Are all DM's control freaks?

[Talakeal]

As to declaring what you're rolling and why, there's a reason for that. Take power attack. You know it has penalty to hit, so if you roll a 10, you may decide... well I guess I wasn't power attacking, but if it was a 15, now you want add your BAB to the damage. Also I've seen others, and had players in my own game rolling d20s and then declaring something like, I got a 23 to pick his pocket! You don't get to just roll and then tell me what it was for.. Oh I got a 2? I was...ummm... rolling for listen... I guess I'm not paying attention to what he was saying. So yeah, in my game, anything you're going to roll for, is going to be stated before-hand.

.

Yeah, it sounds like you have a problem with cheaters. In that case I guess it is important to do something, but I would still feel like gouging my eyes out if the DM made me state "I am full attacking the closest orc with my long sword for two points of power attack" over and over and over and over again in every round of a several dozen round combat.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, but imagine if someone acted like that in any other social situation? Like "Hey you want to hang out with me and my buddies on Friday night to drink beer and watch the game? Just understand that you can't use your phone while you are here, and if you show up late you have to sit on the broken chair and drink warm beer as a punishment!"

[jedipotter]

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, but imagine if someone acted like that in any other social situation? Like "Hey you want to hang out with me and my buddies on Friday night to drink beer and watch the game? Just understand that you can't use your phone while you are here, and if you show up late you have to sit on the broken chair and drink warm beer as a punishment!"

Most of the rules are fine for any social situation where everyone will be actively doing something together. The no phone is common, even if it is just some guys going fishing or such. You can't ''get away'', unless you unplug. And it is common to punish the late comers.

[NichG]

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, but imagine if someone acted like that in any other social situation? Like "Hey you want to hang out with me and my buddies on Friday night to drink beer and watch the game? Just understand that you can't use your phone while you are here, and if you show up late you have to sit on the broken chair and drink warm beer as a punishment!"

There's tons of social situations where it'd be varying levels of inappropriate to be using your phone:

- Going to a movie
- Having dinner at a restaurant
- Playing a sport together (imagine if you're playing soccer and the goalie starts ignoring the game in order to text someone)
- Doing a raid as a group on an MMO.

A table-top RPG is closest to the third or fourth case. You're doing an activity where if someone gets distracted, it interferes with the flow of it for everyone present. It'd be pretty bad form to e.g. plan to play a game of soccer with your friends and then show up an hour late for the same reason - you dragging your heels means that they all get to play less, and maybe the game can't even happen.

If the point of the gathering isn't 'hanging out and being distracted' but is actually about the game, then when a player consistently does things that detract from the ability of others to play the game and have fun, it means that player is having a net negative effect on the experience. Which means if the point is the game, that player should generally be told to either stop it or leave the group. There's no real reason why a group of people should have to tolerate disruptive behavior from someone who can't take it as seriously as they want to.

[1337 b4k4]

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, but imagine if someone acted like that in any other social situation? Like "Hey you want to hang out with me and my buddies on Friday night to drink beer and watch the game? Just understand that you can't use your phone while you are here, and if you show up late you have to sit on the broken chair and drink warm beer as a punishment!"

Even if the "rule" wasn't explicitly stated, almost every single group of friends and acquaintances that I know, if someone always showed up late and then spent their time with their nose buried in their phone rather than engaged in whatever activity was going on, they would find themselves quickly un-invited from future gatherings. If you (royal, not you in particular) want to play on your phone, and don't want to respect the time bounds everyone has set aside, you can always do that from your home rather than inconveniencing everyone else. Essentially these sorts of rules and punishments are making explicit what is usually implicit in 95% of social situations. BTW, it would absolutely be 100% in character and in line for the last person to show up to "watch the game" to be stuck with the crappy seat and have to deal with warm beer or have to do the next ice run or whatever, especially if they were late.

[Broken Twin]

Well, first off, based on what you've said about him, your friend sounds like a self-righteous jerk. I'd take his opinions with a massive grain of salt to begin with. But snark aside...

My opinion on those house rules:

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

I could understand telling players WHERE to roll their dice (on the table, floor is reroll), but what color/style seems a little much.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC

Not giving them XP they didn't earn because they weren't there? Sure, that's fair. Removing XP they've already earned? Bad form.

-Insisting all dialogue be IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

Use all the meta terms you want OOC. No mentioning stuff like hit points IC. Forcing people who aren't comfortable with RPing their character to stay solely IC is not cool.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

This entirely depends on the game and mood the group is trying to set. In beer and pretzel games it's ridiculous, in intrigue heavy games it's practically necessary.

[/quote]-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home[/quote]

I hold on to the master copy of my player's sheets when I GM solely so I can take their abilities into consideration when planning the next session. Plus, my players asked me to hold onto them. Outright refusing to let a player hold onto their sheet is uncool.

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets

I... what? I can understand wanting to go over their numbers (especially if the player in question is bad at math), but refusing to let them do it themselves is a level of narcissistic control I (thankfully) haven't seen before.

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

I know the above isn't as much of a problem for me at the moment (I GM Savage Worlds primarily, there's not much in the way of rules or books to look at), but having played plenty of 3.5, abilities can get complicated. If you want to rules lawyer I'm going to put my foot down, but if you need to confirm how your character works I'm not going to disallow you. Within a reasonable time frame, obviously.

-Telling players where to sit

Beyond keeping first dibs on where I want/need to sit, I've never had to do anything like this. If I had two players that couldn't be sat next to each other, then they're either going to work their stuff out or one/both of them are no longer invited. I have no desire to play with people who can't act like grownups.

-Not letting players check their phones

I have something similar to this rule. If I have to tell you multiple times to stop playing with your phone, it goes in the hat on top of the fridge for the rest of the session. If it rings, feel free to answer it, but I'm not putting up with you disrespecting me or the other players and killing the immersion.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation

Banning character options to help achieve the theme or setting of the campaign? Sure, I've done it. Refusing to provide any reasons for what you've banned? Bad form.

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

Making a rules call is a major part of what the GM is there for. Actively changing the rules during play, on the other hand, is a good indicator to stop playing with that GM. ESPECIALLY if they refuse to provide a reason, or are doing so in a vindictive manner.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

The whole point of passive abilities is that they don't need to be declared. You want to use an active ability, you'd best let me know before the dice roll. Stuff that the book doesn't say you need to declare? Yeah, you don't have to. Special exception goes to Power Attack, which in my common experience is "On, unless otherwise declared."

[draken50]

Yeah, it sounds like you have a problem with cheaters. In that case I guess it is important to do something, but I would still feel like gouging my eyes out if the DM made me state "I am full attacking the closest orc with my long sword for two points of power attack" over and over and over and over again in every round of a several dozen round combat.

As for the rest of your post, it doesn't sound particularly unreasonable, but imagine if someone acted like that in any other social situation? Like "Hey you want to hang out with me and my buddies on Friday night to drink beer and watch the game? Just understand that you can't use your phone while you are here, and if you show up late you have to sit on the broken chair and drink warm beer as a punishment!"

Well for one thing, I don't require declarations for anything that doesn't change the modifiers of the action. I don't need the rogue to declare that he is sneak attacking, because making use of sneak attack does not alter the chance to hit. That's fine. I wouldn't require the "full attack" declared, because if the player isn't moving beyond a 5 foot step, it really doesn't effect anything. I would however require the power attack to be declared for how many points, as that can also change, every single round.

Now, as to the social situation comparison... that's not really equivalent. Few social situations match tabletop gaming, and their requirements. If I'm playing a board game with someone, I not-unreasonably in my mind, would expect them to pay some attention to the game, so their individual turn doesn't take 5 minutes while everyone else takes 45 seconds. Wiz-War for example is a pretty quick moving fun game, that I've seen people drag to the point of boredom, by never paying attention and then constantly having to ask for recaps of everyone's turn, because they wouldn't get off facebook on their phone. I don't have problems with that when watching sports, because someone else not paying attention to the game, doesn't effect me or anyone else.

Trying to draw a similar comparison is like saying, "What you can't applause until the conductor's hands go down at the symphony? I can yell and scream and clap all I want at a WWF show." Yeah, they're both performances.. but there are different standards of behavior.

If we have risk night set up, and you show up 2 hours late.. well, you're not playing, we already started. Halo? You're in next round, I'll grab a beer. See... there's a difference, because things are different... like how much time is involved and how the game is designed.

[Talakeal]

Well for one thing, I don't require declarations for anything that doesn't change the modifiers of the action. I don't need the rogue to declare that he is sneak attacking, because making use of sneak attack does not alter the chance to hit. That's fine. I wouldn't require the "full attack" declared, because if the player isn't moving beyond a 5 foot step, it really doesn't effect anything. I would however require the power attack to be declared for how many points, as that can also change, every single round.

Now, as to the social situation comparison... that's not really equivalent. Few social situations match tabletop gaming, and their requirements. If I'm playing a board game with someone, I not-unreasonably in my mind, would expect them to pay some attention to the game, so their individual turn doesn't take 5 minutes while everyone else takes 45 seconds. Wiz-War for example is a pretty quick moving fun game, that I've seen people drag to the point of boredom, by never paying attention and then constantly having to ask for recaps of everyone's turn, because they wouldn't get off facebook on their phone. I don't have problems with that when watching sports, because someone else not paying attention to the game, doesn't effect me or anyone else.

Trying to draw a similar comparison is like saying, "What you can't applause until the conductor's hands go down at the symphony? I can yell and scream and clap all I want at a WWF show." Yeah, they're both performances.. but there are different standards of behavior.

If we have risk night set up, and you show up 2 hours late.. well, you're not playing, we already started. Halo? You're in next round, I'll grab a beer. See... there's a difference, because things are different... like how much time is involved and how the game is designed.

Sorry, your example about the guy rolling his attack roll and then claiming it was just a listen check when he missed implied to me that you make people declare every little thing lest they find some way to cheat.

[draken50]

Sorry, your example about the guy rolling his attack roll and then claiming it was just a listen check when he missed implied to me that you make people declare every little thing lest they find some way to cheat.

No worries, I get that, but it's less every little thing, and more I should know what their rolling for before they actually roll the dice.
As a die roll may not be necessary. I've also had players roll and state "I got a 2." or "That didn't work" Leaving me as the GM going "On what? you just rolled the dice and said you got a 2, what were you trying to do?"

The other example I've seen that in were players trying to not have what they were doing mentioned to the party. The kind of thing where the party is engaging in diplomacy, and one player just suddenly rolls and says "I got a 19 to shoot the guy in the face." Of course, said players don't really last long in my games, as they tend to get really pissed when the rest of the party surrenders immediately, and the would-be assassin gets killed by the guards. I've noticed those players get really mad when their antics get them killed and leave the rest of the party in worsened but not horrendous circumstances.

[Exediron]

For those with a love for statistics, here's the current approval rating for each item (based only on people who gave specific positive/negative feedback on at least one of the items):

Phone Ban: 65% approval
Precise Action Descriptions: 60% approval
Dice Control: 47% approval
DM Keeping Sheets: 46% approval
Seating Control: 40% approval
Arbitrary Concept Bans: 40% approval
No Sheet Looking: 38% approval
Dinging XP: 35% approval
Arbitrary Rule Changes: 17% approval
IC-Only Dialogue: 14% approval
No Looking at Books: 14% approval
No Adding Up: 0% approval

The standout of course is DM refusal to allow characters to add up their own numbers or even to correct mistakes the DM might have made, which a whopping 0% of posters who commented on the issue considered reasonable (although about 30% were neutral).

[Aotrs Commander]

Standard modus operandi in our group is that the DM keeps the characters sheets and that if a player wants to, they make a second copy to take home (virtually no-one I've gamed with in the last twenty-five years does this, but there have been a couple.)

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use
-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

Those seem unreasonable.

-Telling players how to roll [dice]
-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)
-Telling players where to sit
-Not letting players check their phones

Those are not unreasonable in some situations, especially if they have resulted in the actions causing problems in the past.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation
-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

"Without explanation" is the main problem here (and "arbitarily" might be). Fixing broken or nonsensical bits of rules (even mid-session)and ensureing character options/concepts et al (and other things) are appropriate to thre game is part of the DM's general duties.

[The Hanged Man]

As a GM I have three rules.

1.) If you eat the food, you help pay for the food.

2.) If you come to my game under the influence of illegal intoxicants (or legal intoxicants used illegally), I will call the police on you.

3.) If you steal books (including pirating PDFs), I will carve off your face with a cheese grater.

This list may expand, depending on the needs of the game, but I will always explain my reasons. And if the interests of enough of the players don't match the needs of the game, I'm willing to change the sort of game it is.

[DireSickFish]

As a GM I have three rules.

1.) If you eat the food, you help pay for the food.

2.) If you come to my game under the influence of illegal intoxicants (or legal intoxicants used illegally), I will call the police on you.

3.) If you steal books (including pirating PDFs), I will carve off your face with a cheese grater.

This list may expand, depending on the needs of the game, but I will always explain my reasons. And if the interests of enough of the players don't match the needs of the game, I'm willing to change the sort of game it is.

Any stories behind why these rules specifically? I could be interested to hear them.

[Rallicus]

As a GM I have three rules.

1.) If you eat the food, you help pay for the food.

2.) If you come to my game under the influence of illegal intoxicants (or legal intoxicants used illegally), I will call the police on you.

3.) If you steal books (including pirating PDFs), I will carve off your face with a cheese grater.

You probably would have really hated me, then, when I was at my lowest.

This is... I don't know... a little extreme. I'd like some backstory as to the reasons as well.

[Threadnaught]

As a GM I have three rules.

I thought the reasons were self explanatory. Fine I'll give my own interpretation.

1: Food costs money, therefore if you eat it, you help pay for it. This rule enforces politeness.

2: This is illegal you know. Also turning up to a session baked out of your skull is likely to leave you unable to concentrate if the game is at all serious. A DM already has to look after the players who are actually playing, they don't need to babysit someone going through the effects of whatever concoction Dopey McSmack managed to cook up.

3: This is illegal you know. And these books are rather expensive for those of us who paid for our own legitimate copies. Also sometimes it's good to remind someone that stealing stuff, doesn't make them any better than someone who doesn't.
I know a few PC gamers who think PC gaming is better than any console, because they can get all console exclusives for free. We don't talk anymore, as I like my Nintendo developed consoles and games.

[DM Nate]

3: This is illegal you know. And these books are rather expensive for those of us who paid for our own legitimate copies. Also sometimes it's good to remind someone that stealing stuff, doesn't make them any better than someone who doesn't.
I know a few PC gamers who think PC gaming is better than any console, because they can get all console exclusives for free. We don't talk anymore, as I like my Nintendo developed consoles and games.

I agree that it is illegal, but here in my new home in Taiwan, it's difficult, expensive, and space-consuming to have a physical copy of ALL sixty 3.5 books I use. If I see one I like or use and have the spare money that month, then sure...for example, I have both Psionics and the MoI here in Taiwan, simply because I like them and can use them. But I am unable to actually purchase a complete physical library at this time.

[Jay R]

I agree that it is illegal, but here in my new home in Taiwan, it's difficult, expensive, and space-consuming to have a physical copy of ALL sixty 3.5 books I use..

That's not an argument for stealing them. It's an argument for not using them.

There are lots of things I wish I could afford but I can't.

But I am unable to actually purchase a complete physical library at this time.

Then you can't legally or honestly use them. I am unable to actually purchase a Mercedes at this time. Therefore I drive a Nissan Sentra.

[Steel Mirror]

Then you can't legally or honestly use them. I am unable to actually purchase a Mercedes at this time. Therefore I drive a Nissan Sentra.

You aren't including out-of-print books in this restriction, are you? Because even if you decide to shell out for second-hand books, you aren't supporting the people who make them any more than if you got the pdf online. I appreciate your anti-piracy stand, but I personally relax such restriction when there is literally no way to purchase a copy in a way that would benefit the content creator.

[Talakeal]

You aren't including out-of-print books in this restriction, are you? Because even if you decide to shell out for second-hand books, you aren't supporting the people who make them any more than if you got the pdf online. I appreciate your anti-piracy stand, but I personally relax such restriction when there is literally no way to purchase a copy in a way that would benefit the content creator.

Same here.

I wouldn't go so far as to condemn people for piracy, or claim that it is the same as an actual theft which deprives the original owner of something, but I will always take the legal alternative if there is one. If there isn't I have no compunctions against not giving my money to people who don't want it.

[Alaris]

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.
-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC
-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms
-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)
-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home
-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets
-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission
-Telling players where to sit
-Not letting players check their phones
-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation
-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation
-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll give my opinion on these so called "Rules".

1. Nope. So long as the player's dice aren't unbalanced, they're fair game as far as I'm concerned.
2. Eh... I can see docking XP for being late. And if people are talking OOC too much that it's interrupting game, I can see that to. It's good, as long as the DM uses it right.
3. If you're using Mechanical Terms during Roleplay... then no, you can't. Find a better, in-character way to say. Just my opinion.
4. Eh... players can share all the information from their sheets they want... but I also state that they don't have to share it. And if it is shared Out of Character, then you can't use that knowledge in-character.
5. So long as I, the DM, have a copy of your sheet, you're free to take it home. (I need one incase you don't make the next session, and I'd have to NPC your character).
6. Silly, but I'm betting I don't have the whole story.
7. Silly.
8. Silly, though if it's his house, his rules. You can always leave.
9. If it's distracting from the game too much, then I'm all for this rule. If you have a phone call, okay... but no playing games on your phone while we're playing D&D.
10. I tend to give explanations, otherwise it is kinda silly.
11. Silly.
12. See, this I would make them do. You must announce use of your abilities. And I need to know that you're Sneak-Attack-ing, as there are other factors you might not be aware of (such as the enemy being immune to it). I'm behind this one... it's a solid rule.

All-in-all... a lot of these rules were silly... but in the right context, they are just fine.

And to answer your primary question... yes, a lot of us are. But it isn't always in a bad way, and most of us try to be reasonable about it.

[Talakeal]

I'm a little late to the party, but I'll give my opinion on these so called "Rules".

6. Silly, but I'm betting I don't have the whole story.


12. See, this I would make them do. You must announce use of your abilities. And I need to know that you're Sneak-Attack-ing, as there are other factors you might not be aware of (such as the enemy being immune to it). I'm behind this one... it's a solid rule.

As for 6, the DM made everyone's characters for them. When he gave me the sheet I went through to double check his math (a lot of the numbers were obviously very off) and he got mad and told me that I wasn't allowed to do that. He is the DM, and therefore the numbers on the sheet are right because the DM says so, even if they don't add up.


Ifs funny, #12 has the most support, but it is the only rule that really frustrates me. It slows the game to a crawl, makes it just flat out monotonous, and punishes people for stupid reasons. The rogue in my party in particular, he forgets to declare sneak attack ~75% of the time, and his damage is pitiful as a result.

[Trinoya]

So here's my take on these rules:

-Telling players what color / style of dice to use and how to roll them.

I can understand this for clarity of rolls, but beyond that the rule is stupid.

-Dinging XP for showing up late or talking OOC

I've been forced to dock XP for countless different infractions, from metagaming, talking OOC to relay IC information, walking behind the DM screen, cheating, etc. I don't begrudge a DM using the one powerful tool he has (how your character progresses) as a tool to curb bad behavior.

I wouldn't personally use it for showing up late though, **** happens.

-Insisting all dialogue by IC and refusing to let players use mechanical terms

This one seems a bit odd. Now I had a problem that my players would litterally not talk to one another, instead talking to me as if I were all the PCs (which got old fast) so I had to force a bit of change there. However not all dialogue needs to be IC, or even most of it, in my game. You just need to make sure you're not metagaming and I'm cool.

-Refusing to let players look at the on other player's character sheets (or describe their own to other players except in in character terms)

At my table no player has a right to look at any character sheet other than their own. If they leave it out in the open it's fair game, if they choose to tell you stuff about their sheet, that's cool... but if a player just grabbed another players sheet and began to read over it I'd voice a major complaint as the Dm. As for trying to describe it, if they are doing so in character they must use terms applicable to that universe, rather than saying, "my str score is 22!"

-Refusing to let players take their character sheets home

I have had players promise me time and time again that they will take good care of their character sheets.

I've switched to being almost 100% electronic, you can not trust players with their own character sheets. Ever. Hell you can't even trust the DM. Back it up and make sure I have five copies in at least six separate emails. I have seen character sheets vanish mid game... without a trace, never to be found.

-Refusing to let players add up the numbers on their own character sheets

More info required.

-Refusing to let the players look at the rule books (even their own) without permission

Depending on the book this is okay. I've restricted books (and had books restricted in games I've played in) based on character skills, and classes.

-Telling players where to sit

As the DM I get to pick my chair. If a player becomes an obvious problem with their seating selection I also get to declare that it needs to change. Other than that I think this is silly.

-Not letting players check their phones

As long as you're not playing games on it I don't care what you do on your phone... just don't expect me to repeat anything for you.

-Arbitrarily banning basic character options without explanation

The DM doesn't have to provide an explanation. It helps if he does, and I often do, but he doesn't have to.

-Arbitrarily changing the rules mid game without explanation

More information needed.

-Making players take actions without clearly specifying them first each time, for example insisting a player say "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack" every turn despite them doing that consistently for the entire battle and even making players announce passive abilities like Sneak Attack.

I've had lots of players bitch and moan at me over the years because I did such horrible things as record when they 'dropped their sword' or 'stored their armor.' The players got upset because I would flat out declare if they didn't say they picked it up then they didn't. If you forgot your character forgot.

As for abilities: You need to declare every ability you use. Period. I don't care if you have used magic missile 20 times that fight, or power attack 100, or sneak attack 1,000. If you don't declare that the ability is going of then it isn't going to go off. Your sneak attack isn't automatic, and your power attack sure as hell is not. A player could effortlessly alter his rolls by saying, "oh yeah, I got a 25 to hit" or knowing that the AC was a mere 20 he could then say, "oh yeah, I got a 20 to hit, and I had used 5 points of power attack!"

Most abilities, by the rules in fact, basically say you have to declare their use, so I really don't see the problem with this.


In conclusion: Most of this stuff is trivial, if odd, and I suspect there is more to it, but it'd be better to take your complaints about these rules and why you disagree with them directly to the DM to get them to change. A good DM, no matter how controlling, has to be willing to accept change to his rules... hell my players get to vote on changing rules.

Saves me a lot of trouble later on, and gives players significant input...

[Amphetryon]

Out of curiosity, how much - if any - of the complaints against these rules do you think could reasonably be described by a DM as the player being a control freak? I can see an argument from behind the DM screen that at least some of these complaints are based on a player feeling like s/he needs more control. . . depending on the specific details and origins of the rules listed, such an argument may even apply to all of them.

[Jay R]

You aren't including out-of-print books in this restriction, are you? Because even if you decide to shell out for second-hand books, you aren't supporting the people who make them any more than if you got the pdf online. I appreciate your anti-piracy stand, but I personally relax such restriction when there is literally no way to purchase a copy in a way that would benefit the content creator.

Yes, of course I include out-of-print books. You're proposing the rule, "Don't steal if you can buy it from the original creator." I'm proposing the rule, "Don't steal."

... I will always take the legal alternative if there is one. If there isn't I have no compunctions against not giving my money to people who don't want it.

Fine, but sometimes the only legal alternative is not to use a book you do not own and cannot buy.

If there isn't I have no compunctions against not giving my money to people who don't want it.

Nobody's suggesting giving money to people who don't want it. I'm suggesting not taking what isn't yours.

[DM Nate]

Yes, of course I include out-of-print books. You're proposing the rule, "Don't steal if you can buy it from the original creator." I'm proposing the rule, "Don't steal."

Fine, but sometimes the only legal alternative is not to use a book you do not own and cannot buy.

Nobody's suggesting giving money to people who don't want it. I'm suggesting not taking what isn't yours.

Call me Chaotic Neutral then.

[Jay R]

6. Silly, but I'm betting I don't have the whole story.

That's almost automatically true for all of them. We have Talakeal's reasoning in one direction, but not the DM's reasoning in the other. Sometimes we have Talakeal's understanding of the DM's reasoning, but that's not necessarily the same thing.

Out of curiosity, how much - if any - of the complaints against these rules do you think could reasonably be described by a DM as the player being a control freak? I can see an argument from behind the DM screen that at least some of these complaints are based on a player feeling like s/he needs more control. . . depending on the specific details and origins of the rules listed, such an argument may even apply to all of them.

Each one reads to me like a DM reaction to a specific player problem. They could all just be a DM being obnoxious, of course, but it seems more likely that there is a specific problem being addressed. That's why I wish we could know the DM's reasoning.

As for 6, the DM made everyone's characters for them. When he gave me the sheet I went through to double check his math (a lot of the numbers were obviously very off) and he got mad and told me that I wasn't allowed to do that. He is the DM, and therefore the numbers on the sheet are right because the DM says so, even if they don't add up. my party in particular, he forgets to declare sneak attack ~75% of the time, and his damage is pitiful as a result.

I see three explanations.
1. He has some house rules that the characters are supposed to slowly learn about, so he's trying (awkwardly) to prevent learning about them by meta-gaming.
2. There's an active curse that the party doesn't know about.
3. He's poor at math and very defensive.

Only number 3 is a bad thing, and if true, it would be extremely obvious in the rest of the game as well.

If it's important to you to add things up, go ahead, but do it mentally. But when you find the answer isn't the exact D&D rules, be silent about it. Remember that there could be something going on you don't know about. Keep an eye out for signs of a DM who is too mathematically poor to be a DM. But also keep your eyes out for signs of interesting house rules or intriguing outer influences affecting the party.

Ifs funny, #12 has the most support, but it is the only rule that really frustrates me. It slows the game to a crawl, makes it just flat out monotonous, and punishes people for stupid reasons. The rogue in my party in particular, he forgets to declare sneak attack ~75% of the time, and his damage is pitiful as a result.

1. This rule doesn't slow things down at all, since you could easily say, "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack," or "Colonel Mustard with the short sword in the sneak attack" while picking up the dice. Forgetting the rule and trying to change what you did and arguing over it slows the game down, but accepting the rule in good faith and using it does not.

2. By the second round of the first combat, I would have my character's most common attack written down in big letters on a sheet or 3x5 card in front of me as a reminder, and I would ostentatiously read from it every single round. If that's the rule, take the obvious step to play well under that rule.

3. On the rogue's turn, I would remind him to sneak attack, every time. When the DM complained, I would say that I'm not reminding his character to attack the way he always attacks; I'm reminding the player about the DM's rule.

[Knaight]

Yes, of course I include out-of-print books. You're proposing the rule, "Don't steal if you can buy it from the original creator." I'm proposing the rule, "Don't steal."

I'm not pro-piracy at all, but there's a distinction to be made between piracy and theft. The big thing is that theft deprives the original owner of what they have. It has two effects: The acquisition of the object by the thief, and the loss of the object by the victim of theft. Piracy only encompasses the first of these, and that's a very relevant point. The two can be equated if each instance of piracy is blithely treated as a lost sale, but that is abject nonsense. Plus, even that bit of equating only covers things like stealing from a store's inventory, and not something like stealing someone's bike and only form of transportation*.

*To use something that actually happened to me. I assure you, I'd rather have some writing pirated. At least that wouldn't impede my ability to move, cost me the ability to get to a class for a week, and generally be an inconvenient pain in the rear.

[Jay R]

I'm not pro-piracy at all, but there's a distinction to be made between piracy and theft.

Yes, of course. And there's a distinction to be made between robbery and burglary, or between assault and battery, or between extortion and blackmail, or between manslaughter and murder.

But they are all illegal.

[icefractal]

As a GM I have three rules.
...
2.) If you come to my game under the influence of illegal intoxicants (or legal intoxicants used illegally), I will call the police on you.

Wow.

Maybe it's different in your location, but here in the USA that rule makes you sound kind of ... terrifying. Because with our current drug laws / prison system, such a declaration is pretty much saying "I want to ruin this person's life forever, for disrupting my game". It's like if you meant the cheese grater comment seriously.

I can agree on chipping in for food though!

[Talakeal]

Yes, of course. And there's a distinction to be made between robbery and burglary, or between assault and battery, or between extortion and blackmail, or between manslaughter and murder.

But they are all illegal.

This is true, although it varies depending on where you live. I personally consider myself to be NG in D&D terms, and base my morality on whether or not it causes people pain rather than the current rules imposed on me by local politicians. But then again, you could probably tell that from the thread title. Funny, I thought we were about to veer off topic with the piracy discussion, but it really is relevant.

1. He has some house rules that the characters are supposed to slowly learn about, so he's trying (awkwardly) to prevent learning about them by meta-gaming.
2. There's an active curse that the party doesn't know about.
3. He's poor at math and very defensive.

1: Would not surprise me at all, as he has secret house rules all the time, which I do not agree with in any case.
2: Starting players with secret curses is in and of itself a pretty **** move.
3: If I were a betting man I would say that this is almost certainly the case. The DM in question hatesbeing wrong about anything, and will go out of his way to appear to be the authority on whatever the current topic of discussion whether or not he knows what he is talking about, even going so far as to correct other people's accurate statements with his own nonsense.

1. This rule doesn't slow things down at all, since you could easily say, "I full attack with my long sword and five levels of power attack," or "Colonel Mustard with the short sword in the sneak attack" while picking up the dice. Forgetting the rule and trying to change what you did and arguing over it slows the game down, but accepting the rule in good faith and using it does not.

2. By the second round of the first combat, I would have my character's most common attack written down in big letters on a sheet or 3x5 card in front of me as a reminder, and I would ostentatiously read from it every single round. If that's the rule, take the obvious step to play well under that rule.

3. On the rogue's turn, I would remind him to sneak attack, every time. When the DM complained, I would say that I'm not reminding his character to attack the way he always attacks; I'm reminding the player about the DM's rule.

1: No, it doesn't. I can pick up and roll dice much faster than I can say a sentence, and I can also pick up my dice during the previous players turn without disrupting anyone, talking not so much. Also, it does slow down the combats because the DM needs to make people reroll or recalculate their damage every round as a result, and the fights take a lot longer because we aren't doing anywhere near the damage we should when the rogue cant sneak attack and the monk cant use flurry of blows.

2: Yeah, but that's a big pain in the butt for no gain. Although, like I said, that seems to be the whole point of this rule (along with passively accusing your players of being cheaters).

3: Yeah, except one of the DM's other rules is no OOC dialogue at the table. Also, we aren't allowed to look at one another's sheets or describe ourselves using mechanical terms, so I don't actually know what abilities the other players are forgetting to use.

Basically, this rule is not too bad in isolation. But it is pretty hypocritical when combined with a lot of his other rules which are for making the game go faster, and it is screwing up the other players to a degree where the DM has told me that he doesn't want me taking weapon specialization isbecause I don't have to declare it every turn and therefore it gives me a too big a bonus to damage compared to the rest of the party, as since I don't have to declare its effects they will always be active.

Out of curiosity, how much - if any - of the complaints against these rules do you think could reasonably be described by a DM as the player being a control freak? I can see an argument from behind the DM screen that at least some of these complaints are based on a player feeling like s/he needs more control. . . depending on the specific details and origins of the rules listed, such an argument may even apply to all of them.

IMO wanting control over your own actions is not unreasonable, you only cross the line into "control freak" territory when you are making other people adhere to your demands. For example, my DM forbid me from filling out the encumbrance section on my character sheet last session. I am OCD and the blank space was driving me nuts, so I waited until he left the room and did it anyway. That is crazy for sure, but I would never dream of insisting that the other players do the same, which would push my personal neurosis into the level of control freak imo.

[icefractal]

Basically, this rule is not too bad in isolation. But it is pretty hypocritical when combined with a lot of his other rules which are for making the game go faster, and it is screwing up the other players to a degree where the DM has told me that he doesn't want me taking weapon specialization isbecause I don't have to declare it every turn and therefore it gives me a too big a bonus to damage compared to the rest of the party, as since I don't have to declare its effects they will always be active.

Wat. So we're not just dealing with a paranoia about cheating here, we're dealing with someone who thinks that people forgetting to declare their abilities is a feature, possibly out of some misplaced idea that annoyance = challenge = good.

Record a clip of yourself declaring all your stuff, play it at the start of every turn. Maybe this will demonstrate how ridiculous it is. Or maybe the DM will ban audio playback devices for being OP.