|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 3:55PM
#31
|
Date Joined:
May 26, 2012
|
Does it count if I am a DM that the players think is against them because I made some encounters unbeatable? Encounters where they should know to run, but instead choose to fight and die. I even give them "extra lives" with Fate Points, and they think that I am against them.
I don't think this makes you a bad DM, I think it is a symptom of how premades are all made 'balanced' these days (before 4e folks get angry this goes back before that, this isn't edition warfare) so people expect to be able to beat anything.
Caves of Choas openly says there are parts where what the PCs should do is get the heck out of dodge. I find that refreshing.
That said if it is clear they just won't adopt this mindset, and it isn't fun at all to them, then playing to them is probably best.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:14PM
#32
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
Thank you Silverque, to clarify further on that whole experience.... …everyone knew that they should run from the Headless Horseman, except for one player that had missed the prior session(his character was unconscious anyway). That player decided to stay and attack. The other players now suffered for his actions, as the honorable types were not going to let their friend die alone, and they knew that they stood no chance. The player that started the whole fight ended up being the last one standing against the horseman after everyone else had died, and he ran. Activated his last resort suicide bomb and ran right back into the horseman, blowing himself up along with the horseman and everyone else's corpses.
It was then that I was blamed for constantly being against the players. I'm trying to learn from it, but I think it might have just been player recklessness.
Back to the topic of this thread.. Maybe there can be bad players too, not just bad DMs. I don't think there can be rules to solve either problem, but I do think it's a matter of mature discussion outside of game.
DMs: politely let your player know if they are being continually disruptive. (which I might have to do)
Players: constructively let your DM know if they are not providing a fun experience. The only real "bad" DMs are the ones that won't listen to your feedback.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:30PM
#33
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
Let's see..
I only have 2 bad DMs. One was a PC killing jerk. The other liked to railroad hard.
I had a boring DM. He roleplayed well. His enccounters were REALLY fun. But he forced players to play stereotypical characters from his world. Every single thing was a walking sterotype. All dwarves used axes, accents, and ale. All elves were aloof bow-wizards. Halfing thief period. And because his boss battles were tough, we went through all the stereotypes quickly before I got sick of it and walked.
Another DM was an "old noob". A vet that didn't understand class tiers. Didn't understand that you can't let character rest to craft items all the time. Allowed book without reading them. Every fight was a cakewalk of TPK.
Another was just a new DM. He just needed help. I ended up Co-DMing with my PC as a DMPC.
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:34PM
#34
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2012
|
I have the inverse problem. My DM plays too nice and makes it impossible for any of us to die. I'm looking forward to DMing that group.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 4:49PM
#35
|
|
|
Hands up everyone who's normal RPG group - not just D&D - includes a power hungry, sadistic DM that needs to be harnessed by the rules so he doesn't kill your character. I'm not talking about an experience you've run into for a one shot at a con or in a delve at the FLGS - I want to hear from people who suffer through such games on a weekly or monthly basis. The threads are full of warnings about giving power to the DM and arguments at the game table so I am assuming there must be an epidemic...
To make this more like a vote, if you have a DM you trust chime in with that too...
Nope never had such a DM in my normal rpg groups - we are talking about 10 different DMs that I have played at least a few sessions under - not once offs.
I think I may have had a few DMs like that in the one/two session shots...
Can anyone guess why I never went back to them 
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 8:40PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
Your entire example is focused on the idea that having a set of codified DCs for certain challenges forbids you from raising it under the circumstances.
The dread lord discovers that the party has an unstoppable locksmith, so he puts magic traps and guardians as well as scrying sensors.
The party's challenge is not a locked door, but a 50 foot gap over a pit of snakes.
The artificer villain is frustrated after being foiled by a master lock-breaker, so he creates a devious new set of locks that are simply impossible for a mortal man and can actually challenge the party's locksmith.
In-game, non-houseruling options for making a set lock DC higher or less important.
As I find continues to need to be repeated on this forum, codification and balancing of rules IN NO WAY restricts imagination or creativity, unless you lack imagination or creativity.
Okay your wrong for on this particular facet and I'll tell you why.
Making an explicit rules set of how to establish DCs does in fact make it completely impossible to change those numbers.
Say you sat down at a 3.5 game rolled a 35 on your disable device check (a 2 on the actual die roll) and accidentally set off a fireball trap. That means I, as the DM, just took the RAW and tore it straight up. The fireball trap should be a DC 28. You rolled a check so good you should be able to not only disable the trap but disable it in a way so people can't tell you disabled it. Instead of following the rules and setting it at the DC it should be at, 28, I set it to a DC of 40 for seemingly no reason. Now I totally expect any player to be understandably angry that I did this, and I would have to immediately explain my self should they figure it out because I have clearly broken the rules as written. I have the choice of either telling them the entire story ahead of time thus ruining the game just to explain why I changed the trap DC rules or I can give them the because I said so and you will understand why later reason.
Basically if rules are printed for exactly how to establish the DC those become the rules that people will cling to and expect to be the norm. If I change those on the fly to make a challenge for the characters then I am breaking the rules. Even though I'm not actually making it impossible or anything just making it an actual challenge I no matter what look like a bad or tyranical DM. The rules just made me a bad DM. I'm not actually a bad DM the rules make me seem like one though even though I am just trying to keep things interesting.
Now if DC 40 just meant that this was an incredibly hard check and had no bearing on what the consequences of failure were no one argues when it happens they just realize that things are about to get difficult. They don't have any call to say, "That's bull****, how did you ever get that number as a DC. Oh I see you cheated. Your a terrible DM", instead they just say, "ooooohhh **** just got real maybe we should be on our toes guys that door trap was really hard to disarm."
The question I have is why do you need a codified way to determine DC's? How does it help the game at all? What does it provide that detailed and verbose guidlines on how to set fair and enjoyable DCs doesn't?
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 10:28PM
#37
|
Date Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
|
Over the years I've played under eleven different DMs. Of those four were pretty awfull.
The first was a killer DM. You could expect him to slaughter whole parties at a whim. To his credit he was the most fun to play with since his stuf was top notch until he got the urge to destroy.
The second played favorites and has inconsistent. you couldn't tell what he'd do next. The only thing you could count on was his pets getting the best goodies and never having to worry about the bad stuff happening to them, where as if you got on his bad side you suffered.
The third was a my word is god type. He only used the rules as written when they suited him. Hi9s games were poorly run and inconsistent. I really couldn't say what they were like in the long term since I sat at his table for three hours and never returned.
The fourth was the railroading type. he never let you do anything that wasn't part of "his" story. he was unfamiliar with the rules and slow so little got done when we played. His poor DM skills weren't overtly apparent so he lasted several sessions before I decided to go somewhere else to play.
I have played on the other side of the table with all but one of these dms. I concidered most to be friends so I don't judge them lightly. I can say that they displayed uncanny similarities as players to their DMing styles. the guy that liked to favor his closer friends over everyone else was a cheater. It got so bad we as a group asked him to find another place to play.
I don't think the rules by them selves will curb these tendencies in people stricter rules usually make the game too rigid or turn them into something people don't want to play. I'd rather not play D&D than play something I don't like. So far the wizards of the coast are 0-2.
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 10:39PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
Not since junior high...
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:01PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2011
|
Good question OP, and good point. 31 years of gaming and I've never met one. Inexperienced, sure. The occasional bad call, absolutely. But intentionally unfair? Nope, not one. Sorry for those of you that have, but the experiences shared here just go to show people don't continue playing long with DMs like that.
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own." --Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
13 months ago ::
May 31, 2012 - 11:42PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
I very much agree with SleepsInTraffic, codifying rules certainly isn't a magical one-thing-to-solve-them-all. In fact it can just make running the game difficult when some overzelaous rules lawyer finds a sentence from the book to pony around and refuses to accept that the DM's word is final. But if the rules actually say, "what the DM says, goes", even the worst rules lawyer can't help it, rules are rules. :D
But yeah, I suppose this whole topic pertains to D&DN an it's perceived lack of rules, which is simply nonsense. There are rules, plenty of them. Want to do something? Then roll the appropriate attribute check and the DM sets it an appopriate DC. This is a flexible system, but I really don't see why this is a problem, especially since there are rather specific guidelines to this. If the DM describes something as an easy task, but then gives it an arbitrarily large DC, players are fully entitled to call BS.
I've jokingly been calling D&DN as it stands now 'The Common Sense Edition', since that is pretty much the basis of all rules and rulings. I actually like the fact that there are no arbitrary, poorly worded and ambiguous rules to fall back on for either the players OR the DM. People actually have to create a proper argument to back them up, instead of just going "Well on pg. 48 paragrah 5 says that x y z". People have to have reasonable justification for things: "Ok, tell me on what basis should you be able to jump 10 ft. with two barrels of ale strapped on to your back without a strength check?". Or "I think a trip shouldn't be a dex vs. dex contest, but a str vs. defender's dex score as DC and here's why...". Yeah, might slow down the game, if your players are very antagonistic, but current rules arguments slow down the game just as much, if not more, when you have to delve into hundreds of pages of vaguely worded rules.
Also, people forget that it's going to be different from the previous editions in the sense that the DCs in D&DN aren't in an escalating arms race against the exponentially growing skill bonuses the players have. Instead a moderately difficult task will be DC 15 on lvl 1 and it will still be DC 15 on lvl 20.
--
As to the original question, no haven't had any monster DMs, in fact they've all been intelligent people, passionate about what they do, who've just wanted to create worlds for players to have fun with.
|
|
|
