Dealing with Ban Happy GMs. (PF)

[ShneekeyTheLost]

In the first place, I would like to echo AfroAkuma by saying that returning annoyance with annoyance is never going to end well.

Second, there's an old saying for martial artists: there are no dangerous weapons, only dangerous people. This translates fairly well into gaming terminology. Quite bluntly, there's too many ways to break D&D 3.5, ways that are too integral to simply ban. Heck, that's where Legend came from. They tried banning this or that, and ended up with the conclusion that they needed to fundamentally rewrite the rules from the ground up.

GM's can use this to create 'rocks fall, everyone dies' situations. Players can use it to trivialize nearly any encounter. Ultimately, however, the problem is not one that can be solved in game, it is one that can only be solved by talking player to GM. Otherwise, you just end up with drama and more drama.

[atemu1234]

In relation to the split personality thing, one of my groups once faced a BBEG with two distinct personalities. One was polite, respectful and emotionlessly ruthless. The other was rude, disrespectful and utterly random. I statted him as neutral evil and had him use Japanese honorifics to denote which personality was in control. It was a pretty good villain, IMHO.

[Coidzor]

I find it hard to understand why the advice so often given (and sometimes gleefully followed) in situations like this is "annoy him even more." Is the theory that the DM will go too far, feel stupid and end up letting you do whatever you want so he doesn't self-humiliate again?

That's not productive. What you're really doing is taking out your frustrations on him by annoying him even more. If you want him to stop DMing, talk to your tablemates; don't try to goad the guy into ragequitting. Conversely, if you legitimately want him to become a better DM, offer actual help. You're clearly more familiar and/or more comfortable with the materials than he is. Show him how to make more interesting encounters, more threatening BBEGs. Give him ideas on how to challenge the party in interesting ways, rather than just trying to banhammer the game into a state he feels he can handle.

De-escalation is usually the hardest path, unfortunately. Between our natural inclinations and actually pulling it off. :/

[Chd]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

I honestly can't see why you can't arrive earlier to the game session, sit down with the DM to find out explicitly what their expectations/restrictions are?

By the same token however, a GM needs to be prepared for when (not if, but when) the party breaks something, for example;

A Standard Party (Cleric, Warrior, Thief, Mage) said they wanted to liberate a kingdom, and they decided that they'd need to kill the corrupt king to do so.

I had an entire arc, (8 sessions at least) to get into the Palace, but the party stealthily killed some royal message couriers, put on their uniforms and used their horses to ride through to the castle in under 2 in-game days and no less then 8 checkpoints.

They passed through despite the increasingly higher rolls required to bluff past them, (they called in a favor to get a shipment of Glibness potions and some reagents I had no clue what for at the time.)

Then after reaching the castle, the mage mixes the reagents together into a potion, and went to the king saying that they created a 'potion of wealth' that the king need only drink to 'have more gold then he'd ever want again', passed the diplomacy and bluff checks due to the Glib potions.

The King drank the potion, a Potion of 'Convert to Gold', and became a gold statue that the mage melted with a fireball before his spiritual adviser could 'remove curse'.

One session, that finished early, and so I gave them the full 8 sessions of experience, and let them IC celebrate their victory.

OOC, I gave the players a High five and then asked them if they wanted to spend a week IC time to explore their kingdom, crush any noble-led rebellions and see what work is available until they hear word from the west.

[Brookshw]

De-escalation is usually the hardest path, unfortunately. Between our natural inclinations and actually pulling it off. :/

While that may be true it's not exactly the same as saying it would be a healthy recourse or hold it up as an excuse to try and NOT be better people.

[malonkey1]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

Ah, yes, Hanlon's Razor.

[atemu1234]

Why is it, as human beings, we attribute to malice, what is often more accurately attributable to ignorance?

Because of an evolutionary imperative to dominate other beings while not wanting to be **** and have a reason to do it.

[DigoDragon]

Old Man Henderson was a funny story.

It totally was. I read it with a friend of mine and were rating various derailing moments in past campaigns by the "Henderson Scale".