without a map, a lantern and a DC 20 Intuit Direction check" DMing style.

"Hmm... He looked like he stumbled, but when I tried to take advantage of it, he was ready for me and stabbed me in the left kidney... Ouch! How did he manage to hit the other one, all off balance like that... What is it called when they do that? Right on the tip of me tongue... Oh, look he dropped his weap... Arrgh! There goes the spleen... Hah! I know, A FEINT!"

A successful sneak attack following a feint kind of gives the game away...
I