# DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears



## Montague68 (Jun 26, 2006)

When playing with a new DM, what sort of tricks/situations/DM techniques just make you grit your teeth? Here's a couple that get me:

1. The Railroad Adventure - Everyone's been involved with this one at one time or another. No matter what you do, the thingamabob will be stolen by whoseywhatsis with a whatchamacallit, and it will be the basis for the adventure - so let it be written, so let it be done. Deviating from the planned storyline is verboten, and any action that doesn't have anything to do with the planned adventure gets "you see nothing" or "nothing happens" responses. Veiled complaints from the players gets a "well there's Annoying NPC you can talk to...", and this continues until the players go along with the adventure out of sheer boredom, or revolt and start killing things or setting fires or other juvenile behavior a la KODT.

2. The Super-Competent Stealthy Omniscient NPC Who Must Constantly Harass The Party - This powerful foe has it in for the party for some unknown reason, and does what he can to make their lives miserable. He makes no mistakes, leaves no witnesses, and knows what the party is doing at all times so that he may strike at the worst... possible... moment. Interestingly enough however, he does not hate the PC's enough to outright kill them of course, he merely toys with them until such time as he can reveal himself to the PC's on his terms so that he and the party can engage in an Epic Battle (tm) in which said villain may or may not suffer a Mysterious Death (tm) in which his body is never found.

So what DM conventions really grind your gears?


----------



## Asmor (Jun 26, 2006)

Most common one? People that roll for initiative every round.

Also in my current game, the DM uses a bunch of monsters from 3rd party sources that are... not very well balanced. For example, the CR3 demon Lust (seven deadly sins) with something like a DC 25 save to avoid being charmed. Every round until you fail it.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 26, 2006)

3. The directionless session. The DM gives no real information about the city or surrounding areas beyond what you specifically ask. The DM just keeps asking you what you're going to do, with no adventure hooks readily apparent and no real way for you to know what's out there for you to interact with.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 3. The directionless session. The DM gives no real information about the city or surrounding areas beyond what you specifically ask. The DM just keeps asking you what you're going to do, with no adventure hooks readily apparent and no real way for you to know what's out there for you to interact with.




The direct opposite of the railroad session and just as bad. Been there and done that too.


----------



## Pbartender (Jun 26, 2006)

*4. Perfectly Contrived Defense Bad Guys.*  The players build characters that are designed to be GOOD at doing a specific thing, whatever it may be, and every challenge or encounter the DM presents to the players is designed purposefully to negate the benefits of the PCs' preferred tactics.  

For example: A player decides that he want his Rogue to be great at Sneak Attacking, so me maxes out the Bluff skill and takes the Improved Feint feat.  Suddenly, practically the only creatures encountered are Undead, Constructs and Elementals.  All other vulnerable enemies have maximum ranks in Sense Motive, are using portable concealment of some sort, and/or are walking on stilts so the Rogue cannot reach their vitals.


----------



## Joshua Randall (Jun 26, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> 2. The Super-Competent Stealthy Omniscient NPC Who Must Constantly Harass The Party - [...] he merely toys with them until such time as he can reveal himself to the PC's on his terms so that he and the party can engage in an Epic Battle (tm) in which said villain may or may not suffer a Mysterious Death (tm) in which his body is never found.



I'm rather fond of this one, myself. Nothing like making the players truly hate a villainous NPC so that when they finally defeat him, it's extra satisfying.

But, my current DM-ing pet peeve:

DMs who make house rules about core rules that really shouldn't be modified *and* that cause unwanted downstream effects. Example, allowing a 5-foot step after movement in combat. Umm, wow.


----------



## soulforge (Jun 26, 2006)

5.  Players seem to fail when being creative.  The shop keeper that magically can cast spells and fight.  It just alway's seemed that when I tried to have "fun" like trying to rob a bar keep, inn keep, or bank that I would alway's fail.

Basically if it was me doing something none main adventure necessary my wings were clipped like Icarus.


----------



## the_mighty_agrippa (Jun 26, 2006)

*My Old PC Runs This Bar*

Or whatever.  The DMs old characters have not only been advanced to high levels and positions of power, but have enough spare time to bust the party's balls while serving them ale.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Jun 26, 2006)

DMPCs.  If the party needs a short-duration NPC to assist the party, or as a story hook, fine -- but not a permanent NPC who gains experience alongside the party and is run by the DM as a PC (especially when said PC becomes omniscient and more capable than the party).  Either play or DM, but don't try to do both at the same time.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 26, 2006)

So far, almost everything has made me mentally grind my teeth.

I actually can deal with railroading to a certain extent. If it's made clear that I need to take the Thingiemabob to Mount Bobameigniht, I'll play the game. As long as I get to do my share of role-playing, monster-bashing, and problem-solving, I'll be fine.

But what I hate is when the DM punishes you for not following the tracks, even when they are presented to be so unpalatable that your character would never have anything to do with the plot in the first place.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 26, 2006)

Here's another one:

The Impossibly Convoluted Mystery That Just Won't End.

No matter how hard you try, you can't figure out Who is behind all the nasty goings on, because by the time you get there, the villains are long gone and have not left any obvious clues. Any obtuse clues gathered are so obscure as to be of no help, and the DM adds to the mess by giving out red herrings left and right. The party aimlessly wanders from one false lead to the next, until after weeks go by, DM finally decides he has befuddled the players enough with his wondrously complex plots that he allows an NPC to perform a storyline-Deus Ex Machina. This allows the obviously slow-witted and lazy party a chance to defeat the villain in yet another Epic Battle (tm).

The end of the storyline is usually marked by the players going en-masse to the local comic-shop owner, university gaming club president, or some other such knowledgeable third party, relating the events of the mystery and watching with satisfaction as these people invariably shake their head and say: "What the **** was he thinking? I would have never gotten that!"


----------



## silver_wizard (Jun 26, 2006)

6. DM's favouritism towards his girlfriend, who, by virtue of her "elevated status", gets to play an elf / half-shadow dragon / half-tarrasque / half-solar sorcerer/monk/assassin/rogue/uber-goddess, thereby transforming a long-standing campaign in which everybody had fun to another edition of the popular show called "the all-powerful Whosthatoverthere and her pets" (aka other players).


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 26, 2006)

*Every important NPC is the conniving DM*.
Why is it when running through ye olde Convoluted Mystery every damn NPC that matters holds back as much information as possible, has to be pumped hard for any useful information even little tidbits that do not matter to the NPC, cannot offer anything like a fair deal without it being carefully negotiated for by the PCs, and are ingrateful wretches who do not volunteer information _even after saving their worthless life_?

I like mysteries.  But after a while it feels like the DM is punishing the party for failing to metagame as Sherlock Columbo.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 26, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 3. The directionless session. The DM gives no real information about the city or surrounding areas beyond what you specifically ask. The DM just keeps asking you what you're going to do, with no adventure hooks readily apparent and no real way for you to know what's out there for you to interact with.



This is only a problem *if* the players are expecting the story or adventure to be fed to them...which happens all too often.  If nothing's happening, then *make* something happen!  Or, at least get out of town - for all you know, the next adventure might involve you being teleported somewhere once nobody else is around to see...

As for someone else's problem with rolling initiatives each round, as far as I'm concerned both as player and DM that's the way it should work; my DM beef would be with DM's who lock in initiatives at start of combat just because the rules say to do so. (meaning, of course, that my real beef is with the rules...) 

Lanefan


----------



## jester47 (Jun 26, 2006)

Anime assumptions.

These lead to #2 and the DMPC.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 27, 2006)

The adventure that just... keeps... dragging... on... forever.

The word 'pacing' does not appear in this DMs dictionary at all, and the game progresses at the pace of an anemic snail.  Several - not a couple, not a few, not some, but several - sessions pass before the events of a single day/step/arc/scene even show movement let alone near completion.  Distractions and sidetracks are regular and lengthy.  Hooks are vague, poorly defined, and if you don't leap on 'em hoo boy are you hosed, because there arn't any alternatives planned.  Expect to spend a good deal of your time beating your head against the wall and/or dealing with minutae that could be handwaved with just a sentance or two.  Heaven help you if you get into combat, because a single fight will last the entire evening.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 27, 2006)

And a couple more, these ones for the RP'ers:

*It's the end of the world as we know it, and it's not fine* 

You ask the GM over and over what kind of game he's going to run. He says "Heavy RP" you say cool. You ask him about the region where the game is starting. He gives it to you. You then craft a wonderfully in-depth character background utilizing your knowledge of the area and the names of NPC's the GM has given you. You spend skill points/character points for local knowledge, contacts, etc for some juicy roleplaying in the region. You can't wait to immerse yourself in the new world.

Two weeks later you're enjoying yourself when RAWRBLAM!!! a Super-Duper BBEG from out of nowhere utterly destroys the entire region. Your background and knowledge of the local region are now completely worthless as the entire game devolves into chasing after the BBEG, never stopping long enough in one place to actually portray your character in any meaningful sense.

Or the same as above except for an apocalyptic scene of mass destruction, your Powerful NPC Mentor (tm) sends you and your companions off on a loooooooooooong adventure thousands of miles away from the "starting point" of the adventure. When questioned later the GM says "I said we'd start there, I never said anything about staying there..."


----------



## Nomad4life (Jun 27, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> 3. The directionless session. The DM gives no real information about the city or surrounding areas beyond what you specifically ask. The DM just keeps asking you what you're going to do, with no adventure hooks readily apparent and no real way for you to know what's out there for you to interact with.




Man, I ‘m totally with you there.  People gripe a lot about railroading (and I do too) but the second worst adventure I ever went on was one of those never-ending “what do you do?” simulation horrors.  GRRRRR!!!  I’ve only got so much time to play...  Have a mofriggin gosh-dern story ready!!!


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

If you don't like the way the DM drives, then you take the wheel if so many things DM's do annoy ya.  :\ 

I never understood why players will nit-pick so many little details about how a guy DM's. Half of the stuff you're complaining about is typical events that the majority of people _think_ players would enjoy. Probably because it works good in a book or movie. It just doesn't always come out that "cool" when you try to do it in D&D. 

A DM who is being a prick while DM'ing just because he's a stupid human being is one thing, but the stuff you guys are bringing up sounds like issues that are pretty common for DM's to do when playing D&D isn't their sole purpose in life...it's their hobby.

Honestly, I don't think anyone has the right to criticize a DM for just trying to entertain people. Player's who do that are the same players that DM's will criticize as being annoying players. 

I DM 99% of the time and there are *far* more annoying "shticks" that players do than what DM's do. And the bad thing is that the players just show up for the game while the DM's put tons of work into the game beforehand. This thread comes off like players thinking being DM'ed is an obligation rather than a privilege.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 27, 2006)

*Here, have a Holy Avenger*

Despite the fact that there is perfectly good chart for rolling up treasure in the DMG, this GM will randomly ascribe treasure and gold based on his whims.  While this is fun initially, a gross imbalance in the party will ensue, resulting in Hero McUltraequipped and his possee of slightly less-well equipped followers.  The DM will gawk in wonder as the party shreds through his BBEGs like they were made of tissue, then will begin throwing higher and higher difficulty enemies against the party, which will ultimately result in a level 10 party dying at the hands of a CR 17 encounter.

*No, you can't have a pony. (not for you)*

This GM despises all manner of horses with a firey passion of a thousand suns.  Whether it's a mule, riding dog, horse, or velociraptor with a saddle, be prepared for every single monster to target it like they were the only edible thing in a thousand miles.  If the horse isn't being eaten or shot at, it's running away in the darkness after mysticly untying itself from the hitch.

*You want me to do what? heh, it'll cost you.*

"Oh, you want those identified? Sure, 300 gold.  You need your stats restored? pay me five times the cost, and we'll be copacetic.  A potion of Cure light wounds? Heh, do you have a credit card?"
Every service costs FAR more than either the PHB or the DMG indicates it should. apparently, in this world, NPC's are all patterend off the "comic shop guy" from the simpsons, where if you need something, then you must be willing to pay MORE for it.

*I find joy in your misery*
This GM is all smiles, as long as his party is out of spells, low on hit points, and surrounded by creatures whose CR is 4 levels higher than their combined party level.  Nothing ruins his day more than players who want to (ug) roleplay, or "prepare" for the inevitable encounters.  If the players come to a town and establish any kind of contacts, he'll kill them off.  if they like a magic item, it gets stolen or sundered next combat.  Anything to keep the players unhappy.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> If you don't like the way the DM drives, then you take the wheel if so many things DM's do annoy ya.  :\
> 
> Honestly, I don't think anyone has the right to criticize a DM for just trying to entertain people. Player's who do that are the same players that DM's will criticize as being annoying players.




Sorry Oryan77, but players have as much right to gripe as anybody.  

If it helps, you could go start up the traditional "Stupid player schticks" thread that allways appears shortly after this one does.  I highly reccomend you come up with a list of 3-5 "DM grievances" and kvetch about the folks who play under you for a while.  Heck, i'll be the first one to reply if you go do it now.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 27, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> *It's the end of the world as we know it, and it's not fine*




Somewhat related:

*The Ol' Bait-and-Switch.*
AKA the misrepresented campaign theme.  You're told to make characters for an RP-heavy, politically focused, intrigue-laden kingmaker type game, and so you do.  Backstory interwoven with various in-game fixtures, personalities left and right, motivations, loyalties, the whole works.  You've got contacts in every major port for two days sail in any direction, and your class and skill selections are very socially oriented; sure you're not brilliant at disarming spiked pit traps, but you know when someone is lying to you and how to hold your own at parties.  You're quite proud of your character.  Once the game starts up, however, you quickly discover that by 'politically focused', the DM actually meant that the hordes of badguys you'll fight are humanoid, by 'intrigue-laden' the DM actually meant that all the dungeons you delve will have been built under towns somehow, and that the DM wouldn't know 'RP-heavy' if it jumped up and bit them on the ass.


And the other one...

*Just Handing Him Ammo.*
Your backstory serves one, and only one, purpose: to give the badguys more way to get you.  Come from a town? It'll be razed.  Have a sibling? They'll be attacked, kidnapped, turned into undead, or similar.  Mentor?  Killed before your very eyes, or turned evil.  So on and so forth.  Anyone you care about will be used against you in some way.  If you have noone, you're fine, but you have people in your life they are tragedy waiting to happen.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 27, 2006)

Short but sweet:

*In your FACE, Joe Holy!*

If you are playing a paladin, the DM sees it as their divine calling to somehow, no matter what, no matter how contrived and lame, somehow make you fall from grace.  Like it's a requirement of the class.  If there is a paladin, then they must fall.  No other class gets this treatment.  Druids are never pushed to violate their spiritual oaths, clerics are never forced to lose their abilities, etc.  Oh, and if you complain, then _you're_ the jerk.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Sorry Oryan77, but players have as much right to gripe as anybody.



And you'll never be happy with a group with that opinion. In fact, didn't you just start a thread recently about leaving a group and I think you posted about being kicked out of a group? Huh....good luck finding that perfect DM   



> If it helps, you could go start up the traditional "Stupid player schticks" thread that allways appears shortly after this one does.  I highly reccomend you come up with a list of 3-5 "DM grievances" and kvetch about the folks who play under you for a while.  Heck, i'll be the first one to reply if you go do it now.



Why would I start up a Stupid Player thread when we have 2 going each week? I think that alone shows how much more annoying player schticks there are compared to DM schticks.

I just think it's wrong to pick on a guy who is just trying to entertain some friends and there is very little required by the friends. Player's will have the attitude like their 4 hours that day is completely wasted if a DM blew it when he was _trying_ to do a good job. Big whoop; so the player could have been playing WoW instead....well, the DM wasted those 4 hours plus the other 10 hours the previous week preparing a game for some ungrateful player.


----------



## RisnDevil (Jun 27, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> **STUFF**






			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> **STUFF**





:oints to thread topic::  Let's give thos people who want a place to rant or blow off steam a place to do just that.  Maybe it means the difference between them not blowing up at or berrating said DMs.  

Secondly, I do DM.  That does not change the fact that I agree with almost everything that has been posted, and find them valid complaints.  I am in the Army (ACTIVE-duty), married, have a one year old daughter, have D&D just as a hobby (not lifestyle) and am currently attending school full-time.  That doesn't mean that I have to or do resort to any of those things.  They are just annoying to players.


----------



## Kafkonia (Jun 27, 2006)

I've been lucky, I've not really had any bad DM experiences. I guess the worst one wasn't actually a DM problem -- it was someone who usually DMs and was unconsciously trying to run the game while he was a player. That didn't last past the first session, though.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> And you'll never be happy with a group with that opinion. In fact, didn't you just start a thread recently about leaving a group and I think you posted about being kicked out of a group? Huh....good luck finding that perfect DM
> 
> Why would I start up a Stupid Player thread when we have 2 going each week?




firstly: Yep, just exercizing my right to gripe, and for the record, I was kicked out of that game over two years ago, and the GM and I are still great friends and were playing alongside each other oin ANOTHER gaming group the day after I was asked to leave her group.  I still talk to her about once a week, mostly so each of us can dish about how well plots are going, and gripe about silly things like bad players and odd DM quirks.

Secondly Yep! I left the bad group, and found a better group in the same week, two as a matter of fact, I got stuck DMing one of them, but If they have any problems with my campaign, i told them to come to me, and we'll talk about it.  The other one has a problem player, but i think i'm going to have fun straightening him out.

And third: The Stupid player threads are your friend.  Go over to one of the two (? I didn't see one, but i'll take your word for it) on the boards now and gripe aobut your players there.

See, Being the GM is an ego-filling position.  While you have a lot of power, and authority, you don't necessarily have the respect or admiration of your players.  Even if you were to declare that You didn't wish to entertain your players that week, it's not like they are incapable of entertaining each other.  Someone else would take your place behind the GM screen, and then you could complain about what they do.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

RisnDevil said:
			
		

> :oints to thread topic::  Let's give thos people who want a place to rant or blow off steam a place to do just that.  Maybe it means the difference between them not blowing up at or berrating said DMs.



You're right. I'll shutup.

I would just hope that any players that gripe about these DM faults are constructively pointing them out to their DM rather than just bash him and make him feel crummy.

I've had my share of bad players complain about my DM'ing in the past. No matter how I tried to cater to their complaints, they had more complaints. And as I hear others say all the time, "I felt like giving up DM'ing". In the end, they left the group, and it turns out the remaining players are relieved because they were annoying players and I'm not a bad DM as they tried making it seem.

Just don't give your DM a hard time like so many players do. They can't get better at DM'ing if they feel worthless for trying.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> And you'll never be happy with a group with that opinion. In fact, didn't you just start a thread recently about leaving a group and I think you posted about being kicked out of a group? Huh....good luck finding that perfect DM
> 
> 
> Why would I start up a Stupid Player thread when we have 2 going each week? I think that alone shows how much more annoying player schticks there are compared to DM schticks.
> ...




Easy, sailor. 

I am the OP and I DM too (or at least I did back home, still searching for a regular group in godforsaken Alaska). This wasn't meant as a malicious post. Unless you've spent very little time as a player you had to have run into a plot device, schtick, DM fiat or what have you that made you groan at least a little bit on the inside.

Some may agree with some of the scenarios given, some may disagree. But if you see somebody posting something similar to a pet tactic of yours, perhaps you should rethink it. I've already seen myself in at least one post (the buttonlipped NPC's heh), and maybe changing that trait makes me a better DM.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> See, Being the GM is an ego-filling position.



I know there's plenty of DM's that think like that. Luckily I have never had to play under one. I have played under bad DM's, but it wasn't because they were bad guys like the ego-DM, they just weren't on top of their game. I can think of one bad DM I had that did at least 3-4 of the "schticks" mentioned in this thread. And honestly, I never thought much about them being annoying habits. I felt privilaged that the guy wanted to take the time to prepare adventures for me and do all of the work. If it was a long term game I would help him avoid those schticks rather than let it get to the point where it aggrivates me enough that I'll post about it.



> Someone else would take your place behind the GM screen, and then you could complain about what they do.



But I try my best to be a great DM _and_ player. As a player, I never complain about the DM.....I'm not an annoying player   
I have played with DM's that ran boring games. I just gave them constructive criticism which they really appreciated. And the following game was always a huge improvement. If whined to him the way bad players whined to me; that DM would never DM again because he'd think he sucks. When really, it would've been me that sucked as a player


----------



## ThirdWizard (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I just think it's wrong to pick on a guy who is just trying to entertain some friends and there is very little required by the friends.




Note that most of the people who replied to this thread are probably DMs. I am. Considering ENWorld is populated mostly by DMs, this shouldn't come as any surprise. If you catch me doing things in this thread, I'll step back and admit my mistakes. I see this thread as more of "what to avoid" than anything else.


Here's another one:

*His name? Uhm... Bob*: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.


----------



## Odhanan (Jun 27, 2006)

Some very good ones here! I actually recognize some of my own stuff ("My Old PC Runs This Bar" for instance is a trick of mine - I guess that one's annoying when the GM tries to run his old PC from behind the screen and tries to show it off by any means necessary, as a mentor or obstacle. I'd be annoyed as well in these conditions, to be frank). 

Question: Do you inform your DM about the things you do not like to see them doing between/after the sessions? That's always good to have feedback. Helps the DM to improve.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> But if you see somebody posting something similar to a pet tactic of yours, perhaps you should rethink it. I've already seen myself in at least one post (the buttonlipped NPC's heh), and maybe changing that trait makes me a better DM.



But that's the problem. I assume you have spent a lot of time as a player, which is why you recognize so many DM fiats. But it may be new to a DM and the group. He may be oblivious that it's a common plot device used in many groups. Even if it is common....it's common because it's fun. Sure, it might not be fun if you've played in a dozen groups in the last 20 years and experienced it many times, but that doesn't make the DM less of a good DM.

Some of these gripes are things that are typically used in movies to grab the audiences attention. How many times do we watch a hero in a movie that has a tradegy at the beginning? It's so the audience can relate to why he's becoming a hero throughout the movie. Guys like you and me will see that and go, "Great, another 'my loved one was killed so now I have to get revenge' storyline". But the majority of people won't even notice that common plot hook. It works, and that's why so many DM's do it and they don't even realize they are doing it. I'm not gonna complain about a DM doing it   

Anyway, back to the DM-bashing!

*Hey, that's my girl!*
Due to the DM's practice at roleplaying high charisma NPC's; he excels at whooing both men & women outside of the game. I have lost many girlfriends to smooth talking DM's when he gets into his Aasimar Bard persona at a party.


----------



## Oryan77 (Jun 27, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I see this thread as more of "what to avoid" than anything else.



Yeah, same here. The first few really seemed like nit-picking. I kept thinking, "What's so big about doing that...a player would actually complain about that?" It gave me flashbacks of really annoying players I've had. Those players I had were the type that hop from group to group because they are never happy with a DM. But a few comments later were pretty insightful and made me aware of what to avoid.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 27, 2006)

One of  my gripes is DMs who play all the monsters as smart combat savy navy seals even if even all they are is a horde of rats.

Another gripe is DM favortism it can be to the spouse or best friend or nephew or any some one special to the DM. They get all the plot hooks for their PCs they get rewarded when they engange in lone wolf activities they get extra Xp or karma for their "role" playing skills.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> But that's the problem. I assume you have spent a lot of time as a player, which is why you recognize so many DM fiats. But it may be new to a DM and the group. He may be oblivious that it's a common plot device used in many groups. Even if it is common....it's common because it's fun. Sure, it might not be fun if you've played in a dozen groups in the last 20 years and experienced it many times, but that doesn't make the DM less of a good DM.
> 
> Some of these gripes are things that are typically used in movies to grab the audiences attention. How many times do we watch a hero in a movie that has a tradegy at the beginning? It's so the audience can relate to why he's becoming a hero throughout the movie. Guys like you and me will see that and go, "Great, another 'my loved one was killed so now I have to get revenge' storyline". But the majority of people won't even notice that common plot hook. It works, and that's why so many DM's do it and they don't even realize they are doing it. I'm not gonna complain about a DM doing it




If you look back at the responses given and read a bit more closely into them, you'll notice reasons why they are so irritating to some players that might not be readily apparent. For example, one of my devices was the Super-competent Stealthy Omniscient NPC. Having a smart, powerful villain hound and taunt a party is a favorite trick of DM's and like another poster said it can be very effective. However, it has been my experience that most of the time this is done the NPC never makes mistakes, he never leaves clues, is never seen by witnesses, and all of his plots unfold flawlessly until the DM decides it's time for the climax.  This frustrates the PC's to no end because there's nothing they can do about it. There's nothing wrong with repeating plot devices, but the problem is that soooo many times I've seen them executed poorly by the DM. It's not so much their use, it's their misuse.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

People have listed pretty much all of mine.  I am so going to bookmark this and mine it for a list of "Don'ts"


----------



## Vanuslux (Jun 27, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> I just think it's wrong to pick on a guy who is just trying to entertain some friends and there is very little required by the friends. Player's will have the attitude like their 4 hours that day is completely wasted if a DM blew it when he was _trying_ to do a good job. Big whoop; so the player could have been playing WoW instead....well, the DM wasted those 4 hours plus the other 10 hours the previous week preparing a game for some ungrateful player.




In the 13 years or so I've been playing, I've been pushed into the DM slot 90% of the time.  This is fine, since I love to DM.  I typically enjoy it more than simply playing, though I do sometimes wish I could just simply play sometimes.  I'm pretty sure I'd be allowed to play a lot more often if I did the things people talk about in this thread more often. 

Honestly, I've played under some of the kinds of DMs talked about in this thread.  These people aren't just talking about young DMs who are still getting their running legs.  There are DMs out there who run their games with the attitude that you are showing...that Players should suck it up and be happy to have someone to run for them at all.  These are DMs concerned only with what they enjoy, not what the group enjoys.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 27, 2006)

*You are surplus to requirements*:  This DM's story (not campaign, wouldn't dignify this with that honorable word) is so tightly wound that the slightlest deviation would cause it to explode into a million pieces.  Thus, the PC's can do absolutely nothing to change/modify or otherwise alter the results of any event.  Not that they are railroaded per se, they could go off and do something else, but, nothing they will do will change what is coming next.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 27, 2006)

Pbartender said:
			
		

> *4. Perfectly Contrived Defense Bad Guys.*  The players build characters that are designed to be GOOD at doing a specific thing, whatever it may be, and every challenge or encounter the DM presents to the players is designed purposefully to negate the benefits of the PCs' preferred tactics.




I don't think this is a problem if not overused. If you have a PC with a very high AC score, making it difficult to challenge him, using an NPC with Improved Disarm _on occasion_ is not uncalled for. The GM has to challenge the PCs.



			
				Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> No, you can't have a pony. (not for you)
> 
> This GM despises all manner of horses with a firey passion of a thousand suns. Whether it's a mule, riding dog, horse, or velociraptor with a saddle, be prepared for every single monster to target it like they were the only edible thing in a thousand miles. If the horse isn't being eaten or shot at, it's running away in the darkness after mysticly untying itself from the hitch.




I've run into this twice. Not in actual DnD gaming, because horses will inevitably get killed by Fireballs, but in D20 Wheel of Time and D20 Modern.

In the former, the GM flat out told us that, if we use horses, don't make them attack. (We were low level, so horses could match us in terms of combat ability.) Otherwise they'll get shot or eaten. He kept his word that he wouldn't kill them if we didn't attack. We didn't have them attack, and they didn't die. Something similar in Modern, but not quite so heavy-handed.



			
				Third Wizard said:
			
		

> His name? Uhm... Bob: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.




I'm guilty of something similar (in my Modern campaign) ... they have names. They're just impossible for the players to remember. I had to stop having the PCs adventure in Arabic countries for this reason.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 27, 2006)

*NPC's from one game keep popping up in other games. *   "Didn't this wizard hire in the last game you ran?" 

 I am actually guilty of this and have tried to stop.

I actually very tolerant of other DM's when I get to play.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 27, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> One of  my gripes is DMs who play all the monsters as smart combat savy navy seals even if even all they are is a horde of rats.




LOL!

Yes, that would be gripe, too.

Sometimes monsters are clever.  Sometimes they are big dumb strong things that are used to beating up anything smaller than themselves.  Mix it up.


----------



## Just_Hal (Jun 27, 2006)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *NPC's from one game keep popping up in other games. *   "Didn't this wizard hire in the last game you ran?"
> 
> I am actually guilty of this and have tried to stop.
> 
> I actually very tolerant of other DM's when I get to play.




You tolerant-----farsnickety doodle dee on you.  LOL
Just kidding, my last few DM's have been opposites, one who has notes and a map on a napkin and lets us freeform and assist in making the adventure by our own moves/decisions and one who is a stickler for rules and organization and will make us wait out the game until we "figure" out the clue we are missing.

Thinking the freeform may fit me better overall at this time.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *NPC's from one game keep popping up in other games. *   "Didn't this wizard hire in the last game you ran?"
> 
> I am actually guilty of this and have tried to stop.
> 
> I actually very tolerant of other DM's when I get to play.



 Why is this bad?  I actually have several PbP games that all take place in a shared setting, and so there are a decent number of NPCs that were encountered in two or even three games.  I find it adds verisimilitude.


----------



## Someone (Jun 27, 2006)

*Roll and roll and roll and roll and roll and roll again*

The DM presents tasks that can only be solved spending literally hours rolling. for example, a 100 foot cliff: making a climb check makes you climb 5 feet forward, but failing it makes you fall 5 feet. Of course if you fall badly you lose grip and fall like a stone.

Or, if the travel lasts 15 days, he´ll roll 12 random encounters a day, and play every single of them. That makes potentially 180 encounters. Yes, travelling is a marvelous "experience"


----------



## pogre (Jun 27, 2006)

*The Puzzle or Trap Dead End*

The PCs must overcome a trap or puzzle to move on in the adventure. "The puzzle is soooo easy!" the DM states with a stupid half-smirk. A complete WASTE of my gaming time. I do not mind a few puzzles, but spending hours on a mensa word problem is not my idea of quality gaming.

A close cousin to this is the super secret door that you must find to complete the adventure.


----------



## Terwox (Jun 27, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Somewhat related:
> 
> 
> *Just Handing Him Ammo.*
> Your backstory serves one, and only one, purpose: to give the badguys more way to get you.  Come from a town? It'll be razed.  Have a sibling? They'll be attacked, kidnapped, turned into undead, or similar.  Mentor?  Killed before your very eyes, or turned evil.  So on and so forth.  Anyone you care about will be used against you in some way.  If you have noone, you're fine, but you have people in your life they are tragedy waiting to happen.




aha, someone posted my pet peeve!  I have a DM who does this ALL THE TIME.  He gets annoyed when people start developing characters that have no strong relationships with anyone else... and denies he targets them.

My pet peeve is very similar -- enemies of the party will target people the party likes, instead of simply targetting the party.  Sure, this fits SOME enemies... but not EVERYONE thinks this way.

Ah well, all DMs have personality slants for their PCs I guess.


----------



## Drowbane (Jun 27, 2006)

*The Moral of the Story* - Back during my 2e days one of our DMs (who mainly ran Shadowrun) would go out of his way to PUNISH characters for doing something the DM thought was not-so-nice.  One member of our Shadowrun team was a AWoL spec-ops guy (or somesuch) who focused on Sniping.  This particular Ork would on occasion tag innocents on purpose to heighten chaos during Runs.  Naturally this DM thought it appropriate to haunt the characters with "Ghosts of the Past".  (Note, the player of the Ork normally played Paladin types to a T)

Another example.  This was during 2e, my PC had a katana from the Fighter's Handbook... which of course was the Uber weapon of the day.  This DM felt the need to destroy it with an unexplained psionic detonation (no, we never did run into any psionicist villain ) just because he thought the sword was borken (fool had no concept that the broadsword with its 2d4 was just slightly weaker.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 27, 2006)

pogre said:
			
		

> The PCs must overcome a trap or puzzle to move on in the adventure. "The puzzle is soooo easy!" the DM states with a stupid half-smirk. A complete WASTE of my gaming time. I do not mind a few puzzles, but spending hours on a mensa word problem is not my idea of quality gaming.
> 
> A close cousin to this is the super secret door that you must find to complete the adventure.




I agree with this one. In one campaign, the DM gave us a logic puzzle to figure out. We could only get through the adventure by solving it. (He got the sudden idea that we should "think", ignoring the fact that we were thinking through all the social and combat situations we had been through. Sometimes DMs just don't know what thinking means.) Anyway, it seems he playtested it beforehand with other DnD players, and they solved it (individually) in less than 30 rounds. So if it took us more than 30 rounds to solve it, something very nasty would happen.

It took us nearly 60 rounds to solve it. Grr....



			
				Drowbane said:
			
		

> One member of our Shadowrun team was a AWoL spec-ops guy (or somesuch) who focused on Sniping. This particular Ork would on occasion tag innocents on purpose to heighten chaos during Runs. Naturally this DM thought it appropriate to haunt the characters with "Ghosts of the Past". (Note, the player of the Ork normally played Paladin types to a T)




No problems here. I don't know about haunting, but catching the character with powerful cops and throwing him in jail is quite appropriate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

Hi there.  I DM about 90-95% of the time I sit down to game, so my perspective on complaining about DMs may be skewed.    

I roll initiative every round, using a d10.  I've found that, especially with larger groups, the 3.X combat system takes a long time to resolve.  Even a single character's action might take a long time to resolve.  I've found that rolling, and counting down, initiative each round helps the players to focus on what's happening, even when it is not their turn.

A lot of the problems mentioned here seem to be what I would call "texture" problems.  Most players like the idea of clear leads, being able to go where they want, and hooks being drawn from their backstories.  They like mysteries, tough opponents who really challenge them, and world travel.  Of course, the "texture" part of this is -- how much?  

If PCs retire to open bars, it is sensible to assume that some of those NPC bartenders might be former adventurers.  If you're low-level, travelling in troll country, you might be happy that your horse provides more meat than you.  You might feel fine helping your sister out when her husband is captured by goblins, if it isn't a weekly occurance.  But if this stuff happens constantly, all you learn is to eschew family and backstory, never waste your money on a horse, and open your own inn as quickly as possible.

BTW, I have run games in which PCs have successfully robbed the inn, but the reality is that most prosperous businessmen aren't stupid.  It shouldn't come as a great surprise that an attempt to sneak the cashbox out of a crowded taproom comes to a disasterous end....that the bartender has seen or heard of common tricks....or that reprisals are grisly.

Good gaming!

RC


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Druids are never pushed to violate their spiritual oaths, clerics are never forced to lose their abilities, etc.  Oh, and if you complain, then _you're_ the jerk.




Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but if a cleric or druid violates their tenet in my game, they do get punished.  However, as with the paladin, I'll give a courtesy warning, but if the player repeatedly violates the same exact issue, I'll stop warning and begin stripping abilities and/or spells.  Thankfully,  in all my years of gaming, I have only had to go past the warning stage on one occasion.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

*Riddle me this, Batman!*. I loathe riddles that the players must solve in order to advance in the game.  Sometimes they are ok, but only if my Int 18 Wizard gets some hints, _and_ if there are alternatives to solving the riddle in order to accomplish the goal; i.e. no super sealed unbreakable anti-magic doors that are only opened if you can figure out "It's not a snake but has scales. It's a parent's joy and a parent's despair. It's not a thumbscrew but tortures people."



(p.s. the answer is an elementary school music recital).


----------



## Kormydigar (Jun 27, 2006)

Terwox said:
			
		

> aha, someone posted my pet peeve!  I have a DM who does this ALL THE TIME.  He gets annoyed when people start developing characters that have no strong relationships with anyone else... and denies he targets them.
> 
> My pet peeve is very similar -- enemies of the party will target people the party likes, instead of simply targetting the party.  Sure, this fits SOME enemies... but not EVERYONE thinks this way.
> 
> Ah well, all DMs have personality slants for their PCs I guess.




This one gets annoying real quick. We had a DM that used to do this crap to us all the time. We got revenge in one game. We made up characters with lots of family and friends in our character stories then just waited for the inevitable to happen. As soon as our " loved ones" were targeted we simply turned into callous jerks and ignored the situation. " Ransom?" " Kill the little brat, see if I care." Talk about driving the DM into a fury.   The game was aborted but the DM learned a valuable lesson.


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> *You are surplus to requirements*:  This DM's story (not campaign, wouldn't dignify this with that honorable word) is so tightly wound that the slightlest deviation would cause it to explode into a million pieces.  Thus, the PC's can do absolutely nothing to change/modify or otherwise alter the results of any event.  Not that they are railroaded per se, they could go off and do something else, but, nothing they will do will change what is coming next.




I ran into this in the first Vampire LARP Chronicle that I tried.  I  killed the BBEG in front of the assistant storyteller, who promptly went to inform the head storyteller (off running a side encounter) of what occured.  A few minutes later the assistant story teller returned dejected- the head storyteller overruled what happened, because it was "bad for the plotline" and it would ruin what he had planned for later.  Similar situations happened throughout the chronicle.

The head storyteller's inability to "roll with the punches" turned what would have been an awesome campaign into one that needed to be avoided.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jun 27, 2006)

*The Grinder*
Encounters end up dropping at least one party member to unconsciousness and everyone else almost out of spells and low on hit points, so after each and every encounter you have to rest.  This also result in *The Rocket* when characters go up a level after each session (usually only 3 or 4 encounters) due to the high CRs of the opponents.


----------



## tonym (Jun 27, 2006)

DMs who won't use miniatures, even if available, and who make all their monsters and enemy NPCs run at 600 mph.

DM:  You find a bush to hide in, with a good long view of the road.
Me: Heh heh!  Ambush time!  I get my longbow out.  When the guy comes within range, I'll shoot.
DM:  Okay, you see him.  He's now within range.
Me: Twang!!  Ha HAH!  Take that!
DM: He's wounded.  He also sees you.  Undaunted by the cowardly attack, he quickly closes the distance, drawing his sword as he runs.  Roll initiative.
Me:  Wait.  What?  He's already toe-to-toe with me?!
DM:  Yes. 
Me: ? ! ? ! ? ! 

Tony M


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

Maybe, he was in the bushes with you!   


			
				tonym said:
			
		

> DMs who won't use miniatures, even if available, and who make all their monsters and enemy NPCs run at 600 mph.
> 
> DM:  You find a bush to hide in, with a good long view of the road.
> Me: Heh heh!  Ambush time!  I get my longbow out.  When the guy comes within range, I'll shoot.
> ...


----------



## Shadowslayer (Jun 27, 2006)

A lot of this stuff I've read here are things that are reasonably OK in moderation, but become a problem if overused...or applied to the wrong types of players. I've had groups that _needed_ to be railroaded. If I didn't, it became "the directionless session" On the other hand, the example used where "No matter what you do, the thingamabob will be stolen by whoseywhatsis with a whatchamacallit" is the worst kind of railroad. 

Likewise if you try a mystery with dungeon bashers, you end up with "The Impossibly Convoluted Mystery That Just Won't End." It all depends on the players.

The biggest DM that "grinds my gears" is the control freak/novelist DM. Nothing you can come up with will fit his world. Even the most basic PC races and classes can and will be vetoed by this guy. He won't even negotiate. (This guy usually has an overdeveloped sense of "this is how D&D is SUPPOSED to be played") The game's all his, and you're really just a spectator. Forget gather info or knowledge skills...you don't get the info till this DM has decided that you've danced enough and he's now good and ready to give it to you. 

Life's just too short to play with these guys. 


A few random thoughts:



> Every important NPC is the conniving DM.
> Why is it when running through ye olde Convoluted Mystery every damn NPC that matters holds back as much information as possible, has to be pumped hard for any useful information even little tidbits that do not matter to the NPC, cannot offer anything like a fair deal without it being carefully negotiated for by the PCs, and are ingrateful wretches who do not volunteer information even after saving their worthless life?




Eh, gather info, intimidate, diplomacy etc are mechanics meant to help arbitrate these ones fairly. In 3x, this peeve shouldn't have to exist.



> a Super-Duper BBEG from out of nowhere utterly destroys the entire region. Your background and knowledge of the local region are now completely worthless as the entire game devolves into chasing after the BBEG, never stopping long enough in one place to actually portray your character in any meaningful sense.




If my DM made me shoehorn my character into his "story" then write all the backstory etc just to pull this stunt, I would quit. I have before. (most of the players jumped ship with me too)



> Just Handing Him Ammo.
> Your backstory serves one, and only one, purpose: to give the badguys more way to get you. Come from a town? It'll be razed. Have a sibling? They'll be attacked, kidnapped, turned into undead, or similar. Mentor? Killed before your very eyes, or turned evil. So on and so forth. Anyone you care about will be used against you in some way. If you have noone, you're fine, but you have people in your life they are tragedy waiting to happen.




Actually, I've been guilty of this. I'm not too apologetic though. To my way of thinking, backstory is _meant_ to foster adventure hooks...otherwise it has no purpose other than as fluff.



> His name? Uhm... Bob: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.




Agreed...but there's a counter-beef here though. I go out of my way to have NPCs with good names. Then my PCs can't ever remember them. Instead it's "lets go see that hot elf chick" or "we gotta watch out for that one eyed mean guy"



> NPC's from one game keep popping up in other games. "Didn't this wizard hire in the last game you ran?"




Actually, I don't see the problem here. My handle, Shadowslayer, has had cameos in every game I've run since the late 80s. (he's a half elf ranger who usually pops up as a boatman or a wanderer)


----------



## sukael (Jun 27, 2006)

silver_wizard said:
			
		

> 6. DM's favouritism towards his girlfriend, who, by virtue of her "elevated status", gets to play an elf / half-shadow dragon / half-tarrasque / half-solar sorcerer/monk/assassin/rogue/uber-goddess, thereby transforming a long-standing campaign in which everybody had fun to another edition of the popular show called "the all-powerful Whosthatoverthere and her pets" (aka other players).




Oh, god, yes. I was once in a campaign where the DM refused to let me play a goliath because of its +1 level adjustment. (Note that the game wasn't starting at 1st level.)

Now, if he'd just said 'this won't fit in my campaign world,' that would have been fine... but I found out, a week after I'd started playing my dwarf cleric, that the DM's girlfriend was playing a half-water-elemental.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 27, 2006)

Shadowslayer said:
			
		

> Eh, gather info, intimidate, diplomacy etc are mechanics meant to help arbitrate these ones fairly. In 3x, this peeve shouldn't have to exist.




I would argue that Diplomacy and Intimidate, as written, are really messed up.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

The backstory so you can get at the players is messed up.  I like my players to have relatives that come looking for them when they don't come home.  I think a lot of the witholding information and impossible riddles and such is DM Ego.  I am regretfully guilty of the 300 rolls to climb down the cliff syndrome.  I had not yet developed abstraction and granularity concepts.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

I firmly believe that if you have put somthing in the game that is essential to move forward you should have a way of getting it done without havig to withold it.  If its a riddle, and the players don't know the answer, tell it to them and roll to see what character solves it.  If its important information, and no one has rolled high enough on Gather info, give the info to the person that rolled the highest.  Eventually you are going to run out of ways to give them the info with the dice, so if they are not getting the info, just give it to them.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 27, 2006)

Here's one that I'm sorta reluctant to include because I'm not sure how common this is. One of my DM's from my early gaming days (who was a fan of the Incredibly Convoluted Mystery) I felt was guilty of this but I had no real proof, just a very strong suspicion.

*The Story Does Not Remain The Same* 

For once you've solved the Incredibly Convoluted Mystery early. You've taken studious notes, connected the dots, and a scenario that makes sense has arisen. The party plans out a strategy, executes the plan... and fails utterly because all the underlying assumptions have shifted 180 degrees. Once the party finds out The Real Truth (tm), they find it is something that is completely different than the clues suggested in the early portion of the game and there was no way in retrospect that the party could have figured it out. In short, it looks suspiciously as if the DM has changed the mystery instead of allowing the PC's to uncover the secret.


----------



## jester47 (Jun 27, 2006)

Yeah, I've seen that one.  Did it a couple of times in fact.  What I think causes that is that the DM feels that since the players figured it out he must not be smarter than them, and so fears that his players will have found him out and replace him.  The thing he does not realise is that few people actually want to DM.

Here's one:

*The "How the Party Meets"* adventure at the start of the campaign.  The DM solos with each player up until they all come to the same physical space.  While he's tooling with each player, everyone else is bored and fidgeting.  I find this really annoying.  

I prefer to have the players state how the characters make their living when not adventureing and what their relationship is to the other players.  This allows you to get started pretty quickly.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 27, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> horses will inevitably get killed by Fireballs ...
> 
> In the former, the GM flat out told us that, if we use horses, don't make them attack. (We were low level, so horses could match us in terms of combat ability.) Otherwise they'll get shot or eaten. He kept his word that he wouldn't kill them if we didn't attack. We didn't have them attack, and they didn't die. Something similar in Modern, but not quite so heavy-handed.




I can understand that kind of a deal, but when playing in Faerun with the _saddleborn_ background feat, as a Knight with the Mounted Combat bonus feat on top of that, nothing like putting max ranks in Ride and being able to take two seperate checks to change the horse's AC per turn to help the horse survive.

Also, a former GM actually had one-hit-kill cannons being carried by ogres. to kill off horses.  He rolled a scatter die instead of damage


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> I can understand that kind of a deal, but when playing in Faerun with the _saddleborn_ background feat, as a Knight with the Mounted Combat bonus feat on top of that, nothing like putting max ranks in Ride and being able to take two seperate checks to change the horse's AC per turn to help the horse survive.
> 
> Also, a former GM actually had one-hit-kill cannons being carried by ogres. to kill off horses.  He rolled a scatter die instead of damage




 

There are times when horses *should* be targetted.  First off, lots of unintelligent animals will target horses more often than riders (think mountain lions here).  That's a good time for your Mounted Combat feat to kick in.

Secondly, sometimes it makes sense to target a horse.  If an NPC was making mincemeat out of the PCs due to high mobility (i.e., a horse), and the PCs were having trouble hitting the NPC, what would they target?  You bet your sweet beans that intelligent NPCs would come to the same conclusion.  

Of course, sometimes PCs cry out "Don't hurt the horses!" because they want them for themselves, either to ride or for trade value.  NPCs should make the same kinds of decisions.

RC


----------



## Set (Jun 27, 2006)

> Two weeks later you're enjoying yourself when RAWRBLAM!!! a Super-Duper BBEG from out of nowhere utterly destroys the entire region. Your background and knowledge of the local region are now completely worthless as the entire game devolves into chasing after the BBEG, never stopping long enough in one place to actually portray your character in any meaningful sense.




This describes just about every Vampire or Werewolf game I've been in.  *Always* sold as being political and thoughtful and 'an exploration of the lupine's spiritual nature' and blah-blah-blah, and often by the end of the first session, degenerated into maxed out Celerity and Fortitude with dual pump-action flame-thrower spouting modified shotguns.

So.  Much.  Hate.

I argue that Werewolf in particular is for combat-twinks and psychopaths, and I get beaten about the head and shoulders that 'oh no, it's deeply spiritual, and blah-blah-blah' and I fall for it and join their game to find out that it's a blood-soaked carnage-fest that makes Doom II look like Casablanca, by comparison.

I will *happily* play a Freak Legion-style splatterpunk orgy of destruction.  Just tell before I write up a Toreador art teacher or Stargazer philosopher-priest...  (Honestly?  I kinda prefer the carnage-fests, but only when I've got a twinked out Brujah or Get of Fenris Ahroun or something!)



> The Grinder
> Encounters end up dropping at least one party member to unconsciousness and everyone else almost out of spells and low on hit points, so after each and every encounter you have to rest. This also result in The Rocket when characters go up a level after each session (usually only 3 or 4 encounters) due to the high CRs of the opponents.




Oh, my exact experience in World's Largest Dungeon.  EVERY single encounter leaves us dying, and in some cases, dead.  We get up, we enter a room, we fight, and less than five minutes later, we need to sleep for eight hours to get our spells back and often need to spend several days recouping lost Attribute points from all the darn poisons and blood drains (Six seperate Stirge encounters at 1st and 2nd level and no Restoration spells means a lot of downtime.)

No exagerration, we've been in the dungeon for three days, and we've slept so that the Cleric can regain spells *eight times*...  (Yes, that's right, in three days of dungeon-delving, we've spent eight whole hours actually AWAKE.)

Yes, a desperate bleeding edge barely-pulled-it-out encounter can be a great climax.  But really, I like some foreplay before my climax.


----------



## GandhitheBFG (Jun 27, 2006)

Only two things, really.

A. DM's that don't describe things properly, and then attack you with them.

B. DM's that use D&D dragons as slavering monsters. All the time. Unless they're silver. It makes them easier to kill, and I'm all for Reign of Fire-esque dragons in certain games, but in D&D, they're fiendishly intelligent (generally) sentient beings. They should act like it.

C. DM's that don't use tactics. Ever. Similar to the above.

Three things. Just three.

Though I've only ever really gamed consistently with one DM, and it's still pretty fun. Just a few minor niggles, really.


----------



## tonym (Jun 27, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Maybe, he was in the bushes with you!




Gah!  If figurines had been used, I'd have known he was in the bushes!!  haha  

Man, it was like that scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where the two soldiers are guarding the entrance to the castle and they see Lancelot running towards them in the distance.  He is far, far away.  Very far.  I'm talking far.  Them BAM!  He's right there, sticking his sword in one guard's spleen!

Oh!  One more complaint.  This mini-shunning DM never let my PC overtake any NPC that was fleeing!  

Once my PC was going to attack a guy in a bedroom of a tavern.  Before I could close the distance and stab him, he runs to the window, throws open the window, casts a spell and turns into a bird, then flies away.  My PC pulls out his bow to shoot him, but the bird is out of range.  How big was that dang room?!  There wasn't a map or minis, so who knows?

If the situation was reversed, I would've been stabbed as I crossed the room, stabbed as I opened the window, stabbed as I cast the spell, stabbed as I flew away, and then shot with twenty arrows before I flew out of range.

So, yeh, I abominate the DM shtick in a mini-shunning campaign where the DM decides all PCs are slow and all enemies are fast.  I guess DMs who do that think it makes the game more cinematic or some crap, but I don't like it. 

Tony M


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 27, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> I can understand that kind of a deal, but when playing in Faerun with the _saddleborn_ background feat, as a Knight with the Mounted Combat bonus feat on top of that, nothing like putting max ranks in Ride and being able to take two seperate checks to change the horse's AC per turn to help the horse survive.
> 
> Also, a former GM actually had one-hit-kill cannons being carried by ogres. to kill off horses.  He rolled a scatter die instead of damage




Eventually the horse just dies, though (someone is going to hit unless the knight has a +10 Ride bonus item), unless he's using some option to make horses _not_ suck, like Wild Cohort. And even then, does he really need to waste time having the horse attack? It'll probably miss, and it's damage value is pretty lame, too.

(If a mount has Wild Cohort, now the GM can target it because it's not going to die so easy, and so it doesn't look like the player's horse is being picked on. Still, I don't want to turn a mount into another character. This goes doubly at lower levels when a warhorse might actually outfight some of the PCs. Shouldn't they be taking away XP or something?)

In any event, fewer horses means fewer map problems. Since I'm not running DnD anymore, I don't need to deal with 90 foot monks zipping all over the place 



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Of course, sometimes PCs cry out "Don't hurt the horses!" because they want them for themselves, either to ride or for trade value. NPCs should make the same kinds of decisions.




When feasible. The NPC shouldn't hold back on dishing out Fireballs unless they've got some equally nasty way of defeating the PCs without hurting the horses. Unless the NPCs are bandits, of course.



			
				GandhitheBFG said:
			
		

> B. DM's that use D&D dragons as slavering monsters. All the time. Unless they're silver. It makes them easier to kill, and I'm all for Reign of Fire-esque dragons in certain games, but in D&D, they're fiendishly intelligent (generally) sentient beings. They should act like it.




There are DMs who don't like the way DnD dragons are presented.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> When feasible. The NPC shouldn't hold back on dishing out Fireballs unless they've got some equally nasty way of defeating the PCs without hurting the horses. Unless the NPCs are bandits, of course.




Keep in mind the context you quoted me in.  NPCS, within their means and intelligence/wisdom, should make the same sorts of decisions PCs do.  That sometimes means targetting the horses.  That sometimes means trying to preserve them for themselves.

RC


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Jun 27, 2006)

And those sorts ALWAYS gloat.




			
				pogre said:
			
		

> The PCs must overcome a trap or puzzle to move on in the adventure. "The puzzle is soooo easy!" the DM states with a stupid half-smirk.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Keep in mind the context you quoted me in.  NPCS, within their means and intelligence/wisdom, should make the same sorts of decisions PCs do.  That sometimes means targetting the horses.  That sometimes means trying to preserve them for themselves.
> 
> RC





I'll try something else then 

How often do NPCs not have an escape plan of some kind? Something better than "steal their horses and escape with them"? That kind of plan has an obvious flaw... To put it another way, I can't think of many circumstances when NPCs would try to preserve the horses.

As for targetting horses, it often makes sense. I tried to avoid doing it because it's unfair (at least using strictly core rules); at least once the PCs have a few levels it's quite unfair.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> How often do NPCs not have an escape plan of some kind?




Probably as often as PCs have an escape plan: virtually never.

Ah, the joys of D&D, when a combat turns bad and nobody can decide if they should run or stay, so half the people run and half stay... good times, good times.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Nobody has told me why NPCs who appear in multiple games are bad.  I'm trying to figure this one out, since I do it fairly often.


----------



## takasi (Jun 27, 2006)

*Don't blame me, blame the module* 
I see this all the time in the RPGA, but it can apply to any published adventure.  DMs will run a module written by someone else and then complain about it while he's running it.  "How high is the ceiling?  Just a sec...geesh, they didn't even put that in here!"  "You ask the wizard why his apprentice left?  Hmmm, it doesn't say that in here..."  "Now why is that door over here?  Hold on a second while I look at this stupid map..."  If the DM expresses his frustration with a module then it's very unlikely that players are going to enjoy it.  In my experience it's much better to wing it whenever possible, and whether you like the module or not always treat every session like it's the best possible adventure ever.

*You're gonna love this!*
Another common problem.  DMs who are a little too excited about an adventure session.  It's always good to have energy and a positive attitude, but there's a line between lifting spirits and being full of yourself.  "Wait until you see what I have in store tonight, this session is going to kick ass!"

*I smell a TPK tonight...*
Similar to the above, sometimes a DM tries to intimidate his players.  While there's nothing wrong with this, it can lead to some very underwhelming sessions.  "Umm, yeah, I know I said the black dragon was going to rock your world, but I didn't think you guys were going to have resist acid memorized..."

Finally, biggest gripe:

*Can't make it to game tonight.*
'Nuff said.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 27, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but if a cleric or druid violates their tenet in my game, they do get punished.  However, as with the paladin, I'll give a courtesy warning, but if the player repeatedly violates the same exact issue, I'll stop warning and begin stripping abilities and/or spells.  Thankfully,  in all my years of gaming, I have only had to go past the warning stage on one occasion.




I've never stripped a paladin of their powers, but I've only had 3 players play paladins and they did so well.  Usually my NPC paladins had to tell them to lighten up a bit.  Of course, I also have a bit of semantic wiggling on the "willingly consort with evil" aspect as any paladin on a mission will suck it up and go drinking with baby-eaters if it serves a purpose.  When the purpose is done they should focus on taking down the baby-eaters but sometimes you have to only smite one evil creature at a time.  

Once, in 2e, I made a cleric atone in a non-spell fashion.  He got tricked into doing something evil that wasn't obviously evil at the time but his god expected him to know that anything Lloth does has an ulterior motive.  His god made him quest to find the family of the individuals his actions harmed and accept whatever justice they demanded.  (I wasn't setting out to screw the party, one PC managed to gate the party to Lloth's lair by using a magic doohickey they'd sworn they'd never use and this was me suddenly having  to run an encounter with a diety's avatar)

IMO, gods should be aware of the relative rarity of their cleric/paladin followers and exert some small amount of effort to correct abherrent behavior.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 27, 2006)

*RPG Street Cred*



			
				Gearjammer said:
			
		

> When playing with a new DM, what sort of tricks/situations/DM techniques just make you grit your teeth?



None; if it gets to that point ... I just leave.

-Samir


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Nobody has told me why NPCs who appear in multiple games are bad.  I'm trying to figure this one out, since I do it fairly often.




I can only see a problem if Hellfinster the Wizard also shows up in your Spycraft game. And even then that's fine if he's been "translated" into Hellfinster the Department Chief or something.

Recycling is perfectly fine, in my opinion.  Smith Black the Blacksmith is my default blacksmith, he shows up in any game where I need a blacksmith.  There is the possibility of NPCs overshadowing the players, being the DM's pets, etc. but those are separate issues.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 27, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> How often do NPCs not have an escape plan of some kind? Something better than "steal their horses and escape with them"? That kind of plan has an obvious flaw... To put it another way, I can't think of many circumstances when NPCs would try to preserve the horses.




But it's not about riding off with them. Horses are expensive items, and unlike magic items, there are a lot of people in the world who want them. They're probably almost as liquid a commodity as gold and gems.


----------



## Kafkonia (Jun 27, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Smith Black the Blacksmith is my default blacksmith, he shows up in any game where I need a blacksmith.




And he will now appear in any game of mine as well!

Smith Black... I wish I'd thought of that.


----------



## Krelios (Jun 27, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> And a couple more, these ones for the RP'ers:
> 
> *It's the end of the world as we know it, and it's not fine*
> 
> ...



Sounds like a good campaign. Sh*t happens in the real world and world-shaking events can make a wonderful adventure.


> Or the same as above except for an apocalyptic scene of mass destruction, your Powerful NPC Mentor (tm) sends you and your companions off on a loooooooooooong adventure thousands of miles away from the "starting point" of the adventure. When questioned later the GM says "I said we'd start there, I never said anything about staying there..."



Again, expect the unexpected should be par for the course for adventurers.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> There are times when horses *should* be targetted.  First off, lots of unintelligent animals will target horses more often than riders (think mountain lions here).
> Secondly, sometimes it makes sense to target a horse.
> Of course, sometimes PCs cry out "Don't hurt the horses!" because they want them for themselves, either to ride or for trade value.  NPCs should make the same kinds of decisions.
> RC




QFT



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I'll try something else then
> 
> How often do NPCs not have an escape plan of some kind? Something better than "steal their horses and escape with them"? That kind of plan has an obvious flaw... To put it another way, I can't think of many circumstances when NPCs would try to preserve the horses.




Slight tangent.

*All NPCs fight to the death.* Good gravy, I once had a stable-boy bite my ankles like a rabid weasel because I, a heavily armed & armored desperado, was stiffing the stable 1sp by leaving in the middle of the night (Note: the inn is currently on fire from the mage-battle that occurred inside).  I was playing an evil character but I didn't see the need in killing a 10yro kid over a freaking silver piece I was too busy to dig out of my pocket.  

As a DM, in a more recent game I remember the look of shock on players faces the first time I had a giant chuck his axe into the forest and offer to pay for his life.  It was like a cockroach started spouting MacBeth.  The concept that someone might be willing to _buy_ their way out of death was completely alien.


----------



## Satori (Jun 27, 2006)

Two of my absolute favorites.

1. *I Hate Humans and Fighters...so no Humans or Fighters in my game.*
-Ok...it is one thing to feel that the optional half-dragon template is overpowered...or maybe Dark Elves give you a bad taste in your mouth.  But I've had a DM that would outlaw favored Core classes/races for no other reason than, "They bug me."

2. *The Destroyer of Dreams*
-DM: "I want a two page history, item weight down the ounce, and a complete Freudian personality make up"
-PC: "Phew!  It took me a week to create this guy...but he's awesome and I'm really looking forward to playing him!"
-DM: "You encounter a Tarrasque that eats your face and jumps rope with your intestines.  Create another character."

You are specifically told to create incredibly in-depth, intriguing, unique characters.  What you aren't told is that you'll be forced to do this several dozen times because the DM enjoys killing PCs.

This also translates into DMs that specifically try and kill a PC for personal reasons.  They don't like the race, alignment, PrClass, etc...so instead of talking to the player about possible changes...they detonate their pet PC right in front of their eyes.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> I can only see a problem if Hellfinster the Wizard also shows up in your Spycraft game. And even then that's fine if he's been "translated" into Hellfinster the Department Chief or something.
> 
> Recycling is perfectly fine, in my opinion.  Smith Black the Blacksmith is my default blacksmith, he shows up in any game where I need a blacksmith.  There is the possibility of NPCs overshadowing the players, being the DM's pets, etc. but those are separate issues.



 Dagger75 seemed to be talking about this in the same genre.  His quote was "Didn't this wizard hire us in the last game you ran."  I really don't see why this is bad.  In fact, I find it _better_ to do this if I am running games that have a shared world because it helps increase the sense of verisimilitude and helps the players connect to the setting.  Plus it offers a unique way to display more than one side of a complicated character.  The kind (but Lawful Neutral with tendencies both ways, though she views herself as Lawful Good and pragmatic) benefactor of one PC is the puppetmaster pulling the strings in another game, and she hired a Rogue PC's mentor from a third game to pull off the heist for her.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But it's not about riding off with them. Horses are expensive items, and unlike magic items, there are a lot of people in the world who want them. They're probably almost as liquid a commodity as gold and gems.




Exactly.

If you think you take the opponent without harming the horses, you do it.  If you think the horses are your opponent's weak spot, you exploit it.  Easy as that.

Of course, a stupid ogre might not think to smash the horse, and a mountain lion (or, for that matter, a dragon) wouldn't have reason to keep it.

RC


----------



## jeffh (Jun 27, 2006)

Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> *Every important NPC is the conniving DM*.
> Why is it when running through ye olde Convoluted Mystery every damn NPC that matters holds back as much information as possible, has to be pumped hard for any useful information even little tidbits that do not matter to the NPC, cannot offer anything like a fair deal without it being carefully negotiated for by the PCs, and are ingrateful wretches who do not volunteer information _even after saving their worthless life_?
> 
> I like mysteries.  But after a while it feels like the DM is punishing the party for failing to metagame as Sherlock Columbo.



*YES!* This is one of the biggest reasons why I left the last group I played (rather than GMed) in in mid-session and never came back. (#3 is essentially what eventually killed that campaign, incidentally, three or four sessions after my departure).


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 27, 2006)

*Anime is Evil*



			
				Krelios said:
			
		

> Again, expect the unexpected should be par for the course for adventurers.



It's also the theme for _Cardcaptors_.    

-Samir


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2006)

*The guy you're working for/who hired you is actually the main bad guy in disguise, manipulating you into doing his dirty work.*

Now, let me clarify. I like that particular trick, and I've used it myself, but it's got to be done _in moderation_. As a PC, I don't mind being set up/manipulated _occasionally_. It's great for building enmity with the villain. But I've played under DMs for whom this was the case _every. Single. Time._ Not only across multiple adventures, but across multiple campaigns. Sometimes he'd shake it up by having the guy be a disguised third party, rather than the disguised villain, but that was it.

Enough already.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 27, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> As a DM, in a more recent game I remember the look of shock on players faces the first time I had a giant chuck his axe into the forest and offer to pay for his life.  It was like a cockroach started spouting MacBeth.  The concept that someone might be willing to _buy_ their way out of death was completely alien.




Absolutely makes sense.

In my story hour, I ran a fun encounter with orcs:

The group came across six orcs.  For a few tense moments, the two groups stood their ground, choosing their positions.

“We do not wish to fight you,” Firestar, the half-orc paladin said.  “Step aside, and we will be on our way.”

The orc captain sized up the respective might of his troops, and of those they faced. “All who would pass here must pay a toll,” he said at last.

Then two dire boars crashed through the forest, distracting both parties.  Other feuds were, for the moment, forgotten.  Only one orc – one of the archers – remained standing. He looked at the adventuring party.  They were sorely wounded, but they were all standing.  It was not difficult to imagine how he would fare in combat against them.

“You have proved your valour in combat,” the orc said. “You may go forward without paying a toll.”​


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

> Exactly.
> 
> If you think you take the opponent without harming the horses, you do it. If you think the horses are your opponent's weak spot, you exploit it. Easy as that.
> 
> ...




Absolutely.  And even the stupid ogre will eventually attack the horse if the mounted player keeps outrunning the ogre and playing hit and run because the horse is too fast for the ogre to catch up.  If the mounted character is staying in melee with a melee combatant and trading full attacks, the opponent will aim at the character.  On the other hand, a ranged opponent who has long range attacks will attack the horse if they think they can kill it fast enough to get more attacks on the character after the character is forced to walk (300 feet away, the horse could run up to you in possibly 1 round, but the full-plate-wearing rider takes 5 to clank all the way there, so you actually get more attacks on him by killing the horse first).

Bottom line:  If you are going to use your horse to make life miserable for the opponents, expect it to be attacked.  If you don't then they are wasting their attacks on the horse and will attack you.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *The guy you're working for/who hired you is actually the main bad guy in disguise, manipulating you into doing his dirty work.*




I had great fun scaring the party with a situation similar to this; it was a cliche "wizard asks you to get something from somewhere" plot that smelled totally of "wizard is gonna blast you and steal the object."  The party was totally worried this powerful mage would turn on them.  

They were pleasantly surprised to find that the mage was on the up and up and only had the best of intentions. The fact that he was a ghost all along was a bonus.

As far as convoluted plots go, I found it is much simpler to hint at a convoluted plot and then just throw the usual random stuff at the players, who will then make the connections for me.

"Didn't the goblins we fought in the caves use morning stars? Som of these muggers we just fought in town had morning stars as well...maybe they are connected!"


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 27, 2006)

*Preach On, Winged Rat!*



			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> The guy you're working for/who hired you is actually the main bad guy in disguise, manipulating you into doing his dirty work.



Speaking as an escapist, this scenario is also too much like "real life" employment.

-Samir


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *The guy you're working for/who hired you is actually the main bad guy in disguise, manipulating you into doing his dirty work.*
> 
> Now, let me clarify. I like that particular trick, and I've used it myself, but it's got to be done _in moderation_. As a PC, I don't mind being set up/manipulated _occasionally_. It's great for building enmity with the villain. But I've played under DMs for whom this was the case _every. Single. Time._ Not only across multiple adventures, but across multiple campaigns. Sometimes he'd shake it up by having the guy be a disguised third party, rather than the disguised villain, but that was it.
> 
> Enough already.



 I try not to overuse this, but I will admit that a while ago I threw a relatively unimportant subplot with one of these into an adventure where the main plot had one too because the PCs had fallen hook line and sinker for the guy from the main plot and I wanted to give them a second chance to think about it.  Of course, they didn't figure out the subplot either


----------



## Mouseferatu (Jun 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I try not to overuse this, but I will admit that a while ago I threw a relatively unimportant subplot with one of these into an adventure where the main plot had one too because the PCs had fallen hook line and sinker for the guy from the main plot and I wanted to give them a second chance to think about it.  Of course, they didn't figure out the subplot either




Well, sure. Like I said, the technique's just fine when properly used. It's just one of those that can be so easily _overused_ if the DM isn't really, really careful.  And it only takes one use too many to sour everyone on the whole thing.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 27, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *Just Handing Him Ammo.*
> Your backstory serves one, and only one, purpose: to give the badguys more way to get you.  Come from a town? It'll be razed.  Have a sibling? They'll be attacked, kidnapped, turned into undead, or similar.  Mentor?  Killed before your very eyes, or turned evil.  So on and so forth.  Anyone you care about will be used against you in some way.  If you have noone, you're fine, but you have people in your life they are tragedy waiting to happen.




Wait, how is this bad?  I could see where it would get annoying if the DM consistently and systematically annihilated everything from your backstory, essentially leaving your character's history nothing but an empty shell, but, otherwise, how is involving a character's backstory in the game a bad thing?

No liabilities/weaknesses = boring characters (the only interesting things about the character likely involve game mechanics).  I'm not saying a boring character with no backstory is bad, but, you get out of the game what you put into it.

*Didn't we kill you?  "Well, I got better."*
No matter what you do, or how you kill him, the bad guy keeps coming back, WITH NO EXPLANATION.  He's not a lich, he hasn't been resurrected, it's not his twin, he's just back.  Did you disintegrate him?  He's fine.  Did you trap his soul in a gem a mile beneath the crust of the planet?  He doesn't seem to mind.


----------



## shaylon (Jun 27, 2006)

[Peter Griffin]  You know what really grinds my gears? This Lindsay Lohan. Lindsay Lohan with all those little outfits, jumping around there on stage, half-naked with your little outfits. Ya know? You're a... You're out there jumping around and I'm just sitting here with my beer. So, what am I supposed to do? What you want? You know, are we gonna go out? Is that what you're trying to - why why are you leaping around there, throwing those things all up in my, over there in my face? What do you want, Lindsay? Tell me what you want? Well, I'll tell you what you want, you want nothing. You want nothing. All right? Because we all know that no woman anywhere wants to have sex with anyone, and to titillate us with any thoughts otherwise is - is just bogus. [/Peter Griffin] 

Sorry, it had to be done.  As to the OT, I hate railroady adventures.  I find it really annoying when you are trying to do something only to get blocked by the dm because he has nothing prepared for that way.  I can see this happening at first with a new group but after a while you know what your players are likely to do, prepare for it!


----------



## Hitokiri (Jun 27, 2006)

Well, I'm definately guilty of a few of these over the years.  

"But you didn't ask about it"
My biggest pet peeve is anytime a DM decides to "forget" to mention pertinent details when describing something, especially when they should be painfully obvious).  Nothing like finding out the room you are standing in has a floor coated in oil (which you could walk across fine until combat started and some chump started throwing torches at your feet) or that the courtier is apparently wearing full plate instead of the foppish garb you last saw him in.  Of course, whenever asked about these odd occurances and why you weren't informed of some bit of rather critical information, you usually get the "but you never asked about that?" response.  I've found the solution (if talking to the DM doesn't work first) is to spend a session asking every stupid question about every minute detail you can come up with. 

GM: "A man stands before you on the path, his arm raised signaling you to halt"
Player: "Where's his other hand?  What is he wearing?  Are there any Distinguishing marks?  Does he talk, and with what type of accent?  What type of shoes is he wearing?  Do I see a mount nearby for him?  How about tracks from a mount?  Are there any other footprints nearby?  What type of soil is he standing on?  Does it look disturbed?  Does any of the ground look disturbed?  What about trees, are there any trees nearby?  What type of trees?  How high are they?  Do we see any broken branches?" et cetera ad nauseam.  With a little practice you can get every encounter to last for an hour before the first words are spoken.  (I'd only do this as a last resort though, as I can see DMs quiting because of it).

"If the DM mentioned it, it must be important"
Almost the opposite of the previous one.  The DM gives you all the pertinent information, but that is all he gives you.  If you walk into "A darkened room, lit by a candelabra", the safe money says that that candle holder is in some fashion important.  Forget about actual furniture or detritus cluttering the room, everything that gets mentioned is either treasure, a clue, or the activation for a hidden door.

Luckely, these mistakes seem to be done more often in new DMs.  A little work usually gets them on the right path.


----------



## Vanye (Jun 27, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Some very good ones here! I actually recognize some of my own stuff ("My Old PC Runs This Bar" for instance is a trick of mine - I guess that one's annoying when the GM tries to run his old PC from behind the screen and tries to show it off by any means necessary, as a mentor or obstacle. I'd be annoyed as well in these conditions, to be frank).




One of my current DM's is very guilty of this.  His incredibly powerful elven ranger/thief was following us around piping up any time we were discussing our options; his powerful wizard had a private demiplane we could use to route some troups through to get to the aid of some allies quickly, AND had a gold dragon cleric cohort...there were a few other things like that....


I will admit to sometimes having the problem of being the DM who asks the PC's what they want to do.  I do try to give them 2-3 options when doing so, though...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well, sure. Like I said, the technique's just fine when properly used. It's just one of those that can be so easily _overused_ if the DM isn't really, really careful.  And it only takes one use too many to sour everyone on the whole thing.



 That's true.  Of course, I don't tend to use the adventure hook of a patron hiring the PCs to do something for her too often anyways.  When I do, she usually has additional ulterior motives more often than not, but that doesn't mean she is the BBEG, just that I felt the need to justify why this character would hire the PCs to do something instead of doing it herself.  For instance, maybe the Paladin who hires the PCs to break out some slaves from a Lawful Evil city is a former slaver who turned to the path of Paladinhood and is trying to seek redemption, even while she is afraid of falling from grace for not respecting the laws of the city where slavery is legal.  The PCs only know that they are freeing slaves because some girl paid them gold.  If something like this (additional information withheld from the players, but the goal they think they are to accomplish is the same as the one the patron wants) happened in 95% of cases, would it be bad?


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

I see nothing wrong with the "Old PC behind the Bar" situation. The DM needs a fully developed NPC for some reason, why not recycle an old PC? This isn't to say he should take on more prominent role or anything.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Jun 27, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> 1. The Railroad Adventure - Everyone's been involved with this one at one time or another. No matter what you do, the thingamabob will be stolen by whoseywhatsis with a whatchamacallit, and it will be the basis for the adventure - so let it be written, so let it be done. Deviating from the planned storyline is verboten, and any action that doesn't have anything to do with the planned adventure gets "you see nothing" or "nothing happens" responses. Veiled complaints from the players gets a "well there's Annoying NPC you can talk to...", and this continues until the players go along with the adventure out of sheer boredom, or revolt and start killing things or setting fires or other juvenile behavior a la KODT.




I've got a complaint about Players that goes right along with this.

*Players who won't bite the adventure hook even if you jam it down their throats*

DM - After searching the bodies of the rogues who leapt out of the alley to attack the party you find a note.  It is a contract on the lives of the party and it is signed by the BBEG.

Player - Well we take their money and shove the bodies back into the alley, find the nearest tavern, get wasted and start a bar brawl.

DM - ARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHH!!!!


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

The one character that got punished was a paladin.  I gave the character a code in writing. Among the tenets.

1. Protect the weak and helpless
2. Be a beacon of courage, hope, and valour.

(note: We were playing under another system and  I had warned the player about these two tenets on multiple occassions without any punishment).

The party was fighting an undead dragon. The sequence went something like this.

1. The fighter and barbarian both got paralyzed (both had rolled 1's on their saves).   
2. The  Paladin attempts to turn undead. The turn undead attempt failed (player rolls low)
3. Dragon moves in.
4. Paladin attempts to turn undead. fails again (player rolls low)
5. wizard casts spell that does some damage
6. Rogue moves to forefront to protect party and gets hit.
7. Paladin attempts to turn undead (is given warning that the weakest combatants are in the front; still tries to turn and rolls low).
8. Rogue gets hit multiple times (including a/critical) and falls unconcious
9. Wizard places himself between the dragon and the fallen rogue
10. Paladin begins to attempts to turn again 
11. Wizard gets hit by Dragon twice and should be dead. However, as he showed the qualities that the Paladin was supposed to be displaying, I had  the paladin's deity intervene.
12. Fighter and Barbarian are able to act and rush to face the dragon.








			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> I've never stripped a paladin of their powers, but I've only had 3 players play paladins and they did so well.  Usually my NPC paladins had to tell them to lighten up a bit.  Of course, I also have a bit of semantic wiggling on the "willingly consort with evil" aspect as any paladin on a mission will suck it up and go drinking with baby-eaters if it serves a purpose.  When the purpose is done they should focus on taking down the baby-eaters but sometimes you have to only smite one evil creature at a time.
> 
> Once, in 2e, I made a cleric atone in a non-spell fashion.  He got tricked into doing something evil that wasn't obviously evil at the time but his god expected him to know that anything Lloth does has an ulterior motive.  His god made him quest to find the family of the individuals his actions harmed and accept whatever justice they demanded.  (I wasn't setting out to screw the party, one PC managed to gate the party to Lloth's lair by using a magic doohickey they'd sworn they'd never use and this was me suddenly having  to run an encounter with a diety's avatar)
> 
> IMO, gods should be aware of the relative rarity of their cleric/paladin followers and exert some small amount of effort to correct abherrent behavior.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Wow, what was the Paladin's player thinking?  Skeleton dragons have way too many hit dice for a Paladin to turn, even a high-level Paladin.  Even the first turn attempt was a serious tactical blunder.  By the sixth time, he was just tilting at windmills.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Wow, what was the Paladin's player thinking?  Skeleton dragons have way too many hit dice for a Paladin to turn, even a high-level Paladin.  Even the first turn attempt was a serious tactical blunder.  By the sixth time, he was just tilting at windmills.




Stupidity is not against the paladins' code.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Stupidity is not against the paladins' code.



 Very true.  Sancho!  My armour, my sword!  Forward Rocinante!


----------



## Greg K (Jun 27, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Wow, what was the Paladin's player thinking?  Skeleton dragons have way too many hit dice for a Paladin to turn, even a high-level Paladin.  Even the first turn attempt was a serious tactical blunder.  By the sixth time, he was just tilting at windmills.




I can understand the first attempt. Maybe the second.  And now I recall exactly what made me strip him of some spellcasting ability- Previously, he did a similar tactic against an other undead creature. He failed twice and was about to try for a  third time and  I pointed out his tenets and gave him a voice of deity's disapproval.  Against the dragon, he was doing it again and it would have resulted in the death of the rogue and wizard if not a tpk.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 27, 2006)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I can understand the first attempt. Maybe the second.  And now I recall exactly what made me strip him of some spellcasting ability- Previously, he did a similar tactic against an other undead creature. He failed twice and was about to try for a  third time and  I pointed out his tenets and gave him a voice of deity's disapproval.  Against the dragon, he was doing it again and it would have resulted in the death of the rogue and wizard if not a tpk.



 Even the first time was patently foolish.  The dragon skeleton in the SRD has 19 Hit Dice and is CR 8.  Assuming the Paladin is level 8, making this battle a routine and easy encounter (which it seems it was not), the Paladin would turn as a level 5 Cleric, meaning if he got a really lucky roll that totalled 22 or higher he could turn a 9 HD opponent.


----------



## Ridley's Cohort (Jun 27, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> If you think you take the opponent without harming the horses, you do it.  If you think the horses are your opponent's weak spot, you exploit it.  Easy as that.




For most NPCs it is not a fundamentally different decision than whether to Sunder a weapon or not.  Horses are walking bags of money and destroying perfectly good spoils early in the combat is pretty undesirable.  Killing them makes sense if it allows you defeat an otherwise too strong opponent.


----------



## Iron Captain (Jun 27, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> Stupidity is not against the paladins' code.




You just gave me a great character Idea! Thunk the Half-Orc Paladin of Pelor with an Int of 6!


----------



## Sejs (Jun 27, 2006)

Iron Captain said:
			
		

> You just gave me a great character Idea! Thunk the Half-Orc Paladin of Pelor with an Int of 6!



Why do I _immediatly_ get a mental image of Tom Cullin from The Stand?

P-E-L-O-R, that spells Greyhawk City. *nod*


----------



## Shadowslayer (Jun 27, 2006)

Krelios said:
			
		

> Sounds like a good campaign. Sh*t happens in the real world and world-shaking events can make a wonderful adventure.
> Again, expect the unexpected should be par for the course for adventurers.




Fine then say to the players "here is your starting region. You came from here. Don't get too attached to it". 

Don't make them do elaborations unless there's a payoff. Maybe some believe the elaborations ARE the payoff, but I don't buy it. There's gaming, then there's wasting people's time.


----------



## Kapture (Jun 27, 2006)

soulforge said:
			
		

> 5.  Players seem to fail when being creative.  The shop keeper that magically can cast spells and fight.  It just alway's seemed that when I tried to have "fun" like trying to rob a bar keep, inn keep, or bank that I would alway's fail.
> 
> Basically if it was me doing something none main adventure necessary my wings were clipped like Icarus.




I love it when my PCs try to do something fun. I hate nothing more than PC's starting barfights or rob the local junk store. Dull. Dull. Dull.


----------



## Chimera (Jun 27, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> *The Moral of the Story* - Back during my 2e days one of our DMs (who mainly ran Shadowrun) would go out of his way to PUNISH characters for doing something the DM thought was not-so-nice.  One member of our Shadowrun team was a AWoL spec-ops guy (or somesuch) who focused on Sniping.  This particular Ork would on occasion tag innocents on purpose to heighten chaos during Runs.  Naturally this DM thought it appropriate to haunt the characters with "Ghosts of the Past".




Ugh.  I played a Shadowrun game with a long-time gamer/first time GM who pulled this kind of crap on me.  I was a Physical Adept, martial artist type.  A gun bunny and two shaman round out the group.  We're sent on a mission to hijack a truck.  We get to the guy, attack him and knock him down, injured.  He then orders his truck AI to kill us.  Mind you, my nasty PA is standing over him while he's laying injured on the ground.  I attack, roll exceptionally well, and do enough damage to kill him.

GM asks if it was subdual/non-lethal.  Nope.  Are you sure?  Yes.  I KILL HIM.  GM gets all quiet-like and begins to think bad thoughts about me (the player) as a human being.  

Has my character haunted by the man's ghost.  Constantly harangues me in and out of the game about how I shouldn't have killed the guy.

Dude, this is ShadowRun.  We're not Lawful Good Paladins.  This is grim and gritty CyberPunk and my character is a badass kung fu mercenary.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 27, 2006)

Hitokiri said:
			
		

> "If the DM mentioned it, it must be important"
> Almost the opposite of the previous one.  The DM gives you all the pertinent information, but that is all he gives you.  If you walk into "A darkened room, lit by a candelabra", the safe money says that that candle holder is in some fashion important.  Forget about actual furniture or detritus cluttering the room, everything that gets mentioned is either treasure, a clue, or the activation for a hidden door.
> 
> Luckely, these mistakes seem to be done more often in new DMs.  A little work usually gets them on the right path.




Your post reminded me of Chekhov's Rifle, a dramatic technique that doesn't really apply to a single room but does in an adventure or campaign. The concept comes from Anton Chekhov, a Russian playwright (no, not Mr. Chekhov from the Enterprise...) and states more or less "If a loaded rifle appears in Act One it had better fire in Act Four."

What that means is that in a play if a character, item, place, etc is introduced in Act One and then disappears offstage it needs to have a crucial role later in the play. Many novice DM's make the mistake of spending a lot of game time with NPC's that don't prominently figure in the plot, since the first advice they get is often "Make your NPC's interesting!" Or they overly describe an area that has no value to the mystery at hand but yet the PC's keep going back to it since the DM went into such detail.


----------



## Wolv0rine (Jun 28, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Your post reminded me of Chekhov's Rifle, a dramatic technique that doesn't really apply to a single room but does in an adventure or campaign. The concept comes from Anton Chekhov, a Russian playwright (no, not Mr. Chekhov from the Enterprise...) and states more or less "If a loaded rifle appears in Act One it had better fire in Act Four."
> 
> What that means is that in a play if a character, item, place, etc is introduced in Act One and then disappears offstage it needs to have a crucial role later in the play. Many novice DM's make the mistake of spending a lot of game time with NPC's that don't prominently figure in the plot, since the first advice they get is often "Make your NPC's interesting!" Or they overly describe an area that has no value to the mystery at hand but yet the PC's keep going back to it since the DM went into such detail.



Ah yes, Mr. Chekhov, who clued us in that to leave dangling plot threads dangling is bad form. 

As for the rest of the thread, most of those things I also find aggrivating, except for the DM PC.  That used to bother me until I encountered a DM PC that really Was a PC that just happened to be played by the DM.  The character was a fully-functional member of the group, a core member of the group, who was RPed, developed fully 3-dimensionally, made mistakes, got himself messed up a few times, the whole 9 yards.

(That character was Greg, one of the Iconic characters from Year of the Zombie, as played spot-on by the good Warlord Ralts.)

Now, to actually Add something, a DM practice that makes me want to break out the pimp-slapping gloves is the "My world is the shiz-natz, you're just a PC trying to get a nut" attitude.  This guy is so hopped up on the uber-coolness of his world, his NPCs, and his dungeon that if you manage to mess something up, beat one of the NPCs, slice through the adventure because it just wasn't really that bad, or whatever...  the DM will treat you like you just sodomized his dog or something.  I've seen guys like this actually call the game and refuse to run any further because the group didn't play by what he expected it should have gone.
It's so much worse when it's the only game in town, and he's the DM because no one else wants the job.


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 28, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Dagger75 seemed to be talking about this in the same genre.  His quote was "Didn't this wizard hire us in the last game you ran."  I really don't see why this is bad.  In fact, I find it _better_ to do this if I am running games that have a shared world because it helps increase the sense of verisimilitude and helps the players connect to the setting.  Plus it offers a unique way to display more than one side of a complicated character.  The kind (but Lawful Neutral with tendencies both ways, though she views herself as Lawful Good and pragmatic) benefactor of one PC is the puppetmaster pulling the strings in another game, and she hired a Rogue PC's mentor from a third game to pull off the heist for her.




 Maybe its not bad per se  but I had a wizard who I made way back in 1st Edition.  He started in Dragonlance game.   Asked the Pc's to do stuff.  Game ended.  
  I used the Same NPC excpet changed him from Red Robe Wizard to a normal wizard, also hired the party to do stuff.  After that game ended I used him in a Planescape game,  this time he was looking for godhood and had the party searching for stuff to help him achieve it.  That game never really ended.  
  Finally he appears in 3ed and a few of the players rolled thier eyes at seeing this guy again.  So I amtrying not reuse them.  I used a few of the same cities and at least the players knows Entmintal has the Wizard academy in it, like the last 3 games it was in.

 This was just one of MY pet peeves, that doesn't mean its wrong.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jun 28, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> But it's not about riding off with them. Horses are expensive items, and unlike magic items, there are a lot of people in the world who want them. They're probably almost as liquid a commodity as gold and gems.




Maybe my games were just different. PCs didn't go around looting dungeons. An adventure such as "let's go raid that dungeon for loot" never happened. Loot was just a reward _as part of the adventure_, which was about taking down the NPCs and saving the village/kindgom/etc. Getting stuff was just a side reward. (It was necessary strictly for the purposes of game balance. For my Modern campaign, where wealth and balance have nothing to do with each other, wealth rewards for adventuring have to be quite low.)

Same for the NPCs. They weren't "adventuring" for the purposes of gaining loot. If they gained loot, good, but they weren't going to hose themselves for the purposes of gaining loot. If they're getting paid, it's probably through a contract or because they're employees of a villalin.

So yeah, they know a horse is worth a lot of cash, but they're too busy trying to defeat the PCs in order to appease their deities, their superiors, to worry too much about that kind of financial gain. If they needed horses, they probably stole them from easier targets, too. Unless they're bandits, in which case they have no reason for attacking the PCs other than taking their loot or horses and would obviously try to preserve them.



			
				Ridley's Cohort said:
			
		

> For most NPCs it is not a fundamentally different decision than whether to Sunder a weapon or not.




So you can guess my stance on NPCs using Sunder, right? Honestly, the only reason they almost never used that tactic was for a purely metagame reason - I didn't want to break my PCs' weapons because that causes all kinds of annoying balance issues. Certainly any NPC with Improved Sunder should use that tactic - I just didn't make them because of the balance issues. In Modern, it's not an issue as long as you follow the mastercraft guidelines (things about +1 are plenty rare). Replacing your weapon is easy, and you can get one of equal quality off your opponent's dead body, so sundering suddenly becomes a viable in-campaign option.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Even the first time was patently foolish. The dragon skeleton in the SRD has 19 Hit Dice and is CR 8. Assuming the Paladin is level 8, making this battle a routine and easy encounter (which it seems it was not), the Paladin would turn as a level 5 Cleric, meaning if he got a really lucky roll that totalled 22 or higher he could turn a 9 HD opponent.




Even if I ignore the metagaming, the turn undead rules don't work. That was a wonderful example of why they don't.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2006)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> Maybe my games were just different. PCs didn't go around looting dungeons. An adventure such as "let's go raid that dungeon for loot" never happened. Loot was just a reward _as part of the adventure_, which was about taking down the NPCs and saving the village/kindgom/etc. Getting stuff was just a side reward. (It was necessary strictly for the purposes of game balance. For my Modern campaign, where wealth and balance have nothing to do with each other, wealth rewards for adventuring have to be quite low.)
> 
> Same for the NPCs. They weren't "adventuring" for the purposes of gaining loot. If they gained loot, good, but they weren't going to hose themselves for the purposes of gaining loot. If they're getting paid, it's probably through a contract or because they're employees of a villalin.
> 
> So yeah, they know a horse is worth a lot of cash, but they're too busy trying to defeat the PCs in order to appease their deities, their superiors, to worry too much about that kind of financial gain. If they needed horses, they probably stole them from easier targets, too. Unless they're bandits, in which case they have no reason for attacking the PCs other than taking their loot or horses and would obviously try to preserve them.




That's a difference, then.  I don't assume that all NPC opponents work for the BBEG.  My PCs run into bandits in the forest, orcs out on patrol, goblins trying to kill the orcs lairing nearby that make the mistake of thinking the PCs might be allies if they go over to their camp and talk to them _en masse_, etc.  Not everyone who meets the PCs immediately susses them up and  pegs them as Level X.  Lots of NPCs underestimate their opponents for the first round or two....and sometimes that's all there is.

In the aforementioned goblin encounter, one of the PCs rode a stag animal cohort and tricked out riding feats and the Ride skill to be very effective doing so.  At first, when things went sour, the goblins focused on the PC.  After a couple of rounds, though, they were working pretty hard (and without success) to bring down that stag.  A few rounds later, they were working pretty hard (and mostly without success) at Running Away.

It wasn't that my PCs refuse to talk to things, either.  They've become quite chummy with orcs, and not so long ago used their cure spells on an orc NPC rather than their wounded PCs because they quite liked the fellow (my orcs are LE or sometimes LN, in general...a once-honorable that is slowly being turned toward NE and CE by addiction to a drug, zurgash, made from a fungus grown on the bones of their ancestors).

RC


----------



## d20Dwarf (Jun 28, 2006)

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> *Hey, that's my girl!*
> Due to the DM's practice at roleplaying high charisma NPC's; he excels at whooing both men & women outside of the game. I have lost many girlfriends to smooth talking DM's when he gets into his Aasimar Bard persona at a party.




This might be the funniest thing ever posted to a message board.


----------



## Menexenus (Jun 28, 2006)

Joshua Randall said:
			
		

> But, my current DM-ing pet peeve:
> 
> DMs who make house rules about core rules that really shouldn't be modified *and* that cause unwanted downstream effects. Example, allowing a 5-foot step after movement in combat. Umm, wow.




When my group started playing 3rd edition, we played under the mantra: "You can always take a 5' step" (which we interpreted to mean "even after taking a regular move action").  Eventually, though, we saw some of the crazy downstream consequences that you are referring to.  And then we realized that we must be doing something wrong.  We returned to the Player's Handbook, and all has been well (on that front) ever since.

But, yeah, changing that one rule really does mess up the whole 3rd edition system of combat.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Here, have a Holy Avenger*
> 
> Despite the fact that there is perfectly good chart for rolling up treasure in the DMG, this GM will randomly ascribe treasure and gold based on his whims.  While this is fun initially, a gross imbalance in the party will ensue, resulting in Hero McUltraequipped and his possee of slightly less-well equipped followers.  The DM will gawk in wonder as the party shreds through his BBEGs like they were made of tissue, then will begin throwing higher and higher difficulty enemies against the party, which will ultimately result in a level 10 party dying at the hands of a CR 17 encounter.
> 
> ...




. 

Just to educate you, alot of DM's...if not MOST...do not randomly roll up treasure. They pick and choose, making sure the players get items that are good for them, and good for the adventure, and keeping out gamebreaking items. 

And where exactly does it say in the rules that prices for services and goods are locked into those in the DMG/PHB? Nowhere. In the end, the rules have always been guidelines, and the DM is always right. A good DM knows how to keep balance and fairness in his game, and players must trust the DM.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> I can understand that kind of a deal, but when playing in Faerun with the _saddleborn_ background feat, as a Knight with the Mounted Combat bonus feat on top of that, nothing like putting max ranks in Ride and being able to take two seperate checks to change the horse's AC per turn to help the horse survive.
> 
> Also, a former GM actually had one-hit-kill cannons being carried by ogres. to kill off horses.  He rolled a scatter die instead of damage




If you had been paying attention, A. I rolled to-hit with the cannon. B. I then rolled an artillery die, not a scatter die, to see how far the cannon ball bounced. C. I rolled for damage behind the screen and killed the low hit point mule. 

It was a frickin cannon! Let's see you take a cannon, hit a mule with it and see the mule survive.


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2006)

Oh my god. Please take the cat fight private.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2006)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Oh my god. Please take the cat fight private.




Unless one of you is Lindsay Lohan.  Or both of you.  That really grinds my gears.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 28, 2006)

*The Legend Continues*



			
				helium3 said:
			
		

> Oh my god. Please take the cat fight private.



Oh ... I don't know about that. I find it rather amusing.

-Samir


----------



## Hussar (Jun 28, 2006)

> the DM is always right. A good DM knows how to keep balance and fairness in his game, and players must trust the DM.




Just found another gear to grind.  GRRRXXXX!!!  That's the sound of the tranny falling out the bottom of the car.  I "must" trust the DM?  Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Jun 28, 2006)

helium3 said:
			
		

> Oh my god. Please take the cat fight private.



/moderator Agreed!  Enough already, guys.


----------



## KenM (Jun 28, 2006)

When the DM tells us there is only one way to destroy the evil magic item, and after a long campaign we set up to do it, we do it and nothing happens.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 28, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just found another gear to grind.  GRRRXXXX!!!  That's the sound of the tranny falling out the bottom of the car.  I "must" trust the DM?  Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.




Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK??? Don't you trust your DM to fudge the combat so that you don't have to put a "the 2nd" behind your characters name?


----------



## shilsen (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK??? Don't you trust your DM to fudge the combat so that you don't have to put a "the 2nd" behind your characters name?



 If you follow the fairly common discussions about death in the game on these boards, you'll see that many people definitely do not want the DM to fudge and would be much happier to see a TPK. Different people play D&D in different ways.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jun 28, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Just found another gear to grind.  GRRRXXXX!!!  That's the sound of the tranny falling out the bottom of the car.  I "must" trust the DM?  Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.





This is something I cannot understand if you can't trust your DM why play with them? I have had at least 13 different DMs over the years and with the exception of one I trusted them to have the same goal as I do which is to have a fun game.

The one DM who I did not trust I left the game when I realized his girlfriend's character would never die and would always get all the cool stuff and that he was more interested in his fun to the detriment of everyone elses.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 28, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> If you follow the fairly common discussions about death in the game on these boards, you'll see that many people definitely do not want the DM to fudge and would be much happier to see a TPK. Different people play D&D in different ways.





I find mainstream players don't want their characters to die in the first encounter. Nor for TPK to happen right before the finale in a meaningless fight. <shrugs>


----------



## helium3 (Jun 28, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Oh ... I don't know about that. I find it rather amusing.
> 
> -Samir




Hah! That's funny.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2006)

Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Unless one of you is Lindsay Lohan.  Or both of you.



In which case, we need video!







			
				Keifer113 said:
			
		

> And where exactly does it say in the rules that prices for services and goods are locked into those in the DMG/PHB? Nowhere. In the end, the rules have always been guidelines, and the DM is always right. A good DM knows how to keep balance and fairness in his game, and players must trust the DM.



Agreed.

There are places in my game-worlds where you can only barter for goods and services, places where prices are inflated or depressed, and yes, sharp merchants who know that they have the last (_fill-in-the-blank_) in a hundred-mile radius, and that the player characters want and/or need it NOW.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Just found another gear to grind. I "must" trust the DM?



Since you have no way to control what the game master will throw at you, and how it will come down, yes, you have no choice but to trust the game master if you are playing in someone else's game.

No matter the rules system, the game master can hose the players if s/he chooses. Being a player is always a matter of trust.







			
				hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.



So what's your take on power-tripping players?


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> If you had been paying attention, A. I rolled to-hit with the cannon. B. I then rolled an artillery die, not a scatter die, to see how far the cannon ball bounced. C. I rolled for damage behind the screen and killed the low hit point mule.
> 
> It was a frickin cannon! Let's see you take a cannon, hit a mule with it and see the mule survive.




Ahh, my Ex-DM ladies and gents.  (Thanks for the advice on how to leave to everyone who commented in my previous thread. )  I've unsubscribed from his Yahoo group and we're still butting heads.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Ahh, my Ex-DM ladies and gents.  (Thanks for the advice on how to leave to everyone who commented in my previous thread. )  I've unsubscribed from his Yahoo group and we're still butting heads.




To be fair, it hardly seems as though he initiated the head-butt in this case.

RC


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK??? Don't you trust your DM to fudge the combat so that you don't have to put a "the 2nd" behind your characters name?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm not exactly sure what a "mainstream" player is, *Keifer113*, but you've definitely hit on the schtick that turns my tranny to filings...

*Story Protection for Characters*
I'm here to play a game in which character death is sometimes determined by the luck of the dice, not to see your pet plot line through to the grand finale. Luck is a part of the game - don't rob me of that, either good or bad.


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 28, 2006)

*You are on a quest to save the entire world from the Dark Demon Dragon God of Doom Death and Destruction who will destroy the entire universe but sorry we can't spare a dime to help you.*

It's like "Diablo." You're supposed to be saving the world, and yet you have to spend 35 thousand gold on a magic sword. Shouldn't the Angels of Light and Goodness be _giving_ you stuff for your quest, especially since they are making you do their job for cliche metaphysical reasons?


Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil was like this.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> I find mainstream players don't want their characters to die in the first encounter. Nor for TPK to happen right before the finale in a meaningless fight. <shrugs>




I don't consider fudging a DM annoyance or a necessity, simply a playstyle choice. Some DM's are better at concealing their fudging from others though. When that Deathknight misses the cleric three times in a row with his Sword of Insta-Death you know something's up heh.

Myself, I make all rolls that have an immediate impact on the players out in the open. That way the players know there will be no fudging, no DM grace to save them from the ill-timed crit. I find it makes my players more respectful of the dangers they face.

In a Star Wars D20 game I ran, the first encounter out of the box was a group of stormtroopers. The diplomat recklessly ran to the front and opened fire. A stormtrooper fired, I critted, and rolled max damage in front of the players, and did enough damage to kill her instantly. I suppose I could have rolled behind a screen and gave her a chance, but would she really learn the error of her ways if I ruled her dying, and give her friends a chance to throw her in the bacta tank? Instead I played it straight and ripped her character sheet in two, which is my normal shtick when a character dies and has no chance of resurrection.

That may seem heartless, but to me it takes the DM out of the equation. The Stormtrooper killed her, not me, and all the players saw it.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Ahh, my Ex-DM ladies and gents.  (Thanks for the advice on how to leave to everyone who commented in my previous thread. )  I've unsubscribed from his Yahoo group and we're still butting heads.




Which you wouldn't need to do, if you would disengage. See comment from moderator Dinkeldog above (post #128).


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jun 28, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Why do I _immediatly_ get a mental image of Tom Cullin from The Stand?
> 
> P-E-L-O-R, that spells Greyhawk City. *nod*




Now and forever, world without end, hallelujah, amen!


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 28, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> Instead I played it straight and ripped her character sheet in two, which is my normal shtick when a character dies and has no chance of resurrection.




 There we go another schtick I would love to see go away. 
   Thats not your character bub.  I got a whole binder full of characters who died and passed on.  I like to keep them.  I have notes on them on other characters and places he has been to.  So hands off *MY* character sheet.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 28, 2006)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> There we go another schtick I would love to see go away.
> Thats not your character bub.  I got a whole binder full of characters who died and passed on.  I like to keep them.  I have notes on them on other characters and places he has been to.  So hands off *MY* character sheet.




With player permission of course. It became sort of a ritual in my old gaming group. *Quickly unhands Dagger75's character sheet*


----------



## Dagger75 (Jun 28, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> With player permission of course. It became sort of a ritual in my old gaming group. *Quickly unhands Dagger75's character sheet*




 I guess if the players don't mind then its not really a schtick thats grinds any gears


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 28, 2006)

GM's who take petty little glee in figuring out ways to kill your PC that has gained any type of power, and forces you to rebuild at 3-15 levels lower than the rest of the party.

Then takes pleasure in killing your new PC at least twice a session.

My biggest pet peeve, however, is one that I haven't seen here yet...


YOU KILLED MY PC, SO I'M KILLING YOURS!

GM's that bring crap from other games into the one they are GMing, or bring stuff from the game they GM into the one they are playing in.

It drives me nuts.


----------



## Twowolves (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> If you had been paying attention, A. I rolled to-hit with the cannon. B. I then rolled an artillery die, not a scatter die, to see how far the cannon ball bounced. C. I rolled for damage behind the screen and killed the low hit point mule.
> 
> It was a frickin cannon! Let's see you take a cannon, hit a mule with it and see the mule survive.




Sounds like someone would be better off playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles (or WFRP) rather than d20 D&D to me....


----------



## jester47 (Jun 28, 2006)

I find that a lot of the annoying schticks that DM pull come from either some article that suggested it as a way of making your game different, or (more commonly) come from the first time the DM ever played and had a good time.  Generally these schticks are ok in moderation but the DM remembers how cool it was when Craig, Jerrys older brother did it back in 1992.  Or when they first read the article about double crossing players in dragon.

The thing is, a lot of these schticks posted here had their genesis in gaming advice articles.

Aaron.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 28, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK???




Then there is a TPK. Why is this a problem?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Ahh, my Ex-DM ladies and gents.  (Thanks for the advice on how to leave to everyone who commented in my previous thread. )  I've unsubscribed from his Yahoo group and we're still butting heads.





*AO - a moderator has already asked that the catfighting between you two stop.  You are now in direct conflict with that request.

Let me be clear - your past history and personal conflicts are not a fit subject for airing on these boards.  Do not bring it up again, either of you.  If you two cannot coexist peacably on these boards, one or both of you will be asked to leave.

If you have questions or problems with this, please bring them up in e-mail with one of the moderators.  Our addresses are available in a post at the top of the Meta Forum.
*


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 28, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Ahh, my Ex-DM ladies and gents.  (Thanks for the advice on how to leave to everyone who commented in my previous thread. )  I've unsubscribed from his Yahoo group and we're still butting heads.



*This isn't the place to air your dirty laundry, guys. Please take your discussion on your disagreement to email or in person, instead of sniping at one another here.*


----------



## Crust (Jun 28, 2006)

I make magical items hard to come by, and my players hate that.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK??? Don't you trust your DM to fudge the combat so that you don't have to put a "the 2nd" behind your characters name?




I have zero problem with characters dying.  As a DM I roll all combat rolls in the open so my players know exactly when they die.  

And, yup, it took me a while cos I'm not the quickest bunny in the forest, but, when the power-tripping DM comes my way, I head out the door.  I would do the same if the DM "saved" my character as well.  I should be able to trust that the DM's style of play will not diverge greatly from expectations without prior notice.  I should be able to trust that the DM won't drop giant flaming boogers on my character for no reason.  Beyond that, what trust issues are there?

TheShaman - power tripping player?  Huh?  When the DM controls every facet of the game other than that player's character and even then has veto control over all elements of that character, how can you have a power tripping player?  This is something I've never understood.  I'm the DM, I'm entitled to say no.  The rules say so and gaming conventions say so.  What power is there for the player to trip on?


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I'm not exactly sure what a "mainstream" player is, *Keifer113*, but you've definitely hit on the schtick that turns my tranny to filings...
> 
> *Story Protection for Characters*
> I'm here to play a game in which character death is sometimes determined by the luck of the dice, not to see your pet plot line through to the grand finale. Luck is a part of the game - don't rob me of that, either good or bad.





While I agree that sometimes death does happen, and it is due to bad luck, I think a good DM knows when not to allow death or TPK. Like I said...not in the first encounter, and not right before the big final fight or dramatic moment, unless it is significant. 

I don't want to have my players have to write "The 2nd after" a characters name after spending 2 hours + coming up with said character. Nor do I want a player to miss out on the ending.

That being said, if in the middle of the adventure it looks like characters are going to die, then let the dice fall where they may. 

A good DM knows how to juggle character death for player enjoyment. My group spent almost 2 years playing a campaign, and my PC died right before the end. I got to run a NPC cleric, who made a significant contribution to the final fight, but for me, I didn't really have the satisfaction of victory. It wasn't the DM's fault my character died. He did have an open roll policy at the time, which meant all his rolls were seen. Now he only openly rolls if it will mean a death or significant event, which increases the drama. 

Remember, this isn't about your story, its the story the players make. Of course there is no fun without risk, but at the same time, you don't want them to miss out. If my players ended up in a heroic last stand and were wiped out and didn't finish the mission, at least they would have a great memory.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I'm not exactly sure what a "mainstream" player is, *Keifer113*, but you've definitely hit on the schtick that turns my tranny to filings...
> 
> *Story Protection for Characters*
> I'm here to play a game in which character death is sometimes determined by the luck of the dice, not to see your pet plot line through to the grand finale. Luck is a part of the game - don't rob me of that, either good or bad.





As an aside, to me a mainstream player is someone who would be upset after spending 2+hours making a character, then painting a mini, or finding a pic, or some other cool character fluff, only to see his character die in the first encounter on the first d20 roll. 

Hey that actually happened to me once. Cept I was pushed into a pit.


----------



## Sejs (Jun 29, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Wait, how is this bad?  I could see where it would get annoying if the DM consistently and systematically annihilated everything from your backstory, essentially leaving your character's history nothing but an empty shell, but, otherwise, how is involving a character's backstory in the game a bad thing?




Nah, you answered it in your first sentance.  Constant and systematically.  Occasionally using the backstory as a hook is dandy - good, even.  But when every single loved one you have is only ever used to be thrown to the wolves, it gets rather old quick.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 29, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> TheShaman - power tripping player?  Huh?  When the DM controls every facet of the game other than that player's character and even then has veto control over all elements of that character, how can you have a power tripping player?  This is something I've never understood.  I'm the DM, I'm entitled to say no.  The rules say so and gaming conventions say so.  What power is there for the player to trip on?



A power-tripping player, IMX, is one who doesn't recognize, disputes, or ignores everything you just set forth.

*Hussar*, I don't mean to give offense, but I'm wrestling with a way to put this diplomatically: when you complain about all those bad game masters in your past, I have to wonder if they were really the problem...?


----------



## Numion (Jun 29, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Nah, you answered it in your first sentance.  Constant and systematically.  Occasionally using the backstory as a hook is dandy - good, even.  But when every single loved one you have is only ever used to be thrown to the wolves, it gets rather old quick.




Exactly. But usually it's like if your PC has relatives / loved ones, you only ever hear from them when they've been abducted, blackmailed, sucked into another dimension or worse. Most DMs forget that you should occassionally get invitations to weddings, etc .. 

A social event could even be turned into a more light-hearted adventure.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> While I agree that sometimes death does happen, and it is due to bad luck, I think a good DM knows when not to allow death or TPK. Like I said...not in the first encounter, and not right before the big final fight or dramatic moment, unless it is significant.



I couldn't agree less.

I prefer to play with game masters who let the dice fall where they may - if s/he is concerned about not killing a character during a particular encounter, then don't design an encounter where death is on the line should the player come up with a string of natural ones. This "dramatic moment" or "big final fight" stuff leaves me cold - design the encounters and leave the storytelling to the players after the battle is fought, the dragon slain, the princess saved, the treasure vault looted...and if my character falls in a pit and gets impaled on a half-dozen spears just outside the dragon's lair, then that is (1) the luck of the dice and (2) your poor choice to put a lethal trap at that spot.







			
				Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Remember, this isn't about your story, its the story the players make.



It sounds more like the story that *Keifer113* makes, and we're not allowed to mess with it by dying at an "inopportune" moment.







			
				Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Of course there is no fun without risk, but at the same time, you don't want them to miss out.



Miss out on what exactly? "Oh, I didn't really mean for you to get killed crossing that raging river - that was just to heighten the drama." "Really? It was already plenty dramatic for me when I had to make the Swim checks or die."

As you say, the fun is in facing the challenge - if the challenge isn't real (that is, lacks meaningful consequences), then the fun is significantly lessened.

Oh, and if a player lavishes so much attention on a character that s/he isn't willing to see the character die in the first round of the first encounter, then that character should take up a quiet life behind high town walls, maybe doing needlepoint or haberdashery. Adventuring is dangerous - get rich, or die trying.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree less.
> 
> I prefer to play with game masters who let the dice fall where they may - if s/he is concerned about not killing a character during a particular encounter, then don't design an encounter where death is on the line should the player come up with a string of natural ones. This "dramatic moment" or "big final fight" stuff leaves me cold - design the encounters and leave the storytelling to the players after the battle is fought, the dragon slain, the princess saved, the treasure vault looted...and if my character falls in a pit and gets impaled on a half-dozen spears just outside the dragon's lair, then that is (1) the luck of the dice and (2) your poor choice to put a lethal trap at that spot.It sounds more like the story that *Keifer113* makes, and we're not allowed to mess with it by dying at an "inopportune" moment.Miss out on what exactly? "Oh, I didn't really mean for you to get killed crossing that raging river - that was just to heighten the drama." "Really? It was already plenty dramatic for me when I had to make the Swim checks or die."
> 
> ...




So let me get this straight....From your post, you don't put any work into character background, or try to make your character have any fluff or extra cool things about it. You also don't mind if, while having a fun or challenging campaign, that your character dies and the DM tells you, sorry bud, don't bother showing up the next three weeks cause the campaign is going to end. You also don't mind if the DM throws traps or challenges that shouldn't be life threatening, but more a challenge, and if things go wrong, like a bunch of 1's rolled by a PC or a bunch of 20's rolled by the DM, then the DM shouldn't fudge things, to ensure that YOU have a fun time. 

Like I said....the players make the story. As a DM, its my job to make sure they get to do that. If halfway through they all die, so be it. But I won't screw over a player by letting dice fall where they may. If the player screws up and asks for death, thinking they are invincible, then yeah, they die. Otherwise, I make sure my players have fun. Which is all its about at the end of the day. I guess we must agree to disagree how this is achieved.


----------



## Numion (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight....From your post, you don't put any work into character background, or try to make your character have any fluff or extra cool things about it. You also don't mind if, while having a fun or challenging campaign, that your character dies and the DM tells you, sorry bud, don't bother showing up the next three weeks cause the campaign is going to end. You also don't mind if the DM throws traps or challenges that shouldn't be life threatening, but more a challenge, and if things go wrong, like a bunch of 1's rolled by a PC or a bunch of 20's rolled by the DM, then the DM shouldn't fudge things, to ensure that YOU have a fun time.




Whoah, why would anyone miss three sessions because of a death? Just hand out an empty character sheet and roll the dice! It's not a NASA-trick   

For me surviving is a big enjoyment in D&D. I don't know if I'm good at it, but at least I'm better at it than rest of the group. I would feel cheated if all my "lewt skillz" as a player were for naught and the DM was picking up slack for the other players.

Obviously I meant surviving because of my own choices, and not surviving because the "DM sez so".


----------



## jester47 (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight....From your post, you don't put any work into character background, or try to make your character have any fluff or extra cool things about it. You also don't mind if, while having a fun or challenging campaign, that your character dies and the DM tells you, sorry bud, don't bother showing up the next three weeks cause the campaign is going to end. You also don't mind if the DM throws traps or challenges that shouldn't be life threatening, but more a challenge, and if things go wrong, like a bunch of 1's rolled by a PC or a bunch of 20's rolled by the DM, then the DM shouldn't fudge things, to ensure that YOU have a fun time.
> 
> Like I said....the players make the story. As a DM, its my job to make sure they get to do that. If halfway through they all die, so be it. But I won't screw over a player by letting dice fall where they may. If the player screws up and asks for death, thinking they are invincible, then yeah, they die. Otherwise, I make sure my players have fun. Which is all its about at the end of the day. I guess we must agree to disagree how this is achieved.




Response:
Paragraph 1:  I would rather have my character die.
Paragraph 2:  My fun and your fun are apparently different.

Also, your assumptions are loaded.  Only a DM with a carefully crafted story will not let you back in with a new character after yours has died.  I know I let my players back in with a new character after the previous one died no matter how muny sessions are left in the campaign, mainly because my campaigns don't really end as they are not pre plotted stories.  Stuff just happens.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> A power-tripping player, IMX, is one who doesn't recognize, disputes, or ignores everything you just set forth.
> 
> *Hussar*, I don't mean to give offense, but I'm wrestling with a way to put this diplomatically: when you complain about all those bad game masters in your past, I have to wonder if they were really the problem...?




I believe you are reading more into this than perhaps you should.  "All those bad GM's" actually aren't that many.  Two, perhaps three.  However, ONE is more than enough really.  

However, it comes down to semantics.  I wouldn't call that a power-tripping player, just a jerk.  That's certainly not limited to either side of the screen.  

But, the idea that I'm supposed to sit back and take whatever the DM has to be peddling is something that is going to grind my gears.  The idea that I cannot even disagree with the DM, that I have to passively accept each and ever decree spouted off from the mountaintop just because this wingnut happens to be sitting on the other side of the screen is not going to fly with me anymore.  The "infallible" DM whose ideas are all pure gold, who distributes fun in parcels of juicy goodness is pure .  

Yes, there are good DM's out there.  I hope to be one someday.  I know that I've played with a few.  But, that doesn't mean that as soon as you take up the DMing reins that you are somehow touched by the Spirit of Gaming and can do no wrong.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 29, 2006)

*The preceding text has been removed as a coutresy to the staff, and reader sanity as a whole.*

*Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.*

The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points.  It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.

*Well, Jim called and said he won't be here tonight.  oops! he's dead.*

How rude of Jim, thinking a vacation/wedding/funeral/hospital stay is more important than his weekly game session! I know! I'll just have his character do something suicidal and reckless so that he dies.  So what if I don't have his character sheet, his AC is low, right?  The Titan hits...

*Now, if you had gone the other way...*

This GM just can't resist telling players what loot they missed / what secrets they didn't get when they left somethign alone.  This is especially true of GM's that like to seed their pathways with High DC obsticals (like vampires, undetectable traps, and nigh-impossible skill checks.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Then there is a TPK. Why is this a problem?




Hey, that's twice in as many days that we've agreed on something.  Keep it up!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> As you say, the fun is in facing the challenge - if the challenge isn't real (that is, lacks meaningful consequences), then the fun is significantly lessened.




Quoted for truth.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> As an aside, to me a mainstream player is someone who would be upset after spending 2+hours making a character, then painting a mini, or finding a pic, or some other cool character fluff, only to see his character die in the first encounter on the first d20 roll.




I would call that a whiny player, not a mainstream player. Adventuring is dangerous.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight....From your post, you don't put any work into character background, or try to make your character have any fluff or extra cool things about it.




I don't see anything like that in his post. Where do you get this idea?

Or is it just foreign to you that someone could come up with a character background, fluff, and extra cool things, but not get all bent out of shape if that character is also short-lived?



> _You also don't mind if, while having a fun or challenging campaign, that your character dies and the DM tells you, sorry bud, don't bother showing up the next three weeks cause the campaign is going to end._




No, I don't mind if the character dies. But I don't see why this would mean that you don't bother showing up for the next three sessions. You have no NPCs in the campaign that can be promoted to PCs? You have no way to introduce new PCs to the campaign?



> _You also don't mind if the DM throws traps or challenges that shouldn't be life threatening, but more a challenge, and if things go wrong, like a bunch of 1's rolled by a PC or a bunch of 20's rolled by the DM, then the DM shouldn't fudge things, to ensure that YOU have a fun time._




No, I don't mind. If the trap or challenege is potentially deadly, then there should be a chance of actually dying when you deal with it. Unless there is that chance, it shouldn't be there to begin with, otherwise there is no real point to having it there.



> _Like I said....the players make the story. As a DM, its my job to make sure they get to do that. If halfway through they all die, so be it. But I won't screw over a player by letting dice fall where they may. If the player screws up and asks for death, thinking they are invincible, then yeah, they die. Otherwise, I make sure my players have fun. Which is all its about at the end of the day. I guess we must agree to disagree how this is achieved._




It sounds like it is you, as the DM who is making the story, not the PCs. And in my experience, that makes for a terrible campaign.


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Jun 29, 2006)

*Less then minimal monster description*

DMs giving you a minimal description of the monsters, that leads you to identify the creature as a harmless creature. Ex: _while the DM had a drawing of the monster he was throwing at us_ (he showed it to us _afterward_), he said we suddenly saw a "triangle, upside-down, with arms". We said "cool, it's a modron", then we tried to talk to it. But it threw a mean fireball at us. It wasn't a modron, it was the fiend from netheril (FR) whose name eludes me now...


----------



## Joël of the FoS (Jun 29, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Oh ... I don't know about that. I find it rather amusing.
> 
> -Samir




This site is excellent!!!!!!


----------



## Ace32 (Jun 29, 2006)

> Originally Posted by Keifer113
> As an aside, to me a mainstream player is someone who would be upset after spending 2+hours making a character, then painting a mini, or finding a pic, or some other cool character fluff, only to see his character die in the first encounter on the first d20 roll.




In my opinion, as valid as that may or may not be, I wouldn't consider it mainstream for a player to go into that much depth. Mainstream generally refers to the average players, which likely don't paint minis, find pictures, and generate more fluff than required by the DM. They generally want to play, goof off with friends, and act out escapist fantasies. Not that the purist isn't a legitimate player type - I just would not go as far as to classify it as 'mainstream'. 

With this in mind, it still sucks when you lose a character you've grown attached to. The concept of death should definitely be agreed on by players and DMs prior to gaming. The biggest DM schtick (speaking as a DM-only, have played through 2 D&D sessions as a player in my life) is the issue of miscommunication. Any DM who doesn't listen to his players' *constructive * criticism should get into novel writing - not group storytelling.


----------



## GQuail (Jun 29, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.*
> 
> The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points.  It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.




I've often ran a game with minimal XP info for the players: either I keep track of it myself or I just kinda fudge it.  I didn't realise until I read some posts on this forum that for a lot of people that's a major problem.    

I guess for some people, it sorta takes the clear progression out of their control, and if you combine that with other GM problems which break down trust it can be a source of friction.  My current group seem fine with the vague way I do it: but I've played it with totally by the book version as well, and I suppose if my players told me it was a problem I'd switch.

I've mostly GMed rather than played, so I dunno if I've got a huge amount to add to the topic at hand.  Mostly, I have complaints at my own failings, some of which have already been mentioned on this thread.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.*
> 
> The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points.  It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.




On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.

IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. That works out to about as many sessions to make the next level as your current level. PCs get the XP if the entire session was spent without a single die being rolled, if they had three fights or killed a huge dragon, if the player was absent from the game and I NPCed him, etc. Hence, I don't usually tell players how much XP their PCs have, though I do have a running total at all times, so I can let them know if asked. I generally just say, "Okay, you guys level up," and we go with that, and sometimes let them know a couple sessions in advance. It's worked very well for the group and I frankly don't think I'll ever use any other method of progression. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I have people crafting items and doing other things that cost XP in the game, I would have dropped XP altogether.

So, how much would that bug you?


----------



## Numion (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> So, how much would that bug you?




A little. I mean, I don't see any upside to this. 

And in a way I like to get xp from killing things


----------



## Umbran (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.
> 
> IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with.
> _...snip..._
> So, how much would that bug you?




A bit.  In my hindbrain, there is just something fundamentally wrong with gaining in power and ability for doing absolutely nothing.  You don't become a great and powerful wizard by sitting in the tavern eating stew and playing canasta. 

I don't feel you need to roll dice, or kill monsters, but in the end the characters have to do _something_ relevant and/or interesting before I'll give them XP.  It can be action, it can be roleplay, just so long as the result isn't something I'd want to skip over if I were reading a novel.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> So, how much would that bug you?




Just a little, I mean, it sounds better than "You get a whole 'nother level!"  At least you can see the progression towards your eventual leveling.  The GM I was griping about once leveld us up, had us go through a fight, and then leveled us up all over again.  If that encounter alone provided 12,000 EXP, I think it might have been a little out of our range.

Plus, I enjoy gettign the odd numbers.

GM: "you gain 376 exp"

Player: "Sweet! That takes me to level 2, and I have 39 XP towards level 3! I could scribe a scroll!"


----------



## Mallus (Jun 29, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> A bit.  In my hindbrain, there is just something fundamentally wrong with gaining in power and ability for doing absolutely nothing.  You don't become a great and powerful wizard by sitting in the tavern eating stew and playing canasta.



All shil is doing is averaging out the XP gain, and the gain itself is a given under the standard D&D model. 

Hypothetically speaking, his PC's might _do nothing_ one session, and then do great and heroic things the next. It all balances out. One assumes a D&D party will do more than just engage in polite conversion.

The XP system is already terribly abstract, and _relevant_ experience isn't part of it at all. A fighter doesn't need to kill anything in a session to gain XP. A wizard doesn't need to overcome something with a spell. Heck, a wizard doesn't need to study, or find ancient lore in some dusty tomb... PC's just get better over time.

Shil's system merely streamlines this a little more.

BTW, its completely possible to become a powerful wizard by eating stew and playing canasta in my campaign... depending on who you're playing canasta with. There's one canasta player in particular who's as dangerous as a swarm of giants.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> So, how much would that bug you?




Depends on the game.

Although I know that the XP system is abstract, I do like the _feel_ of getting XP for having done something.  OTOH, what you describe is pretty much the RAW for Star Wars D20, and I think that works great for making the game seem like the movies.  If it was part & parcel of a game I was enjoying (shrug) I don't argue with good DMs.    


RC


----------



## lukelightning (Jun 29, 2006)

One thing that bugs me is when DMs hand out extra "roleplaying xp" to the players who just happened to talk a lot in the game.  Fine, they are roleplaying. But please don't overlook the fact that many players have "silent/moody/mysterious/unobtrusive" character concepts.  Shouldn't they get bonus xp for roleplaying a character who isn't blabbing all the time?


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.
> 
> So, how much would that bug you?




Yeah, I'm like Raven Crowking here - I think it would depend on the game.

But for the most part, I wouldn't like it.  For one thing, it takes away that decision you have to make when you face up against what you know is a tough opponent.  "Do I want to fight him and get the XPs, although I might lose my PC?  Or just play it safe, clear out the weaker rooms, and come back when we've levelled up?"  And the rush when you've killed something big and you _know_ you'll get a boatload of XP.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Numion said:
			
		

> A little. I mean, I don't see any upside to this.




Personally, I've found a lot of positives to it. I don't have to bother calculating XP based on CR and challenges. I also find that every one of the "should the PCs get more/less XP in this situation?" debates on these boards cannot exist in my game, since the XP gained is irrespective of the situation. It also significantly changes the mindset of the players, since they're no longer thinking of fights in the metagame sense of something that gives them XP, which for me is a good thing. They're a lot more likely to consider other ways of dealing with issues than combat. 



> And in a way I like to get xp from killing things




That, I think, would be the common downside for most players  The way I figure it, if I make combat fun and interesting and challenging (which I think my players will say I've done), that's enough of a benefit.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> I don't feel you need to roll dice, or kill monsters, but in the end the characters have to do something relevant and/or interesting before I'll give them XP. It can be action, it can be roleplay, just so long as the result isn't something I'd want to skip over if I were reading a novel.




That angle I have covered. We always have a lot of things happening every session. Most sessions have combat, and since I have very little dungeon crawling and rarely more than one combat in a given day, most combats are serious knock-down drag-out brawls, with PCs heavily damaged, unconscious or only alive due to action point usage. And combat or not, every session has a lot of roleplaying and interesting/fun things happening. The campaign's a heavily character-driven game, so every session produces things that drive the campaign and the plots the party have chosen to get involved in. 

So, I could easily link the XP to things the PCs have achieved every session, but I don't think that's necessary. As long as the players are having fun every session and progressing in power at a speed that makes it easier for me to create sessions where they can have fun, I figure everyone wins.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 29, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Or is it just foreign to you that someone could come up with a character background, fluff, and extra cool things, but not get all bent out of shape if that character is also short-lived?




In my experience, these sort of players are rare.  For the most part, the end result (that I've seen) from the "TPKs can happen at anytime, and if your character dies in the first session, so be it" mentality is that you wind up with a bunch of players who don't create characters, they create a set of stats that can be easily replaced (particularly when you are dealing with new players).  I think that's sad.

As a GM, I sometimes fudge my dice rolls, and I'm proud to do it.  I tell my players that I do this.  I do it to keep one of them from dying to some weenie mook in an unheroic way.  When they encounter something more serious, and there really is the possibility for death, I mention it, and roll in the open.  To date, I've killed 3 characters in this manner.  The player of the latest one, a paladin, suicided his character (I've got a problem with Paladins that act like serial murderers and social rejects, but perhaps my standards are too high).  But what a way to go!  Brought low by the evil Apothecary of Sin whilst defending his companions and his Gold Dragon cohort.  As opposed to having his flesh stripped clean from his bones by a centipede swarm several sessions earlier.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> No, I don't mind if the character dies. But I don't see why this would mean that you don't bother showing up for the next three sessions. You have no NPCs in the campaign that can be promoted to PCs? You have no way to introduce new PCs to the campaign?




Agreed.  Can't think of a way to introduce a new character?  Let them play an NPC or something.  Or heck, let them NPC some monsters.  But give them something to do.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 29, 2006)

1. The villains who must always escape to menace the party again another day, no matter what the PCs do to stop them.

2. Stereotypical NPC types (i.e., the annoying pixie, the haughty elf, the clingy girlfriend, etc.). 

3. Overlong recaps of last session. 

4. Always starting combat an hour before the session ends (or two hours if it's Champions   ). 

5. Never letting a PC die. 

6. Okay, it isn't really a schtick, but repeatedly cancelling sessions because one player isn't available really annoys me.


----------



## Kormydigar (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Thats when you go find another game or DM. If you play by the book, then what happens when a DM runs a combat and rolls hot and ends up with TPK??? Don't you trust your DM to fudge the combat so that you don't have to put a "the 2nd" behind your characters name?



As a matter of fact my players might get upset with me if they found out that they lived only because I fudged for them. I have a similar attitude on the other side of the screen. Let the dice fall where they may.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jun 29, 2006)

1) Fumble Rules.  I hates them.  I hates them forever!

2) Puzzles that are genre inappropriate.  Conan comes up to the stone door, and must solve the riddle of the wizard Wundabar in order to pass.  He hears the magical voice intone "If one chariot in the east approaches at 40 miles an hour, and another chariot in the west approaches at 30 miles an hour, and they start 400 feet apart, at noon, at what time and at what point will they meet?"   Conan's player weeps.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 29, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> In my experience, these sort of players are rare.  For the most part, the end result (that I've seen) from the "TPKs can happen at anytime, and if your character dies in the first session, so be it" mentality is that you wind up with a bunch of players who don't create characters, they create a set of stats that can be easily replaced (particularly when you are dealing with new players).  I think that's sad.




Every player I know has more character concepts than he could ever hope to reasonably play (one of the reasons I DM is so I can introduce many of my character concepts as NPCs to the party to interact with, ally with, or oppose). For most of them, a character death is sad, but also an opportunity to put another one of their character concepts into play.

Oh, and for the record, no one uses the "the 2nd" schtick in my campaigns. A new character must be, at the least, a different race and class from your last one.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 29, 2006)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Every player I know has more character concepts than he could ever hope to reasonably play (one of the reasons I DM is so I can introduce many of my character concepts as NPCs to the party to interact with, ally with, or oppose). For most of them, a character death is sad, but also an opportunity to put another one of their character concepts into play.




Sounds like you know a lot of motivated players then.  You should cherish that.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Oh, and for the record, no one uses the "the 2nd" schtick in my campaigns. A new character must be, at the least, a different race and class from your last one.




I've never seen that either, but I have seen an elven priest replaced by his identical twin brother (whose name was his brother's name spelled backward), a greatsword wielding paladin replaced by ... a greatsword wielding paladin (with less personality), an entire tribe of near identical half-orc barbarians (each one stepping up to avenge the last <-- entirety of the character backstory), and three incarnations of Karl the "insert class here", just to name a few.  As always, YMMV.


----------



## Kormydigar (Jun 29, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> A bit.  In my hindbrain, there is just something fundamentally wrong with gaining in power and ability for doing absolutely nothing.  You don't become a great and powerful wizard by sitting in the tavern eating stew and playing canasta.
> 
> I don't feel you need to roll dice, or kill monsters, but in the end the characters have to do _something_ relevant and/or interesting before I'll give them XP.  It can be action, it can be roleplay, just so long as the result isn't something I'd want to skip over if I were reading a novel.



An excellent point here. I will add to this that players have a way of getting to know the levelling schedules and may "stall" before an important event by wasting a session preparing, planning, ect. so that they will be a level up before facing the challenge. The best way around this problem and the problem of beating up random creatures for XP is goal based awards with bonuses for quick decisive action. This method rewards paying attention to what is going on but not stalling or random kills just for a level-up.

As a bit of further explanation, this XP system does not depend solely on following the storyline that I provide the hooks for. Character driven goals that are achieved earn XP but not PLAYER driven goals. If the group decides that going on a quest for a rare thingy needed to craft an item then the group gets XP for any challenges faced in pursuit of that goal and a bonus for completion. If the PLAYER decides that he/she wants to go out and hunt down a troll for some crafting XP then XP is not awarded.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jun 29, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I couldn't agree less.
> 
> I prefer to play with game masters who let the dice fall where they may - if s/he is concerned about not killing a character during a particular encounter, then don't design an encounter where death is on the line should the player come up with a string of natural ones. This "dramatic moment" or "big final fight" stuff leaves me cold - design the encounters and leave the storytelling to the players after the battle is fought, the dragon slain, the princess saved, the treasure vault looted...and if my character falls in a pit and gets impaled on a half-dozen spears just outside the dragon's lair, then that is (1) the luck of the dice and (2) your poor choice to put a lethal trap at that spot.It sounds more like the story that *Keifer113* makes, and we're not allowed to mess with it by dying at an "inopportune" moment.Miss out on what exactly? "Oh, I didn't really mean for you to get killed crossing that raging river - that was just to heighten the drama." "Really? It was already plenty dramatic for me when I had to make the Swim checks or die."
> 
> ...





He he he!  I tell my players all the time that if they don't want to risK death everytime there are blades drawn they should go back to the farm.  We are gamnig not havnig story hour darn it!   

"make your crop planting check..."


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.
> 
> IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with.




Apart from everything mentioned above, my main problem with this is that any player who falls behind will never catch up again no matter what.  Even people who used the 3.0 XP division method with average party level could still help the character who died catch up by maybe throwing them a little solo encounter that explores their backstory or something.  With this method, no matter what happens, the character who fell behind stays behind, and if she falls farther behind, she stays there, until eventually that character may be several levels behind if there is a chain reaction.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 29, 2006)

*The Ace of Spades*



			
				Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> I chose to go elsewhere.



Frankly, I tend to side with you ... however, let's not quibble. He kicked you out, didn't he?

-Samir


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 29, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.*
> 
> The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points.  It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.




I admit to being a DM who doesn't give out XP each session.  For one thing, it means I don't have to _calculate_ xp each session and since my players often go on tangents that may or may not have unexpected encounters, that can be a pain.  

I don't mind telling people how far they are into a level, but I don't want the "rat hunt" to be a motivating factor.  "Hey, I need 15xp to hit next level, let's go kill rats!"  By making the XP a little more abstract the players seem to focus more on the game.  Not that some of them don't bring pre-leveled character sheets with them to drool over.  




> *Well, Jim called and said he won't be here tonight.  oops! he's dead.*




Yeah, that's rude.  However,  I get irritated at people who call the day of the game about something they new about for more than week.  I make concessions for last-minute stuff (one guy is a hospice manager, two others are on-call computer security guys) but if someone forgot to mention their vacation in advance, I'm sure they will be sufficiently inconsiderate in the future to justify booting them from the game.  




> *Now, if you had gone the other way...*
> 
> This GM just can't resist telling players what loot they missed / what secrets they didn't get when they left somethign alone.




Oh, this hurts.  As a GM it can hurt so much when the players were just inches away from the really "kewl" thing and missed it.  I had an encounter where the players decided "this thing is too dangerous, lets go get help from the village up the road."  The thing is, they had defeated all the major threats and all that was left was a relatively helpless BBEG.  The day-and-a-half round trip significantly altered the gaming landscape (BBEG ceased being a "newborne" and is no longer helpless) but _Dang!_ I wanted to have that encounter at the time.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 29, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Frankly, I tend to side with you ... however, let's not quibble. He kicked you out, didn't he?



*We have asked AO to not discuss this on the boards. As such, I'll ask that other folks not discuss it as well. It's a personal matter between himself and his former DM, and this isn't the place to dissect it.*


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jun 29, 2006)

*Scratch That ....*

I concede ... back on topic.

My biggest DM "gear-grinder" has to be incompetence (i.e., not knowing the rules).

-Samir


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 29, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> So let me get this straight....From your post, you don't put any work into character background, or try to make your character have any fluff or extra cool things about it.



I'm not sure what you mean by "extra cool things."

I write character backgrounds that provide a motivation for adventuring: who is this guy, and why is he taking up the life of an adventurer? My characters are carefully woven into the tapestry of the setting, so that they are at home in the game-world.

What I don't do is craft a novella and assume that my character is destined to be a great hero, and therefore immune from such mundane fates as getting skewered by a randomly encountered goblin. If my character survives to be a great hero, then the adventures that lead him to that point are the only backstory that matters.







			
				Keifer113 said:
			
		

> You also don't mind if, while having a fun or challenging campaign, that your character dies and the DM tells you, sorry bud, don't bother showing up the next three weeks cause the campaign is going to end.



Again, that's just poor game mastering: if the "story" is so tightly written that a game master hasn't left an opening to introduce a new character, then that game master is a nitwit.

If I have to play an NPC for an evening, or if I get to run a monster or two during combat while waiting for my new character to be introduced, that's cool. If the game master told me to take a hike for three weeks because it would muck up her plot to bring in a new character, then I'm happy to pack up my things and find someone else with whom to play, because that game master should be writing fan fic for the web and accumlating rejection notices from fantasy publishers, not running a roleplaying game.







			
				Keifer113 said:
			
		

> You also don't mind if the DM throws traps or challenges that shouldn't be life threatening, but more a challenge, and if things go wrong, like a bunch of 1's rolled by a PC or a bunch of 20's rolled by the DM, then the DM shouldn't fudge things, to ensure that YOU have a fun time.



"Fun" isn't defined for every gamer as "not dying except when it's dramatic enough," *Keifer113*. That may be your definition - it's most definitely not mine.

It's a game, and part of the game is resolving the element of chance with dice.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 29, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Apart from everything mentioned above, my main problem with this is that any player who falls behind will never catch up again no matter what.  Even people who used the 3.0 XP division method with average party level could still help the character who died catch up by maybe throwing them a little solo encounter that explores their backstory or something.  With this method, no matter what happens, the character who fell behind stays behind, and if she falls farther behind, she stays there, until eventually that character may be several levels behind if there is a chain reaction.



 I completely forgot to mention that specific situation since it hasn't come up yet, but if someone falls a level behind they will be getting extra XP so that they catch up.


----------



## LostSoul (Jun 29, 2006)

Kormydigar said:
			
		

> As a bit of further explanation, this XP system does not depend solely on following the storyline that I provide the hooks for. Character driven goals that are achieved earn XP but not PLAYER driven goals. If the group decides that going on a quest for a rare thingy needed to craft an item then the group gets XP for any challenges faced in pursuit of that goal and a bonus for completion. If the PLAYER decides that he/she wants to go out and hunt down a troll for some crafting XP then XP is not awarded.




Hmm, that's interesting.  What if the player decides to put in a quest because he needs XP for some crafting?  What if a player wants to do something specific in the game (some kind of quest he think would be kick-ass fun to play)?

I'm not sure I see the difference between player goals and character goals.  Although that could be because I have my head... um, in the clouds.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 29, 2006)

My biggest pet peeve's from GM's also include...

Changing how spell durations work in mid battle, or right BEFORE the big battle.


but the big one is....

"OK, I've tallied up your XP award for the last 3 months. Everyone, you get 150 XP, Honey buns..."

"Yes squishy poo?"

"You get 25,000 XP and the Gods grant you two wishes!"



I HATE THAT!

A variant is:

OK, after stopping the Mechaniods, going to Africa and stopping the Four Horsemen, and rescuing two of your friends from the Dimensional Market of Atlantis, you all get...

250 XP.


----------



## Chimera (Jun 29, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> YOU KILLED MY PC, SO I'M KILLING YOURS!
> 
> GM's that bring crap from other games into the one they are GMing, or bring stuff from the game they GM into the one they are playing in.
> 
> It drives me nuts.




Happened a lot when I was in High School back in the late 70's and we rotated GMing every session.  Moreso than that was the period where Jim started to destroy everyone's magic items in revenge for losing some of his.  Or when he tried to take Revenge on Stan for losing his favorite character to the ultimate ending of a copy of Stormbringer.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 29, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.
> 
> IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. That works out to about as many sessions to make the next level as your current level. PCs get the XP if the entire session was spent without a single die being rolled, if they had three fights or killed a huge dragon, if the player was absent from the game and I NPCed him, etc. Hence, I don't usually tell players how much XP their PCs have, though I do have a running total at all times, so I can let them know if asked. I generally just say, "Okay, you guys level up," and we go with that, and sometimes let them know a couple sessions in advance.
> 
> So, how much would that bug you?



Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time.  Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...

Doesn't matter as much, though, in a low- or no-risk game.

Lanefan


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 30, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time.  Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...




That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks. Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks. One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks.



That's you.  And me.   But there's those...and I've gamed with 'em...who don't mind in the least if other peoples' PC's do all the dirty work, and it drives me up the wall.







> Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks.



Absolutely true.  Unfortunately, not always absolutely effective... 


> One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.



In my experience, this usually comes down to how much time the DM has to run sessions each week.  If the DM only has time for one session a week, then the party pretty much has to (mostly) stay together.  If, however, the DM has time to run several parties concurrently, then splitting the party up as the characters logically would makes perfect sense.

Lanefan


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 30, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> That's metagaming, and while we're metagaming, I don't find it any fun to play when my character isn't taking risks. Also, in character, other characters may get annoyed if another character isn't taking his share of risks. One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.




And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?   

Edit - Lanefan beat me to it. When I run it's one game a week, so the characters must work together or else. To me part of the DM job description is ensuring fun for the group as a whole. If one player is playing a character that I think might be disruptive to the group I ask him to reconsider. If he refuses he can still play the character but I don't tolerate any messing with the group dynamic. That doesn't mean there isn't room for conflict and everyone has to be best buds, but that this is a group game and the player and character needs to play well with others.  His rights as a "roleplayer" end where everyone else's right to an enjoyable game begin. Players who like to backstab party members (literally) might cry foul over that, but my game, my rules. I've insta-gibbed more than one character over it and would do it again in a heartbeat.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I believe you are reading more into this than perhaps you should.  "All those bad GM's" actually aren't that many.  Two, perhaps three.  However, ONE is more than enough really.



Really? That's a quite a bit different from...







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Sorry, played WAY too many games with power tripping DM's to ever fall for that line again.



So two, perhaps three, or even one, is "WAY too many?"

I guess I am reading too much into it.

I think your expectations may be unreasonably high, *Hussar*.

Over the years I've only played with two really bad game masters - in both cases I excused myself from the game. The experiences didn't predispose me to distrust game masters generally.







			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Yes, there are good DM's out there.  I hope to be one someday.  I know that I've played with a few.  But, that doesn't mean that as soon as you take up the DMing reins that you are somehow touched by the Spirit of Gaming and can do no wrong.



No one said that a game master always makes the best choices (with "best" in this context being extremely context-specific), only that the game master gets to make that choice, right or wrong. It sounds like you assume that a game master is more likely to make bad choices (based on your personal referent) than good ones - I presume the opposite until demonstrated otherwise.

A game master who makes consistently poor choices will be the one who can't find players after awhile - it's the 'invisible hand' of gaming at work.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 30, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Lanefan said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You say metagaming, the rogue says "I'd love to help the paladin out in fighting the undead horde, but, you know, I have this hangnail..."

This is actualy a valid tactic in one MMORPG that I'm having difficulty recalling... (googling, googling) ahHA!  Planetside!

Basicly, the way it worked was, you got a tank, you joined a team, then you drove them to the enemy base and... you sat, passvely outside.  about 300 ft. from the base.  Preferably, you turned your turret over to one side and waited, like an unmanned tank.

Your allies would run arround inside their base, killin' their doodz (tm) and you would sit, and mooch EXP from being part of the team, without being in any more danger than any unmanned vehicle.

Of course, i never played planetside, i just heard about it from a friend who did.  but If anyone here ever played it and can confirm / deny my story, please do so.


----------



## prosfilaes (Jun 30, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?




Most likely replace the leaving characters. Or work to make a more coherant party to start with. But I'm just tired of playing in games that have a bunch of characters that have no reason to travel together, but have some magical gimmick that force them to. Whenever a new character comes in, he's teleported in with this gimmick and any option of discussion whether or not the current characters would permit his character to travel with them is short circuitted.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2006)

Gearjammer said:
			
		

> And just what is the DM supposed to do, run two different games for the fractured group?
> 
> Edit - Lanefan beat me to it. When I run it's one game a week, so the characters must work together or else. To me part of the DM job description is ensuring fun for the group as a whole. If one player is playing a character that I think might be disruptive to the group I ask him to reconsider. If he refuses he can still play the character but I don't tolerate any messing with the group dynamic. That doesn't mean there isn't room for conflict and everyone has to be best buds, but that this is a group game and the player and character needs to play well with others.  His rights as a "roleplayer" end where everyone else's right to an enjoyable game begin. Players who like to backstab party members (literally) might cry foul over that, but my game, my rules. I've insta-gibbed more than one character over it and would do it again in a heartbeat.



Well, as I sometimes find the in-party bickering and firefights to be some of the best entertainment the game can give, I'd probably not last long in your game.   That said, I've found campaigns that only run one party once per week to be much different in tone than campaigns that have more than one party (say, 2 sessions a week with different players, in the same setting and time), as if there's an argument in one party some players/characters might just shift over to the other; thus people tend to play the bad sides of their characters along with the good.  One-party campaigns become much more goal-oriented (in my experience the PC's tend much more toward the Lawful side also) which, while fine, I find not to be as much fun in the long run.

The problems arise if-when people forget what's in character and what isn't.  So, *player peeve:* players who cannot or will not disassociate their own emotions from those of their PC(s).

Lanefan


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 30, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> Most likely replace the leaving characters. Or work to make a more coherant party to start with. But I'm just tired of playing in games that have a bunch of characters that have no reason to travel together, but have some magical gimmick that force them to. Whenever a new character comes in, he's teleported in with this gimmick and any option of discussion whether or not the current characters would permit his character to travel with them is short circuitted.




Hmmm ok I misunderstood.

Yeah, I've seen this too and it can get a bit tiresome. All it takes is a bit of effort on both the DM and the players on formulating a coherent background. But if the DM is lazy and either doesn't give the players enough to work with or just handwaves it away it can grate.


----------



## Montague68 (Jun 30, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Well, as I sometimes find the in-party bickering and firefights to be some of the best entertainment the game can give, I'd probably not last long in your game.   That said, I've found campaigns that only run one party once per week to be much different in tone than campaigns that have more than one party (say, 2 sessions a week with different players, in the same setting and time), as if there's an argument in one party some players/characters might just shift over to the other; thus people tend to play the bad sides of their characters along with the good.  One-party campaigns become much more goal-oriented (in my experience the PC's tend much more toward the Lawful side also) which, while fine, I find not to be as much fun in the long run.
> 
> The problems arise if-when people forget what's in character and what isn't.  So, *player peeve:* players who cannot or will not disassociate their own emotions from those of their PC(s).
> 
> Lanefan




Like I said there's room for conflict and bickering. Fistfights are ok. Rivalries and heck even an occasional honorable duel is fine. "When I take my watch I go over to the sleeping paladin and slit his throat" is not.

The times I've had to deal with this sort of crap is with a few people who claim to be roleplaying when in fact they are merely griefers looking for jollies.


----------



## Thunderfoot (Jun 30, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> <SNIP>
> Here's another one:
> 
> *His name? Uhm... Bob*: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.




Ugghhh - or the corolary - you come up with them, get the characters into them, go somewhere else, come back and you *CAN'T FIND YOUR NOTES!!!!... * 
There is nothing as embarrassing as having the players better informed about your world than you are.    (Yep, guilty as charged on this one.)


----------



## Nine Hands (Jun 30, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Why is this bad?  I actually have several PbP games that all take place in a shared setting, and so there are a decent number of NPCs that were encountered in two or even three games.  I find it adds verisimilitude.




I have this happen too.  I run three PBEM games which are in the same universe.  Two are actually in the same timeline, running parellel to each other.  NPCs and PCs make cameo appearances now and then.  I even have one game (set in the future) who has a PC who my wife runs, who is a really good guy.  In one of the games in the past, he is actually an enemy of the PCs.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jun 30, 2006)

prosfilaes said:
			
		

> One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.




Heh.  Our DM _encourages_ us to go off in separate directions.

Someone will say something like "Well, we could send the ranger and the rogue off to check out their story, while the rest of us...", and the DM's face will light up, and he'll start chanting "Oooh!  Split the party, split the party, split the party!" and clapping...

We usually figure out a reason not to 

-Hyp.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Again, that's just poor game mastering: if the "story" is so tightly written that a game master hasn't left an opening to introduce a new character, then that game master is a nitwit.





Setting aside, for the moment, the "nitwit" comment...

It may have nothing to do with being "tightly written". Near the end of a campaign, when the players are likely all headed for the big end-game, they may not want to go through the process of introducing new characters, as this strongly changes the flavor of the game. In such times of stress or tension, it may well be against character for the rest of the party to admit anyone else.

And I'm sure we can construct other legitimate reasons why you might be asked to hold off for a bit.

Now, going back to the "nitwit" thing - please don't insult people, in specific or in general, just because they like things you don't.  The Rules ask you to keep it civil - insults are not civil.


----------



## atom crash (Jun 30, 2006)

The DM in our college 1E Greyhawk game taught us to never split up the party. He refused to do separate encounters because it took away from everyone's playing time, so whenever anyone would try to wander off by themselves they'd suddenly be jumped by a press-gang of a dozen high-level ruffians. Oops, sorry, roll up another character, and next time DON'T SPLIT UP THE PARTY!

I imagine a scene in which a group of guys are wandering down the street in a fantasy medieval city. One guy stops to tie his shoelaces, and he's suddenly pulled violently into an alley. The other guys look around and shrug their shoulders. Oh well, another one bites the dust. So at the next alley a new guy strolls out and gets into step with the group. That image still cracks me up.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 30, 2006)

Lanefan said:
			
		

> Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time.  Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...
> 
> Doesn't matter as much, though, in a low- or no-risk game.
> 
> Lanefan



 Or in a group of good players. Which, luckily, I have.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It may have nothing to do with being "tightly written". Near the end of a campaign, when the players are likely all headed for the big end-game, they may not want to go through the process of introducing new characters, as this strongly changes the flavor of the game. In such times of stress or tension, it may well be against character for the rest of the party to admit anyone else.



If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> And I'm sure we can construct other legitimate reasons why you might be asked to hold off for a bit.



Other reasons, perhaps - legitimacy is pretty subjective, however. I'm sure you can justify it to yourself however you like, but I will still see it as poor encounter design when it becomes necessary to fudge the dice to reach the "big finale."


----------



## Wereserpent (Jun 30, 2006)

On killing PCs: I would ask a new group their preference.  If they like knowing that they can die at any time, then I will have no problem killing their PCs.  If they say that they like to make characters with a lot of backround and would prefer to keep their characters alive, then I will do so.  Now, where you have a mix of both types of players is where you have a problem.


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> *snip*
> 
> Over the years I've only played with two really bad game masters - in both cases I excused myself from the game. The experiences didn't predispose me to distrust game masters generally.No one said that a game master always makes the best choices (with "best" in this context being extremely context-specific), only that the game master gets to make that choice, right or wrong. It sounds like you assume that a game master is more likely to make bad choices (based on your personal referent) than good ones - I presume the opposite until demonstrated otherwise.
> 
> A game master who makes consistently poor choices will be the one who can't find players after awhile - it's the 'invisible hand' of gaming at work.




Agreed.  With the caveat that I am perfectly willing to give new DM's the benefit of the doubt as I believe you are as well.  However, my tolerance for GM's who make consistently bad choices has dropped far lower than was once true.  

Or, it could be that I hang out on message boards too much.    Which is possible.  I read threads like these and see DM's saying that it is much better to never kill PC's and that leads me to think that such DM's are common.  Much in the same way that some read the comments of players and think that player entitlement is rampant.  It all comes down to experience.

In the past three years, I've run three campaigns and played in two more with almost 50 different players.  Of the players I've known, I can honestly say that I've only seen one or two that had the entitlement bug that bothers so many.  However, I've only had about 10 or 12 DM's and two or three have been bad to very bad.

I suppose that colors my perceptions greatly.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?




I'm not sure I see how this relates to what I was saying.  I didn't say characters should be protected.   I said that there are reasons why allowing a new character in may not be appropriate.  How those who are left get to the end may be important to both the players and the DM.  

There's also a simple matter of facing consequences - many folks dislike how easy it is to get a character brought back from the dead, that it means there are few consequences of death, so there's no real reason to not be stupid.  Now, take that concept one step further - if you are always guaranteed a replacement, there's still only so much the player and the party have to face in terms of consequences.  



> I'm sure you can justify it to yourself however you like, but I will still see it as poor encounter design when it becomes necessary to fudge the dice to reach the "big finale."




Huh?  Not allowing a new character to enter the game near campaign end is not "fudging the dice".


----------



## Hussar (Jun 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> There's also a simple matter of facing consequences - many folks dislike how easy it is to get a character brought back from the dead, that it means there are few consequences of death, so there's no real reason to not be stupid. Now, take that concept one step further - if you are always guaranteed a replacement, there's still only so much the player and the party have to face in terms of consequences.




However, why assume that players have little or no attachment to their characters?  While there may be little or no mechanical consequences for bringing in a replacement character, there is still the fact that the character that a player has been playing for X amount of time is now dead.  

While I know that players don't spend as much time prepping as DM's, I also figure that most players are pretty attached to their PC's.  Mechanical impediments to returning from the dead don't really factor into the equation.

OTOH, there are really very few times when it is absolutely impossible to bring in a replacement.  Yes, I know they exist, you don't have to throw out examples, but, 99% of the time (a number I just pulled out of my vas deferens), it's not a problem to bring in another PC.

And, really, I prepare my adventures with just such an eventuality in mind.  To me, being able to replace/restore dead PC's is part of good adventure design.  If an adventure is a completely closed system with no hope for replacement, then there is a flaw in the design of that adventure IMO.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I see how this relates to what I was saying.  I didn't say characters should be protected.   I said that there are reasons why allowing a new character in may not be appropriate.  How those who are left get to the end may be important to both the players and the DM.



Since my post you responded to initially was specifically about introducing new characters in the event of a character dying before the "big finale", I would have to say that your reply was a tangent that had nothing to do with what me and *Keifer113* were discussing.







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> Huh?  Not allowing a new character to enter the game near campaign end is not "fudging the dice".



What *Keifer113* suggested is that it is better to fudge the dice and keep a character alive to avoid upsetting the plot with a character death that isn't meaningful - again, you're responding to something without regard for the context in which it was first posted.


----------



## Jubilee (Jun 30, 2006)

*Every NPC is an obnoxious, sarcastic jerk*

Doesn't matter who you're talking to - the recently deceased assassin your party just killed, the talking cloak, the mysterious patron of your adventures, the city council, someone at the bar... - they're all the same, obnoxious, sarcastic, unhelpful jerk - no matter how high your intimidate or diplomacy might be.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?



As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.



Fair 'nough.

If it's fun to go through the motions, facing encounters that are meant to appear dangerous to the characters but really offer no meaningful consequences for missteps, then more power to you. Putting the narrative ahead of the game is certainly one way to play.

It is, however, anaethema to my own preferences when I play.

I hope that game masters are upfront about this with their players - if story protection is in place, then let the players know at the outset, so they can decide if that's really the game experience that they're looking for or not.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Fair 'nough.
> 
> If it's fun to go through the motions, facing encounters that are meant to appear dangerous to the characters but really offer no meaningful consequences for missteps, then more power to you. Putting the narrative ahead of the game is certainly one way to play.




You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle".  There's plenty of danger and tension when you know that the disintegrate that you just used on the BBEG's left-hand man was your last, and you are down to half hp when the BBEG shows up.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 30, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> As a player in a campaign in which the GM is reluctant to let PCs die because he has a big finale in mind, I defend his style for this reason: sometimes the journey is just as much fun as the destination.




Absolutely true! however, sometimes...

Well, once, A good friend of mine was DMing, she killed her boyfriend's PC during one fight, and it clearly shook her up rather badly.  Every time after that, suddenly, the group was immortal.  If we were low on HP, the Baddies would bug out, or be routed by a GMPC.  I wasn't sure if this was overt favoritisim or just her playstyle.  So I experimented for a bit.  I stopped talking about my hit points, alltogether.  Never asked for healing, never told anyone what condition I was in (I was sick of the character I had created anyway, he was poorly concieved and his "wish" that he had been told to make in the first game session (post rollup, pre-well-concieved background) was annoying me to no end.  I Just waanted him to die.  I regained hp each night, only.  After a full week of flirting with death, he FINALLY was dropped by a first-round sneak attack from a NPC (with a better background than I had).  and i was cheering that he had hit -10 hp.  The GM has a GMPC npc run up and lay a Cure Serious Wounds on me, restoring me to a significant fraction of health.   apparently I couldn't die in a minor skirmish.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle".



I admit the whole concept of "draining resources" is a bit weird to me. I don't plan my encounters around reducing hit points or using up prepared spells.

I assume that the players' characters will either press on if their estimation of the situation demands it, or fall back and return later when they are rested and ready. Either way the encounters are what they are - it's up to the players to decide how to procede, not me.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> You know, just because the GM will be keeping alive during those last few encounters, it doesn't mean he isn't draining your resources before the "final battle".  There's plenty of danger and tension when you know that the disintegrate that you just used on the BBEG's left-hand man was your last, and you are down to half hp when the BBEG shows up.




Though that does beg the question why you are using that last disintegrate if you _know_ you'll survive the encounter anyway.


----------



## merelycompetent (Jun 30, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> So, how much would that bug you?




Moderately, but not a game-breaker for me. When I'm playing, half the fun is pulling off a really heroic move or scene and getting credit for it, or out-thinking the trap/puzzle/situation and earning the rewards. XP is part of that credit, a way of acknowledging that my character has exceeded the normal limits. If I'm having fun, and my character's still advancing in power/success at a rate commensurate with the risks my character faces, then I don't mind a flat XP award. It does, however, make me less likely to take physical risks with my character, and more likely to pursue role-playing quests for power and glory - instead of risking my character's neck in battle. If the rewards of success are reflected in the game (such as more secular power, more influence within the city/country/empire, or more allies), then I'm happy. On the other hand, if I just saved the Prince's only heir, again, and all I got was a T-shirt, I'm not going to be happy.

Frankly, though, after a week at work, I'm ready to massacre evil-doers and get showered in wealth and power (and likely to lose the wealth only slightly slower than it was acquired). Even if it is by proxy in a fantasy game.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I admit the whole concept of "draining resources" is a bit weird to me. I don't plan my encounters around reducing hit points or using up prepared spells.




Do you not use the CR system at all then?



			
				Raven Crowking said:
			
		

> Though that does beg the question why you are using that last disintegrate if you know you'll survive the encounter anyway.




It's a choice, to be sure.  Do I use that disintegrate in the hopes that the party has more hitpoints?  Or do I save the disintegrate and let the monster(s) eat up a bunch of hitpoints?


----------



## shilsen (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> If it's fun to go through the motions, facing encounters that are meant to appear dangerous to the characters but really offer no meaningful consequences for missteps, then more power to you. Putting the narrative ahead of the game is certainly one way to play.
> 
> It is, however, anaethema to my own preferences when I play.




Fair enough. I think you're missing, however, that death isn't the only meaningful consequence for a misstep. I run two Eberron campaigns where death really isn't an option, since PCs can use action pts to change a killing blow into one that reduces them to -9 and stable. But combat is just as fun and exciting as in games I've run (or played in) where death is a possibility, for a few reasons. One is that even if PCs don't die, if they lose there are all sorts of nasty repercussions, including loss of equipment, being kidnapped, failing at something important to the PCs, etc. And one should never forget the simple issue that players just hate the embarrassment of their PCs having their asses handed to them. 

Incidentally, taking death out of the equation isn't necessarily due to narrative protection. In my case, it began because I had a group of people who really, really hated creating and introducing new PCs. Since the campaigns have very low and almost no availability of resurrection magic, and also happen to be very heavily character-driven, with the current narrative arising out of the characters' choices rather than because of an overarching DM vision, it's just much easier not to have characters die.


----------



## Shade (Jun 30, 2006)

lukelightning said:
			
		

> One thing that bugs me is when DMs hand out extra "roleplaying xp" to the players who just happened to talk a lot in the game.  Fine, they are roleplaying. But please don't overlook the fact that many players have "silent/moody/mysterious/unobtrusive" character concepts.  Shouldn't they get bonus xp for roleplaying a character who isn't blabbing all the time?




Me too!   In fact, I hate "roleplaying xp" altogether.  It's just too subjective.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jun 30, 2006)

I hate to kill off PCs at inopportune times.  But I'll do it.  Especially in D&D.  Why?  The party has access to resurrection magic, either directly or through allies (they do have allies, right?).   I'll generally let the players decide if they should spend the time/energy/magic to go get Ted ressed now or wait until later.  Can they beat the BBEG without Ted?  As far as the player, IMC there are 2-3 cohorts that Ted's Player can run if they decide to forge on without him.  

As a player I hate to be the guy sidelined but I absolutely, totally, diaglo-hat-of-d20 hate it when my character's survival is totally story based.  Face it, the same DM who'll make sure players survive any intervening encounter before the climax is likely to kill off PCs who threaten his big finale.  It's a railroad either way.  Nah, If I can't jump beneath the wheels of this bus there's no way I'm able to drive it.  

I've got more sympathy for the position in "no res" settings.  But standard 3x?  No real excuse.   Too many ways for an ally to divine "bad thing happened to Ted, send scroll of raise dead to party", the PCs to find a temple and say "ask your god how bad things will get if we don't do this thing we need Ted for", or have some other setting-appropriate deus ex machina: "An angel appears, wings blazing with brilliant energy.  _'I am the guardian of last ditch efforts.  Your foes have summoned powers that upset the cosmic balance.  I can restore Ted and the balance but nothing more.  Your fate is fully in your own hands and the Gods will watch with interest.'_"


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> Nah, If I can't jump beneath the wheels of this bus there's no way I'm able to drive it.




Well, you certainly can't jump beneath the wheels of the bus _while_ you're driving it. 



			
				kigmatzomat said:
			
		

> But standard 3x?  No real excuse.   Too many ways for an ally to divine "bad thing happened to Ted, send scroll of raise dead to party", the PCs to find a temple and say "ask your god how bad things will get if we don't do this thing we need Ted for", or have some other setting-appropriate deus ex machina: "An angel appears, wings blazing with brilliant energy.  _'I am the guardian of last ditch efforts.  Your foes have summoned powers that upset the cosmic balance.  I can restore Ted and the balance but nothing more.  Your fate is fully in your own hands and the Gods will watch with interest.'_"




So if death isn't a big issue, why is lack of it such a big issue?  Is it like air?  You only miss it when it's gone?


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Fair enough. I think you're missing, however, that death isn't the only meaningful consequence for a misstep.



That's true whether or not there is narrative or some other form of character protection going on. My point is, rather than fudge the dice, design encounters that provide consequences other than death should the characters fail. This keeps the decision making where it belongs: with the players and their characters.







			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Incidentally, taking death out of the equation isn't necessarily due to narrative protection. In my case, it began because I had a group of people who really, really hated creating and introducing new PCs.



Why?







			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> Since the campaigns have very low and almost no availability of resurrection magic, and also happen to be very heavily character-driven, with the current narrative arising out of the characters' choices rather than because of an overarching DM vision, it's just much easier not to have characters die.



Most of the games I run have no resurrection. It makes players smart or characters dead, and that's the way I like it.

That doesn't make any of them less character-driven or roleplay-intensive. Your. Mileage. May. Vary.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Do you not use the CR system at all then?



Nope. I wing it.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> That's true whether or not there is narrative or some other form of character protection going on. My point is, rather than fudge the dice, design encounters that provide consequences other than death should the characters fail.




Well, there's an entire system for encounters in place that WotC gives to DMs (and it focuses heavily on death as a consequence).  The only thing that pops to mind for encounters with consequences other than death are non-trap, non-combat, non-threatening encounters.  In short, a roleplaying encounter without death as a consequence.  Those are great.  And safe.  But eventually the characters are going to want to do more (most likely combat), and that sort of encounter has death as a consequence.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Most of the games I run have no resurrection. It makes players smart or characters dead, and that's the way I like it.




So long as your players like it as well, then it sounds like you're set.



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> That doesn't make any of them less character-driven or roleplay-intensive. Your. Mileage. May. Vary.




Correct.  Just like dice-roll fudging doesn't make combat any less intense or entertaining.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Nope. I wing it.




Well, there you are then.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> I hope that game masters are upfront about this with their players - if story protection is in place, then let the players know at the outset, so they can decide if that's really the game experience that they're looking for or not.



Yes, I agree with you completely. I have another GM who resists causing PC death not because he has an overarching plot that hinges around the specific PCs, but because he just doesn't like dealing with change. It's much more irritating in that situation. It makes me want to start suiciding my characters just to shake things up, which is a bad place to be.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I have another GM who resists causing PC death not because he has an overarching plot that hinges around the specific PCs, but because he just doesn't like dealing with change. It's much more irritating in that situation. It makes me want to start suiciding my characters just to shake things up, which is a bad place to be.



Ugh.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The only thing that pops to mind for encounters with consequences other than death are non-trap, non-combat, non-threatening encounters.  In short, a roleplaying encounter without death as a consequence.  Those are great.  And safe.  But eventually the characters are going to want to do more (most likely combat), and that sort of encounter has death as a consequence.



I've found other options, too, like a natural hazard that's an inconvenience but not necessarily lethal. For example, the characters in one of our d20 _Modern_ games were forced to negotiate a steep slope - at worst they could get knocked around a bit for failed Climb checks, but death wasn't a factor. It was a challenge that encouraged them to work together, and offered opportunities for novel approaches to scaling the side of the canyon.

Another example from our three-point-oh _D&D_ game was landing a boat in high surf. The characters weren't at risk of drowning, but they needed to keep the boat upright in order to safely land their supplies. (They didn't succeed, by the way.  ) The characters in our Modern military game will get a taste of this as well, dealing with travelling through chest-high water and needing to keep their gear dry.

There are non-lethal encounters other than roleplaying that can test both characters and players, IMX.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Just like dice-roll fudging doesn't make combat any less intense or entertaining.



...for some gamers.


----------



## IcyCool (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> For example, the characters in one of our d20 _Modern_ games were forced to negotiate a steep slope - at worst they could get knocked around a bit for failed Climb checks, but death wasn't a factor.




If it caused damage, then believe me, death is a factor.  The players will find a way. 



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> That doesn't make any of them less character-driven or roleplay-intensive.




...for some gamers.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> If it caused damage, then believe me, death is a factor.  The players will find a way.



Non-lethal damage is handled differently in d20 _Modern_ than in _D&D_ - the worst that could happen to them was getting knocked cold.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jun 30, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> Non-lethal damage is handled differently in d20 _Modern_ than in _D&D_ - the worst that could happen to them was getting knocked cold.




except, it IS possible to NL someone to death, I'm not sure if this is a house rule, or a real one, but if you NL them to the point where their NL damage > their total HP+10, they start taking L damage.

kicking someone when he's down, if you will.


----------



## The Shaman (Jun 30, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> except, it IS possible to NL someone to death, I'm not sure if this is a house rule, or a real one, but if you NL them to the point where their NL damage > their total HP+10, they start taking L damage.
> 
> kicking someone when he's down, if you will.



House rule.


----------



## shilsen (Jun 30, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> Incidentally, taking death out of the equation isn't necessarily due to narrative protection. In my case, it began because I had a group of people who really, really hated creating and introducing new PCs.






			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> Why?




They just hate the minutiae and mechanics of creating characters. They also like to have their characters grow and develop over a significant period of time, so the benefits of a game where their characters have a fair chance of dying are highly outweighed by the benefits of a game where they won't. As you noted, different strokes.


----------



## Fishbone (Jun 30, 2006)

The Enforcer: Every encounter seems like its meant to punish somebody for being successful. The fighter is contributing a lot to the group and actually is the MVP, going against DM expectations and wishes? All of a sudden every encounter has at least one improbable creature like a Shadow Denizen Max Diced Huge Elite Rust monster with Ability Focus meant to stick it to him.


----------



## sniffles (Jun 30, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Oh, and you all level, heck, you level twice.*
> 
> The GM abhores letting players know about their experience points.  It's just so much simpler to toss them a freaking level whenever he feels like they are getting antsy.



Actually, I like this. I hate keeping track of my XP, at least in D&D.   



> *Well, Jim called and said he won't be here tonight.  oops! he's dead.*
> 
> How rude of Jim, thinking a vacation/wedding/funeral/hospital stay is more important than his weekly game session! I know! I'll just have his character do something suicidal and reckless so that he dies.  So what if I don't have his character sheet, his AC is low, right?  The Titan hits...



I hate the opposite of this as well - Jim can't be here tonight so we'll have his character suddenly vanish in the midst of the adventure, unexplained, because the GM doesn't want to run the character as an NPC. Or worse, the GM lets one of the other players run Jim's PC, but won't let the character actually do anything useful.


Another peeve of mine: the evil laugh. Quit telegraphing your plot points!


----------



## Dagger75 (Jul 1, 2006)

*The Literal DM* 

  Thief (1st Ed days): Okay, I throw my grappling hook up to the balcony, test the rope and make sure it sticks.

 DM: Okay the grappling hook lands on top of the balcony.  I didn't hear you say you tied the rope to it.

 That was a long time ago but it still makes me laugh to think about it.


----------



## merelycompetent (Jul 1, 2006)

Dagger75 said:
			
		

> *The Literal DM*
> 
> Thief (1st Ed days): Okay, I throw my grappling hook up to the balcony, test the rope and make sure it sticks.
> 
> ...




Sorry for the side-track. I was witness to this one:

Similar to above, but the DM told the thief, "I didn't hear you say you were using the rope to climb the wall."

One round later, the guards arrive and attack the thief after he fell off the wall.

DM: "The three guards hit you for 21 hp total."
Thief: "Uh, check again. Fists only do 1d3, subdual."
DM: "No, they're using swords."
Thief: "I didn't hear you say they were attacking me with swords."


----------



## Hammerhead (Jul 1, 2006)

I like that Thief player.


----------



## Chimera (Jul 1, 2006)

merelycompetent said:
			
		

> Thief: "I didn't hear you say they were attacking me with swords."




And that, Sir, is a thing of beauty.


----------



## William Ronald (Jul 1, 2006)

My pet peeve: Super NPC.

No matter how hard your character has worked to achieve his or her goals, the DM will have the campaign seem to be a showpiece for a favored NPC.  It becomes particularly annoying if you have a character who is supposed to be at the top of his or her profession, and the Super NPC is also The Man from Nowhere or the Minor NPC who is now superior to the rest of the party.  (My rule on powerful NPCs, make sure that the NPC has an interesting story as to how he or she has become powerful.  Also, I think the PCs should have a chance to matter in a campaign, and not play second or third fiddle to a favored NPC.)


----------



## reanjr (Jul 1, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> DMPCs.  If the party needs a short-duration NPC to assist the party, or as a story hook, fine -- but not a permanent NPC who gains experience alongside the party and is run by the DM as a PC (especially when said PC becomes omniscient and more capable than the party).  Either play or DM, but don't try to do both at the same time.




Nah, this works with a decent DM.  Especially rogue types that can sneak off every once in a while to get themselves out of the main story and to add story hooks ("Roland comes running out of one of the doors hurriedly saying something about 'being sorry,' and 'you may want to follow'").  They can also be useful in pushing things forward when the players managed to mess things up or forget something.  Like if the party failed to pick up the super +7 bauble of arch-villain destruction, the NPC can retroactively have picked it up.

On the other hand, when it used to stroke one's ego, it does not work out.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 1, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> *Here, have a Holy Avenger*
> 
> Despite the fact that there is perfectly good chart for rolling up treasure in the DMG, this GM will randomly ascribe treasure and gold based on his whims.  While this is fun initially, a gross imbalance in the party will ensue, resulting in Hero McUltraequipped and his possee of slightly less-well equipped followers.  The DM will gawk in wonder as the party shreds through his BBEGs like they were made of tissue, then will begin throwing higher and higher difficulty enemies against the party, which will ultimately result in a level 10 party dying at the hands of a CR 17 encounter.




I can't see how randomly generated treasure can be better than story-focused decisions based on the campaign at hand.  Sounds more like you have a problem with the D&D magic item system than anything else.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 1, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> *The Ol' Bait-and-Switch.*




It can be effective to use bait and switch to get the proper type of character backgrounds, though.  What if the DM wants to run a campaign revolving around the difficulty of disaffected nobles now penniless and ruined and having to eke out a living as mercenaries using their meager "courtly" sword training.

So you tell them that the campaign is going to be based around nobles and political intrigue.  They generate appropriate characters complete with all sorts of associated NPCs and organizations that can come into play later as enemies or allies that have been likewise affected.  That sounds like alot of fun to me.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 1, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> *His name? Uhm... Bob*: The DM never comes up with names for anyone. Random NPCs is one thing, but when the PCs interact with major NPCs they find that they never have names. The town mayor, the wizard who hires them, the boy they're sent looking for, etc. None of them ever have a name! Towns can fall into this category as well.




I have a similar problem occasionally when I DM.  I name someone.  Then they come up later and I can't remember the name.  I can't seem to locate my notes, but I know it's somewhere, so I refuse to rename them for consistency's sake.  That NPC usually gets a *mumble, mumble* as their name that encounter.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 1, 2006)

Odhanan said:
			
		

> Question: Do you inform your DM about the things you do not like to see them doing between/after the sessions? That's always good to have feedback. Helps the DM to improve.




That would be far too constructive.  It's much more fun and challenging for the DM to figure these things out on their own.  Of course, I am being sarcastic - I DM and never hear a single complaint about my games even if someone just stops coming or switches to another campaign.


----------



## CrimsonWineGlass (Jul 1, 2006)

Clash-with-the-characters

The DM who plans the game a couple sessions in advance based on what the party is doing but somehow manages to be surprised when the party of chaotic neutral PC's, one of which being a guild thief, turns down the mission to save the paladin from the clutches of the local thieves guild offered to them by the high priest from the Temple of Tyr.


You see another boss

This DM makes an indepth campaign where you end up wishing he would throw you up against 8 orcish barbarians.  Every enemy is a custom tailored boss fight and you never seem to run into grunts.  1 powerful enemy vs. the party for 9/10 fights.


----------



## Votan (Jul 1, 2006)

Slowly, the one that drives me nuts the most is changes to the rules system.  It never, ever seems to work out when the DM introduces setting specific major changes.  I love story and so I find it kind of cool as an idea at first.  

But it can radically change the balance of a game and make things a lot less fun.

In particular:

1) Mass banning of certain spells or classes of spells in order to enforce the campaign theme.  This can go very badly, very fast.  For example, no teleport spell seems like a reasonable choice.  But then you decide it's a water themed world so only water or ice damage spells exist.  And then you note that summons don't work including things like the mount spell.  

After a while it can really effect playability.  

2) Very restricted character classes -- a party can be awkward to balance if you discover no healing classes are allowed and so forth.  

3) Restricted items and technology.  Wizards can't get spellbooks (I watched this for 8 months once).  Magic items are nearly non-existent.  Standard weapons are not available to be purchased or used (okay, I can understand the spiked chain but banning all armor of any kind, for example, can have balance issues).  But then a rifle doing 5d10 damage shows up.  

4) House rules that radically change how key mechanics work.  In the old days, my favorite example was fumble rules closely followed by critical hits that did loads of damage.  These days a system where arcane spells fatigue casters (see Unearthed Arcana) is my current favorite child for this sort of problem.  


My main issue is that these changes, made for story reasons, are hard to do well.  As a result, the game often ends up going very badly.  

I like to tinker but I think the next time I DM I will make a point of not modifying any rules!


----------



## Aaron L (Jul 1, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> It can be effective to use bait and switch to get the proper type of character backgrounds, though.  What if the DM wants to run a campaign revolving around the difficulty of disaffected nobles now penniless and ruined and having to eke out a living as mercenaries using their meager "courtly" sword training.
> 
> So you tell them that the campaign is going to be based around nobles and political intrigue.  They generate appropriate characters complete with all sorts of associated NPCs and organizations that can come into play later as enemies or allies that have been likewise affected.  That sounds like alot of fun to me.





That would be a really prickish thing to do.  The right thing to do would be asking if the rest of the group wants to play a game like that, not duping the players.


----------



## Hussar (Jul 1, 2006)

I gotta agree with AaronL on this one.  Duping players on the nature of the campaign is generally not a good way to start.  It might be fine for groups that have played together for a long time, but, if the players and DM don't know eachother, blatantly lying to your players at the outset might hurt that whole trust the DM thing I keep hearing about.


----------



## ChristianW (Jul 1, 2006)

*Man, what?*

I loathe bizarre, crazy monsters created just for the sake of slapping templates together. 

Take the half-dragon treant, for example.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 1, 2006)

ChristianW said:
			
		

> I loathe bizarre, crazy monsters created just for the sake of slapping templates together.
> 
> Take the half-dragon treant, for example.



 What about templates being used to create variants of traditional creatures, with the flavor being changed to fit whatever is desired, while retaining the mechanics? The half-dragon treant doesn't have to be the result of a dragon mating with a treant. It can just be a treant warped by magical energy, resulting in a more powerful treant (improved stats), with thicker bark (improved natural AC), the ability to fire a hail of sharpened wooden spikes (breath weapon), etc. 

The mechanics are only what you make of them.


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 1, 2006)

*Bizarro Templates*



			
				ChristianW said:
			
		

> I loathe bizarre, crazy monsters created just for the sake of slapping templates together.



Don't tell BLACKDIRGE.   

-Samir


----------



## Odhanan (Jul 1, 2006)

> *Story Protection for Characters*
> I'm here to play a game in which character death is sometimes determined by the luck of the dice, not to see your pet plot line through to the grand finale. Luck is a part of the game - don't rob me of that, either good or bad.



QFT. If the campaign's possible events doesn't take into account the possible death of the PCs as a result of bad luck or sheer mistakes, then the campaign's design is flawed at the core. I highly dislike any type of fudging because "the story demands it". That hides the incompetence of a DM who thinks in terms of novels, movies, whatever BUT in terms of RPG campaigning, in my opinion.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Jul 1, 2006)

reanjr said:
			
		

> It can be effective to use bait and switch to get the proper type of character backgrounds, though.  What if the DM wants to run a campaign revolving around the difficulty of disaffected nobles now penniless and ruined and having to eke out a living as mercenaries using their meager "courtly" sword training.
> 
> So you tell them that the campaign is going to be based around nobles and political intrigue.  They generate appropriate characters complete with all sorts of associated NPCs and organizations that can come into play later as enemies or allies that have been likewise affected.  That sounds like alot of fun to me.



You've just lied to the players. And if what the GM wants to run is the last thing the players want to run in, you just might find yourself looking for new players. RPGs are a cooperative venture. Ignore that fact at your peril.


----------



## BLACKDIRGE (Jul 2, 2006)

The Thayan Menace said:
			
		

> Don't tell BLACKDIRGE.
> 
> -Samir




All right that's it. Prepare to meet thy doom at the slimy tentacles of a fiendish half dragon paragon pseudonatural banana slug of legend. 

BD


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 2, 2006)

sniffles said:
			
		

> I hate the opposite of this as well - Jim can't be here tonight so we'll have his character suddenly vanish in the midst of the adventure, unexplained, because the GM doesn't want to run the character as an NPC.




I'm very guilty of this. I haven't found a satisfactory way of dealing with it that doesn't involve me running the character - if I do that, they are at risk of death, which isn't fair (IMO) if the player isn't there to control their own character.

It doesn't bother any of my players, however.


----------



## kigmatzomat (Jul 2, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> So if death isn't a big issue, why is lack of it such a big issue?  Is it like air?  You only miss it when it's gone?




Death is a consequence of actions.  If I can't die, causality fails as my actions fail to have logical consequences.  What other things do my actions fail to affect?    

Plus  I can have a PC refuse to return from the afterlife, giving me the option to play a new character.  And I've played characters (that I liked) where it was a stated fact that he was 99% unlikely to return from the dead because of his beliefs.  You don't have to be a fanatic to think that heaven will be a nice place.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 2, 2006)

I don't necessarily mind characters dying (I can always make another), especially if it was a "heroic death", but do mind them being "altered" beyond my character concept's boundaries.  This could be a rogue losing his hands (no open locks or disable device?  Sucks to be me) or a good character getting "super-charmed" to do evil (or permanently converted to some other alignment by magical fiat).  Oddly, I have learned that *getting* something that should be good can hurt the character concept, such as getting a cool magical item that changes the character concept from "Gord the Rogue" to "The Magic Item, also starring its wacky sidekick, Gord".  I don't mean getting taken over by an intelligent item, but altering my combat tactics in a way that is more effective, but less personally fulfilling.  That is not a DM flaw, but a flaw in me, that I have since (hopefully) corrected.  Now I try to only take items that fit my concept, and let others get the "power stuff".


----------



## Emirikol (Jul 5, 2006)

*DM's are obsolete and should become extinct*

I've been DMing since day 2 of learning this stupid game.  That's something like 25 years of DMing dozens of games every year.  Once in a great while, I'll settle for being 'lowered' to player status and I'm pretty critical of my DM's (making them leave in tears or breaking up the group so I can steal the players)...just kidding, that's the machavelli in me  

My top list:
1.  #1, NUMERO FRICKING UNO:  SLOOOOOOOW COMBAT DM'S who aren't even making combats interesting..they're just stupidly slow!
2.  Dm's who don't have names for any NPC's
3.  Dm's that can't run an NPC interaction to save their lives
4.  DM's that talk about anything other than the game (i.e. their character in another game, video gaming, life in general, sex life, etc.)
5.  DM's who run a game in a world (any world) and then run it like any other sterile, impotent D&D generic game.  HEY IDIOT DM!  If you're running in Eberron, maybe you'd want to have Psionics and Warforeged maybe today eh?  Maybe you could READ something on a region and make us feel like we're somewhere other than in Bob's basement!
6.  DM's who don't read your background, skill set, or feats to use it in a game.
6.  DM's who use dice or food instead of some kind of miniature (even if it doesn't look like what we're fighting).
6.  DM's who have a bunch of house rules, but never writes them down.



jh
extinct


..


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Jul 5, 2006)

*Look ... He Bears the Mark!*



			
				Emirikol said:
			
		

> I've been DMing since day 2 of learning this stupid game.



Dark Lord:

I'm curious ... what do you think of this campaign material?

-Samir


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 5, 2006)

the_mighty_agrippa said:
			
		

> *My Old PC Runs This Bar*
> 
> Or whatever.  The DMs old characters have not only been advanced to high levels and positions of power, but have enough spare time to bust the party's balls while serving them ale.




Guilty as charged!   But to be fair, the middle-aged gnome's background had him running a tavern for two centuries before he was ever a playing character, so it made sense him going back to that line of work upon semi-retirement.  It's safe to say that at least a few players must share this peeve since in one module the enemy took over the tavern and the PC's had great fun trashing the place in the battle that followed.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jul 5, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Here's another one:  *His name? Uhm... Bob*: The DM never comes up with names for anyone.....Towns can fall into this category as well.



Indeed.   Some 20 years after he DMed it one of my player's is still living down the fact that the capital city of the county his character was from was named.....Capital City.


----------



## Keifer113 (Jul 5, 2006)

The Shaman said:
			
		

> .Again, that's just poor game mastering: if the "story" is so tightly written that a game master hasn't left an opening to introduce a new character, then that game master is a nitwit.
> 
> If I have to play an NPC for an evening, or if I get to run a monster or two during combat while waiting for my new character to be introduced, that's cool. If the game master told me to take a hike for three weeks because it would muck up her plot to bring in a new character, then I'm happy to pack up my things and find someone else with whom to play, because that game master should be writing fan fic for the web and accumlating rejection notices from fantasy publishers, not running a roleplaying game."Fun" isn't defined for every gamer as "not dying except when it's dramatic enough," *Keifer113*. That may be your definition - it's most definitely not mine.
> 
> It's a game, and part of the game is resolving the element of chance with dice.




Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?


----------



## Keifer113 (Jul 5, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Setting aside, for the moment, the "nitwit" comment...
> 
> It may have nothing to do with being "tightly written". Near the end of a campaign, when the players are likely all headed for the big end-game, they may not want to go through the process of introducing new characters, as this strongly changes the flavor of the game. In such times of stress or tension, it may well be against character for the rest of the party to admit anyone else.
> 
> ...




I've seen players do a 3 game mega combat session a couple of times. Throwing in a brand new PC would be absurd under most circumstances. "Luke, you are the only hope for destroying the Death Star....oh wait, here comes Pink Five...where did she come from?"


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?




This is something of a straw man arguement.  Actually, it's not something of, it IS a strawman.  Since the goal of Monopoly is to force the other players into bankruptcy, then it wouldn't make sense to bring them back in would it.  Unless the goal of your DnD game is to be the last man standing, the comparison is bunk.

So the player misses a session.  Oh well.  Them's the breaks.  He comes in AFTER the fight.  If you have battles that last three full sessions, then perhaps a little bit of brushing up on the rules is in order.  If this is happening frequently, then perhaps a shift in design may be in order.

99% of the time, it is not a major issue to bring in a new character.  Sure, bringing in a new character in the middle of a battle may not be feasible, but, an entire campaign should not be one fight.  It happens.  The player sucks it up and takes the time to create a new character while everyone else finishes the battle.

Where's the problem?  It's a game.  Characters die.  Depending on the DM, they may die frequently.  It happens.  Cheating so that Player X gets to finish the adventure is like using cheat codes in video games.  Sure, you beat the game, but, in such a lame way that it robs victory of any meaning.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?




When D&D becomes a competitive game in which there are winners and losers declared, you might have a point with this line of argument. Until then, it is just a non-sequitur.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> So the player misses a session.  Oh well.  Them's the breaks.  He comes in AFTER the fight.  If you have battles that last three full sessions, then perhaps a little bit of brushing up on the rules is in order.  If this is happening frequently, then perhaps a shift in design may be in order.




I'm more curious of HOW a fight could last more than a single full session.  I mean, I suppose if we draw the scale clear back to visualize an entire army of thousands fighting another army... and... ummm... make each attack roll individually on each side?

I dunno.  In my experience, even the mightiest wizard is feeling kinda depleted after the first hundred and twenty seconds of pitched battle.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 5, 2006)

Hussar said:
			
		

> I gotta agree with AaronL on this one.  Duping players on the nature of the campaign is generally not a good way to start.  It might be fine for groups that have played together for a long time, but, if the players and DM don't know eachother, blatantly lying to your players at the outset might hurt that whole trust the DM thing I keep hearing about.




Well, I've been playing with the same group for many years, so it's not really a problem.  They trust that I will move the campaign in different directions depending upon my desires and the entertainment of the players.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 5, 2006)

Ed_Laprade said:
			
		

> You've just lied to the players. And if what the GM wants to run is the last thing the players want to run in, you just might find yourself looking for new players. RPGs are a cooperative venture. Ignore that fact at your peril.




I don't attract players by running campaigns that appeal to them and then switch it on them.  I attract players by running all sorts of campaigns well enough that they want to play in my game no matter the campaign style.  So it's not like I am truly "baiting" them in the traditional sense.  I am just putting them in the right mindset to create characters appropriate to the campaign themes.  If lying to them is the most effective way to do this, I do.


----------



## LordBOB (Jul 5, 2006)

ok I didnt feel like reading EVERY page and im sure what im about to say has already been said but i need to say it.

*UNDEAD!* - you know how it is...... walking through the woods and BLAM, you get attacked by undead.  The fight ends and 5 minutes later BOOM, more undead.  10 minutes after that SNAP, more undead!  UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD !!!!

ok everyone lets say it together this time - *UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD* !!!!

AHHH it makes me scream!  You would think that with 4 Monster Manuels the DM could find some new FUC**** monsters to throw at us.

IM TIRED OF THE UNDEAD...... GIVE US SOMETHING ELSE!!!!


----------



## The Shaman (Jul 5, 2006)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> *UNDEAD!* - you know how it is...... walking through the woods and BLAM, you get attacked by undead.  The fight ends and 5 minutes later BOOM, more undead.  10 minutes after that SNAP, more undead!  UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD UNDEAD !!!!...IM TIRED OF THE UNDEAD...... GIVE US SOMETHING ELSE!!!!



Deathless?



Edit: I confess - this is one of my schticks. I loves me some undead, yes I do.


----------



## reanjr (Jul 5, 2006)

I totally agree with the undead thing.  I'm even kind of reactionary.  I see so much undead in other people's campaigns that I hardly ever use them.  I even tell people during character creation who want to play an undead-killing class that they should probably pick something else or they're going to be disappointed.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jul 5, 2006)

> We're not Lawful Good Paladins. This is grim and gritty CyberPunk and my character is a badass kung fu mercenary.




I think I'm yoinking this. As a life-mantra.


----------



## Drowbane (Jul 5, 2006)

Chimera said:
			
		

> Ugh.  I played a Shadowrun game with a long-time gamer/first time GM who pulled this kind of crap on me.  I was a Physical Adept, martial artist type.  A gun bunny and two shaman round out the group.  We're sent on a mission to hijack a truck.  We get to the guy, attack him and knock him down, injured.  He then orders his truck AI to kill us.  Mind you, my nasty PA is standing over him while he's laying injured on the ground.  I attack, roll exceptionally well, and do enough damage to kill him.
> 
> GM asks if it was subdual/non-lethal.  Nope.  Are you sure?  Yes.  I KILL HIM.  GM gets all quiet-like and begins to think bad thoughts about me (the player) as a human being.
> 
> ...




I feel your pain bro!  This is the same GM who always had gangers pull the pins on their grenades just as they were dying (LAME)!



			
				The Shaman said:
			
		

> ...I confess - this is one of my schticks. I loves me some undead, yes I do...




I hear that, I dig thems undead. (hah, a pun!)


----------



## shilsen (Jul 5, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> I've seen players do a 3 game mega combat session a couple of times. Throwing in a brand new PC would be absurd under most circumstances. "Luke, you are the only hope for destroying the Death Star....oh wait, here comes Pink Five...where did she come from?"



 "Luke, you're the only one left ... oh wait, you're not ... Han and Chewie and the Millennium Falcon are here..."


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> I hear that, I dig thems undead. (hah, a pun!)




Yeah, but Undead should be kept within reason.  I mean, Zombies don't just wander the countryside aimlessly.  Now, if there was a Necromancer who was assembling a patrol of zombies in the area around a unholy altar... that I could understand!  Double points of the encounters aren't just random, and the players begin noticing ones they put down last time are in the fray again...


----------



## Votan (Jul 5, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> "Luke, you're the only one left ... oh wait, you're not ... Han and Chewie and the Millennium Falcon are here..."




That is a perfect way of using the same example and the actual way the story evolved.  

If you play huge battles that take many sessions, it is likely that a supporting character can be promoted as well.  Luke might be a player character carrying the weight of the adventure --suddenly Wedge is flying better and saving Luke's butt when he can't shake a TIE fighter.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> That is a perfect way of using the same example and the actual way the story evolved.
> 
> If you play huge battles that take many sessions, it is likely that a supporting character can be promoted as well.  Luke might be a player character carrying the weight of the adventure --suddenly Wedge is flying better and saving Luke's butt when he can't shake a TIE fighter.




QFT.  If something genuinely takes several game sessions, like, say, a siege, it's possible to have Random Soldier NPC #8 be either taken over or adapted after PC-Hero has died (like Porkins! poor, poor Porkins).


----------



## Hussar (Jul 5, 2006)

Heh, I used to run a naval based campaign using DnD.  Crew promotions were fairly common.


----------



## shilsen (Jul 5, 2006)

Votan said:
			
		

> That is a perfect way of using the same example and the actual way the story evolved.
> 
> If you play huge battles that take many sessions, it is likely that a supporting character can be promoted as well.  Luke might be a player character carrying the weight of the adventure --suddenly Wedge is flying better and saving Luke's butt when he can't shake a TIE fighter.



 Precisely. Keifer113's point was a little simplistic, IMO, hence the illustration I provided.


----------



## lukelightning (Jul 5, 2006)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Indeed.   Some 20 years after he DMed it one of my player's is still living down the fact that the capital city of the county his character was from was named.....Capital City.




What's wrong with this? After all, the capital of China, Beijing, just means "Northern Capital" (Nanjing was the "Southern Capital" and Tokyo is the "Eastern Capital" even though it's in Japan). Kyoto is even worse: It's the "Capital Capital."


----------



## Keifer113 (Jul 5, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> "Luke, you're the only one left ... oh wait, you're not ... Han and Chewie and the Millennium Falcon are here..."





Han didn't have proton torpedoes on the Falcon to destroy the Death Star. The point is, when you've reached an endgame point, just having a PC pop in to take the place of a dead PC is a bit silly. Its bad gaming and bad DMing. The player technically has nothing invested in the game by using a new PC with given magic items, and the other players have no incentive to truly welcome a new PC the day before they fight the BBEG. 

So the player has to miss a few sessions. I've had running battles where the players simply would not have gotten a chance to rest and recruit....they were in it for the duration, win or die. Should every player then get to respawn until the heroes win? Nope. At the same time, would you as a player feel alright being excluded from a few sessions? 

The DM owes players a good game. I played a game where the DM let the dice lay where they fell....my wizard pretty much, every session, got knocked out the first hour or had to use all my spells right away ( I think I was 10th level). So I'd spend the next three waiting to either be raised, or for the party to rest to get my spells back. It wasn't fun for me. I was savagely attacked verbally by one of the other players for not carrying my weight in a battle she initiated with chain devils. Devils that would hit me on a 2 up. And whose base damage would kill me. Why couldn't I carry my weight? Cause the DM didn't believe in altering his story to allow the players to rest, and he didn't cut any breaks so that characters like mine could contribute.

If thats your idea of fun, so be it. This is simply a case where one has to agree to disagee, because no one will be able to sway anyone else's opinion. I like a game where the players make the story and are all able to participate.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jul 5, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Han didn't have proton torpedoes on the Falcon to destroy the Death Star.




No he didn't, but his help was instrumental in accomplishing the objective. No one has said the new PC has to be the golden child (and for the most part, golden child/chosen one type campaigns are so hard to make work that they are usually disasters, or railroaded bore-fests).



> _The point is, when you've reached an endgame point, just having a PC pop in to take the place of a dead PC is a bit silly. Its bad gaming and bad DMing._




Actually, it is good gaming and good GMing to make it work. The game is to have fun. Telling people "don't come, you are dead" is no fun. Usually it isn't any fun for any of the members of a group, unless, of course, they all hate the guy who isn't coming (in which case, the question is why are you gaming with them).

Let me put it this way: I've played D&D for more than 25 years. I have never gamed with anyone who would think that what you are describing is "good gaming" or "good GMing". You are on your own in this regard.



> _The player technically has nothing invested in the game by using a new PC with given magic items, and the other players have no incentive to truly welcome a new PC the day before they fight the BBEG._




No, the _player_ likely has a lot invested, and by extension the character will too. A good player will come up with a reason for his character to be invested in the campaign, and a reason for other PCs to work with his new PC.



> _The DM owes players a good game. I played a game where the DM let the dice lay where they fell....my wizard pretty much, every session, got knocked out the first hour or had to use all my spells right away ( I think I was 10th level). So I'd spend the next three waiting to either be raised, or for the party to rest to get my spells back. It wasn't fun for me. I was savagely attacked verbally by one of the other players for not carrying my weight in a battle she initiated with chain devils. Devils that would hit me on a 2 up. And whose base damage would kill me. Why couldn't I carry my weight? Cause the DM didn't believe in altering his story to allow the players to rest, and he didn't cut any breaks so that characters like mine could contribute._




The problem with this example seems to be the _other players_, not the GM. If you are getting "savagely verbally attacked" perhaps the problem is the one doing the attacking, not the guy running the game. Then again, since the rest of the party didn't care enough to work with your character, the problem might not lie with them either.

And if your character requires cheating on the part of the GM to stay alive, then I'd say the problem could very well be your character. Not the GM.



> _If thats your idea of fun, so be it. This is simply a case where one has to agree to disagee, because no one will be able to sway anyone else's opinion. I like a game where the players make the story and are all able to participate._




Except that the players don't make the story. You do, because you are busy fudging the outcomes to get to the "right" one that you scripted in your head before the session started. Fudging the dice makes for a lousy game, no matter how you cut it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 5, 2006)

> ( I think I was 10th level). So I'd spend the next three waiting to either be raised, or for the party to rest to get my spells back. It wasn't fun for me. I was savagely attacked verbally by one of the other players for not carrying my weight in a battle she initiated with chain devils. Devils that would hit me on a 2 up. And whose base damage would kill me.




Your 10th level Wizard had 12 AC and < 14 HP? (Chain Devils are +10 to hit with two attacks for 2d4+2 damage )  At that point, my group of players would have been complaining about your character too.  Because they would think, perhaps mistakenly, that you could have only possibly made it that frail on purpose.


----------



## Kerune (Jul 5, 2006)

*thinking.....*



			
				Oryan77 said:
			
		

> If you don't like the way the DM drives, then you take the wheel if so many things DM's do annoy ya.  :\




I was starting to feel as you do. 

At first I was reading all this and laughing in agreement, then I realized all the complaints (while valid) can happen to any GOOD intentioned DM. It's hard to please everyone in the party and trust me, for every player who wants a TON of direction, there are those who want NO direction.

The same with rules, you change something to be fair and 1/2 the players like and the others hate. All these posts are valid and true, but a DM could put 100s of hours into a campaign and some of these issues might be come up.

Personally, this might be better as a thread designed to help DMs improve their games and watch for these issues.....rather than a "rag" festival.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

Keifer113 said:
			
		

> Han didn't have proton torpedoes on the Falcon to destroy the Death Star.




And Luke's X-wing couldn't take another pass form Vader's Tie fighter.  If Han & Chewie hadn't been there, the Deathstar wouldn't have been destroyed.



> The point is, when you've reached an endgame point, just having a PC pop in to take the place of a dead PC is a bit silly.




Depends on your definition of "endgame".  Having "random adventurer" wander in on the elemental plane of fire, far from the brass city, prepared to deal with the BBEG... is a bit difficult, but not impossible.  He could be the victim of a prismatic spray plane-shift.  Or a native of that plane (if he can take the level adjustment for that dwarf-like race on the fire plane), or another option which I have yet to think of.  Point is, it can be done without destroying the suspention of disbelief.



> Its bad gaming and bad DMing. The player technically has nothing invested in the game by using a new PC with given magic items, and the other players have no incentive to truly welcome a new PC the day before they fight the BBEG.




Does the phrase "We can use all the help we can get" mean nothing to you?



> So the player has to miss a few sessions. I've had running battles where the players simply would not have gotten a chance to rest and recruit....they were in it for the duration, win or die. Should every player then get to respawn until the heroes win? Nope. At the same time, would you as a player feel alright being excluded from a few sessions?




Respawning in mid-pitched battle: I can understand being against that.  You can take the duration of the battle to roll up a new character.  Pick out his gear, and shift around his skills.

But what kind of battle takes the entire duration of a game night?  I mean, typical gamers meet for, what, four hours a week? give or take.  I know there are lots out there with more frequent or less frequent games.  A normal sized adventuring party can run through even an especially difficult large-setpiece combat in about an hour... what kind of combat takes several sessions to complete?



> The DM owes players a good game.




I believe that the DM owes the players nothing more than his best effort to run the game fairly and make sure everyone has a chance to have fun.  Good games make themselves.  I've seen players rant and rave about a campaign set in a militaristic totalitarian regime wherein the players started out as fugitives who were running for their lives from the secret police.  I've Played in a game where there were two TPK's in the span of three weeks  It was just a module run, but i'll be danged if we didn't have fun!



> I played a game where the DM let the dice lay where they fell....my wizard pretty much, every session, got knocked out the first hour or had to use all my spells right away ( I think I was 10th level). So I'd spend the next three waiting to either be raised, or for the party to rest to get my spells back. It wasn't fun for me. I was savagely attacked verbally by one of the other players for not carrying my weight in a battle she initiated with chain devils. Devils that would hit me on a 2 up. And whose base damage would kill me. Why couldn't I carry my weight? Cause the DM didn't believe in altering his story to allow the players to rest, and he didn't cut any breaks so that characters like mine could contribute.




(shrug) sounds to me like that GM wasn't... what's the word i'm looking for... very good?  If you _had_ to be raised, because he wouldn't let you bring in a new character into the game, that was his fault.  If you really couldn't rest, because of... i don't know, all time in the universe stopping?  Also his fault. 

If you were so attached to the defective character (14 hp? seriously, that's a lousy con score), well, that's not a good thing either.

...

Actually, he sounds kinda familiar.  He wasn't partial to randomly applying templates to characters after their character creation, was he?  Did he have a mutation table?



> If thats your idea of fun, so be it. This is simply a case where one has to agree to disagee, because no one will be able to sway anyone else's opinion. I like a game where the players make the story and are all able to participate.




But, you're making your own point, against yourself.  You are arguing in favor of not introducing new characters.  You then provide us with an example of one weak character you were playing, who apparently had very low hp and, instead of letting him stay dead, you waited for resurection and took the negative level (several times from my impression of your article), and how much YOU disliked it.  How is telling a player "go home, you're dead" conductive towards letting the players make their own story?


----------



## IcyCool (Jul 5, 2006)

I'd would like to point out that the Han Solo and Chewy example is flawed, in that they are 'already PCs'.  However, the point the example was trying to make is still valid in my opinion.  So you are in the middle of a vast battle, if it really is an issue to introduce a new character, is there a reason the player can't run a monster or NPC?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Except that the players don't make the story. You do, because you are busy fudging the outcomes to get to the "right" one that you scripted in your head before the session started.




Ascribing motives to people is easy, actually debating appears to be difficult.  Strange, isn't it?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Fudging the dice makes for a lousy game, no matter how you cut it.




That bit is a matter of opinion, of course.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 5, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> But what kind of battle takes the entire duration of a game night?  I mean, typical gamers meet for, what, four hours a week? give or take.  I know there are lots out there with more frequent or less frequent games.  A normal sized adventuring party can run through even an especially difficult large-setpiece combat in about an hour... what kind of combat takes several sessions to complete?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have played a lot of game session where combat lasted more than an hour I saw one combat last the entire game session of five hours. Now granted that was a party of 6 against a group of 15 trained soldiers. 

And this has been with different groups. Comnat is one of the most time consuming aspects of the game.

I am of the school that I like a DM to sometimes fudge I have never seen a TPK come out okay in all the years I have been playing what I have seen is the game come to a screeching halt.

While I do think death has a part in the game as a DM I do fudge dice if the players have done nothing stupid and they are just have bad luck with the dice. and my players know I will do this and they are glad that I do it.  Not one of them would want to play with a DM who rolled out in the open. They don't want the character they have put so much work into to just die because of bad rolling.

As for your comment about his subpar character because he had a lousy con makes no sense to me. Come on do you believe that only characters with + to con should play because anything else say like a 10 makes the character defective?


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I'd would like to point out that the Han Solo and Chewy example is flawed, in that they are 'already PCs'.  However, the point the example was trying to make is still valid in my opinion.  So you are in the middle of a vast battle, if it really is an issue to introduce a new character, is there a reason the player can't run a monster or NPC?




But they were "allready PC's" who voluntarily left before the big final battle began.  Remember? they took their reward and were headed out?



			
				Star Wars IV: A New Hope said:
			
		

> INTERIOR: MASSASSI OUTPOST -- MAIN HANGAR DECK.
> 
> Luke, Threepio and little Artoo enter the huge spaceship
> hangar and hurry along a long line of gleaming spacefighters.
> ...


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 5, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> As for your comment about his subpar character because he had a lousy con makes no sense to me. Come on do you believe that only characters with + to con should play because anything else say like a 10 makes the character defective?




14 HP at level 10 is abominably and inexcusably low.  Especially with AC 12.  That character would lose to a CR 1 Orc Barbarian if it lost initiative.  Every time.  You have to be trying to make a character that will die to have a character which is that weak.


----------



## Agent Oracle (Jul 5, 2006)

No *elf witch*, i've seen great characters with negative con modifiers.  My longest-running mystic theurge only had a 8 con at chargen, but it was slowly fixed over eight levels.  However, when I was running him, I allways, and I mean allways, made sure I put EVERYTHING into keeping my fellow players and I alive.  I sucked up the spell failure check and wore some armor.  I cast long-duration spells that provided AC boosts and HP boosts.  I spent EXP to make myself wonderous items that improved my AC.  Many, many things to keep myself alive.  I stayed back, but allways contributed to the party, either by spells or by crossbow.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 5, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> No *elf witch*, i've seen great characters with negative con modifiers.  My longest-running mystic theurge only had a 8 con at chargen, but it was slowly fixed over eight levels.  However, when I was running him, I allways, and I mean allways, made sure I put EVERYTHING into keeping my fellow players and I alive.  I sucked up the spell failure check and wore some armor.  I cast long-duration spells that provided AC boosts and HP boosts.  I spent EXP to make myself wonderous items that improved my AC.  Many, many things to keep myself alive.  I stayed back, but allways contributed to the party, either by spells or by crossbow.





Thank for explaining that because thst is not how it sounded. 

I have been in Keifer shoes or similar shoes before. I played a fighter and I did not have a magic weapon. We ended up in a battle with a white dragon. The only way I could save against its breath damage was to roll a natural 20 I did not have evasion like the monk and the rogue or a weapon like the paladin who could actually get through the dragon's damage resistance.  After two rounds I had lost more than 3/4 of my hit points another round of that kind of damage and my character would have been dead. So I broke off and ran and hide. It kind of pissed off the other players.

Keifer did not go into detail about how his character was bulit or just how the DM built the chain demon he did say he was out of spells and most wizards are of no use once they run out of spells. I am not sure what a spellless wizard could have done other than hide and run and try and help other pCs if they went down. He could have fired a crossbow into melee.

I have played in games as a mage who as run out of spells and it is not fun if the party gets into another combat.


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 5, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> 14 HP at level 10 is abominably and inexcusably low.  Especially with AC 12.  That character would lose to a CR 1 Orc Barbarian if it lost initiative.  Every time.  You have to be trying to make a character that will die to have a character which is that weak.




I did not read it that his 10 level wizard only had a total of 14 HP. The way I read it was that he was only at 14 HP when the encounter happened that and he was out of spells.

If he was out of spells then I would assume that he had been hit and taken damage in another encounter.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Jul 5, 2006)

Elf Witch said:
			
		

> I did not read it that his 10 level wizard only had a total of 14 HP. The way I read it was that he was only at 14 HP when the encounter happened that and he was out of spells.
> 
> If he was out of spells then I would assume that he had been hit and taken damage in another encounter.



 While, it's impossible to tell from what we have, the comment "whose base damage would kill me" was not enough for me to assume that the Wizard was already damaged.  Of course, if he was already damaged and nobody healed him, that was the healer's fault (or everyone's fault combined if they had no healer or healing items).  If there wasn't enough time for that after the last fight, well, then his buffs from the last fight would still be up, so he shouldn't still have 12 AC (and that is also presuming quite a bit that we weren't told).


----------



## Elf Witch (Jul 5, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> While, it's impossible to tell from what we have, the comment "whose base damage would kill me" was not enough for me to assume that the Wizard was already damaged.  Of course, if he was already damaged and nobody healed him, that was the healer's fault (or everyone's fault combined if they had no healer or healing items).  If there wasn't enough time for that after the last fight, well, then his buffs from the last fight would still be up, so he shouldn't still have 12 AC (and that is also presuming quite a bit that we weren't told).





That's true it was kind of hard to know because he did not give enough infomation. I have played a sorcerer in one game where we were in a dungeon and we had no sleep and series of running battles. We were all hurt our healing was gone for the day, the buff spells had run out and I was out of spells. And we were still ending up in combat situations.

Now this situation was of our making.  In the end we would have faced a TPK but my character prayed for help from the god she worshiped and the DM rolled 2 on 100 side die and we got divine intervention. In his game any one could call on the gods they worshipped for help but the gods only answered on a 1 or 2 on 100 side. And he rolled this out in the open.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jul 5, 2006)

I occassionally run battles that will last 2-3 gaming sessions.

The Siege of Vak Cinter is such an example.

During the game, 2 sessions in, while the PC's side had managed to take the first two hundred meters of beach, one of the PC's was killed. Yes, this was temporary, as the PC's had access to ressurection, but it's not exactly viable on a battlefield where aireal mounts are duking it out, infantry is slugging it out against prepared positions, uphill, and into magical artillery and mundane artillery.

So, the player took control of an equivelant level character. A unit commander leading his fresh troops off of one of the troop transport creatures and onto the  beach. She had to not only keep this character alive, but lead the troops to obtaining thier objective, which was climbing the cliff walls to knock out the catapults. While not a PC, this "promoted NPC" was critical to making successful landfall for the ships, which were getting pounded by the artillery.

Not completely unfeasable.

And bad GMing on my part?

Hell no. Bad GMing on my part would be telling her: "Sorry, but you just get to sit this out and watch everyone. You don't get to take part and be a hero."

Even if it's taking over Generic NPC Fighter #352, the player deserves to be in on the action, even if (s)he only gets to play Summoned Cannon Fodder #197, they still deserve to be part of the fight.


----------



## Voadam (Jul 5, 2006)

shilsen said:
			
		

> On that note, I'm curious whether the following would grind your gears. Anyone else please feel free to answer too.
> 
> IMC, I don't award XP based on CR or any other in-game challenges. Instead, I just provide a flat XP award per session (usually about 1000 XP) to keep PCs advancing at a speed I'm comfortable with. That works out to about as many sessions to make the next level as your current level. PCs get the XP if the entire session was spent without a single die being rolled, if they had three fights or killed a huge dragon, if the player was absent from the game and I NPCed him, etc. Hence, I don't usually tell players how much XP their PCs have, though I do have a running total at all times, so I can let them know if asked. I generally just say, "Okay, you guys level up," and we go with that, and sometimes let them know a couple sessions in advance. It's worked very well for the group and I frankly don't think I'll ever use any other method of progression. In fact, if it weren't for the fact that I have people crafting items and doing other things that cost XP in the game, I would have dropped XP altogether.
> 
> So, how much would that bug you?




For me not at all.

I'd love to adopt a similar rule for my games but I run them on pbp and in a yahoo group online for the most part so "one session" is not so easy to use as a measurement.

I gave up xp costs for crafting and turned xp into gp components for xp spells with no problems. Consider it if you want to ditch xp alltogether.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Aug 7, 2006)

LordBOB said:
			
		

> AHHH it makes me scream!  You would think that with 4 Monster Manuels the DM could find some new FUC**** monsters to throw at us.
> 
> IM TIRED OF THE UNDEAD...... GIVE US SOMETHING ELSE!!!!




I'll cut a DM some slack on this one.  Mindless Undead and Constructs fill a nice little niche as guardians of lost/forgotten ruins.  When a DM creates said ruins he has to worry about creating a believable ecology in the ruins and the motivations of the monsters unless he/she uses Undead or Constructs.  For example, if I put a Troll in an abandoned ruin I'd have to think of the following...
1) Trolls are described as always hungry... why would they hang out in an abandoned ruin without a ready and plentiful food supply.
2) Trolls are semi intelligent and thus can also get bored... why would they hang around if nothing ever happens.

As a DM I'll use Undead due to those situations because neither apply to mindless undead.  There are also Undead that are relatively easy for low level adventuring parties to fight whereas I am not aware of any golems or constructs that would be suitable for a 1st level party to fight.


----------



## vulcan_idic (Aug 7, 2006)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> DMPCs.  If the party needs a short-duration NPC to assist the party, or as a story hook, fine -- but not a permanent NPC who gains experience alongside the party and is run by the DM as a PC (especially when said PC becomes omniscient and more capable than the party).  Either play or DM, but don't try to do both at the same time.




I don't mind this one so much...  but then in my "home campaign" it's me and a married couple, so three people including the DM, and we all have a very nearly identical vision of what we want out of the game so those factors I think tend to mitigate that difficulty.  The DM's character, and we do rotate occassionally although the husband of the couple has done most of it historically and the DMPCs never seem to be anything more or less then ours - we're all characters exploring the story together.

What annoys me about DMs that I've run into gaming away from my home group, which I've done a lot since joining the military, are things that are not generally a huge problem but annoying things that wear on one after having them constantly used to the point where you can predict something of the sort will happen - once in a while would be OK and interesting, constant is annoying, not fun, and makes me feel like a pawn.  Basically it's a DM who wants "real party character interaction" and "good roleplaying" - as defined as intraparty conflict - so much that if it doesn't occur, or occur enough, on it's own they will manipulted characters and/or players into creating such situations.  One particular, and rather cynical, DM I played with liked to do this by having powerful forces interact regularly with the party in such a way that the characters were regularly backed into corners where the only solution was some sort of faustian bargain which ended up putting them at odds with the rest of the group, to the point where it seemed, and I may have actually heard him say it as such at one point, that the game was not so much with the characters and plotline and dice but the players and how long they could resist "selling out".  Like I said - not a bad plotline once in a while, kind of fun and interesting, but when it becomes a constant predictable thing and you always feel manipulated when you play their game - if only because any interaction you have you never know if it's innocent or another manipulation - it becomes very annoying and tiresome.


----------



## GQuail (Aug 7, 2006)

Calico_Jack73 said:
			
		

> I'll cut a DM some slack on this one.  Mindless Undead and Constructs fill a nice little niche as guardians of lost/forgotten ruins.  When a DM creates said ruins he has to worry about creating a believable ecology in the ruins and the motivations of the monsters unless he/she uses Undead or Constructs.  For example, if I put a Troll in an abandoned ruin I'd have to think of the following...
> 1) Trolls are described as always hungry... why would they hang out in an abandoned ruin without a ready and plentiful food supply.
> 2) Trolls are semi intelligent and thus can also get bored... why would they hang around if nothing ever happens.
> 
> As a DM I'll use Undead due to those situations because neither apply to mindless undead.  There are also Undead that are relatively easy for low level adventuring parties to fight whereas I am not aware of any golems or constructs that would be suitable for a 1st level party to fight.




My players have accused me often of this: to the point where a player specifically took a anti-Undead PrC and another took the chance of a new PC to make a Dread Necromancer, since they figured Undead come up enough that it was a safe bet.    However, my reasons for using them are much as you say: they're just relatively innocuous to insert into any dungeon, and don't require the logistics that a Troll, Kobold, Manticore or whatever needs to exist in the cave system/abandoned ruins/etc in question.  The skeletons, ghouls or whatever can just be there: and best of all, there's rarely an ethical quandary.  "Oh, no, we can't hit the mummies without talking to them, they're only USUALLY lawful evil" is rarely heard.  ;-)  

As you get higher in level, though, other monsters become open to fill this slot.  Constructs are one, and some outsiders, oozes and elementals don't require too much thought either.  But as long as you're doing a relatively small dungeon crawl or something which has genuinely been untouched for a long time, Undead are just so much easier.  ;-)


----------



## shilsen (Aug 7, 2006)

Warlord Ralts said:
			
		

> I occassionally run battles that will last 2-3 gaming sessions.
> 
> The Siege of Vak Cinter is such an example.
> 
> ...



 Agreed completely. What can also be entertaining, in fights where there are no NPC allies and one of the PCs is taken out of the fight (through death or otherwise), is to have the player run one of the enemy NPCs or at least roll the dice for their attacks. 

I've had situations like that, e.g. where 2 out of a group of 4 PCs got involved in a gladiatoral combat against 2 enemies. I had the players whose PCs were cheering from the sidelines rolling for the NPCs. First time I had players going, "Please, God! Let me roll a 1!" and then swearing and apologizing profusely to the other player when she rolled a crit on her PC. Not only is it a good way to keep other players involved in the game but it also means that for once, I'm not being the one told "You bastard!"


----------



## The_Gneech (Aug 7, 2006)

GQuail said:
			
		

> My players have accused me often of this: to the point where a player specifically took a anti-Undead PrC and another took the chance of a new PC to make a Dread Necromancer, since they figured Undead come up enough that it was a safe bet.    However, my reasons for using them are much as you say: they're just relatively innocuous to insert into any dungeon, and don't require the logistics that a Troll, Kobold, Manticore or whatever needs to exist in the cave system/abandoned ruins/etc in question.  The skeletons, ghouls or whatever can just be there: and best of all, there's rarely an ethical quandary.  "Oh, no, we can't hit the mummies without talking to them, they're only USUALLY lawful evil" is rarely heard.  ;-)
> 
> As you get higher in level, though, other monsters become open to fill this slot.  Constructs are one, and some outsiders, oozes and elementals don't require too much thought either.  But as long as you're doing a relatively small dungeon crawl or something which has genuinely been untouched for a long time, Undead are just so much easier.  ;-)




That's all well and good, but you need to think about the effects that'll have on party mechanics. Rogues get the shaft, level drains are just a failed save away, etc. Plus, well, a steady diet of any one type of monster can get pretty darn dull!

-The Gneech


----------



## GQuail (Aug 7, 2006)

The_Gneech said:
			
		

> That's all well and good, but you need to think about the effects that'll have on party mechanics. Rogues get the shaft, level drains are just a failed save away, etc. Plus, well, a steady diet of any one type of monster can get pretty darn dull!




The last point, more than the game balance reason, is why I gave them a city-based crime fighting interlude.  Frankly, endless necromantic hordes will get boring, just like Mind Flayer #12 or the fifteenth Drow cult in a row will drive many players to distraction.

However, they are back in a dungeon after a month or two absence, and the Rogue has kept himself busy disarming traps whilst the half-dragon gained two negative levels fighting a spectre.  ;-)


----------



## Drowbane (Aug 8, 2006)

Agent Oracle said:
			
		

> Yeah, but Undead should be kept within reason.  I mean, Zombies don't just wander the countryside aimlessly.  Now, if there was a Necromancer who was assembling a patrol of zombies in the area around a unholy altar... that I could understand!  Double points of the encounters aren't just random, and the players begin noticing ones they put down last time are in the fray again...




Agreed, I avoid random undead, unless there is a SL (storyline, not Scarred Lands ) reason for them.


----------



## MojoGM (Oct 26, 2006)

Thread, I ressurect thee from the Dark Abyss!!!!

Seriously, interesting stuff here.  As a DM myself, this thread gives me a lot of things to watch out for.  Not that I agree with it all, mind you, but just being conscious of what your typical "tricks" are as a DM and making sure that you don't overuse anything makes you a better DM in the end...


----------



## Nine Hands (Oct 26, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Why is this bad?  I actually have several PbP games that all take place in a shared setting, and so there are a decent number of NPCs that were encountered in two or even three games.  I find it adds verisimilitude.




I totally agree, I have three PBEM games two of which are basically running on the same planet and around the same time, while the other is in the near future and I've had one NPC appear in all three games, the first as a cameo appearance (she was in the city at the time and it was highly appropriate), the second she is a major NPC (being the commanding officer of the maintenance group assigned to the PCs squadron), and the Captain of the starship that the player's started from (they stole a starship and her personal mecha, just to screw with her).

When used in the right way, this adds versa...verisum...verses...whatever Rystil said


----------



## The Thayan Menace (Oct 26, 2006)

*Threadcromancer!*



			
				MojoGM said:
			
		

> Thread, I ressurect thee from the Dark Abyss!!!!









"Experience the _true nature_ of the Force ...."​


-Darth Asad is Sithcore!
​


----------



## math (Oct 26, 2006)

> Originally Posted by *Storm Raven*
> _Except that the players don't make the story. You do, because you are busy fudging the outcomes to get to the "right" one that you scripted in your head before the session started. Fudging the dice makes for a lousy game, no matter how you cut it._




It seems every campaign has some kind of "fudging" when it comes to character death.  For you it is jumping in right where you left off with a character of comparable level so you can stay in the action.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Oct 26, 2006)

math said:
			
		

> It seems every campaign has some kind of "fudging" when it comes to character death.



No.


----------

