what do you do when you don't coincide with your DM

[dreaded_beast]

very good points

doesn't it get frutstrating at times though? although the DM may listen to what you have to say, it may be pointless since they will usually go by whatever they think is correct regardless of what reasons or evidence you may present to the contrary. other times, the DM may not even like you questioning their rulings since they feel that they are the DM and should not be constantly nagged about every ruling they make. on the other hand, they more often than not are quick to point out if a player knows what he is doing or understands the rules.

arghh!

do you guys ever feel like that at times and what do you do?

however, i do agree that fun is what is important.

i usually find myself disagreeing, not saying anything just so the game can continue. but it usually sort of works out, since the session can continue and everyone can focus on having fun.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

very good points

doesn't it get frutstrating at times though? although the DM may listen to what you have to say, it may be pointless since they will usually go by whatever they think is correct regardless of what reasons or evidence you may present to the contrary. other times, the DM may not even like you questioning their rulings since they feel that they are the DM and should not be constantly nagged about every ruling they make. on the other hand, they more often than not are quick to point out if a player knows what he is doing or understands the rules.

arghh!

do you guys ever feel like that at times and what do you do?

however, i do agree that fun is what is important.

i usually find myself disagreeing, not saying anything just so the game can continue. but it usually sort of works out, since the session can continue and everyone can focus on having fun.

For me the real trick is simply to wait till after the game then express my thoughts, whether the Dm listen or not, at least I have let him know how I feel. I know that as a Dm I am much more likely to listen to a player if he asks me after the game then when he challenges me in the middle of the game. Also if the player is correct in the ruling, but it is not an effect I care for, or the group is less then impressed with, I just make a house rule.
While it can still be irritating to know that the situation hasn't changed it can help to know that the rule has been modified and you can take satisfaction in that.
If you are constantly be frustrated by your Dm and his ruling then it may be time to look at the group the Dm and think am I really having fun and enjoying myself. I have left groups in the past where their style just didn't mesh with mine and rather then butt heads or get frustrated, I found it easier to walk away and find a group I can enjoy.



Ken

 

[dreaded_beast]

If a player gave me that kind of attitude at the table in front of the other players, that could be the start of some bad blood. Tact is always a good thing to use when discussion things among friends
ken

sometimes i think DMs may give that attitude towards their players. it's as if the DM thinks the players are not fully able to understand the rules on their own and need to be corrected by the DM. corrected defined as what the DM interprets as correct.

what gets bothersome is when after being corrected by the DM, as a player you say you understand the rules and you do, but the DM is insistant on continuing to explain the rules further "for your benefit", taking time away from the game session. in my opinion, that is insulting to one's intelligence. then the DM get's bent out of shape when you want to hurry the game along by cutting his lengthy explanation short.

however, i have to say that it takes a lot of patience to be a DM, especially with the kind of players out there! what kind of person would want to subject themselves to the thankless job of being a DM, always listening to players complaining, whining, etc?

kudos to DMs out there, all though my post may sound otherwise

 

[Geoff Watson]

It varies.

Sometimes I just accept it, and move on.

Other times, I argue at the table, especially if it's a rules change that affects my character.

It also depends on the DM. Some DMs I trust more than others. If a DM has a track record of changing the rules in mid game, seemingly just to annoy the players, I'm more likely to argue. Sometimes I feel I should stop playing in that game, but that would offend.

Geoff.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

sometimes i think DMs may give that attitude towards their players. it's as if the DM thinks the players are not fully able to understand the rules on their own and need to be corrected by the DM. corrected defined as what the DM interprets as correct.

what gets bothersome is when after being corrected by the DM, as a player you say you understand the rules and you do, but the DM is insistant on continuing to explain the rules further "for your benefit", taking time away from the game session. in my opinion, that is insulting to one's intelligence. then the DM get's bent out of shape when you want to hurry the game along by cutting his lengthy explanation short.

and that is why threats and rules discussions should be after the game. in the post i comment on the player to my mind threatened the Dm by saying well if that is the rule then just you wait and I'll stick it too you. It may not of been what he meant but in the post that is how is sounded that is why i suggested tact, it can go a long way.
ken

 

[Zappo]

If a player gave me that kind of attitude at the table in front of the other players, that could be the start of some bad blood. Tact is always a good thing to use when discussion things among friends.

I probably didn't explain myself well, I'll try to do better.

"The evil cleric casts Harm at you. Roll a Fortitude save, DC..."

"Wait, Harm by the rules has no save. Do you know that?"

"Yep!"

"Ok" - Zappo rolls, and makes a mental note to prepare one less Harm the following day.

--------------------------------

"Next round, roll your save against the poison again".

"Uhm, poisons by the book deal the secondary damage after one minute or ten rounds. Is this a special poison, or it's a house rule that works for all poisons?"

"All poisons, IMC. You see, that way..."

"Good, no problem!" - Zappo rolls, and thinks that a dagger of venom could be a wise investment.

--------------------------------

In fact not only I am a very tactful person, but at the table I never, ever, even start any discussion.

I just try to make things clear, because when house rules appear, vanish or change without notice, or when they only apply to NPCs (or PCs), that's where the problems begin. And sometimes the DM really misunderstood how poison works.

Mind ya, a DM that has a habit of making important house rules without telling them in advance is going to get an argument, but not during the game.

 

[Eryx]

Rant

Sadly I have a player in my group who knows the rules inside and out (he's my resident twink/power gamer, sadly), and he really doesn't like it if a ruling doesn't conform to the rules in the book.

He's handy to have around, as I'm happy to admit that I don't have a full head for rules, especially the ly stuff like AoO's, what does and what doesn't qualify for this and that, but he's turning into a real pest at the moment.

There are sometimes that the DM needs to make a ruling on which their is nothing in the DMG/PHB or whichever books you use, and he won't have it. He argues little things instead of just playing.

If something happens (maybe it involves a monsters special abilities or certain affects that a spell has given an NPC), and I don't explain it to him (because he needs to know how the rules are affected!) he gets worked up and all but demands to know what is going on.

I've tried tact and saying that sometimes the players don't need to know the specifics, but he won't have it. Its getting so bad that the rest of the group and I are thinking of asking him to leave the group if he doesn't cut it out.

 

[Dark Eternal]

Re: Rant

ly stuff?




As for me and my house...

I have a bad tendency to get drawn into arguments without meaning to. I realize that this is a trait that causes my DM all kinds of headaches, and probably doesn't thrill my fellow players, and I really try not to let it happen. But sometimes it does. Especially when I'm the one who's made a mistake, and the result of that mistake is going to get my character shafted.

"Ok, so I was wrong about how that rule works. But I don't think my character should die because of my mistake; given the way the rule actually works, he wouldn't have tried to do what I just tried to do. Rather, he would have done this instead."

Unfortunately, this seldom works, and I end up frustrated with myself for screwing my character over, and ruining the mood at the table. And there's nothing I hate more than when I'm frustrated and have only myself to blame.

So I guess I've still got a long ways to go before I'm a perfect player.

 

[JoeGKushner]

The only time I'll argue with a GM is when they change something on the fly because they want something to happen in a specific way or manner. "Oh yeah, undead now take half damage from all weapons." Oh, you happened to tell me that right as we're getting ready to fight them? Most of the time I'll ask a question or two, i.e. house rule or their interpetation, and leave it at that. If it is a house rule, I ask it be written down so that we all have access to the 'standard' rule at a latter date.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

I probably didn't explain myself well, I'll try to do better.

"The evil cleric casts Harm at you. Roll a Fortitude save, DC..."

"Wait, Harm by the rules has no save. Do you know that?"

"Yep!"

"Ok" - Zappo rolls, and makes a mental note to prepare one less Harm the following day.

--------------------------------

"Next round, roll your save against the poison again".

"Uhm, poisons by the book deal the secondary damage after one minute or ten rounds. Is this a special poison, or it's a house rule that works for all poisons?"

"All poisons, IMC. You see, that way..."

"Good, no problem!" - Zappo rolls, and thinks that a dagger of venom could be a wise investment.

--------------------------------

In fact not only I am a very tactful person, but at the table I never, ever, even start any discussion.

I just try to make things clear, because when house rules appear, vanish or change without notice, or when they only apply to NPCs (or PCs), that's where the problems begin. And sometimes the DM really misunderstood how poison works.

Mind ya, a DM that has a habit of making important house rules without telling them in advance is going to get an argument, but not during the game.

Ah okay sorry just the way I read the Post it looked a little different. My bad
ken