Playing a session tonight with a crazy DM

45 posts / 0 new
Last post
Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this
as we're fairly new to d&d. The group we're playing tonight includes:

Paladin
Fighter
Wizard
Ranger
Cleric
Invoker


 
May The Light Shine Upon You
The classes you're playing are irrelevant.  Your experience with D&D is irrelevant.

Have you ever considered just telling him you don't want to play in a game where the DM will intentionally try to kill the entire group?  The game can still be fun without the threat of PC death hanging over your heads ... living or dying doesn't have to be the only outcome. 

If the rest of the group agrees with you and the DM doesn't, tell him you don't want him to DM and have someone else take over.

Yes, it's that simple.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

When you say he might possibly kill your group.  Do you mean he is actively aiming for that; or that he is more likely to drop very tough monsters in comparison to the other DMs you play under?


If it’s the first; not much you can do, you can try to get him to not DM, but I don’t see that working without driving him away from your table completely (and thus losing a player); best I think you can do there is play it safe and not take any risks.


That being said (and with an odd amount of threads about death going on right not) if you all do die; just roll up new characters; imo it’s part of the game (all though there are many who strongly disagree)


If he simply is dropping hard creatures; your team just needs to really think strategy when in encounters; usually a good team working together can defeat creatures of higher levels than them, it’s all about working of each other’s strengths. I have seen many a party killed because the Controller and Leader decided they should be on the front lines (When their build made that a very unwise decision).

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/1.jpg)

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this
as we're fairly new to d&d.
 



Just roll natural 20s all night.


Seriously though, if he did express the desire to kill you all, was he maybe just joking around?
Perhaps he wants to kill off all of your characters because he doesn't enjoy playing D&D and wants to end the game and do something else?


Ask the DM what you need to have prepared in order to continue playing in the event your character dies. If nothing else, build in as much of a "trapdoor" as you can for yourself. Make another character with some kind of tie to your character, so there are plausible ways for the new character to show up and want to join the group immediately.

If the DM feels that losing a character warrants having to sit out of the game for some (any) length of time, and you can't reason with him, leave that game. There are others, in person or online.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this



Make decisions and move VERY cautiously.Tongue Out  If the DM is intent on killing someone or the whole group there is probably very little you can do in-game.  Personally, I would not play with a DM like that (been there, done that, not fun).

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this

Make decisions and move VERY cautiously.  If the DM is intent on killing someone or the whole group there is probably very little you can do in-game.  Personally, I would not play with a DM like that (been there, done that, not fun).

I'm honestly curious, so here's an open question: where's the line between a DM who includes death in the game, and a DM who makes a concerted (though by-the-rules) effort to cause the death of player characters? My understanding is that the former is considered proper, but the latter isn't.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this

Make decisions and move VERY cautiously.  If the DM is intent on killing someone or the whole group there is probably very little you can do in-game.  Personally, I would not play with a DM like that (been there, done that, not fun).

I'm honestly curious, so here's an open question: where's the line between a DM who includes death in the game, and a DM who makes a concerted (though by-the-rules) effort to cause the death of player characters? My understanding is that the former is considered proper, but the latter isn't.




It’s a conscious line the DM makes in his mind, and honestly unless the DM out-right says his intent is to kill a party/player I think it would be hard to spot.


There have been several threads already on Pro and Anti Death in the game; but I’ll shortly rehash what I’ve said already on it.


I think death has a very good role in DnD, because I am one of those players who doesn’t think of his character as the “hero of the story” who is destined to defeat evil or whatever, when I play a character I play them as a normal person who has access to more powerful abilities then the average joe; that character is just as adapt to die as anyone else.


I fully understand many people don’t like this viewpoint; but it is the way I learned to play DnD and have enjoyed it.


Also I think it is a very good tool to teach people to chose  their moves wisely; I have played in a game where people “can’t die” because the DM had so many plot-hooks to prevent death; it turned into combat being semi-serious because we knew the worse that could happen is NPCs would die or we would take penalties; that’s a far shot a way of knowing when your character dies you have to write a new one up.


That being said; I strongly disapprove of any DM who sets out to kill his party or a player; I have played in a game with a DM like that as well and it was one of the few, few, times I walked away from a game. We were averaging a character death every three games or so, and it was beyond obvious the DM took great pleasure in seeing our characters die.


I don’t mind if my character has to die; but if it has to happen I want it to because of bad rolls on my side or great rolls on the DMs (aka by chance) not because the DM is a jerk and decides to drop multiple solos on a mid-level party.

Rant over- feel free to unleash the hate

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/1.jpg)

I think death has a very good role in DnD, because I am one of those players who doesn’t think of his character as the “hero of the story” who is destined to defeat evil or whatever, when I play a character I play them as a normal person who has access to more powerful abilities then the average joe; that character is just as adapt to die as anyone else.

That makes sense, and that's fine - for you. I expect you wouldn't accept offers to keep your character alive or resurrect the character, and those are your choices. But the others at the table might feel differently about their characters, and that's okay too, unless everyone specifically agreed to treat their characters the same way. Though, in that event, I would expect certain players simply not to become very invested in theit characters.

Also I think it is a very good tool to teach people to chose  their moves wisely; I have played in a game where people “can’t die” because the DM had so many plot-hooks to prevent death; it turned into combat being semi-serious because we knew the worse that could happen is NPCs would die or we would take penalties; that’s a far shot a way of knowing when your character dies you have to write a new one up.

It's only a far shot because DMs tend not to be prepared for keeping players involved in the game once their characters have died. Players avoid death not because it's particularly consequential in-game (just roll another character), but because it's a waste of time as the player sits out. If there was no interruption in play, death would not be as impactful.

I fear the opposite: that people will play their characters so "wisely" that pacing is utterly destroyed in the effort to mitigate every possible failure. I'd much rather the players be less concerned with failure, whether the failure is character death or something else. Character death can be interesting (I love trying new characters), but it generally isn't. Losing an NPC, city, or world due to failure takes the story in new directions. With a new character, all you're likely to have is a backstory. All the potential is wiped out, and for what?

That being said; I strongly disapprove of any DM who sets out to kill his party or a player; I have played in a game with a DM like that as well and it was one of the few, few, times I walked away from a game. We were averaging a character death every three games or so, and it was beyond obvious the DM took great pleasure in seeing our characters die.

I don't blame you. But wouldn't that DM's approach just cause you to play more carefully?

I don’t mind if my character has to die; but if it has to happen I want it to because of bad rolls on my side or great rolls on the DMs (aka by chance) not because the DM is a jerk and decides to drop multiple solos on a mid-level party.

Well, as I said, I was assuming a DM playing by the rules, which don't advise that sort of play.

Rant over- feel free to unleash the hate

No hate. I genuinely don't understand the attachment people feel to PC death in their games.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this

Make decisions and move VERY cautiously.  If the DM is intent on killing someone or the whole group there is probably very little you can do in-game.  Personally, I would not play with a DM like that (been there, done that, not fun).

I'm honestly curious, so here's an open question: where's the line between a DM who includes death in the game, and a DM who makes a concerted (though by-the-rules) effort to cause the death of player characters? My understanding is that the former is considered proper, but the latter isn't.



Much of this is in the tone of the game and of the DM.

When I (As DM) know an encounter is hard, or I know a particular monster is rough I don't dispair at missing with an attack or delight in a crit.

When I crit with a brute's encounter power I don't yell "yippie" but instead go "Oh, thats gonna suck I crit."  When I miss with the attack that does 50 damage at level 11 to 2 players (happened tonight) because both players interupted I go "awesome, if you got hit you would have taken 50 damage." even though there isn't a real reason for them to know what the damage would have been.
Currently working on making a Dex based defender. Check it out here
Show
Need a few pre-generated characters for a one-shot you are running? Want to get a baseline for what an effective build for a class you aren't familiar with? Check out the Pregen thread here If ever you are interested what it sounds like to be at my table check out my blog and podcast here Also, I've recently done an episode on "Refluffing". You can check that out here
Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.
May The Light Shine Upon You
Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.

That's just ridiculous.  Yeah, he needs his DM license temporarily revoked until he learns how to design encounters with reasonable parameters.  Hopefully though he remains in the group as a player and whoever is DMing next can help him along by showing him how the game works a lot better when you don't design encounters to crush the group and tick them off. 

Even the redbox starter set has some of the first pieces of advice in the DM's book being something to the effect of "it's not a competition" and "be fair."  It sounds like he needs to go back to basics because somewhere along the line he got the idea that the only way to have fun is to create a challenge so difficult that it kills half the party.  Never mind that it's possible to have fun without even any challenge at all if that's what you want!

Seriously, hopefully someone can step up and do some mentoring for him and show him how it's done.

OD&D, 1E and 2E challenged the player. 3E challenged the character, not the player. Now 4E takes it a step further by challenging a GROUP OF PLAYERS to work together as a TEAM. That's why I love 4E.

"Your ability to summon a horde of celestial superbeings at will is making my ... BMX skills look a bit redundant."

"People treat their lack of imagination as if it's the measure of what's silly. Which is silly." - Noon

"Challenge" is overrated.  "Immersion" is usually just a more pretentious way of saying "having fun playing D&D."

"Falling down is how you grow.  Staying down is how you die.  It's not what happens to you, it's what you do after it happens.”

Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together, and every week we switch DM.

This week we have one guy who might possibly kill the entire group, so i was just hoping to get some quick simple tips on how to avoid this

Make decisions and move VERY cautiously.  If the DM is intent on killing someone or the whole group there is probably very little you can do in-game.  Personally, I would not play with a DM like that (been there, done that, not fun).

I'm honestly curious, so here's an open question: where's the line between a DM who includes death in the game, and a DM who makes a concerted (though by-the-rules) effort to cause the death of player characters? My understanding is that the former is considered proper, but the latter isn't.




It’s a conscious line the DM makes in his mind, and honestly unless the DM out-right says his intent is to kill a party/player I think it would be hard to spot.


There have been several threads already on Pro and Anti Death in the game; but I’ll shortly rehash what I’ve said already on it.


I think death has a very good role in DnD, because I am one of those players who doesn’t think of his character as the “hero of the story” who is destined to defeat evil or whatever, when I play a character I play them as a normal person who has access to more powerful abilities then the average joe; that character is just as adapt to die as anyone else.


I fully understand many people don’t like this viewpoint; but it is the way I learned to play DnD and have enjoyed it.


Also I think it is a very good tool to teach people to chose  their moves wisely; I have played in a game where people “can’t die” because the DM had so many plot-hooks to prevent death; it turned into combat being semi-serious because we knew the worse that could happen is NPCs would die or we would take penalties; that’s a far shot a way of knowing when your character dies you have to write a new one up.


That being said; I strongly disapprove of any DM who sets out to kill his party or a player; I have played in a game with a DM like that as well and it was one of the few, few, times I walked away from a game. We were averaging a character death every three games or so, and it was beyond obvious the DM took great pleasure in seeing our characters die.


I don’t mind if my character has to die; but if it has to happen I want it to because of bad rolls on my side or great rolls on the DMs (aka by chance) not because the DM is a jerk and decides to drop multiple solos on a mid-level party.

Rant over- feel free to unleash the hate




In my opinion, the highlighted statement is the line.  DMs should not take pleasure in killing player characters.  TRPGs are not intended to be DM vs Players scenarios.  One of my best friends in college used to DM like this.  Suffice it to say, he did not DM very often because no one liked this style.

Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.



Personally, once I figured that out, I would have found a way to end the encounter: try talking rather than fighting, running away, or worst case standing up and walking away from the table.  Sometimes individuals need rude awakenings; they need to be told in a harsh manner that what they are doing is not right.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Personally, once I figured that out, I would have found a way to end the encounter: try talking rather than fighting, running away, or worst case standing up and walking away from the table.  Sometimes individuals need rude awakenings; they need to be told in a harsh manner that what they are doing is not right.

Good point about running away. I've heard from DMs who don't want to kill "smart" PCs who know when to run away, but have no qualms and take some joy in killing "dumb" PCs who don't take the copious hints to run. I don't know if that was what was happening in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And not that I'm condoning that approach. It strikes me as a real waste of time.

the game it self tries to destroy you sometimes dosent it. id suggest spending your money more wisely, because its hard to kill a prepaired person.

That arms race gets unpleasant quickly, especially if the DM thought they had control of the situation. Relatively early in my return to DMing, I ran an encounter in which the players were expected to run from a superior force. One player broke out a scroll of fireball that I let him buy, make his Spellcraft check for casting a spell above his level, and wiped out the attacking force, including the primary villains. Even if he'd missed, the damage would have cleared the field. I recovered from the situation, and learned a lesson about expecting action from players, but another DM might learn that player choices need close watching and restriction, and monsters need to be overpowered. Then the players prepare in other ways to meet the threat, and the DM has to adjust again. Better to avoid all that.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Personally, once I figured that out, I would have found a way to end the encounter: try talking rather than fighting, running away, or worst case standing up and walking away from the table.  Sometimes individuals need rude awakenings; they need to be told in a harsh manner that what they are doing is not right.

Good point about running away. I've heard from DMs who don't want to kill "smart" PCs who know when to run away, but have no qualms and take some joy in killing "dumb" PCs who don't take the copious hints to run. I don't know if that was what was happening in this case, but it wouldn't surprise me.

And not that I'm condoning that approach. It strikes me as a real waste of time.



Actually my point was to attempt to upset the DM's plans.  Based on what the OP is describing the DM in question wants to kill player characters and does his best to set the players against impossible odds to accomplish this dubious goal.  So, as a player I would go out of my way to figuring a way to counter that desire.  If the encountered creature is intelligent enough to talk to, I would attempt a parlay or simply surrender.  If that did not work, then I would attempt to run away.  And if the DM refused to allow the party to vacate, I would walk away from the table explaining that what the DM is doing is not fun or interesting and I have no desire to continue to stroke his ego.  The point being to shock the DM into reality.

That being said, I agree with your assessment of smart and dumb parties.  In the campaign I am running, the party encountered an army of orcs, ogres, and even a couple of hill giants.  They were a party of six level 4 characters at the time and they actually considered taking the army of thousands on.  Thank goodness cooler/smarter heads prevailed and they avoided the army.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
That being said, I agree with your assessment of smart and dumb parties.  In the campaign I am running, the party encountered an army of orcs, ogres, and even a couple of hill giants.  They were a party of six level 4 characters at the time and they actually considered taking the army of thousands on.  Thank goodness cooler/smarter heads prevailed and they avoided the army.

To be clear, I don't agree with handling parties based on how "smart" or "dumb" they are. If my players wanted to take on an army of thousands, and I wasn't sure how to make that interesting (since just killing their characters is not likely to be interesting), I'd talk with the players and get their help coming up with interesting consequences (bearing in mind that just saying "we wipe out the army" is also not really "interesting").

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

I agree with the sentiments that killing off characters in an unmeaningful way is just not interesting.

If you have 7 people in the group already, it's more than enough to just tell him to stop DM'ing, and if he leaves, he leaves, if not, then you're golden. 
It looks like a classic case of DM vs. PCs.
That is not condusive to a positive or fun gaming environment.

The new DM should read multiple passages in the DMG (and one from DMG2) to understand his role as Dungeon Master.

----------------------

Also, the only two reasons that a PC should die:
(1) The PC did something completely stupid in the face of ample warning.
(2) The PC wants to die heroicly for a given reason.

PC's should never be killed by dice, or overly difficult encounters.
Also, the only two reasons that a PC should die:
(1) The PC did something completely stupid in the face of ample warning.
(2) The PC wants to die heroicly for a given reason.

PC's should never be killed by dice, or overly difficult encounters.

The only reason a character should die is if the player explicitly wants the character to die. Doing something "stupid" might be ground for failure, but it's never grounds for character death.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

The only reason a character should die is if the player explicitly wants the character to die. Doing something "stupid" might be ground for failure, but it's never grounds for character death.



Yes, "doing something completely stuid in the face of ample warning" is really one of two things: (1) the player truly doesn't understand the context and likely consequences of the act or (2) the player is yanking the DM's chain to see what he or she will do.

In either case, these are handled by out-of-game conversations to clarify the situation or intent, not with in-game consequences. 

No amount of tips, tricks, or gimmicks will ever be better than simply talking directly to your fellow players to resolve your issues.
DMs: Dungeon Master 101  |  Find Your GM Style  |  Structure First, Story Last  |  No Myth Roleplaying  |  5e Monster Index & Encounter Calculator
Players: Players 101  |  11 Ways to Be a Better Roleplayer  |  You Are Not Your Character  |  Pre-Gen D&D 5e PCs

Content I Created: Adventure Scenarios  |  Actual Play Reports  |  Tools

I'm Recruiting Players for a D&D 5e Game: Interested?  |  Follow me on Twitter: @is3rith

The only reason a character should die is if the player explicitly wants the character to die. Doing something "stupid" might be ground for failure, but it's never grounds for character death.



Yes, "doing something completely stuid in the face of ample warning" is really one of two things: (1) the player truly doesn't understand the context and likely consequences of the act or (2) the player is yanking the DM's chain to see what he or she will do.

In either case, these are handled by out-of-game conversations to clarify the situation or intent, not with in-game consequences. 



I agree.

As an example, in a recent Star Wars campaign session, a player wanted to detonate an EMP because he wanted to shutdown all the droids we were facing.  What the player failed to realize was that an EMP would not only take out the droids, but would permanently damage everything electronic in the range of the blast.  What he really wanted was an ion pulse, but he did not realize and/or know the difference. Another player and I were all but screaming at him not to do it because we knew what would happen.  The GM then stopped the combat scenario and in an out-of-game manner explained the difference between an EMP and ion pulse.  The lightbulb went off over the player's head and he changed his action to use a ion pulse.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
Also, the only two reasons that a PC should die:
(1) The PC did something completely stupid in the face of ample warning.
(2) The PC wants to die heroicly for a given reason.

PC's should never be killed by dice, or overly difficult encounters.

The only reason a character should die is if the player explicitly wants the character to die. Doing something "stupid" might be ground for failure, but it's never grounds for character death.


Reason 3) The PC decides to be an adventurer. It's a dangerous life, you know.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.



Was he trying to kill your group on purpose?
The only reason a character should die is if the player explicitly wants the character to die. Doing something "stupid" might be ground for failure, but it's never grounds for character death.



Yes, "doing something completely stuid in the face of ample warning" is really one of two things: (1) the player truly doesn't understand the context and likely consequences of the act or (2) the player is yanking the DM's chain to see what he or she will do.

In either case, these are handled by out-of-game conversations to clarify the situation or intent, not with in-game consequences. 



When I say "stupid" I mean that the player is well aware of the consequences of the action (or lack thereof) and does it anyway. Maybe I should have wordcrafted "ignorrant."

If the player is yanking a DM's chain to see what he'll do, the DM should let the player know what the consequences would be (death sometimes). Then the player can decide if he wants to continue with his action which will result in a "stupid" death rather than a "heroic" death.
When I say "stupid" I mean that the player is well aware of the consequences of the action (or lack thereof) and does it anyway. Maybe I should have wordcrafted "ignorrant."

If those consequences involve death, it behooves a DM to get an explicit statement from the player that the player wants death in this instance.

If the player is yanking a DM's chain to see what he'll do, the DM should let the player know what the consequences would be (death sometimes). Then the player can decide if he wants to continue with his action which will result in a "stupid" death rather than a "heroic" death.

The consequence never has to be death. DMs can work up challenges that the PCs can fail without dying.

If a player seems to be trying to disrupt the game by killing their character in "stupid" ways, then the player can be asked to leave or worked with to mitigate any boredom or frustration that might be leading to the outbursts.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Centauri "The consequence never has to be death."

I agree with the statement, EDIT not I think with the idea that death should be out of the game. Why use a jackhammer when a screwdriver will do the job? Death is just one tool in the box. Don't throw that tool away, though. Sometimes a jackhammer is the right tool for the job. I think there's been some over-correction about death in the game. Some bad DM's see that jackhammer and think it's meant as something to unleash on the players, to threaten or cajole them with (I don't know what cajole means and I never use the phrase, but it sounded fun here). Some players have had a favorite character die or fizzle because they didn't know what to do after one or more players died. Next thing you know, the jackhammer is to blame. But, I don't agree that death (a powerful tool indeed) should be out of the game altogether.

The campaign itself should take a life of it's own. After all... the campaign is more than the sum of its parts. The DM's input and the players action all coincide to make a bigger story. Tolstoy's War & Peace didn't come to a screeching halt at Borodino. But remove the threat of death and Pierre's walk through Moscow with intentions to assassinate Bonaparte would instead be a walk in the park... pleasant, but dull as all hell. Remove death and the greatest novel ever written would not 'contain everything', and would instead become 'almost' the greatest novel ever written. Remove death from the game and you will spare characters... but for what? The world they live in will be diminished.

This is not to say that the DM needs to go crazy on the players and do all he can to kill their characters. Nor is it to say that the DM needs to go crazy on the players and do all he can to keep them alive, even to the point of blocking the player's desire for suspense by giving them the keys to the kingdom. If the DM does either of these things, have a talk with him (or her) so you can write the greatest campaign ever written.

I feel sometimes when I argue the case to keep death in the game, I'm seen as some sort of morbid creature, it seems implied at times. On the contrary, I am full of life and merely see death as part of life, and an important part of the human condition.  In games with even a passing nod to exploration of the human condition, death is likely to be a part of it... indeed should be if it is to hold any sense of realism, if it is to have the sense of power that makes for great immersive story-telling.
A rogue with a bowl of slop can be a controller. WIZARD PC: Can I substitute Celestial Roc Guano for my fireball spells? DM: Awesome. Yes. When in doubt, take action.... that's generally the best course. Even Sun Tsu knew that, and he didn't have internets.
Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.



Was he trying to kill your group on purpose?



Suppose we were going in to a room facing an enemy, one of the players in the group rolled a 19 on his atk, with a big smile he tells the DM his result and he says "miss!" gloating, we calmly explained that this would be impossible for us to do, we then tried to run but the "gate" was closed...
when we started to realize what was going on some people in the group started to get annoyed cause the DM was obviously unprepaired, had no idea what he was doing, or was just intentionally trying to kill us.

When he picked up the vibes in the room and the weird looks the group was giving him, he "subtetly" tried to change the defenses and HP of the opponent which really ruined the entire experience for me.
May The Light Shine Upon You
Thanks for all the tips, he ended up killing 2 in the group, and he's no longer allowed to DM for our group... as it was complete mayhem where he created a monster with so high defenses that we had to roll 20's to actually hit.



Was he trying to kill your group on purpose?



Suppose we were going in to a room facing an enemy, one of the players in the group rolled a 19 on his atk, with a big smile he tells the DM his result and he says "miss!" gloating, we calmly explained that this would be impossible for us to do, we then tried to run but the "gate" was closed...
when we started to realize what was going on some people in the group started to get annoyed cause the DM was obviously unprepaired, had no idea what he was doing, or was just intentionally trying to kill us.

When he picked up the vibes in the room and the weird looks the group was giving him, he "subtetly" tried to change the defenses and HP of the opponent which really ruined the entire experience for me.



That sounds not fun at all. Since you already said he's not DM'ing for your group anymore, though, I guess you've solved the problem and this thread has turned into a discussion.

Seems like he just didn't know what he was doing, and was on a power trip. Frustrating the players and making them want to give up or end the session isn't fun for anyone. I want my games to keep going as long and as many hours as the players are willing to play. If they're not having fun, it means they might not come back, and then I wouldn't get to play either. A DM is not a DM without players.

I guess your problem DM finally realized that fact and actually picked up on the vibes around the room.  
Put it through Google translate, and it still doesn't make much sense.  Something about Bob1, Bob2, and Bob3 being the high points of playing an RPG?

Anyway, that DM sounded like the combat version of "rocks keep falling, roll reflex saves until you die."  I'm glad your situation worked itself out.
This sounds like the classic DM vs Player paradigm.  Try asking him if he likes dieing constantly when he plays a character or if he likes winning.  Ask him if as a player he enjoys reasonable challenges or being slaughtered by +5 CR encounters.  Ask him if he would like to play in a game where he can only succeed 5% of the time.  Ask him if he likes his characters being forced into lose lose situations. 

After he answers these questions explain the concept of balanced encounters.

Its pretty simple really, you don't drop a balor into a party of level 1 PC's because its a f***ing balor, and the PC's are level 1.  Its not impressive, scary, or creative, its just frustrating, stupid, and self defeating.  Any DM can drop a flying thirty headed fire breathing tarrasque with 4,000 hp into the game, that doesn't mean he should-unless thats the kind of game people want to play and are of the appropriate level to fight such a beast (somewhere around 40th).
...and in the ancient voice of a million squirrels the begotten chittered "You have set upon yourselves a great and noble task, dare you step further, what say you! What say you!"
> Right, we're currently a group of 7 playing D&D together,
> and every week we switch DM.

TBH, there was a potential 'out' right here. If one DM goes over the line, the next DM can open with "You awaken from that bad dream..."

(This isn't even limited to dealing with someone being a moron - it's also a reasonable way to mulligan an honest mistake.)
My campaign does not use XP.
We use "sessions" instead.
5 sessions = level up.

The problems with XP include arithmetic problems, and the (more often than it should happen) frustration of being only 20 points from leveling at the end of a session. Lame!
My campaign does not use XP.
We use "sessions" instead.
5 sessions = level up.

The problems with XP include arithmetic problems, and the (more often than it should happen) frustration of being only 20 points from leveling at the end of a session. Lame!



That's when you make a DM ruling saying, "20XP for just being here. Smile"  I do it, other DMs I play with do it, you can too.

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

Are you really "entitled to your opinion"?
RedSiegfried wrote:
The cool thing is, you don't even NEED a reason to say yes.  Just stop looking for a reason to say no.
wait, no xp at all? wheres the chalange in that?

For a lot of people, experience points have become about pacing, not about "challenge," and many find that the rules for them don't meet the pacing that they desire. Challenge comes out of the success or failure within the game.

just learn the mechanics a little better and then see why xp is there. before you completely remove it.

Many people have already removed them and seen no detriment (and in fact much improvement) to their games. I still tend to use them, but I can rarely remember to track them, so I level up my group when we want to try some new things.

Some very popular roleplaying games don't use experience, leveling, or even advancement of any kind, or of only a very limited kind.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

yep, I don't do XP either.  Levels are gained every 4-5 sessions which my players tell me is a very good pace.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

lol I think you need to relax a bit there buddy.  Not using XP does not mean I don't follow the rules and furthermore it's not cheating.  A lot of people don't use XP and instead opt for other methods for leveling.  Take a breath.
"Non nobis Domine Sed nomini tuo da gloriam" "I wish for death not because I want to die, but because I seek the war eternal"

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/19.jpg)

so why bother with a new ruleset?

Search me. The current rules work just fine.

we just want pretty pictures. i meen realy guys? its bad taste to tell people to cheat.

For a group of players to toss out annoying rules is hardly cheating. It's one of the core traditions of D&D, and what has caused its evolution. Rolling stats, weapon damage types, overpowered wizards, alignment, experience points. We're moving toward something streamlined and lethal here.

(Of course, some games are invented without all that baggage, or with completely new baggage. D&D just has to shed its issues over time, because it's older and larger.)

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

inhale.......i call it, the gate way drug....er .......rationalizion on a dishonest concept..........exhale

Wow. Getting rid of XP for one's table has nothing to do with dishonesty. It's personal preference.

whats stoping you from leveling up to thirty right away?

Nothing. If that's what the group wants to do, they should do that. People start at higher levels all the time. The main reason for starting at low levels is to get a feel for the mechanics before introducing complications.

You get that we're not talking about players just picking any level they personally want, right? We're talking about decisions a group makes.

or just dropping a dragon or two in da way.

If you mean saying "Hey, let's make some characters to fight dragons," nothing. Probably nothing anyway, but I can't understand what you mean.

i belive in earning my place, its in my code of honor

Fine. But don't imagine that anyone cares about your accomplishment.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

except my friend care, all participants in a co op story game, should  care. in which we strive, for the things we desire, we can actualy feel acomplished within ourselves.

Of course. That's great. But that's your table.

 we then use that confidence to go lead real lives of achievements and valor.

Right. I guess I just go ahead and do that anyway, regardless of what happens to my fictional character in a game.

 i stand for something, you fall for any thing.

It's a game. I do what I want in games. What I don't do (or don't do more than once) is play a boring game, so if I have the power to remove a boring aspect of a game, I excercise that power.

If I have to ask the GM for it, then I don't want it.

Let's calm a touch and ease off the personal attacks, please. I've removed a few from this thread as per the Code of Conduct - company.wizards.com/conduct
lets not forget how hard 1st -3.5 are. your dying almost each session.



Since when?  All it takes to survive is a little innovation and a small modicum of luck.

Facing an enemy that has damage resistance that you can't get through*?  Make use of some of the other combat options (trip so your heavy hitters can whack it, bull rush, etc).

Staring down a dragon at a low level*?  Ask if you can call a shot (with a penalty, of course), then drop it from the air. 

Small amount of ranged abilities and faced with flying enemies*?  Downdraft, kelpstrand, tanglefoot bags, etc.


Think outside the box and you'll survive easily enough. 


* - I've actually faced all of these in one campaign.  We were pitted against a barghest at level 2 (I, as a Gnome Druid, had no way to break through its DR, so I tripped it and the two melee characters whittled it down with AoOs), a white dragon at level 3 or so (Alchemist's Fire thrown at a wing only needed a 9 to hit, so it fell to the deck of the ship we were on), and harpies for a while thereafter.  
Sign In to post comments