Von Ether said:
I'm coming from the player's side, my GM always accused me of "whining" about my 3.0 druid and his animal companions.
I snipped a bunch of examples to save space.
It sounds like your DM is obsessed with control. If I had to make a guess, I'd say he tends to create very elaborate, linear stories that he's obsessed with seeing play out in a specific way, or he sees the game as DM v. players. I wouldn't be able to put up with more than a session or two of such a style, and I definitely don't run my games like that. When I talk about whining I mean "Let's stop the game for 10 minutes and argue over whether I should have +1 or +2 to hit because of factor X, or I want to now complain about what happened 2 sessions ago." It's stuff that brings the game to a halt and just bores everyone to death.
In my group, my DM style changes based on who's playing. To give an example - I really like running long, cinematic, fast and loose fights. For instance, in one game the party's fighter drank a potion of enlarge person, dropped to one knee, and formed a ramp with his back that the hexblade used to leap into the air and skewer a gauth. I created rules for the action completely on the fly, and the players didn't argue or try to squeeze any extra benefits from it. With some of my players, there's an understanding that the rules are guidelines, and that I'll bend them to accomodate any fun, crazy stuff they want to try. If I make a ruling on Monday, there's no guarantee that it'll be the same on Thursday. The players know to ask first, or to accept that a lot of the weird rulings are spot stuff made to keep the game moving or to encourage creativity in battles.
However, I have a few players who see the rules as a tool they can use to gain an advantage in the game. If I allowed that action, and handled it the same way when they were playing, they'd crunch the numbers, figure out if the maneuver was "better" than a normal attack, and start using it all the time. My intent in making judgements like is to give the players the chance to do something fun. To the rules lawyers, it's a chance to force me into a spot ruling that they can try to use against me.
To go back the warlock, he'll never just ask "Can I ignore their cover if I spiderclimb here?" Instead, he starts playing 20 questions with me - "How high is the ceiling?" "Are there any depressions or holes up there?" And when he thinks he has enough information to argue his point, he does his action, tells me what benefit he thinks he should get, and starts arguing. There's also a persistent assumption that bad event X never would've happened if I had ruled their way on certain issues.
The interesting thing is that I've been in Von Ether's shoes in the past - it's a big reason why I vastly prefer DMing to playing. I've had DMs flat out refuse to allow my halfling rogue to Hide, move while hiding, and then fire an arrow for sneak attack damage. I've seen other DMs refuse to give out much magical treasure, but then they use the CR system as printed and wonder why the party can't handle a beholder. I've been in other games where my wizard has found a grand total of zero scrolls to scribe into his books.
I've developed a severe allergy to DMs who use house rules. Unless I've gamed with someone for a while, my first instinct is to mistrust any changes. Especially as a full-time d20 designer, I can see some house rules and immediately pick apart their problems and merits. IME, a fair chunk of house rules (though not all) are developed by DMs to shut down what they see as character abilities that are too powerful.
I think that the social side of D&D - what I call the metagame - has a tremendous impact on how the game works, but it isn't something that anyone aside from Robin Laws pays much attention to. The +4 cover rule struck me as something that has a real effect there, at least with my group.
In CCGs, the metagame focuses on figuring out the most popular decks, the most popular cards, and the most common strategies. I think in D&D, the metagame rests in the social relationships between the participants. I had never really thought about it, but I've come to the realization that the way I handle the rules, and my DMing style, change dramatically based on who's at a session. The players also seem to act differently.
The classic example I can think of is the old adage I have that a group only roleplays their characters as much as the guy who's least interested in roleplaying. All it takes is one guy to really break the mood, or make stupid jokes, or play a goofy character, to drive a stake into any efforts to get people to roleplay distinct characters.
