How can you persuade a GM to be more consistent with handling

File: 1454828347872.png (50KB, 571x165px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 571x165px

>>46444897
>How can you persuade a GM to be more consistent with handling rules?

By fucking him.

>>46444897
Please give examples.

File: fox boy with cake.png (366KB, 668x947px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 668x947px

>>46444923

Perhaps the most noticeable example of inconsistency with handling rules is combat.

Sometimes, such GMs, even when running rules-lite systems, try to adhere to the combat rules and maintain a semblance of a turn order and anticipatable outcomes. At other times, they discard the combat rules entirely, and everything devolves into a process where everyone "does something cool" whenever they feel like it (even the enemies), and the PCs win when the GM thinks they have rolled high numbers a sufficient number of times.

There is little rhyme or reason short of the GM's whims.

>>46444897
>Is there a good way to explain why it is a false dichotomy?
Run your own game.

File: harpy boy.png (595KB, 894x1350px) Image search: [Google]

595KB, 894x1350px

>>46446075

I have run about ~180 game sessions since December 2014 alone due to GMing multiple times a week (for about six hours each time). Running games in no way helps locate GMs whose perspectives on game mechanics align with mine.

>>46444897

Well you could make your GM read this thread and we could all call him an idiot in here. Would that help?

Go away, Collette.

>>46444897
There are different types of play in the world of tabletop. The type of play you are advocating for (rules-hard) is vastly different than the type of play currently being run (easygoing).

If you were ever a dm, you'd know that using a system to give the illusion of chance and fairness can be hard (face it, you're in a world with living gods, magic, and no object permanence), especially for power-gamers who might know a system even better than the dm.

My advice, try to show them the benefits of your play-style, or either adapt to the current style or leave.

>>46444897

You can't simply persuade someone to do what they fundamentally don't want to do. Or at least, not without leverage and/or not over the internet.

>One obstacle when trying to discuss matters with such GMs is that they inevitably buy into a false dichotomy of "rules vs. story," as if one cannot have both one consistent mechanics and a good narrative.

If the rules get in the way of *their* particular story, then it's a legit dichotomy. That's inherently a neutral thing, and it's only a bad thing if no-one is enjoying the game.

Essentially it sounds like they want a narrative-driven game with a loose rules framework. You can either buy into that or be That Guy.

>>46446966
I don't think his problem is that he dislikes rules- easy settings, but rather how the GM is arbitrarily switching between it and a mlre rules-hard mode.

>>46447284
Yea, that sort of sounds like lazy dm'ing. But it's really hard to ask a dm, "Hey! Work harder during your freetime for my enjoyment!", while others are enjoying it, without sounding like a dick.

File: ra0m.png (886KB, 997x1160px) Image search: [Google]

886KB, 997x1160px

>>46446966
>>46447034

Rules-lite, narrative-driven games are perfectly acceptable. I am well-versed with games like Fate, Powered by the Apocalypse, and some deeply obscure systems.

What I do find unacceptable is using those games and inconsistently ignoring what few and tightly-written rules they *do* have, because then the game effectively becomes an experiment in freeform roleplaying.

If a GM commits to a certain rules-lite system, I would think that they are bound to actually follow those rules consistently. If they would like to modify those rules to their liking, the GM should announce such modifications and house rules beforehand and then employ them consistently during the game, not on a completely random basis.

>>46448269
>What I do find unacceptable

Tough. No-one's forcing you to play.

> the game effectively becomes an experiment in freeform roleplaying.

Nah, that's an exaggeration. I wouldn't enjoy playing that style either, but it's still a long way from freeform.

>>46448269
It's only bad for the dm to cheat if they're going to be a dick about it. If they're not being a dick (And it sounds like they aren't) Then the only reason a player can hate it is if they are a killjoy.

But I guess what heart of the problem is that you want your dm to cheat less obviously.

File: 1429304417162.gif (2MB, 659x609px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 659x609px

>>46444897
Aren't you the autismo who keeps makign fox boys in /tg/ ran games and eventually gets booted out of them?

>>46444897
Note that different situations can result is abilities being handled differently. In a dark rainy night, while running along a muddy road, it is reasonable that combat abilities would be impaired or sometimes not available even when they would be perfectly reasonable during a standard fight. Sometimes there may be something which can interrupt what you are trying to do. Sometimes it may be something you don't even know about.

One way to work with this is to ask if you can tell why a particular action didn't work (or didn't work as expected). This can give you some in-character information as to why such an action isn't working as expected, and hopefully hint your GM in that you'd like some reason mentioned for such inconsistencies - hopefully with them mentioning such issues before you start taking actions. (i.e. mentioning that such mud and rain make standing and running difficult)

>>46445724
You can mention to your GM that you're confused as to which combats should be in "combat mode" and which ones should be an "drama mode", and try to get some idea to what distinguishes one from the other.

Try to enjoy the "drama mode" with making up interesting stuff. It doesn't sound like you have a problem with that in particular, just the inconsistency, so try going with the flow when it happens.

At worst, just tell them that you can put up with it and that you're leaving as a result. You'd prefer the rules stay consistent (drama combat during drama combat or rules combat during rules combat, but not a random selection of either with no indication when starting a fight) and that you don't appreciate being called a munchkin just because you asked the question.

>>46448744
What's a /tg/ ran game?

1-go with the flow when he goes inconsistent. Assume your characters can break many rules if they follow the "rule of cool"
2-accept this free form rules when rules dont matter (ex: an easy combat)
3-Explain to him that you cant enjoy or get into your character or feel the narrative if You dont know the rules or you see your PC being inconsistent with them.
4- accept when he makes up stupid unfair rules for an encounter which would otherwise not work; just ask him to state them clearly and mantain them for its duration
5- try your best to not appear as a power gamer or contradict your DM bcause it will make him see your arguments as whining
6- if other players enjoy it then its clearly not the group for you. Leave. With some fireworks possibly.

>>46448744
Don't bully the avatarfag; he's just dumping images while he talks.

also the foxboys are cute

>>46444897
Maybe you're just too retarded to discern when there's clues.

>>46453629
Always bully the avatarfag, not because he is autistic faggot, but because he thinks everyone should cater to his autistic faggotry.
Foxboys a shit

>>46444897
Touhouguy I have to ask. Just how MANY Touhou images do you have in your folders that you use to post with.

>>46454123
That's not Touhou.

>>46448744
>>46453670
>>46454123
It's Collette. He's messed up a few games he's been in, but some people like playing with him.

His OP is a common issue with him - he can't think in an abstract manner at all, much less cope with the idea that what he wants to do with his characters (i.e. /ss/ and mommy issues with little gay boys) isn't necessarily what the game is about.

>>46454192
Hi there <Wizard>, still at it after literally 5 years?

>>46454275
Nope, I just happened to have survived the last time he blew through /tg/ and recognized his posting style. What's your excuse?

>>46454192
Colette is fine to play with, just needs a group who is capable of tolerating metric fuck loads of bullshit. If you can deal with Colette as long as I have, you would gain the patience of a saint.

>>46454192
>/ss/
>little gay boys
Wait a minute...

>>46454327
>just needs a group who is capable of tolerating metric fuck loads of bullshit.
But why would you bother?

No, "gay kitty fukkbois are my fetish" doesn't count, you can ask your GM for some if you're erping.

>>46454192
>>46454327
i dunno, m80, he sounds like a terrible player.

>>46454337
Yeah, I never understood it either. But that's what he describes them as. Homosexual catboys with mommy issues and maternal fixations.

>>46455053
So like. Gay with a special exception for mommy.

Or, I think more likely, gay because they want cocks and mommy's a futa.

>>46455053
>>46455316
This is just sad.

>>46455053
>>46455316
>>46455652
Are you guys just talking shit without reason?

File: thrilling intent.jpg (244KB, 1280x484px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1280x484px

There's this little "homebrew" campaign that I've been watching on Youtube that's entirely improv. Everyone in the group has a blast with it (granted I think half of it is the fact that their DM is literally Patrick Warburton).
Really, as long as you've got a solid setting, a good dm, and players who don't have the personality of dead fish, you really aren't there to play a war game. You're there to tell a story with your friends.

File: 303bd827b2afc2105cac3558489e685c.png (436KB, 669x1100px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 669x1100px

>>46448361

>I wouldn't enjoy playing that style either, but it's still a long way from freeform.

True freeform would actually be preferable, because there is no pretense of the game ever adhering to a ruleset involving character resource investments, as opposed to a game flipping back and forth from rules-grounded to rules-loosey-goosey and back again.

>>46448712

It is less about cheating and more about consistency and anticipatable outcomes for in-character actions.

>>46448791

Different situations can be handled in different fashions, but there is a generally consistent way to handle impairments in the form of difficulty increases, penalties, or whatever the system uses to represent such circumstances. What is *not* system-encoded is arbitrarily discarding or creating rules from scene to scene with little discernible pattern.

I do take issue with "drama mode" combat, because I enjoy working within a system's combat rules and planning out my tactics through them. There is little satisfaction for me in a "cutscene mode" combat.

>>46448744
>>46454192

At the moment, my characters' respective races, genders, systems, and mothers are as follows:

Ongoing games:
- Nature spirit fox girl (very rules-lite homebrew), never had a mother
- Artificial ship spirit cat girl (Strike! RPG), never had a mother
- Half-faerie, half-efreeti cat girl (Risus), mother is a campaign villain
- Half-god elf girl (Fate Core), mother is dead and generally unimportant

Upcoming games for which the characters have already been planned out and approved:
- Literal fallen star girl (Cypher System Rulebook), never had a mother
- Faerie fox boy (very rules-lite homebrew), mother is important setting NPC
- Faerie rabbit boy (system undecided), mother is generally unimportant
- Celestial couatl girl (system undecided), mother is an inspiration and a role model

Game on hiatus:
- Aether spirit emotional vampire boy (very rules-lite homebrew), never had a mother

Only one of these is a fox boy.

>>46457638
>without reason
well, his rulebending faggotry cost us a decent game with cool GM, so there is a reason.

>>46458226
>that list
You DO realize that "fox boy" was a broad generalization and your list is EXACTLY what we were meaning? Probably not, you have thought process of an alien.

no, not Wizard.

>>46459515
Sounds like you could've been as much of a problem if the game fell apart.

You stop being a cocksucker and realize being a GM is a ton of effort and he's doing his best.

When he asks for input on how the session went or how the game is going tell him then.

>>46459777
>You stop being a cocksucker
physically impossible.

File: 0a9394d3a40e6c1886dd86bce43e7077.jpg (590KB, 1216x860px) Image search: [Google]

590KB, 1216x860px

>>46459515

What is the game you are referring to, if I might inquire?

>>46459777

I am reasonably experienced on the GMing end; I have run about ~180 sessions since December 2014 alone, and you can view one of my past threads on my GMing woes here:
https://archive.4plebs.org/tg/thread/46123021/

Whenever I GM, I constantly attempt to hear out my players on what they disliked about any given session. As established in that thread, ~67% of the time, they admit that the session was deeply flawed, and I engage them in several-hour long arguments to pinpoint precisely how I might improve the next session.

This is nonetheless a process fraught with many a misunderstanding, but the key point is that I do try to adapt the game to my players' preferences.

With *certain* GMs I play under, whenever I make the same requests as a player, I tend to be rebuffed with, as the opening post explains:
>shallow rhetoric like "I am the GM and I make the rules" or "We are all here to have fun," or get called a "munchkin," a "powergamer," or a "rules lawyer." I cannot fathom how it can be such a sin to want a more consistent experience.

Which truly perplexes me, because it seems that the majority of the GMs I play under are unwilling to hear out criticism regarding how they handle a game's mechanics.