We've only just had our 3rd session, and the DM has already hit my summon swarm invocation with the nerf-bat twice.
The first time was when I summoned a rat swarm to attack an alligator that was attacking us -- when the alligator "retreated" a bit by sinking in to the water a couple of feet, I sent the swarm after it; at which point he refused to let the rats go below the surface (despite the fact that rats - including the swarm kind - have a listed swim speed and in RL have been witnessed diving several meters below surface). Afterwards, I sent him several videos of rats diving in to deep water; at which point he was like "fine, whatever".
The second time was last night, when we were crawling through a 3ft-diameter tunnel, and I wanted to send a bat swarm in front of us for to kinda sweep the tunnel -- at which point he insisted that since the tunnel wasn't perfectly straight, that they would not be able to effectively move the way I wanted (which was simply forward through the tunnel).
In both cases, AFAIC, this was simply his way of keeping me from wrecking his encounters as he envisioned them.
A little background:
this guy knows that I frequent these boards, and thus believes (at least in part) that any character that I bring to the table will be an attempt to munchkinize his game -- and thus judges my actions accordingly. I have taken great pains to explain to him in great detail that this is far from the truth; quite the contrary -- I actually go way out of my way to make sure that I DON'T do anything that could possible be construed as munchkinism (partly because of his preconceived misconceptions). I've also spent hours upon hour upon hours working with the DM, trying to develop a character that was acceptable to him that he wouldn't just arbitrarily smack with the nerf-bat along the way.
Normally, I would just walk; however, this is the same group that plays in 2 other games together (all 3 of which are hosted at my house) -- I'm sure the problems of walking away are apparent.
Furthermore, the other players are pretty-much like "he's not f'n with my character, so I don't have much to say".
WHAT DO I DO?!
Thanks.
Gimp him. Just absolutly gimp him. Make him a ranged attacker who sucks at range or whatever. Through your own nerfs on the character. You missed with an attack against the big monster? Does it hit your ally fighting the big monster though? And since your ally wasn't expecting it, do you get sneak attack damage?
Of course you got to phrase the questions apporiately. Like "Crap I missed the big monster! I hope my attack doesn't hit my ally." and "Do i really have to roll on sneak attack damage?"
Annouce you are summoning a swarm, roll some random percental dice and then say "Its a swarm of drugged out spiders that imeditally kill each other. My swarm invokation did nothing." Run your swarm at the water.. Roll some dice again, and annouce "I have lost control of my swarm they revert to a normal blood thirsty swarm."
Of course that is just me, as I am sometimes called a ****. But sometimes people are so stupid they won't listen until you make an ass of yourself.
I mean you could gimp yourself like the above poster said but that might not neccessarily change the DMs point of view and stop the nerf bats from swinging.
The only thing I can suggest is to roll up some stats pick a race and class( my suggest is not to get too crazy here) and tell him a concept and the let him put the character together. Then when he hits you with a nerf bat you atleast can just say "You put it together". Which in the end might not help much.
Of course you could suggest that someone else DMs.
in related bits:
I only just now noticed something in the summon swarm description -- you don't actually have control over the swarm (and nobody in the group has noticed it either) -- of course, this is just a matter of where you place it. At this point, I feel like a total tool, and don't know how to recover.
The only thing I can suggest is to roll up some stats pick a race and class( my suggest is not to get too crazy here) and tell him a concept and the let him put the character together. Then when he hits you with a nerf bat you atleast can just say "You put it together". Which in the end might not help much.
I've stopped just barely short of telling him to build it for me.
Of course you could suggest that someone else DMs.
well, there are already 3 of our group that DM (yeah, 3 simultanious games) -- and nobody else has the testicular-fortitude to say that they're not in to his game (though they thoroughly enjoy the other 2 games).
1. Sending the DM video "proof" of your claims isn't going to have the effect you want.
2. Videos of rats diving into the water are not the same thing as "proof" that a swarm would dive under water in a mass to attack an alligator. As the DM I'd rule that a rat swarm is not the same thing as a bunch of rats doing the same thing an individual rat might do.
3. It's the DMs world, in this world rats don't dive.
It sounds to me that you were overestimating the ability of rat and bat swarms and when the DM tried to apply some limits, you reacted by arguing with the DM about it and trying to prove the DM is wrong. I can't even begin to tell you how many times I have been absolutely certain that the DM was wrong about something, and that I could prove it absolutely given the time to gather the evidence, but I always end up saying "but it's just a game, we don't have the Nobel Prize riding on this." If I think something should work a certain way and I suggest that to the DM and he/she rules differently, my typical reaction is "OK, then I'll do this instead."
On a rare occasion, if I think it is a really egregious mistake, I might talk to the DM after the game saying something like "Hey, I really appreciate your efforts in running this campaign, and I know that sometimes a DM has to make a ruling on something to keep the game going, but can we talk about that ruling you made on X? I just want to be sure I understand how it would work in the future, and think there might be a different ruling possible for future situations."
If there is a rules or logic arguement against me, then I am all to ready to accept it on it's face -- but you can't just make stuff up for the sole reason of things aren't conforming to your script.
I do understand an appreciate what you're saying -- I'm just still a little raw right now (I'll get over it soon enough).
So if you have anything that can change the outcome suddenly, expect it to get nerfed.
What you SHOULD do, though, is keep a log of each time he nerfed something in particular to your character. That way, if you get nerfed on the same thing that has happened on the list, but for a different reason, you can better call him out on it.
...But then again, I'm evil like that.
Seriously, though, if you legitimately think that he is intentionally nerfing your character for the sake of his encounters going exactly how he planned them, then he's clearly not the kind of DM I'd want. I make encounters challenging so my players can get the opportunity to try different tactics.
It could also be that he feels you'd be overpowering the other players (though granted, they might not have a problem with your character).
well, there are already 3 of our group that DM (yeah, 3 simultanious games) -- and nobody else has the testicular-fortitude to say that they're not in to his game (though they thoroughly enjoy the other 2 games).
This is it for me. Gather the fortitude, and as a group say "Dude we enjoy you as a player, but your DM style does not work for us. We tried offering suggestions and advice on how we would rather do it, and you shot us down [you did do this right?], now we are player veto-ing your DM spot.
--
There are a lot of DM's who do stuff like this, rule how they think it ought to work instead of how it does work, and if you are in an awkward situation like this where you can't simply say "I'm out guys, enjoy, call me if another game starts up" I have found that it helps to run through your options as a PC with the DM ahead of the first game. "Ok I can do this, and this is what it does." If the DM has any "Wait thats not gonna work" you know ahead of time, and can adjust your character accordingly. "What I can only sneak attack my first attack each turn? OK instead I won't bother taking two weapon fighting then. And maybe I will consider the assassin class more seriously." "What, I can't sneak attack non-human races? Maybe I will shift into swordsage" "What no TOB? ok I will do monk" until you hit a concept where you can have some fun, and the DM won't object mid game because they didn't know how it worked for real.
(Why is it the warlock is the most commonly nerfed/picked on by DMs 3.5 class?)
(Why is it the warlock is the most commonly nerfed/picked on by DMs 3.5 class?)
My guess: It was the first class 3E introduced that really broke the mold. It had infinite use of its abilities, which made a lot of people freak out and think 'overpowered!' after they were so used to spellcasters having limited per-day access (even though the warlock didn't even come close to a cleric, druid, or wizard).
Add to that several people misinterpretting how the class worked in the first place (I had several players who thought you could fire Eldritch Blasts multiple times per round based on BAB), and you had problems.
OP- what i would do if i were you is after the game come to the dm with your gripe concerning the spell. perhaps offer the alternative of simply picking another spell power in its place. after an agreement is made, ret con it before the next game even starts.
worst case, even if niether you or the dm can't work out thier issues, it becomes mute by the choosing of a new spell anyway. work out the details before the next game. then play.
best case, both you and the dm work your issues before choosing another spell power, you now have an open line to the dm thats not involved in a contest of wills as it is right now. you have your original spell and he has an understanding of your plight
the problem is lack of proper communication, not 3.5 edition.
(Why is it the warlock is the most commonly nerfed/picked on by DMs 3.5 class?)
Ialdabode would like a word with you...
But now I've got another problem:
supposedly, it was said from the start of the campaign that anything related to being invisible is not available to anybody (something that I definitely don't remember; but whatever) -- this completely changes my character's concept. The main vision of this character was to make liberal use of Walk Unseen, and now that is gone.
After much complaining (such as "I feel like a barbarian that just lost Power Attack), the DM finally said that we could work invisibility in to the character -- but it feels very condescending (which REALLY rubs me the wrong way). I'm really considering just scrapping this character in favor of something really dumbed-down (e.g., a martial-only character).
I am now reminded of why I decided to exclusively DM for so many years.
(Why is it the warlock is the most commonly nerfed/picked on by DMs 3.5 class?)
Ialdabode would like a word with you...
Psionics don't count. They are a totally unbalanced side add on to the main game. (now where is that sarcasm font I was looking for...)
Fine I'll amend the comment. "Why is it, after psionics, warlocks are the most nerfed/picked on class by DMs in 3.5?"
Of course that is just me, as I am sometimes called a ****.
****.
I would go apoligize to the DM. Explain that you used your summon swarm power incorrectly. And, the DM was right, about the rat swarm not diving down, and was also right that you couldn't make the bat swarm move like that.
After you apoligize bury the hatchet. And, move on with the game.
And, yes your DM was right. The mistakes that you made with your ability are what flagged red to your DM.
Correct that mistake and your problems will fix.
well, here's what I've come to with this: in light of the lack-of-control issue to which we have been oblivious, I will now be making much less use of this invocation -- problem solves itself.
But now I've got another problem:
supposedly, it was said from the start of the campaign that anything related to being invisible is not available to anybody (something that I definitely don't remember; but whatever) -- this completely changes my character's concept. The main vision of this character was to make liberal use of Walk Unseen, and now that is gone.
After much complaining (such as "I feel like a barbarian that just lost Power Attack), the DM finally said that we could work invisibility in to the character -- but it feels very condescending (which REALLY rubs me the wrong way). I'm really considering just scrapping this character in favor of something really dumbed-down (e.g., a martial-only character).
I am now reminded of why I decided to exclusively DM for so many years.
Personally if I was in that same situation I'd scrap that character. Then make something that was so broken his encounters became walks in the park.
Really that wouldn't work for my DMs and it doesn't work on me because I like to go over PCs beforehand to see if there's anything we can do to make their concepts work without breaking anything. [This mainly comes up for reasons of flavor, I.E. An illusionist wizard in 4e before arcane power was available to us. ]
Then again, that isn't really the best course of action here. I don't know what is. If your concept didn't turn out the way you wanted because he was being an *** THEN he tried to fix it, then keep the concept until he nerf you again. If said thing happens then be ready to stand up to him.
Here's what I would do.
I would go apoligize to the DM. Explain that you used your summon swarm power incorrectly. And, the DM was right, about the rat swarm not diving down, and was also right that you couldn't make the bat swarm move like that.
After you apoligize bury the hatchet. And, move on with the game.
And, yes your DM was right. The mistakes that you made with your ability are what flagged red to your DM.
Correct that mistake and your problems will fix.
I understand this, however, the frustrating part isn't the fact that "the DM was right, I was wrong". The point is that both he and I mis-read the spell in the exact same way. Had he presented a rules-based reason that I was wrong, then I would have shut-up immediately and happily moved-on. It was the fact that he intentionally ruled against the consensus understanding without reason (other than it was wrecking his encounter) that had me frustrated.
What further frustrated me was the fact that he, as a player, is forever trying to invent creative ways to wreck encounters (something he readily admits) -- making him a hypocrite (mind you, I actually encourage and reward creativity when I DM). I'll have more on this later in the post.
If your DM hates the swarm, I doubt he'll react well when you gain access to invis/fly/teleport at will. Those abilities can be encounter wreckers, especially if the DM isn't prepared to be very flexible. My advice: save the character for another campaign when you can play and enjoy it the way you want to.
My sentiments exactly.
I have since ditched the character, and replaced him with THIS (starting with level 4).
A no-brainer melee-er, right?
No. Now he's trying to assume all of the rolls and actions for my animal companion. I understand a DM running a character's cohort (obtained via "leadership") as a party NPC; but an animal companion?!?!?!
After about the 3rd time, I finally was like "dude -- it's a class feature, not a cohort" -- at which point he got kind of an embarased look on his face, while everybody else stared at the floor and smiled.
I really hope that this doesn't end poorly.
Here's what I would do.
I would go apoligize to the DM. Explain that you used your summon swarm power incorrectly. And, the DM was right, about the rat swarm not diving down, and was also right that you couldn't make the bat swarm move like that.
After you apoligize bury the hatchet. And, move on with the game.
And, yes your DM was right. The mistakes that you made with your ability are what flagged red to your DM.
Correct that mistake and your problems will fix.
I understand this, however, the frustrating part isn't the fact that "the DM was right, I was wrong". The point is that both he and I mis-read the spell in the exact same way. Had he presented a rules-based reason that I was wrong, then I would have shut-up immediately and happily moved-on. It was the fact that he intentionally ruled against the consensus understanding without reason (other than it was wrecking his encounter) that had me frustrated.
What further frustrated me was the fact that he, as a player, is forever trying to invent creative ways to wreck encounters (something he readily admits) -- making him a hypocrite (mind you, I actually encourage and reward creativity when I DM). I'll have more on this later in the post.If your DM hates the swarm, I doubt he'll react well when you gain access to invis/fly/teleport at will. Those abilities can be encounter wreckers, especially if the DM isn't prepared to be very flexible. My advice: save the character for another campaign when you can play and enjoy it the way you want to.
My sentiments exactly.
I have since ditched the character, and replaced him with THIS (starting with level 4).
A no-brainer melee-er, right?
No. Now he's trying to assume all of the rolls and actions for my animal companion. I understand a DM running a character's cohort (obtained via "leadership") as a party NPC; but an animal companion?!?!?!
After about the 3rd time, I finally was like "dude -- it's a class feature, not a cohort" -- at which point he got kind of an embarased look on his face, while everybody else stared at the floor and smiled.
I really hope that this doesn't end poorly.
Don't point this DM to the cohort section of the DM Guide where is says a cohort is a second player under the player's control.
I have since ditched the character, and replaced him with THIS (starting with level 4).
A no-brainer melee-er, right?
No. Now he's trying to assume all of the rolls and actions for my animal companion. I understand a DM running a character's cohort (obtained via "leadership") as a party NPC; but an animal companion?!?!?!
After about the 3rd time, I finally was like "dude -- it's a class feature, not a cohort" -- at which point he got kind of an embarased look on his face, while everybody else stared at the floor and smiled.
I really hope that this doesn't end poorly.
Don't point this DM to the cohort section of the DM Guide where is says a cohort is a second player under the player's control.
yes, you're right. however, this is something that my group has gone to in order to give more of an appearance of the cohort being an independent, sentient being (rather than a simple extension of the PC -- otherwise, cohort = gestalt) -- it's totally cool, as we all came to this mutually.
Part 2) Then talk to the GM and ask if you can help them make the game better. Help them understand the rules and see if they want help planning things.
If the first part agrees what the GM is doing is crap then check part 2.
If the GM refuses to let you help out, so that is is more enjoyable for everyone, and is unwilling to bend on making up new house rules, see if you can get the players (who are now on your side) to mass-quit the game. No player shoud be forced to deal with a GM that wants to be that horrible about gimping other players.
The other option is: If you are also living with roommates who play then just bow out of the game and let the GM know you're doing it over the incessant house ruling. I've threatened to do this, several times, in my current game because the GM was just plain making it unfair and doing everything she could to destroy my character without killing it. She's backed off a lot, but I still have a lot to go before she realizes the game is not about "Her story written the way she wants" but "A story you guys are here to create with me".
I have since ditched the character, and replaced him with THIS (starting with level 4).
A no-brainer melee-er, right?
No. Now he's trying to assume all of the rolls and actions for my animal companion. I understand a DM running a character's cohort (obtained via "leadership") as a party NPC; but an animal companion?!?!?!
After about the 3rd time, I finally was like "dude -- it's a class feature, not a cohort" -- at which point he got kind of an embarased look on his face, while everybody else stared at the floor and smiled.
I really hope that this doesn't end poorly.
Don't point this DM to the cohort section of the DM Guide where is says a cohort is a second player under the player's control.
yes, you're right. however, this is something that my group has gone to in order to give more of an appearance of the cohort being an independent, sentient being (rather than a simple extension of the PC -- otherwise, cohort = gestalt) -- it's totally cool, as we all came to this mutually.
Well I wouldn't take leadership in your group then. The DM has enough stuff to worry about without having to play a players fanatically loyal follower, who will do anything short of suicide to please said player. If your Cohort is a fighter he'd charge the red dragon on your order. If it's a rogue he'd flank the four cloud giants with you. Cast a free raise dead spell on you? Sure your cleric cohort will eat the the cost of that because he/she loves you, idolizes you and nearly worships the ground your hero walks on. They also KNOW without a doubt you will repay them for that loyal and loving action.
(stuff)
Well I wouldn't take leadership in your group then. The DM has enough stuff to worry about without having to play a players fanatically loyal follower, who will do anything short of suicide to please said player. If your Cohort is a fighter he'd charge the red dragon on your order. If it's a rogue he'd flank the four cloud giants with you. Cast a free raise dead spell on you? Sure your cleric cohort will eat the the cost of that because he/she loves you, idolizes you and nearly worships the ground your hero walks on. They also KNOW without a doubt you will repay them for that loyal and loving action.
Okay, and you wouldn't be expected to.
In my experience, the main reason for taking leadership is to increase the power of the group (preferably by either complimenting or supplimenting the rest of the party), which is not necessarily a bad thing (while, yes, some do it for the roleplay, this is usually a secondary benefit).
The big plus of having leadership over just another PC or party NPC is that the cohort provides its benefit without imposing that "XP tax" that would otherwise be imposed by adding party members.
The issue for us is twofold:
- verisimilitude -- while a cohort is very dedicated to his/her leader, they don't share the same brain (something that often gets ignored when the player runs the cohort)
- presents other interesting roleplay opportunities (and spices-up existing ones) that would otherwise tend to be a bit lack-luster.
There is one caveat to this approach, however -- it requires a considerable amount of trust in the DM-player relationship, and the situation needs to involve lots of communication. Provided that there is sufficient trust (and that such trust does not get violated), then this approach can add tremendous fun to the game-play experience (at least as far as I have observed).
Send me an IM and we'll talk about it in private. The build, even if I dance around the subject matter, is a severe ToS violation and all of it is using first-party material.
The best way to deal with a problem that keeps arising is to move around it. If you really feel like you and your DM are bashing heads over the way the powers of your PC should work, I suggest asking the DM if you can retire that PC and replace it with a PC that is less likely to cause issues. Or, if not retire the character, find a way to change it to avoid the issues.
There are billions of different PC options out there that are all a lot of fun.
If you really want to disrupt the game I have a build I created to completely grief some of the online D&D games made by annoying GMs (like your friend).
Send me an IM and we'll talk about it in private. The build, even if I dance around the subject matter, is a severe ToS violation and all of it is using first-party material.
Oh, believe me -- I've thought of going this direction (and have several build ideas of my own). The thing is, I am actually trying to stay "in the box", so to speak, as I don't really want to build any ill-will towards me (and bringing one of these builds has the potential of upsetting everyone).
Thanks, though.
The best way to deal with a problem that keeps arising is to move around it. If you really feel like you and your DM are bashing heads over the way the powers of your PC should work, I suggest asking the DM if you can retire that PC and replace it with a PC that is less likely to cause issues. Or, if not retire the character, find a way to change it to avoid the issues.
There are billions of different PC options out there that are all a lot of fun.
I've already switched to a "beat-stick", and he has already started to take over some of the rolls of my animal companion -- at least one of the other players finally said something over this one.
I've already decided that I'm gonna give him only one more chance. I've already talked to him in extreme detail over various issues (a process that started 6 months ago).
He has admitted to 2 things that would have normally had me walking already (and haven't because of the specific situation of this group):
1) with the last character, he forgot to prepare for my character's specific abilities -- and compensated by just smacking him down (with which I have HUGE ethical issues)
2) his perception of me as a player: it is his belief that simply because I enjoy going to sites such as this (i.e., D&D discussion forums), that such automatically makes me "Mr. Munchkin" (simply because of some of the shenanigans on the CO board -- never mind that everyone there agrees that most of that stuff should never see a game table). And based on that perception (despite that I have continually proven the contrary), that I need to be proactively dealt with.
This is all good stuff -- and have attempted most all of it, to one degree or another. It's just a viscious, continuous circle -- one that will not change until the DM first makes a conscious decision to dismiss his ignorant prejudice.
Thanks.
If you really want to disrupt the game I have a build I created to completely grief some of the online D&D games made by annoying GMs (like your friend).
Send me an IM and we'll talk about it in private. The build, even if I dance around the subject matter, is a severe ToS violation and all of it is using first-party material.
Oh, believe me -- I've thought of going this direction (and have several build ideas of my own). The thing is, I am actually trying to stay "in the box", so to speak, as I don't really want to build any ill-will towards me (and bringing one of these builds has the potential of upsetting everyone).
Thanks, though.
I could still toss you the option in case he turns out to be a complete jerk and needs to be put in his place. Seriously, if he's unwilling to listen to reason and accept help from players to keep the campaign enjoyable for everyone then he's not a fit GM.
But yeah, I have difficulty sympathizing with your DMs attitude. Just tell him outright that it kind of offends you and is hurting your enjoyment of the game. Tell him that if he has a problem with you, he shouldn't deal with it like that.
lol here's some advice for your DM: tell him to run 4E
lol here's some advice for your DM: tell him to run 4E
And play a charisma-based hybrid rogue/warlock :3.
How new is this DM? If he still needs his training wheels, then it might be worth it to accept the rails and not try anything creative. I know as a first-time DM, I hated it, and took it personally, when players completely ruined days of prep work for an adventure. I like to think I'm better now, but what I see in hindsight really scares me. If he needs some more xp to level up as a DM, play dumbly. Not to the malicious extent suggested earlier, just dutifully nibble on all plot hooks presented, and try to do the obvious thing he wants you to do. Try not to sound condescending while you're being condescending, letting him know you're just playing along as a favor. In return, he needs to not punish you for doing the obvious. Like following the mysterious figure into an overt ambush should let you beat up some monsters and get a clue leading to the mcguffin, instead of being sneak attacked for massive damage.
If it's time for his training wheels to come off, though, then you and the rest of the group need to come out and say it: adjust, or vacate the seat. Try to coax him into the "yes, and"/"yes, but" mentality. Let him know up front it'll be painful, but it's really enriching in the end to overcome the hurdle. Find ways to take the creative or unexpected things that players will do, have some fun with it, and somehow tie it back into what he's got planned. Or take the side jaunt and run in a different direction, putting the other planned stuff on the backburner. You know the drill.
If he's not willing to try to make this adjustment, then tell him outright that his games are more frustrating than fun, and you're not willing to host his session. If he wants to continue his game, he can do it elsewhere. Nothing against him as a person, and you're still looking forward to playing with him when he's on the other side of the DM screen, but it's just not working out.
I feel compelled to play a liiiiitle devil's advocate here.
How new is this DM? If he still needs his training wheels, then it might be worth it to accept the rails and not try anything creative. I know as a first-time DM, I hated it, and took it personally, when players completely ruined days of prep work for an adventure. I like to think I'm better now, but what I see in hindsight really scares me. If he needs some more xp to level up as a DM, play dumbly. Not to the malicious extent suggested earlier, just dutifully nibble on all plot hooks presented, and try to do the obvious thing he wants you to do. Try not to sound condescending while you're being condescending, letting him know you're just playing along as a favor. In return, he needs to not punish you for doing the obvious. Like following the mysterious figure into an overt ambush should let you beat up some monsters and get a clue leading to the mcguffin, instead of being sneak attacked for massive damage.
If it's time for his training wheels to come off, though, then you and the rest of the group need to come out and say it: adjust, or vacate the seat. Try to coax him into the "yes, and"/"yes, but" mentality. Let him know up front it'll be painful, but it's really enriching in the end to overcome the hurdle. Find ways to take the creative or unexpected things that players will do, have some fun with it, and somehow tie it back into what he's got planned. Or take the side jaunt and run in a different direction, putting the other planned stuff on the backburner. You know the drill.
If he's not willing to try to make this adjustment, then tell him outright that his games are more frustrating than fun, and you're not willing to host his session. If he wants to continue his game, he can do it elsewhere. Nothing against him as a person, and you're still looking forward to playing with him when he's on the other side of the DM screen, but it's just not working out.
yeah, well, that's just the thing -- he's been playing since Chainmail first hit store shelves. While he has more experience as a player than a DM, he still has more xp behind the screen than I do (at least to hear him tell it); and I've been DMing off-and-on since '95.
To add insult to injury and further compound my frustration with his hypocrisy (being that he tries to get away with stuff as a player that he would never even imagine allowing as a DM), he tries to deny it by spinning circles around b.s. excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand.
We are not scheduled to play his game for another month or so -- maybe I can work on him a little in the interim.
lol here's some advice for your DM: tell him to run 4E
Good idea. This way no one would play because 4th Ed is a horrible joke made by 2nd ed fanboys who think being respectable in combat is low-brow powergaming.
I feel compelled to play a liiiiitle devil's advocate here.
How new is this DM? If he still needs his training wheels, then it might be worth it to accept the rails and not try anything creative. I know as a first-time DM, I hated it, and took it personally, when players completely ruined days of prep work for an adventure. I like to think I'm better now, but what I see in hindsight really scares me. If he needs some more xp to level up as a DM, play dumbly. Not to the malicious extent suggested earlier, just dutifully nibble on all plot hooks presented, and try to do the obvious thing he wants you to do. Try not to sound condescending while you're being condescending, letting him know you're just playing along as a favor. In return, he needs to not punish you for doing the obvious. Like following the mysterious figure into an overt ambush should let you beat up some monsters and get a clue leading to the mcguffin, instead of being sneak attacked for massive damage.
If it's time for his training wheels to come off, though, then you and the rest of the group need to come out and say it: adjust, or vacate the seat. Try to coax him into the "yes, and"/"yes, but" mentality. Let him know up front it'll be painful, but it's really enriching in the end to overcome the hurdle. Find ways to take the creative or unexpected things that players will do, have some fun with it, and somehow tie it back into what he's got planned. Or take the side jaunt and run in a different direction, putting the other planned stuff on the backburner. You know the drill.
If he's not willing to try to make this adjustment, then tell him outright that his games are more frustrating than fun, and you're not willing to host his session. If he wants to continue his game, he can do it elsewhere. Nothing against him as a person, and you're still looking forward to playing with him when he's on the other side of the DM screen, but it's just not working out.
yeah, well, that's just the thing -- he's been playing since Chainmail first hit store shelves. While he has more experience as a player than a DM, he still has more xp behind the screen than I do (at least to hear him tell it); and I've been DMing off-and-on since '95.
To add insult to injury and further compound my frustration with his hypocrisy (being that he tries to get away with stuff as a player that he would never even imagine allowing as a DM), he tries to deny it by spinning circles around b.s. excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation at hand.
We are not scheduled to play his game for another month or so -- maybe I can work on him a little in the interim.
Seriously. The more you talk about him the more I want to convince you to play 2 Bards 1 Donkey.
Seriously. The more you talk about him the more I want to convince you to play 2 Bards 1 Donkey.
With him acting as the girl in the basket? Yeah, I think I'm game.
Of course, this made me think of THIS GUY (of course, I won't even mention the name of the actual site to which I was unfortunately introduced).
Sent you PM. The build is terrible but it's quite entertaining.
the "entertainer" is now sitting in the wings -- thanks
(btw -- I replied to PM).
Get a second player in on the joke. Thos build really takes off when you can actually do the full "2 bards 1 Donkey" routine.
that's what leadership is for
Now you can get a troupe of bards performing with donkeys!
What is this build you speak of?
Don't ask. If this is what I think it is and judging from the comments it is, it's a horriblely disgusting and vile action meant to punish a DM.
DO NOT ASK FOR THE BUILD! YOUR SANITY (AND LUNCH) ARE AT RISK!
What is this build you speak of?
Don't ask. If this is what I think it is and judging from the comments it is, it's a horriblely disgusting and vile action meant to punish a DM.
DO NOT ASK FOR THE BUILD! YOUR SANITY (AND LUNCH) ARE AT RISK!
Well, I lost my sanity a long time ago, so I don't need to worry about that.
What is this build you speak of?
Don't ask. If this is what I think it is and judging from the comments it is, it's a horriblely disgusting and vile action meant to punish a DM.
DO NOT ASK FOR THE BUILD! YOUR SANITY (AND LUNCH) ARE AT RISK!
Oh, please.
Nothing *D&D* can offer is even remotely a challenge. D&D is the sad, pathetic, generally geeky little brother in the room of the "edgy" RPGs, and there is no such thing as a "build" for D&D that is anything more than "potentially annoying some of the time".
So post it.
(I play D&D because I like the game. It's a very good game! It is, however, mechanically incapable of being "edgy", and that is a *good thing*, because "edgy" is a modern RPG codeword for "stupid implementation".)
To keep it concise: just think of "Clerks 2", and the liberal application of perform checks. Carry this on to a series of roleplaying events, and (with a certain degree of persistance) things get derailed pretty quickly (aka, "campaign killer").
'nuf said.
Now, this build doesn't even need magic items. I guess you could add things that would ward the donkey against theft (alarm, use activated mind-effecting spells on touch, ect... to prevent others from stealing it).
The other aspect of this is to make it an Elven minstrel show and just call it "Drow-Faced Comedy"
It ends up using, Versatile Performer, Virtuoso's first level ability, and every bonus to perform and charisma check I could scrounge up to do the equivilant of "Jumplomacy" with a donkey.
Now, this build doesn't even need magic items. I guess you could add things that would ward the donkey against theft (alarm, use activated mind-effecting spells on touch, ect... to prevent others from stealing it).
The other aspect of this is to make it an Elven minstrel show and just call it "Drow-Faced Comedy"
this reminds me of my last major campaign. Things started to get real silly for a bit at the end (lasted 2-1/2 years, made 26th level) -- ended up making some ridiculous magic items that would fit perfect for this (unfortunately, I don't think that I can post them).
Thankfully that campaign came to conclusion before things got any worse.
If she pulls it one more time I'm making a use activated True Strike weapon (Use: On swing). She can't tell me there isn't a first level wizard in the town, or the spell doesn't exist.
What is this build you speak of?
Don't ask. If this is what I think it is and judging from the comments it is, it's a horriblely disgusting and vile action meant to punish a DM.
DO NOT ASK FOR THE BUILD! YOUR SANITY (AND LUNCH) ARE AT RISK!
Oh, please.
Nothing *D&D* can offer is even remotely a challenge. D&D is the sad, pathetic, generally geeky little brother in the room of the "edgy" RPGs, and there is no such thing as a "build" for D&D that is anything more than "potentially annoying some of the time".
So post it.
(I play D&D because I like the game. It's a very good game! It is, however, mechanically incapable of being "edgy", and that is a *good thing*, because "edgy" is a modern RPG codeword for "stupid implementation".)
Oh, like F.A.T.A.- *is shot*
The idea of the build is not to be "edgy" or "extreme" it's designed to tell a GM to back the hell off and stop ruining the fun of the game. If they're so uncomfortable with the general mechanics then they shouldn't be DMing until they've read the books and absorbed the material better.
That being said: If I feel the GM is uncomfortable with the power creep I have presented, then I feel it is my duity to help the GM and the players so we can all enjoy what is going on.