D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

lowkey13 said:

So, looking back at this thread, I'm noticing a certain ... trend. Which I tried to illustrate by adding emphasis to certain words in that quote.

Let's take two classic examples of the extreme ends of running a game. The meatgrinder, and the Monty Haul campaign.

In the meatgrinder, deaths happen frequently. Players are assumed to have backup PCs ready to roll into the campaign. Difficulty is set insanely high, and survival is not only not assured, but often unlikely.

In the Monty Haul campaign, it's not a question of survival; it's a question of how much more awesome can you PC be? How much more treasure, how much more magic, how much power can the PC (with, ahem, the DM's assistance) acquire?

Both of those serve different needs, and both can be fun. But they tickle different parts of the brain. People that are very attached to particular characters probably won't enjoy a meatgrinder (because they won't know which character will make it), and people that enjoy challenges won't enjoy a Monty Haul campaign.

TBH, you are extrapolating your particular views as to what is, and isn't, appropriate gaming to a universal view as to what is and isn't appropriate for DMs in general. There seems o be some element of an adversarial view - and perhaps you've had an adversarial DM in the past (in which case, I'm sorry, that's terrible). But that's not how all table work.

For example, some tables prefer a series of challenges (combats) that are carefully calibrated to the abilities of the party.

Other tables prefer more free-form, open world, campaigns, where the party chooses whether to engage in combat. But they don't have the safety net of knowing with certainty that the world has been set up to their level.

There is no right, or wrong, in this. Different tables are run differently. When I run intro tables for kids, I calibrate all combats to "easy/medium" status, because I want it to be fun! OTOH, when I'm running for grognards, they know that the combats aren't calibrated, and they have to choose when to hold 'em, when to fold 'em, when to walk away, and when to run. Because that's how they like to play.

They key is that the expectations of the players are met. To the extent that it's a new table, it should be session 0. If the DM is planning on running an OSR-style meatgrinder, and the players are expecting heroic fantasy, then everyone will be unhappy. But this isn't an issue of blame, or fault, so much as it is an issue of communication.

Click to expand...

So, I read this a couple of times and realized there is a defiant disconnect between my intent and the message you are getting from my posts. With my long wordy style it is likely that I am not clear. So...I will try to clarify as briefly as I can. Hopefully my words don't get in the way.

While I have had some bad experiences form GMs I have had good experiences from the same GMs the bold words I used were to push a point using in part wording others used. The real discussion as I see it has 3 parts.

1. The GM has full control over the world and the evens that happen in it. As such the GM bears responsibility for the word and the players perception of it. So in away if a dragon/Trap/Cliff TPKs a group the GM killed them.

2. Free agency or Free will of players is an important part of GMing which makes the difference between telling a story and playing a game. (your argument mainly as I see it) However, The GM must be mind full that while the players should be allowed to control themselves and face the consequence of those actions players perception of their own agency is often seen through a narrow window of what they perceive through details passed of a much greater reality in the GMs mind. As such the GM takes on some responsibility of player agency in the fact that players are often "stumbling in the dark" making judgements on a small bits of information when larger options "exist" in the GMs mind. This sometimes results in the GM see the players has having made a choice when players feel like they only have one option based on "indirect guidance" from how they interpret the GM's dictation of the world thought that window. This can be both unseen by players and GM's since interpretations may at times very even when both can repeat it back word for word so they appear to be on the same page. GM's don't just build the world, they see the world, they control the world and players see a cheep copy the re-make based on their interpretation of it. So Free agency is significantly colored by the "indirect guidance" provides which is created by this separation of what they are given in diction by the GM. (My argument, also frequent in the forums just a point of story telling and interpretation of posts)

3. GM's don't just build the world they are a guiding hand and a story teller. My side of free agency in discussion point 2 is about passive misconception. However, GMs drive players both passively and actively weather they want to or not. So my 3rd point is that players rely on active story telling from the GM. This is not a misconception it just a fact that if you started a game with "Okay what do you do?" without background players would be very confused and much, if not all the work a GM does is gear to end. The GM sets the stage, the GM sets up story hooks, the GM creats the NPCs/villians/monsters, and provides it to the players. This is not to say Players can't be given free agency to ignore all the GM pre-made hooks and go do something else but when players do that what a GM does (like it or not) is create new story hooks on the spot. Now most hooks lead to some level of danger. Some are dead ends and players need to find something else when it is done. Some are tapered by the GM to lead back to old ones the GM had already created. What can happen thought is that the GM makes many hooks, some leading to deadly encounters and sometimes the players take that story hook and run right down the line way faster than intended and end up fighting bosses the GM expected them to fight at level 8 at level 5. At that point the enemies are too powerful and despite good planning the GM has to adjust the enemies or TPK the group. (I had this explained to me during a campaign where that exact thing happened with my first GM, because he allowed free agency.) We made an accidental B-line strait through secret doors and traps right to the end bosses by accident... The GM was shocked but altered the enemies so we had a chance to win instead of TPKing the group. That way we still had a chance to continue... Other GMs did the same and told me it was our fault for finding the secret door he made and running into enemies we were not ready to fight (From my view that GM TPK'd group since we were following his hook to his goal for us and because of our free agency we did better than expected ... and died for it).

My point that "Only GMs ever TPK groups." is that because players only control themselves, short of player vs player or group suicide, the GM has some part of leading the group to a TPK. While one player can easily kill their own character (as long as the GM doesn't save them from themselves) with a bad mistake and/or role, if the whole group is having fun and doesn't want to end their campaign it is highly unlikely for them to make a group decision to all die or to make individual decisions to die back to back unless they were lead there by the GM ether by subtle indirect guidance, drawing a story hook to a natural high point, or simply because the players see their characters in a place within the GMs world where that action is the only thing that makes since to them and it would destroy their immersion and enjoyment of the world to do anything else. If the GM set it up as a heroic moment for them to all die together as a level 20 ... sure. If it happens earlier and it was not intended by the GM to be a campaign killing moment, that's when a GM needs to stop and say "oops" I need to alter this a little on the fly so that their is an option which lets at least one of them live so the story can continue. If the players are provided a way out of a mechanical/story corner that does not break immersion they will likely take it proving that given free agency that is not where they would or wanted to go. They felt compelled by GM design. If they don't change course then the TPK was the players choice and if the campaigns ends it will be on and a credit to the GM for have written a satisfying ending which should be a goal of every GM. If the story feels unfinished maybe the next campaign is in the same setting following group of heroes inspired by fallen heroes sacrifice.

*Deleted by user*

ClaytonCross said:

If your point is that I give a bad examples . . . But I really was not trying to focus on the finer points as to whether a forest is a good place to hide from a dragon or not.

Click to expand...

Well, it was more my point than [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]'s. And I was just pushing back against a finer point that you were arguing. You had suggested a dragon's speed makes it impossible to outrun. It wasn't even that which I was pushing back against.

I was just trying to imply that a whiteroom comparison of speeds is useless.

And whether you'd picked woodlands, dessert (yum!), plains, tundra or wherever as the environment for the chase, I'd have pointed mentioned relevant terrain features to help me illustrate that.


(Now, if you didn't want to discuss some finer point like this, I didn't realize that. It was kind of hard to tell, given that this finer point was how you introduced a lengthy post - the one I had originally replied to.)

lowkey13 said:

I did read your posts, and I'm pretty sure I understood it, I just disagree with you. What I think you are doing is you are advocating for your playstyle (which is fine and good!) but then are generalizing that to say that this is universal to all play (which isn't good, as that gets into that whole #badwrongfun area). I tried to address that in my last post by analogy, but I will make it more explicitly clear.

There are players that would appreciate having the DM put their thumbs on the scales in the example you gave (secret doors, B-line, etc.) in order to ensure that the players could win. And that's fine! But, trust me on this- there are players that would hate that. Because there are some players (I would be one of them, when I play) that don't want the DM to put their thumb on the scale, and find the DM helping in that way to be really annoying. Not to get overly complicated, but what's the point in doing anything (IMO, and MO only) if no matter what I do, the DM is just going to change every combat to make it winnable?

That's what I was talking about earlier. Some people really enjoy having D&D be a series of combats that are set up to be "winnable," in the classic, heroic fantasy sense. Other people don't. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Where it gets problematic, for me, is when you begin to ascribe blame to the DM only; I mean, I could start by saying that a TPK is fairly hard in 5e. Especially past the swingy levels (1-3). But from my point of view, when the campaign is set to be just a series of winnable combats, it effects everything, including the choice of spells, the tactics, and the entire outlook of the adventuring party. Put another way, the game runs very differently when players know that not everything is pre-ordained to be yet another in a series of winnable combat encounters.

But there's nothing wrong with your point of view, or the way you enjoy playing the game. My only issue is that you are taking what you enjoy, and attempting to make it into a universal statement of the game for everyone else. Even moreso, it irks me a little (just a little!) because I can assure you that I have, as a player, had TPKs happen ... and those are some of my favorite stories. And believe me on this- the DM didn't TPK the party. I find that approach for my games difficult to understand, because then it becomes a weird sort of, "If I succeed, it's because I'm awesome, and if I fail, it's the DM's fault." I don't want to have that approach to the game.

Click to expand...

... So I am going to reply, largely because what your saying is part of what I keep hearing that pushed me into writing this post... I see you said you read my posts but you still right around my points so by your replies the does not SEEM possible. I believe you read it. What I believe is you are reading if for support of your argument against it and ... well that's normal an to be expected. It is really hard to show someone what you see in words if 1. The don't want to see it and 2. if they are looking for something else based on what they believe. I am aware that works both ways so I am trying ... really trying to hear you and hope that one of us gets through but I also recognize this maybe an exercise in futility. That said...

I understand what your saying but I NEVER said all fights should be or that I want all fights to be beatable. That was one example. ONE. What is driving me crazy is you keep keying in on things like that am missing/avoiding the point of the GM not railroading those and allowing a possible way out that players can choose to ignore. THAT IS PLAYER AGENCY... a choice. NO choice no player agency.

I play the same way you describe your games... (I am sure you will disagree with me here but, my GMs create world and as a rule run it as an open world with player agency, however I was TRYING to show some exceptions to play where the GMs decisions were dictating play indirectly and the GM wanted to ensure players agency was still part of the game.) The difference is you imply your characters walk into a empty room no subtext and reads how the evil make kills your whole group ... then tell me its about player choose to walk in the room... but that is a description of a GM railroading players. In my example, the hints that we were near a boss and our ability to run or make any decision to fight was missed because we missed the "intended" paths and found 1 the GM did not expect. We were at a point where we were going to have to fight and TPK with no awareness or options or warning.

lowkey13 said:

"If I succeed, it's because I'm awesome, and if I fail, it's the DM's fault." I don't want to have that approach to the game.

Click to expand...

I don't know anyone who would. At the same time you act like your letting the dice role however they fall but saying that the GM could not role so bad you win an encounter is possible. Your approach to my statements is that you want to give all credit and capability to players so that the challenge belongs totally to the players but that is impossible in any game (D&D and other wise) where you play in the world in someone else's head.

lowkey13 said:

Where it gets problematic, for me, is when you begin to ascribe blame to the DM only

Click to expand...

The true is in the GM's world you die because the GM lets you, that's not an opinion it is a matterly how the game functions. BUT DO NOT mistake that for a "a good GM will not let you die or suffer the consequences of your actions" because I don't know anyone who believes that. At the same time just because you have free agency of your character does not mean your ever in complete control of the game as a while. Its not possible. If your in control of the game your the GM. Complete blame to the GM is not really my goal but to say the GM does not flavor all events where the players impact is less. This is intended more as warning to GMs about unintentional railroading and removal of free agency. If group TPKs the question the GM should ask themselves is how did I lead them to this? If the answer includes I gave them these choices all the way to the end and a story that came to an awesome climax that they met willingly. Then the GM did the job right even if the fight was unbeatable. If however the GM looks at it and realized that the story hook for the players and lack of player options pushed them to a TPK they would have avoided at all cost otherwise the GM railroaded them taking away player agency perhaps without even realizing it.

... I feel like some how I am going to get some wisdom out of this conversation with you though I may be too foolish to grasp it.. We will see I guess.

Satyrn said:

Well, it was more my point than [MENTION=93444]shidaku[/MENTION]'s. And I was just pushing back against a finer point that you were arguing. You had suggested a dragon's speed makes it impossible to outrun. It wasn't even that which I was pushing back against.

I was just trying to imply that a whiteroom comparison of speeds is useless.

And whether you'd picked woodlands, dessert (yum!), plains, tundra or wherever as the environment for the chase, I'd have pointed mentioned relevant terrain features to help me illustrate that.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that which is why I also included all the stats about perception in that I was adding hiding. I wasn't trying to say speed was the only way to get away just that short some GM added options such as terrain features players needed a teleport spell to escape. Your point about possible other options of escape provided by terrain features created by the GMs... was my point of giving characters a possible way out... so sure if a GM has put a challenge in front of players they should not be able to beat

Satyrn said:

(Now, if you didn't want to discuss some finer point like this, I didn't realize that. It was kind of hard to tell, given that this finer point was how you introduced a lengthy post - the one I had originally replied to.)

Click to expand...

It was a post where I was trying to say GMs should not railroad players with unbeatable odds and call it their decision. He should adjust on the fly to allow some player agency. This gives them the option to fight and either he gives them a chance to escape or a chance to win. If he doesn't give them agency to determine their fate the GM is killing is players. Yes my posts are long and wordy but my example was not the point of the post your relying to. The low players vs the ancient dragon was the point. Then you countered the dragon by saying the players would have the ability to hide in the woods... which depends on how the GM defines the woods and in that case we are back to the point I was making about a GM changing his narrative to allow players a choice, since if the if the GM had it in his head it was a sparce forest he could then make it dense enough to make it where it was useable to hide.

...My point is you missed the point of the post ... basically agreed with my point ... and tried to debate if player could hide in GM generated terrain based from a faster opponent in an attempt to .... what? If you had some contention with my post other the listing of a faster larger opponent as a serious threat for players to need the GM to provide narrative options to over come... please elaborate because I missed it.

*Deleted by user*

ClaytonCross said:

... So I am going to reply, largely because what your saying is part of what I keep hearing that pushed me into writing this post... I see you said you read my posts but you still right around my points so by your replies the does not SEEM possible. I believe you read it. What I believe is you are reading if for support of your argument against it and ... well that's normal an to be expected. It is really hard to show someone what you see in words if 1. The don't want to see it and 2. if they are looking for something else based on what they believe. I am aware that works both ways so I am trying ... really trying to hear you and hope that one of us gets through but I also recognize this maybe an exercise in futility. That said...

I understand what your saying but I NEVER said all fights should be or that I want all fights to be beatable. That was one example. ONE. What is driving me crazy is you keep keying in on things like that am missing/avoiding the point of the GM not railroading those and allowing a possible way out that players can choose to ignore. THAT IS PLAYER AGENCY... a choice. NO choice no player agency.

I play the same way you describe your games... (I am sure you will disagree with me here but, my GMs create world and as a rule run it as an open world with player agency, however I was TRYING to show some exceptions to play where the GMs decisions were dictating play indirectly and the GM wanted to ensure players agency was still part of the game.) The difference is you imply your characters walk into a empty room no subtext and reads how the evil make kills your whole group ... then tell me its about player choose to walk in the room... but that is a description of a GM railroading players. In my example, the hints that we were near a boss and our ability to run or make any decision to fight was missed because we missed the "intended" paths and found 1 the GM did not expect. We were at a point where we were going to have to fight and TPK with no awareness or options or warning.



I don't know anyone who would. At the same time you act like your letting the dice role however they fall but saying that the GM could not role so bad you win an encounter is possible. Your approach to my statements is that you want to give all credit and capability to players so that the challenge belongs totally to the players but that is impossible in any game (D&D and other wise) where you play in the world in someone else's head.



The true is in the GM's world you die because the GM lets you, that's not an opinion it is a matterly how the game functions. BUT DO NOT mistake that for a "a good GM will not let you die or suffer the consequences of your actions" because I don't know anyone who believes that. At the same time just because you have free agency of your character does not mean your ever in complete control of the game as a while. Its not possible. If your in control of the game your the GM. Complete blame to the GM is not really my goal but to say the GM does not flavor all events where the players impact is less. This is intended more as warning to GMs about unintentional railroading and removal of free agency. If group TPKs the question the GM should ask themselves is how did I lead them to this? If the answer includes I gave them these choices all the way to the end and a story that came to an awesome climax that they met willingly. Then the GM did the job right even if the fight was unbeatable. If however the GM looks at it and realized that the story hook for the players and lack of player options pushed them to a TPK they would have avoided at all cost otherwise the GM railroaded them taking away player agency perhaps without even realizing it.

... I feel like some how I am going to get some wisdom out of this conversation with you though I may be too foolish to grasp it.. We will see I guess.

Click to expand...

Okay, so, it seems you had an experience where the party made decisions that worked and bypassed much of the information foreshadowing the end encounter, and the result was a TPK. You blame the DM for not moderating the encounter because your party didn't get enough information to do it correctly. Fine, the DM may have messed up here and not foreshadowed properly.

However, do you also assert that you, as a player, have a valid assumption that all fights, unless explicitly noted otherwise, should be winnable for you and your group? If you don't, then I don't understand your complaint -- you already know that some fights are outside your ability and you may not be made explicitly aware of such, so finding one isn't unfair. As it appears to me, your party thought itself clever in bypassing challenges and cutting through to the end, yes? Did you do anything to actually identify what the end was, or did you just charge in with the assumption that every fight should be winnable unless the DM tells you beforehand otherwise? In other words, do you, as a player, have any responsibility to grok the world without the DM handing it to you?

Ovinomancer said:

Okay, so, it seems you had an experience where the party made decisions that worked and bypassed much of the information foreshadowing the end encounter, and the result was a TPK. You blame the DM for not moderating the encounter because your party didn't get enough information to do it correctly. Fine, the DM may have messed up here and not foreshadowed properly.

Click to expand...

We didn't TPK and I am not bitter about the example I used were we did not TPK. ... The example was to illustrate that we would have but the GM realised that we did not know it was the end. The GM did not provide or allow any checks for that because he had placed them in rooms he had expected us to enter so that we could research it and find our way. We roll a natural 20 allowing on a random search of for clues to investigate and the only thing in the room was a secret "escape path" he had put there as a quick exit after the bosses. He did not expect is to search there since the room was left pretty bare but felt obligated to let us find the door since we had an investigation threshold way higher than he would have put. This was not the only unintended "short cut" we took but all were a similar seemingly random event that was at a whim but caused us to bypass pretty much the entire story he had created other than the reason we were going there, which was kind of an investigation mission... with all the clues leading to a secret room with the bosses. Which we accidentally found without the clues while looking for the clues.

Ovinomancer said:

However, do you also assert that you, as a player, have a valid assumption that all fights, unless explicitly noted otherwise, should be winnable for you and your group? If you don't, then I don't understand your complaint -- you already know that some fights are outside your ability and you may not be made explicitly aware of such, so finding one isn't unfair. As it appears to me, your party thought itself clever in bypassing challenges and cutting through to the end, yes? Did you do anything to actually identify what the end was, or did you just charge in with the assumption that every fight should be winnable unless the DM tells you beforehand otherwise? In other words, do you, as a player, have any responsibility to grok the world without the DM handing it to you?

Click to expand...

It was not clever of us just random whims leading the group in an unsuspected direction and we had no idea of what we were about to fight. We where there to search for clues and we did... we just found the answer first. So he made the fight possible because while player agency lead us to the room, we had no agency on the fight because it was intended by the GM that we follow pretty much any other path. No we could not assume that we could win all fights, in fact we had a fight a few rooms just inside the place and a while prior to that room where we could have and almost did wipe that was not so dramatically above our abilities. We we given no support for that fight because we were aware of it before hand and with a timer were forced to make a choice to run or fight because they were actually patrolling the area we were in. We quickly decided to fight and setup an ambush that started very well ... then went very bad very fast. The last fight was intended to be a boss fight trap of sort where we found the clues and willingly lock ourselves in a room with enemies and see who comes out with that in mind they were intended for us to fight in a deadly battle at level 8 where some of us might not make it. Walking in as we did we were trapped with a room of horrors, no way, out no idea what just happened, and no possible way to win. To give you and idea, we walked through a door and got locked in with a jabba the hut style turning wall to face a full vampire (not a spawn), a werewolf, a mindflare, and something else monstrous I can't remember. Though I can't remember our level exactly just that their were 3 of us and way to low for the fight. Even dumbed down we lost a PC, our made was killed and that player rolled a paladin as a replacement. We were all cool with the fight and the out come. I am pretty sure the "walk around the corner and TPK" scenario he told use he saved us from would not have gone over so well just because as I said we had no foreshadowing to be setup for slaughter. Giving players a fight they need to run from or telling them there is an enemy in this castle than can kill you all is one thing. Telling them to search for clues, they turn a few corners and die a horrible death all at once is different.

ClaytonCross said:

We didn't TPK and I am not bitter about the example I used were we did not TPK. ... The example was to illustrate that we would have but the GM realised that we did not know it was the end. The GM did not provide or allow any checks for that because he had placed them in rooms he had expected us to enter so that we could research it and find our way. We roll a natural 20 allowing on a random search of for clues to investigate and the only thing in the room was a secret "escape path" he had put there as a quick exit after the bosses. He did not expect is to search there since the room was left pretty bare but felt obligated to let us find the door since we had an investigation threshold way higher than he would have put. This was not the only unintended "short cut" we took but all were a similar seemingly random event that was at a whim but caused us to bypass pretty much the entire story he had created other than the reason we were going there, which was kind of an investigation mission... with all the clues leading to a secret room with the bosses. Which we accidentally found without the clues while looking for the clues.



It was not clever of us just random whims leading the group in an unsuspected direction and we had no idea of what we were about to fight. We where there to search for clues and we did... we just found the answer first. So he made the fight possible because while player agency lead us to the room, we had no agency on the fight because it was intended by the GM that we follow pretty much any other path. No we could not assume that we could win all fights, in fact we had a fight a few rooms just inside the place and a while prior to that room where we could have and almost did wipe that was not so dramatically above our abilities. We we given no support for that fight because we were aware of it before hand and with a timer were forced to make a choice to run or fight because they were actually patrolling the area we were in. We quickly decided to fight and setup an ambush that started very well ... then went very bad very fast. The last fight was intended to be a boss fight trap of sort where we found the clues and willingly lock ourselves in a room with enemies and see who comes out with that in mind they were intended for us to fight in a deadly battle at level 8 where some of us might not make it. Walking in as we did we were trapped with a room of horrors, no way, out no idea what just happened, and no possible way to win. To give you and idea, we walked through a door and got locked in with a jabba the hut style turning wall to face a full vampire (not a spawn), a werewolf, a mindflare, and something else monstrous I can't remember. Though I can't remember our level exactly just that their were 3 of us and way to low for the fight. Even dumbed down we lost a PC, our made was killed and that player rolled a paladin as a replacement. We were all cool with the fight and the out come. I am pretty sure the "walk around the corner and TPK" scenario he told use he saved us from would not have gone over so well just because as I said we had no foreshadowing to be setup for slaughter. Giving players a fight they need to run from or telling them there is an enemy in this castle than can kill you all is one thing. Telling them to search for clues, they turn a few corners and die a horrible death all at once is different.

Click to expand...

Huh. Might be experience, but finding a secret door immediately tells me to exercise caution for what might be on the other side. I wouldn't blame a DM of my pay find a secret door and wandered into tougher opposition. The hint was the secret door.

Ovinomancer said:

Huh. Might be experience, but finding a secret door immediately tells me to exercise caution for what might be on the other side. I wouldn't blame a DM of my pay find a secret door and wandered into tougher opposition. The hint was the secret door.

Click to expand...

Interesting. I always make secret doors lead to a short cut, a treasure cache, or some other beneficial thing. It's how I incentivize players choosing "Searching for Secret Doors" over, say, "Keeping Watch for Danger" while exploring. I like to create the trade-off.

Of course, I don't have that expectation as a player. I'm more inclined to treat it like any other part of the dungeon - dangerous until proven otherwise!