Our group doesn't play by RAW and it's hard for me.

[Wade]

If it was me, I would not have the NPCs roll perception rolls unless they were "specifically on alert", like the examples I listed above. This way, a character with a stealth of 12 or 13 (pretty good skill) can actually succeed in sneaking in most situations. I believe this is how the game was intended to be played. Of course, there would be modifiers based on the terrain and the setting. Our GM doesn't do modifiers. He doesn't like them for some reason. As it is now, I don't feel confident attempting a Stealth roll unless I have 16 plus, and forget ever stealthing as a group, which of course happens because all the players want the glory, right? So the 12 stealth people try to sneak with you and they always get busted with the GM rolling an 8.

The only rule the GM has made up, the only house rule he goes by that I don't like is the way he plays stealth. I go by everything else he has said, "This is how we're playing it." And I HAVE to go by the stealth, but I've made it clear I really don't like how it's played.

Everything else that plays wrong (in my opinion) is misunderstood rules or missed rules, like mail doing half DR to thrust weapons, players and GM forgetting about axes being unbalanced, recoil on guns carrying over to the next turn, players defending with a shield or parrying in close combat, and many more. I feel the need to speak up simply so we can play things correctly, but every time I try I get the stink eye.


I feel like I'm starting to beat a dead horse here now though. So I likely won't reply further unless something very specific is asked.

Thanks for the replies and suggestions.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Wade

If it was me, I would not have the NPCs roll perception rolls unless they were "specifically on alert", like the examples I listed above. This way, a character with a stealth of 12 or 13 (pretty good skill) can actually succeed in sneaking in most situations. I believe this is how the game was intended to be played. Of course, there would be modifiers based on the terrain and the setting. Our GM doesn't do modifiers. He doesn't like them for some reason. As it is now, I don't feel confident attempting a Stealth roll unless I have 16 plus, and forget ever stealthing as a group, which of course happens because all the players want the glory, right? So the 12 stealth people try to sneak with you and they always get busted with the GM rolling an 8.

Yes, well, you know, the problem doesn't seem to be that the rule is one thing rather than another; or at least that's only a symptom. We here can all read what you have to say, and agree with you that what you're saying makes sense (if we do). But that won't really change what your GM says. We aren't authorities that you can use to support your opinion. Even Kromm, who IS an authority on this topic, is only as much of an authority as your GM is willing to take him for.

The problem is a persistent conflict between you and your GM—one that's partly an issue of etiquette and partly, perhaps, psychological. As you've described it, your GM is running games in a style that doesn't work for you, in that it makes your characters unable to perform the roles you designed them for and makes the game not fun for you. And secondarily, the problem is that your GM isn't willing to spell out what the rules ARE, in advanced, which means you can't build characters who work under those rules. And it seems as if when you attempt to discuss this, your GM isn't receptive.

And really, in that case, there seem to be only two options. On one hand, you can accept that you're not going to have fun, and resign. On the other hand, you can decide to continue playing, accepting your GM's approach, either trying to find a way to have fun, or doing something that's not fun for the sake of the relationship with these people. (Conversely, if you don't want to maintain a relationship with people who don't care if you're having fun, that would be a reason to resign.) None of us can make that choice for you.

I have had the experience of submitting a resignation from a campaign that wasn't working for me, one where I had a problem with the GM's approach, and had the whole table ask me to stay and the GM change things. But that only worked because I was genuinely ready to leave; I don't recommend "resigning" as a bluff. If you aren't really ready to walk, then don't make a show of it.

Now, none of what I've said is based on an opinion as to which of you is right. I don't have enough information to judge. Maybe you're faced with an inept, unfair, and oversensitive GM who doesn't want to improve; maybe you're a power gamer who want the game to be unfair in his favor. I don't assert either of those; I just can't know. But it sounds as if the conflict is irreconcilible, and when you're in a situation like that, you have to make a choice.

[Dalin]

I've been mulling things over in the vein of these two snippets:

Originally Posted by Donny Brook

If for some reason you really do have to keep playing in these games, try a character who supports/buffs other characters; that way if the GM shafts you he is also shafting others.

Originally Posted by whswhs

On the other hand, you can decide to continue playing, accepting your GM's approach, either trying to find a way to have fun, or doing something that's not fun for the sake of the relationship with these people.

If the social aspects of the game and the relationships are important to you, then it might be a fun challenge to try and design a character that would be less likely to trigger the GM responses that frustrate you. Ideally, this would be a character who would be fun to play (and fun for the other players to engage with) despite the rules inconsistencies.

Two other options beyond the support/buffing character mentioned by Donny Brook (which seems like a good option to me):

1. A very straightforward fighter-type. Maybe a chivalrous knight. Maybe just a bash'em in the head type. No sneaking. No missile weapons. No subtlety. With a good backstory (and disads and quirks) you might have a lot of fun embodying a character like this even thought there might not be much tactical nuance.
   
2. An unlucky bard who composes ballads about his many failures. Anytime the GM nixes your plans, you've got another song!

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Dalin

A very straightforward fighter-type. Maybe a chivalrous knight. Maybe just a bash'em in the head type. No sneaking. No missile weapons. No subtlety. With a good backstory (and disads and quirks) you might have a lot of fun embodying a character like this even thought there might not be much tactical nuance.

Considering everyone seems to "forget" to apply the consequences of Parry U, and that if I'm identifying the poster correctly his GM tends to skip things like closing and just lets the melee fighters engage immediately, maybe a halberdier. You can attack and defend at the same time despite Parry U (because the GM doesn't use those rules), and can probably attack every turn without a Ready between, even without having 1.5xMinST, as the way the GM is described I'd imagine he'd ignore the double-dagger mark on MinST as well. A halberd also has a thrusting spike, so you can more readily take advantage of the fact that everyone is apparently using cheap butted mail. Normally a full-sized halberd also has the risk of someone getting too close, but the GM also appears to ignore close-combat restrictions, so you can probably still hack away at a foe who is at Reach 1 (or even Reach C) without issue.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Considering everyone seems to "forget" to apply the consequences of Parry U, and that if I'm identifying the poster correctly his GM tends to skip things like closing and just lets the melee fighters engage immediately, maybe a halberdier. You can attack and defend at the same time despite Parry U (because the GM doesn't use those rules), and can probably attack every turn without a Ready between, even without having 1.5xMinST, as the way the GM is described I'd imagine he'd ignore the double-dagger mark on MinST as well. A halberd also has a thrusting spike, so you can more readily take advantage of the fact that everyone is apparently using cheap butted mail. Normally a full-sized halberd also has the risk of someone getting too close, but the GM also appears to ignore close-combat restrictions, so you can probably still hack away at a foe who is at Reach 1 (or even Reach C) without issue.

Yes, well, that kind of thing is why I'd probably be outa there.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Yes, well, that kind of thing is why I'd probably be outa there.

Oh, I'd be strongly inclined to simply drop a GM/group like OP has described. But if I were to stick with it, I think the only way I'd have fun is to embrace the chaos and exploit the GM's rulings to the bleeding hilt.

[Wade]

As much as I'd enjoy exploiting the rulings or lack thereof, sadly it's just not in my nature. But I will likely just make simple characters from here on, not do anything special, take a backseat to the other characters, play more support.

I personally need to be less obsessive about things and stop worrying about it. That's a lifelong struggle for me.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I always take the time to itemize the rules I don't want to use and the ones I plan to tweak; I always do that during Session Zero, and I usually put it in writing for good measure. It sounds like the GM we're discussing failed to do so.

It's also good practice for the GM (or someone) to write down any house rules the GM comes up with during play and then use that precedent consistently. It saves a lot of "You let it work differently the last time . . ." arguments.

That said, a good GM should also be willing to accept correction. GURPS has a lot of rules and sometimes even skilled players forget some of them.

If a player can quickly point to a rule the GM has forgotten or can easily point out a misinterpretation without disrupting play, the GM should concede the player's point.

If arguing over the rules threatens to derail the game, however, the GM and player should agree to defer arguments until a more appropriate time and then "retcon" previous play as necessary. If that's not possible, the GM should let most erroneous rulings stand - but just that one time - and play using RAW thereafter.

The exception is that any mistaken ruling that seriously screws a player or the party should be "made right" based on group consensus. That can be anything from GM fiat to replaying critical parts of an adventure.

[Donny Brook]

Originally Posted by Wade

I personally need to be less obsessive about things and stop worrying about it. That's a lifelong struggle for me.

Self-knowledge is a wonderful thing. Kudos and best wishes. Simple characters can be fun too as I hope you discover.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Wade

If it was me, I would not have the NPCs roll perception rolls unless they were "specifically on alert", like the examples I listed above.

You probably should be able to make sense rolls even if you don't constantly say "I'm specifically on alert."

This way, a character with a stealth of 12 or 13 (pretty good skill) can actually succeed in sneaking in most situations. I believe this is how the game was intended to be played.

This seems to be an area of some interpretation, but IMO modifiers to sense rolls (except for loudness modifiers, Stealth covers that) are supposed to apply.