DM advice: How do you NOT kill your party?

[Doug McCrae]

The first rule of role-playing is, quite literally, "Thou shalt not meta-game."

Is it? I'm going to have to ask for a citation on that one.

By my understanding of the term, metagaming only applies to players. It means using out of character knowledge to inform your character's actions. Even there I think there's good metagaming - come up with reasons your PC would travel with other PCs - and bad metagaming - using player knowledge of monster stats to determine your PC's combat tactics..

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You’re answer is disingenuous because it portrays the DM as a passive neutral observer/adjudicator. That just isn’t the case. The DM is a writer, storyteller, actor, reactor, tactician, coach and artist (depending on how good your map drawing skills are).

False. The DM is not a writer, and is not telling a story. If you want to tell a story, then write a novel. Role-playing has some overlap with improvisational acting, so the DM is an actor in the same way that the players are actors.

Meta gaming is just a jargon way of describing a player using information they wouldn’t have. The DM isn’t a player. As the storyteller/game master/dungeon master they metagame by definition because they are outside the game itself.

Meta-gaming governs the relationship between in-game reality and out-of-game information. If something exists entirely within the game-world, or entirely outside of the game-world, then meta-gaming is the wrong term for it. If anyone makes any decision about what happens in-game, based on information that only exists out-of-game, then they are a meta-gamer.

You can try and divest the element of choice from the way a DM acts and reacts by claiming they should be neutral, but the reality is I think the DM is constantly making decisions about what the party faces on a session by session basis. If you knowingly put players up against things that are irrelevent, or unachievable then your players will get bored.

It's not your job to make sure that everyone is having fun. (Or rather, saying that is your job would be missing the point.) Your job is to describe the environment, role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. If you can do those things well, then the players will have fun (assuming they actually enjoy role-playing games in the first place).

I’ve just finished the first section of Phandelver. I upped the number of foes and made them hobgoblins because the party despite being brand new players could take it. I added a worg because I knew it would engage the Druid player and portrayed it as an abomination. I expanded the scale of the tunnels to allow the drow fighters better darkvision to come in to play.

I guess you missed the memo, but your actions were in clear violation of the rules. Meta-gaming is explicitly illegal in 5E.

In short rather than invalidating the players choices, I made them relevant by incorporating them into the story. I didn’t make it easy the opposite rather - but I did make it bespoke. They seemed to love it. That’s not a 90’s style of playing - that’s a modern approach, that requires a bit more prep and a bit more imagination/judgement.

Their choices are irrelevant because any other option would have been just as useful. You contrived the depth of the tunnels because the Drow had superior darkvision, which means they would have been just as well off if they didn't have it. You turned the goblins into hobgoblins because the party was stronger, which means their strength was entirely irrelevant, since you would have contrived the difficulty regardless of how strong they were.

I'm going to stop there, because I don't want to sound overly critical. Let it suffice to say that you are making a great number of mistakes which are common to inexperienced DMs, though they seem well-intentioned. You're not as bad as the old killer DMs who go out of their way to kill PCs because they think it's a competition, at least. Just maybe consider cutting back on the meta-gaming, unless you have a very good reason. (Good reasons do exist.) If your players are as inexperienced as you appear to be, then you are teaching them very bad habits, which will not serve them well within the greater role-playing community.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The First Rule of Roleplaying is "don't listen to anyone who enumerates rules of roleplaying."

 

[Eltab]

During my Tiamat campaign, I wasn't usually trying to kill the PCs; I was trying to demonstrate that societies were being torn apart and needed some Heroes to hold the pieces together.
A few times - Arauthator and the assassination attempt - I CERTAINLY WAS trying to kill the PCs. They found out that I am a decent tactician - but I don't (yet) know how to adjust for magic items. I also can be out-maneuvered by late-arriving reinforcements.

 

[TheSword]

False. The DM is not a writer, and is not telling a story. If you want to tell a story, then write a novel. Role-playing has some overlap with improvisational acting, so the DM is an actor in the same way that the players are actors.

If you plan and design adventures rather than just reading them straight from a book without any modification as in say Pathfinder Society then I’m sorry you are a writer. Whether it is scribbled notes on a pad or detailed descriptions and tactics etc, you are a writer.

Meta-gaming governs the relationship between in-game reality and out-of-game information. If something exists entirely within the game-world, or entirely outside of the game-world, then meta-gaming is the wrong term for it. If anyone makes any decision about what happens in-game, based on information that only exists out-of-game, then they are a meta-gamer.

The DM is not ‘in game’ they are not a player. Your definition is irrelevent in the context of our discussion so far. If we broadened the discussion to include examples of NPCs targeting players with information they couldn’t have known because the player specified it was secret (for instance the DM had a thief steal an item a player had hidden that no one could know about) then that would be metagamng. The DM would be presenting a character in such a way as to use knowledge they couldn’t possible have and would be bad roleplaying and unfair. That is TOTALLY different to choosing hobgoblins over goblins because the party will find goblins too easy to defeat.

It's not your job to make sure that everyone is having fun. (Or rather, saying that is your job would be missing the point.) Your job is to describe the environment, role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. If you can do those things well, then the players will have fun (assuming they actually enjoy role-playing games in the first place).

You can’t MAKE anyone have fun. You can do your best to ensure the experience of being a player in one of your games (that you have written) have as enjoyable an experience as possible. It a the responsibility of all participants but in my opinion the DM has the greatest opportunity to influence this, through their choices.

I guess you missed the memo, but your actions were in clear violation of the rules. Meta-gaming is explicitly illegal in 5E.

I didn’t realise they had passed legislation relating the playing of roleplaying games. Is metagaming a state crime? If I play-by-post does it become a matter for the FBI?

As said earlier. The DM is not metagaming when they adjust an adventure or write their own. We’re not talking about pathfinder society here where DMs are obliged to follow adventures as written. Even published adventures have advice about adjusting difficulty for player number or level. That requires judgement, knowledge and nuance.

Their choices are irrelevant because any other option would have been just as useful. You contrived the depth of the tunnels because the Drow had superior darkvision, which means they would have been just as well off if they didn't have it. You turned the goblins into hobgoblins because the party was stronger, which means their strength was entirely irrelevant, since you would have contrived the difficulty regardless of how strong they were.

Yes and no. If you are part of a more experienced group of players and design a more efficient party at my table you don’t get to have an easy ride through the campaign. The difficulty gets reset. Kinda like playing Witcher 3 on a harder mode. Regarding player abilities: If the party had a dwarf instead of a drow then there wouldn’t have been an option to give them the jump on the hobgoblins because of darkvision. In which case I probably would have allowed the character to detect information about the passages or structures that would give them an advantage (this is a modification from the text of the adventure). In my opinion good DMs finds ways to allow a players skills applicable - they aren’t invalidating choices they are enabling them.

I'm going to stop there, because I don't want to sound overly critical. Let it suffice to say that you are making a great number of mistakes which are common to inexperienced DMs, though they seem well-intentioned. You're not as bad as the old killer DMs who go out of their way to kill PCs because they think it's a competition, at least. Just maybe consider cutting back on the meta-gaming, unless you have a very good reason. (Good reasons do exist.) If your players are as inexperienced as you appear to be, then you are teaching them very bad habits, which will not serve them well within the greater role-playing community.

I apologise if I have been sarcastic in this post. it was prompted by your post as a whole being pretty condescending. It’s also amusing that after recognizing that you are being critical and suggesting you don’t want to overly so, that you would go on to be even more critical in the next paragraph.

I’ve been DMing regularly for the best part of 20 years for several very long running groups of experienced demanding players. I regularly solicit feedback from and we discuss the wider roleplaying experience. We’re doing just fine thanks, but I do appreciate your judgement though on a group of people you have never met.

Masking opinion as fact is not persuasive and suggesting other people’s way of playing is badwrongfun is not cool man. I would suggest you broaden your mind to except a plurality of ways of playing this game as other posters have. I may not agree with some of the killer DMs styles, but I bet playing in their campaigns can be a real blast for a player that is ready for them - particularly when they put so much effort into the game world.

 

[Eltab]

If you as a DM read the rules about Cover and Concealment and such, you can make L4 monsters bother an L14 party:
I had some Lizardmen pop up out of a roadside lake, throw javelins at the PCs, and duck back underwater. The plan was, when thy ran out of javelins they would swim away.

The Ranger and the Barbarian (but not the Fighter) went out into deep water to get them. With modest success.
The other players eventually remembered the rule about "Hold an Action" and 'Rolling Thunder-ed' the next Lizardman who popped up.

I wasn't intending to play out a tactics session, but I didn't mourn that the PCs were going to be even tougher from now on, either.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

If we broadened the discussion to include examples of NPCs targeting players with information they couldn’t have known because the player specified it was secret (for instance the DM had a thief steal an item a player had hidden that no one could know about) then that would be metagamng. The DM would be presenting a character in such a way as to use knowledge they couldn’t possible have and would be bad roleplaying and unfair. That is TOTALLY different to choosing hobgoblins over goblins because the party will find goblins to easy to defeat.

The DM is constrained by the rules of role-playing whenever they act in a role-playing capacity, from the perspective of an NPC. Why did this group of goblins, or hobgoblins, decide to move here? How did they make that decision? If the answer is so that they can challenge the PCs, then that's meta-gaming.

I apologise if I was sarcastic, it was prompted by your post as a whole being pretty condescending. It’s also amusing that after recognizing that you are being critical and suggesting you don’t want to overly so, that you would go on to be even more critical in the next paragraph.

I'm only critical toward despicable meta-gamers, who are the true enemy of role-players everywhere. If you aren't one of those villains, then I don't want to fault you for making honest mistakes. If you should know better, but instead you actively go around maligning the hobby and corrupting players against actually role-playing, then you absolutely deserve every criticism.

 

[TheSword]

The DM is constrained by the rules of role-playing whenever they act in a role-playing capacity, from the perspective of an NPC. Why did this group of goblins, or hobgoblins, decide to move here? How did they make that decision? If the answer is so that they can challenge the PCs, then that's meta-gaming.

The motivation for the hobgoblins is whatever I decide it needs to be to maintain a believable game world for the plays. As the DM. I determine the location, the makeup of foes, the NPCs, their leaders, the local area, why wouldn’t the goblinoids’ motivation be included in that list. It is possible for the hobgoblins to be BOTH a challenge and a believable part of the world. Only I as the DM know why I put them there until I choose to reveal them.

I'm only critical toward despicable meta-gamers, who are the true enemy of role-players everywhere. If you aren't one of those villains, then I don't want to fault you for making honest mistakes. If you should know better, but instead you actively go around maligning the hobby and corrupting players against actually role-playing, then you absolutely deserve every criticism.

“Despicable”, “maligning”, “corrupting”, “enemy”. I don’t recognize this in what is being discussed very rationally on the thread by myself and the other posters. I’m happy to try and understand why you feel so strongly about this, but I must confess I don’t understand the tone of your response.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The motivation for the hobgoblins is whatever I decide it needs to be to maintain a believable game world for the plays. As the DM. I determine the location, the makeup of foes, the NPCs, their leaders, the local area, why wouldn’t the goblinoids’ motivation be included in that list. It is possible for the hobgoblins to be BOTH a challenge and a believable part of the world.

Your job isn't to present a believable challenge. Your job is to describe the environment, role-play the NPCs, and adjudicate uncertainty in action resolution. Making decisions for every goblin and/or hobgoblin in the area is part of the second task.

“Despicable”, “maligning”, “corrupting”, “enemy”. I don’t recognize this in what is being discussed very rationally on the thread by myself and the other posters. I’m happy to try and understand why you feel so strongly about this, but I must confess I don’t understand the tone of your response.

If you don't understand that meta-gaming is bad, or why meta-gaming is bad, then you are in no position to offer advice. You must correct your error if you want anyone to take you seriously as anything other than a troll.

 

[iserith]

I didn’t realise they had passed legislation relating the playing of roleplaying games. Is metagaming a state crime? If I play-by-post does it become a matter for the FBI?

As said earlier. The DM is not metagaming when they adjust an adventure or write their own. We’re not talking about pathfinder society here where DMs are obliged to follow adventures as written. Even published adventures have advice about adjusting difficulty for player number or level. That requires judgement, knowledge and nuance.

In D&D 5e, there is a section in the DMG (page 235) that discusses "Metagame Thinking." Taken as a whole, it's an injunction to remind players not to make uninformed decisions that lead to a bad outcome. The examples it cites are players thinking that "the DM wouldn't throw such powerful a monster at the characters" (presumably leading to their unexpected demise when the players decide to fight it) and players believing that the time spent on the description of a door necessarily means that it must be important (presumably meaning the players waste time investigating it).

What the DMG doesn't say is that doing so is in any way a violation of the rules. But the smart play is to use in-game actions to verify one's assumptions before acting on them.