Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Meraxes 11-24-04, 04:58 PM	So, a friend of mine and I recently joined a new gaming group. He's playing a human druid, I'm a dwarven fighter, and the other members include a human rogue, a half-elven sorceress, and an elven ranger, all level one... well, except the sorceress, who apparently gets to be level 4 despite the fact that this is a brand new campaign that we're all starting at the same time. The DM assured us all that she wouldn't be getting any XP until we caught up... still weird, though. The first session went pretty well, I thought. We established the setting and the DM gave us the hook for her adventure. We didn't get into any combat, but the roleplaying opportunities seemed pretty good. Toward the end, we were introduced to a couple of NPCs who are temporarily joining the party: a ranger-type and a wizard. I will refer to both later on. The second session started all right. Neither the player of the ranger nor the player of the sorceress could attend, so it was just the dwarven fighter (me), my friend, the druid, and the human rogue. To accomodate their absence, the DM wrote a little subquest into the story where they were kidnapped and we all had to go rescue them. Right off the bat, something struck me as unfair here. Both the sorceress and the ranger are MIA and don't get XP for the session, but the sorceress isn't allowed to gain XP until we all catch up with her anyway, so what's she really missing out on? In my eyes (and my friend's), it just went downhill from there. Here's a list of a couple oddities right from the start: 1) Before the session even started, the DM related a story to us about how, in a previous D&D campaign, one of the party members had "rolled a 20 on his check to improve his item," made it "masterwork", and got it to where it was dealing "lots of dice" of damage. That seemed a little suspicious to me. Sure, tons of energy enchantments could do that, but that wasn't what she said. 2) At one point, when we were tracking the two missing party members, one of her NPCs was successfully tracking from horseback at at least a hustle and possibly upwards of a running speed, and I didn't see her rolling any checks over there. Moving along, the first encounter occurred when we stumbled upon a dark ritual being conducted near some standing stones in the forest. Apparently, a couple of wizards were raising liches... naturally, these are homebrew liches, as monster manual liches would be waaaay too hard for 1st level characters. When we fought them, they behaved more like zombies, anyway. Here's a list of oddities from this encounter: 1) Before the fight, we were given amulets that protect us from fear effects (and we get to keep them! Wow!). Furthermore, they apparently add a +1 to all attack rolls, damage rolls, saving throws, spell DCs, etc. if worn by a "holy" character and used against undead. According to the DM, because the nature of his spellcasting is divine, the druid qualifies. 2) When the druid's wolf attacked one of the human wizards participating in the ritual, it hit and dealt normal bite damage successfully, tripped successfully, and then got to immediately savage the wizard on the ground and finish him off. Huh? Wolves have the improved trip feat for free now? 3) This is not really a big deal, but these "liches" apparently had insanely low dex. The DM let us hit successfully as long as we hit AC 8! After we finished that encounter, we went on tracking at a gallop again, and came across our second encounter. This is where we finally caught up with the kidnappers, who were a bunch of human warrior-types on horseback. We got their attention when one of the NPCs (the super-tracker ranger-type) shot one of their horses, spooking it and causing it to dump it's rider (fatally). This was the crazy fight that really bugged my friend and me, and here were the oddities: 1) The enemies started galloping toward us on horseback. Instead of moving on their turn, however, the DM ruled that their horses move as the round progresses, meaning that the riders will be at different points on the battlefield as different individual initiatives come up. As far as I could tell, she was just giving ad hoc guesses as to where the riders would be when an individual character's turn came up. I mean, it's not like she had a calculator or anything. 2) This raping of the movement rules put them in a perfect position for the ranger-type character to draw out two katanas, gallop toward the nearest two riders, and make two attacks (note that she had to take a full attack action to get two attacks, but she only took two attacks, so she probably isn't as high a level as her super-tracking and ability to reliably hit while dual-wielding katanas would suggest). What's really weird here is that she scored a critical hit and the DM rolled 2d12 as her damage. When I asked, out of curiosity, why she was rolling d12's for a critical hit with a katana, the DM explained that the sword was "keen". 3) She said she rolled a 2 on the initiative for the wizard and ranger NPCs. She volunteered that their bonuses still had them going higher than us, but that the 2 was low enough that they should fail anyway. So apparently, not only can initiative checks be subject to automatic failure, a 2 is also automatic failure sometimes, according to the DM's whim (yeah, I know DMs fudge stuff like this, but don't tell your player's when you do it!) 4) Once the battle was won, the last remaining enemy surrendered. The ranger rode up behind and bludgeoned him unconscious with the pommel of her sword (ouch). Then she asked if anyone had rope with which to bind him. When no one immediately responded, the NPC wizard (who we established is no higher than 8th level when he cast magic missle and 4 missles fired from his hand), cast a single spell that created a bunch of magical ropes around the guy and bound him tightly. There's no way to know for sure, but I would be willing to bet 100 dollars that the DM just made that up on the spot rather than creating that spell and having her wizard prepare it ahead of time. That's just too random and convenient. Anyway, most of this stuff would be forgivable by itself. But all of this in one session? So, I'm wondering what everyone else's opinion on this is. Does this just amount to different playing styles? I mean, I admit that I prefer a predictable and deterministic game where, even if the rules are changed, they can be applied consistently. To me, this all seemed very whimsical. She never did anything that unfairly disadvantaged us, but I just feel cheap if I beat the enemies because some weirdo ad hoc rulings make it easy to hit them, ambush them, or outsmart them.
danielinthewolvesden 11-24-04, 05:06 PM	2) When the druid's wolf attacked one of the human wizards participating in the ritual, it hit and dealt normal bite damage successfully, tripped successfully, and then got to immediately savage the wizard on the ground and finish him off. Huh? Wolves have the improved trip feat for free now? As a matter of fact, they do. But what we have here is a "storytelling" DM- she isn't really concerned about the rules, she just wants roleplaying and a good 'story". This might not be yoru cup of tea.
eshadowe 11-24-04, 05:13 PM	is this that dms first time running a game, if so it could be way worse the only thing i see a problem with here is the npc & DMpc's compaired to you,,, you seem to be just 'watching'. Ist level Characters with keen twin Katanna (sure he could do it,,,with a -4 to hit, which is brutal at that level) and the wolf, yep wolves are tough. I like the fact that the dm doesn't seem to be dictated to rules and dice, it can be liberating, but it seem you guys are left without. Just talk to the dm and say your characters don't seem to be usefull to the group and what she recommends (you'll get all the dm's npc/player creation tricks this way) It seems there are two main problems here, the dm has a different style that your not used to, and you don't feel part of the story (and your characters feel too weak). Just talk to her. that's it
FunkyTrip 11-24-04, 05:19 PM	Yup, sounds like a narrator/story telling DM to me. She just envisions something cool and adjust the rules so coolness can spread ;)
Cyricist 11-24-04, 05:58 PM	Nothing wrong here.. actually, it's how I DMed my first 2nd ed adventure.. The movement thing would probably be all I would complain about, since it doesn't add up in any fair way for the actual characters (sure, the NPC got a big advantage, but that doesn't count now, does it). As for all the other things: it may not have been the rules, but it was fun right?
ajmastrean 11-24-04, 06:17 PM	Hey, storytelling is alright and this DM may have been doing that. But, it helps if you tell that story in the world everyone else is playing in. The rules are a big part of the game whether you "story" play or "roll" play. It is nice of the DM to tell the players that the rules are going to be lax and that he's a storyteller type. But, I also think it cuts down on confusion if the DM actually uses the real rules while telling the story. I am ok with no rolls and some loose movement, but try to make sense when handing out special items and nerfing enemies. Especially the 1st level ranger riding with two katanas, that was stretching it a bit. He could have just spiced up the description of the critical and made it an instant kill (the players dont know the enemy hp anyway). That's my take. storytell all you want, but try to keep the believability there. The consistency of the secondary world (rules, etc) is very important.
ConradBland 11-24-04, 07:00 PM	all level one... well, except the sorceress, who apparently gets to be level 4 despite the fact that this is a brand new campaign that we're all starting at the same time. The DM assured us all that she wouldn't be getting any XP until we caught up... still weird, though. :thinks: :shocked: :headexplo That is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard....except for the rest of your story. Find a new game.
Meraxes 11-24-04, 07:27 PM	Quick point on wolves. They have a trip ability that lets them make trip attacks if they successfully connect with a bite. They do not have the improved trip feat and thus do not have the ability to make an additional free attack if they succeed at the trip. If you don't believe me, look it up.
Doug McCrae 11-24-04, 07:43 PM	The rules laxity is just a style thing. Not my cup of tea, but nothing inherently wrong with it. What I really don't like is how the GM had high level NPCs along with the party doing all the cool stuff. That just sucks.
ConradBland 11-24-04, 07:48 PM	What I really don't like is how the GM had high level NPCs along with the party doing all the cool stuff. That just sucks. Nothing like being a puppet.
Dreaming_in_the_void 11-24-04, 08:04 PM	sorceress, who apparently gets to be level 4 despite the fact that this is a brand new campaign that we're all starting at the same time. The DM assured us all that she wouldn't be getting any XP until we caught up I played in a game where the DM did this once. He said it was because d4 hit die creatures couldn't really survive the way the higher hit point characters would at low levels. That was 1st edition.... I always thought lowbie survival was a part of the class balance system. If the caster can't survive 1st or 2nd level, they don't get to be an archmage. Overall your DM may have come from WoD where such things are not only legal, but encouraged by the system. Ask and find out.
FriendoftheDork 11-24-04, 08:32 PM	I'll agree that this is mostly about different playing styles... she either doesen't know the rules too well, or doesen't care too much about them. Now, if this is a case of ignorance, point out politely that the rules are a bit different, but don't push it, it's her game. The sorc starting on 4th level sounds like favoritism... that should be avoided at all costs. Have you asked her why the sorc starts at 4th level? Have you asked if your character can do the same, if you make a fitting background? I may sound naive, but I think the DM has a good reason for doing that... but if I'm wrong then you've a right to complain. Otherwise the sessions sounded quite fun actually, but we've heard nothing about the explots of the PCs.... was there any? If it was all about the NPCs, just tell them that you're just getting in their way and go home... that should give the DM the idea.... It's obvious that she prefers storytelling to dice rolling and exact combat rules, so go with that, do stuff yourself and don't limit your actions by the rules. If the NPCs can do it, so could you, right? Describe what you do in a cool way and she'll probably let you do things the rules don't normally allow. Dreaming in the void, WoD doesen't encourage giving advantages to some players but not to others. I have no idea where you got that from.
Dreaming_in_the_void 11-24-04, 09:18 PM	Dreaming in the void, WoD doesen't encourage giving advantages to some players but not to others. I have no idea where you got that from. That comment was in reference to the OP's Dm taking a more "story over the rules" approach. The bit about low level survival was about favoring one class of characters over another. Apologies if I was unclear.
FriendoftheDork 11-24-04, 09:25 PM	ah, that explains it. I agree. It can be very relaxing to play in that way, really. It's all about attitude. It may be annoying if you expect rules to be followed, but it can also feel like removing a straightjacket.
Shemeska the Marauder 11-25-04, 08:03 AM	Yup, sounds like a narrator/story telling DM to me. She just envisions something cool and adjust the rules so coolness can spread ;) Heh. Rule 1 of being any sort of DM in that classification: don't make it obvious to the players when you do bend the rules as written either in or against their favor. And above all, be consistent about things, always be consistent and be fair about it. The better your story and world is and the more in depth and complicated things are the more rule fudging you can get away with. Best case scenario has not a single die role in a session and both the DM and players alike have a blast. I'm accustomed to this scenario and it's a beauty when it works out. But this also seems like the DM doesn't fully understand the rules, and that makes it look amatuerish and awkward, if not downright silly. Know the rules before you start digging them a grave.
BloodGod 11-25-04, 10:39 AM	That's bad. The movement thing would drive me nuts, for starters. The real thing that I'd have to talk to her about is the 'keen' katanas. Keen's got nothing to do with an increased damage die. At the time, to you and the other players, this may've seemed all fine and dandy because the NPC is on your side. But, keep in mind, the DM can just as easily apply that whacked out ruling to enemy NPCs. I'd definately talk to her about the 'keen' bit, if nothing else. -BG
Count Arioch the 28th 11-25-04, 11:54 AM	Heh. Rule 1 of being any sort of DM in that classification: don't make it obvious to the players when you do bend the rules as written either in or against their favor. And above all, be consistent about things, always be consistent and be fair about it.. But really, if the DM does that, the players hardly notice it's a rules-lite game, they are just along for the ride. Eh, your DM doesn't seem that bad, she's just trying to tell a cool story, it's not like she's actively screwing over the characters. At least, that's not the impression I've gotten from reading this.
varder_kiften 11-25-04, 03:36 PM	Your DM just doesn't seem to have the heart to kill you, but then again, it makes up for the poor choice of challenge ratings. I guess it could be worse, but allowing the level 4 sorcerer seems like a bad choice for the DM to make. It would have been better just to make you all level 2 or 3. I guess you could try showing you DM the page in the Monster Manual with the goblin or the kobold.
green_yawgmoth 11-25-04, 03:50 PM	Yup, sounds like a narrator/story telling DM to me. She just envisions something cool and adjust the rules so coolness can spread ;)Mmhmm. Unfortunately, I consider these types of DMs just barely above "I give you guys absolutely nothing, throw huge creatures at you, then have my uber-NPCs come and save you!" types. If I wanted to hear a good story, I'd buy a damn novel. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Soloran 11-25-04, 09:17 PM	Yeah, as a DM, the lack of rules kind of bothers me. Although many DMs on this board vehemently oppose NPCs that travel with the party and fight with them (DMPCs?), if used correctly, it makes for some memorable NPCs. However, the twin keen katanas were pretty cheesy and the DM should not have made the ranger kill all the bad guys IMO.
nyysjan 11-26-04, 05:01 AM	if the DM doesn't follow the rules, then how in the name of **** am i gonna judge my actions rules give the world it's shape and form they tell us what we can do and what others might be capable of doing. in WOD there are rules that bend a lot in DnD they don't bend as much if you will ignore/bend/brake the Rules As Written in a way that is explicit you should tell the players and talk about it first especially if it affects their characters
Stuntman 11-26-04, 02:22 PM	Personally, I would expect that we will be playing by the rules. Although D&D is a game that is really open ended, there is some structure to how the game works such as initiative and equipment. I don't mind some bending of the rules for important scenes. For example, I think it is quite resonable for the DM to prevent the PC's from taking any actions, so as to not interrupt an important conversation between two NPC's. The conversation may be important to the plot or add flavour to the NPC's, so that they are not viewed as generic. By the rules, NPC's who have a two-minute conversation can be interrupted by the players, but bending the rules to force the players to listen through this conversation is reasonable to me. What I feel is unreasonable bending of the rules is to force a certain result of an encounter. Things such as keeping an NPC alive for forcing one to die regardless of what the PC's do is unreasonable to me. If an NPC is really important and the PC's let him die, the PC's will have to live with the consequences. I expect the DM to be able to reasonably determine what happens in the campaign if such a major event happens. This can lead to other interesting adventures for the PC's.
Meraxes 11-26-04, 02:49 PM	I think if there's any real advantage to the rules, it's not that they're immutable, but rather that they're predictable. They help make the world a consistent, deterministic place. Even if the rules are changed (i.e. house rules), the point is that they remain consistent and predictable (not to mention simple) in their application. That's really the point of having rules, IMO. So if there was any real problem I had, it was the way that basic, simple rules that I can't imagine qualify as problematic were just changed willy-nilly throughout combat. My friend since reminded me that one of the enemy NPCs had his AC reduced by 2 because the DM ruled that he was hit so hard that his armor was damaged. Another time, a PC rolled a natural one on his attack, and she ruled that another character (the ranger NPC) was forced to take her action to prevent him from stumbling and falling. Just for a natural one... there wasn't even a roll to confirm critical failure (which is the way the variant is worded). Anyway, I may be getting off point here. The main conflict that I have is that I've always thought the job of the DM is to, whenever possible, seem like nothing more than a window into a living, breathing world. When the DM seems more like a manipulative deity, always twisting fate and the laws of nature and probability... the game seems a little less like I'm playing it and more like I'm watching it. I don't know, though. A lot of people here don't seem to mind that. Is the consensus that this is a more or less acceptable style? Should I just learn to live with it, lighten up, and try to have some fun?
tec-9-7 11-26-04, 04:26 PM	IMO, it is a "more or less acceptable style", but if you don't enjoy it, you certainly don't have to live with it. That style of DMing may be a deal-breaker for you in terms of gaming. I guess what it comes down to is if that style gets you so riled up that you are not enjoying the game (and further that you disrupt it for others arguing rules), then drop out - if you still can enjoy the game stick with it.
drewblue 11-26-04, 05:02 PM	I would say that if you enjoy storytelling, then by all means, this is the game for you. I mean, it sounds just like a cool video game... except for the graphics... and the sound... and well, pretty much everything else that makes a video game... I dunno, fun ... The rules are there, just as you brought out, to bring some predictability into the world of D&D. Without predictability there is no strategy. Without strategy there are no battle tactics. Without battle tactics, you might as well be playing a d20 Dragonball Z game. My philosophy on the matter is this: There are many, many, many styles of play out there. What you have to do is find the style that makes you happy. Then look around at the group. Are the rest of the players as dissatisfied as you, or are you in the distinct minority on this matter? If it is the latter, I'd say you should just consider yourself an alien in their world and respectfully duck out. If it is the former, then I think the players as a group should confront the DM and ask for some change and overall stability. The movement issue... good god, that DM is stupid. The whole turn-based system was designed to emulated real-time combat. There really is no more effective way to produce this emulation other than playing a LARP or something. And where do you draw the line? There are many other full-round actions. Do you also spread those actions out as well? Say my fighter starts his turn next to an enemy wizard. I decide to make a full attack, which is a full-round action as well. However, due to this crazy funked-up rule, the wizard's turn comes up after my first attack. He runs away. Now the turn comes back to my fighter who then swings and hits nothing but air...That makes sense because that is exactly the sort of thing that would happen all of the time in real life. ... or not... If you plan on staying in this campaign, my recommendation would be to ask her to see the character sheet for that ranger. That should give you a clear indication of what she'll allow you to get away with in your character's build... thus assuring yourself that you will never, ever have to experience the fear of death in this campaign. w00t! Pass the controller!!!
Meraxes 11-26-04, 06:03 PM	Eh, your DM doesn't seem that bad, she's just trying to tell a cool story, it's not like she's actively screwing over the characters. At least, that's not the impression I've gotten from reading this. Absolutely. I think it's important to stress that she tends to make ad hoc rulings that are advantageous to us. But that's not really what bugs me. If she screwed us over by butchering the rules willy-nilly, I'd already be gone and with no regrets. I'm just trying to figure out whether or not an openly subjective world that isn't governed so much by rules as by whim is going to be any fun for me... or if I should just move on to another group. Not that anyone here can tell me that, but I'm at least curious on what other people think about that style of play and what they would do in a similar situation.
Meraxes 11-26-04, 06:18 PM	The sorc starting on 4th level sounds like favoritism... that should be avoided at all costs. Have you asked her why the sorc starts at 4th level? Have you asked if your character can do the same, if you make a fitting background? I may sound naive, but I think the DM has a good reason for doing that... but if I'm wrong then you've a right to complain. The sorc is 4th level because she comes from another campaign where she achieved 4th level, and the DM didn't want to make her bring her character down to be with the rest of the party. Well, I have a 12th level character from the last campaign I played in. Can I bring him into the game?
green_yawgmoth 11-26-04, 08:36 PM	The sorc is 4th level because she comes from another campaign where she achieved 4th level, and the DM didn't want to make her bring her character down to be with the rest of the party. Well, I have a 12th level character from the last campaign I played in. Can I bring him into the game? If he lets you do that (which he should, otherwise it's blatant favoritism), I have a 50th level character from another game I'd like to join with. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v91/yawgmoth/kittyjig.gif
Kyaran 11-27-04, 03:11 AM	cast a single spell that created a bunch of magical ropes around the guy and bound him tightly. There's no way to know for sure, but I would be willing to bet 100 dollars that the DM just made that up on the spot rather than creating that spell and having her wizard prepare it ahead of time.My question is... do you get to just make up spells on the fly? Because that would be... how you say... teh roxor. :evillaugh Some people enjoy having a good yarn spun for them. Others feel that if a DM wants to tell a story, and the PCs are just along to provide characters, then they should take up book writing instead. I'm in the second camp. All the strange rules-tweakings would drive me insane. Well... more insane, anyway. :twitch: I would deal with this by asking the DM if she was intending to fudge things in order to make the story more cinematic. If she says no, then I have no more advice. There's no tactically sound way to ask a DM if they are aware that they don't know the rules. :)
Meraxes 11-27-04, 05:06 PM	bump (just looking for a few more perspectives... not that these aren't good, of course; this is good stuff so far)
Aeromus 11-28-04, 11:32 AM	Personlly I hate "pure" storytelling DM's. I hate being left at the whim of the DM, with myself being a second char to the story they tell. I no longer fit the story? I die, get to make a new char. I am "needed" for the story..I never die. The only thing a player has to look to for help is the PHB. All players want to assume, and I think hope thier DM understands the same rules in the PHB, and has the sufficient knowledge from the DMG/MM to back up that PHB knowledge. If I played in a game where the DM had not one but two grossly higher level more powerful NPC's stealing all the glory I would stop playing. And, since when did "keen" add an extra die of damage, unless she critted anyway. Basicially you're well within your rights to be unhappy. I would be. Maybe that's why I always end up DMing. I love to play... but noone here does it right as DM. "Is it to much to learn the rules? You own more books then I do... sheesh = /"
Meraxes 11-28-04, 12:30 PM	Yeah, Aeromus. I've always felt it was the PC's job to help make the story. Not to just be along for the ride. That's why, when I DM, the story is more like a "Choose your own Adventure" book than a classic style novel. I generally draw up story outlines with a complex web of plot branches to accomodate choices that I think players will make. Sometimes, they don't make the choices I expect them to, and I have to do a major rewrite. One time, for example, a character ended up stranded by himself in the desert purely by accident. So he had to make his way out, and I just used the resources at my disposal to give him believable encounters, some of them giving story hooks that I fully expected him to ignore in his attempts to get back to the party... but if he hadn't ignored them, I would have developed them. That's what I think a good DM does. I want a DM who gives the party lots and lots of options with where to take the game, because, in my book, the game is just as much the players' as the DM's.