|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:09PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2007
|
I don't disagree that monsters should be played intelligently, but i've seen dms metagame to such an extent that it was mind numbing. For example, my level 19 monk in a loincloth has very good defenses, so in a BI over 6 combats I was attacked maybe twice in the first combat, and that was it. It was stupid and i've never seen a dm respond that way the whole time I played the character.
He was explaining how he should always hit on a 10 or maybe 12, and apparently was upset that I could get defenses on a monk. The only way you can get hit on a 10 on a monk is if you intentionally make sure your defenses are that low.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:34PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
I don't disagree that monsters should be played intelligently, but i've seen dms metagame to such an extent that it was mind numbing. For example, my level 19 monk in a loincloth has very good defenses, so in a BI over 6 combats I was attacked maybe twice in the first combat, and that was it. It was stupid and i've never seen a dm respond that way the whole time I played the character. He was explaining how he should always hit on a 10 or maybe 12, and apparently was upset that I could get defenses on a monk. The only way you can get hit on a 10 on a monk is if you intentionally make sure your defenses are that low.
Do all DMs do this to you? Many? Some? Is it a DM you play with often?
I've had the reverse issue; players who knew monsters so well that I'd be told what I was going to do next. If you go "off-script", even if it is in the mod, you get incredulous looks from the players.
Needless to say I have great sympathy for your plight.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 12:56PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Oct 25, 2007
|
I don't disagree that monsters should be played intelligently, but i've seen dms metagame to such an extent that it was mind numbing. For example, my level 19 monk in a loincloth has very good defenses, so in a BI over 6 combats I was attacked maybe twice in the first combat, and that was it. It was stupid and i've never seen a dm respond that way the whole time I played the character. He was explaining how he should always hit on a 10 or maybe 12, and apparently was upset that I could get defenses on a monk. The only way you can get hit on a 10 on a monk is if you intentionally make sure your defenses are that low.
Do all DMs do this to you? Many? Some? Is it a DM you play with often?
I've had the reverse issue; players who knew monsters so well that I'd be told what I was going to do next. If you go "off-script", even if it is in the mod, you get incredulous looks from the players.
Needless to say I have great sympathy for your plight.
I've seen a lot of DMs metagame. However, the instance with defenses was about one particular DM that I played with once, and otherwise seemed to be a decent dm. I've never seen other DMs get so upset about good defenses that they started meta-gaming to such an obvious extent.
Maybe I'm wrong. I have seen DMs rarely miss some of my character with good defenses, so they may have just been adding 5 to their rolls or something behind the screen. Or maybe they just were rolling well. Hell, that same monk has nearly been beaten to negative bloodied before.
Just to be clear, I have seen DM metagame to such an extent that they TPKed the party, or forced the party to fail missions in BIs. But that metagaing was typically just a symptom of general bad DMing. I wasn't talking about those DMs because this thread was about DMs dealing with problematic players and characters. I.e., how can good dms deal with bad situations.
My point was that what is game breaking to one dm may not be to the next. The only exception are damage, and save ends conditions (and revenants).
If players get upset by going "off-script," then that is their problem. DME is about increasing fun, and unless they rolled fantastically on knowledge checks, the monsters should always be a mystery.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 1:09PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
You can apply similar logic to other types of builds that are making a table unfun, and focus on PCs' weaknesses once monsters have had a round to figure out their current strategy is ineffective.
(queue "Lovely" recollections of the party with one uber-defensive paladin with the "party shares defenses" power, and the bard who also happened to have the same power. Um... yeah. "Run away" is the only semi-sane tactic there, which would really break expectations)
So by your answering a different question than the one I asked, can I assume that the official answer is still "mostly follow RAW, even if stupid"? 
I'm aware that tactics help when things are just a bit overpowered or Bent. And I'm actually a stronger fan than most on "just let them roll the module", because they made the choice to build that way (depending on the players. Some build silly-strong PCs out of habit or accident, and still want to be beat into the ground). I'm looking for consencus on handling technically legal-but-completely-broken stunts in the face of a player that demands it works because it's RAW.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 1:19PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2007
|
I'm looking for consencus on handling technically legal-but-completely-broken stunts in the face of a player that demands it works because it's RAW.
I think the only consencus you'll get is "expect table variation."
Dan Anderson
@EpicUthrac
Living Forgotten Realms Calimshan Writing Director
Living Forgotten Realms Epic Writing Director
Meet me at TotalConfusion:
http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 1:38PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
I agree that real consensus is unlikely. If something is horribly broken but rules legal beyond any reasonable doubt and a player demands it be allowed, there are few good choices. Luckily there are very very few things that fit that bill. There is almost always a halfway decent argument to be made with the exact same RAW in hand that reaches a different conclusion. There is just no guarantee that presenting such an interpretation will not leave you wanting a mental shower afterwards
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 1:50PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
Fair nuf.
Let me then transition to requesting that future versions of the campaign documentation give the DMs a bit more flexibility in this regard.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 2:20PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
Fair nuf.
Let me then transition to requesting that future versions of the campaign documentation give the DMs a bit more flexibility in this regard.
May be worthy of a poll? Wonder if anyone can make one of those?
edit:
As we seem to be nearing the "end" of 4th edition it is not unreasonable (from previous experience) to expect that horribly broken but technically legal stuff will start cropping up more and more frequently. As such now would be a pretty good time to decide how to handle it.
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 03, 2012 - 6:33PM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Apr 25, 2002
|
Fair nuf.
Let me then transition to requesting that future versions of the campaign documentation give the DMs a bit more flexibility in this regard.
I think one of the things to remember is that the social contract is still present. Convince DMs that it isn't fun to run mods any longer and there won't be any DMs. Players interested in having DMs should find out if the DMs are having fun when they're crushing a mod.
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author) Handbooks
Show
Builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 2:41AM
#30
|
|
|
In my past experience as a DM, I find that ignoring the overpowered PC, or playing against their strengths, is a hugely effective tactic.
For example, I DM'ed a table at a 'con a few years back where the defender had threatening reach, the ability to push/knock prone on a hit, and a ridiculous attack modifier, so he almost could not miss. My solution after the first encounter was to never attack the defender, spread my monsters out so even if he marked them all at best he could only make use of his mark on a single target, and attack all the squishy party members. Any ranged monsters automatically focused on blasting the defender from range as much as possible.
By the end of the session the defender hated me - said I was the worst DM he'd played against all weekend because I "meta-gamed" against his character. I took it as a compliment. Just because a player brings a can of cheese to the table doesn't mean I have to sit and eat it.
Be careful with such tactics, you might actually hurt the table more than you are helping. I remember a SPEC in which the 2nd level paladin with a crappy mark effect had an AC that required my monsters to roll a 17+ while even with the mark penalty it was only a 12+ against the rest (or 10+ when flanking). I attacked the paladin a couple of times each fight and then ignored him. It was only when I realized the other PCs were out of healing surges after the 2nd fight and showing signs of not having fun that I had overdone it. I made some minor modifications in the adventure (midway resource recovery) to correct my error and I the players left the table happy, but it was a good lesson for me.
As for the monk with no AC, you might want to take a good look at the defenses of the majority of adventurers and the type of armor they are wearing. I would daresay that if there is any correlation at all between armor and defenses, it are the PCs with no or light armor that have the highest defenses. It is because of this that I find tactic advise about monsters attacking lightly armored adventurers in preference really funny, because that correlation does not apply neither to PCs nor to creatures.
|
|
|
