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

[Wade]

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

You keep referencing really detailed aspects of combat and say he doesn't use them. I wager a lot of GMs don't use all the little bits of combat, because it can really slow things down. And you used the example of sneaking past 3 guards, and seemed surprised that he had each one make an awareness check - but that's how it works; that's why you post extra guards.
I think there's a big disconnect between what he's running, and what you what to play. I'm not sure that can be fixed with all the advice in the world.
Gaming is supposed to be fun. That's why we do it. If it isn't fun (and you shouldn't have to have a big debate about it to make it so), then perhaps you need to find something else to do that is.

I didn't say guards. The book says in italics "specifically on alert". Whatever that means can be interpreted differently. I imagine it's like in the video games where you're sneaking and you make noise and the enemy says,"What was that!?" They come and look around, but you've already moved away and are hiding. While they're alerted, that's when I imagine they're "specifically on alert" SPECIFICALLY ON ALERT. That doesn't even mean just sitting at your post as security. To me it means you're specifically looking for intruders, maybe an alarm is going on, someone told you to watch closely because an attack is expected, or you heard something and are investigating the sound.

An example of how our GM does it though, I snuck in a room on a guy having sex with a whore. I watched as he made two perception rolls against me. I really don't think that's "specifically on alert", but he does it anyway, every time.

And again, it's not that we DON'T use the rules. We basically allow everything from basic book and select items from other books which we discussed. But it's that they don't know how things work, so important details are always overlooked. If I try to speak up about something, then I'm the jerk.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Purple Snit

You keep referencing really detailed aspects of combat and say he doesn't use them. I wager a lot of GMs don't use all the little bits of combat, because it can really slow things down.

Though to be fair, it's incumbent on the GM to spell out which rules are and aren't going to be used. I'm the biggest hand-waving, ad-libbing, seat-of-the-pants GM there is, but that applies strictly to world and story concerns. 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.

I've been in more than a few gaming groups – not always GURPS – where the GM clearly hadn't bothered to read the rules and form an informed opinion on them, and when confronted with the rules decided that "any rule I haven't read doesn't exist." That's far too subjective for harmonious gaming . . . it requires players who plan to play the game the GM advertised having to read the GM's mind to know what the GM has and hasn't bothered to read. A GM who can't spare the time to read the entire opus of the game from cover to cover before starting shouldn't be behind the GM's screen.

[Purple Snit]

My perspective on rules is that they exist so that everyone playing the game is operating on the same essentially level playing field. We all know the basic point values, know the required/disallowed templates, know the GM is using basic combat only, and so forth. If you don't make that clear, you are not doing your part as the GM.
Players also have to agree to abide by that, and not call out when the GM doesn't use some alternate critical hit table, or all the options from Martial Arts, and so on. But it requires consistency, or it isn't fun, or fair to anyone.
As for Awareness checks, I would have any NPC present make a roll (possibly with hefty penalties if distracted...) if it would advance the game, even for comic relief. If it doesn't matter, then I don't roll. But an NPC gets the chance to spot a voyeur in their room, because they could be an enemy, rival, weird sidekick, or anything else - why wouldn't you react?
I'm still seeing a disconnect between what you want and what your GM is prepared to do.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by Wade

Thanks for the suggestions.

I cannot GM though.

Perhaps you cannot GM, YET.
It is a skill, like any other. Ask any GM here how his first adventure went.
Mine was embarrassing. I didn't have the plot planned out correctly, I couldn't keep track of the progress of my players actions, I had to loose a campaign concept... you name it.
But I keep working on it and I improve. I'm still not all that good at it, but I an competent to run a game that is fun for some players.

You can do this, especially if you start small. Build you GM muscle like you do any other... by spending character points on it #:)

[RGTraynor]

Originally Posted by Wade

I worry about telling him what I want to do in game because I fear on some level it will cause him to adjust the play of his NPCs and my plan will be foiled.

Right there. Without reference to any other issue you have, this is the dealbreaker. Right or wrong, real or imagined, you just don't trust him. Very few people can deal with an adversarial campaign where the GM is the enemy of the players, and will do his or her level best to screw them over. You don't sound like one who can. This level of distrust just doesn't go away.

So you have two options: leave the game; or seethe with resentment until either you quit in a rage, or you go into a rage at the table and get booted. I humbly suggest you have a lot better chance to stay on good terms with your friends if you take the former option.

[Inky]

Originally Posted by Wade

Actually, yes. But I felt I needed more ideas, so I posted this again under an alternate account. I'm worried if he ever jumps into this forum and looks up my posts, he'd see me complaining about him and bad things would happen. I just need some more ideas even if it's a 1 in a million shot that one will happen.

The bow and arrow one, right?

Originally Posted by Wade

I worry about telling him what I want to do in game because I fear on some level it will cause him to adjust the play of his NPCs and my plan will be foiled. I've tried emailing him my basic plans for the next session, but I don't think he was even reading them, so I stopped doing that.

Originally Posted by Wade

His dice were my dice when he first started playing. They worked awesome for him so he bought them from me. He's been using them ever since. He's not going to switch dice. They're sort of his trademark for Gurps.

Hmm. You might have a more basic difficulty than the inaccurate rules, then. If that's not just you being unnecessarily nervous and he really has been known to change his strategy to foil your plans, then it sounds like he's playing an adversarial, GM-versus-players type of game. Well, some people seem to like that, though a lot seem not to like it.
But if so and if it's really true that his dice roll an average of 8, and that's not just him joking or bragging, and they're only used for GM rolls and not for player rolls, then what you have is somebody literally running an adversarial game with loaded dice. That sounds as if it can hardly help not being fun.

[Wade]

He's not playing an adversarial GM. It's just the unknown rules and he won't allow me to speak up and help keep things right.

[hal]

Hi Wade,

Rather than respond to comments about your GM from others trying to make sense of the situation you find yourself in, let me see if I can summarize the situation...

1. the GM makes rulings that you do not agree with.
2. there tends to be an inconsistency in his rulings to the extent that it lessens your enjoyment of the game session(s)
3. there is a dynamic involving the go's S.O. that bothers you
4. you feel damned if you stay, damned if you go, and in a nutshell, you fear the GM is not improving.

If that listed above is accurate, then you may need to ask yourself a simple question. "What do I want, and what, realistically, are my options?

For example - a GM who wants to improve their skills as a gm, is operating at a level where they need feedback from their players about what they as GM are doing right and what they need to improve...

A GM who doesn't have that mindset, and doesn't care about his player's enjoyment, will end up with a shrinking player base for his campaigns. On the other hand, a GM who has a player constantly questioning his adjudication of the game, may see YOU as the problem. I'm not saying you are or are not the problem - as there are, as the saying goes:

There's your side of the story, their side of the story, and then there is the truth.

Sometimes, communications break down, and the fault lies with both parties because they fail to see the other's point of view. Hard to say what things are at this point.

If I may suggest? Note what happens in play, and take written notes to provide a debriefing for your GM. Example: guy doing the wild and fun stuff with a gal, suggest to the GM "GURPS penalizes a character if they try to do two things at once. If the npc is engaging in physical activity AND listening for a returning husband, both his physical activity and his alertness rolls are penalized."

Each thing you have an issue with, write it down and list those things the GM overlooked, or didn't understand. Help him improve. Try not to be confrontational about it, and do it privately.

If he doesn't bother to take the time to learn how the rules fit together, or consistently irritates you, then it is time to remove yourself from the equation. You're not having fun, and it will reach a point in time where you will believe the whole thing is a waste of time.

I've been gaming since 1978, GMing since 1980. I've quit campaigns where I didn't trust the GM. I've killed campaigns where the group size is over 10 and egos were clashing between players. My wife, God Bless her, hung in the campaigns where, I as GM, bent over backwards to not favor my wife to HER detriment. We got past that, and she's been gaming since 1986. In the end, gaming relationships ebb and flow until one day, the grim reaper culls the gaming group to a mere 3 people. Just smile, try to build fun memories, and love the time you spend with your friends. If this GM isn't cutting it in your eyes, then find one who can - or BECOME that GM. Learn what it is you disliked in other GMs, and avoid repeating those behaviors. A GM with zero players is an author. A GM who puts forth a seed and lets his players write the store - is an audience who has a rare gift of seeing a better story emerge at the direction of his players , the rolls of the dice, and the commaradarie (sp?) of his companions at the table.

[Stormcrow]

Originally Posted by Wade

An example of how our GM does it though, I snuck in a room on a guy having sex with a whore. I watched as he made two perception rolls against me. I really don't think that's "specifically on alert", but he does it anyway, every time.

If he does it that way every time, that's consistency. You know that's how he does it. Whether you like that interpretation or not, it's clear you've worked out the GM's interpretation and can anticipate it in the future.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Wade

I didn't say guards. The book says in italics "specifically on alert". Whatever that means can be interpreted differently. I imagine it's like in the video games where you're sneaking and you make noise and the enemy says,"What was that!?" They come and look around, but you've already moved away and are hiding. While they're alerted, that's when I imagine they're "specifically on alert" SPECIFICALLY ON ALERT. That doesn't even mean just sitting at your post as security. To me it means you're specifically looking for intruders, maybe an alarm is going on, someone told you to watch closely because an attack is expected, or you heard something and are investigating the sound.

As an aside, if the target needs to be specifically on alert in this fashion to be able to make a Per check, then they won't notice you making that noise in the first place, as that would require a Per check (also, "specifically on alert" shouldn't be necessary to allow a roll, but rather not being on alert should result in a penalty; but that's my opinion, not necessarily the RAW). Now, with a lady of the night plying her trade on a John, they probably aren't going to notice you very readily, but I could certainly see justification in allowing a roll... although I'd almost certainly penalize it for them being distracted (which your GM may have done, if you just saw him roll but he didn't say what target numbers he was rolling against), unless it were meant to be a humorous scene (say, the lady doesn't suffer any penalty, because she's bored with the John's performance and is just "going through the motions," as it were). The real issue - which is an issue with rules from Basic Set - is that having each target make a separate roll artificially inflates the difficulty. DF16 has a better handling IMO, with the targets just making a single roll (and the MoV dictating how close the group can get before combat starts; in a non-combat sneaking situation, I'd say that as long as you needn't get any closer than where MoV puts you, you can simply sneak past), although it should probably get a bonus based on the size and competence of the target party (the latter referring to how well they're setup for keeping watch - everyone looking in the same direction makes it a lot easier than people being arranged in a fashion that leaves few if any gaps and has overlapping fields of view), but I digress.