Bad DM'GM'ing

N0Man

First Post
So... a continuation of the last story (and campaign), but on a different style and method of bad DM'ing...

So, we're hired and railroaded into frontier jungles with my gimp Social-urban bard, but I stick with it. We have a job to try to capture some baby lizard there and bring it back, then I'll be back in town. No problem.

It turns out by baby lizard, it really means baby green dragon being protected by it's mother.

We're away from civilization, I'm feeling worthless. No humanoid NPCs anywhere. So after several absurd adventures (stories in themselves), we finally run across our first encounter with humanoids, where I feel I might be useful. We're surrounded by Drow and Driders. I declare that I'm trying to bluff, roleplay and say what my bluff is, and roll a check. I rolled well. He ignores the check and says, "one of them clubs you on the back of the head before you can speak, so your bluff never was heard." Everyone is knocked out instantly, no fight, no chance to respond, no Save... except one player, who he favored, who let have a minor fight scene first then lost.

Now, what happens next is the absolute worst thing I've ever experienced in an RPG...

My socially skilled bard, who has been stranded outside of civilization for months now, who just now got a chance to use social skills and was denied them, wakes up in a prison cell.... with his lips sewed shut.

The monk wakes up there too, with his Achilles heels sliced.

The super high charisma, beautiful, dancing moon elf second bard in our party wakes up with her eye cut out and a gash across her face.

The War Mage had her hand cut off, and sewed back on, unusable, dead, and necrotizing.

The favored player was given a job there and was living comfortably elsewhere...

It turns out, that this npc who sent us on this job, apparently spends large sums of money paying to traffic adventurers to another continent under the pretense of a job, captures them in the jungle, cripples them (and knows all their strengths) and then puts them chained together to fight to the death with other people just like them... who apparently go along with it for some unknown reason.

We came up with an escape plan that was almost entirely thwarted when we discovered that the BBEG (who hired us to come here) there was a half-giant, half drow psionist, who presented himself under an illusion when we first met, and who apparently knew where everyone was at any time.

We eventually got away, ran into some cavern and were given a description like, "you run into this large open cavern. On the cavern floor are pools of bubbling, smoking, green liquid that is giving off a hissing sound... You all continue running into the cavern, and into the pools of acid...." 3 players yelled at once, "Wait, no we don't!"

Words cannot describe what an awful campaign this was... I really liked a lot of the other players in the campaign, but the DM was the worst I've ever seen. Railroading, power tripping, sadistic, singled out 1 or 2 characters to favor, didn't know the rules very well, came up with the most ludicrous and unbelievable plots you could imagine... I eventually just walked out mid-game in one session, my only time ever doing that in D&D, especially among friends...
 

log in or register to remove this ad

delericho

Legend
My character concept was a detective type character, strong in social and investigative situations, weak in combat, with some utility, with some sneakiness, bluffing, and being a bit of a trickster.

Okay... for the most part, given the importance of combat in D&D, I get worried whenever I hear a character concept that reads "weak in combat". It can work, but often doesn't. Still, it's a fine concept.

I had so much trouble making it, and he was absolutely inflexible in allowing me to houserule very minor things that were NOT overpowered at all. I considered a character with levels in Wizard (Specialist: Diviner) , but that opposes Illusion and I wanted to be a trickster.

Firstly, what version of the rules was this? I'm assuming 3.5e, since there are no specialist Wizards in 4e (as such - they would be separate classes), and Eberron didn't exist prior to 3.5e.

Anyway, two things:

1) Divination does not oppose Illusion in 3.5e. That's a 2nd Edition rule that was eliminated in the switch. So, no house rules needed.

2) Why not play a non-specialist Wizard if the DM is going to enforce that non-rule?

So, I gave up trying that, but asked him if I could at least trade one of my normal skills (I offered a list of the ones I'd be willing to drop) to have Search as non-Cross Class. He outright refused, unless I gave up both Use Magic Item and another skill that wasn't on my list, that was part of the concept...

Agreeing to give up some class skills for others doesn't really work. "Here, I'll trade some stuff I didn't want anyway for something I do want!"

That said, Search is hardly an overpowered option. Still, your DM was well within his remit to refuse the request.

Then, after all this going back and forth, as he tried to make me even weaker in non-urban settings than I already was... our first session had him railroad us within 20 minutes out of the biggest city on the planet, to a frontier continent with little population, bumbling around in the jungle...

And when I commented about he just completely screwed me in all this... he just laughed... he laughed very hard.

... and that would be where I would pack up and walk out.

He was within the rules, within his rights, but it was knowingly making a character give up all the things that make him useful outside an urban setting, then taking him out of an urban setting so he's dead weight for the rest of the campaign... and gloating over it...

He was within the rules, yes, but he wasn't within his rights. Basically, the railroad was unacceptable ("My character doesn't go. He's useless outside the city."), and the gloating was totally unacceptable. Forget the context of an RPG - that's just unacceptable behaviour amongst friends, period.

We're surrounded by Drow and Driders. I declare that I'm trying to bluff, roleplay and say what my bluff is, and roll a check. I rolled well. He ignores the check and says, "one of them clubs you on the back of the head before you can speak, so your bluff never was heard." Everyone is knocked out instantly, no fight, no chance to respond, no Save... except one player, who he favored, who let have a minor fight scene first then lost.

Oh good, a lack of understanding of the rules, coupled with blatant favouritism! I commend him on his efficiency.

My socially skilled bard, who has been stranded outside of civilization for months now, who just now got a chance to use social skills and was denied them, wakes up in a prison cell.... with his lips sewed shut.

The monk wakes up there too, with his Achilles heels sliced.

The super high charisma, beautiful, dancing moon elf second bard in our party wakes up with her eye cut out and a gash across her face.

The War Mage had her hand cut off, and sewed back on, unusable, dead, and necrotizing.

And, again, a basic failure. D&D does not have specific and permanent injuries (with a very small number of exceptions), and with very good reason. Basically, any of those injuries render the character essentially (and permanently) unplayable.

If I hadn't already walked out because of the gloating, I would definitely be gone now. If I had somehow gone insane, and decided to stay anyway, I absolutely would be abandonning the character and bringing in a new one. The DM cannot make you continue to play a character you don't want to play - at the very least you can always leave.

We eventually got away, ran into some cavern and were given a description like, "you run into this large open cavern. On the cavern floor are pools of bubbling, smoking, green liquid that is giving off a hissing sound... You all continue running into the cavern, and into the pools of acid...." 3 players yelled at once, "Wait, no we don't!"

What? Surely your response should have been, "yes, we do! Ah, the sweet release of death!".

What I don't get is why you continued with the campaign so long. If the DM can't even get through character creation without problems showing up, there should have been doubts. If the DM immediately starts with the railroading, then that should be a big red flag. But the moment the gloating started, that should have been the end. Was he paying you large sums of money to play in his campaign?
 

Picking an experience with a bad DM is easy...
. . .
he was absolutely inflexible in allowing me to houserule very minor things that were NOT overpowered at all. I considered a character with levels in Wizard (Specialist: Diviner) , but that opposes Illusion and I wanted to be a trickster. He flat out refused to allow me to choose to oppose other schools instead (I offered giving up both Evocation and Necromancy), but no luck. I think he wanted me to give up 3 schools in exchange for it (which by the rules, Diviners usually only give up 1, I offered 2, and it's already the weakest specialization already)>
. . .
again, he was unwilling to allow me to give up anything (even more powerful options) to allow me to use those spells as a bard just because I wanted them to fit the concept better.
. . .
So eventually, I started a character, with only a slight resemblance towards my concept, maxed out for urban and social encounters as much as I could make it.

Then, after all this going back and forth, as he tried to make me even weaker in non-urban settings than I already was... our first session had him railroad us within 20 minutes out of the biggest city on the planet, to a frontier continent with little population, bumbling around in the jungle...

And when I commented about he just completely screwed me in all this... he just laughed.


I think there are broader lessons here.
-- You wanted to min-max a customized build to be stronger in the campaign. He wanted you to play more or less RAW. Instead of just telling you to make a balanced RAW character, so you knew what sort of campaign it was and could decide to take it or leave it, he negotiated with you, which unsurprisingly led to a hostile and disrespectful attitude between the two of you. In my view, he should have had the confidence to just lay down the law and act as referee, instead of as opposing council.
Edit: Of course, from the second post, it turns out he was just a sadistic jerk and your character was irrelevant to his game of mutilation and unlawful imprisonment, but my comments would apply between normal people. BTW, definitely don't hang out with this psycho in real life!

-- He switched the campaign concept/location from what you expected. This can be fine with some players (I've certainly enjoyed getting shaken up into the completely unexpected on occasion, it's supposed to be an ADVENTURE game after all), it's not fine for you.
Edit: From the second post, it seems like there wasn't any adventure to it at all . . .

-- He laughed at you when you complained. There's really no excuse for rudeness from anyone. But I think a DM should have a higher standard -- they should think of themselves as a teacher or judge, and have some decorum from behind the screen, IMHO.
Edit: This one stands, and it should have been a clue to both you as the player and me as the reader that there was something wrong with this DM, but alas, you had to ride the trainwreck to its sorry end . . .
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Hero
Words cannot describe what an awful campaign this was... I really liked a lot of the other players in the campaign, but the DM was the worst I've ever seen. Railroading, power tripping, sadistic, singled out 1 or 2 characters to favor, didn't know the rules very well, came up with the most ludicrous and unbelievable plots you could imagine... I eventually just walked out mid-game in one session, my only time ever doing that in D&D, especially among friends...

Wow. That belongs on Oprah.
 

Remove ads

Top