Help please. Complaints by players!

[drnuncheon]

A bridge can only get so slimey. For that matter, why does it automaticly get more slimey as the players level up? Is it inconcievable that not every aspect of the world shapes itself around the players challenge level?

Maybe that bridge was always that slimy. Unless they've crossed it before, the PCs won't know.

Actualy, no, it isn't. Just because you are now level 10 doesn't mean every city guard you encounter is now level 10, when 5 levels ago they were all level 5.

True - but now that you're 10th level, maybe you'll take a job that requires you to break into the Duke's palace, which is guarded by his 10th level elite guards.

Why not just say "Roll a D20, I'll decide based on that if you succeed or not?" That's basicly what you have boiled it down to... The skills a player invests ranks into becomming essentialy worthless.

Despite appearances, though, I really do agree with you on this - if the city guard is average of 3rd level, they shouldn't get better just because the PCs have. However, there are ways in which the above examples can be justified, as I pointed out.

Really, the point is, it shouldn't be arbitrary - there should be a reason for the challenge to be so high other than 'because the PCs are level X'.

As opposed to, say, the DM who kept attacking my fighter with will-save traps and spells... Untill I wasted three feats on Iron Will, and I've never been attacked by a will-save monster again. *grumble*.

Is that a house rule? Normally you can't take Iron Will multiple times...

J

 

[Tsyr]

Is that a house rule? Normally you can't take Iron Will multiple times...

Yeah. It's a house rule... The DM has a list of feats he allows you to take multiple times, that's one of them.

 

[Gallo22]

Gallo, I do hope you and others reading this thread have enough sense to ignore some of this advice. When players give you input, don't dock them XP like an angry father docking his kid's allowance for talking back, and don't look them squarely in the eye and say "How dare you bring these trifling rules before me! I am the sun!" or something equally melodramatic, autocratic, and emotionally insecure. Bad advice for bad DM'ing. You did say your players were a good group, so don't fall into the trap of taking that for granted and ruining it just for the sake of showing them who's the boss. A good group is hard to find. Yes, your word is final, and in making that point be firm, but also be reasonable.

Now, as far as I can tell we're three pages deep into this thread and there hasn't been too much effort to address your original question, which was not about what the scope of the DM's authority or the supercedence of the rulebooks or how to slap down unruly players like they were your naughty children. You were asking if it was unreasonable to scale difficulty clases in order to provide ongoing challenges for the players to overcome.

Seems to me if a DM's just increasing the number the player has to roll on the dice, then that's going about it the wrong way. Gaining levels and putting skill points into balance doesn't mean much if every bridge they have to cross becomes progressively more slimy. Perhaps your player wasn't upset because you didn't follow the rules, perhaps he just thought it was lame to fail at what seemed to him to be a mundane task.

So next time, make the challenge itself bigger and better. Give the players a reason to hustle across the bridge more quickly, or have something actually attack that rogue when he scouts it out--heck, go ahead and coat it with a hungry ooze instead of plain old slime! Let the player have the satisfaction of overcoming the mundane task...then make his arse sweat (The Book of Challenges actually has an encounter very much like this one, involving a rope-bridge trap with a fairly clever twist).

Having said that, just making this one bridge particularly difficult to cross doesn't constitute any kind of huge transgression on your part (for that matter, 20 doesn't seem particularly difficult). Do realize though that by arbitrarily inflating a DC just to challenge the character(s) best-suited to deal with a given obstacle, you are likely dooming some other characters to nigh-certain failure. You might want to think in terms of scaling challenges based on the party on the whole, not just the ones who have the best chance of success.

Thanks Falon. This is the type of advice I was looking for. Don't worry about what I listen too or not. I know the posters that are really giving good advice from the poor advice. I never think I'm "god" and I always work with my group not against them. I've been DMing for 20 plus years and I'm always looking for advice (constructive advise!) on how to be a better DM. After all if my players don't have fun, then I'm not doing my job. AND MY PLAYERS ALWAYS HAVE A GOOD TIME! Its just time to time we have MATUTRE disagreements.

Thanks again Falon. Good advice. I think I'll listed to it along with some of the other posts I've seen here.

Gallo22

 

[Djeta Thernadier]

I would say, as GM, it's really your call.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

"The idea that a trained fighter needs Sense Motive or Intelligence checks to realize he just got faked out after getting sneak attacked twice as a result of a Feint..."

Of course the Sense Motive is there to see if you fall victim to the feint - it's just the idea that you can get hit as a result of a feint and still need to make another Sense Motive check to realize what just happened to you that's laughable. (which was the issue in DocMorriarty's game) The bluff is revealed the moment your enemy stops pretending to be at a disadvantage and hits you where you didn't expect it. It's not as if you can confuse that with him simply besting you through superior but straightforward fighting ability...

I'm not saying he should be immune to further feints after falling for the first one.

A bluff only works when you dont know its a bluff!

As far as the fighter knows the rogue missed the first round and then hit him really hard the second round.

End of story, end of reality, that is all BYE BYE.

Now if you want to be Lord Meta Gamer then you know your character failed a sense motive roll and the rogue didnt crit you so the amount of damage he did must mean he somehow got his sneak attack damage in. Thus basing your actions on this knowledge you would alter your playing style for this battle and every time your character failed a sense motive roll he could retreat his maximum movement rate thus limiting the rogues ability to get in the sneak attack he just earned by waiting his entire previous round of attack with a bluff.

Your probably the kind of guy that folds in poker then reaches over and flips over the other guys cards.

If that is the type of gamer then I will happily stick with my players and you can continue to whine like a slapped puppy that you do not like my DMing style.

 

[Codragon]

I'm definately in the "DM is God", "DM is always right" camp.

But it is not because I am a "cocky tyrannical rat bastard" (tm).

It is because the game HAS to have some sort of final authority during the game. HAS TO. Or else it breaks down and slows down into an endless series of arguements.

If the rogue rolls a 20 and has a +18 to his balance roll and still fails to cross a "DC 15 rope, according to the PHB"., sure I'd say the player has a right to complain. ONCE.

DM: "Yup. A 38 fails."
Player: "What do you mean? It says right here it should only be DC 15." Is that some sort of mistake or typo?"
DM: "Nope. A 38 still fails."
END OF DISCUSSION!

Maybe, like others have said, there is some kind of non-detected trap or magic going on to make the rope hard to cross. Or maybe, the DM did screw up and is giving the wrong DC. No matter. The DM has the final authority during the game. The players can bring up issues at the end of the game, and if they continue, they should definately stop gaming with this DM.



edit: The above is a general example, I am not commenting on the particular situation in the original post.

 

[jmucchiello]

A bluff only works when you dont know its a bluff!

As far as the fighter knows the rogue missed the first round and then hit him really hard the second round.

End of story, end of reality, that is all BYE BYE.

When an opponent feints in combat it is very obvious that he is doing so to get you to open your guard so he can make a better attack on you. So if it's obvious, how does anyone fall for it. Simple, sometimes it isn't obvious until the dagger is in your throat. The point is, the fighter should know he is denied his Dex bonus to AC. The rogue's maneuver has put the fighter off balance. And even though fighter knows this, he cannot rebalance himself fast enough to avoid the rogue's follow-up strike.

Somehow, in your reality, a man who falls for a feint and puts himself off-balance is unaware that his feet are no longer under him. That is what makes no sense. He should not need to make another Sense Motive check to realize he's overextended himself.

No metagaming is required. People in combat know when they've made a mistake, usually not for very long since mistakes in RL combat are fatal. Falling for a feint is a mistake that you realize as soon as it happens. If the feint is really good, you cannot recover from the mistake before your opponent capitalizes on it.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

When an opponent feints in combat it is very obvious that he is doing so to get you to open your guard so he can make a better attack on you. So if it's obvious, how does anyone fall for it. Simple, sometimes it isn't obvious until the dagger is in your throat. The point is, the fighter should know he is denied his Dex bonus to AC. The rogue's maneuver has put the fighter off balance. And even though fighter knows this, he cannot rebalance himself fast enough to avoid the rogue's follow-up strike.

Somehow, in your reality, a man who falls for a feint and puts himself off-balance is unaware that his feet are no longer under him. That is what makes no sense. He should not need to make another Sense Motive check to realize he's overextended himself.

No metagaming is required. People in combat know when they've made a mistake, usually not for very long since mistakes in RL combat are fatal. Falling for a feint is a mistake that you realize as soon as it happens. If the feint is really good, you cannot recover from the mistake before your opponent capitalizes on it.

The reason I do not think the fighter fully realizes he just lost his dex bonus is because he only lost it for that one foe.

If there is an archer also shooting at him or a fighter swinging at him both of them have to attack him at his full armor class with dexterity bonus. Only the next single attack by the rogue gets to hit the fighter without his dexterity bonus.

So its not so much that the fighter lost his dexterity as much as the he was bluffed into doing something that he might or might not know negated it for a few seconds.

 

[Tsyr]

Lots of pointless name-calling, immature conversation, and insulting snipped.

Doc, really... What the heck is wrong with you? You are the single most confrontational person on these boards, and to the best of my knowledge, no one is this thread has make this a "Lets Argue with Doc" thread...

And I'm going to take issue with your whole "end of reality" bit. NOT end of reality.

I've had a number of years of weapons training and experience, from the SCA, to Kenjitsu, to fencing. You bloody well know what you over-extend yourself, when you mess up and fall for a feint, and when you put yourself at a disadvantage against even one opponent. You really really do. And I'm not someone who has to rely on my skill for anything, it's just a hobby. If I were someone who fought for my life often, it wouldn't even be up for discussion.

 

[drnuncheon]

Now if you want to be Lord Meta Gamer then you know your character failed a sense motive roll and the rogue didnt crit you so the amount of damage he did must mean he somehow got his sneak attack damage in. Thus basing your actions on this knowledge you would alter your playing style for this battle and every time your character failed a sense motive roll he could retreat his maximum movement rate thus limiting the rogues ability to get in the sneak attack he just earned by waiting his entire previous round of attack with a bluff.

Only if you're a metagaming cheat. (shrug) My players don't seem to have any problem separating character knowledge from player knowledge, but you're right, that's not the case for everyone.

Like the man said, "I'm not saying he should be immune to further feints after falling for the first one." All he's saying is that after you get hit, you're going to know that he hit you, he hit you hard, and he did it because you dropped your guard.

If you really want to keep the players from metagame-cheating, then you have them pre-roll a bunch of d20s ahead of time and you note down the results, using them for secret Spot/Listen checks, Search checks, Sense Motive rolls, and other stuff that the player wouldn't know the degree of success for. When the rogue bluffs, you just say "he missed".

Alternately, you don't tell them whether they failed or not until after their next turn. (This may lead them to assuming that they failed, though.)

Or a third option, you ask for sense motive checks randomly, and then snicker behind your screen as the fighter runs all over the field hoping to avoid sneak attack damage from someone who didn't bluff at all. (Extra fun: ask for a sense motive roll when he's fighting a giant or other creature with reach.)

Or a fourth option, arm your rogues with daggers. When the fighter clanks away in his heavy plate, the rogue shrugs, flips the dagger into a throwing position, and delivers his sneak attack damage at range. Even better, he doesn't have to suck up a full attack from the fighter to deliver his extra damage.

(Interesting thing I just noticed...technically, by the rules, there is no time limit on a Bluff. It's just 'your next attack'. That's probably an oversight.)

Anyway, I think that the first way is the best to prevent metagame cheating, because it's a general rule for all situations when knowing the number rolled might affect a player's actions. YMMV.

J