Have you ever done something that your GM has never forgiven you for?

>Like, you understand what I'm trying to say, right? You're picking up what I'm putting down?
Sure, but in the end, it is the same thing.

You have an issue with the rules being changed from what they are supposed to be.

How he does it matters not - the fact that you are trying to shove it in his face, and a guess based on how you write, you probably have a condition somewhere on the autism spectrum. No offense at all intended.

I can understand how annoying it can be, and I DON'T have an issue. I've know someone who had, and he would tilt so hard, he couldn't focus for the rest do the evening, and eventually gave up on role-playing entirely, because the tiniest inconsistency would completely throw him off for the remainder of the day. I've seen how bad it can get.

When you find yourself in this situation, you either block it out if yof can, and go with it, or you excuse yourself and leave. Because your GM doesn't give a shit, not at first, anyway, but you do. You are not leaving for the GM, you are leaving because you are not enjoying the game. It was clearly taking the fun out of the game, and then why are you playing?

>No matter how frustrating a GM like that is, there is nothing that can be done about it.
This is absolutely true.

>You should just accept that this is how he goes about it. Remember rule 0 - always listen to your GM.
This is absolutely bullshit.
I mean, don't get me wrong, most of the time it would be totally accurate.
Except the actual user you're replying to specifically and explicitly explained how his GM was not even listening to himself and expecting the impossible.
I almost thought you were posting pasta with how completely you missed what he was saying.

Rule 0 is: I say that we're ignoring the grappling rules and rolling opposed ability checks. Because, that's why.
Rule 0 is not: Suck my dick and tell me I'm pretty at the same time.

And you always have the option to not accept the GM's rules and politely leave.

You should fix up your post or stop posting long texts from the phone.

>You have an issue with the rules being changed from what they are supposed to be.
He has an issue with the GM changing the rules with sticky notes, refusing to share those notes, and expecting the players to anticipate those rule changes.
It is not a subtle difference.

Learn to read.
No offense at all intended.

>And you always have the option to not accept the GM's rules and politely leave.
And that is the point you missed from my post.

The GM ultimately controls everything. No matter how "bullshit" you think that is, it is the reality of things.

Thankfully,some GMs are better than others, so if you do not agree with your GM at all, finding a different game would be in your best interest.

Hey, if you prefer having arguments with a GM because of how he plays, be my guest.

But all I got from his post was "I am a victim of abuse, but I still loved my GM, until he dropped me.".

If you have issues like this with a GM, and it triggers you this much, you run. You dont stick around even for half as long as that user did.

tl;dr: "I R kilz npcs 2 early" x 5

No dude, I dont think you are picking up what I'm putting down. In my posts I said that when he made house rulings on the spot I shrugged and went along with it. Because he's the GM he can do that.

My issue was with him having pre-written house rules all throughout his books that he refused to share with us because he was running the game, "exactly as the book says". These where his exact words. He told us that the book we where using was everything we needed, no additional rules or notes. Then he got annoyed when we didn't magically know the alterations to the rules he made. By his own admission we could look in the book we had and read the rules and they would be correct. It's bad form to tell your players you're using a rule set that is readily available to them then give them a hard time when they try to use those rules and you pull out changes to the rules that they never knew about and talk as though they had access to them.

>And that is the point you missed from my post.
I didn't miss shit you irritating prick.
The post I responded to said nothing about leaving.
>or you excuse yourself and leave
This one did, but I was mid-post when you posted that.

>The GM ultimately controls everything. No matter how "bullshit" you think that is, it is the reality of things.
Which is why I acknowledged "No matter how frustrating a GM like that is, there is nothing that can be done about it." was "absolutely true".
Learn to read.

>Hey, if you prefer having arguments with a GM because of how he plays, be my guest.
Nobody is saying that.
Learn to read.

>But all I got from his post was "I am a victim of abuse, but I still loved my GM, until he dropped me.".
He was saying that he was trying to do exactly what you are smugly telling him to do but couldn't because the GM expected him to be psychic and then, after he confronted him, the GM maneuvered him out of the group.
Learn to fucking read.

You could at least acknowledge that you missed some of the things I pointed out you missed.

as DnD moved forward they were more rule heavy due to the fact that DMs ruled there game with an iron fist. unforchenetly it dosn't stop that DMs from happening but it keeps the honest ones from screwing the players over.

Alright, tl;dr:
>The GM ultimately controls everything. No matter how "bullshit" you think that is, it is the reality of things.
If a GM triggers you this much, you leave, for your own sake. You don't stick around long enough to be dropped by the GM.

x4
the 4th time was just something the DM lost control of with out spilling blood

the issue is he knew the old rules and the DM refuses to share the new ones

>super triggered
Jesus Christ, calm the fuck down. Who pissed in your morning coffee?

Half the the post makes zero sense, and is just an excuse to say "learn to read" as many times a possible. Good job though.

I wasn't trying to be smug, at all, whatsoever. However, the post made it very clear that he stuck around for a long time, far longer than he should have, and was apparently the ONLY one to be dropped from the group, so he is clearly the issue in the group- and that is just how social interactions work. Your "perfectly normal and acceptable" behaviour, might not be tolerated in certain groups of people. When you find yourself in such a group, and you can't deal with it, you leave. This is basic social skills.

Welcome to the real world.

i smell a troll...
a big troll...
or maby 2

Actually after we played in one game where he told us at the start "I'm gonna run this one to let you guys change how something happens in the setting" then at the end told us we never could change anything and he just wanted to play out the start of his setting again, I told him not to invite me back. I told him I really had no interest in his games.

Then I started playing with a mutual friend of ours, he didn't like it. He had known this friend and his brother for more than thirty years. So when he slammed his fists on a table and said, "fuck you man, this is bullshit. You can't decide who plays! You have a problem with people" then angrily stormed out after threatening me. Then threatening me again later on the phone. I told thr group, "thanks for inviting me out, and breaking bread with me, but I'm going to bow out" he used this and told every one I was talking shit about them and generally being a cunt. What did he flip out about? What did I say? In character I explained to another character that I didn't trust anyone in the party aside from him, so I was gonna retire from dungeon crawling, maybe buy a farm. Dwain took this as an attempt to kick the older players out of the game.

I've since found another group, all roughly in my age group, we get on quite well.

It's actually through him that I noticed this strange dicodomy between players with more than 20 years experience, and players with 10 or less. Older players are super secretive, they seed distrust in parties and really only trust each other, often telling younger players to accept that this is how it is and the words, "when you've been playing as long as I have" get thrown around a lot. They frequently get angry or hostile when people try to figure out what the fuck they are doing or even learn from them. On the reverse of this, younger players tend towards more ambiguous actions playing with the grey area a lot, but have a better grasp of tabletop being a group game.

As a GM, I sometimes do that to mess eith my players.

Haven't followed the post chain, but changing certain rules can help avoid gamists from going all on their cheese.

Monster stats are floating in my games, and it is always super easy coming up with a good reason the players can't dispute, if I even need to.

For certain actions, I do it mainly to prevent people trying to game the system too hard. Like someone attempting to abuse several unrelated, but fully legal, rules in a combination with each other.

I know a lot of people hate that kind of thing, but I hate that kind of player anyway, so we hopefully never end up in a group together.

this is understandable but unfortunately that's not what were talking about.

i get where you're coming from though

>so he is clearly the issue in the group- and that is just how social interactions work. Your "perfectly normal and acceptable" behaviour, might not be tolerated in certain groups of people. When you find yourself in such a group, and you can't deal with it, you leave. This is basic social skills.
>Welcome to the real world.
Holy Fuck, you love to make irrlevent point that have nothing to do with anything.
Read.
The.
Damn.
Posts.

You say: "You should just accept that this is how he goes about it. Remember rule 0 - always listen to your GM."
Okay.

>When I asked him how I was supposed to know that he smugly insisted that I needed to read the books.
>Despite the fact that I didn't have his sticky notes and house rules in my books.
>As though I was supposed to psychicly know what his adjustment was.
>was supposed to psychicly know
>When I asked to make copies of his house rules so I could play and understand his game better he laughed and said no.
Let’s read that again, just for you.
>When I asked to make copies of his house rules so I could play and understand his game better
This would be him “just accepting that this is how the GM goes about it and trying to listen to his GM."
>he laughed and said no.
This is the GM preventing him from doing just that.

>I told him, "someone once told me, if I was gonna have a bunch of house rules, then I should have some list made, one with all my house rules, that person was you.
See? He LISTENS to his GM.
>Don't dish out advice if you refuse to follow it yourself"
The GM doesn’t listen to himself.

well... your right but it's not nice to make fun of people with autism.

That is an entirely different story, but alright.

Good thing you got out of it. Some people just aren't compatible.

>"when you've been playing as long as I have"
As someone with 18 years of experience, I cringe so fucking hard when I hear someone say that.

I still remember this one fucking dungeon I GMed, where the new guy practically blazed a path for the rest of the group, while two of the old players kept this gruffy "oh, when you have all the experience we have, it becomes a true burden when things get this straight forward. You will know if you stick around with roleplaying for long enough"

But I think having a lot of different groups helps keep it fresh - you never get to the"secretive" stage, because each group handles everything so differently, and you constantly have to relearn a lot the stuff you had gotten used to.

If he replies with more irrelevant points while ignoring what he's clearly missed, yeah, he's a troll.
I was legitimately triggered by the unadulterated obtuseness. Warden Norton level obtuseness, so yeah, it's probably deliberate.

user, I appreciate you. Thanks for making it more clear for that guy who I am 100% sure is on the spectrum.

a little surprised no one else noticed before

Dude, I fear getting to that stage. I have a deep seated fear of becoming that group of people. I am scared that if I play with a group for too long then my group will become just like them. I don't want it to happen but I'm so scared it's gonna happen.

>You should just accept that this is how he goes about it.
Fuck no. If the GM refuses to you his houserules, the least you can do is ditch him.

That depends entirely on what house rules we are talking about.

As a GM with a fuckton of house rules, if some pfaggot came to join my group, and wanted to know everything about my house rules, I would immediately assume he was some autistic power gamer trying to break the system.

The GM not letting you get all your class skills is lame, though. But I'd assume that comes early enough (character creation) that you have time to rethink your choice.

What about if you told everyone that you had no house rules and that you where playing exactly as the books dictated? Then your players found out you did house house rules becaus you changed stuff seemingly at the last second constantly? Then would you let them see your house rules? That's what happened in the story above.

terrific

I thought that having houserules explained and kind of codified before the gameplay is a basic RPG etiquette.
Guess it is not for everyone, are you eating with your hands user?

Not explaining rules is bad as it takes away players ability to act, as they do not know what effects their actions will have so they can't plan anything.

I was one fucked by DM houserule and called it bullshit, as I would not take certain action if I know about this houserule. Thankfully GM turned out to be a cool guy and after the play we figured out how to change it so it would not fuck my PC over the top while still acting as intended limitator.

I wouldnt tell them anything.

The GM in the above story, fucked up. I would have gone on without mentioning house rules unless strictly applicable (like I had changed grappling and someone wanted a grapple focused character), but otherwise I wouldnt mention anything other than the system I was using. If you managed to assume that meant I used the book 100% as written, then I'd shrug and call you an idiot.

I never play, but I would probably have stuck around the above group,just to see how far down the rabbit hole he would end up. Maybe take a ton of notes in case he later fumbled it up and made a different ruling than last time.

But as a ForeverGM, I'd probably just be happy to get to play.

And as a GM, while I urge you to know what your character can do, I also make it clear that I will keep track of the rules. If you start playing secondary GM with your own rulebook, well...

As a GM, you'll have to trust me - what I set up, is made with the intention of being difficult, but doable. If you start arguing about these rules, to give yourself an advantage, you can bet I'd abuse those rules against you. And you dont want that.

i tried DMing once after a few years of various editions of DnD. so i decided to make a home brew and i can tell you not only do you want everyone to have a copy in-front of them at all times but if some one dosn't understand the rules then it will throw off all the other players. a 5 second mistake can turn into a half hour of trying to figure out what went wrong and what happened to your system
(i played 2E,4E,5E,CoC,star wars role play,lord of the rings role play. my system was an ungodly mixture of complexities of all the systems)

>As a GM, you'll have to trust me - what I set up, is made with the intention of being difficult, but doable. If you start arguing about these rules, to give yourself an advantage, you can bet I'd abuse those rules against you. And you dont want that.

But by refusing to let me know the rules, you already ARE abusing them against me.

>I was one fucked by DM houserule and called it bullshit, as I would not take certain action if I know about this houserule. Thankfully GM turned out to be a cool guy and after the play we figured out how to change it so it would not fuck my PC over the top while still acting as intended limitator.
Yeah that's my usual method as well, the few times I actually GM.

I rarely run with house rules, but I know a lot who does. Some GMs are just terrible - had one who would abuse our lack of mechanical knowledge, to just punish us at every turn. Like;
>can I shoot into melee?
>Oh sure, no problem!
>*shoots*
>Alright, flip a coin, heads, you hit your target, tails, you hit your ally
And that's why I often suggest just leaving a GM you think is terrible. Been there, not going back. Some people don't care, but if you do, you are not doing anyone a favour by sticking around.

26.482x10^26d6 in Damage to a Lion Turtle. He's still a bit salty.

Try coming with an actual example.

Because from my point of view, you are just bitching about nothing.

You get the rules when you need them. Not before the campaign even starts. You dont need that.

Of course, if you are a terrible human being, you'd do this:
But that's a pretty fucking petty GM, and he either wants you to leave, or likes pissing you off.

See, this goes under the assumption that you didn't tell the players that the rules printed in the book are the exact rules you're following with no changes.

He's not an idiot for assuming that because that's what he was told. It's one thing to be up front about house rules its another to state that you aren't using any and the book is to be followed to the letter.

Knowing what your character can do requires an understanding of the rules as a whole. You can't just read one section of the book and know everything your character can do, you have to read the whole book. It's not playing secondary GM to know the rules and have a copy of the book. That would be things like, telling other players the rules and making rulings on the GM's behalf.

It's not abusing the rules to gain advantage if you simply know the rules to know what your character can do, as was the case in the above story. That GM was a twat because he refused to let the player know his house rules when they specifically pertained to him until it was too late. Anyone who does this is a terrible GM who should stop and look at what they are doing.

Now if someone does what you do, and tells them, "hey you're playing a magic charscter, I have these rules about magic that you should be aware of before playing that character" they are a perfectly acceptable GM.

But I dont think knowing the rules is a bad thing for players. GM's who discourage players from reading the book and knowing the rules beyond just their characters abilities has always seemed like GM's who dont actually know the rules themselves and are worried about looking bad. I mean, this can easily be avoided by telling your players beforehand, "if I do something that isn't in the book, or use a ruling that you disagree with, write down your grievance and bring it up after the game, I will not tolerate people inturrupiting the flow of the game for a rules discussion.

>You get to take one of four skills.
>But the manual says all are available.
user, in this situation:

>Yeah, I know, that's not how I run it though.
This answer is acceptable.

>Huh. [Checks] Okay, you're right, I'll let you pick whatever.
This answer is also acceptable.

>Huh. [Checks] You're right, but I'd rather keep doing it my way.
This answer is acceptable too.

>[Refuses to check] No, you're wrong, that's what the rules say! Read them!
>[Shown the rules] Nuh-uh, the rules are wrong! [Or] They mean the thing I say!
This is not acceptable. It makes the guy That GM, and you should feel bad for defending it.

Shit dude, I think you should have maybe told the previous group what was going on, but I'm glad you dropped the idiot like a hot potato and got a happy ending to your story.

eligen/tg/entlemen we have found our troll

This was in Hero System 6th edition, and we made an excel sheet to do the calculation. It took an i5 Sandy Bridge about 20 minutes and nearly killed the OS.

...

>You get the rules when you need them. Not before the campaign even starts. You dont need that.

Before I come up with a character concept is precisely when I need to know the rules.

sounds like you dont know how to use excel

I still wanna hijack the younger players from that group. One of the older players used his position as two of the players uncle (the younger players where raised in a house with very firm beliefs about respecting and doing what your elders tell you) to make them into his minions. One was kinda pulling away, playing the game in a way he wanted and enjoyed rather than just be Bob's minion. coaxing from me and my wife was helping. This mad Bob kinda mad though. Dwain told him I was doing it just to pick on Bob.

Excellent.

i had a similer (not the same) problem except the dm didn't know the rules and never made house rules until he over ruled the existing rules when it sited him.
>chericter took linguistics perk over combat perk
>DM didnt implement other languages
>DM needs us to not understand something and says that i dont know the language it says i know on my character sheet making it useless

>until it was too late
And this is the key part.

If someone says they'll play a spell caster, I'd let on about a few changes made (if any).

If someone asks me if I have made rules changes to magic, I'd tell them that they'll figure it out in game. Even if there weren't any. Solely because I want endurance that I can shut down a power gaming faggot trying to abuse loopholes in the rules.

Every single player I've ever met who felt perpetrated by their game master, has always had the second mindset. Because to them, what is important is not the character, not the actual game. It is just making the most broken piece of shit they can get away with.

As for the last part, my main concern is that most systems have very... inflexible rules. So if I want a certain event to happen, and rules doesn't allow that, I break them. For one, we had a game where one guy had pretty much gotten to the point where he could survive a 5 mile free fall.

I ruled that a fall from 1 mile was instant death, baring specific circumstances obviously.

The player got super mad at that, and spent 2 hours raging about it - and it wasn't relevant, and never became relevant, I just warned him about it, because he joked about how he could totally survive a fall from this massive tower they had reached the top of.

>As a GM, I sometimes do that to mess eith my players.
There's a big difference between having a monster stats being different to stop metagaming and rules not known about that would have influenced player decisions, like "divine casters can't physically attack sentient beings or they permanently lose all casting abilities forever, no returns" and not telling them about it.

Just from casually reading the posts in this thread, literally nobody is defending telling a player about the rules until AFTER it was too late.

That is being a gigantic fuck head, and should immediately make the whole group stomp on your face for being a bitch.

It is fine telling a player ABOUT to do something, or choose something, that they should reconsider because (insert house rule here).

My primary concern would always just be consistency. But I also have a tendency to make a "test" character first, fuck ir up, die, and then make the same kind of character (with the actual fleshed out personality and backstory), now being sure to avoid the pitfalls and traps I wasn't originally aware of.

>If someone asks me if I have made rules changes to magic, I'd tell them that they'll figure it out in game. Even if there weren't any. Solely because I want endurance that I can shut down a power gaming faggot trying to abuse loopholes in the rules.
Sorry, but that's just retarded. If someone comes up with a loophole that allows them to do something you don't think they should be able to do, you talk to them like an adult and adjust the rules as necessary, you don't go "well, ACTUALLY that's not possible because of a houserule I have" when you're pulling that shit out of your ass.

>The player got super mad at that, and spent 2 hours raging about it - and it wasn't relevant, and never became relevant, I just warned him about it, because he joked about how he could totally survive a fall from this massive tower they had reached the top of.
So... you got mad because a player was able to do something you didn't think he should be able to do and had no impact whatsoever to the game(and minimal impact even if it HAD come up at some point), so you decided to change the rules just to spite him? You're starting to sound like a real asshole, dude.

>Try coming with an actual example.
"I've got some houserules but don't worry, they shouldn't affect normal play."
"Ok, I'm going to play a fighter who uses a reach polearm, extra long hands, and combat reflexes in order to make enemies take AoOs and stop them getting to our casters."
"Sure, ok".

>in game
"Ok, that guy just ran past me within 10 feet, I'm going to take an AoO."
"Oh, you can't do that, I houseruled you can't use reach on AoOs."

"Why didn't you say so earlier? I wouldn't have spent my entire feat selection on trying to protect the casters if your houserules were going to stop him doing the precise thing I wanted to do."
"I only bring up houserules when they come up in play. Don't look at me like that, you just have to be in five different places at once and get barely any benefit out of all your feats."

Like what?

Seriously, examples.

Because I legit can't think of anything that isn't super invasive house rules, that would be critical to know before character creation even began.

Why the fuck am I being called a troll?

Or are you just assuming I am the writer of every reply you didn't like?

i've had enough shit from my past DM who took a shit on the game when he bard us from role playing. he wanted to replicate the wicher except with dice on a table but its not a fun number crunching game or a fun game to play a chericter. the rules in the books are designed to prevent the DMs from being able to fuck with there players in order to stop them from role playing and in the event that there successful then you can bet the game with roll playing and go back to the role playing when thay give up.

I thought the whole point was that the GM refused to let the players see the houserules and only told the players about it when the actions came up in play. The player wouldn't have chosen those character options if they were patently useless due to the houserules, would they?

>It is fine telling a player ABOUT to do something, or choose something, that they should reconsider because (insert house rule here).

The main problem is when you tell the player that they should reconsider due to houserules, after character creation but before they use the stuff they chose to use in play. Which is normally when the argument happens.

We could see this happening right here: >I ruled that a fall from 1 mile was instant death, baring specific circumstances obviously.
If someone picked up feather fall as a sorcerer spell and joked "I could survive a 5 mile fall if I used feather fall at the end of it" and this GM said "actually if you fall more than one mile you instantly die even if you cast feather fall" the player would probably get annoyed he wasted a spell on feather fall as it's use has been somewhat limited. It's not even useless, it just was a choice for the character that was made without full information provided, which tends to tick people off.

>you got mad
Nop, I was just confused.

And the rule was changed the moment I figured it was a problem, I just didn't think yhe players were that retarded. One of them were, so I informed him that he would, indeed, die from a fall at terminal velocity.

People tend to do that. It is called common sense.

My main problem with the adult route of talking to the players, is that the players in the second mindset, can't be reasoned with like adults. I've tried, and it failed miserably, despite me and 4 players supplementing each other's arguments.

I'd much rather say "you clearly know this isnt how it is supposed to work, and I wont allow it, I play it like this instead" - and give him an alternative. They are far more likely to accept that.

Though the fact that I give alternatives probably has a lot to so with it.

>I legit can't think of anything that isn't super invasive house rules, that would be critical to know before character creation even began.
"We're using critical fumbles for this game."

Wow, the level 6 manyshot rapid shot archer's bow snapped for the 8th time in 4 sesssions, bue he shouldn't complain, he should have known making more attacks will make him shoot his own foot and have his bow snap in half every 3 rounds because of his 5 attacks. What do you mean, you would have taken a feat to get a reroll per day on attacks if you knew about that rule?

Yeah, as I already said, I have trouble thinking of house rules that aren't "hurr I am a retarded DM", that would be problematic.

You are just starting the obvious again.

A GM like that should be instantly dropped, unless he allowed you to rewrite some of your choices. And even then...

>And the rule was changed the moment I figured it was a problem, I just didn't think yhe players were that retarded. One of them were, so I informed him that he would, indeed, die from a fall at terminal velocity.
>People tend to do that. It is called common sense.
If a PC can survive a fall at a terminal velocity, then the system clearly isn't intended to be realistic, so I really don't see the problem here. If you're going to go all "but muh realism" you clearly shouldn't have been using that system in the first place.

>If someone picked up feather fall as a sorcerer spell and joked "I could survive a 5 mile fall if I used feather fall at the end of it"
That is "specific circumstances" mate.

It is something that literally makes you take no fall damage.

He could tank it. Literally drop out of the tower, and at most take 80% of his health.

He didn't build towards this. It just happened. And it goes against all logic and common sense.

You come across as a guy who doesn't actually know the rules abd is afraid of people knowing the rules better than you. My GM may have been bad, especially with his handling of house rules, but he did give some solid advice when he said, "if you have house rules, you should make a list that's available to your players."
If you it makes you seem inconsistent and appear to have a GM vs player mentality if you make rulings like that on thr fly to need things that you didn't expect or think players should be capable of. It makes you look like you punish creativity. I mean if you NEED to hide the rules from the players then you should at least commit them to a sheet of paper so you don't look like you're coming up with shit on the spot to punish them for thinking of something that you didn't.

gamers who want to have fun with high fanticy dont make logical real world decisions
>theres a dragon over head so i guess we should pack up and move
if you liked the low fanticy you should have played war hammer role play

Don't play a system about fantasy superheroes if you don't want PCs to become fantasy superheroes.

>We're using critical fumbles for this game."
You got me.

Critical fumbles should be mandatory to announce before you even mention what system you are using. But that kinda falls into this:
>"hurr I am a retarded"

It's an example, mate. A bit of a strawman, but still to demonstrate.

>it goes against all logic and common sense.
What's wrong about that? Admittedly, you're within your rights to make that sort of ruling, fair enough. I've done something similar with ambiguous gun twirling tricks getting of large DPS, but allowed for a feat rejig at the time since it was a fairly big part of the character's build in question.

The thing is, I had made it an open discussion rather than a set in stone "this is how things are going to be done, and this is the RIGHT way to do things." You seem to also be taking a more laid-back route by allowing alternatives, which is also a better way of handling things. It's hardliners that do seem to make people be pissed off.

I used critical fumbles for my own game, but only after my players really wanted it. I did houserule the houserule of critical fumbles of people having to roll more than 50% of their attack rolls as 1s to actually fumble critically.

The gunslinger in still blew her own hand off in the final battle, while on the very same volley critting the BBEG's pet wizard

It was when 3.5 was actually relevant and new, and I hadn't expected the up bloat to be that bad. When I figured it out, it was far too late to change system.

I am all for fantastic shit, but not walking off a fall from terminal velocity. That is actually retarded.

The main problem is not even that you CAN survive, it is that some players think solely in mechanical terms, and actually considers this sort of shit. Even if he looked at his character sheet and thought "hey my character can do this!", and I actually allowed it, I would tell him to test willpower first (your character certainly can't be sure he'll survive this fall), if he actually wanted to go through with it, I would force him to do super retarded shit for the rest of the campaign, because he clearly can't be killed.

I hate players who cant stop thinking in game terms. Consider what your characters knows instead, because he certainly can't know he'll survive that fall.

>if you liked the low fanticy you should have played war hammer role play
WHFRP gets high fantasy on high levels if GM allows it.
In one game I managed to create dwarf that had more damage output and damage reduction that greater demons and dragons

mages are the most powerful and also the shortest lived due to there likely hood of being killed by there own spell

>I am all for fantastic shit, but not walking off a fall from terminal velocity. That is actually retarded.
This is a system where, with no magic whatsoever, a 1st level Barbarian with the right feat can break world record on 100m sprint and keep running while carrying 100lb load. The last tattered remains of anything that could be called "realism" are thrown out of window around 6th level.

In THAT context, being able to survive a fall at terminal velocity by mid levels shouldn't even be particularly surprising. That's just common sense.

In 2e? Killed by own spell? Only if reckless.
With 3 dice on spell casting you have low chance to blow yourself up as minor manifestation is minor and major have 1 in 1000 chance of happening.
And them you can reroll due to familiar ability.
And with that 3 dice you can cast empowered fireball giving you 10 strikes with strength 4.
Of course you may want to use other spell but why if weaker one is already an overkill in most situations?

I am fully aware of how the rules work, and I also have written down all the rule changes I have.

My issue is that I can often see where a player is going, and often warn them ahead of time, usually with a casual "remember that..." Or "by the way, you can't..."

It gets sad when you can see that a player is clearly going for something super cheesy and game breaking, long before anyone else actually knows it.

You can think that makes me a bad GM all you want, but that in turn, makes you look like a power gaming little faggot, who just want a his dick sucked because of his super cool self insert. I've seen this kind of players far too much, and I fucking hate it.

Throughout my years, I have spent countless hours trying to help this kind of player make a strong and effective character instead, only to have then leave because they are disappointed about not being strong enough to solo the rest of the party by themselves.

I... I did not know this barbarian thing.. thank you user. I'm gonna use this. Any other silly low level shenanigans you would be interested in telling me?

hegwizardry is best wizardry

night guys

>you type like your autistic
This is bait, or someone being stupid

Yeah, you still sound like you don't have the best grasp of the rules.

You probably assume you know what everyone is doing with their characters all the time, don't you.

You really come across as smug and pretentious. Im glad you have a group that works with your though. That's all that really matters. If you and your players are having fun then that's the only measure of good or vad GM that we need.

Well, actually it takes two feats: with fleet and run, a 1st level human Barbarian can run 225ft per round while carrying light load. And keep going at that pace for at least a minute. Don't have any other shenanigans in mind right now, it's been a while since I've played 3.5.

you can go really fast with munk and a point in worrier for extra round

5E

>Why the fuck am I being called a troll?
>Try coming with an actual example.
>Because from my point of view, you are just bitching about nothing.
Here, you're arbitrarily dismissing everything said previously in the reply chain, including ignoring the example of the story earlier in the thread:
>What about if you told everyone that you had no house rules and that you where playing exactly as the books dictated? Then your players found out you did house house rules becaus you changed stuff seemingly at the last second constantly? Then would you let them see your house rules? That's what happened in the story above.

>You get the rules when you need them. Not before the campaign even starts. You dont need that.
This statement alone is so stupid that it must be trolling.
And when a suitable example of a house rule that needed to be known earlier was provided:
>"We're using critical fumbles for this game."
It gets disregarded by saying, they're "hurr I am a retarded" rules, so they don't count.

What about my house rule where I don't play with hidden traps, so any rogue sinking points into Detect Traps is wasting them?
Let me guess, there's some reason why you're never wrong or you'll simply ignore any solid points against you.

I once helped the party get creative and work together.

Half of these points are not even about me, and the other half is about posts after I was called a troll.

Stop assuming every poster you arbitrarily dont like is the same guy. I was actually asking for examples because I was curious, and instead of doing that like a normal fucking person, you went the retarded "hey look how fucking stupid I am" route.

But good job buddy. Really doing the good deed today, by being a petty little faggot on Veeky Forums, without having any idea of who you are replying to.

And I didn't disregard the critical fumble thing, I fucking acknowledged it. Pointing out that I think it is retarded isn't disregarding it, I just hadn't thought about it, because I would never use something that stupid. How about you learn to read, or better yet, fuck off so we dont have to deal with your shit.

>You come across as a guy who doesn't actually know the rules abd is afraid of people knowing the rules better than you.
Not that user, and this unrelated, but that is exactly me with settings.
I hate running games for people who know the setting much better than me, so I much prefer using my own setting.

Frankly I don't know how people can run premade settings. It's just so much more cohesive to make your own setting and tailor it to your players.

>unforchenetly

Holy shit, I really hope that wasn't intentional. Please tell me that English is not your native language.

The word is 'unfortunately' which comes from the base word 'fortune' meaning luck or wealth.

Holy shit, my autism.

I'll take 'Shit that didn't happen' for 400, Alex.

>What about my house rule where I don't play with hidden traps, so any rogue sinking points into Detect Traps is wasting them?
This isnt house rules, first of all, but more importantly, it sounds like a player complaint from someone who has ever GMed.

In all situations where some skills never shows up, you grab hold of your GM, and tell him your character has certain skills he hasn't been allowed to use.

Most GMs are not keeping these things away from you. They just forget about them, or forgets you are good at finding and disabling traps, and doesn't use them, because a lot of players hate traps.

Just chiming in as a GM who lost players because of this kind of thing, and they didn't tell me until after they quit the group. Just give it a chance, there is a good chance the GM didn't house rule traps out to spite you.

>Half of these points are not even about me
What? I directly quoted your posts.
You really are terrible at this.

>and the other half is about posts after I was called a troll
After, yes.
But it was illustrating how you were still acting like a troll by dismissing any point raised against you.

>Stop assuming every poster you arbitrarily dont like is the same guy.
You fucking confirm it, jackass:
>I was called a troll
Your first post I quoted.

>And I didn't disregard the critical fumble thing, I fucking acknowledged it.
Your second post I quoted.

Also:
>you'll simply ignore any solid points against you.
I called it.
This is just sad.

No, I just hate the effect hidden traps have on the game, so at char gen, I let the players know not to waste points in detect traps.

>Most GMs are not keeping these things away from you. They just forget about them, or forgets you are good at x
This is good advice though.

Ehh, you just gotta be up front with them about it. Check their knowledge of the setting before things get rolling and if they're more knowledgeable than you just tell them to straight up roll with it if you flub some lore, then have them tell you about it afterwards and see if it's worth reconciling it or just continuing to roll with your flub.

As for the thread prompt though? Nah, if I get in a tif with a GM or my PCs about something in game it gets resolved at the table.

I had one GM that I argued with about treat levels a lot because we almost party wiped in pretty much every encounter in a campaign. If it weren't for my general ability to hold enemies at bay while health pots and healing abilities were distributed to resuscitate unconscious players--I had a very well made tank--then that most certianly would have been the case.

Long story short it was very clear that they were pulling from a premade random encounter list that wasn't tailored to the group we were running and because of it every single encounter was a life and death slog.

It's one of the reasons that when I run shit that I tailor make encounters. That way you can make sure that everything is challenging and engaging for every member of the party, but while still only being reasonably lethal.

You are seriously confused, and have the same level of reading comprehension as a horse.

Enjoy trying to sort through who is who on an anonymous board. I can't reply, because half of the points are flat out wrong, has nothing to so with me, or is because you apparently suck at English, and can't figure our what simple, very straight forward sentences mean.