So I yelled at my GM, but afterwards I felt bad and apologized...

If you insist.

>Am I right for assuming that he was trying to push us in an "evade" direction by spawning a seemingly undefeatable monster with +8 to athletics and requiring a wisdom savings throw of 15 or higher to stop psychic damage?
No.

You saw the GM as an adversary and assumed (incorrectly) that he put you in an impossible situation.

I amI read through your post and it's just autistic whining. You made a possible assumption, your GM either acted weird ("damage for perception 'spawning' monsters...) or you are full of shit and don't tell us the full story. I think your gm was mad at you for not cooperating ("you could have beaten him if you all attacked him") and didn't want to play anymore after the switch.

>Am I right for assuming that he was trying to push us in an "evade" direction by spawning a seemingly undefeatable monster with +8 to athletics and requiring a wisdom savings throw of 15 or higher to stop psychic damage?

Clearly not. But the problem isn't making an assumption and then being proven right, or wrong, about it, the problem is you being a bit of an arse about the whole thing.

Forgot an if there but i think you catch my drift.

> Unironically playing against the GM.

user please, go home and rethink your life.

>first time I played against this GM
i really hope you did not mean to type this

>OP makes a thread asking a question
>Makes a poor choice of words
>Everyone dives into semantics for what could very well be him just mispeaking

No.
And using against for with's a HUGE mistake.

Did you assume it was an undefeatable foe only because somebody failed a dex save and the party couldn't identify its weakness using perception?
That seems retarded and your GM seems like a noob for railroading like that, forcing the players to fight something with is not important to the story instead of letting them flee and failing to give the players enough information, I imagine that its physical frailty should've been described or at least hinted at in the visual description of it.

>thinks you play against each other
Fuckin KYS

I think the GM was at fault for not being able to communicate the situation appropriately. Players can only act on the information they have, and to your eyes, you'd been thrown into an unwinnable fight. The GM maybe should have made more effort to describe the creatures as looking soft or easily injured, or something to give you a hint they weren't as tough as you might have thought. That said, from the sounds of things you handled the situation pretty badly, but you've apologised so it's no big deal.

>because of technical issues with Tabletop Sim and ping we switch to roll20 (I know you guys are using something else for online games now but I haven't lurked in about a year)

Why would you think that we'd be using something else? There only really is Roll20 unless you're playing very specific things built for purpose, in which case you can have Tabletop Sim.

why didnt you just try to hit it you lil bitch?

I have no problem with the choice of "against"; I think that the GM very much is in an oppositional position and his job is to present a scenario for you to solve, and attempt to murder you or interact with you in a way which makes sense within the confine of the universe.

That being said, I think you're a faggot for assuming that the GM is trying to TPK you, and also for using TPK as if that's a relevant term in an actual roleplaying game.

He even told you afterwards what the intention was. You people failed to work together. You're an idiot for making assumptions as to what he wants you to do. He, on the other hand, sounds like a good GM that presents a situation and expects you to solve it.

You say it was "seemingly undefeatable". Well, that "seem" is what fucked things up for you. Act in accordance to your character, whether that gets you killed or not. Don't be a metagaming retard.

Fact: If the situation had been reversed, and the DM actually had made the monster unbeatable ending in a TPK as the players bashed against its psychic defenses / summoning more monsters / etc., Veeky Forums would be screeching at the players for not taking all the "obvious" signs that you were supposed to run away.

>be a new gm
>use a monster with high grapple
>player who has played too many videogames decides that any resistance means he's not meant to beat it
should I kick him?

>So I yelled at my GM, but afterwards I felt bad and apologized, I just wanna know if I was getting too amped up or if I was justified in my assumption.

Stopped reading here.

You yelled over a board game. It doesn't matter what the situation was. The worst thing that can happen are imaginary consequences. You are no more or less wealthy, loved, or accomplished no matter what happens in the imaginary world of D&D.

D&D is fun, but it doesn't make you money, effect your health, or make you cum. Have some god damn standards for what matters enough for you to raise your voice.

That's maybe 10% of the problem here. The other 90% is OP assuming his GM wants to kill his character, which is almost never the case. The biggest, worst-kept secret of GMing is that you're rooting for the PCs to win. You just don't want to make it too easy for them, or too hard. You want to reward their cunning and preparation, reprimand their poor decisions, and let the dice determine the difference between successes and setbacks. Not defeat, mind you, setbacks. Ultimately you WANT the PCs to achieve their goals, but to do so in a way that's packed with drama and tension. Throwing a giant sea monster at the party? That's a really tense battle, especially if it's got weird psychic powers and grappling abilities. It's a puzzle they can overcome and something their characters will brag about or reminisce over later on. Like "Hey, at least you don't stink as bad as that one time with the giant octopus."

The fact is, if a monster encounter or skill challenge is unsurmountable then any GM worth their salt will telegraph that information so hard it might as well be a ten-foot high neon sign strapped to their head. If you think your GM is being unfair with the difficulty of encounters talk to them AFTER the session. Calling them out mid-game is fun for precisely nobody. These are issues that should be brought up after the fact, not during. Who knows, maybe the monster had a weak point the players had to find or that would be exposed after a few rounds, or perhaps it was vulnerable to a damage type or status effect they had available but they hadn't used it yet. Or, in the case of this game, the monster didn't have as many hit points as the PCs expected and they were very close to beating it already.

In summary, OP should complain less mid-session and trust his GM more. If he doesn't like how a session went, he should talk to his GM about it after, discuss how he felt and what did or didn't work for him. Worst case you find another group.

>describe the creatures as looking soft or easily injured
I make every single one of my monsters a mini horror freak show. I want the PCs scared its what gets me off. I love the tension and fear in their eyes, and then the relief after it's over.