Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[ExploderWizard]

Seriously though, how many people would think to do this sort of research for a monster that is as common in fantasy games as an orc? Do you research skeletons, zombies, goblins, kobolds, and wolves as well? This is what I meant when I said that the game turns into a lottery without the common baseline shared between DM and players that is provided by an understood set of rules to be used.

Well, the "research" could be as simple as asking the DM: "what do we know about X"? From there, X could be very standard or require more info depending on the answer.

4E changes the whole notion of standard. When the party sees "kobolds" they could be up against minions or a tough as nails fight for thier level.

 

[Doug McCrae]

4E changes the whole notion of standard. When the party sees "kobolds" they could be up against minions or a tough as nails fight for thier level.

Kobolds could have levels in 3e. And I think also in 2e, with the Humanoids Handbook.

But D&D isn't Call of Cthulhu. I don't expect to have to do research for every monster encounter in order to succeed in a 'typical' D&D game.

 

[Storm Raven]

Well, the "research" could be as simple as asking the DM: "what do we know about X"? From there, X could be very standard or require more info depending on the answer.

Even so, how many people would even think to ask? This is why there needs to be a shared baseline between the DM and players. Is the game going to require twenty questions for every foe? If so, that should be communicated to the players ahead of time.

4E changes the whole notion of standard. When the party sees "kobolds" they could be up against minions or a tough as nails fight for thier level.

Maybe. But then again, kobolds are a foe generally set to a particular range of possibilities. One would anticipate that if the DM decided that all kobolds were always tough as nails, that would be communicated to the PCs. Otherwise, the DM is simply settting the Pcs up to fail (which, to me, would run against the idea of making the game more "fun", which has been advanced as a reason to make such changes).

More to the point, exactly how skilled is the sort of DM that feels the need to play these sorts of "hide the ball" mind games? Its easy to fool players: just don't tell them information. How much fun does that make the game? Who wants to play with someone who thinks this is a mark of creativity?

 

[Ariosto]

This has been going on for more than 30 years: the transformation of the game from one focused on role-playing and exploration into one focused on manipulation of fixed sets of data.

The reason for withholding some information from you as a player in the old game is simple: so that you can discover it for yourself! That was conceived of not as "unfun" but as the essence of the kind of fun for which the game was designed.

Not only have "rules" come to be taken as just that much more literally (as opposed to being regarded as mere guidelines), but the scope of what gets filed under that heading has greatly increased. Suggested distributions of experience points and treasure most definitely were not formerly rigid rules!

This is why I agreed earlier with the proposition that to DM 4E calls (at least usually) for some adjustment in approach. It fosters different expectations among many -- I suspect most -- players, for the most part simply reinforcing views already held among those inclined to choose it in the first place.

 

[ExploderWizard]

More to the point, exactly how skilled is the sort of DM that feels the need to play these sorts of "hide the ball" mind games? Its easy to fool players: just don't tell them information. How much fun does that make the game? Who wants to play with someone who thinks this is a mark of creativity?

Fooling or tricking the players isn't the only motivation for keeping secrets. A jerk DM can withold info from players who ask the right questions just to "fool" them. Some secrets are meant to be discovered by the players but such secrets may need to be earned through play. I find discovering hidden information to be fun.

 

[Storm Raven]

This has been going on for more than 30 years: the transformation of the game from one focused on role-playing and exploration into one focused on manipulation of fixed sets of data.

If you say so. I think you are wrong, but you'll never stop waxing lyrically over the 1970s.

The reason for withholding some information from you as a player in the old game is simple: so that you can discover it for yourself! That was conceived of not as "unfun" but as the essence of the kind of fun for which the game was designed.

If the DM feels the need to play "hide the ball" to make the game fun, then in my opinion, the DM is simply unskilled. If the DM thinks that (as in my hypothetical) is it necessary to alter what are standard monsters to screw with the heads of the players to make the game fun, then I really question their capability to make the game fun in general.

Sure, there are elements of a campaign world that should be unknown to the players, but changing things willy-nilly doesn't accomplish that, and merely results in annoyed players. And it doesn't require any kind of actual creativity or acumen on the part of the DM to accomplish, so we can stop talking about how this is a mark of a veteran DM.

 

[Montague68]

Disagree totally with Gygax's idea about players staying away from DM knowledge being dumb. The game for me was most compelling when I didn't have the Monster Manual memorized and knew what all the magic items were and what they did, how many types of poisons there were, etc.

That being said though, the idea is now outdated. The internet effectively put an end to the notion of keeping knowledge from the players.

 

[Mallus]

The internet effectively put an end to the notion of keeping knowledge from the players.

So did players buying the MM and DMG! This began occurring as soon as those books were published...

As for the OP's dilemma... I think the treasure allocation and lack-of-opponent-scaling are fine, par for the course. In fact, it sounds like the DM realized they had been skimping on the magical lucre and is taking steps to fix that, ie. the armor upgrade.

However, it also sounds like the DM isn't taking the appropriate steps to encourage the kind of role-playing they claim to be looking for. For example, a DM can do quite a lot to encourage diplomatic/non-violent approaches, ie don't begin every encounter with the words "roll initiative". It's all in how you play the NPC's.

I think most DM's will find that their players tend to use the methods that they've taught them work best...

(and the "I should change you're alignment" is just idiotic - are you sure it wasn't a joke?)

 

[Nifft]

This has been going on for more than 30 years: the transformation of the game from one focused on role-playing and exploration into one focused on manipulation of fixed sets of data.

One thing that I am certain has been going on for more than 30 years: I've been getting older.

There's no way for a game to recapture the magic it held for me when I was 12, because I can't go back to being me when I was 12. It's not the game's fault.

(Go back and watch an episode of a TV show you liked 30 years ago. I will bet you'll be shocked at how much your standards for entertainment have changed.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kez Darksun]

One thing that I am certain has been going on for more than 30 years: I've been getting older.

There's no way for a game to recapture the magic it held for me when I was 12, because I can't go back to being me when I was 12. It's not the game's fault.

(Go back and watch an episode of a TV show you liked 30 years ago. I will bet you'll be shocked at how much your standards for entertainment have changed.)

Cheers, -- N

M*A*S*H defies your theory! (at least for me)