Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Grumpy Celt" data-source="post: 258608" data-attributes="member: 1019">First, call me Grumpy. DMs’ want to be able to do anything they can at any time they want to the players through their characters.  Being able to call them on the rules is in the best interests of the players.  It is not in the best interest of the players to spend a lot of time and energy on a game onto have to lay prone – so to speak – and take whatever abuse the DM feels like vomiting up.In a previous campaign – the last 2E campaign in which I participated – we ran multiple characters and all the characters knew each other "in-game."  One player, "John," ran an elf with the undead slayer kit.In one adventure into Undermountain the party encountered a vampire.  The next time we were to go into Undermountain, "John" wanted to run his undead slayer in case we again encountered the vampire.  This seemed to be a real possibility as several of the characters were the same ones as before and we were going to the same region of Undermountain.  The DM told us specifically – out of game – that he would *not* be using the vampire. So "John" left behind the undead slayer and played his gnome, as per the DMs request.The DM did – in fact – use the vampire and had it kill "John's" gnome.If that is not lying, what is? So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0." This same DM berated another player, "Steve," for having bought the "I, Tyrant" book. The DM had been planning to use beholders in his game. He only berated "Steve" after the fact. He did it so much "Steve" give the book away.So, the DM was determining which books players could and could not own. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0." This same DM completely changed the way skill rules worked.  This essentially set all the players characters back four or five levels in terms of skills but advanced certain NPC's in terms of skills.  The DM did so without speaking to us, the players, nor did he inform us until a situation where in it came up in game. At this time the characters failed. When "John" protested, the DM penalized his characters 2,500 XP.He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."This same DM changed orcs to something like a 5 HD creatures – in the middle of a combat that was going well for the player characters – to make them more challenging.He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."He changed the alignment of a player character without consulting the player of the character.He was changing the rules at his whim. So this, then, is your revered "Rule 0."This behavior is all part-and-parcel of the same behavior.You cannot have it both ways. Either one endorses "Rule 0" and this behavior or one does not endorse this behavior and "Rule 0." DM – protective of their power – always hate it when a player questions anything they do for any reason. Protests otherwise are like a paper bell – they ring hollow.One endorses complete DM power and unaccountability and that DMs’ are not to be hampered by players calling them on rule violations for any reason ever. Or one does not endorse this and suggests that players can question a DM without being penalized. It cannot go both ways anymore than a person can walk in opposite directions at the same time. Their is only one thing a player can do when a DM changes a rule to suit themselves, lies, alter player characters, demands players do not buy books or some similar action.That is to tell the DM what they did wrong and leave the game.</blockquote>

Verification