# DMs are too easy on their players



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

I hear, constantly, of balance.
  Encounters should be balanced.  A weary worn down party should be allowed to rest and recover.  An adventure should not be overwhelming or underwhelming.  Character class abilities should be on a par with each other.  Character items should be on a par with each other.

  I say:  nonsense.

  If I were your DM:

  - You can count on me to throw encounters at you, and you can count on them to almost never be your CR.  Some will be pushovers, some stupendously difficult.  How will you know beforehand?  You won't, typically.
  - So you are beaten down?  Out of spells?  Low on hit points?  Need to rest?  I do hope you found a good hiding place or a spell that allows you to hide.  Because the entire dungeon is after you, and *they* are not going to wait for you to rest and regain your strength.
  - I don't owe it to you to be reasonable.  I'm here to KILL your characters ((actually, I'm not, but I must make you *think* I am.))  Get it?  KILL them.  You better run, better hide!  You better figure out how to fight well.  You better know your spells.  My monsters do!
  - You are jealous of that other guy's items or powers?  That's unfortunate, because without those items he can't protect your character.  I guess I should just take them away, and let you both die, no?  And you both WILL die, but at least that's fair.  Oh wait ... YOU want the special goodies too?  Ok then ... let's PLAY and see if you can get some nice items of your own, then!  
  - You think that character is of an overpowered class?   A broken class?  Wait until you see my MONSTERS.  Then you will learn what BROKEN means.  If you survive, the next monster encounter will be worse!
  - I have no intention of ever stopping, ever relenting, ever letting up, until your PCs are dead.  I can't be bargained with, I can't be reasoned with, I don't know fear, or pity, and I absolutely will not stop, EVER, until your PCs are dead ((actually, I don't mean that, but I'm going to make it sure look like I do.))  I am the bad guy.  I am out to KILL your characters.
  - You want to stop and argue amongst yourselves In Character?  That's foolish.  You can hear each other arguing ... and so can the whole Dungeon.  And they wish to join your discussion.
  - You wish to waste my time by arguing Out of Character?  Didn't we agree we WOULDN'T do that before the game?  
  - Your evil characters are going to fight?  Didn't we agree to suspend disbelief and that the party would cooperate, even though they were evil?  They could be evil to everyone but the other PCs?  
  - No, you CAN'T take a break and rest your PCs, unless you want a TPK.  About a billion monsters are after you right now!!!
  - I don't want to hear your rules argument.  During the next break, we'll discuss it.  Right now, we play.
  - You made a mistake?  You beat my monster with a +39 sword and now you realize that it is actually only +2?  Bully for you.  I'm glad you found your mistake.  No problems.  Let's play.

  Now, if DMs worked like that, we'd have no more of this balance stuff, envy stuff, jealousy stuff, alignment arguments, or anything such.
  Because people DESPERATELY FIGHTING FOR THEIR LIVES do not have time for such discussions.  
  And after the game - and their miraculous survival - the players realize that everything (all those items, powers, PrCs, feats, spells, etc.) they brought to the table was needed for victory.

  Me:  The dragon is coming.
  Party:  That's a CR 20 encounter!  We're CR 5.
  Me:  Tough.
  Party:  What do we do?!
  Me:  (raises eyebrows)  Run?  Hide?  Fight?  I do hope you make up your minds quickly ...
  Party:  It's not balanced!
  Me:  Would you have preferred the 5 beholders I was considering?  You ought to thank your lucky stars it's only a young dragon.  Now, you have about 10 seconds to do something, before I rule you lose initiative to said dragon ... 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5 ...
  Party:  Uh ... ok ... we ...
  Me:  4, 3, 2 ...
  Party:  We act out Operation 21! (pre-planned set of actions for just such an emergency.)
  Me:  Ok.  On with the game ...

  -

  When you are the DM, I am stuck in the boat I put you in.  When she is DMing, both you and I are stuck in that boat.  But right now I'm DM, we agreed it would be tough before we started, and now you must live (or die) with the situation.

  Now why can't more DMs be like that?


----------



## Caliban (Jul 6, 2007)

*yawn*


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

(grimaces)

  I've seen far too many players yawn - actually yawn - in games I was in.
  Nobody should have to yawn in boredom in a D&D game.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 6, 2007)

Hooray, DM, you've killed all the PCs. You win the game.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Character class abilities should be on a par with each other.



So if we ever play chess you'll spot me a rook?


----------



## Rhun (Jul 6, 2007)

Personally, I like tough DMs. I can be one myself. My players are warned that any given encounter can be more than they can handle.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

I lose the game, you mean.


----------



## theredrobedwizard (Jul 6, 2007)

I'm sorry, man, but I'd not play in a game you run (if that's truly how you do things).  I play D&D to have fun, not to constantly fight for my character's very survival.  I don't expect victory to be handed to me on a silver platter; but I don't think it's very fun to go through 14 characters before getting to level 3.

-TRRW


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> So if we ever play chess you'll spot me a rook?




  Yep.  Because it's Knightmare Chess all the way, baby.  And I got that card that flips the board, and will soon have 2 queens to nail you with.

  As Knightmare Chess is, so goes D&D.  It's not easy, it's not fair, but ... that's the way it is.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, man, but I'd not play in a game you run (if that's truly how you do things).  I play D&D to have fun, not to constantly fight for my character's very survival.  I don't expect victory to be handed to me on a silver platter; but I don't think it's very fun to go through 14 characters before getting to level 3.
> 
> -TRRW




  It's not fun for you, to have to constantly fight for your character's very survival?

  I guess you wouldn't be comfortable in my game ... even though it is most probable your 1st character would have survived to level 3.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Yep.  Because it's Knightmare Chess all the way, baby.  And I got that card that flips the board, and will soon have 2 queens to nail you with.



Are you currently high?

(not that there's anything wrong with that...)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 6, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you currently high?
> 
> (not that there's anything wrong with that...)




  (chuckles)

  But of course.  Beating up on poor, helpless, defenseless, abused PCs is what I'm all about.  I'm the Bad Guy.  I'm the DM.

  But then ... that's what you'all asked me to be, in your own words, when we decided I would take the job first on the rotating basis.
  What do you want me to do, not do my job?
  You want me to baby your PCs?  Gentle your PCs?  Embrace and love your PCs?  That's not my job.  That's YOUR job ... I do hope you do a good job, since your PCs will need all the pampering you can give them, after *I* am done with them.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now why can't more DMs be like that?



Cause they wouldn't get any players.


----------



## phindar (Jul 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now why can't more DMs be like that?



Man, that takes me back.  I do get the feeling that 3e is a little _too_ balanced sometimes.  CR and EL are useful tools, but they can also feel like a safety net.

Edit: This reminds me of something my dad used to say, a melodrama is only as good as the villian.  In a particular type of game (say, old school bloodbath metagrinder), the GM _should_ be adversarial.  Fair, of course, but also kind of mean.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Beating up on poor, helpless, defenseless, abused PCs is what I'm all about.



Fine. But what does that have to do with not balancing the character classes against each other? 

That's the _one_ place I like to see a little balance.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 6, 2007)

Don't listen to them Edena- I think you're doing a fine job.  CR, EL, wealth per level guidelines, cherry picking magic items, balancing character abilities- it all leads to a sense of player entitlement where they think they DESERVE to be catered to and there is a huge safety net.  Blah- thats boring play.  If there is no challenge, no fight for survival and pushing characters to the utmost of their abilities, its like shooting monsters in a barrel for XP and gold.

I know a lot of people play D&D for empowerment fantasies, but really its gone too far with 3E.  Character death is rare, and means almost nothing.  In 1st and 2nd edition, death was a problem and to be feared- now its a speedbump on the path to accumulating magic items, prestige classes, and power.  Its far more of a blow in 3E to lose your magic items than to die!  When that is the case, something is seriously wrong.

Now, on the other hand, the DM taking an adversarial role with the players and trying to make their lives hell just because he can is wrong too.  The DM shouldn't be a jerk- he needs to be fair, impartial, and roleplay the world and monsters as they would actually behave.  But if characters are arguing loudly, acting stupidly without planning, or trying to rest in an unsafe area- they should get what is coming to them.  And if an area of the map says "here there be dragons" and a group of 4th level PCs wanders into that area, then they shouldn't be outraged or shocked when a dragon shows up.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jul 6, 2007)

While I don't exactly agree with Edena's opening post, I do feel that D&D has become too ...comfortable. I've had to listen to players whine about balance just a bit too much (some have gone as far as suggesting the game assumes time to buff before combats, etc.).

For that, I agree; yawn.

I'd rather be challenged. I'd rather have to think outside the box (but would like to be rewarded for those efforts as well when applicable).

I don't recall who said it first, but I agree: Balance is not putting two characters in a room and each having a 50% win ratio against the other.

You'll never have that perfect balance unless each character has the exact same abilities, items, etc. and each is challenged in exactly the same manner.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 6, 2007)

I rarely pit my PCs against "appropriate" CR encounters. I much prefer a few tough fights to a larger number of easy ones (though I'll use the occasional easy encounter where appropriate). And I tend only to permit purchase of cheaper/lesser items, with the more powerful ones being found on quests.

_But..._

PCs _absolutely_ should be balanced with _each other_. That doesn't mean they should all be equal in all respects, but it certainly means they should all be equally useful, all have equal opportunity to shine, and all be on the same general level in terms of power. Nobody enjoys watching other people accomplish things when they themselves cannot contribute.

And no, my players shouldn't think I'm out to kill them or make their lives hell. They should think I'm out to provide an exciting adventure and/or story, with interesting challenges. If that means making their lives hell, great, but that's a tool, not a goal.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> If there is no challenge, no fight for survival and pushing characters to the utmost of their abilities, its like shooting monsters in a barrel for XP and gold.



What happens if there's entertainment? You know, people laughing their heads off and genuinely enjoying themselves. How's that?


----------



## bento (Jul 6, 2007)

The only thing I can add is to make sure you warn your players before you start that you don't follow CR/EL guidelines.  

There's nothing wrong with running from a fight you can't deal with.

BUT when they choose to run, if you shoot them in their backs as they run away, snatch their character sheets and rip them up while laughing in their faces, then you're a bad sport!


----------



## Mort (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I know a lot of people play D&D for empowerment fantasies, but really its gone too far with 3E.  Character death is rare, and means almost nothing.  In 1st and 2nd edition, death was a problem and to be feared- now its a speedbump on the path to accumulating magic items, prestige classes, and power.  Its far more of a blow in 3E to lose your magic items than to die!  When that is the case, something is seriously wrong.




I wonder about the reality of this. Personally, I've seen many more character deaths in 3e than I saw in 1e or 2e - monsters are toughter and there are many save or die effects. This would make an interesting tangent thread.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 6, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> Personally, I've seen many more character deaths in 3e than I saw in 1e or 2e




Ditto.


----------



## phindar (Jul 6, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What happens if there's entertainment? You know, people laughing their heads off and genuinely enjoying themselves. How's that?



Well, they're not mutually exclusive.  A game can be tough and fun.  When I think back to those really punishing 2e mega-module boxed sets that were coming out every 15 minutes, I remember laughing a lot in between all the nail-biting.  Its like humor in horror movies, its a stress reliever.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 6, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> What happens if there's entertainment? You know, people laughing their heads off and genuinely enjoying themselves. How's that?




Thats fine- whatever works for you- different people have different ideas of fun.  I personally see 3E as akin to playing a video game in god mode in many cases.  It takes a DM really trying to challenge PCs in 3E to seriously harm and kill them.  Even DMs I would classify as killer DMs in other systems or 1e/2e had fairly pushover games in 3E IME.


----------



## sniffles (Jul 6, 2007)

Remind me never to game with you, Edena.    

I don't think it's necessary to be under constant threat of death to feel challenged. But that's just me. 

I agree with you about not necessarily giving everyone equal treasure, though. I don't have to have a cookie just because the guy across the table has a cookie.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 6, 2007)

I like being DM'ed "toughly". I don't blame the CR system much, however. An "equal CR" encounter is a pushover, but some DMs think most encounters should be pushovers. (Yawn.) I'd rather face fewer, tougher encounters.

I've seen DMs go easy in lots of campaign. Exalted was one of the worst offenders (in campaigns that I've been in), and Exalted doesn't have a CR system.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Well, they're not mutually exclusive.  A game can be tough and fun.



I didn't suggest that tough and fun were mutually exclusive... only that a game can be non-lethal and still (thoroughly) enjoyable.

I'm also not a big fan of the lethality=challenge meme. A game can totally remove character death and still be perceived as highly challenging. Check out shilsen's Story Hour and accompanying player commentary.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 6, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> I wonder about the reality of this. Personally, I've seen many more character deaths in 3e than I saw in 1e or 2e - monsters are toughter and there are many save or die effects. This would make an interesting tangent thread.




I saw a LOT more death in 1e/2e.  Poisons and monster special abilities were often save or die, PC ACs weren't as formidable and they were hit more easily, and with the 3.5 revision, most save or die effects are gone.  True, monsters are tougher in 3E, but PC are MUCH tougher than in previous versions of D&D, and their save bonuses are usually high enough that only a very unlucky roll will kill or incapacitate them.  Maybe I've played with more cautious players than most people and we haven't seen as much death in 3E, but 1e/2e seemed like inherently much deadlier systems, even when good tactics were used.


----------



## Mort (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> Thats fine- whatever works for you- different people have different ideas of fun.  I personally see 3E as akin to playing a video game in god mode in many cases.  It takes a DM really trying to challenge PCs in 3E to seriously harm and kill them.  Even DMs I would classify as killer DMs in other systems or 1e/2e had fairly pushover games in 3E IME.




Interesting, my experience has been completely diffferent.  
With the prevalent save or die effects, high crits and high damage output of monsters, I've seen even "pushover encounters" be devastating. 

For example - party of 5 17th level characters runs into 3 fire giants. Party completely underestimates what the fire giants can do and the Druid and the ranger end up dead. The ranger had made arangements and was braught back to life (but weakened) and the Druid staid dead (player rolled a new 15th level character).

As I stated above, I've found 3e (and 3.5) characters more fragile, not less.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> It takes a DM really trying to challenge PCs in 3E to seriously harm and kill them.



You should really check out shilsen's Story Hour... Hell, you should check out the Story Hour in my sig that shilsen plays in. I'm nowhere near the same level of Rat-Bastard DM, and I'd be averaging a death every two or three sessions without the use of a liberal Action Point mechanic to prevent PC death.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> I personally see 3E as akin to playing a video game in god mode in many cases.  It takes a DM really trying to challenge PCs in 3E to seriously harm and kill them.



We had two deaths last session, and three the session before. The highest single challenge was party level+3, and consecutive challenges were no more than party level+1. And that's an Eberron game so the PCs get action points.

Deaths were generally a lot rarer than that in my 1e and 2e games, though it could vary widely.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 6, 2007)

So, really, you're just *antagonistic* and _have_ to make things difficult, in order to have any self-respect for yourself as an RBDM, then?

Your attitude seems more geared towards wargaming than roleplaying.  Us versus Them is only one, very limited, form of gaming.  And for many people it isn't fun.  I'm sorry, we play games to escape the irritation and harrassment of daily life in the real world.  Hardships in-game should _not_ be *the only thing* in-game.

If I just wanted to pit my skills against another in simulated combat and suchlike, I'd play Warhammer instead of D&D.  And I wouldn't mind doing that once in a while.  But it's not the same thing and definitely not worthwhile for me to bother with that kind of antagonistic DM in D&D, especially with all the time and trouble of character creation and roleplaying.

Characters die and campaigns end, but I don't run many dungeon crawls, which is the only kind of D&D game you're describing, and for me the primary concern is that everyone has _fun_ during the game, because it is a *game*.  When the entire goal of the campaign is to make the players miserable or annoyed, I don't think many people are going to have fun except the DM.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 6, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> PC are MUCH tougher than in previous versions of D&D, and their save bonuses are usually high enough that only a very unlucky roll will kill or incapacitate them.



Medusa CR7, Petrifying Gaze Fort DC15. Ambush attacker. 7th level wizard will have a 50/50 shot at passing, same with the rogue. That's about a 75% chance of taking out a party member.

Bebilith CR10. Poison 1d6 con/2d6 con. Fort DC24. That's death right there. It's an ambusher too, with Hide/Move Silently +16, so how do you avoid it?


----------



## PapersAndPaychecks (Jul 6, 2007)

My group gets bored by fights where the outcome isn't in doubt.  Once you know who's going to win, why bother rolling it out?  At that point, it's just predictable and dull.

So unless the outcome isn't in doubt there's a tendency to handwave the fighting -- whether or not I'm DMing.

"Okay, all that's left are the mooks.  You mop them up, taking 3d6 damage in the process.  What now?"


----------



## Edgewood (Jul 6, 2007)

bento said:
			
		

> The only thing I can add is to make sure you warn your players before you start that you don't follow CR/EL guidelines.
> 
> There's nothing wrong with running from a fight you can't deal with.
> 
> BUT when they choose to run, if you shoot them in their backs as they run away, snatch their character sheets and rip them up while laughing in their faces, then you're a bad sport!




Well, I just ran a session this past weekend where the big bad guy ran from the PCs and they shot him in the back as he ran. If the PCs can do it, you can bet I'll be doing it to them too. All's fair in love and war

As for your post Edena, I would play in your game no problem. As a player, I would probably take the same attitude towards the monsters!!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 6, 2007)

Certainly the game should be challenging to the players, but at the same time there needs to be some way for the PCs to play and survive.  I don't have a problem with the idea that there can be encounters that are beyond the PCs abilities, but as long as they have some way of realizing that before they are getting killed.  

I've played with DMs who are so open to letting the PCs do what they want that they "stumble" into adventures that he DM planned for 4 levels from their current level.  The PCs get the hooks, they follow up on them, there is no indication that this is WAAY too much for them until they are in the thick of it and have no way of retreating with everyone alive.  I usually didn't play with those DMs for long.  

My ideal version of a DM isn't one who feels that have to make things as tough as possible, but someone who makes things a mix of difficult and not so difficult challenges, and most importantly, involves our PCs in the campaign in clever, creative ways that can be rat-bastardly without having to kill us off to prove what a great RBDM he or she is.


----------



## conanb (Jul 6, 2007)

I think that it's important to have the conversation with your players if your the DM about what type of game they want to play and want type of game you want to run.

Now I for one like a game that is challenging to the players. I do not want to TPK them, so I always try to put together an encounter I think they can handle but that should be challenging. Now some players I've told this too say "Sure I want a challenging game" but in reality they meant they wanted a cake walk. But that's the player not being honest with me during our initial conversation about what type of game to run. 

Now I must also say that I tend to try and have a few non-combat solutions to a situation. It doesn't always work, but having that lever attached to the trapdoor just as the bad guys walk on it or cutting the rope that drops the chandelier on the bad guys. I think these 'movie moments' add to the fun of the game and are a bit more memorable than the next 20 rounds of attack, dodge, attack, dodge, tumble etc. 

Overall I think you should sit down and talk to your players. If you are a DM that wants to run challenging situations and the players are those that want a wish fulfillment game, that game isn't going to work. The key here is to talk to your players. Make sure your both on board for what you plan on running.


----------



## Gothmog (Jul 6, 2007)

Mort said:
			
		

> Interesting, my experience has been completely diffferent.
> With the prevalent save or die effects, high crits and high damage output of monsters, I've seen even "pushover encounters" be devastating.
> 
> For example - party of 5 17th level characters runs into 3 fire giants. Party completely underestimates what the fire giants can do and the Druid and the ranger end up dead. The ranger had made arangements and was braught back to life (but weakened) and the Druid staid dead (player rolled a new 15th level character).
> ...




I'll grant you I haven't played much 3E at high level (past 12th), but in the 3E games I have played before 12th level, the monsters BAB isn't often high enough to confirm many crits on PC's due to their ACs, so critical hits haven't been as common.  Some monsters do happen to kill PCs due to sheer damage output- like a 3rd level PC and an ogre, but thats been the exception in our experience- not the rule.  Often our PCs would aid another and do defensive fighting against large/tough enemies to maximize their potential.  In 3E there were a few save or die effects (disintigration, slay living, and some monster abilities), but in 3.5 other that the rare monster ability (like a bodak) almost all of the save or die effects are gone- that was one of the goals of the revision if I remember correctly.


----------



## Mycanid (Jul 6, 2007)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Certainly the game should be challenging to the players, but at the same time there needs to be some way for the PCs to play and survive.  I don't have a problem with the idea that there can be encounters that are beyond the PCs abilities, but as long as they have some way of realizing that before they are getting killed.
> 
> I've played with DMs who are so open to letting the PCs do what they want that they "stumble" into adventures that he DM planned for 4 levels from their current level.  The PCs get the hooks, they follow up on them, there is no indication that this is WAAY too much for them until they are in the thick of it and have no way of retreating with everyone alive.  I usually didn't play with those DMs for long.
> 
> My ideal version of a DM isn't one who feels that have to make things as tough as possible, but someone who makes things a mix of difficult and not so difficult challenges, and most importantly, involves our PCs in the campaign in clever, creative ways that can be rat-bastardly without having to kill us off to prove what a great RBDM he or she is.




Good summary Thornir - must be that upstate NY fount of wisdom flowing in your veins.


----------



## WarlockLord (Jul 6, 2007)

I do this too.  I don't try to fill every moment with combat scenes, but if you go into battle, it's going to be a FIGHT! Not some stroll through the nursing home.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 6, 2007)

The main DM I had when D&D 3e first came out was much like what the OP has suggested is best. We lost a lot of PCs, and we realised that we weren't having a lot of fun getting mowed down all the time. So we upped the game.

There's a short story by Alastair Reynolds named Diamond Dogs, where a bunch of people have to solve mathematical problems in order to advance through an alien tower. If they fail, there is lethal result. The people resort to extreme measures to increase their brain power, they reduce the need for sleep, they even eventually replace their entire bodies so that they can continue to advance through the ever smaller rooms of the tower.

Our group's PCs became like that. Our characters became ciphers, extremely specialised tools to "win" the dungeon. They were just there to fulfil our role in the dungeon, and that's all. While this process certainly helped me understand the rules of the game a heck of a lot better, it wasn't very healthy. It's also the reason both my best friend and I started our own games. We simply needed a break from the tension.

Such a play style is great for specific play environments, but not all of them. Being "on the game" 100% of the time is grating, and tiresome IMO. Like a film, book, or computer game, RPGs should have what's called pacing. For me, ideally there should be some moments of intensity (like the OP), but also other slower moments too where the PCs aren't under assault.


----------



## Cabled (Jul 6, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Cause they wouldn't get any players.




They would get at least two


----------



## Squire James (Jul 6, 2007)

I pride myself of being a fair referee regarding what goes on between the players and the combats I set up.  Dumb monsters will pretty much sit there and take it, because they don't know much better.  Clever monsters will try to choose their battlefields.  Violent monsters will pursue fleeing PC's until it or the party dies.  Frightened monsters do what they think they need to do to survive (with a heavy bias toward "run away").  If the PC's have a good plan for a certain course of action (like escaping bad combats), it will work 95% of the time.  They'll remember that 5%...

I admit I don't break EL guidelines very often.  I do enough damage with "balanced" encounters, to tell you the truth.  We have fun, they pile up the monster bodies in classic Diablo fashion, I occasionally get to kill a PC, and we go on with life.


----------



## Jhaelen (Jul 7, 2007)

What almost everyone seems to forget or choose to ignore is that encounters should be balanced *on average*. There should be encounters that aren't really a threat and there should be encounters that are probably impossible to overcome.

There's a table showing a balanced distribution of encounter levels in the DMG:
Never forget this 5% chance for an encounter with an EL 5+ higher than the party's average level. I believe, these are really important to truly enjoy the game. If there's no challenge, it's no fun.

I've seen players go mad because of a deadly encounter but I keep telling them: Use your judgment! If you feel the encounter might be too tough, act accordingly. Run for it, if you have to.
I'm always trying to make sure there are enough clues available (at least for those actually looking for them) to recognize an overwhelming threat before a TPK occurs. That's only fair, considering the amount of effort put into creating a well-rounded character.

Some of the most memorable encounters in my gaming career have been those where some character made a final-stand to buy his companions time to get away. I definitely wouldn't like to miss those moments and neither would my players!


----------



## Festivus (Jul 7, 2007)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> And no, my players shouldn't think I'm out to kill them or make their lives hell. They should think I'm out to provide an exciting adventure and/or story, with interesting challenges. If that means making their lives hell, great, but that's a tool, not a goal.




I have, twice in the past year, had a mook stand menacingly over a character foolish enough to get themselves into a position where they would get in serious trouble.  

As an example, a gnome runs down a hallway past an open door.  One mook follows him with the other blocking the corridor (and thus cutting the gnome off).  I had the one who was following shoot him with his crossbow (dropping him into negatives) and the following round he moved to stand menacingly over him.  The next round would have been a coup-de-grace if not for a well placed sleep spell.

Does that make me adversarial?  Not in my mind, they were only defending their lair from these interlopers.  They were obviously overpowered by this group but took advantage of both their home turf (knowing the narrow corridors would be a tactical advantage) and were desperate to make any advantage they could.

As far as CRs... I would certainly not throw an obviously overpowered creature against the party unless there was a story reason for it... and even then I would use it as a bit of foreshadowing for what might happen later in the campaign (e.g. the dragon performs a single flyby attack and unleashes a breath weapon... but keeps flying).


----------



## kaomera (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now why can't more DMs be like that?



Ah, but we _can_. We have exactly the same options that you do, even if we choose not to exercise them the same way.

But I think I see where you're coming from. I mean, I've never really wished that other DMs would run harder games, but I have wished that some things in 3.x where not presented the way they where, that certain assumptions where not made (or at least that players would not read he DMG...). But WotC is, rather short-sidedly IMHO, not writing products just for me. Oh, when I'm in charge _*things will be different*_*, Professional AD&D will be the new national pastime, and we won't need to worry about any of this silly new-fangled nonsense, and everyone will like it (or else). But until then I'm going to have to accept that other gamers may just have different tastes. And by "may just" I, of course, mean "absolutely will, 101% of the time".




*I make absolutely no claims whatsoever regarding things being in any way shape or form "better".


----------



## mhensley (Jul 7, 2007)

I would love to play in your game.  When I grow up someday, I hope I can DM like you.    



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I hear, constantly, of balance.
> Encounters should be balanced.  A weary worn down party should be allowed to rest and recover.  An adventure should not be overwhelming or underwhelming.  Character class abilities should be on a par with each other.  Character items should be on a par with each other.
> 
> I say:  nonsense.
> ...


----------



## Treebore (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I hear, constantly, of balance.
> Encounters should be balanced.  A weary worn down party should be allowed to rest and recover.  An adventure should not be overwhelming or underwhelming.  Character class abilities should be on a par with each other.  Character items should be on a par with each other.
> 
> I say:  nonsense.
> ...




I am like that. ITs not easy getting there, or staying there, because when you ride them on the edge like that its easy for the DM to fall off just as well as for the players.

Plus its not necessarily a good thing to always run your games like that. You also have to read the mood of your group. It may be netter to run somethng a bit easier and with a bit of humor and fun, or other combinations.

Some people deal with high stress all week long at their jobs. So when they come to play they are there to relax, not get worked up all over again and not get to relax.

Its just a "fine tooled machine" on which you need to check your readings on, as well as fine tune it one more time before starting it up, to make sure you don't miss something and make it blow up.

So when I think my players are in the right mood, thats the way I will run it for them.

Otherwise I back off and just try to give them some relaxing fun.

But it isn't easy to learn/figure out how to DM like that, and a fair number of players just can't deal with that kind of intensity. Its great when you can do it, but it sucks when you don't know how to do it right, or do it with players who aren't in the right frame of mind to enjoy it.


----------



## Treebore (Jul 7, 2007)

Oh please, lets not start that "adversarial" argument again.

I have seen DM's who are truly adversarial. They truly love putting PC's through death machince dungeons and see how far they get. That isn't what is being talked about here.

Whats being talked about here is having your players totally convinced that they are going to die if they go the wrong way, make a bad roll, face one more bad guy, etc... Until its all over, you sit back, and realize that the DM got you so into it you forgot you were just playing a game. The DM was just there doing their job making you feel like you were fighting for your life, and feeling the thrill and excitement of living anyways, or dying.

Nothing truly adversarial about it.

What its about is running a game so intense that players are shaking, crying, and shouting for joy that they made it. Or bummed that they didn't, but man it was one heck of a ride until it ended!

Thats what kind of adversarial DMing is being talked about here.


Check out Goodman Games new module line. Its all about this kind of gaming.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 7, 2007)

Cabled said:
			
		

> They would get at least two




Three.

I love both DMing and playing in this type of game.  I see too many people (including in the campaign I am currently running) trying to do super hero actions.  

You know - the guy who wants to take that combination of classes and feats to become an immortal (a psionic feat allows you to step out of the time stream, effectively making you immortal) and who is metamorphosed into a gargoyle all the time.

The guy who wants his kobold to be dragon-descended so he can eventually run around as a gold dragon all the time.

The spellcaster who has the bonded summoner class to get an elemental.

Insisting on buying/creating magic/psionic items to allow them to carry the same weight as a fully-loaded freight train, fly, and buff all of their stats and abilities. Using Phantom Steed to go all over the place.

If you want a super heroes game - play one. If you want to play D&D and not have it get out of hand, you really need to take the "white list" approach - i.e. - allow *nothing* except core and only allow specific new material on an individual basis.  Enforce the encumbrance rules (and modify them to make more sense - just because something can be carried weight-wise doesn't mean it isn't too bulky to carry without a significant effort - enough with trying to fill every cubic inch of a backpack). Modify the money rules to make silver the standard (something like 1 sp = 1 silver penny, 1 gp = xx silver pennies, etc.). Houserule that some spells aren't available. Don't fall into the trap of allowing Magic Marts in every piss-ant town.  Play the NPCs as ruthlessly as the players do their PCs.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Thanks much, folks.

  Obviously, there's a place for laid back, relaxed games, and just socializing with friends.
  There's a place for super-killer modules like S1 The Tomb of Horrors (just leave that lock of hair behind for resurrection, and hope you don't meet Acererak ...)

  I'm just saying DM's should - with pre-warning, pre-agreement, and pre-arrangement - expect the best out of their players.  
  If DMs expect the best, I'm guessing the players will give their best.  (In some of the half-hearted games I had the misfortune to be in, not only did the players have to give very little, but they lost faith in themselves as competent players.  How do I know that?  They panicked when any imagined real encounter threatened.  They didn't believe they could handle any real threat.)


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 7, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Oh please, lets not start that "adversarial" argument again.




You are mistaken.  What Edena described *is* adversarial DMing, it just isn't _quite_ as merciless as the *most* adversarial RBDMing, but it's still adversarial and stressful for the players.

That isn't the same thing as merely running an exciting and engaging game, what Edena describes is _hounding_ the players and keeping them from enjoying the game.  Unless they're the kind of folks who enjoy constant, high tension or masochism, which is not the norm.


I don't play D&D to build up more stress.  I have far more than I need from Real Life (tm) as it is.  I expect to be rewarded in fun for any effort I put into the game, because it _is_ a *game*.

PCs die and sometimes have to run away or survive just by the skin of their teeth, but it should not be the norm for a typical session.  When a PC screws up big time or goes up against impossible odds, chances are they get eaten/mashed into paste/vaporized.


----------



## Warbringer (Jul 7, 2007)

... removed


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2007)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> If you want a super heroes game - play one.



At high level, D&D has always been a superhero game. Incidentally, 'superhero' is the title of an 8th level fighter in 1e.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2007)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> I love both DMing and playing in this type of game.  I see too many people (including in the campaign I am currently running) trying to do super hero actions.
> 
> You know - the guy who wants to take that combination of classes and feats to become an immortal (a psionic feat allows you to step out of the time stream, effectively making you immortal) and who is metamorphosed into a gargoyle all the time.
> 
> ...



Surely a game with harder challenges encourages exactly these sorts of uber characters? I see it in our games. The fights get tougher, the weaker characters die. Players create new more min-maxed PCs to survive in the harsher environment.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 7, 2007)

I dunno, seems like a lot of posturing. "I can throw great wyrms at level 5 parties!" It just doesn't impress me.


----------



## Cathix (Jul 7, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> The main DM I had when D&D 3e first came out was much like what the OP has suggested is best. We lost a lot of PCs, and we realised that we weren't having a lot of fun getting mowed down all the time. So we upped the game.
> 
> There's a short story by Alastair Reynolds named Diamond Dogs, where a bunch of people have to solve mathematical problems in order to advance through an alien tower. If they fail, there is lethal result. The people resort to extreme measures to increase their brain power, they reduce the need for sleep, they even eventually replace their entire bodies so that they can continue to advance through the ever smaller rooms of the tower.
> 
> ...




I'm not going to get involved in the discussion any more than this - that was a terrific post, Azure.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> You are mistaken.  What Edena described *is* adversarial DMing, it just isn't _quite_ as merciless as the *most* adversarial RBDMing, but it's still adversarial and stressful for the players.
> 
> That isn't the same thing as merely running an exciting and engaging game, what Edena describes is _hounding_ the players and keeping them from enjoying the game.  Unless they're the kind of folks who enjoy constant, high tension or masochism, which is not the norm.
> 
> ...




  (chuckles)

  Adversarial DMing?
  I know a little bit about that.  Let me tell you what Adversarial DMing truly is.  

  I was a player in the following examples:

  - DM's NPC:  'I am the devil, and offer everyone a ton of (insert magical items and other goodies) for a favor of my choosing.  Accept?'  (Party generally accepted, most lost their souls including party paladin.)
  - DM:  'You kill the 2 orcs.  The noise of the battle has aroused ALL the monsters in the entire dungeon, and they are all approaching.  Way off, you hear a series of thunderous growls as something really big starts moving.  What do you do?'  (1st level party of two, B1, TPK.)
  - DM:  'No, you can't take pre-gen higher level characters into I6, Ravenloft.  You go, with what you've earned, and since you've earned nothing, you go with 1st level characters.  Except you.  You can take your 10th level druid.'  (13 1st level characters, 1 10th level druid, TPK.)
  - DM:  'No, you can't take pre-gen higher level characters into S3, White Plume Mountain.  (11 1st level characters, TPK.)
  - DM:  'The 4 orcs come around the corner.  No, there is not time for the mage and thief to switch places with the fighters.  The fighters are trapped against the door, while the orcs attack the thief and mage.  Since they surprised you, they obviously get free attacks.  (4 1st level characters, TPK.)
  - DM:  'The 50 pixies, invisible and armed with sleep arrows, surround you and demand all your good and items.'  (4 1st level characters, all items of worth lost.)
  - DM:  'Nobody EVER makes it through my PC's castle!  So just how do you think you're going to do it?'  (We did it ...)
  - DM:  'The six giant spiders attack!'  (4 1st level characters, we survived thanks to that old first edition tactic called Burning Oil.)
  - DM:  'The town guard ready their magical bows with Morganti Arrows, aiming them at you.'  (For the crime of causing a barroom brawl.  Called the winged unicorn, got away.)
  - DM:  'Acererak shows up personally, and puts a demon army between himself and you.  You're hiding in that spell, but you know what will happen the moment you leave.  And Acererak can chase you anywhere:  you know that.'  (result still in question.)
  - DM:  'Vecna is coming after you personally.  No, you can't leave his Domain, for he is the Domain Lord and has blocked it.  Now, you are pinned against the wall, and Vecna is leering at you as he prepares his titanic magic.  There is no escape.  Your action?'  (Edena the PC killed.)
  - DM:  'A 10,000 hit dice monster?  That's nothing.  This creature has duplicates of itself through all the times, and every one of them is coming.  In 5 rounds, every version of this 10,000 hit dice monster in time (countless millions) will appear.  What do you do?'  (5th level party, result not relevant)
  - DM:  'The Test of the Tower of High Sorcery.  You shall pass through Shoikan Grove.  Since you agreed to the Test, you cannot turn away now, for the penalty for doing so is death.'  (6th level alone, passed the Grove and the Test - and the spectres, death knight, and dracolich.  The worst part is:  the Test is SUPPOSED to be that difficult.    )
  - DM:  'The creature fires an 18th level spell at you, and it hits'  (character vaporized)
  - DM:  'The ceiling rigged by the party barbarian to kill the party collapses, and this kills most of the party.'  (most of party killed, barbarian got away with all the treasure and our paladin as prisoner, in final battle all of party killed by barbarian except paladin prisoner.)
  - DM:  'The High Clerist's Tower is a cakewalk, a treasure hunt, nothing hard like what you've already been through' (large party of 8th - 11th level characters after long campaign, TPK)

  Now, tell me more about Adversarial DMing ...


----------



## Harmon (Jul 7, 2007)

Problem with this GMing style-

Personally, I like characters with back ground, and substance that takes days and weeks to make, and work through.

I know I could make up dozens of characters that have dozens of different backgrounds, quirks, and interesting little family stories, but why?  I mean the GM is out to kill my character, so...
*GM*- "so what's your next character?"
*Me*- "the group needs a Cleric, so a cleric."
*GM*- "what's his name?"
*Me*- "George, George the Cleric."
*GM*- "your last five characters have been named George.  George the Monk, George the Fighter, I am detecting a theme?  Do you have a back story?" <he receives a tattered and old bit of paper> "this is the same one as George, the fighter?"
*Me*- "Yep, I'd make up something different if you would stop throwing CR 20 encounters around at a group of 5th level characters.  Personally its boring to me."

Why is it boring?  Because the Players just start thinking about their next character.  And I have done that, started talking to other Players about- "you want to play the cleric after this fight is over?"

I guess that when you are 5th level, and you have a 17 AC, and a creature that can spot invisible things, and travel almost three times faster then you with his +32 Bite and Swallow Whole.  Well its kinda stupid to even entertain the thought that you have more then a 5% chance of surviving a single round.

I suppose if its what your regular group likes after a decade of play, then well, have fun.  Me, I might show up every week, but I would get a white board for a character sheet after a while.


----------



## Jim Hague (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (chuckles)
> 
> Adversarial DMing?
> I know a little bit about that.  Let me tell you what Adversarial DMing truly is.




So what you're advocating is basically a combination of one-upsmanship with your players, ego stroking for yourself, and being a jerk when you're behind the screen.

Gotcha.

Sorry, but I don't play with people who game to boost their egos.  I play to have fun.  Challenge is fun.  Danger is fun.  When the GM stacks the odds against you, arbitrarily screws the characters and all for nothing more than their own pitiful self-aggrandizement?  That's not a game.  It's just bad comedy.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (chuckles)
> Adversarial DMing?
> I know a little bit about that.  Let me tell you what Adversarial DMing truly is.
> Now, tell me more about Adversarial DMing ...




Yes, I've played in one or two games that were remarkably similar to some of your examples.  But I have the good sense to avoid sticking with a DM who just wants to waste my time.  I have no need to stay at a table where the DM arbitrarily seeks ways to slaughter PCs early every session and then laughs at the player for their 'misfortune'.

I already admitted there are different degrees of Rat B@st@rdry in DMing.  And if your players are being hounded so much, it doesn't matter if you don't _actually_ kill their PCs very often, as long as they're still spending their *game*-time being harangued, mauled, and stressed _all the time_, it's still not going to be fun for most players.

_Somehow_ I manage to keep my players entertained and feeling the tension when it matters, without annoying them constantly. -_-
PCs still die, just not very often (the PCs have had enough close calls, and the occasional gruesome death, that they know well their mortality; those are just few and far between, but happen enough that the party is aware they _can_ get TPK'd if they get _too_ sloppy, so tough fights really do get tense cuz they know I aim to challenge them).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So what you're advocating is basically a combination of one-upsmanship with your players, ego stroking for yourself, and being a jerk when you're behind the screen.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't play with people who game to boost their egos.  I play to have fun.  Challenge is fun.  Danger is fun.  When the GM stacks the odds against you, arbitrarily screws the characters and all for nothing more than their own pitiful self-aggrandizement?  That's not a game.  It's just bad comedy.




  I said no such thing.
  Go back and read my first post.

  What you just read, above, is what other DMs did to me and my fellow players.
  I do not do such things to my players.  I used those cases above as examples of what *not* to do.

  EDIT:  

  The Test of the Towers of High Sorcery in Dragonlance is an exception:  it's supposed to be truly horrendous.  What I went through is supposed to be Par For the Course.
  If your character is a wizard in the Dragonlance setting, expect serious trouble when you reach 3rd level.  The books explicitly state to all DMs that the Test should be quite awful.
  Dragonhelm can correct me if I'm wrong here.

  I have refused to run the Test for my players.  Wizards have it hard enough as it is.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - DM:  'You kill the 2 orcs.  The noise of the battle has aroused ALL the monsters in the entire dungeon, and they are all approaching.  Way off, you hear a series of thunderous growls as something really big starts moving.  What do you do?'  (1st level party of two, B1, TPK.)
> - DM:  'The 4 orcs come around the corner.  No, there is not time for the mage and thief to switch places with the fighters.  The fighters are trapped against the door, while the orcs attack the thief and mage.  Since they surprised you, they obviously get free attacks.  (4 1st level characters, TPK.)
> - DM:  'The six giant spiders attack!'  (4 1st level characters, we survived thanks to that old first edition tactic called Burning Oil.)
> - DM:  'The ceiling rigged by the party barbarian to kill the party collapses, and this kills most of the party.'  (most of party killed, barbarian got away with all the treasure and our paladin as prisoner, in final battle all of party killed by barbarian except paladin prisoner.)



Just to be more specific, these are the examples of yours that are _remarkably_ similar to my own experiences in previous groups under different DMs.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> Just to be more specific, these are the examples of yours that are _remarkably_ similar to my own experiences in previous groups under different DMs.




  I think most of ENWorld could claim our experiences.  
  You know the Knights of the Dinner Table?  How we all sat at every one of those tables depicted in the strip?
  I would guess most of us have had to sit in on experiences similar to mine and yours.

  We got clobbered.  Beat up.  Knocked senseless.  Blundered over the head with Ultimo Monsters and buried alive and suffocated in mountains of gold.  And decorated like Christmas Trees with magical items, only to be snuffed out soul and body by Inescapable Death Traps.


----------



## Ipissimus (Jul 7, 2007)

CR 20 dragon vs. 5th level party. Unless you're an incompetant DM, that's sure TPK no matter what the party does. They can't even run between flight, teleports, dragonfear, breath weapons and spells. Of course, if the situation does come up, it certainly calls your competency into question in the first place.

Tough but fair should be the DM's motto. Ok, if that CR 20 dragon is coming it better darn well NOT be a combat encounter. The ability to kill an entire party is not the measture of a DM's worth, since every DM has the power to squash the PCs flat. All you have to do is sit at the head of the table and say "you're all dead, thanks for coming" and that's it. If you're feeling generous, you can have the local God of Death suddenly appear and kill the entire party with the Mass Life and Death Salient Divine Ability.

Adversarial DMs are about as fun to play with as a dentist's appointment, they're even less fun than DMs who let the players get away with blue murder. Edena brings up some excellent examples, all of these are sure-fire methods of pissing off your players.

I'm not saying you should never kill a PC, far from it. I average about 1 a session. But there has to be a chance, even if it is a slim one, of the PCs pulling victory out of nothing. This is where the skill is in being a DM, walking that fine line between being harsh but giving the players a shot. A dose of fairness and realism, in fact.

It's not realistic that every monster in a dungeon will come running the moment the PCs engage in combat. Even if a high level mage throws a spell, there's a save mechanic that gives them a chance of avoiding it. TPKs are, simply, boring. The players all have to roll up new characters, which is alot more boring than playing the game. Facing the daunting task of starting all over from scratch, they might even just pack it in altogether. And I don't blame them, it's not like real life where you have to suck it in and deal, it's just a game. It's a want rather than a need.

Never forget that, at it's base, the sheer unadulterated fun of blasting and chopping a whole bunch of nasty things that want to kill you is a major part of the DnD game. Players love encounters where they face a horde of kobalds and slaughter all 250 of them. It's fun in a similar vein to the first person shooter. And they have so much fun they fail to realize that you're just fattening them for the apocalypse to come.

And when the apocalypse does come, they'll stand and face it, live or die, because they know they'll have a chance and they'll feel like real heroes. That's far, far, more fun than being slaughtered in an inconsiquental random encounter stilted so far against them that they haven't a hope in hell. The players will dispair and they will get angry because in the end, the DM has cheated them of their fun.

The adversarial DM, in his ego, is his own worst enemy as players get more hacked off, the group will tear itself apart. At best, the DM will be alienated with no fault but his own. DnD, as a group activity (or any rpg), has to cater to the needs of everyone at the table and the DM, as the arbitrator, has the unenviable job of fulfilling those needs.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

An Adversarial DM is not a Tough DM.

  A Tough DM sits down with his players before the campaign, discusses with them what kind of game they'd like, and works it out with them so they know they'll have the kind of game they're looking for.  If the players want a gentler game, the Tough DM either steps aside to let another DM in his place, or he runs that requested gentler game. 
  The Tough DM knows it's the fun that counts.  That's why the Tough DM is tough, because his players are enjoying the challenge.

  The Adversarial DM is a strange critter whose nature is not clear to me.
  He seems to think hurting his friends is somehow a Good Thing.  He somehow thinks of his friends as his enemies, or perhaps thinks they think of him as their enemy and to be treated accordingly.  Or perhaps he just thinks that the DM is god, and all players should know their lowly place.  Or something equally ridiculous as the above.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Jul 7, 2007)

When a character in my Midwood campaign dies, I go to their house and kill their dog, because I want them to fear the consequences of screwing up.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Then there is the Intimidated DM.

  The players have dictated very throughly to the Intimidated DM exactly how he is going to give them a free lunch.  Because if they don't have a free lunch, they will make lunch of said DM.
  The DM accommodates the players very nicely, not wishing to be roasted over a slow fire and served up well done, and gives them their free lunch.

  But in D&D, free lunches are boring.  Or rapidly become so.

  So the players become frustrated because they are not having fun.
  Since the frustrated, bored, idle players cannot vent their anger on the DM, who knew to keep his head down, they vent it on each other.

  Apparently, arguing over the rules is a fine way of venting anger.  It's so fine a way that it eventually pulls everyone else into the fray, and then energy aplenty and to spare is thrown into the battle royale.  (Except those players who refuse to get involved, obviously.)
  This is a lot of fun for everyone, of course.
  It is so fun that it breaks up the game, ruins the evening, wastes everyone's time, and causes a headache no amount of painkillers will even slow down.

  Sometimes, the poor DM gets caught despite all his efforts, and then he is flayed alive by the frustrated players.  Needless to say, this improves his DMing skills and his desire to be fair and reasonable to the party.  It is such an inspiration that the DM might decide to do something that ... will start another argument and/or fight even bigger than the last one.

  I say, busy minds are happy minds.
  And how better to keep the players busy mentally than to challenge them, and occupy them with roleplaying, and with puzzles, and with the thrill of the chase?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
			
		

> When a character in my Midwood campaign dies, I go to their house and kill their dog, because I want them to fear the consequences of screwing up.




  LOL.

  I did know a DM who actually *burned* the character sheets of those PCs he killed, while the players were required to watch ...


----------



## Treebore (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena, don't bother arguing.

According to some people on this board if you so much as intentionally plan an encounter that has a definite chance of killing a PC or two your an adversarial DM.

Just realize there are gamers that have been that traumatized and just go on.

Heck, I shouldn't even have made my last post.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 7, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> According to some people on this board if you so much as intentionally plan an encounter that has a definite chance of killing a PC or two your an adversarial DM.




The adversarial title probably didn't help.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jul 7, 2007)

3catcircus said:
			
		

> just because something can be carried weight-wise doesn't mean it isn't too bulky to carry without a significant effort - enough with trying to fill every cubic inch of a backpack).




I don't want to seem anal, but bulk is already encompassed in weight, if your going to add bulk to the game, you should drop how much the stuff weighs a bit.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Me:  The dragon is coming.
> Party:  That's a CR 20 encounter!  We're CR 5.
> Me:  Tough.
> Party:  What do we do?!
> ...




Operation 21 - Everyone scatter, meet back up at last nights camp sight.  If the Dragon hits your best friend, know that he's dead and you will only be joining him.

So the party scatters, six different directions, the ranger goes for the clump of trees to the North, but the dragon is after the southern traveling Halfling that took the poison of invisibility and is headed for that Dire Weasel hole.  Swoop down, and at the end of the Halflings double 20' (40') move rolls a 36 on his to hit.

He swoops back around looking for the Elf in the robe with the spell book and the magic components.  He notices the Gnome with the horn as he scrambles east.  The wizard is north east.  He bites the Halfling in half as the little guy stabs him in the cheek with his dagger- oh, isn't that cute   .  He claws at the Elf, impacting and cutting through the Elf's Shield spell and Mage Armor like it wasn't even there (28 on his to hit).  The Elf staggers but doesn't drop.  The dragon lands as he turns a 180.  The Wizard throws a lightning bolt at the dragon (26 save).  Ouch, couple more dice of damage, still in the 200 hp range.  The wizard dies with the next bite.

The Gnome sees a Dire Weasel hole and dives in, only to find himself face to face with a.... ya, you guessed it, a Dire Weasel.  The Bard starts singing- "between teeth, I am about to be poo-"  The dragon looks in as the Gnome is fending off the weasel, smiles and vows to return for one of them.

The human fighter in her scale mail and shield turns to face the swooping dragon, raises her shield- "come to the ground and fight me!"

From 20' away the dragon takes a dramatic breath, the fighter charges, and the dragon's fire broils her in her armor.  She staggers, some how still alive, rolls a natural 20 with her axe, but only a 19 against the dragons Mage Armor + Shield + Natural Armor = normal hit.  A dozen more hp down on the dragon.  The fighter snarls ripping her axe free and the dragon hits her with the back of his fist, giving the fighter an AoO (miss), and enough subduel damage to KO the once lovely fighter.

Whose next?  The human cleric flees fast a foot, two rounds on the wing the dragon lands before the man with the fighter's limp body in his claws- "I show you- mercy."  The fighter falls to the ground.  "For her life I want your meet point!"

"I-"

"You will lie-" the dragon roosts him too.

He leaps to the air, going towards the clump of trees back int he distance.  The ranger is hiding well, but not well enough.  The dragon starts strafing the forest, burning trees, the rangers wields his bow with accuracy, and manages to bury one arrow quite expertly into the dragon's hide (hay, 2 natural 20s in one "fight" isn't unheard of).

Finally the trees are ablaze, driving the ranger into the open.

A sword in one hand and an axe in the other- "we should have stayed together."

"You know aside from all the flying, this battle would have gone the same way- make a new character this is a TPK."

And so the "tough" GM goes.


----------



## SteveC (Jul 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> So what you're advocating is basically a combination of one-upsmanship with your players, ego stroking for yourself, and being a jerk when you're behind the screen.
> 
> Gotcha.
> 
> Sorry, but I don't play with people who game to boost their egos.  I play to have fun.  Challenge is fun.  Danger is fun.  When the GM stacks the odds against you, arbitrarily screws the characters and all for nothing more than their own pitiful self-aggrandizement?  That's not a game.  It's just bad comedy.



Jim,
I just wanted to say that, even though I don't always agree with you, this post is so spot on that I have to say "QFT."

I can't imagine playing in that game for long. Challenge, danger, tension...all that is great in a game. Running encounters designed to create a TPK if the group doesn't immediately run away (and heaven help the character who can't effectively run away) is supposed to be fun? No thanks.

--Steve


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 7, 2007)

Some of you seem to be missing a point Edena stressed in the original post: the idea is not necessarily to kill the PCs, but to make the players *think* you're gonna kill the PCs...there's a subtle but significant difference.

My house rulebook has, right there in the introduction, a note saying that no matter what happens, sooner or later your character *will* die so be ready to deal with that.  And, eventually, they all do...at least temporarily (revival spells are a useful thing), from a staggering variety of causes some of which I as DM have absolutely nothing to do with. 

But yes, let the players think the party's going to sail through everything and it gets boring in a hurry.  If I'm in a party where we deserve to get TPK'ed, then put the hammer down and bloody well kill us; we might mourn the loss of our characters, but you'll not lose any respect as a DM.  (by the same token, if we don't deserve to be TPK'ed, try and let at least one or two of us survive...)

Lanefan


----------



## Phlebas (Jul 7, 2007)

Much as i agree you need a mix of encounters all the way up to "run away now", my idea of balance is to make sure the PC's can relax and do some RP'ing rather than spending all their time in paranoid video gamer mode. Min-max, special forces style, must power up, must shoot first, no prisoners, no mistakes, kill or be killed. Fun (for a while) when you go into dangerous areas, boring when you can never retreat to other areas where good ideas and a glib tongue make more of a difference between success or failure (and where min-maxed characters can be really weak)

I wouldn't put up with players whinging about balance and waving a rule-book at me anyway.... but theres a whole world of difference between weak DM, tough DM, and everyone bring two spare characters DM

But maybe thats just me - If the game survives, & players come back then its a success. If it runs out of players, or a new DM runs a more successful alternative then it doesn't. No gaming style can suit everyone, it just has to suit the group involved or the group will find a game that does


----------



## Volaran (Jul 7, 2007)

I think something to remember here is that following Edena's posts for a number of years, I don't think he's actually played 3E or 3.5 very much.  Most of his discussions on rules, spells and such that I can recall always used 2E terms.  When he uses terms like 'CR20' for a young dragon, I'm not entirely sure  if it is ment to be in proper context, or he just means "a very difficult encounter".

With that in mind, while I like running and playing through encounters with a good range of difficulty, it can be very difficult to even run away from a very high CR creature with a low level party without several characters being killed.  In those sorts of encounters, the DM in question might as well just have characters suffer from random heart attacks.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Red dragon approaching party.
  Party opts for Operation 21.

  The elven wizard throws Fly, ascends up to meet oncoming dragon.
  The dragon thinks:  'My, tempting target.  I'll knock her right out of the air.'
  The dragon flies right at the elven wizard.  The dragon has decided to ram her (and bite her, which it succeeds in doing, amplifying the results below.)

  However, the elven wizard bought a Stonestone scroll (old version of Stoneskin, allowed in my game), cast it earlier, and is Stoneskinned.

  The dragon meant the impact as an attack.  So the mage takes no damage from it, because of the Stoneskin.
  The mage was not attacking the dragon by flying into it's path.  So the dragon does take damage from the impact.

  The dragon, thanks to it's heavy plate, does not pass onward ... the mage does not pass right through the dragon because the dragon's momentum is carrying it onward.
  Instead, the dragon is simply stopped, dead, it's armor crushing under the impact with the mage.  It accrues considerable damage as it goes from full speed to 0 speed instantaneously.

  Then, the dragon falls to the ground with a wham.  And it takes one heck of a lot more damage as it hits that solid ground far below.

  The fight is on.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 7, 2007)

I like a nice, hard game. However, players ought to be "allowed" to retreat without undue harassment. It is when they attempt to bash forward throwing caution to the wind that they should be "punished."

This is a general principle I follow when I referee D&D games.


----------



## Someone (Jul 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Some of you seem to be missing a point Edena stressed in the original post: the idea is not necessarily to kill the PCs, but to make the players *think* you're gonna kill the PCs...there's a subtle but significant difference.




If you're throwing a CR 20 dragon or 5 beholders against the PCs they are dead, no matter what the party does, and cheating so your monsters have magit items that lose their properties when you take them is awful. Anyway the OP is a strawman and a bad argument:  a strawman because I've heard a lot about balanced encounters, but that's when speaking theoretically about things like how many resources should a party use when facing what and so son. I've heard players talking about how a encounter was tough or difficult and even calculating the EL, but never, ever, in the sense Edena is painting the players as if they thought the DM don't have the right to use the encounters they like. 

And an bad argument because he's saying that the players should not complain about gross imbalances between characters because the DM's monsters are TOUGH and THEY ARE AFTER YOU!!! and you must SHUT UP!!!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Or, for laughs and giggles, let's assume the mage succumbed to the Fear Aura of the dragon, and flew directly away from it.
  It still caught her, being faster, and rammed ... with the result above.

  But let's say the dragon succeeded with it's bite attack, and snatched the mage into it's mouth.
  The bite has no effect, due to the Stoneskin.
  Now, instead of the armor plated sides of the dragon impacting the mage, the soft inner part of it's mouth impacts her.  There is still no damage to the mage - no effect on her at all, since it was an attack and Stoneskin stops all effects of an attack of this sort.
  But the soft flesh of the dragon is no match for the inertia of it's movement and incredible mass, and it passes right through the mage ... she passes right through the dragon, ripping a hole her size clear through it, blasting out the tail section in a spray of dragonblood.

  This causes a LOT of damage to the dragon.  And now the dragon is bleeding to death.


----------



## Volaran (Jul 7, 2007)

So for instance, in the above case, the party's strategy would demand a number of house rules to work, as well as an extremely expensive scroll.  

A second edition version of stone skin, attacking a stationary, much smaller target with stone skin cast being the equivilent of flying directly into the ground, followed by it actually falling into the ground...rather than say, opening up with its breath weapon.

In this case, this isn't so much an example of a tough DM and smart players as a showcase of house rules in an Edena campaign.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

Why don't you try your own showcase?
  I'm quite sure the hypothetical party in question could down the dragon.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 7, 2007)

If you do not believe in your players, and expect nothing out of them, then they probably won't disappoint you.

  If you believe in your players and show that belief, they might prove to be far, far more capable and able than you might have guessed.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Volaran (Jul 7, 2007)

Thanks for the offer, Edena, but I generally don't find the hypothetical scenarios in your threads to be very accurate to the topic at hand, so arguing them with one of my own isn't really conductive to discussion.  I just thought some of the other posters might appreciate some context.

I'll head off now.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now why can't more DMs be like that?




Because their players would take about five minutes of that nonsense, then throw them out into the street. 



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Now, instead of the armor plated sides of the dragon impacting the mage, the soft inner part of it's mouth impacts her. There is still no damage to the mage - no effect on her at all, since it was an attack and Stoneskin stops all effects of an attack of this sort.
> But the soft flesh of the dragon is no match for the inertia of it's movement and incredible mass, and it passes right through the mage ... she passes right through the dragon, ripping a hole her size clear through it, blasting out the tail section in a spray of dragonblood



.

The what? I'll tell you right here and now that neither Stoneskin, of whatever edition, nor Fly allow anything like that to happen.


----------



## Someone (Jul 7, 2007)

Well, I can come with other number of scenarios regarding the dragon attack:

- The wizard doesn't have a scroll of a houseruled spell from former editions: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The DM doesn't adjudicate the spell, on the fly, in the exact same way as you: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The dragon doesn't bother with biting and instead breathes (or for that matter does anything except biting): the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The dragon has Arcane sight active: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The dragon has a good score in Sense Motive: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The DM bothers to check how much damage does a CR 20 dragon bite does, even substracting DR 10/adamantine: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- The dragon suffers 2x20d6, max damage from two falls: Suffers a paltry 120 damage on average, the dusts himself off and breathes on the wizard: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

- To summarize: the dragon behaves like a creature with genius intelligence: the wizard is dead. (and probably the rest of the party)

As soon the players notice this they will feel themselves exactly the opposite to what you pretended them to be in th OP. They won because the dragon was an idiot, you  used the rules in the most favorable way for them, underplayed the encounter, and fudged rules; the only one that did anything was the wizard (equipped with the almighty scrolls of doom), and that's not counting the XP and treasure that should come with the dragon's death (monty haul, anyone?). A well played ogre ambush, even an "apropiate CR" ambush, would have been much more challenging and fun for everyone.


----------



## Felon (Jul 7, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Because their players would take about five minutes of that nonsense, then throw them out into the street.



I dunno, I think D&D has survived a long time, and many groups play with exactly this level of difficulty and deadliness. In fact, I think Gygax started running D&D with a not-so-dissimilar perspective.

And I think that the OP had a point about player comfort zones and sense of entitlement (although it was buried pretty deeply under layers of hyperbole). People don't start thinking they're entitled to set up camp whenever their casters are out of spells until they're allowed to do so. Then they come to realize that they don't have to manage their resources so carefully and they can play chicken with a DM, and set themselves up to fail if the DM cut them slack. 

It is important to take stock of what kind of players one has. Some enjoy having their skills of planning and resourcefulness challenged, and some just want a big ol' turkey-shootin' power trip.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I say:  nonsense.



I say: boring.

Why do I even read your posts?


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Red dragon approaching party.
> Party opts for Operation 21.
> 
> The elven wizard throws Fly, ascends up to meet oncoming dragon.
> ...



I'm not sure why the mage is able to stop the dragon zooming toward it full tilt. Just because she apparently can't be hurt by the impact doesn't mean she won't be flung way the hell away when several tons of dragonmeat barrel into her. I guess it's a good thing that flying insects aren't tougher, or the highways would be littered with the wrecks of unfortunate cars!


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Red dragon approaching party.
> Party opts for Operation 21.
> 
> ...
> ...



Edena_of_Neith is too easy on his players.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 7, 2007)

So, to summarize the OP:

"I'm big, bad, and mean. Respect me. I say my penis is bigger than yours."

Quasqueton


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 7, 2007)

While I disagree with the way the point was made I DO  agree with one thing especially in regards to some posts that I read on this board. When I read things along the line of "well, I try not to have character deaths in my game because that's no fun for the players" it makes me wonder if, well I'm just old. Because I just always assumed that death was part of the risk of adventuring and playing the game. TO ME it's like people griping about being sent back a few paces while playing TROUBLE, or losing your Knights or Queen while playing chess or landing on Park Place or Boardwalk when there are hotels on them. It's part of the risk when you play the game. Of course as a player you try to minimize that risk and it's up to the DM to set the tone of the game at the beginning (if your playing a political game then death has a higher crimp factor than a default adventure game). 

Also I find (and this is just my experience, mind you) that when you challenge your players they tend to rise to the occasion. Even if they fail and escape with their lives the challenge is usually enough to motivate them to return or is impressive enough to make them stay away for a while at least. Some of my older players have wandered into situations after flat out ignoring hints that the threat might be too much for them and through planning and resourcefulness did better than I would have expected. 

To me D&D is a GAME first and not an exercise in storytelling. That being said some of the best games that I've been part of as a player and as a DM is where things developed on their own and there was a very real element of danger. When you mollycoddle your players it pretty much neuters that danger and for me, the fun.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 7, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Edena_of_Neith is too easy on his players.




Who knew! This confuses me, since I thought Edena was compaining about going easy on PCs and is now advocating house ruling and fudging in their favor when they attack a great wyrm dragon at level 5??? Who's too easy on their players now?


----------



## Hussar (Jul 7, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I like being DM'ed "toughly". I don't blame the CR system much, however. An "equal CR" encounter is a pushover, but some DMs think most encounters should be pushovers. (Yawn.) I'd rather face fewer, tougher encounters.
> 
> I've seen DMs go easy in lots of campaign. Exalted was one of the worst offenders (in campaigns that I've been in), and Exalted doesn't have a CR system.




See, I don't get this.  An equal CR encounter most certainly is not a pushover.  Most equal CR encounters can kill a PC in a single round through straight up damage.  Never mind crits or special abilities and save or die effects.  The only reason I see that equal CR encounters are pushovers is because the PC's are actually overpowered - usually through point value of the PC's.

If your players are walking over encounters, calculate what their point buy value is, even if you use die rolled PC's.  I'll bet dollars to donuts, the PC's are well over 34 point buys.  That's worth at least a level right there.


----------



## Coplen (Jul 7, 2007)

Caliban said:
			
		

> *yawn*




Ditto.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 7, 2007)

That's an interesting interpetation. So the stonskin makes the character imobile, even though they're using a fly spell in the air? Was that how stoneskin used to work? Been a while. Could be useful for several things.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Red dragon approaching party.
> Party opts for Operation 21.
> 
> The elven wizard throws Fly, ascends up to meet oncoming dragon.
> ...


----------



## JoeGKushner (Jul 7, 2007)

Volaran said:
			
		

> Thanks for the offer, Edena, but I generally don't find the hypothetical scenarios in your threads to be very accurate to the topic at hand, so arguing them with one of my own isn't really conductive to discussion.  I just thought some of the other posters might appreciate some context.
> 
> I'll head off now.




Kinda on the same spot. I mean, why wouldn't the dragon just breath on 'em all in the first place?


----------



## Jim Hague (Jul 7, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Or, for laughs and giggles, let's assume the mage succumbed to the Fear Aura of the dragon, and flew directly away from it.
> It still caught her, being faster, and rammed ... with the result above.
> 
> But let's say the dragon succeeded with it's bite attack, and snatched the mage into it's mouth.
> ...




Sorry, missed this earlier...so now, we're not only dealing with GM ego, but we've degenerated into bad _Warner Brothers' cartoon comedy_?  Why not have the dwarf smash through a dungeon wall, or drop an anvil on someone while we're at it?


----------



## Kelek72 (Jul 7, 2007)

Mallus said:
			
		

> Are you currently high?
> 
> (not that there's anything wrong with that...)




Boo...Drug jokes...Yeah, actually its illegal and in poor taste.
I don't want to be a stick in the mud but when somethings wrong, say its wrong.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 7, 2007)

Tee hee - Kelek, in light of your sig quote (which is funny!), I find it odd that you're so easily offended...


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Jul 7, 2007)

Me is big, me is bad, me is DM, me change rules to mash puny PCs flat. Me is Bizarro DM!
Fear me?

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 7, 2007)

TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Fear me?



Please fear me? I'll be your friend!


----------



## Doctor DM (Jul 7, 2007)

Man, this is strange, just last night I had a discussion about this.

A regular who I've known for years (don't really like him, but have known him for forever) was watching us play at the hobbyshop, and he complained that my game was too easy, and wasn't a "good RPG". My players and I said hey, we're having a lot of fun, I don't care if this is the "right" way. (they had just DESTROYED a ton of skeletons and took almost no damage due to some brilliant tactics). He got really pricky about it and went on about how PC's shouldn't be able to win so easily. So I asked my players if they were having fun, and recieved a resounding yes. I then asked they guy if his players were having fun in his game.

He has no game. Hasn't for almost 4 years. I played in the last one he ran, and I can see why. Besides a bunch of other problems he has in his campaigns, he is a classic adversary DM. It's him vs. the party, and of course he'll win every time. No one likes that. 

To the OP, I don't think you're quite an Adversary DM, but your pretty darn close. But I'd give your game a shot. A really tough game is, IMO just as fun as one of average difficulty. I just don't want to be making a new character every session.

The bottom line is, the only thing that matters is if everyone is having a good time. I think players would rather smite bad guys, get treasure and save the world than just running away or getting slaughtered all the time, but we all have different tastes. Whatever it is that you do, as long as the players are coming back with a smile on their face, you're doing it right.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

I would play in your game.

Captain Obvious says:  You can't beat the DM.  Well, like I said, Captain Obvious, right?  Of course, that isn't what the OP is about.  The OP is about not coddling the players, playing the world as it is (which is out to get you lots of the time) and _playing the game_ rather than whining about balance.

I would play in that in a heartbeat.

PCs should be balanced against each other?  Please.  If I play well enough to get tougher than you, suck it up.  And vice versa.  When a game of chess begins, everything is balanced.  But the game of chess is basically about breaking that symmetry of balance.  Before we make characters, everything is balanced.  But D&D is about breaking that symmetry of balance, too, at least IMHO.

Again, I'd be in that game in a heartbeat.

And Edena_of_Neith would be welcome at my table as a player, too.

But that's just me.  I'm funny that way.

RC


----------



## Zurai (Jul 7, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Some of you seem to be missing a point Edena stressed in the original post: the idea is not necessarily to kill the PCs, but to make the players *think* you're gonna kill the PCs...there's a subtle but significant difference.




Not to the players, there isn't.

From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only _pretends_ to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not to the players, there isn't.
> 
> From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only _pretends_ to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.





I may be crazy, but having seen both types of DMs, I feel pretty certain that most players can tell the difference.  Of course, some players might not like Edena's style, but that's a whole 'nother issue.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 7, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I may be crazy, but having seen both types of DMs, I feel pretty certain that most players can tell the difference.  Of course, some players might not like Edena's style, but that's a whole 'nother issue.




If the players can tell the difference, then the DM isn't doing what Edena says he does. As he put it in his first post:



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I'm here to KILL your characters ((actually, I'm not, but I must make you *think* I am.))
> And you both WILL die, but at least that's fair.
> Wait until you see my MONSTERS. Then you will learn what BROKEN means. If you survive, the next monster encounter will be worse!
> I have no intention of ever stopping, ever relenting, ever letting up, until your PCs are dead.
> etc...




If he actually acts like he says he does, then the effect is indistinguishable on the player end. If it is distinguishable, then this entire thread is worthless because Edena isn't doing what he says he's doing.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> If the players can tell the difference, then the DM isn't doing what Edena says he does.





Surely you can tell the difference between hyperbole and literal truth.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 7, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> Man, that takes me back.  I do get the feeling that 3e is a little _too_ balanced sometimes.  CR and EL are useful tools, but they can also feel like a safety net.




That's my feeling as well. When I heard that 3.0 was going to be striving for "Balance", my I was overjoyed, but really all I was wanting (and expecting) was a basically equal power level amongst the PC classes.

I don;t really need (or want) the EL system, I'm not certain what was so idealized about a party of 4 being able to get through an encounter with 25% of their resources gone.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 7, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> While I disagree with the way the point was made I DO  agree with one thing especially in regards to some posts that I read on this board. When I read things along the line of "well, I try not to have character deaths in my game because that's no fun for the players" it makes me wonder if, well I'm just old. Because I just always assumed that death was part of the risk of adventuring and playing the game. TO ME it's like people griping about being sent back a few paces while playing TROUBLE, or losing your Knights or Queen while playing chess or landing on Park Place or Boardwalk when there are hotels on them. It's part of the risk when you play the game. Of course as a player you try to minimize that risk and it's up to the DM to set the tone of the game at the beginning (if your playing a political game then death has a higher crimp factor than a default adventure game).
> 
> Also I find (and this is just my experience, mind you) that when you challenge your players they tend to rise to the occasion. Even if they fail and escape with their lives the challenge is usually enough to motivate them to return or is impressive enough to make them stay away for a while at least. Some of my older players have wandered into situations after flat out ignoring hints that the threat might be too much for them and through planning and resourcefulness did better than I would have expected.
> 
> To me D&D is a GAME first and not an exercise in storytelling. That being said some of the best games that I've been part of as a player and as a DM is where things developed on their own and there was a very real element of danger. When you mollycoddle your players it pretty much neuters that danger and for me, the fun.




Now _that_ was well-put


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 7, 2007)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> That's my feeling as well. When I heard that 3.0 was going to be striving for "Balance", my I was overjoyed, but really all I was wanting (and expecting) was a basically equal power level amongst the PC classes.
> 
> I don;t really need (or want) the EL system, I'm not certain what was so idealized about a party of 4 being able to get through an encounter with 25% of their resources gone.




I think the CR/EL system is a fantastic tool for eyeballing the difficulty of a fight based on the level and size of the party. It's something that was woefully lacking in prior editions; you could sort of use XP value for the same thing, but that was even more of a guessing game than the current system.

That said, I rarely throw the PCs against "CR-appropriate" encounters, and I won't play with someone who assumes/demands that they have the "right" to fights of a certain difficulty.

IOW, I use the CR/EL system as a measuring stick, to make sure I don't accidentally slaughter the group, but I do not use it as either a safety net or a means of restricting my options.


----------



## Ahzad (Jul 7, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> While I disagree with the way the point was made I DO  agree with one thing especially in regards to some posts that I read on this board. When I read things along the line of "well, I try not to have character deaths in my game because that's no fun for the players" it makes me wonder if, well I'm just old. Because I just always assumed that death was part of the risk of adventuring and playing the game. TO ME it's like people griping about being sent back a few paces while playing TROUBLE, or losing your Knights or Queen while playing chess or landing on Park Place or Boardwalk when there are hotels on them. It's part of the risk when you play the game. Of course as a player you try to minimize that risk and it's up to the DM to set the tone of the game at the beginning (if your playing a political game then death has a higher crimp factor than a default adventure game).
> 
> Also I find (and this is just my experience, mind you) that when you challenge your players they tend to rise to the occasion. Even if they fail and escape with their lives the challenge is usually enough to motivate them to return or is impressive enough to make them stay away for a while at least. Some of my older players have wandered into situations after flat out ignoring hints that the threat might be too much for them and through planning and resourcefulness did better than I would have expected.
> 
> To me D&D is a GAME first and not an exercise in storytelling. That being said some of the best games that I've been part of as a player and as a DM is where things developed on their own and there was a very real element of danger. When you mollycoddle your players it pretty much neuters that danger and for me, the fun.




QFT!! Amen brother!


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Jul 7, 2007)

Deleted for snark.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 7, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> Not to the players, there isn't.
> 
> From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only _pretends_ to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.



And that's what makes the game fun...that there's a (perceived) real challenge to it every now and then, and that characters and even whole parties *can* die if they're unwise or unlucky; the corollary to this is the fun of doing less-than-wise things and getting away with it anyway. 

If I know that pretty much no matter what I do with my character it's going to live because the DM hasn't got the chops to kill it (or has a story that is completely dependent on certain characters' survival) then I'm going to get mighty bored mighty fast...a bad thing for all concerned. 

Lanefan


----------



## clarkvalentine (Jul 7, 2007)

Is it so hard to conceive that different people have different preferred play styles?

Personally I prefer games that aren't wall-to-wall combat where death is around every corner.

Others do.

Life goes on.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 7, 2007)

Okay, I realize that people tend to think in dichotomies--if something's not X, it's Y; if someone's not with me, he's against me--but come on!

This entire discussion has devolved into the assumption that there are only two options: Either the DM is constantly threatening the characters with horrible death every moment, or the entire campaign is a cake-walk where every PC has "plot protection" from anything worse than a stubbed toe.

I'd be a lot more interested in a discussion that took into account the _enormous_ range of options between those two extremes, a range into which (I would wager) the overwhelming majority of games actually fall. You know, those games where death and failure are real and tangible threats, but not exactly common? In which story and character development occur _without_ the benefit of plot protection, and where the dice are still permitted to fall where they may?

But every time it appears such a discussion may appear, it's suddenly crushed to death beneath another round of "You're a killer DM!" "Yeah, well your games have no challenge and you coddle your players!" accusation.   

Bleah.




(Yes, I do feel like crap today. Why do you ask?)


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 7, 2007)

And Edena, people would take your arguments, and your examples, a lot more seriously if you actually used the rules of the game you were trying to discuss. Just a thought to consider for next time.


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Jul 8, 2007)

Just want to say that the original post struck me as utterly ridiculous and the kind of game I would immediately get up from the table from and walk out the door. Yeah, I've had that kind of DM before, too. He got his kicks off of killing PCs... several each session. And, yeah, it became a game of "OK. What character should I bring in this week? What does the party need?" Not that I don't like a really challenging game. I do. But run competently.

All of the things mentioned in the OP about how you would run a game are _almost_ the qualities of a challenging DM. I say almost because you seem to miss the point about what a balanced game is all about. You are *SUPPOSED TO* throw overpowering encounters at your party about 5% of the time. *SUPPOSED TO*... meaning it's not just that you are a cool hardcore bad ass DM for doing this sometimes. And 15% of the time you're supposed to throw encounters at your group that have an EL 1-4 times higher than your party's level. These are the ones that _really_ kill PCs because they are deceptively challenging. We're talking high level monk kobolds, sorcerers, or barbarians kind of deceptive. These kind of encounters kill at least half of the party... nearly all the time. 50% of the encounters should be on a level with the party and they are supposed to be challenging. NOTE: challenging in the DMG doesn't mean push over encounters. Even these are deadly when you run them effectively and consistently and your players make stupid decisions or are just poorly prepared for them. 20% of the time you should have encounters that are lower than the party's level (anywhere from 1-5 lower than the party level), but if the PCs don't figure out the trick to handling it the "easy way", it can turn deadly or force them to flee. Then *only 10% of the time* you are supposed to run easy encounters that have an EL lower than the party's level.

It's also worth noting that a good challenging game doesn't have to always be combat and shouldn't. How boring. PCs should be challenged with difficult role-playing situations, puzzles to make those brain juices flow, and mystery solving situations as well.

If you actually play by the rules, your game should be just as tough as can be. Note: the DMG described this kind of balance as part of a "well-constructed" adventure.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 8, 2007)

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> Deleted for snark.





Thank you.  A few others here have been less discriminating.

Folks, a few of you have decided to disagree, but are doing so without adding substance to the discussion.  If you don't like a thing, that's great, but why not add a little support and substance to your position?  Coming into the thread, and being negative without that is what we call threadcrapping - we ask you to resist the urge to engage in it.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 8, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> According to some people on this board if you so much as intentionally plan an encounter that has a definite chance of killing a PC or two your an adversarial DM.




I'm not sure anyone here has said anything like that.

What Edena was describing in the first post was constant, unceasing threats to the PCs and a determination to harass them until they die or quit the game.  That is basically, by definition, adversarial (Me versus Them).  The DM wants to hound the players and throw impossible threats against them sometimes just because; to see if they can squirm their way out of dying, if that's even possible.


I challenge my players pretty often, but _most_ of the time they're relatively safe and unmolested, traveling and crafting and roleplaying without any expectation of doom.  They've come close enough at times to worry, but they know I won't go PKing or TPKing on them as long as they avoid doing anything too stupid with their PCs.

The PCs in my games have faced near-TPKs several times, and have asked more than once if there was any way they could even win those fights.  Of course they _did_ win every time, albeit with the occasional PC death or many PCs falling unconscious, because I was only trying to give them a challenge.  But my players know well enough that despite my frequent challenging of their abilities, I've never actually killed many of their PCs, and they know I won't actually TPK them unless they do something stupid (they've come close at times, since there is at least one impulsive/hot-headed PC in every game, but so far they've managed to avoid the worst foes lurking in every territory they've traveled through).

The PCs hadn't made enemies of any kind of uber-foe, so as long as they didn't go putzing around in the lair of anything truly powerful, they weren't really in any danger of facing an impossible foe (though they're often convinced that any major foe, be it a chuul or an allosaurus or a dark elven wizard, is probably going to exterminate them; they just tend to be mostly wrong on that account, cuz I never throw anything impossible at them _as long as they avoid actively *doing* anything_ to get the attention of such things).


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> However, the elven wizard bought a Stonestone scroll (old version of Stoneskin, allowed in my game), cast it earlier, and is Stoneskinned.
> 
> The dragon, thanks to it's heavy plate, does not pass onward ... the mage does not pass right through the dragon because the dragon's momentum is carrying it onward.
> Instead, the dragon is simply stopped, dead, it's armor crushing under the impact with the mage.  It accrues considerable damage as it goes from full speed to 0 speed instantaneously.
> ...




An example that uses a houseruled and, probably broken, spell (no 4th-level spell should make you impervious to a meteor, or Gruumsh himself punching you in the head, or an ancient dragon slamming into you at high speed, let alone protect you from multiple such impacts; this is not 1E or 2E, and mages do not have quite the same drastic weaknesses as they did back then) is not a very good example.

And anyway, the dragon would've just burned them to a crisp or whatever with a breath weapon.  It could always snatch up their charred corpse as it falls, and _then_ play with its food.

If you throw impossibly tough enemies at your PCs when they haven't really done anything to draw such creatures' ire, then you _are_ being adversarial.  The PCs are the protagonists, they're not Red Shirts just standing around waiting to die from Random Unforeseen Threat of the Week #47.  Thus why I take issue with that kind of viewpoint; it's alright if _everyone_ at the table is there to wargame against one another, rather than carrying pretensions of roleplay and adventuring.  That just isn't the case with most people, because most people have different preferences.


I'm not sure if any of this is getting through, but I just wanted to try addressing these points.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Ok, time to set the record straight.

  My first post was meant to send a message, but also to be humorous.

  Here is what should REALLY happen:

  - A group of friends gets together, and considers how to have a good time.
  - They decide to play D&D.
  - They ask if anyone will volunteer to be the DM (and perhaps, DMing will be a rotating job.)
  - Someone volunteers to be DM.
  - The DM and his *FRIENDS* sit down and discuss what kind of game they'd like to play, be it hard or easy or roleplaying heavy or roleplaying light or whatever.
  - The DM and players agree on what kind of game would satisfy them all.
  - The DM and players work out the rules they will use for play.
  - The players create characters.  The DM selects his adventure.
  - Everyone plays D&D, and hopefully everyone has a good time.
  - After the game, the group of *FRIENDS* discusses how to increase the fun the next time around ... and who will DM next, what kind of game they want next session, what changes in rules should occur, and so on.

  I was bluffing in my first post, and a lot of you fell for the bluff.
  I played Evil DM, and you believed it.
  But a good DM and his friends would discuss matters beforehand.  If the DM was going to be blustery, in-your-face, evil and nasty, and all that stuff, the players would know about this beforehand, expect it, and - most importantly of all - the players would have AGREED to it.
  Or, as follows:

  The DM:  ARRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH.  
  The Players:  We knew you were going to do that!
  The DM:  ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH.
  The Players:  Break out that 2 litre bottle of pepsi, could you?
  The DM:  Sure thing.

  I rarely, if ever, kill PCs.
  When I have killed PCs, I have always made options available for resurrection and the regaining of items.
  I learned from that experience where the DM had his devil NPC take everyone's souls (mentioned in an earlier post in this thread.)  I was 11 years old at the time.  I saw what that did.  I saw the anger and misery that caused.  I vowed never to make that mistake when I DMed.

  -

  The problem, is how to defeat BOREDOM.
  In this, I'm faced with a paradoxical problem that has plagued DMs since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created the game.
  As a DM, I need to challenge my players, and D&D involves a risk of dying ... that's a part of the challenge, that PCs can die.

  But if I kill PCs, feelings get hurt.  You know that.  I know that.  You can say people are 'mature' and can take it, but we all know very well that nobody likes losing characters.
  Besides, these are my friends.  I'm DMing to help them to a good time, not an unpleasant experience.

  But ...

  If I do not challenge my players, do not make the threat of death a reality, then they grow bored.  Boredom will eventually kill the campaign.  Boredom also leads to group fighting that might break up the group.  I've seen both happen.
  I can mitigate the onslaught of boredom with roleplaying emphasis, with puzzles, with all manner of challenges that don't relate to life-and-death situations, but in the end the game drags us all back to that life-and-death situation.  It's just inherent in the game.  (Look at the rules ... most of them involve how to kill things, or how things kill the PCs.  That's the way D&D is, like it or not.)

  I don't want my players to be bored.  That's no fun.
  I don't want to hurt feelings by killing PCs.  That's no fun.
  What to do?

  Well ...

  Bluff.  Illusion.  Make the players think there is a threat, when there isn't.
  In my first post in this thread, I pulled this bluff on you.  And even though I stated specifically in that post that I wasn't about killing characters at all, the bluff worked so well that many of you bought it ... to the point of depicting me as this maniacal killer of an antagonistic DM from hell.  

  Well, if I can bluff you, I can bluff my players.  
  As long as they *think* they are in danger, they (if they enjoy challenges) will enjoy themselves.
  But since they are not losing their characters, no feelings are hurt, and the game ends happily.  (Or, if a character is killed, a way out to bring that character back mitigates any hurt feelings, while amplifying the illusion.)

  That dragon above is such an illusion.  I went to the trouble of re-reading Ancient Wyrm Red Dragons in the Monster Manual.  This beastie is up against a party of 6 5th level characters.
  Of course there will be mitigating circumstances, that give the party an edge.  The point, is to make these mitigating circumstances subtle enough the party doesn't realize I did anything.  The houseruled Stoneskin is a case in point.
  The player of the elven female wizard, will think she thought up the Stoneskin idea, heroically flew up to face the dragon, and downed it with a CRASH and a WHAM!

  Why didn't the dragon fire his breath weapon?  Because he wanted a fresh and tasty elven girl morsel to eat!  No need for a breath weapon against one puny humanoid!
  Dragons suffer from pride and overconfidence (especially when faced with one little humanoid girl.)  Dragons are arrogant and condescending.  Dragons know they are supreme, and the world had better realize this or pay the price!
  And thus THIS dragon came in for the tasty morsel and ... well ... CRASH, WHAM!!

  The party will not think I, the DM, went easy on them.
  The party will think the dragon, in his overwhelming power (and it is overwhelming, compared to theirs) just decided to eat the elven girl for lunch, and got a nasty surprise instead.

  The dragon, now dazed on the ground and unable to take any action for several rounds, offers the party a chance to either risk trying to kill it (while it's still helpless) or getting the heck out of there (before it recovers.)

  And in any case, I pointed out that I would throw various CR encounters at the party.  Not all encounters will be with CR 20 dragons!!!  This is a singular encounter.  Nearly all encounters will be weaker than this.
  (Incidentally, it was a CR 18 encounter, really.  No Dragonfear.)

  So what if the elven girl did not take the tactic I described?
  There were other tactics available, also employing house rules (and that, also, is a part of the illusion ... the party thinks they are weak, but actually they are much more powerful than they think.)
  Yes, the other party members had tactics ready.  Tactics that might have worked.  (If all else failed, they could have - before the dragon arrived - climbed into the Rope Trick (old version) the bard cast, and then have been totally safe.)

  -

  The problem with my approach is that eventually even the best bluff is seen through (many of you saw right through my bluff in the first post, of course.)
  Once my players see through my bluff, and realize there is no danger or little danger, the threat of boredom sets in again.
  Then I have to figure out what to do as an alternative.  And the first thing I will do is consult with my players, asking them how we can renew the fun.


----------



## Mort (Jul 8, 2007)

Teflon Billy said:
			
		

> That's my feeling as well. When I heard that 3.0 was going to be striving for "Balance", my I was overjoyed, but really all I was wanting (and expecting) was a basically equal power level amongst the PC classes.
> 
> I don;t really need (or want) the EL system, I'm not certain what was so idealized about a party of 4 being able to get through an encounter with 25% of their resources gone.




This seems to be the biggest misconception with the EL/CR system. There is no decree that says "thou shalt deplete the party of 25% of their resources in an equal CR fight" or "thou shalt only put the party up against an opponent of appropriate CR." The CR system is simply a tool that gives DM's guidelines. It is useful (though far from perfect) means for DMs to estimate the effectiveness of their party against certain challenges  and gives an idea where a challenge should stand against certain parties. 
It's also fairly easy to adapt -for example, my first 3e group were (all but one) complete newbies - I found quickly that an equal CR encounter was very difficult for them and A CR of +2 or higher was something they would need to run from - thus I knew what to expect. After a few years, they really adapted, in our 2nd campaign any encounter with a CR of lower than +2 was likely to be a complete push over (theyr tactics got that much better). In any case it's leaps and bounds better than no system at all.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Thus, I'm saying I can't be a Tough DM, unless my players allow it.  I'm not joking!  That's how it is.

  What we need, are for more PLAYERS to urge their DMs to be Tough DMs, to challenge them, to expect the best out of them, to not settle for boredom and inaction and using only a small part of their intellect and experience as players.

  So, let's change the title.  We don't need more Tough DMs.  We need more players willing to accept Tough DMs.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

And, incidentally ...

  ENWorld is a messageboard of extremely intelligent people.  It shows.  It's obvious very quickly once you start posting here.
  I'd put the level of intelligence on ENWorld as being higher than that of the average college student.
  Having been on ENWorld for 8 years, since nearly it's inception, I can say this with confidence.

  If *I* - rushing, half asleep, groggy, and disorientated - can figure out a way for that party of 6 5th level characters to toast that dragon, then I'm quite sure that the rest of you could figure out a hundred different ways that party could fry that dragon.
  Within the 3.5 rules.
  Not within the 3.5 rules.
  Either way, don't insult my intelligence (I am intelligent?   ) by telling me that party can't beat that dragon.

  There is nothing clever, devious, persistent, fiendish players cannot do ...


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> At high level, D&D has always been a superhero game. Incidentally, 'superhero' is the title of an 8th level fighter in 1e.




High level D&D is *heroic*, but it isn't "The Super Friends and Zan and Jana Hour."


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Surely a game with harder challenges encourages exactly these sorts of uber characters? I see it in our games. The fights get tougher, the weaker characters die. Players create new more min-maxed PCs to survive in the harsher environment.




The problem I see is that the players are min-maxing and using magic items as a crutch to make up for doing things that would be considered "stupid" if done in real life (e.g. using a magic item and jumping off a building instead of *climbing* down.)


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 8, 2007)

What I do is throw a CR 7 dragon at a level 5 group and let them have an interesting tactical combat where their actual abilities or tactical decisions can make or break the battle. That way there's no fudging going on, I'm not pretending to be big bad while really rooting for them, and I can play the dragon to the hilt of its abilities knowing that the battle could go either way. That seems much more fun to me.

The problem with the CR 20 dragon with fudging DM vs. level 5 party is that a level 5 wizard killing a great wyrm red dragon really _really_ lowers the threat level of a dragon. That 1000 year old dragon there? Yeah, Bob the Apprentice took him out the other day. He had been terrorizing the country for hundreds of years and had devoured hundreds of adventurers foolish enough to face him, but he couldn't withstand the might of a 5th level guy.

How could PCs see that happen and not think that the game is a pushover?


----------



## Bloodstone Press (Jul 8, 2007)

Amen.

When players complain that my games are too hard, I usually tell them, "If it was easy, it wouldn't be an adventure."


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> An Adversarial DM is not a Tough DM.
> 
> A Tough DM sits down with his players before the campaign, discusses with them what kind of game they'd like, and works it out with them so they know they'll have the kind of game they're looking for.  If the players want a gentler game, the Tough DM either steps aside to let another DM in his place, or he runs that requested gentler game.
> The Tough DM knows it's the fun that counts.  That's why the Tough DM is tough, because his players are enjoying the challenge.
> ...




I don't necessarily see the adversarial DM as *bad* - since one person's "tough DM" is another person's "adversarial DM."

Example - our current campaign.  Early on, the party was in the town of Nulb (doing the T1-4 thing in 3.x).  The wizard went into one of the inns and started talking to the barmaid (thief).  She got him to drink her love potion and he rolled a 1 on his save. Needless to say, she took his most important things (like his headband of intellect) and skipped town.

He was prepared to burn the inn to the ground (a good PC). Once he found out that she probably fled to the temple, he was like a driven man - not stopping until he got his loot back.

Was I adversarial for taking all of his stuff?  Some players would whine and say yes.  Of course, he had loads of fun finally catching up to her and "interrogating" her - the point is - even an adversarial DM can create loads of fun for his players.


----------



## 3catcircus (Jul 8, 2007)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> I don't want to seem anal, but bulk is already encompassed in weight, if your going to add bulk to the game, you should drop how much the stuff weighs a bit.




Understood, but my argument is specifically with *volume* - by the rules, a longsword could be placed in a backpack since neither the PHB nor the FAQ indicates how much the backpack can hold in either weight or volume.  Think of it this way - what is easier to carry - a fist-sized lump of iron, or an equivalent weight in books?


----------



## shilsen (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I was bluffing in my first post, and a lot of you fell for the bluff.
> I played Evil DM, and you believed it.
> 
> ...
> ...




Perhaps, but note that it's a lot easier to bluff people about your gaming style on a messageboard, since they can't actually see you run the game. Personally, I thought you were making an OTT post to get a response, which is why I hadn't posted yet. 



> The problem, is how to defeat BOREDOM.
> In this, I'm faced with a paradoxical problem that has plagued DMs since Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson created the game.
> As a DM, I need to challenge my players, and D&D involves a risk of dying ... that's a part of the challenge, that PCs can die.
> 
> ...




Here's something that I seem to be posting a lot about recently - don't assume that the threat of death is needed to either challenge players or stave off boredom. Check the recent thread about whether D&D needs another death mechanic for a good discussion on the subject. 

Or just read my story hour for an example of a campaign where PC death has very intentionally almost been eliminated (one actual PC death in nearly 60 sessions, though we average a PC going below -10 hp every alternate session), but which is highly challenging and has never had a problem with boredom on the part of the players. What a game needs to be challenging, IMNSHO, is a significant possibility of failure and the existence of repercussions for it. Death is only one such repercussion and, again IMNSHO, one of the more boring of repercussions, from both a gamist and a narrativist viewpoint. Or, as I semi-joke with my players, a dead PC is a PC who has escaped the challenges, paranoia and torture that I constantly visit upon the living ones. In my book, if I have to kill PCs to challenge the players, then I'm not being particularly creative as a DM. 

YMMV, and apparently does.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I was bluffing in my first post, and a lot of you fell for the bluff.
> I played Evil DM, and you believed it.




So you're telling us that we should doubt the veracity of everything you have posted here, as well as all future posts?

I hereby admit defeat in the face of your incredible powers of illusion on a messageboard where it's hard to discern nuance and tone.

Unfortunately, I'm only CR 2, so you probably won't get any XP.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 8, 2007)

Sound of Azure said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, I'm only CR 2, so you probably won't get any XP.


----------



## Quasqueton (Jul 8, 2007)

Backpedaling.

Quasqueton


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> If *I* - rushing, half asleep, groggy, and disorientated - can figure out a way for that party of 6 5th level characters to toast that dragon, then I'm quite sure that the rest of you could figure out a hundred different ways that party could fry that dragon.
> Within the 3.5 rules.
> Not within the 3.5 rules.
> Either way, don't insult my intelligence (I am intelligent?   ) by telling me that party can't beat that dragon.
> ...



But you DIDN'T figure out a LEGITIMATE way for those scrappy level fivers to toast the dragon. Stoneskin doesn't turn you into an unmoveable stone wall. Creatures aren't out of action and free to be beaten on for several rounds if they take damage. Dragons aren't stupid enough to go slamming willy-nilly into things that irritate them like a bull seeing red. Without bizarre extenuating circumstances or houserules, that dragon will wipe them out in a couple of rounds without breaking a sweat, gobble up the remains, and forget all about it until he craps out a helmet or a spellbook a couple of days later. Can you come up with a way that a fifth level party, normally equipped and with no rules bending, can possibly beat a CR 18 red dragon who comes up on them unexpectedly?


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Cause they wouldn't get any players.



You'd be surprised.   There are loads of people who want this kind of edge to their game, or something similar.  No punches pulled.  Your enemies want you DEAD and will take all reasonable measures to KILL you.  Not to line up in nice orderly rooms and wait for you to show up in a predestined order to wipe them out.  If they can hear battle, they will send reinforcements.  If they are losing they will run and might just try and kill you in your sleep next time.

Where the dice fall, that is how much you are hit and how much damage you take.  No fudging, for or against.  The players gack the BBG earlier in the game than you thought they would?  Good for them!  A goblin shoves a stick into their brain at 1st level and yanks out their ability to regulate breathing?  Tough break.  The sixth level party is facing a dragon of undetermined CR?  Get a damn good plan or come back when you DO have one.

As a GM I will never play favorites.  I will never pull punches.  I will hit below the belt once in a while.  I will never lie or invent new chalanges just because I think things are too easy.  I will never resort to a deux ex machina unless it is written into the system (fate points).  I will not try to kill your characters, but your enemies will.  I will not try to save your characters, but your allies will.  Cultivate both of them carefully.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 8, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised.   There are loads of people who want this kind of edge to their game, or something similar.  No punches pulled.  Your enemies want you DEAD and will take all reasonable measures to KILL you.  Not to line up in nice orderly rooms and wait for you to show up in a predestined order to wipe them out.  If they can hear battle, they will send reinforcements.  If they are losing they will run and might just try and kill you in your sleep next time.
> 
> Where the dice fall, that is how much you are hit and how much damage you take.  No fudging, for or against.  The players gack the BBG earlier in the game than you thought they would?  Good for them!  A goblin shoves a stick into their brain at 1st level and yanks out their ability to regulate breathing?  Tough break.  The sixth level party is facing a dragon of undetermined CR?  Get a damn good plan or come back when you DO have one.
> 
> As a GM I will never play favorites.  I will never pull punches.  I will hit below the belt once in a while.  I will never lie or invent new chalanges just because I think things are too easy.  I will never resort to a deux ex machina unless it is written into the system (fate points).  I will not try to kill your characters, but your enemies will.  I will not try to save your characters, but your allies will.  Cultivate both of them carefully.




You aren't talking about what Edena (was) talking about, though. He specifically said that the DM WAS out to kill the players, or at least to make them think he was.

There's a difference between a tough DM and an adversarial DM; you described a Tough DM. Edena originally described an adversarial one.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> You aren't talking about what Edena (was) talking about, though. He specifically said that the DM WAS out to kill the players, or at least to make them think he was.
> 
> There's a difference between a tough DM and an adversarial DM; you described a Tough DM. Edena originally described an adversarial one.



Tomato, tomahto.  You look at that and say something like "hey, what the hell?" and I look at that and say "now THIS is what I've been missing."

The only thing I really disagree with in the OP is "- You think that character is of an overpowered class? A broken class? Wait until you see my MONSTERS. Then you will learn what BROKEN means. If you survive, the next monster encounter will be worse!"  Mere survival isn't a licence for escalation.  

However, I'm more than willing to wash that as well as the 20CR dragon vs 5 level PCs as hyperbole.   Still, I've been in a game or two where a a big damn dragon or beholder was floating about laying devestation everywhere.  You know what?  We HID.  We ran like screaming Tokyo dwellers in the face of godzilla and eventually managed to figure out what was going on, thwart a few wiles and kill that same damn monstrosity.   If we bitched about whether it was "fair" we would have missed out on a very damn cool game.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 8, 2007)

Oh, and see my signature for a great quote from Gary on this subject.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2007)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> Oh, and see my signature for a great quote from Gary on this subject.



THANK you!


----------



## phindar (Jul 8, 2007)

I understand why some players object to the "adversarial" nature of the OP, but it seems like to create an atmosphere of suspense (which is necessary for some types of games) the GM has to make the game seem much more lethal that it actually is.  The idea is to make the players think that every encounter is _potentially_ lethal, whether they are or not.  (And as many posters pointed out, if the game were actually as bad as the OP made it out to be, it probably wouldn't have many players.  High lethality is one thing, but nobody is going to stick aroudn if they're rolling up characters every session.)  

If you trust the GM, you're more likely to look at the encounter (even the 20HD dragon) from your character's perspective.  Whether you run, cower, hide, parlay, beg for your life-- its essentially a role-playing decision.  _What would my character do in this situation?_  If you don't trust the GM, it seems like you're more likely to look at the encounter as a player: _Is this balanced?  Is this guy crazy?  There's no way I got HP, attacks, Bluff, Hide or Diplomacy high enough to survive this encounter._

Whether you look at it as a character or a player isn't a measure of your roleplaying ability, but rather how much trust you have in the GM.


----------



## Someone (Jul 8, 2007)

Stone Dog said:
			
		

> You'd be surprised.   There are loads of people who want this kind of edge to their game, or something similar.  No punches pulled.  Your enemies want you DEAD and will take all reasonable measures to KILL you.  Not to line up in nice orderly rooms and wait for you to show up in a predestined order to wipe them out.  If they can hear battle, they will send reinforcements.  If they are losing they will run and might just try and kill you in your sleep next time.




That's good. As it happens frequently, I feel we're running in circles, telling each other exactly the same. What I can't get is the idea of the DM going against the PCs and trying hard to kill them. A battle of DM against the PCs would be quite stressful and boring for me, from both parts of the table. What I like and try to do is a battle of PCs against the world.

If the bad guy has a small army and is being bothered by the PCs he's not going to sit idly and wait until he's defeated. If he feels threatened he's going to mass his resources and hit the problem as well as he can: it's the bad guy who's killing the PCs, not the DM. If the party underestimates the giant, the giant is going to kill them, not the DM, and so on. Of course there's going to be PC deaths: they are the ones that fight monster vastly more powerful and intelligent than themselves (or at least than a regular human); if the DM roleplays them well it's going to be dangerous for the PCs. Otherwise it'd destroy the game's consistency, but on the other hand the internal consistency helps the players. If they know that the bad guy is arrogant, they may come with a plan to attract him to the front of his small army (EL be damned) and defeat him. An adversarial DM would, on the other hand, backpedal on his description of the bad guy as being arrogant because then the players would have an opportunity to defeat him; I don't think that's what has been advocated by some in the thread, but their poor choice of words certainly made it sound that way.


----------



## Stone Dog (Jul 8, 2007)

Someone said:
			
		

> An adversarial DM would, on the other hand, backpedal on his description of the bad guy as being arrogant because then the players would have an opportunity to defeat him.



Yeah, I think that is the main difference.  When the party starts to win, the adversarial GM gets all frustrated and tries to start winning again.  The tough GM is just proud.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Here is what I hate to see:

  Party:  We want another dull, unexciting, unchallenging game.
  DM:  Like the last 10 games?
  Party:  Yeah.  Like those.
  DM:  Don't you want a challenge?
  Party:  No.
  DM:  It's painful to keep running games like these.
  Party:  If you won't run a dull, unexciting, unchallenging game, we'll just find someone who will, and you can play in it instead of DMing.

  Here's what I want to see more of:

  Party:  We desire a challenging game.
  DM:  But in a challenging game, your PCs may die.
  Party:  We aren't concerned about that.  We are more concerned with the thrill of the challenge.
  DM:  What about the roleplaying aspect?
  Party:  We'll roleplay well enough, don't you worry.
  DM:  This module is a dangerous one.
  Party:  So much the better.

  -

  You know, telling the players that you're an easy DM who doesn't kill characters, has surprisingly little effect on the players in the game.
  Player memories are astonishingly short.  Or perhaps it's the Roller Coaster effect.

  You know?  You're heading up the first high hill of a roller coaster.  Intellectually, you know it's only a ride.  But your emotions are telling you you're in danger.  And no matter how hard you try to intellectually rationalize that you're just fine, when you are looking straight down 200 feet and accelerating towards the ground, your emotions are screaming bloody murder.

  D&D is sometimes like that.
  A good encounter can get the blood flowing and the heart pounding, regardless of what the DM said at the start.
  Relentlessly pound at the players (as I discussed in my first post of this thread) and they forget all about anything and everything you said, and go into all-out battle mode.

  -

  Someone said I was backtracking.  Well, I'm not.
  I think more DMs should be like the way I described, and stand by that.

  So how to create a situation where more DMs are like how I described in my first post, and have it actually work?

  As I said, a DM - Player agreement is needed pre-game.  Players have to want this style of DMing - there are there to have fun, after all.  I guess, players should have time to become accustomed to this kind of game, since it is demanding and exhausting and trying (assuming they want an exhausting, demanding, trying game ... and hopefully they do.)
  The DM has to distinguish between being tough and being adversarial, and the players need to be able to distinguish between what is tough and what is adversarial.  That's not always easy to do, so pre-game discussion is a good idea.

  I think players should demand, in general, FAR more out of themselves than I am seeing them give.  My opinion.
  I think that players should complain less about the magnitude of challenges, and spend that energy on defeating those challenges.  My opinion.
  I think players often give themselves less credit than they should, and they give their fellow players less credit than they should.  My opinion.
  I think players oftentimes don't cooperate nearly as much as they should.  

  I think a DM should demand all these improvements on the part of the players, and more than that, and the players should appreciate and respect the demand and their own capacity to handle the challenge.

  If the players want an easy going game, where they converse and socialize and enjoy the company of good friends, that's great.  More power to them.
  But sometimes a good challenge is what the doctor ordered.

  -

  A tough, demanding DM (especially one on the order of what I portrayed in my first post) and tough, determined, resourceful players taking on his challenges, is the result of mutual agreement and cooperation in the group, mutual respect between DM and players, mutual respect between players and players, and a particular mindset that approves of constant strong challenges among both DM and players.

  And yeah, players can do that.  Players can handle that.  D&Ders are made of hard enough material to rise to the occasion when the going gets rough.  If this is what they want, and what they agreed to prior to the game, then when the challenge comes they should be able to rise and conquer over all enemies.  And for the DM, the delight is in watching it all happen that way.  He was tough, he was hard, he was relentless and nasty and threatening and blustery and threw the book at the players, and the players loved it and ate it up like candy, and they kicked butt on every obstacle, every monster, every puzzle, every threat.

  So yeah, more DMs should be tough DMs.  A simple statement, covering a complex situation, but the basic fact is just that.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Back in Wormy, I saw a giant kick at a Stoneskinned character, and the result was a giant with a very sore foot.  Or something like that (the memory is vague now.)
  That's where I got the inspiration for Stoneskin.

  Stoneskin is a funny critter, in it's 2nd edition incarnation.  If a Stoneskinned mosquito was on the road, and a car hit it at 70 miles per hour, the mosquito would be squished.  Why?  Because the car wasn't attacking it.
  But, if the driver somehow (incredibly!!) saw the mosquito ahead of time, and decided 'I'll squash that little pesky mosquito, hahaha!' then the result would be an auto accident, and the mosquito would be unharmed.
  Intent determines the matter.

  A lot of 2nd edition spells were like that.  Magic is magic, and it doesn't always work quite the way a tactician would expect it to.  For that matter, it doesn't always work the way any sane person would expect it to.  It's ... magic.

  Now, if I wish to bring a 2nd edition spell forward to 3rd edition, and use it as a House Rule, that does not make my game a Non-D&D game.
  Most D&D games use House Rules, and they are still considered D&D games.  My games are no exception.

  I'm not 'fudging' the dragon (except for the Dragonfear aspect which I did not use.)
  The dragon saw a tasty elven girl, and wanted her as a fresh meal, not a burnt to a crisp meal.  Sorta like a person wants his cold drink cold, not boiling hot.
  The dragon in no way saw this group of puny, pathetic adventurers as a threat.  Why?  Because it has killed every group of adventurers that dared to challenge it for the last thousand years.  It has flattened villages, towns, and even one entire city.  It, to quote Smaug, kills where it wishes, and none dare resist.
  So it does not breathe on them.  Frankly, the dragon is curious about them ... or, at least, curious about what treasure (unmelted) and items (intact) they might have it could add to it's treasure hoard.  
  And perhaps it can take the other female back as a prisoner, and make a birdcage for the pretty thing while it sings (the last singer grew staid, and the dragon fried her in sheer disgust at the lousy songs.)

  It just so happens that this particular dragon has Cloned itself.  If the party somehow kills it, the clone will wake up.  The clone will realize that someone killed it, that someone out there dared to strike at it.
  You know red dragons.  You think Smaug was mad?  That's nothing.  That's a crying infant compared to the anger of this dragon.  There is no retribution too great, no destruction too vast, no violence too extreme, to be venting on everyone in general, for this affront.  In one thousand years, nobody has done this thing.  The dragon intends to level such vengeance that nobody for the next thousand years will dare even whisper of fighting back.
  The dragon does not have a crystal ball, but it will eventually find out who killed it.  And then it will seek out the party.  THIS time, it will come in it's full might and power, and then some.  

  Now, the party could have avoided all this.  
  All the party had to do was hide in the bard's Rope Trick when they first saw the dragon in the distance.  The dragon would have passed by, ignored the puny magic it discerned, and headed for the herd of prime deer it was hunting.
  The five ogres yonder in the forest were also hiding from the dragon.  The party could now fight them, an encounter much more along their level of power.  And wait until they are much stronger, before attempting such grand heroics as dragonslaying.
  It's the party's choice.

  In this case, party chose to fight.  They chose to stand and fight.  They chose to heroically fight and kill the dragon.  And bully for them, they killed it.  They will be renowned (and infamous) and certainly higher level as a reward.
  But there will be consequences.  There always are.  The utterly infuriated dragon, who will NEVER rest until it attains vengeance even if it has to spend another thousand years finding the adventurers, is only the beginning of those consequences.


----------



## Derren (Jul 8, 2007)

Oh come on. In all those years the dragon did not encounter this spell (did the spell even work that way or did you just houserule it on the spot?) and was not able to make a spellcraft check.

Imo you are worse than a DM who doesn't challange the PCs. A DM who throws overpowering encounters at the players but then breaks the rules and plays the monsters so stupid that the party will win anyway.

In my opinion a DM should not be out to get the PCs but he shouldn't be nice either. What a DM should do is to portray his world "realistically" (logically). When the level 20 PCs decide to help a farmer with a wolf problem then they should encoutner wolves and paragon andvanced werewolves with a PRC. And when a group of level 1 steal the last component for a world dominating ritual from a lich who commands a whole army of undead, the lich isn't going to send level 1 encounters after them but his right hand level 16 vampire.

Just let the NPCs/monster in the game act like they logically would without taking the level of the PCs into account. When they mess with the wrong person they will get an overpowered encounter. And when the dice says that they are dead, then they are dead.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Derren said:
			
		

> Oh come on. In all those years the dragon did not encounter this spell (did the spell even work that way or did you just houserule it on the spot?) and was not able to make a spellcraft check.
> 
> Imo you are worse than a DM who doesn't challange the PCs. A DM who throws overpowering encounters at the players but then breaks the rules and plays the monsters so stupid that the party will win anyway.




  Of course the dragon knows the Stoneskin spell (all variants.) 
  The dragon himself was Stoneskinned (old version) but his Stoneskin failed to protect him because the mage wasn't attacking him.  Simply flying into his path wasn't an attack.

  Yes, the dragon is familiar with this tactic, since it is commonly used.
  But, once again, the dragon was overconfident.  Nobody had challenged it for a long time, and it was not expecting a challenge now.  It did not consider the elven girl a significant threat, only a meal.
  The dragon could have worked his Spellcraft check and spotted the Stoneskin.  He was too busy anticipating a tasty meal instead.

  Remember that even crashing into the mage for all that damage, then crashing into the ground with a whump and taking more damage, did not kill the dragon.
  The dragon is briefly dazed from the two blows, but still has two thirds of it's hit points. (It started with 660, for heaven's sake.)

  What the party now has is the *initiative.*  Hopefully they will use it to do something smart.  If they have an effective attack against the dragon and are heroic, they might attack.  Or, if more prudent, they might flee and hide using the Rope Trick.
  Because although they fooled the dragon once, they won't fool him again.  He now knows he's up against a band of upstarts who think they can take Him (Mr Invincible) on.  He is quite angry, and intends to make an example out of these brash adventurers if possible.

  And, uh ... ahem.
  Breaking the rules?
  It is a DM's prerogative to alter the rules as he (or she) sees fit.  And almost all DMs alter the rules in some way for their games.

  Do you wish to infer that almost all DMs break the rules, and are thus in the wrong?
  Don't infer such things.  You will be in deep water with no shore in sight.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 8, 2007)

Oh, poo - I don't know why this whole thing bugs me so much, but it does. Yeah, your game is still a D&D game, but it's a D&D game with crazy-ass quirks. It doesn't say anywhere in any edition that stoneskin has that overpowered effect. That's like giving magic missiles a knockback, or maybe the target is blinded by the burst of magic for a few rounds - hey, maybe I can knock that fire giant into a conveniently located pit with a magic missile and kill him! And ignoring the fear aura of an ancient dragon is a HUGE fudge. As is saying that the dragon is dazed and unable to react for several rounds when he fell, allowing the party to go all Altamont on him. No player is going to be genuinely worried that something might happen to his character if the dragon just lays there rubbing his aching head for several rounds while the party stabs him. I would feel cheated if I were playing in that scenario. Instead of handicapping too-powerful monsters and gussying up available spells so the party can say they killed an ancient dragon, I would prefer to honestly face a lesser monster and know that no punches are being pulled. Either that, or have my ass fairly handed to me by the dragon if I foolishly stuck around.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Jul 8, 2007)

I think it's a bit odd Edena that you are chalking all of the success of your players up to their ingenuity when it was pretty much _you_ deciding they would win based on their descriptions of actions rather than rules-adjudication. 

I mean, it's one way to do things, but it comes across a bit more like the *Amber Diceless RPG* rather than Dungeons and Dragons.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, of course.

  Were I one of the players in that scenario, I would consider matters very carefully before I just had my PC charge in to attempt a Coup de Grace against that dazed dragon.
  My PC (and/or the others) might succeed in killing it, and gaining glory and fame (and infamy),  Or the dragon might just become undazed, and proceed to fry my PC into a grease stain.
  One never knows what will happen, in a situation like this ...


----------



## Derren (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> One never knows what will happen, in a situation like this ...




The DM does know what will happen as with your style the rules and dice don't apply anymore. And the problem with this "style" of bending and playing stupid is that the DM now arbitrary decides if the PCs die or if he lets them kill the dragon. The actions of the players don't really matter anymore.

If you want such a game you are better of playing a diceless system. That way you don't have to pretend anymore that the players actions matter. But maybe thats exactly what you want?


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Derren, it's the player's actions that determine their fate.

  If they attack the stunned dragon, they may win and kill him.  Or the dragon may regain his senses and kill them.
  The dice will determine that.  The party is taking a calculated gamble if they attack the dragon.  If they are unlucky, they will lose out very badly.  (If you are 5th level, and you deliberately attack a (dazed) Great Wyrm Red Dragon when you *have* a chance to run and escape, you are taking a big risk ... and that should be obvious to any player.)


----------



## Derren (Jul 8, 2007)

Unlucky? There is no luck involved in this example. Its just you making arbitrary decision like that stoneskin makes you unmoveable (if you belive the others, which I do, the 2nd Edition stoneskin couldn't do this either), that the dragon somehow gets seriously wounded by attacking a flying target, that it is stunned although by the rules it shouldn't be and that the dragon with thousand years of experience and mentals scores which are probably higher as the mental scores of the party combined behaves like an retarded idiot.

The only misfortune the players can have is that you have a bad day and make a arbitrary decision which leads to their death.


Your style of dming:

DM: Before you stands a huge, Overpow Eredmons Ter. When you do the correct action I will bend the rules so that you can kill it, if you do the wrong thing you die.
Player 1: I cast Invisibility
DM: The invisibility sets of the contagincy of the monster which instantly kills you without a save. Now its the monsters turn. As it has only 50 Int and Wis it is too stupid to notice you yet. Next!
Player 2: I charge the monster.
DM: As you hit the monster all the damage is refelcted back at you. You die.
Player 2: But it was only 10 points of damage and I have 40 HP.
DM: Houserule! Fighters only get 1 HP per level. You die. Next player.
Player 3: *Player is an alergic and has to sneeze*
DM: As the bacteria touches the monsters skin it turns black and starts to melt. You have killed it. Next encounter.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 8, 2007)

One thing I would need to be clear on:  Does the mage's character know what you houserule stoneskin as doing?  So does the mage's character know that this particular trick will almost certainly work, because of how you houserule stoneskin, and how overconfident you run dragons?  Or would it be more like, whatever the mage did (magic missle, sleep, etc.), you could houserule it on the fly to make the dragon suffer?  Because if it is the latter, it seems like it doesn't really matter what the players do - it looks more like the DM telling a story, with the players occasionally nodding.  The former situation would be required for the players to participate, since they need information about their tactical options before they can decide what tactical options are available to them and which they will use.

Also, "maneuver 21" implies that the party has worked out at least 21 different maneuvers, something like the X-Men, I imagine.  This makes for a rather different style of play than I would be used to.  I would be curious as to how many players have been in groups that have worked out, separately, at least 21 different tactical maneuvers for their party in order to deal with possible encounters.  I have been in groups that work out 1 maneuver, that is SOP for combats, but that is about it.  Everything else is adapted on the fly.  But perhaps I do not represent the average player.

I do agree that you and the players should agree as to what conventions the game will involve (which might include, as per your OP, an evil party that doesn't act evil towards each other, which to me seems to be an alignment house rule or perhaps a contrived situation, but that is a topic for another thread).  I suggest you and the players should also be on the same page as to what houserules are involved.  They can't plan out maneuvers if they don't know what a maneuver would do.

But one thing comes to mind.  If stoneskin is houseruled as being a "Dragon Stopper", and the party has access to that spell, then the dragon is no longer a CR 18 encounter for that party and they should probably get less experience points for defeating the dragon.

And that leads to a dilemma for you, perhaps:  If the party knows about your houserules, they can min/max towards those houserules, and your challenges will not be perceived as being challenging (your illusion of danger will falter - you could have a mage stock up on stoneskin scrolls and go dragon hunting, for example).  On the other hand, if your party does not know your houserules, then they don't know what tactical options to use, and will get either frustrated when their efforts fail or sidelined when their efforts succeed by some means unknown to them (the sneezing on the dragon example given above).


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> One thing I would need to be clear on:  Does the mage's character know what you houserule stoneskin as doing?




  This is very important, and let me answer succintly.
  Yes, she absolutely knows what Stoneskin can do.  I and her would have discussed spells and their effects as throughly as we could, before the game.
  So she would know that the tactic she pulled, would work ... assuming the dragon did actually choose to ram her deliberately and that it would choose not to use it's breath weapon.  (A calculated gamble if ever there was one ... I would call this woman's character a real heroine.)
  Note that she knew her spells probably would not penetrate the dragon's SR.  She had no other effective weapons at her disposal.  So she played psychology with the dragon, and it worked.



> So does the mage's character know that this particular trick will almost certainly work, because of how you houserule stoneskin, and how overconfident you run dragons?




  I must stress:  SHE ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT KNOW if the tactic will work or not.  If she chooses to play psychology with the Great Wyrm Red Dragon, it's a case of Play at Your Own Risk!!



> Or would it be more like, whatever the mage did (magic missle, sleep, etc.), you could houserule it on the fly to make the dragon suffer?




  Absolutely not.  The spell effects are set before the game begins, and the player knows what those effects are.  It is *crucial* that she (and all the other spellcasters) know what their spells will or will not do (and the characters would, obviously, know the effects of their own spells!)
  If there is a situation where the effect and result are unclear, I'm in the position of having to adjudicate.  That does sometimes happen.  But this is not one of those situations.



> Because if it is the latter, it seems like it doesn't really matter what the players do - it looks more like the DM telling a story, with the players occasionally nodding.




  It is ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL that the players not be railroaded.
  I had the misfortune of being railroaded through DL1, DL2, DL3 ... all the way through DL12.  I know what that's like.
  The choice of whether to take that dragon on, or hide in the Rope Trick, or do something else, is entirely up to the players!!



> The former situation would be required for the players to participate, since they need information about their tactical options before they can decide what tactical options are available to them and which they will use.




  Ah yes.  Unfortunately, the dragon is coming fast, and time is limited.
  But I see no reason why the players couldn't have a minute to discuss things.  Call it suspension of belief.
  I would hope my players had a pre-planned strategy for emergencies (and a Great Wyrm Red Dragon approaching is an emergency ...) such as Strategy 21 (which involved more than just the elven mage flying up into the air like that ... I didn't go into what the other characters did.)  I would hope any party would have contingency plans for major confrontations where time is short and immediate action is needed.

  I've had to live through many tables where Mass Confusion reigned, when a minor encounter occurred.  (ala, 4 orcs show up.  What do you do?  (half-hour later ... Well, we attack them by ...))



> Also, "maneuver 21" implies that the party has worked out at least 21 different maneuvers, something like the X-Men, I imagine.  This makes for a rather different style of play than I would be used to.  I would be curious as to how many players have been in groups that have worked out, separately, at least 21 different tactical maneuvers for their party in order to deal with possible encounters.  I have been in groups that work out 1 maneuver, that is SOP for combats, but that is about it.  Everything else is adapted on the fly.  But perhaps I do not represent the average player.




  Just think of it as Option 1 (the All-Out Emergency Option.)  It's the first thing the players considered:  what to do if an overwhelming encounter occurred.
  Obviously, most other actions will be worked out on the fly.
  If my (say, now, EL 15) group *insisted* on going through S1, The Tomb of Horrors, they would need a number of contingency plans of this sort.  But that's an exceptional situation.



> I do agree that you and the players should agree as to what conventions the game will involve (which might include, as per your OP, an evil party that doesn't act evil towards each other, which to me seems to be an alignment house rule or perhaps a contrived situation, but that is a topic for another thread).




  It is contrived and artificial, I admit, in this case.  But the alternative is disaster.  I saw that disastrous alternative happen personally ... the group disintegrated, and it came close to an actual physical brawl.
  Don't ask me why that happened, for I don't know.  Some people just can't handle evil characters, I guess ... after that debacle, I houseruled that evil PCs must cooperate.  They can be evil against NPCs and otherwise do what they want, but never act against their own party.
  I do not allow paladins and evil characters to adventure together.  Houseruled as a no-no.



> I suggest you and the players should also be on the same page as to what houserules are involved.  They can't plan out maneuvers if they don't know what a maneuver would do.




  I could not agree more.  The players *must* know what they can do, before the game.



> But one thing comes to mind.  If stoneskin is houseruled as being a "Dragon Stopper", and the party has access to that spell, then the dragon is no longer a CR 18 encounter for that party and they should probably get less experience points for defeating the dragon.




  Hmmm ... I would give the party full experience.  Here's why ...
  Put yourself in the place of the elven girl.  She heroically flew up to intercept the dragon.
  But she did *not* know if it would ram her.  For all she knew, it would fire it's ungodly breath weapon at her, and then she would just be instantly dead.
  No, she took a calculated gamble, heroically rising to protect her party.  (And her party, by the way, was readying heroics on the ground, which I haven't gone into.)
  It takes a pretty special woman to face an onrushing dragon.  I think her deeds are worth full experience points.



> And that leads to a dilemma for you, perhaps:  If the party knows about your houserules, they can min/max towards those houserules, and your challenges will not be perceived as being challenging (your illusion of danger will falter - you could have a mage stock up on stoneskin scrolls and go dragon hunting, for example).




  I want the players to min/max.  I support them using the rules to give themselves the edge.  In both roleplaying and strategic/tactical terms, IC and OOC, it makes sense for them to do so (in this, I differ from the opinions of a lot of other players, I guess.)
  I want the players to roleplay, obviously.  But I want them to do their best to win.  I want them to give their best.  Not sit around and argue with each other, or point fingers of accusation at each other, or be bored, or sit back and do nothing but watch casually (I don't condemn such idle players, but I do tend to suddenly look at them and speak abruptly:  What do you do?!    )

  If my illusion of danger fails, I've failed.  I've failed to do my job as DM.  My job is to entertain my players, and now they are bored.  I've failed.
  I will do everything I can to maintain the illusion.  There are more than just dragons out there (those 5 ogres, for example.)  There are problems other than fighting just monsters.  There are puzzles to solve, decisions to make, roleplaying to do.  This is not a video game, but a D&D game.  These are characters in a fantasy setting, not images on a video game screen.  And they must deal with all the aspects of the fantasy setting.  All of them.

  If that does not work, if nothing I can do works for my players, then it is time for me to step down as DM, and request someone else volunteer for the job.

  Incidentally, stacking up on Stoneskin scrolls is fine (if expensive.)
  Stacking up on Stoneskin scrolls to fight dragons?  Well ... there was only that one dragon, it's Clone has emerged and is looking for them (and burning up assorted villages and towns in the process, along with anything else unfortunate enough to get in it's infuriated way) and the dragon knows full well the party might try this stunt again.  It will be ready for such a stunt, know to avoid it.
  If the party goes dragonhunting at 5th level, that would be quite audacious in general (!)  But let's say they go after the Great Wyrm to stop it's rampage.  They have a real problem ... their Stoneskin tactic won't work, so what will?  (*My* 5th level characters never actively went after a dragon!  In the scenario in question, the dragon blundered onto the party by accident, and would have passed them by entirely if they had bothered to do something as simple as hide in the grass ... the dragon was interested in the deer herd, not some cowering, pathetic humanoids hiding in the grass.)




> On the other hand, if your party does not know your houserules, then they don't know what tactical options to use, and will get either frustrated when their efforts fail or sidelined when their efforts succeed by some means unknown to them (the sneezing on the dragon example given above).




  They absolutely will get frustrated.  It is *imperative* that the players understand my houserules.  I will explain all my houserules in detail at the start, and allow the players time to adjust their characters accordingly.
  I will not tell my players about my houseruled monsters, of course.  Nasty surprises are for me to know and them to find out.    The mere fact that I houserule monsters, throw the unexpected at them, that just about anything could come out of the blue, helps to maintain the illusion of danger, in my experience (sorta the Newbie Situation, as it were, extrapolated to higher levels.)

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Derren (Jul 8, 2007)

Ok, so you let the players know that you make some spells significantly more powerfull so that they survive your overpowered opponents.
But you still played the dragon as it was barely sentient.

"Oh, humans are invanding my domain knowing perfectly well that it is their doom. And that elven mage is flying up to challenge me. I better start an all out attack which leaves me vulnerable and don't check if the wizard has the spell active which would completly destroy me if I attack her."

How much Int and Wis is that? 8? Well, as long as the players are satisfied with that (or simply believe that you are a lousy tactician) the illusion holds. But beware when your players get good at thactics, then this "I run everything as an animal" will bore them very fast too.


----------



## Bayushi Seikuro (Jul 8, 2007)

I see both points that the OP is trying to make.

I don't agree with them.

OP said, as a matter of fact, that the Stoneskin (all variants) are known by the ancient red great wyrm.  He said, poitnblank, that this particular use of Stoneskin - the 'brick wall effect' - is known to the dragon; that it is a common tactic.  

I agree that, as it says in the MM, a red dragon will make a snap judgement to attack or not.  Clearly he made the choice to attack.  And I quote (p76-77, 3.5 MM): "On spotting a target, they make a snap judgement whether to attack or not, USING ONE OF MANY STRATEGIES WORKED OUT AHEAD OF TIME." <emphasis mine>  The dragon had many other options on how tto get this tasty elfmaiden that do not involve ramming; the MM specifically mentioned in the next sentence after the one I quote that they prefer to get easy, weak prey on the ground and bite and claw them, skipping the flames, because they want to make it easy to loot the bodies.  (Jeese, are red dragons professional adventurers too?  >

I agree an agreement and trust has to be between a DM and the players; you are all committing serious time to a hobby.  No one wants to prep or run a game their players - and close friends - will not enjoy.  I respect that OP did a good job informing the players of the danger of the world, and that the game will be dangerous.  I agree that a campaign should be decided on whether it'll be RP-heavy or RP-lite, but I don't know that I agree with the sense that political environments are not as deadly as wilderness.

Again, that depends on the world, and the campaign being run.  

I don't feel there's an 'entitlement' issue, where everyone wants the same exact gear as the next guy.  Maybe Ed's group is different.  Groups I play in tend to be rounded; people will take their role - be it brick, or healer - and run with it.  The only time we worry about being 'balanced' out is at the start -- and that's just in regards to the starting cash.

I digress.  I feel bad for having the sense that, what could have been a lively discussion has been dragged down due to 'bluffing on a messageboard', it is claimed.  It's just another case of the Internet Discussion TrainwreckCarcrashYouCan'tAvertYerEyesFrom.

BTW:  I agree with what Teflon Billy said.  This does sound much more like a case of Amber Diceless, where even if you're ranked as the highest in your generation in Strength or Warfare, it is possible, with trickery or careful planning, to be defeated at your greatest strengths.


----------



## Doctor DM (Jul 8, 2007)

My problem with all of this dragon business is: it's kinda dumb. If 5th level PC's are hanging out and run into an ancient red dragon, they better run. There is NO WAY they should be able to beat it other than pure luck (i.e. nat 20 followed by a second one to confirm it for an instant kill). What kind of party stays around for that? Must be a very strange game with some VERY unorthodox things going on if they think they have a real shot at beating this dragon. Then what happens after they win? They get all the XP? Does this continue, with liches and beholders? Like someone mentioned earlier, it seems to drain the cool of a monster as powerful as a red dragon. "Oh, it's just another ho-hum ancient magical beast of death that's about 10 times more powerful than us. Not to worry, we can take it in a round or two."

But if that's what your players like, go for it. If you and them enjoy it, then it's a great idea, no matter what anyone else says.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I was bluffing in my first post, and a lot of you fell for the bluff.
> I played Evil DM, and you believed it.



 Some might characterize this as "trolling".

Is ENWorld too easy on our trolls?

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 8, 2007)

Ari,

Lots of respect for you, mang, but nothing I've seen has convinced me that CR/EL is as good a system as the ML/XP system it replaced.  As a good example of this, he said cheekily, using the ML/XP system would have put the 3e ogre as a 3rd-level monster.  It would not have been under-CRed.    

Edena,

I have to side with you on the tough-DM thing, but the dragon encounter as described would seem like a set-up to win to me.  Of course, I have no qualms about killing characters.  When I started posting my story hour, one of the first comments I received was about how often the PCs dropped.

OTOH, your table = your rules.

Good gaming.

RC


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 8, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Ari,
> 
> Lots of respect for you, mang, but nothing I've seen has convinced me that CR/EL is as good a system as the ML/XP system it replaced.  As a good example of this, he said cheekily, using the ML/XP system would have put the 3e ogre as a 3rd-level monster.  It would not have been under-CRed.




Oh, it's far from perfect, don't get me wrong, with a few real doozies of mistakes. But I've found, IME, that it's a better measuring stick than what came before.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

(irritated look)

  I'm not 'bluffing the message board.'
  I made it very clear in my first post that I wasn't about killing characters.
  I also made it very clear I'd create an illusion that I was out to kill characters.

  Somehow, a lot of you got the impression that I was *only* about killing characters.  You missed what I said about *not* killing characters.  So yeah, I seem to have bluffed you.
  I mean, here you are discussing how rotten and mean a DM I'd make or am, when I said I wasn't into killing characters.  So obviously you missed something.  I'm not making fun of you or even poking fun at you by pointing that out.

  Now, you seem to be under the impression I'd throw dragons at 5th level players.
  What I said was, I'd throw encounters of varying CLs at the ECL 5 party, including some as high as 20.  I mentioned an ECL 20 dragon, and I did go with that example.  
  I never said the party was in it's territory or actively attempting to kill it.  I never said it was after the party.  I specifically said it would miss the party entirely if they hid in the grass and left it alone (which is what any wise 5th level party would do, if a Great Wyrm Red Dragon showed up.)  The tactic the party pulled, hypothetically, would be a rarity ... not many parties are foolhardy enough to try such stunts.

  Now ...

  Let's have a conversation, not an argument.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 8, 2007)

Why not actually say that in your OP instead of playing word games, and then seemingly taking everything back in a later post?

I don't know about you, but when I went to school I was told that if I have a thesis and I want to convince people of something... I explain my argument and lay out exactly why I think that (laying out evidence). I don't go on one premise and then backpedal, saying that I was fooling the audience.

It makes you appear wishy washy, flip-flopping on what you really mean. On the one hand you're saying that the dice should roll as they may, that encounters should happen where they will, and that the game environment will react depending on what the PCs do. In other words, if the PCs to something foolish, they will suffer for it, and probably die.

On the other, you're willing to (as an example brought up within your thread) roleplay a 1000+ year old dragon as a simpleton, and change the rules to allow a foolhardy action that should be punished with a swift death or other horrid fate (such as the elf mage becoming the dragon's new half-dragon incubator/ concubine).

The message you appear to be sending is inconsistant, IMO.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Red dragon approaching party.
> Party opts for Operation 21.
> 
> The elven wizard throws Fly, ascends up to meet oncoming dragon.
> ...




 

CR20 Red Dragon - 4d6+12 Bite damage, you are right they have no listed slam damage, but... okay, lets run the numbers and pretend the dragon has done this before.

Wizard 5 Elf (known for their increased Con scores)- possible hp with a 16 Con - 5d4 all rolls were 4s so that means 20 + 3x5 = 35 hp

Scroll of Stoneskin costs 1100 gp gives 10 DR

Average damage on 4d6 is 14+12 = 26 points of damage that is 16 through, so the wizard lasts three rounds, of the dragon biting him.  If the Dragon didn't get frustrated and just breath fire on the dude- 16d10 (88 pts of damage average).  The wizard might have a chance at whittling down the dragon's hp (average is 378) if he can get through the dragons 24 SR.

Frightening Presence Save is a 29.  The Fighter is one of the lowest here, lets give him a +6 Will Save- makes on a 20.  Lets give him a +10 (unheard of at that level, but okay).

Okay, so everyone makes the Frightening Presence save (maybe they all had Heroes Feast   ).

Okay, so the dragon some how its the ground and everyone dog piles the dragon, everyone assists the fighter and gets the guy a +10 bonus to hit (assist and flanking and whatever), giving the Wpn Spec Fighter a +20 to hit he still has to hit a 33 AC, which is only 35% of the time at this point.  With his MW Bastard Sword he does 1d10 + 8 (two handed w/WS oh, what the heck give him a +1 sword) that is 19 max points of damage, lets make it a crit with max damage- 38 points! 

Okay, so in the above you claimed that a Gargantuan dragon is stopped by a wizard with stone skin- why?  Did the Wizard have an Immoveable Rod stuck up his behind?

In all seriousness, you have a great idea- just very unrealistic views.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 8, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Let's have a conversation, not an argument.




Edena, I agree, conversations are good, but please, try to think about the possibilities before you push it out there.  It seems that you are arguing an unreasonable view, and unrealistic points.

The dragon fight- completely win-able, just not in a million years with a group of 5th level characters, unless they have had lots of prep time.

Good luck, hope it all works for you.


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 8, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> Okay, so in the above you claimed that a Gargantuan dragon is stopped by a wizard with stone skin- why?  Did the Wizard have an Immoveable Rod stuck up his behind?




I think in that case, the rod wouldn't move... but the wizard would. Ow...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 8, 2007)

Ok, this is meant as humor, and to make a point.  It did happen, though.

  A long time ago, I was in a game with low level characters (1st through 3rd) and the DM threw a full sized red dragon at us.  Really!
  Well, if you think that's ridiculous, consider what happened next ...

  Our party illusionist (and it wasn't me, guys) threw the 1st level spell Phantasmal Force (if you are not familiar with this 1st/2nd edition spell, ask) and ... KILLED the dragon with the illusion of a cave in!
  And, if you think that's ridiculous ...

  Everyone spent the next hour - an hour of my precious time - arguing about the matter.
  The DM conceded that the player was right, the Phantasmal Force would have worked, and the mature adult red dragon was dead.

  Heh.  Now ... that's in the realm of the implausible!

  -

  Let me make something clear:  I'm not usually in the habit of throwing great wyrm red dragons against 5th level characters.  Heh.  LOL.
  It should be clear from my earlier posts that this is so, but if it is not, I'm making it clear now.  I'm making it *clear* now, so let me say it again:

  *I'm not in the habit of throwing great wyrm red dragons against 5th level characters.*


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Why does the wizard use this valuable scroll of stoneskin anyway? If stoneskin is so amazing in this universe wouldn't everyone cast it? Wouldn't the dragon have cast it too? If it's so useful and presumably therefore also common wouldn't even an overconfident dragon be well aware of the possibility?

And, most damning of all, why does the GM send the dragon at the PCs only once they have a stoneskin up? If he's playing hardball, why not wait for it to go down? Why, if he's playing hardball, go so easy on the players? Why not have the dragon breathe on the wizard and/or party?

The only reason I can think of is that this is a GM who has thrown an overpowered encounter at the PCs and is frantically trying to REBALANCE things through unlikely and implausible rulings. This is a GM committed above all else to balance. Exactly what Edena railed against in his first post.

But was that post a lie? Was the retraction a lie? Was the dragon example all a lie? I'm sorry but if you've admitted that one of your posts was misleading why should we pay attention to any of your posts in future? Might they not also be attempts to mislead?

Now if the PCs just hide from the dragon, then I'd be very happy to let them escape. That's smart play for a level 5 party, faced with a CR 20 foe. We did that back in a 2nd ed game. It was a very brief encounter, we were about level 5-6. We saw a big blue dragon up in the Crystalmists and we hid. That was it, but I found it a cool and exciting encounter.

But if we'd fought it and the GM started pulling out unlikely rulings to save what should be our deep-fried asses I wouldn't have liked that at all. I once watched a game where a level 1 party beat a roc in 2nd ed due to awful rulings and lack of knowledge on the GM's part. It felt wrong to me. Sometimes the PCs should just die.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Let's have a conversation, not an argument.



I'm sorry but the very thread title and tone of your first post was far more conducive to the latter. When you then go on to say the first post was a bluff, that makes things even worse. You're not doing anything to encourage a sensible debate and that's why you're not getting one.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

As several posters have already pointed out, occasional encounters with massively overpowered oponents are not brilliantly original. They're not breaking any new ground, or anyone's conceptual framework.

They are, in fact, recommended by the DMG 3.5.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> As a good example of this, he said cheekily, using the ML/XP system would have put the 3e ogre as a 3rd-level monster.  It would not have been under-CRed.



The 3.0 ogre, granddad!


----------



## Twowolves (Jul 9, 2007)

Harmon said:
			
		

> CR20 Red Dragon - 4d6+12 Bite damage, you are right they have no listed slam damage, but... okay, lets run the numbers and pretend the dragon has done this before.
> 
> Wizard 5 Elf (known for their increased Con scores)- possible hp with a 16 Con - 5d4 all rolls were 4s so that means 20 + 3x5 = 35 hp
> 
> Scroll of Stoneskin costs 1100 gp gives 10 DR





He did say the old version of Stoneskin, which could mean lots of things. I took it to mean the original version, which instead of giving damage reduction, just negates the next non-magical hit you take, regardless of the damage done. That's how it was in an old 1st ed game I played in, and yeah, you tried to have it up every chance you got.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I was bluffing in my first post, and a lot of you fell for the bluff.





			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (irritated look)
> 
> I'm not 'bluffing the message board.'



Oh, I just don't know what to believe anymore!


----------



## Caliban (Jul 9, 2007)

*yawn*


----------



## takyris (Jul 9, 2007)

This appears to be a borderline-troll by presenting as new something that is explicitly stated in, at the very least, the 3.0 DMG -- some encounters should be speed-bumps, many should be in the easy-to-hard range, and some should be totally over-the-top hard.

Everything else is handwaving, and the "bluffing" bit is either disingenuous or wishy-washy. Neither one encourages me to read the next three-screens-long post the OP writes.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Some might characterize this as "trolling".
> 
> Is ENWorld too easy on our trolls?
> 
> Cheers, -- N




I think almost every post Edena makes is a borderline troll, intended not to foster debate but argument. Since the mods disagree, and since it's none of my business anyway, I've responded by putting him on my ignore list and dealing with it that way myself.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 9, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Some might characterize this as "trolling".
> 
> Is ENWorld too easy on our trolls?
> 
> Cheers, -- N



 That was my opinion as well, but I was being nice and not mentioning it.

Until now


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 9, 2007)

I too am confused about how a flying person, Stoneskin or not, can stop a great big dragon dead in its tracks in midair.  I also saw something about how a similarly-enchanted mosquito could stop a car on a highway using the same rationale...sorry, can't buy it.  Stoneskin (1e or 2e version) would save the person (or mosquito) from any impact damage, but could not prevent said person (or mosquito) from being bounced somewhere into the next kingdom.

I suspect this branch of the discussion should not be entitled "DMs are too easy on their players", but rather "DMs are too hard on their own monsters", for such appears to be the case here. 

Lanefan


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Jul 9, 2007)

LOL
Someone please stick a fork in this one. It's beyond done. 
Sounds like the OP had a brilliantly clever and funny idea for a post (in his mind, anyway) that just went terribly wrong. I hate putting my time into giving a thoughtful and intelligent response to a post only to find out the OP was just putting everyone on. Oh, well.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Jul 9, 2007)

yeah a level 5 party vs a cr 20 dragon....


This is within reason, almost impossible. their is too much that can go wrong. Their could be a slim chance at winning though if the dragon was asleep. Using hit and run tactics. Lots of summoning, using poison, getting a surprise round and after words winning initiative. Causing rock slides, using dragon bane equipment, ect...


A dragon thats fully awake, fully buffed and already gunning for the pcs ...  thats impossible.


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 9, 2007)

If Warduke isn't laying the smackdown on your party by 3rd level, obviously the DM is a creampuff!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 9, 2007)

(cold look)

  Enough.

  I have stated there should be more tough DMs.
  I have stated there should be more players willing to give their best in the game.

  I think the current culture fosters pampering the players.
  I think the current culture fosters the players whining whenever things become remotely tough.
  I think the current culture destroys the magic that existed of old in D&D games.
  I think the current culture makes it impossible for DMs to get tough and demand the best out of their players.

  If I think a ECL 5 party should have to take on a CR 20 dragon, then that's the challenge.
  The group can use the resources they have, and win.  
  Or the group can stop playing and instead endlessly discuss how ECL 5 parties can't win against CR 20 dragons, and come up with endless reasons within the rules that justify why winning is impossible ... and lose.

  You want to be a winner in D&D?
  Roleplay.  Have fun.  Solve the puzzles.  Overcome obstacles.
  And when the big challenges come along, rise to the occasion and fight.  
  Hiding in a cocoon of rules and justifications the current culture has created, isn't going to save you in my game.  It isn't going to budge me one bit.  And it most certainly isn't going to garner sympathy from me.

  You want to roleplay a fierce, ferocious warrior?  Then roleplay a fierce, ferocious warrior!
  Lose the coddled attitude, the rules cocoon, the ECL and CR justifications, the reasons why it can't be done.  Stand up and fight.  And win.
  You want to play within the cocoon?  Not in my game, you won't.

  And no, I'm not 'bluffing.'
  Back in the harsh days of earlier games in 1E and 2E, all this nonsense I'm hearing would have received a reception far, far colder than anything *I'm* writing now.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 9, 2007)

And yeah, Stoneskin works that way.  If for no other reason, because I'm the DM and I say it works that way.

  If the players - they know how Stoneskin works in my game - take advantage of how it works, then all the better for them.
  But if they sit and whine about how Stoneskin doesn't work that way, shouldn't work that way, couldn't work that way, then that's just too bad for them.  Because I say it works that way, and my monsters use it that way.

  When someone else is DMing, they can rule anything they want about Stoneskin.
  But in my game, that's how it works.  Like it or lump it.

  Being congenial to the players doesn't mean me doing exactly what they tell me.

  Courteous and respectful players asking to discuss the rules - that gets my respect and attention, and I consider what they have to say.
  Rude, obnoxious, rules-lawyering, whining players, get neither my sympathy nor respects.  They certainly get no rules adjustments in their favor by such behavior.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## shilsen (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (cold look)




Cute. Or are you just kidding us?



> Enough.
> 
> I have stated there should be more tough DMs.
> I have stated there should be more players willing to give their best in the game.




I've stated that we need more posters to learn to be succinct and clear in their posts. Doesn't mean that it's going to happen. Or that my statements matter a damn or should be taken that seriously by anyone, including me. 



> I think the current culture fosters pampering the players.
> I think the current culture fosters the players whining whenever things become remotely tough.
> I think the current culture destroys the magic that existed of old in D&D games.
> I think the current culture makes it impossible for DMs to get tough and demand the best out of their players.




I think you should read more threads on ENWorld and then maybe you'll see that your opinion needs a little more foundation.



> You want to be a winner in D&D?...




I'll give you a simpler formula. You want to be a winner in D&D? Get together with some friends, play the game, and all of you have fun. If you do, then you're a winner in D&D. 



> And no, I'm not 'bluffing.'




Yeah, but maybe you're bluffing about not bluffing. That's the thing with bluffing. See?



> Back in the harsh days of earlier games in 1E and 2E, all this nonsense I'm hearing would have received a reception far, far colder than anything *I'm* writing now.




Was that meant to be cold? I can never tell.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 9, 2007)

Because I am a fierce, ferocious warrior with stoneskin, I shall boldly push forward, despite your (cold look) and stern words. Even in the old editions, 5th level characters wouldn't reasonably fight ancient dragons. Yes, yes, you can be the tough guy DM who refuses to coddle his players and throws ridiculous scenarios at them, but...

Ahh, never mind. This reminds me of the analogy between internet arguments and the Special Olympics. I'm done with this nonsense - play it however you want.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 9, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Edena, don't bother arguing.
> 
> According to some people on this board if you so much as intentionally plan an encounter that has a definite chance of killing a PC or two your an adversarial DM.
> 
> ...




  Well put, Treebore.

  I've made my point.  I know a lot of people got the general message I was trying to make.  And I know a lot of people agree with what I was trying to say.
  That's good enough for me.

  Finis.  I'm out of this thread.  
  Those who want to continue the profound discourtesy, the insults, the threadcrapping, the baiting, the deliberate attempts at derailment of the topic, the subtle violations and sometimes open violations of ENWorld rules, can do it without me.

  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## Gentlegamer (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Those who want to continue the profound discourtesy, the insults, the threadcrapping, the baiting, the deliberate attempts at derailment of the topic, the subtle violations and sometimes open violations of ENWorld rules, can do it without me.



This might be ironic, given the subject.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 9, 2007)

So let me get this straight...

Seemingly common occurance:
DM places a challenge in front of the party. They have already had several challenges without the chance to rest.
<Players> Hang on. We're low on spells and HP and there's another encounter?
<DM> Yep. Roll initiative.
<Players> That's not fair! That's not balanced! You're not doing it right!* (* delete as appropriate)

As a DM I wouldn't want to run a game for such a bunch of lily-livered babies.
If you want 8 hours kip per night don't go out into the wilderness.
If you want to rest between encounters get spells/items that facilitate it.
If you don't want your characters to be in constant peril play Teletubbies the Role-Playing Game. Then again, that big rabbit. Bit scary.

Sounds to me like this argument has gone from one extreme to the other and I hope that the majority of DMs/Players are somewhere in the middle. I know mine are.


----------



## Numion (Jul 9, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Lots of respect for you, mang, but nothing I've seen has convinced me that CR/EL is as good a system as the ML/XP system it replaced.




This far the system has allowed two of my players to become first time DMs, and run a good campaign from 1st to 12th and 1st to 8th level, respectively. They ballparked the encounters using that system and came up with enough challenging and interesting encounters.

They might've learned to become such good DMs just by watching me DM, but I doubt that; I was never that good. I think the EL/CR system is to thank, for the most part.

As for this thread, it started on a good premise, IMO. For once Edena seemed to have an actual point, but he pissed it all away with the example which was against all good DMing advice I've heard.

That wasn't a player rising up to the challenge (which is a great thing to see from a DMs perspective). It was the DM backing down from a challenge. People here decry using only appropriate challenges (ELs) - in which they are right. (Using only EL = party level is misuse of the system, ELs should be distributed from EL 5+ average level to EL 5- average level, RTFM and all that.) But much worse than that is to present a fake challenge, a CR 20 that's defeated as CR 5. After that, challenges hardly mean anything.

I'd rather come out bloodied and missing a few comrades against CR 10 than being 'teh winnar' against CR 20 dragon that's played like a retard with DM on my side. The latter one isn't a challenge at all, and I don't like D&D without challenge.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I have stated there should be more tough DMs.



But by your own definition, you're not a tough DM. You're a DM who only has his high CR monsters attack, not when the PCs are low on hit points and spells, but during the brief 70 min window when they're buffed with stoneskin.

What you're doing there is trying to balance the encounter, precisely what you told us not to do in your first post. Then you have the dragon do exactly what it must do to lose, and make implausible rulings, again to balance the battle.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

So there are all these whining players right? DMs are beset by them at the moment. And what solution do these DMs choose? Discuss the problem with their group? No. They come on a message board and whine about how there are so many whining players and say other DMs should be tougher on *their* players. But other DM's players aren't the problem.

I have a suggestion. If you have a problem with your players, sort it out with them. Or get new players.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Finis.  I'm out of this thread.
> Those who want to continue the profound discourtesy, the insults, the threadcrapping, the baiting, the deliberate attempts at derailment of the topic, the subtle violations and sometimes open violations of ENWorld rules, can do it without me.
> 
> Edena_of_Neith




Back in...

...5...

...4...

...3...

...2...

...1...


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 9, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Courteous and respectful players asking to discuss the rules - that gets my respect and attention, and I consider what they have to say.
> Rude, obnoxious, rules-lawyering, whining players, get neither my sympathy nor respects.  They certainly get no rules adjustments in their favor by such behavior.



Wow! You prefer courteous people to rude people??! That's the most shocking and interesting opinion I've heard all year.

What's next? Nice things are better than nasty things? Or perhaps you prefer good things to bad things.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 9, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Edena_of_Neith is too easy on his players.






			
				Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But by your own definition, you're not a tough DM. You're a DM who only has his high CR monsters attack, not when the PCs are low on hit points and spells, but during the brief 70 min window when they're buffed with stoneskin.
> 
> What you're doing there is trying to balance the encounter, precisely what you told us not to do in your first post. Then you have the dragon do exactly what it must do to lose, and make implausible rulings, again to balance the battle.




*ding ding ding*

Edena says he's a tough DM, but everything says the opposite. I've killed PCs before they got around to their initiative order to act in the first combat of the day, and I don't really consider myself to be a "killer" DM.. I see nothing tough about Edena's playstyle at all!


----------



## Numion (Jul 9, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I see nothing tough about Edena's playstyle at all!




Incidentally, his namesake D&D character Edena was apparently presided over by wuss DMs. When someone says they've got 121st level character, you know there's something fishy going on.

In Edenas case he had one 'Master Edena' and many lesser versions of Edena. When someone DMed a game for 5th level PCs, for example, he couldn't play Master Edena, but made a 5th level character named Edena. If the Edena levelled, he would level up the Master Edena. That apparently happened 121 times, but it wasn't a single character who advanced to those levels. Not exactly kosher, is it?

And this is the man now advocating tough DMing? Granted, Edena had some tough DMs, like the butt-pirates* handling of Edena in one adventure proves, but I don't think that's the kind of _tough love_ even he would advocate   

* you don't wanna know, but if you do, ask Edena  :\


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 9, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> This far the system has allowed two of my players to become first time DMs, and run a good campaign from 1st to 12th and 1st to 8th level, respectively. They ballparked the encounters using that system and came up with enough challenging and interesting encounters.




And I've had several players become DMs under ML/XP.  They were able to come up with challenging and interesting encounters, too.



> As for this thread, it started on a good premise, IMO. For once Edena seemed to have an actual point, but he pissed it all away with the example which was against all good DMing advice I've heard.




I tend to agree with you here.


----------



## Asmo (Jul 9, 2007)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> *ding ding ding*I've killed PCs before they got around to their initiative order to act in the first combat of the day, and I don't really consider myself to be a "killer" DM.. I see nothing tough about Edena's playstyle at all!




Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill characters before they even were made! 

Asmo


----------



## Derren (Jul 9, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> But by your own definition, you're not a tough DM. You're a DM who only has his high CR monsters attack, not when the PCs are low on hit points and spells, but during the brief 70 min window when they're buffed with stoneskin.
> 
> What you're doing there is trying to balance the encounter, precisely what you told us not to do in your first post. Then you have the dragon do exactly what it must do to lose, and make implausible rulings, again to balance the battle.




I couldn't have said it better.


----------



## +5 Keyboard! (Jul 9, 2007)

Asmo said:
			
		

> Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill charcters before they even were made!
> 
> Asmo



 LOL!!!


----------



## Shadeydm (Jul 9, 2007)

I need a personal mod to sit next to me while I am in front of the computer to bludgeon me repeatedly with a blunt object should I ever start to read one this guys threads again. Between this the two elf threads there are hours of my life I would like to have back.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jul 9, 2007)

Asmo said:
			
		

> Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill charcters before they even were made!




mmmm Traveller


----------



## danzig138 (Jul 9, 2007)

Gothmog said:
			
		

> but 1e/2e seemed like inherently much deadlier systems



Sorry, I don't see it. In the 19 years I've been running games, I've seen so many more characters die under 3/3.5 than I ever saw die in 1/2E. I'm talking like 10, maybe 20x more character deaths. The players have noticed it as well. 

If we want to go video game routes, though, 1/2E was like Doom on God Mode, while 3/3.5 seems to be more like Fallout if you never find anything better than a leather jacket and 10mm pistol.


----------



## Umbran (Jul 9, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Back in...





You know, with the level or personal disrespect going on in here, maybe it ought to be "_Ban_ in 5...4...3...".  

Please, folks - however much you dislike another poster's approach - treat each other with respect, or show some personal restraint and stay out of the thread.  What's been going on in here isn't acceptable.  If folks have comments or questions, please take that discussion to e-mail.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 9, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> You know, with the level or personal disrespect going on in here, maybe it ought to be "_Ban_ in 5...4...3...".
> 
> Please, folks - however much you dislike another poster's approach - treat each other with respect, or show some personal restraint and stay out of the thread.  What's been going on in here isn't acceptable.  If folks have comments or questions, please take that discussion to e-mail.



 Point taken. That was admittedly a whole lot more snarky than I ever get on ENWorld and much more so than was needed. Whatever my opinion about Edena's posts, that's no excuse for picking on him that much. So, just in case Edena is still reading this thread, I apologize and promise to play nice.


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 9, 2007)

I'm going to try to discuss the OP. 

I don't consider myself a Rat-Bastard DM. What I'm trying to do, however, is to create a feel of believability in the games I run.

I do believe that running encounters in the game that would be always in the APL-4 to APL+4 range of CRs creates a feeling of expectations and entitlement for the players, sooner or later. 

I believe the characters are adventurers. As such, I think that a part of the believability of the game comes with keeping adventurers on their toes. Sometimes, they'll just mess with the wrong guys at the wrong time. Sometimes, they'll just be out of luck.

What I do, however, is always provide some sort of way in which the game might go on. If for instance they are level 4 and are searching for trouble in front of the Iron Mage, level 20 Wizard, he might just exile them in a prison half-plane for some time instead of just kill them. This is a new challenge. Or the guard, the Imperial Eyes, whatever intervene and arrest the PCs. How do they go out of jail? Or I provide some time to think about what they're doing: they are visiting Ghul's Labyrinth, enter a huge underground complex and spot a gigantic Red Dragon from hundreds of feet away - if they charge the Dragon, they're dead, but they've made the choice and could see that the monster was WAY out of their league. That sort of thing. 

I think it's really naive to just pit the PCs against an APL +15 encounter by surprise, with the monster having a clear agenda of killing them, period, and expect the players to be happy about the results. The players being happy about the game is the WHOLE point of playing it in the first place. I just listen to the players and try to keep the game entertaining.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 9, 2007)

Asmo said:
			
		

> Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill characters before they even were made!
> 
> Asmo




I phone people up at random to tell them their character died, on the off chance that they might become my players some day.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 9, 2007)

I see no shortage of PC death. And raising/resurrection isn't much of an issue, since I think everyone in my group is always tossing around a handful of character ideas they'd like to play, so PC death is just an opportunity for them to play another character.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jul 9, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I phone people up at random to tell them their character died, on the off chance that they might become my players some day.




That was _you_?!?!?! You made my wife cry!!


----------



## Midknightsun (Jul 9, 2007)

As for the OP's initial post. .  while over the top, I tend to agree with the general gist of the argument.  I DM pretty tough too, its just my style.  But I never make things impossible, nor do I go after PCs to "win" . . . because its too easy to TPK.  The challenge lies in keeping them on their toes, and keeping players from being completely comfortable.  I've had past instances where more than a few characters starting getting really upidy after a series of relatively easy encounters.  They started talking a lot of smack to the wrong people . . . and well, natural consequences lead to a pretty hardy beat down.  It wasn't about my ego being attacked, because, frankly, I found some of the stuff genuinely funny, but there were already things in place that they messed with too early (despite my attempts to clue them in).  

Now, I throw in easy encounters on purpose so the PCs get their chance to shine and perform  beatdown or two themselves, but try to create a world that isn't perfectly scaled to them . . . sometimes running away is the best idea (or heck, pleading for your life).  If the PCs aren't really being dopey, they should be able to avoid a horrible encounter.  That being said, I believe in Karma.  If the characters start chasing down fleeing enemies and killing them all the time (for instance), I think it very appropriate that I have them chased and harried if they flee.  However, I won't be the first to open up that cage.  I'm also big into giving the players clues about the nature of some of the things they may be facing, especially if there's a good chance some of them may die.

As a player, I don't want my DM to coddle me either.  If I done something dumb, I deserve to get my anatomy rearranged.  Heck, sometimes I expect to just be outclassed and realize I might have to do a little thinking outside the box to survive.  And sometimes my character may die.  As long as I'm not on McBuff #17, I don't mind.  I figure its the chance my character takes for being an adventurer.  Of course, I'd like my chance to shine now and then, but i don't think that's at odds with a tough DM's philosophy (at least not this tough DM).

I find it interesting that I've seen, time and again, many posters claim how they don't want their hobby to be stressful, because they have enough of that in real life.  I can definitely relate to real life stress, having more than a good share myself, but go on record as saying I still like my games to be tough.  But I think many of those who talk of this are referring to DMs who put them in deathtrap after deathtrap and seem to actually gain waaay to much satisfaction from the act.  That I can relate to;  I hate those types of DMs as well, but I would rather a tough DM than one who creates a walk-through for me.  YMMV

I will add is that the thing I hate worse than a weak DM, or a tyrant DM, is the competitor DM.  To me, its the DM that gets you in a corner until you know you're going to die (because he needs to "win", of course) and then lets you off the hook with some sort of Deus Ex Machina BS (or starts to hold back so you can succeed).  I'd rather be killed, thank you, then get a victory served to me because of DM fiat.


----------



## darkseraphim (Jul 9, 2007)

Well, the expectations of the players are different.

When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge.  The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.).  The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died.  You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.

Nowadays, people aren't playing for the challenge as much as they're playing for personal aggrandizement.  They become so invested in one character that they can't imagine playing if that character died.  Also, they aren't interested in NPC muscle, because those NPCs are *not* the aggrandized PC, and therefore not interesting.

Personally I play old-school P&P for the first fix, and online MMOs for the second.  But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it.  It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.


----------



## takyris (Jul 9, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> Well, the expectations of the players are different.
> 
> When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge.  The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.).  The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died.  You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.
> 
> ...




That statement uses some value judgments that attempt to put objective values on subjective experiences.

I can believe that *you* played that way, but the old "Guy who challenged Orcus and took his stuff and then killed all the gods" stories have been around since forever. Don't blame 3.0 for munchkinism. The only difference I see is that there are more people playing, more voices adding to the discussion... and therefore, more people talking about their important story or their uber-level character.

I'd agree with you that the game has shifted intentions in a lot of ways, but where you see "aggrandizement", I see some people wanting to tell stories that are deeper than a simple justification for "why we're going through this collection of rectangular rooms and hallways filled with random monsters". People on both sides of the wargame/story fence can play with an eye toward aggrandizement, and neither side of the fence is wrong. It's all about what you and your group want.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 9, 2007)

Recently- due to our level, our characters have needed a Revivify at least once per campaign (at least), and we lost a cleric to a trap.  Could any of the deaths been avoided by better planning, hind sight would say yes, but if we had all the proper scrolls, and been in the right place at exactly the right time then things would have gone better too.

Do we plan as well as we can?  Most of the time I feel like we have missed something- did we know the NightFang Spire was loaded with vampires and undead?  Nope.  Did we take a but stomping going through it?  Yep.  Did we have fun?  Yep.  Did we lose people?  Two as I recall.  Did we get them back?  Yep.  Was the last fight EL above us?  Just barely.

About old school D&D vs newer versions- it isn't AD&D vs 3.5e D&D, its about making a challenge that is believable and win-able for the PC/Players.  

The OP seems to my view to be calling out Players and calling them wimps for not figuring away through battles that are a dozen CR above the PC, which he could be right on, he's got a good argument that some Players just want to "roll to hit, and damage.  Move to the next," but can he force a group to think about their tactics by TPKing every week?  Personally, I would fail the CR 20 Red Dragon, cause my characters would run and hide.  Realistically the dragon would find them, and that would be that.  However, this group I game with does not have the time or patience to work on new characters weekly.  We like history with characters and not a continuous line of "George, the ________" characters. 

I suppose I fail at the ultimate test of gaming- imagination in tactics.  How do you beat a CR 20 dragon at 5th level with a realistic compliment of supplies and spells (Scroll of Stoneskin is not realistic to me at that level)?  I have no idea.

Keep it civil, and keep it going.


----------



## Mr. Patient (Jul 9, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge.
> 
> ...
> 
> But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it.  It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.




Polls have shown that a majority of the EN World community began their gaming careers in the period from 1978-1983.  I go back to the Holmes set, myself, and I can't say that I find much appeal in the OP's approach.  I don't think it's generational.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 10, 2007)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> I'm going to try to discuss the OP.
> 
> I don't consider myself a Rat-Bastard DM. What I'm trying to do, however, is to create a feel of believability in the games I run.
> 
> I do believe that running encounters in the game that would be always in the APL-4 to APL+4 range of CRs creates a feeling of expectations and entitlement for the players, sooner or later.



On the other hand, I think it's actually more believable to run encounters in that range. Lets face it, an 9 CR range of encounters is pretty large. To me, an environment where you even as an adventurer would decide to go where you could both "run into" something outside that range and it would automaticly be hostile to you is a bigger stretch than a world where you have to go looking for that level of danger or be a bigger deal yourself to attract it. As an adventuring party gets to the point where they can *get* to areas of greater danger, they move up into a higher range. And that's leaving aside encounters that scale themselves by the party's response. 

(on the other hand, some folks seem to be defining an encounter in a sort of "being aware that it's there" sort of way, whether it notices or cares you exist.)


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 10, 2007)

Asmo said:
			
		

> Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill characters before they even were made!



In all seriousness, I've twice killed characters before they joined the party.

Once was when two players needed replacement characters due to deaths in Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun; the party was deep in the temple and these two newcomers wandered up to the now almost undefended front door.  Note that I said "almost" undefended; the few Norkers on guard should have been a complete pushover for the two PC's but no, they blew it...

The other time was when a party was in town looking for a new Thief (I forget what happened to the last one).  They heard of a possible recruit and through go-betweens arranged a meeting that night in a rather seedy local tavern.  Party arrives just in time to see a fight break out over someone cheating at cards; the new Thief was (I think) the accuser, and through a spectacular series of bad rolls ended up dead on the floor before the party realized she was who they were there to meet!

Lanefan


----------



## kaomera (Jul 10, 2007)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> The other time was when a party was in town looking for a new Thief (I forget what happened to the last one).



Was he, perhaps, _stolen_?


----------



## WildWeasel (Jul 10, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Back in the harsh days of earlier games in 1E and 2E, all this nonsense I'm hearing would have received a reception far, far colder than anything *I'm* writing now.




Wow, you must have played some radically different 1E/2E than me, as I've seen every kind of whining then too.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 10, 2007)

darkseraphim said:
			
		

> Well, the expectations of the players are different.
> 
> When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge.  The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.).  The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died.  You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.
> 
> ...




LOL!  Oh thank you for that.  I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while.  ... oh wait... you _were_ making a joke right?


----------



## MerricB (Jul 10, 2007)

The play of D&D depends greatly on the expectations of the DM and the group. Let's face it, if you have a rules lawyer DM, you tend to not improvise (because it isn't in the book and so the DM won't allow it), but if you have a wing-it DM, you improvise a lot more.

Some times, it just depends on what campaign the group wants to play. Certainly I've run high-risk dungeon crawls at times, and I've also run strong narrative plotlines as well, where character failure doesn't mean permanent death, but can mean horrible things to the campaign world (and the PC's family, friends and loved ones...)

Cheers!


----------



## Presto2112 (Jul 10, 2007)

Edgewood said:
			
		

> Well, I just ran a session this past weekend where the big bad guy ran from the PCs and they shot him in the back as he ran. If the PCs can do it, you can bet I'll be doing it to them too. All's fair in love and war




And if you'll recall, the PCs ran first.


----------



## Jupp (Jul 10, 2007)

theredrobedwizard said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, man, but I'd not play in a game you run (if that's truly how you do things).  I play D&D to have fun, not to constantly fight for my character's very survival.  ---snipp---




But isn't that exactly what makes RPGs (like D&D) fun? Otherwise you could just as well sit down together and tell good night stories to each other. As a DM I constantly throw enemies at my group that are over their power level. But so far they always managed to make the right decision (run away/fight/dig in and wait). 

I like it when I am constantly challanged by a DM because that is what makes the game interesting. Otherwise it would feel like a walk in the park and the only think that could harm you would be that you trip over your own feet. Not fun.


----------



## molonel (Jul 11, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> I phone people up at random to tell them their character died, on the off chance that they might become my players some day.




I laughed so freaking hard at this post.


----------



## Zurai (Jul 11, 2007)

Jupp said:
			
		

> But isn't that exactly what makes RPGs (like D&D) fun? Otherwise you could just as well sit down together and tell good night stories to each other. As a DM I constantly throw enemies at my group that are over their power level. But so far they always managed to make the right decision (run away/fight/dig in and wait).
> 
> I like it when I am constantly challanged by a DM because that is what makes the game interesting. Otherwise it would feel like a walk in the park and the only think that could harm you would be that you trip over your own feet. Not fun.




For some people fighting for their (characters') lives is what makes D&D fun, yes.

For others, it's the storytelling.

For others, it's creating optimized characters.

For others, it's creating crazily _un_-optimized characters and still being effective.

Etc, etc.

There is no right way to have fun in D&D, and there definitely isn't an ONLY way to have fun in D&D.


----------



## Doctor DM (Jul 11, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> There is no right way to have fun in D&D, and there definitely isn't an ONLY way to have fun in D&D.




That is EXACTLY how I feel.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 11, 2007)

Jupp said:
			
		

> But isn't that exactly what makes RPGs (like D&D) fun? Otherwise you could just as well sit down together and tell good night stories to each other. As a DM I constantly throw enemies at my group that are over their power level. But so far they always managed to make the right decision (run away/fight/dig in and wait).
> 
> I like it when I am constantly challanged by a DM because that is what makes the game interesting. Otherwise it would feel like a walk in the park and the only think that could harm you would be that you trip over your own feet. Not fun.



 Why does it have to be an all-or-nothing situation? The poster you quoted wrote that he didn't want to *constantly* fight for the character's survival. You're assuming that means he never wants to fight for his character's survival, which is a big leap. For many people, it's fun to sometimes have characters fighting overwhelming odds for survival, sometimes have them mowing down enemies like wheat, sometimes have them kick back with a session which is all talk and no dice-rolling, sometimes have a lot of hack-and-slash and no real dialogue, etc. The best game, for me, has a good mixture of different things, and having one doesn't mean the other cannot be part of the same game.

Plus, of course, as the previous two posters noted, there really is no wrong way to play D&D. If all members of a group are having fun, then they're playing the game right.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 11, 2007)

Jupp said:
			
		

> But isn't that exactly what makes RPGs (like D&D) fun? Otherwise you could just as well sit down together and tell good night stories to each other. As a DM I constantly throw enemies at my group that are over their power level. But so far they always managed to make the right decision (run away/fight/dig in and wait).
> 
> I like it when I am constantly challanged by a DM because that is what makes the game interesting. Otherwise it would feel like a walk in the park and the only think that could harm you would be that you trip over your own feet. Not fun.



Do you see a difference between "constantly fight for my characters very survival" and "any level of challenge"?  Because you are pretty much saying that disliking one is disliking the other. No, I don't think that consistently overpowered enemies are what makes rpgs fun. I don't think the fight for mere life is what makes an rpg fun. I think that a long term challenge where you have more to gain and far more to lose than your own life is what makes an rpg fun, and a constant stream of barely survivable encounters is boring.


----------



## Harmon (Jul 11, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> ....I think that a long term challenge where you have more to gain and far more to lose than your own life is what makes an rpg fun, and a constant stream of barely survivable encounters is boring.




I agree with this statement.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 11, 2007)

molonel said:
			
		

> I laughed so freaking hard at this post.




By the way molonel, your character died.


----------



## Jupp (Jul 11, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Do you see a difference between "constantly fight for my characters very survival" and "any level of challenge"?  Because you are pretty much saying that disliking one is disliking the other. No, I don't think that consistently overpowered enemies are what makes rpgs fun. I don't think the fight for mere life is what makes an rpg fun. I think that a long term challenge where you have more to gain and far more to lose than your own life is what makes an rpg fun, and a constant stream of barely survivable encounters is boring.




Sorry I was a bit unclear. But I certainly do a make difference between "being challenged by an encounter" and "being overwhelmed by monsters that are too powerfull for the group". Just because a monster is above the power level of the group does not necessarily mean that it is so much over the top that the group has no other choice than to run away. And yes we do have those less dangerous situations in our game. It's just the other way around. We have more challenging situations than easy ones.



			
				Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Because you are pretty much saying that disliking one is disliking the other.




This is an interpretation from your side. But no, not true. If it came through like that then I apologize. Our group just prefers when the stakes are high for them and I will certainly not try to change their preference. In the end I am here to serve their tastes so they have as much fun as possible. And if their taste for a certain kind of gameplay matches mine, even better.

I hope everthing is unclear now


----------



## zen_hydra (Jul 11, 2007)

I prefer to run games with a sense of plausibility.  The fantastic may be possible, but where there are real, and often deadly, consequences for a characters actions.  

My personal experience with 3e/3.5e is that CR is great as a tool for power appraisal, but it should never get in the way of a good story.  ...and if a good story means that sometimes the PCs need to learn to run away from things that they can't defeat, or die due to a lack of a survival instinct, so be it.  

I have played D&D since the good ol' Red Box days, and I tend to feel that the differences have more to do with play style, than with the rules.  If I want to be a killer DM, your Uncanny Dodge and Evasion aren't even going to slow me down.


----------



## IanB (Jul 11, 2007)

I just killed two level 2 PCs (one with 30 hp (was raging), one with 22 hp) in two rounds on Monday night. _In two hits. _Greataxe crit for 41 points of damage on one and greataxe crit for 46 points of damage on the other. CR 3 opponent. Published adventure.

Don't tell me 3rd edition is any less deadly. 1e/2e didn't have crits at all, unless you were using a house rule. Crits alone inflate the death rate far above the older editions in my experience.


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 12, 2007)

*The Player's Bill Of Rights*

I guess I'll stand in the vocal minority. 

AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.

1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter. 

2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out. 

3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.

4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...

5.) Character Generation and House Rules SPELLED OUT before they affect my character. If something is being "playtested" I want to know before I become teh guinea pig. If you don't have elves, use only PH spells, or use a complex method of determining critical hits, please tell me before I decide to roll up an elf, pick a spell out of SC, or get my arm lobbed off by a kobold.

6.) Inform me WHAT type of game you intend to run. Not the genre, the TYPE. Social-political intrigue? Grim-and-gritty realism? Mystery and exploration? Kick-in-the-door dungeoneering 1-20? A world infested with undead? Planescape? These things will determine the character choices I make, and will affect my enjoyment accordingly.

7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...

8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself. 

9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else. I am not here to be lectured to about gaming, history, religion or politics, I'm here to kill some bad things and take their stuff. 

10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM. 

So signed.

Your Players.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 12, 2007)

......I endorse anything Remathilis says.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> ......I endorse anything Remathilis says.




I'm not sure I'd go that far, but certainly anything in his last post on this thread.


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm all for player entitlement and all, but anyone coming to me with a list of demands is going to be presenting that list to someone else in the near future  

Only one rule is really needed for good D&D gaming: "Don't play with jerks".

As a DM I try to go with the credo "Instead of finding ways to say no, try to find ways to say yes!". Within reason and all that,.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> I'm all for player entitlement and all, but anyone coming to me with a list of demands is going to be presenting that list to someone else in the near future




Exactly.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 12, 2007)

I'd pretty much agree with Remathilis, except for changing 'DEMAND' to 'Expect'.

I won't give my DMs demands and I won't stand for players making demands of me. That is just plain rude. They are not paying me to run a game for them.
I'm for discussion and consensus. You want something, we'll all discuss it.

I run the game I want to run which, luckily, is a game my players want to play. Bully for me.

If a DM runs a game and it doesn't meet my expectations I reserve the right to do something else instead. I do not have the right to demand he runs it how I want.


----------



## merelycompetent (Jul 12, 2007)

Speaking only for myself:



			
				Remathilis said:
			
		

> I guess I'll stand in the vocal minority.
> 
> AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.




Right there we have a problem. I'm perfectly willing to DISCUSS what sort of game you want to play in and see if it's a good match for what I want to run. I'm also perfectly willing to have that discussion several times over the course of the campaign, and adjust my DMing style up to the point where it stops being fun for me. But if we start off with demands, then we're not going to get along so well. I prefer to work with players in my games, and to have the players work with me. When that cooperation doesn't happen, I find new players.



> 1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter.




I would, when your 1st level PC with a +1 sword meets a great wyrm dragon, expect him to:
a: Die if he attacks the wyrm, b: Get captured by the wyrm if he tries to run away (see option c, c: try to negotiate. This means that, if the dragon IS there as a plot device for your character, you're going to be unhappy with the results no matter what. That's one of the problems with demands.



> 2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out.




If you and your fellow players take only the plot hooks that lead to evil wizards, guess what? The majority of the high-powered loot is going to be suitable for wizards. If you and your fellow players decide to take on more than you can handle, in spite of DM warnings given directly or through NPCs, you get whatever consequences fall from it. A far better statement would be, "Reasonable treasure for the challenge faced."



> 3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.




This is actually pretty reasonable, IMO. Be assured that, if I'm the DM, you will get it in writing before character creation dice are rolled that this is/is not a grim-n-gritty, miss a save and die, campaign. By the same token, at higher levels, save-or-die becomes far more common. If you, as a player, aren't aware of that, then I cordially suggest a different game system.



> 4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...




Again, reasonable - up to a point. I think a better way to put it is, "Regular advancement commensurate with the risks taken and obstacles overcome."

5-6. Reasonable, and as a DM, I wouldn't run it any other way except as a one-shot (and even then, I'd give appropriate warning).



> 7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...




Then don't expect me, as the DM, to put any more effort into your character than that. I'll meet you half-way (or more). But I'm only going to put in as much work into your character and his/her/its plots as you do. In most of the campaigns I run, this WILL create problems down the road.



> 8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.




Not appropriate as a demand, IMO. This is a play style preference. If the play style you PREFER doesn't match the play style I, as DM, prefer, then we either find a common ground or we don't play.



> 9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else. I am not here to be lectured to about gaming, history, religion or politics, I'm here to kill some bad things and take their stuff.




The irony of this one being listed as a dictatorial demand is huge. As friends, and in the interest of being friendly, please don't try to dictate what type of game I'm going to run. In turn, I won't dictate what type of game you're going to play.



> 10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM.




I'd be okay with this if one more thing was added: "I also understand that the DM reserves the right to ask me to leave, or find someone else to DM. If any of the above happens, I will conduct myself with courtesy and politeness, and I will speak to the DM privately first."

Overall, I'd view this set of demands poorly if a player (or group of players) presented it to me. Talk to me about what kind of game you want to play: Yes. Talk to me about what you like/don't like in the game: You bet. Talk to me about problems you're having in the current game: Absolutely. Demand that I do things your way: Find another game, or run one yourself.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> 8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.



I agree that the game should not be *about* those (and everything else you said, though a lower level of equipment/wealth can be compensated for in other ways) however, with the possible exception of the uber DMPC, all of those factors can enhance the game, if they are there for the PCs to interact with and effect, not immutables for the PCs to wander through.


----------



## Crust (Jul 12, 2007)

I'm currently running the Age of Worms adventure path from _Dungeon _ (loving it!).  We're about to wrap up the fifth module (Champion's Belt), and all four original PCs are still alive.

Why?  Because I'm running an adventure path, and I want to see them to the end.  I want to take these four core PCs and see them grow and succeed from level 1-20 and perhaps beyond.  When I run a planned-out adventure path, I tend to take it easy on PCs.  Not that I'm altering reality in-game or anything like that, but I do pull punches here and there behind the screen, and I make sure all encounters are within the abilities of the PCs.

I'd like to be a bit harsher in my next campaign.  Perhaps I'll take things one module at a time, with no smooth connections or transitions between modules (a lot like the continuing adventures of Conan of Cimmeria).  Each new module will find the PCs in a new town with new conflicts.  That way, I can be brutal and not have to worry about a PC's death upsetting the story.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

Crust said:
			
		

> I'm currently running the Age of Worms adventure path from _Dungeon _ (loving it!).  We're about to wrap up the fifth module (Champion's Belt), and all four original PCs are still alive.
> 
> Why?  Because I'm running an adventure path, and I want to see them to the end.  I want to take these four core PCs and see them grow and succeed from level 1-20 and perhaps beyond.



The Hubby was commenting just the other day about some of the more lengthy lists in the "Savage Tide Obituaries" thread and wondering how they managed to maintain any connection to the major NPCs. We joked about the next encounter with Vanthus.... "Ha, you foul villain, now we will have our revenge for your trapping of... um these guys none of us ever met... but a guy who is also dead now told us the story second hand... or was it third hand... and um, we heard you were the brother of our boss... well the boss of the guys who shipwreaked on our island and we've slowly replaced... we never met her...."


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 12, 2007)

Crust said:
			
		

> I'm currently running the Age of Worms adventure path from _Dungeon _ (loving it!).  We're about to wrap up the fifth module (Champion's Belt), and all four original PCs are still alive.
> 
> Why?  Because I'm running an adventure path, and I want to see them to the end.  I want to take these four core PCs and see them grow and succeed from level 1-20 and perhaps beyond.  When I run a planned-out adventure path, I tend to take it easy on PCs.  Not that I'm altering reality in-game or anything like that, but I do pull punches here and there behind the screen, and I make sure all encounters are within the abilities of the PCs.




I'm also running AOW (we're up to the 2nd adventure) and I'm actually NOT pulling many punches and so far my players have been reeeeeeeeally lucky. I let them know from the beginning that there's a chance that their PC's will die at least once during the campaign. As a result the players (and thier characters) are taking encounters a little MORE seriously and making sound decisions based on the information they have. For example, theyre already expecting to be double crossed by one of the mine managers who sent them into thier latest excursion. They figure that the man will want to cover his tracks and that means eliminating them so theyre actually expecting an ambush when they leave their present location. For me, taking steps to keep them alive seems contrived. While that may work for some groups every time that I've done it in the past left me pretty uneasy. 

As for maintaining consistency in a long term game while characters are dropping left and right there's a really good story hour involving the Temple of Elemental Evil that is a great example of maintaining the story while PC's go through a meatgrinder.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.




See, here (even though ALL CAPPED) I assume a bit of hyperbole, as I assumed with Edena's first post.  I read this as "The following is what I want in a game".  And, frankly, if you're not enjoying a game, you should walk.  I firmly believe that the DM has a right to say "My way or the highway", but that policy doesn't work unless one also believes that the player has every right to say "The highway it is, then".



> 1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter.




A chance for survival is a reasonable expectation, and by "planned" encounters I assume Remathilis means an encounter that the DM is going to throw at him that cannot be avoided.  I.e., if Smaug lives in the Lonely Mountain, and the PCs choose to go there anyway, that's a different kettle of fish.

I would also point out that having a fair shot doesn't always mean defeating an encounter.  Sometimes it just means getting away with your skin intact.  Having a big monster demand treasure is a good tactic for making villians the PCs love to hate....so long as they can eventually beat the tar our of it and get their revenge.



> 2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out.




The PCs divide the treasure in my game, not the DM, so (a) is out of my control.



> 3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.




Again, not an unreasonable expectation, excepting that deadly logic puzzles _can and do_ exist in my world (but the mechanisms are not invulnerable due to plot reasons....you can use other methods), impossible DCs _can and do_ exist in my world (don't try a 14-mile leap, some traps might be beyond your ability to detect), etc.  



> 4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...




Always remembering that advancement is relative to the world that you are playing in.



> 5.) Character Generation and House Rules SPELLED OUT before they affect my character. If something is being "playtested" I want to know before I become teh guinea pig. If you don't have elves, use only PH spells, or use a complex method of determining critical hits, please tell me before I decide to roll up an elf, pick a spell out of SC, or get my arm lobbed off by a kobold.




I think that this is pretty fair to ask.  I am very much of the school of "he who runs the game chooses the rules" but it is important for the DM to say "There might be feats and prestige classes you've never heard of, spells you've never heard of, and new or changed monsters in this game."



> 6.) Inform me WHAT type of game you intend to run. Not the genre, the TYPE. Social-political intrigue? Grim-and-gritty realism? Mystery and exploration? Kick-in-the-door dungeoneering 1-20? A world infested with undead? Planescape? These things will determine the character choices I make, and will affect my enjoyment accordingly.




Again, that seems fair to me.



> 7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...




Anticipated lifespan is very much up to the players IMC.  Most PC deaths are the direct results of PC actions.



> 8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.




The game is about the PCs, and how they interact with the world (including NPCs and the plots of NPCs).  If the PCs aren't making meaningful decisions, what is the point of playing?



> 9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else.




Well, that's actually not quite true.  If you expect the DM to meet your requirements as players, you sure as darn tootin' need to meet his requirements as a DM.  If I can only DM at a specific time & place, and you can't make it, you can't play.  If I'm only interested in political games, and you only want to "kill some bad things and take their stuff" then you can't play.

It isn't my job as DM to run games that I don't enjoy.  Neither is it you job as a player to play in games that you don't enjoy.  It goes both ways.

And, in terms of any rules or game-related issues, players are subordinate to the DM.  The DM's ruling is final.  You can always walk if you don't like it.



> 10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM.




If no compromise can be reached, and the game isn't fun for you, you shouldn't reserve the right to leave.  You should just do it.  Start another game or find another DM.

RC


----------



## takyris (Jul 12, 2007)

As others have stated more lengthily and eloquently, the player has the power to leave, and the DM has the power to do whatever else he wants. Present all the demands that you like, but I the DM do more work than you the player, and I'm trying to create a fun experience for both you and the other X-1 players in our group of X, so you're not always going to get exactly what you want.* Suck it up.

* I go the extra mile for players who go the extra mile for me. It's not that complicated. I was not pleased when the whiny, misses-half-the-sessions-to-go-drinking player announced to me that I should get his character a girlfriend -- "something hot, like an elf or a dryad, and definitely not something ugly like a half-orc played for laughs". I was also informed that the character wasn't interested in getting a girlfriend, so the would-be girlfriend would have to really try to win his heart.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> "something hot, like an elf or a dryad, and definitely not something ugly like a half-orc played for laughs". I was also informed that the character wasn't interested in getting a girlfriend, so the would-be girlfriend would have to really try to win his heart.




And you didn't introduce a drow priestess who was after his heart....literally?


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> As others have stated more lengthily and eloquently, the player has the power to leave, and the DM has the power to do whatever else he wants.



This is exactly the sort of DM I have no interest in playing with (or being for that matter.) The DM is a member of the gaming group, with a different role in the current game, not the one immovable object which everyone else in the group must take or leave as a whole. Maybe I've been spoiled by mostly playing in groups with more than one potential DM, but I expect (and give) options when starting a campaign. The DM preferences establish the range of options and the player preferences establish which ones are used. I would never play in a group where it was assumed that the DM had all the power and my only choice was "take it or leave it". I would leave it even if the initial setup was one I would take.

(If I'm joining a game in progress, then I take or leave what the group has agreed on for that game to that point.)


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> * I go the extra mile for players who go the extra mile for me. It's not that complicated. I was not pleased when the whiny, misses-half-the-sessions-to-go-drinking player announced to me that I should get his character a girlfriend -- "something hot, like an elf or a dryad, and definitely not something ugly like a half-orc played for laughs". I was also informed that the character wasn't interested in getting a girlfriend, so the would-be girlfriend would have to really try to win his heart.




If one of my friends had made a wish like that, I would've tormented him with advances from half-orc transvestites for next 2-4 sessions. But our game isn't that serious anyway  

This topic of discussion is a bit distant for me though, I only play with people who have been my friends for the past 15 years, so we don't usually have serious chemistry problems that would require anyone to come with DEMANDs to the table. We do argue about the rules and all that, but it's all in good fun.


----------



## takyris (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This is exactly the sort of DM I have no interest in playing with (or being for that matter.) The DM is a member of the gaming group, with a different role in the current game, not the one immovable object which everyone else in the group must take or leave as a whole.




Did you note where I noted that I go the extra mile for players who go the extra mile for the game?

I'm not planning to run the game as my private ego-boost clinic, but I am trying to run a game that balances the needs of several different players, only one of which is you (in this hypothetical example). I'm also doing a fair amount more work than you are. So if a player presents a list of demands to me, they're welcome to walk. Generally, the kind of player whose opinions I'm gonna give a lot of weight and serious consideration is the kind of player who wouldn't submit a list of demands in the first place, because he can talk to me as a friend and not as a plaintiff.


----------



## Mallus (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> If one of my friends had made a wish like that, I would've tormented him with advances from half-orc transvestites for next 2-4 sessions.



I'd do that regardless, but my homebrew is a... special sort of place.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> This topic of discussion is a bit distant for me though, I only play with people who have been my friends for the past 15 years, so we don't usually have serious chemistry problems that would require anyone to come with DEMANDs to the table. We do argue about the rules and all that, but it's all in good fun.





Same here.  I tried once to game with others just to game and it wasn't for me.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

takyris said:
			
		

> Did you note where I noted that I go the extra mile for players who go the extra mile for the game?



I noted your entire statement. I disagreed with the statement I quoted which was expanded on but not negated in the later statement. It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.


----------



## Hjorimir (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> This is exactly the sort of DM I have no interest in playing with (or being for that matter.) The DM is a member of the gaming group, with a different role in the current game, not the one immovable object which everyone else in the group must take or leave as a whole. Maybe I've been spoiled by mostly playing in groups with more than one potential DM, but I expect (and give) options when starting a campaign. *The DM preferences establish the range of options* and the player preferences establish which ones are used. I would never play in a group where it was assumed that the DM had all the power and my only choice was "take it or leave it". I would leave it even if the initial setup was one I would take.
> 
> (If I'm joining a game in progress, then I take or leave what the group has agreed on for that game to that point.)



Emphasis mine.

That's the DM take it or leave it...at least for me it is and that's how I run my games. I esablish what is allowed within the campaign and from that the players make their characters.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.




You must not put up with very many social scenarios at all, then.

In any social scenario, each person in that scenario is trying to get at least a part of what they want.  They have to gain some value for the energy put forth.  You can go into a social scenario hoping to change the other people involved into to meet your needs, or you can hope to have reasonably compatable needs.  If you have reasonably compatable needs, you can determine which needs of each party are most important and attempt to make everyone happy to some extent.

But every compromise situation has, inherent within it, for each participant, a "this is how far I'll go, take it or leave it".

Because reward must exceed investment in order to make the investment worthwhile, the person or persons who invest the most must meet more of their needs, or they have no motive to invest.  In a rpg, this means that if the GM invests the most time, effort, and often money, he or she is going to want a return on that investment.  If the return on investment isn't as great as the investment itself, the GM will experience "GM Burnout" and simply not want to do it any longer.

It is also true that the players must experience a greater reward than their investment.  In order to have invested players, investment has to result in greater reward.  When I read Remathilis' post, this is what I saw him as saying.

As a DM, I do some things to minimize my investment so that I can minimize my need for reward (and hence, be further open to compromise).  One of the things I do is use a consistent world for a backdrop.  If I was to create a new world, or use someone else's world, I would have to invest more, and thus would require some incentive for so doing.  This is a point where, in general, the buck stops.  Likewise, I have no desire to argue rules in the middle of the game.  You can make a brief argument, but when I've made the final call, that's what happens.  We can discuss it more outside of the game, to a limited extent, but that still isn't an invitation to harrangue me until I change my mind to your point of view.  Anyone who does that may use the door, because the reward ceases to be worth the investment of DMing for that sort of individual.

Player investment is often a reward for the DM.  DM investment is often a reward for the players.  If you get a good group, you can often hit a point where everyone gets a hell of a lot more out of it than they put it.  That's why I enjoy this hobby.  Sometimes its golden.

"Take it or leave it", IMHO, just means that there are limitations to how far compromise can go.  That is inherent in every type of social interaction.  Sometimes, taking it is wonderful because you are being offered something you want.  Sometimes, taking it is okay because you are compromising on some things you want.  Sometimes, taking it involves too much compromise and it is better to leave it.

IMHO, of course.  I'd say "YMMV" but I don't really believe that's true.  More like "Your understanding of your mileage might vary."


RC


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> You must not put up with very many social scenarios at all, then.



BBBZZZZZTTTT! Sorry, your understanding of what I'm saying is what varies.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> It is simply not my preference to put up with "take it or leave it" social scenerios.



Isn't that a contradiction in terms?  If you don't "put up with" take it or leave it social scenarios, you are "leaving it".  Catch 22.


----------



## Phlebas (Jul 12, 2007)

Be interesting to know which posters mainly play, mainly DM or do a bit of both when they discuss what rights the players have to demand off the DM or vice versa.......... 

Personally i thought most of Remathilis list of demands/requests was pretty reasonable, I'd just point out the biggest factor for me in DM'ing is how much investment the players are going to make back for all the investment i've made in setting the game up. #7 covers most of that.

as for take it or leave it ref style - i prefer to say that as ref I have the right of veto, I'll be as flexible as i can unless it takes the game away from where I'm comfortable. As a player i accept that the ref will put limits due to his game style on my play.


----------



## Crust (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> The Hubby was commenting just the other day about some of the more lengthy lists in the "Savage Tide Obituaries" thread and wondering how they managed to maintain any connection to the major NPCs. We joked about the next encounter with Vanthus.... "Ha, you foul villain, now we will have our revenge for your trapping of... um these guys none of us ever met... but a guy who is also dead now told us the story second hand... or was it third hand... and um, we heard you were the brother of our boss... well the boss of the guys who shipwreaked on our island and we've slowly replaced... we never met her...."


----------



## Jim Hague (Jul 12, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> I guess I'll stand in the vocal minority.
> [
> AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND...*snip*




OK, few things here:

1) You don't get to "demand" anything, hoss, not if you were playing at my table.  I game with friends, and someone coming up and making demands sure as shootin' doesn't seem interested in friendship, just control.  You don't have the right to demand - you get a reasonable expectation of being entertained.

2) The GM is a player too, just in a different capacity.  So yes, it's as much about their world, the storyline and the antagonists the GM puts in your path as it is about your elf noble searching for their lost love.  

3) The GM _does_ have the right to expect people to show up for the game on time, in the agreed place, for the duration.  Sorry, but as the person presumably putting the extra work in there to come up with fun and entertainment, they do.

Reasonable expectations are one thing...being a jerk and making demands?  Yeah, there's the door.  Don't let it hit you on the way you.


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> BBBZZZZZTTTT! Sorry, your understanding of what I'm saying is what varies.



Just a quick aside: When I rule the world, it will be punishable by kidney punch to say or type a buzzer sound to indicate that someone is wrong.


----------



## Crust (Jul 12, 2007)

ShinHakkaider said:
			
		

> I'm also running AOW (we're up to the 2nd adventure) and I'm actually NOT pulling many punches and so far my players have been reeeeeeeeally lucky. I let them know from the beginning that there's a chance that their PC's will die at least once during the campaign. As a result the players (and thier characters) are taking encounters a little MORE seriously and making sound decisions based on the information they have. For example...




That's great.  After nine years together, they know what to expect from me, and vice versa.  I can't take all (or even most) of the credit here.  My players know what they're doing, and none of the core players have made any stupid decisions or poor choices while role-playing or in combat.  We've reached a zen-like state.  

I've also thrown in other material as well (_Dymrak Dread_, _Sons of Gruumsh_, various side quests in Waterdeep, etc.), so they're actually about 1-2 levels higher than what is expected in the modules as written, so that's helped keep them alive.

I just love these characters.  At this point, the core party is so tight that to upset it would lessen our experience.  I know it would lessen mine.  

Not that death is out of the question...  it might tap out the party to pay for a raise dead or resurrection, though.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> BBBZZZZZTTTT! Sorry, your understanding of what I'm saying is what varies.



 Solid gold irony.

"I hate take-it-or-leave-it. That's my stance. And you can..."

Bemused, -- N


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> BBBZZZZZTTTT! Sorry, your understanding of what I'm saying is what varies.





If so, that is an extremely enlightening response.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Just a quick aside: When I rule the world, it will be punishable by kidney punch to say or type a buzzer sound to indicate that someone is wrong.



Note to self - vote No on "Tewligan as ruler of the world" referendum this fall....


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 12, 2007)

Nifft said:
			
		

> Solid gold irony.
> 
> "I hate take-it-or-leave-it. That's my stance. And you can..."
> 
> Bemused, -- N



Yes dear, thats EXACTLY what I'm saying.... bye now.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jul 12, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> Yes dear, thats EXACTLY what I'm saying.... bye now.




Another extremely enlightening response.

I, for one, don't mind being told that I misunderstand someone's point, but when no replacement for my understanding is offered it makes me suspect that the speaker either hasn't really given much thought to what they're saying, or doesn't really understand the ramifications of what they're saying.

I'm not saying that either is true in this case, but if you are being misunderstood, would you please _attempt to clarify your point_?


----------



## Nifft (Jul 12, 2007)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that either is true in this case, but if you are being misunderstood, would you please attempt to clarify your point?



 If KB does so, I'll retract my amusement regarding her take-it-or-leave-it attitude. 

Still bemused, -- N


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Jul 12, 2007)

Crust said:
			
		

> That's great.  After nine years together, they know what to expect from me, and vice versa.  I can't take all (or even most) of the credit here.  My players know what they're doing, and none of the core players have made any stupid decisions or poor choices while role-playing or in combat.  We've reached a zen-like state.
> 
> I've also thrown in other material as well (_Dymrak Dread_, _Sons of Gruumsh_, various side quests in Waterdeep, etc.), so they're actually about 1-2 levels higher than what is expected in the modules as written, so that's helped keep them alive.
> 
> ...




Yeah, like I'm fond of saying every table is different. Youre lucky wherein youre gaming with buddies of yours. After my long time group broke up I tried unsuccessfully to put together a gaming group three times before this present group. Theyre a bunch of good guys and they are fun to game with. 

I was also thinking about a few side quests to bulk them up in level a little bit and also to get into details with their characters backgrounds. Just because there's a good chance they might kick during the course of the adventure doesnt mean that you can't or shouldnt do character driven stuff for your PC's. 

And about raise dead and resurrection, I told my guys at the beginning that the means to raise people was available but unless they knew of a friendly enough high level cleric who was so inclined to do them that kind of HUGE favor AND have the means to pay for the spell component, well you know...


----------



## rowport (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Incidentally, his namesake D&D character Edena was apparently presided over by wuss DMs. When someone says they've got 121st level character, you know there's something fishy going on.
> 
> In Edenas case he had one 'Master Edena' and many lesser versions of Edena. When someone DMed a game for 5th level PCs, for example, he couldn't play Master Edena, but made a 5th level character named Edena. If the Edena levelled, he would level up the Master Edena. That apparently happened 121 times, but it wasn't a single character who advanced to those levels. Not exactly kosher, is it?
> 
> ...



Holy cow, Numion, I *sincerely* hope that you are making this up outright, or at *least* exaggerating heavily-- but given the thread posts above, I am just not sure.

EDIT: Respecting Umbran's request, I am editing my opinions about the above.  I still hope that Numion made the whole bit up, though.  I am going to run with that assumption for the sake of my own sanity.


----------



## Numion (Jul 12, 2007)

rowport said:
			
		

> Holy cow, Numion, I *sincerely* hope that you are making this up outright, or at *least* exaggerating heavily-- but given the thread posts above, I am just not sure.
> 
> EDIT: Respecting Umbran's request, I am editing my opinions about the above.  I still hope that Numion made the whole bit up, though.  I am going to run with that assumption for the sake of my own sanity.




Hell naw, it's true! He told the whole story some years back when people had (rightly so) trouble believing he had a legit 121st level character. He got the levels the way I told. The characters history was pretty crazy in other ways too. Like real crazy. IIRC it involved aot a sex change into a female and then Elminster as a lover or something like that..  

Then, the butt-pirate incident


----------



## Nifft (Jul 12, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Like real crazy. IIRC it involved aot a sex change into a female and then Elminster as a lover or something like that..




*You might be a munchkin if...* Elminster uses _polymorph any object_ on himself expressly to become your female lover.

, -- N


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 13, 2007)

Phlebas said:
			
		

> Be interesting to know which posters mainly play, mainly DM or do a bit of both when they discuss what rights the players have to demand off the DM or vice versa..........




I mostly DM, and I still agree with Remathilis.

'Jes fer reference.


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 13, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.



As others have mentioned, not perhaps the most diplomatic of beginnings...







> 1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter.



You're assuming, obviously, that the encounter would be confrontational, in which case you have a point  But if your 1st-level guy becomes the Wyrm's henchman, or familiar (!), the opportunities for story and role-play are boundless!







> 2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out.



This is not a player's right.  Much more useful for a Bill of Rights to put in that players have the right to decide how to divide such treasure as their characters may find; that usually ensures relative equality within the party.







> 3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.



Tied together with 5 below...







> 4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...



This is not a player right.  If the DM is trying to have a campaign last longer than a year or two and slows down the advancement to achieve this that's his-her perogative (but see 5 below).  If you need more frequent gratification, I have no sympathy.







> 5.) Character Generation and House Rules SPELLED OUT before they affect my character. If something is being "playtested" I want to know before I become teh guinea pig. If you don't have elves, use only PH spells, or use a complex method of determining critical hits, please tell me before I decide to roll up an elf, pick a spell out of SC, or get my arm lobbed off by a kobold.



Don't stop at char-gen and house rules.  Everything should be spelled out rules-wise as far as possible before puck drop, and then not changed in mid-game unless it has not affected ANYTHING yet.  Also in the initial write-up should be a note that your character *will* at some point die; whether true or not, the expectation is there and plaeyrs are deep-down ready for it.







> 6.) Inform me WHAT type of game you intend to run. Not the genre, the TYPE. Social-political intrigue? Grim-and-gritty realism? Mystery and exploration? Kick-in-the-door dungeoneering 1-20? A world infested with undead? Planescape? These things will determine the character choices I make, and will affect my enjoyment accordingly.



To some extent, this might not even be known until 3 or 4 adventures in and the group has established an identity and playstyle.  To ask for it up front might get you what turns out later to be a meaningless answer...







> 7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...



As there's nothing saying you won't die in your first encounter, your anticipated lifespan should always be zero, with anything beyond that being a bonus.  This should not be tied to your ideas for the character or how much effort you want to put into expressing them. 


> 8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.



The DM has a right to expect to be entertained by the players.  The players have a right to expect to be entertained by the DM.  'Nuff said.







> 9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else. I am not here to be lectured to about gaming, history, religion or politics, I'm here to kill some bad things and take their stuff.



This one would see you invited to leave my table.







> 10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM.



This is the only one of these I can agree with, except if by "find another person to DM" you mean a table coup leading to the overthrow of the current DM to be replaced by a different DM for the same group, that is not a right.

Said mostly from a DM's perspective, though all my gaming is as a player these days.

Lanefan


----------



## kaomera (Jul 13, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> I'd pretty much agree with Remathilis, except for changing 'DEMAND' to 'Expect'.
> 
> I won't give my DMs demands and I won't stand for players making demands of me. That is just plain rude. They are not paying me to run a game for them.
> I'm for discussion and consensus. You want something, we'll all discuss it.
> ...



Well, to me demanding _X_ from a DM and walking out of a game that does not feature _X_ are pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying that "demand" isn't a loaded, poor choice of words, but it's also pretty accurate.

As a DM, I want to know what a given player's expectations (_X_-pectations?) are, and also specifically which ones are not open to discussion. I've had too many players come to me and say, f'rinstance, "I'm thinking of playing a Samurai.", when they in fact mean "I will not be playing in your game unless I am allowed to play a Samurai." If a Samurai isn't really appropriate for my game, then this leads to wasting many hours over several weeks trying to wheedle out of them just exactly what about the Samurai they like so that we can find a character that will fit into the game and also provide them what they want. When I could have, instead, been trying to fill a vacancy in my group that I really didn't know was there...

I've been thinking more and more that some sort of actual "group rules document" that specifically lays out the responsibilities and boundaries of both players and DM might possibly be a good thing for my current group. I haven't actually put anything like that on paper since I was 12... The big hurdle would be that my current group is having many of the problems it is having largely because they just don't want to / won't / can't discuss the game (and their expectations for it, etc.) in a really meaningful way...


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 13, 2007)

I think you got me right.
I *would* walk if I didn't like the game a DM was running but I *wouldn't* whine like a little girl to get him to change his game to suit me. 

This thread seems to be going round in circles. 

This is what I infer from the conversations (there might be more I have missed, but I didn't study psychology):
There are players who want DMs to run the games they want to play in the manner, and with the options, they want.
There are DMs who run the games they want to run and who hope their players will want to play them (I'm in here).
There are groups who seem to agree what game they want to play then a DM runs it.
There are people who have a view somewhere inbetween these.


----------



## Kahuna Burger (Jul 13, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> I think you got me right.
> I *would* walk if I didn't like the game a DM was running but I *wouldn't* whine like a little girl to get him to change his game to suit me.



OK.... So would you speak to your DM like an adult member of your gender about one thing that was making an otherwise enjoyable expereince troublesome?


----------



## Remathilis (Jul 13, 2007)

Arkhandus said:
			
		

> ......I endorse anything Remathilis says.




Can I Sig that? ;-)

Ok, a couple days of interesting points came through the pipe, and rather than respond to each individual criticism, I'll try to give commentary to the ten points.

0.) "Demand" - By Demand, I mean "I'd like the DM to know I don't expect the following ten things to happen or I won't remain a player long." Put another way "these things give me satisfaction in an RPG, not having them makes me unsatisfied".

1.) A "planned" encounter is one where the ability to avoid it is nearly impossible (short of giving up on the current plot hook) but there is no specific goal to the encounter other than "to overcome it" be it through diplomacy, stealth, guile, magic, or force of arms. A first level PC who meets a wyrm dragon who will become there patron isn't an "encounter" but a plot device. The PCs have to have some level of risk (can they take him in combat, successfully negociate, or sneak past him) but without an practically guaranteed chance of failure. 

2.) This one is to basically say "Hey, keep the loot even, and keep it relative to our challenges". If you fight orcs all the time, gold on ail and whores and sharp sword is sufficient. If you expect us to fight Demons, you better allow us some access to holy, cold iron weapons eventually. Don't pitch Giants at PCs who only have ACs in the upper teens (the best of them). 

3.) Sure, there are always something badder than the PCs, and there are some things we cannot do (jump a 35 foot cliff unaided at 5th level) but then, don't expect us to do so. Goes back to one: leave an option for failure that doesn't lead to dramatic death. Its a bit Anti-Tomb of Horrors, PCs should (usually, but not always) get a second chance at (if not success) escaping a terrible situation if tactics/dice/luck fail. Don't make every challenge a fight to the death.

4.) Give me some sense I'm making progress, both in story and in the game. I don't care if you give 1/2 xp, 1/4 xp, or level us every 6th session, just the feeling I'm accomplishing something with my character, watching him grow, and being rewarded for my good playing and problem solving. 

5.) Some DMs forget to inform you of things, like "In my game, gnomes are 7 feet tall and eat nothing but tar, didn't I say that before you rolled up your gnome bard?" Or they love to share with you their new limb-removal system RIGHT about the time your PC first gets critted. House rules can (and have) been the dealbreaker with me and certain DMs, I'd like to know what I'm getting into before I do it. 

6.) Some DMs love to run a social-political game. Others run beer-and-pretzels D&D. I just want an inkling as to what you expect. I won't make a half-elf courtier for a B&P D&D, nor a half-orc bbn for a game of courtly intrigue. 

7.) If you run a killer DM game where PCs routinely are cattle for the slaughter, I will not put more into the game than I need to. If I come up with a background, but you never even read it much less use it, I will have my next PC's family slaughtered by orcs. I don't want to get attached to a character who is going to be ignored or slain outright. If a good character dies, that's life. Bad luck happens, but there is no reason I should not take preparations if I see it coming...

8.) Games should focus on us, the players. Not the exclusion of all else, but enough so we are not lackeys to your Pet NPC (who gets to do everything important), tourists to your intricately designed world (which we have no real chance of influencing) or playthings to your uber-baddie (which we have no chance of facing, let alone stopping). Make us matter, or post it as a story-hour and I'll read it at my leisure.

9.) There are some DMs who use their role as gamemaster to be a bully pulpit. They think they have the perfect gaming philosophy, and if you do not share it, you will be assimilated or destroyed. Its rare, but I've seen it. They use the DM power to express their own views on morality, society, ethics, race, gender, and justice. Almost always, its to the detriment of the players and PCs. One word: Don't. 

10.) As a player, I want to know I have a voice in the game beyond the one attributed to my character. I want to be able to give feedback (last session was awesome), criticism (I don't like that new crit system), suggestions (how bout we try this) and corrections (I know you said vampires are immune to lightning, but the MM says...) in a reasonable manner (that doesn't disrupt a game/session) and have my voice count. It ties back to 9 a bit, that we aren't here for DM amusement, but here for mutual amusement. Sometimes, that needs to be re-iterated to some DMs.

I hope that clears up some misconceptions about my Player's Bill of Rights.


----------



## Kichwas (Jul 13, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> I hear, constantly, of balance.
> Encounters should be balanced.  A weary worn down party should be allowed to rest and recover.  An adventure should not be overwhelming or underwhelming.  Character class abilities should be on a par with each other.  Character items should be on a par with each other.
> 
> I say:  nonsense.
> ...




In my opinion the problem is that the DnD mechanics for players are all about resource management. Everything has charges, uses per day, etc.

If you are running a group of just rogues, monks, and fighters, sure, there is no resource to manage other than hitpoints and you can leave them to the world.

But in nearly any other combination if you let loose certain classes become unplayable.

Imagine a raid on a village of Kobolds living in a cave complex the way it would 'go down in the real world' - unstopping violence as the Kobolds defending their home from agression. Midway into the second skirmish all the magical support of the assaulting team would be tapped out, and they would fall from the sheer weight of numbers of a whole tribe of kobolds.

There is no logical way to explain why a tribe of kobolds would not send their entire tribe to stop a home invasion by some 4-8 hostile monsters (humans and elves). Or at the least, why they would not all be aware of it.

But we have become accustomed over the years to putting those empty storage rooms, or not having anyone wander into the guard shack for 8 hours while we let mages rest, etc...

And that 'brand of illogic' sweeps across the entire genre of DnD.

DnD builds its playability not by balancing all the classes directly, but by limiting the resources of some - making their abilities more potent but less often available, and forcing a certain thinking, a certain playstyle. DnD balance works best when you keep these resource characters at some mid-point in their availability. While they are full they are over-powerful, once drained, they are often useless. You have to stage it all just right to keep them in a game of allocation.

If you go against that grain, you make some of the core assumptions of the game engine unworkable.

A no holds barred approach might work in something more directly balanced - such as Hero / BESM / GURPS / Shadowrun (each with its own, other problems) - but when a game balances by using resource allocation, failure to pay attention to that is not equally 'punishing' to all the members.

If you want a harsh, hard to win game of DnD, that is an admirable goal, but you need to do it in a way that impacts all the core class choices equally, or simply remove the disfavored classes from the roster.

If you want to show them what an assault on Kobold Manor ought to really be like, do it in an RPG other than DnD. Probably GURPS, much as I don't care for the new edition of that game, it would probably show them what that assault ought to really look like if it was real, better than the other choices I know of at least. And in that game, I could keep them on their toes 24/7 and feel I was being equally hard on all of them in doing so. I'd go nuts with my frustrations against GURPS doing so...  But I could do it and feel even handedly harsh about it.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 13, 2007)

Remathilis said:
			
		

> Can I Sig that? ;-)



Yes.


----------



## brainstorm (Jul 14, 2007)

*Lighten up*

I'm really amazed at the DM vs Player vs DM bile that is being spewed on this thread.  This game is all about EVERYONE having fun.  The DM is there to present challenges and the players are there to overcome the challenges, but at the end of the day, everyone should walk away feeling like they've contributed to the game and had a good time.  If this isn't happening, then someone has gotten something wrong.


----------



## Nifft (Jul 14, 2007)

brainstorm said:
			
		

> I'm really amazed at the DM vs Player vs DM bile that is being spewed on this thread.



 Look at it this way: everyone with bile has had at least one bad experience, where a player or DM abused their provisional power and ticked that person off. Hopefully that particular game / group / dynamic is long gone, but the memory remains. And they will never let player / DM get away with that particular abuse again, AND they want you to be aware of it so it won't happen to you! 

Really, the hate is all about helping others. 

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Thurbane (Jul 14, 2007)

Tewligan said:
			
		

> Just a quick aside: When I rule the world, it will be punishable by kidney punch to say or type a buzzer sound to indicate that someone is wrong.



You just got my vote for world dictator!


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 14, 2007)

Yeah, I'm back.
  Edena_of_Neith here.  The person who started this thread.

  In my opinion ...

  D&D should never be a DM versus Player adversarial situation, in any kind of home setting.
  D&D is about friends getting together and having fun.

  I said that I thought DMs should be tough on their players, should demand more out of their players, should be more deadly towards PCs.
  But I should have said more.

  A DM can't be a tough DM without the approval of his players.  Why?  Because if that style of play isn't fun for them, they'll say so ... and if said style of play is forcibly continued, they'll get up and walk away from the table.
  A DM *most certainly cannot* be a killer DM without the consent of his players (ala:  'let's go into the Tomb of Horrors!')  And it's for the same reason:  players not having fun are going to stop playing.
  And why shouldn't they?  D&D is about fun, not misery (I hope ...)

  I used a lot of hyperbole in my first post, but unless all my players gave a rousing cheer to it (assuming I read my players such a riot act at the start of the game!) I couldn't DM like that.
  What actually happens is me and my players come to a mutual understanding about what kind of game is most fun.  If a challenging game is most fun, and they are in the gung-ho spirit, then I can read them that riot act to a resounding cheer.  Otherwise, not.

  So, it *really* comes down to what the players want.
  And that means, what my OP really is about, is about the players demanding more out of themselves.  I think the players should ask more of themselves, think more highly of themselves, give themselves more credit than they do.

  After all, folks, in one of the books that started it all, a certain 5th level (or roundabouts) halfling rogue snuck down a passageway, came upon this ancient red wyrm, stole from him, had a conversation with him, figured out how to kill him, his party expected such things out of him, and he agreed in writing to do all of these things before the adventure started, and ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 14, 2007)

(off-topic, answer to off-topic post)

Oh, and it's not 121st level, Numion.
  It's 161st level.  121st level cleric / 40th level wizard (1st/2nd edition, never translated to 3rd edition.)
  (Edena achieved his levels exactly the way described above.  And yes, he's legit.)

  -

  And get your facts right.  Edena the PC slept with Alustriel, not Elminster.  
  Also, get your facts right:  Edena didn't 'just' become a female.  Edena:

  Started as a male human.
  Became a female elf.
  Became a male human again.
  Became a male elf.
  Became a dragon.
  Became a male human again.
  Turned into two people.  One stayed a male human, and the other became a female elf.  Both adventure in the world today.

  (grumbles something about the inaccuracies of rumormills.)

  Now, nothing like the facts to clear up the situation!


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 14, 2007)

Which has little to do with anything, cuz that halfling rogue had Das Uber Artifact, which was basically handed to him by the DM and protected by nothing more than a 3rd-level-ish goblin rogue with 1 point of Wisdom. -_-


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 14, 2007)

(off-topic)

  Well, actually it's the Star of Odin, not Das Uber Artifact, and he won it fighting a sabre-toothed weretiger when he was 9th level.  (Said tiger had no wisdom at all ... or he would not have tried to take on Edena!  Hehe ...)
  And it's not so uber.  It didn't protect him from Vecna, did it?


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (off-topic, answer to off-topic post)
> Also, get your facts right:  Edena didn't 'just' become a female.  Edena:
> 
> Started as a male human.
> ...



Yeah, no rumour mill could ever have dreamed that lot up... 

"Turned into two people" = cloned?  Or...how?

Lanefan


----------



## Sound of Azure (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Oh, and it's not 121st level, Numion.
> It's 161st level. 121st level cleric / 40th level wizard (1st/2nd edition, never translated to 3rd edition.)




Wow.

Medegia should ask Edena to give them a hand!


----------



## shilsen (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (off-topic, answer to off-topic post)
> 
> Oh, and it's not 121st level, Numion.
> It's 161st level.  121st level cleric / 40th level wizard (1st/2nd edition, never translated to 3rd edition.)
> (Edena achieved his levels exactly the way described above.  And yes, he's legit.)




I think most people here would regard leveling up that way (what Numion described Edena as doing) as significantly not legit. I may have misunderstood how you were doing it, of course, but it sounds like playing a bunch of different PCs and leveling a single high level PC up whenever any of the others leveled.


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jul 15, 2007)

[monster truck match announcer voice]

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!

DEATHMATCH DEATHMATCH DEATHMATCH!

WALDORF VS. EDENA!

THE BIGGEST FIGHT _EVAR_!?!?!?!?

KIDS TICKETS STILL JUST $5 $5 $5!!!

SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!

[/monster truck match announcer voice]


----------



## kibbitz (Jul 15, 2007)

Uh... who's Waldorf???


----------



## Arkhandus (Jul 15, 2007)

Waldorf is a character someone bragged about one or a few letters to Dragon Magazine some years ago.  Went around slaying gods and such just for the heck of it, or something like that.  Don't remember.


----------



## kibbitz (Jul 15, 2007)

Ah, I see...

Your information and some googling led to:

Dragon #137, p.3
Letters: Odds & ends (anonymous)
Waldorf destroys Greyhawk

And this Waldorf is a level 358 magic-user who created the nuclear bomb, wiped everyone out on Greyhawk except that one little island with Castle Waldorf and enslaved the gods to work at his salt mines underneath the castle. Impressive.

I note though that there are a group of adventurers on the same letters page who can "wipe out five planes of the Abyss in a round". Maybe we should invite them too


----------



## James Heard (Jul 15, 2007)

Nah, the guy with the phone called them up years ago to tell them their characters were dead.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

(grins evilly)

  IC:

  Edena the PC looks up at this news.

  'So, Waldorf has been Resurrected, and he wishes to challenge *me*?'

  'Challenge ... Accepted.'


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

The Legend of Waldorf (as accurately as I can remember it, folks)

  Once upon a time, an eager gamer got his character up to 358th level or so, and said character invented the nuclear bomb.
  This character, Waldorf, then wiped out the planet of Oerth with nuclear weapons, enslaved the Gods of the Greyhawk Pantheon (to work in his salt mines) and established himself as absolute ruler of Greyhawk (Oerth.)

  The player then sent a letter to TSR, requesting that *all* people worldwide with characters in the Greyhawk Setting send in their character sheets to him, so he could tally up the experience points Waldorf had earned by killing them.
  I believe - I could be wrong on this - that he informed TSR that there was no point in them continuing to produce modules or adventures for the setting, since it was destroyed.

  For at least the next year, in Dragon Magazine, letters were published by assorted groups as to how they counterstruck against Waldorf.  Group after group made claims as to how they could defeat the guy.
  So the player of Waldorf struck back, explaining how Waldorf could kill all of THESE groups, in great detail.
  And the battle went on, in both letters (e-mail hadn't been invented yet) and in the pages of Dragon Magazine.

  Finally, someone rammed a spaceship at high speed, filled with nilbogs, into Waldorf's Castle, and at Dragon Magazine they declared him dead.

  Or so I read, long ago.  20 long years ago.

  -

  Now, it would seem that ... Waldorf is ... back.  
  Time to strike him down again.  I've wanted to kill Waldorf for all those 20 years.  And now I have my chance.  

  VirgilCaine, get a thread going in the appropriate forum!  Let's have that fight.  You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I'm picking it up.
  Edena accepts the challenge.  Time to smite Waldorf down once more!


----------



## Numion (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> (off-topic, answer to off-topic post)
> 
> Oh, and it's not 121st level, Numion.
> It's 161st level.  121st level cleric / 40th level wizard (1st/2nd edition, never translated to 3rd edition.)
> (Edena achieved his levels exactly the way described above.  And yes, he's legit.)




Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's, in addition to making no sense, nowhere near legit.



> Turned into two people.  One stayed a male human, and the other became a female elf. Both adventure in the world today.




Let me guess: they're lovers? 

Edena the 161st level human male and Edena the 161st female elf .. consider the offspring. Too bad it's going to be a half-elf, but I guess a race or gender has never stopped the Edena family.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

(grins evilly again)

  Actually, my dear Numion, the *other* Edena (created by the equivalent of that epic spell that duplicates you ... what was the name? ... except permanent; and my DM did this, not me) is a nymph now.  
  She was an elf, but she evolved into a nymph.  She has access to Elven High Magic *on top* of all of the powers she had as Edena.  (She doesn't remember much, however, about her life as Edena.  Just a few faded memories.)

  And she refuses to fight Waldorf, by the way.  She knows of his challenge to the first Edena, and that's fine with her;  she's staying out of it.

  However, the *first* Edena has accepted Waldorf's challenge.  And so ...


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

Incidentally, I hope that the challenge is created in the appropriate ENWorld forum soon.

  This thread is ... how would I say this? ... totally wrecked?


----------



## Numion (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Incidentally, I hope that the challenge is created in the appropriate ENWorld forum soon.
> 
> This thread is ... how would I say this? ... totally wrecked?




I hope Waldorf is still around to see this challenge through. I don't know if to root for ENWorlds own, Edena, or for Waldorf. I kinda wish to see Edena's ass nuked, but Waldorf seems even more munchkinny (if that's possible) than Edena.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

I don't know either.

  If Waldorf's player is here, on ENWorld, it would be great to take on the really real Waldorf.  He's quite a legend in gaming history.


----------



## Flynn (Jul 15, 2007)

shilsen said:
			
		

> I think most people here would regard leveling up that way (what Numion described Edena as doing) as significantly not legit. I may have misunderstood how you were doing it, of course, but it sounds like playing a bunch of different PCs and leveling a single high level PC up whenever any of the others leveled.




The only official rules I've seen where leveling one character levels another in your character tree is in Dark Sun, and you can't level an offline character any higher in level than the current in-game character's character level.

I'd love to see the reference (including page number) for the system that Edena is using, just so I can see how this is possible under the RAW. If it's a house rule, I can't say nothing about that, and it's as legit as the DM with the house rule wants it to be. Can't argue with that. Your table, your rules, and all that jazz.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

VirgilCaine said:
			
		

> [monster truck match announcer voice]
> 
> SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!!!
> 
> ...





  Let Virgil run Waldorf.
  It won't be the really real Waldorf, but it'll be satisfying squashing the substitute (clone?)  

  EDIT:  Will be watching for Virgil to create the appropriate thread on the Talking the Talk Forum.


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 15, 2007)

Flynn, it's just a matter of some house rules and some kindly DMs.

  Yours Sincerely
  Edena_of_Neith


----------



## VirgilCaine (Jul 15, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> VirgilCaine, get a thread going in the appropriate forum!  Let's have that fight.  You've thrown down the gauntlet, and I'm picking it up.
> Edena accepts the challenge.  Time to smite Waldorf down once more!




[heavy french accent]

Edena, Edena, Edena...you have confused messenger and message. I am neither able nor willing to participate in such a challenge. It is not in my blood, as they say. Someone else will have to provide you with your mathermatical orgy, I am afraid. 

I bid you adieu. 

[/heavy french accent]


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 16, 2007)

Well then, don't advertise a challenge if you're not ready for a challenge!
  If you're going to issue a challenge, better be prepared for battle!  

  Since *you* won't play Waldorf, Virgil, is there anyone who will?

  EDIT:

  IC:

  Edena, upon hearing that Waldorf has backed down from the challenge, sneers and snickers, then returns to his studies.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 16, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Well then, don't advertise a challenge if you're not ready for a challenge!
> If you're going to issue a challenge, better be prepared for battle!




It didn't sound like VirgilCaine was issuing a challenge. He was just making a joke about Edena and the semi-mythical Waldorf. 

After all, this kind of thing is effectively two people going "my imaginary friend can beat up your imaginary friend", so it's a little hard to take seriously


----------



## phindar (Jul 16, 2007)

Ah yes, but my imaginary friend is _a dinosaur._  With, _a chainsaw_.  Nature's most perfect killing machine.  (He also has claymore mines for eyes, and... well, this is turning out much sillier than I intended.)


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 16, 2007)

Actually, Erik Mona might have the right to play the really real Waldorf.  For it was Dragon Magazine that finally declared Waldorf dead, so Dragon Magazine could declare him resurrected for this purpose.  (Or ... could they?  In this particular matter of ethics, I cannot really say.)
  Perhaps they could contact the player of Waldorf, and obtain his permission to use the character?

  Not that I'm expecting any such thing.  Just musing.

  I do remember picking up those issues of Dragon Magazine, and watching the Waldorf uproar go on for more than a year.
  It is a shame we did not have e-mails back then.  It would have made for an uproarious time online.  But we didn't ... everyone had to use regular mail.  

  But heh, you don't want an Edena versus Waldorf fight anyways.  Because after Edena won, he'd gain another level for it, and then he'd be 162nd level, and ...


----------



## Numion (Jul 16, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> But heh, you don't want an Edena versus Waldorf fight anyways.  Because after Edena won, he'd gain another level for it, and then he'd be 162nd level, and ...




Waldorfs got Edena beat on levels. 350 levels is double Edenas + he's got star destroyers.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 16, 2007)

Kahuna Burger said:
			
		

> OK.... So would you speak to your DM like an adult member of your gender about one thing that was making an otherwise enjoyable expereince troublesome?




Sure would, but I wouldn't expect him to change his game to suit me and I wouldn't spit my dummy out if he decided not to humour me.

Working against the DM is counterproductive and unfriendly (and we're all friends, right?).
Working against the challenge set by the DM is what the game is all about.

If you don't respect what your DM is doing (spending a lot of his time creating a world, adding colour, flavour and interest [hopefully] to the campaign, setting and adjudicating challenges for the party, etc.) then you don't respect the DM and you're not a particularly good friend to him.


----------



## Flynn (Jul 16, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> If you don't respect what your DM is doing (spending a lot of his time creating a world, adding colour, flavour and interest [hopefully] to the campaign, setting and adjudicating challenges for the party, etc.) then you don't respect the DM and you're not a particularly good friend to him.




Whoa! I think now would be a good time to point out that not liking a DM's milieu or gaming style *does not mean* that you aren't a good friend. There are good ways to handle your dislike of his milieu or style, just as there are bad ways to handle it. However, your relationship, your friendship with the DM, cannot be solely based on whether or not you like his milieu or his style, nor should it.

I don't run games for one of my very good friends, because his playing style negatively impacts my enjoyment of the game as a DM. However, I'm still a good friend to him, as he is to me, and our friendship is not impacted by that.

Sorry, but the way that post was stated just hit me wrong. I apologize if my words came across as anything more than me just clarifying my thoughts on the words contained therein.

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 16, 2007)

Flynn said:
			
		

> Whoa! I think now would be a good time to point out that not liking a DM's milieu or gaming style *does not mean* that you aren't a good friend. There are good ways to handle your dislike of his milieu or style, just as there are bad ways to handle it. However, your relationship, your friendship with the DM, cannot be solely based on whether or not you like his milieu or his style, nor should it.
> 
> I don't run games for one of my very good friends, because his playing style negatively impacts my enjoyment of the game as a DM. However, I'm still a good friend to him, as he is to me, and our friendship is not impacted by that.
> 
> Sorry, but the way that post was stated just hit me wrong. I apologize if my words came across as anything more than me just clarifying my thoughts on the words contained therein.



I have not felt the need to exclude any of my friends from my game, though we have had discussions (fairly recently, actually) about respect, disruptive attitudes, etc., and how it was detracting from the enjoyment of being DM. We all agreed to try harder in future.

When I have not enjoyed playing in a particular game I have simply not made myself available for it, as have several of my friends at one time or another.
None of it has stopped us being friends.

But that was not to what I was referring.
Disagreement is part of life. I accept that my friends do not always agree with me. Like everyone I know, I occasionally talk complete bollocks.

What I was referring to was this:
Not liking something is very different to thinking it should be changed to suit you.
I admit to the former but take issue with the latter.

If you tell your DM that you don't like his game and that he should do X then you are not respecting him and would not, to me at least, seem to be much of a friend.
I don't bully my friends and wouldn't take kindly to having it done to me.

You obviously handled your friend's playing style problem admirably.
I hope that if the situation arose for me I would be able to do likewise.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jul 16, 2007)

Flynn said:
			
		

> milieu



!!!

And I thought no one but Gygax used that word with a straight face.


----------



## Flynn (Jul 16, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> What I was referring to was this:
> Not liking something is very different to thinking it should be changed to suit you.
> I admit to the former but take issue with the latter.




That is a statement I can get behind.  I agree that it's okay to dislike a DM's approach, but that *expecting/requiring* a DM's approach to be changed to suit you does seem to display a certain level of disrespect for the DM.

My apologies for my misunderstanding earlier,
Flynn


----------



## Flynn (Jul 16, 2007)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> !!!
> 
> And I thought no one but Gygax used that word with a straight face.




Milieu is a nice, simple word that seems to capture the essence of "game world background and setting" without having to type out "game world background and setting". Yeah, I cut my teeth on the 1st Edition DMG, as it were. Guess it shows my age more than I would care for...

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 17, 2007)

Plus, it's fun to say!  Milieuuuuuu....

Say it with me.

Milieu.

It's euphonious.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 17, 2007)

Euphonius? Now you're making stuff up. 
Or do you mean 'like a euphonium'?

Do you colonials pronounce milieu 'meel-you' or 'meel-yur'?


----------



## shilsen (Jul 17, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> Euphonius? Now you're making stuff up.
> Or do you mean 'like a euphonium'?




No, he isn't. Euphonious = possessing an agreeable sound; pleasant to the ear



> Do you colonials pronounce milieu 'meel-you' or 'meel-yur'?




I don't know about the colonials (do I count, since I'm Indian?), but I say "mill-you."


----------



## Flynn (Jul 17, 2007)

robberbaron said:
			
		

> Euphonius? Now you're making stuff up.
> Or do you mean 'like a euphonium'?
> 
> Do you colonials pronounce milieu 'meel-you' or 'meel-yur'?




I prefer "mill-you", but if I'm tired and in the company of other Texans with a more pronounced drawl, sometimes it comes out "meel-you".

With Regards,
Flynn


----------



## Edena_of_Neith (Jul 18, 2007)

I figure if the DM and players go with the C words, they can't go wrong:

  The group is chillin out, and getting crackin for a cool game.
  The DM is considerate, and the players care.
  The group is careful, and the DM is cautious, to avoid calamnities.
  Everyone values courtesy, and an atmosphere of congeniality rules.
  People are about conversation.  There's plenty of conniving, but all in good character.
  Everyone hopes to capitalize on this Saturday for a good time.
  Nobody is going to capitulate to anger.  Nobody is going to cave in to rage.
  And the DM is not running any old canned adventure, but is creative about his work.

  C rhymes with P, and that stands for ...

  Polite.

  And a capital C ... that rhymes with T, and that stands for ...

  Trust.


----------



## robberbaron (Jul 18, 2007)

Nice.

And in answer to your original post...

Yes.
And No.


----------



## phindar (Jul 18, 2007)

I can think of one C-word which we probably shouldn't go with...


----------



## Tewligan (Jul 18, 2007)

phindar said:
			
		

> I can think of one C-word which we probably shouldn't go with...



Ah, I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who immediately went there mentally!


----------



## Slife (Jul 18, 2007)

Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> - You think that character is of an overpowered class?   A broken class?  Wait until you see my MONSTERS.  Then you will learn what BROKEN means.  If you survive, the next monster encounter will be worse!



Good to know.  Now, may I introduce my new character?  He's a level 1 kobold commoner.



			
				Edena_of_Neith said:
			
		

> Red dragon approaching party.
> Party opts for Operation 21.
> 
> The elven wizard throws Fly, ascends up to meet oncoming dragon.
> ...




You forgot step zero.  _Oh, wait a second_ thinks the dragon.  _I can identify spell effects through the use of my excellent spellcraft check.  Stoneskin, eh?  I recognize that as one of the ancient (and extremely overpowered) spells from the forbidden era.  I guess I won't do something stupid like attack physically._


----------



## Numion (Jul 18, 2007)

Slife said:
			
		

> You forgot step zero.  _Oh, wait a second_ thinks the dragon.  I can identify spell effects through the use of my excellent spellcraft check.  Stoneskin, eh?  I recognize that as one of the ancient (and extremely overpowered) spells from the forbidden era.  I guess I won't do something stupid like attack physically.




First thing forgotten in that example were the rules of the game.


----------



## kobold (Jul 19, 2007)

Zurai said:
			
		

> For some people fighting for their (characters') lives is what makes D&D fun, yes.
> 
> For others, it's the storytelling.
> 
> ...



 Sorry but my way is the right way to play D&D and have fun. All others are pale imitations!


----------

