is this GM bad or am i just a wuss?

[Aberzanzorax]

A caution:

As always seems to happen in these threads, there is a fair amount of judgement against the person whose side we have not heard.

We don't know the full story, and it's easy to write off the DM as horrible.



But we don't have their side, and we don't even have a complete picture from the OP (we could use more details).



I liked both Rune's and Kzach's posts, and they could both be informative to the OP. Maybe he'll jump in with some reflections on those two posts.

Your DM does not appear to be a Rat Bastard; he just seems like a jerk.

More information needed.

But, let's be honest, if someone cherry picked my or your worst moments of dming, I'm sure we'd look bad on a messageboard too. What we don't know is what % of the dming is bad. Is this the whole of it, or are these the (very few) bad parts?

We simply don't know enough to judge (accurately).

 

[epicbob]

So from what I can understand from all the replies, it's both the players AND the DM. Best case scenario, we make him understand that until we can catch up to his level of expertise, he needs to tone it down to where we can progress. Worst case scenario, we don't ever return.

As for DMing myself...I actually did try that. Sadly, even if I did read up on the DM book and a few DMing articles, I still lack the hard experience and leadership to make it all flow together. On the bright side, I'm DMing for the same gang as the other DM and they're always (so far) willing to come back.

When I gave the acronym ORKO, I meant "One Round KO". I wanted to use "One Hit KO (OHKO)" but those monsters were mostly of the multi-attack variety.

To Kzach and pemerton, the city pass was not for a Drow society but for a DWARVEN city. Sorry if I was unclear. The Drows were a simple sidequest. Also, about the pass, that Drow fight was a rescue mission for the Dwarves. I think getting us a pass as a reward would have been reasonable. Because there sure as hell was no hint we needed one beforehand.

Also, in the Dwarven jail, we were chained and bound with none of our gear (logical enough ) and the dwarves would throw ice cold water on us every once in a while to keep us numbed. In spite of the lengthy sequence leading to the execution, there was nothing to really do. He even threw in a corrupted Dwarven official.

To Oryan77, the stick was a simple quarterstaff and I was simply carrying it. For all i know, the priest called guards after our ass because he didn't like us, period.

For the frost giants, we got to roll for Hiding but I was a fighter in that quest. Not a lot of hope right there.

Where we almost drowned, there was a slippery stone arch we could try to cross. For a few minutes the players (including me) were discussing on how we could use a rope to prevent us from falling off. After shooting down pretty much every suggestion we made, he only let us throw the rope to whoever fell off. The current was also strong.

For the Drow jail and the rusty bars, I had asked about them, he rolled and said they were rusty. Which leads me to believe he hadn't planned for this to happen.

As for the locked doors requiring a high check in the last quest, I'm not complaining about having to provide effort. I was determined to open those doors. It's just that one leads to nothing WORTH keeping under lock and key (unlike the freakin' TREASURE HOARD we found). The other was just there to laugh at my Level 1 rogue lockpick skill.

I don't mind doing what I have to do to survive (which included hanging off a 100 foot cliff to avoid detection). But even IF we're overthinking or not thinking enough, the DM is pretty discouraging. I WANT to like D&D but that DM is not helping.

edit : To Aberzanzorax, I realise we lack his side of the story. Which is why i'm trying to provide detailed samples of the important events (this includes moments where it's the players' fault). I got mixed answers so I assume it's somewhat working.

 

[Rune]

I'm with Rune on this one. And I'm shocked it took 8 posts for someone to call out your DM. There is very little in that post that seems like decent DM behaviour.

Well, to be fair, when I started that post, there were only 2 replies!

The thing is, every campaign I run, I consider it my game. And I'm not antagonistic (I may be arrogant ). Three of my players have been playing with me since we got into it years ago, and I played with the fourth player before getting into any official RPG. The fifth player is new, and after four sessions with me, he quit his other game to devote his attention to mine.

I know that the game is for the enjoyment of everyone, but the campaign is mine. The responsibility of whether or not it fails or succeeds rests on me, and I'm the one in charge. Now, I don't advocate abusing this power, but utilizing this power is an incredible tool for keeping the game fun for everyone (at my table).

Like so many other issues, I think this boils down to the social contract at the table. If I went to your game as a player (I don't know if you play or run a game the majority of the time, but I'm assuming run, if only because this site has so many GM posters), and I found out that the game was everyone's, and not the GM's, I'd find it outside of my preference (and if there was some sort of player veto power, I'd never use it). I prefer to work with the GM, play to his standards, and enjoy his game. When I run a game, I expect the same.

This leads back to, of course, the social contract. You may not like the way I run my game, or you might (I really try not to abuse my responsibilities, and not only do I work with character concepts players present, I developed an entire, respectable-sized RPG system that helps players craft their character concepts). I don't know if you would like it. But, I do know that my players keep coming back to me, and that according to them, they've never had a better experience than when I run the game for them.

My advice, if you want to keep them coming back, is to find a group that shares your preferences, where people will agree to the social contract you prefer. There's really no substitute for (as always): play what you like

I think you and I are saying the same thing from different directions. The setting is my character. Its just that I trust my players to interact with it the way they choose. Unless they are being unreasonable (because, for instance, they view their role as adversarial to mine), I try not to shut them down when they come up with an idea. I do what I can to help them feel a part of the world. I understand that the story created is not mine, alone.

But, the setting is my character. It is my job to be the arbiter of rules questions. I'm responsible for adjusting the pace. That's all part of it. That's the DM's role; but, even with all of that, it's not just my game.

A caution:

As always seems to happen in these threads, there is a fair amount of judgement against the person whose side we have not heard.

We don't know the full story, and it's easy to write off the DM as horrible.



But we don't have their side, and we don't even have a complete picture from the OP (we could use more details).



I liked both Rune's and Kzach's posts, and they could both be informative to the OP. Maybe he'll jump in with some reflections on those two posts.








But, let's be honest, if someone cherry picked my or your worst moments of dming, I'm sure we'd look bad on a messageboard too. What we don't know is what % of the dming is bad. Is this the whole of it, or are these the (very few) bad parts?

We simply don't know enough to judge (accurately).

Well sure, I was well aware that I was only hearing one side of the story, which is why I qualified most such statements with words like "appears" and "seems." I was responding to the DM as presented. That said, a lot of the examples provided could easily be interpreted as entirely acceptable (even fun), given the right circumstances. There really isn't enough detail to infer.

The main thing, for me, was right at the beginning--the mocking. It sets the tone for all the rest of the examples and, if that tone is to be believed, presents a DM that revels in his position as mightier than the PCs.

 

[Agamemnon]

To Kzach and pemerton, the city pass was not for a Drow society but for a DWARVEN city. Sorry if I was unclear. The Drows were a simple sidequest. Also, about the pass, that Drow fight was a rescue mission for the Dwarves. I think getting us a pass as a reward would have been reasonable. Because there sure as hell was no hint we needed one beforehand.

Assuming a standard D&D world, this seems like uncharacteristically hardcore for dwarven culture. Duergar would maybe go with that kind of totalitarian stuff, but the baseline dwarf, not really. So yeah, I do not think springing that kind of surprise on you is fair*.

* Provided there was no prior information about the society in question, or their customs.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

The main thing, for me, was right at the beginning--the mocking. It sets the tone for all the rest of the examples and, if that tone is to be believed, presents a DM that revels in his position as mightier than the PCs.

Yeah, I'll definitely agree that no one should be mocking anyone else really in any game play, but particularly a DM to players.

He might (or might not) be an ok DM, but it is beginning to sound like he might be a bit of a jerk to play games with if there's mocking (that's just poor/uncalled for behavior).


To Epicbob: Experience only comes by doing, by making mistakes, trying new things, and learning from them. If the environment isn't one that allows for that, you need to address that in some way. If you think you can change it by talking with the DM (What are we doing wrong? What should we do differently? Playing this campaign makes me feel...) then that's a good way to go.

On the other hand, I never REALLY learned the game until I DMed it. If you think you'd enjoy it, and that you and your friends might enjoy making mistakes together without someone mocking you...that might be the way to go.


I'll definitely agree with Rune on that point, the DM is NOT there to revel in the failures of his players (though neither is he obligated to allow them to succeed).

 

[Kobold Boots]

I think the jist of the answer needs to be:

Talk to your DM and see if he's aware that the challenges being thrown at beginner players without context to his world are a bit rough. See if you can get a campaign primer with the basic knowledge everyone would know of in your starting region.

It's possible that he's a jerk. Everyone is a jerk at some point. Showing some interest in becoming informed may bring plot leniency by:

1. Showing interest thus earning brownie points.
2. If he doesn't have a primer it may show him how unprepared he is, thus showing how impossible your situation is.


2c
KB

 

[epicbob]

He's not so much "mightier than the PCs" as "better D&D player than the group".

While this is true, he was implying several times during the last session. My temper slipped a bit and I straight-out replied : "I get it, we suck.". He was a bit more diplomatic after that.

I'm dreading having to do it again because I remember one of his experienced buddies, during the last campaign, DID bring up some of his shortcomings in a face-to-face talk (No one else was listening and I only noticed after the DM reacted). The DM replied : "Well if you won't play properly, that's not my problem". He sounded pissed.

About the fights, one of the wolf pack encounters was preceded by constant Spot and Listen checks. Did it do anything? considering we ended up in another melee fight with them, not at all. Although next time, I'll check if he's even doing a opposing roll.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think you and I are saying the same thing from different directions. The setting is my character. Its just that I trust my players to interact with it the way they choose. Unless they are being unreasonable (because, for instance, they view their role as adversarial to mine), I try not to shut them down when they come up with an idea. I do what I can to help them feel a part of the world. I understand that the story created is not mine, alone.

But, the setting is my character. It is my job to be the arbiter of rules questions. I'm responsible for adjusting the pace. That's all part of it. That's the DM's role; but, even with all of that, it's not just my game.

Maybe we are saying the same thing! I'm not sure, but I do like agreeing with people. So, I'll agree to agree with you on working with players, and making sure everyone's enjoyment is highlighted, not just the GM's.

As always, play what you like

 

[epicbob]

After thinking about it, I sent him an e-mail where I proposed the idea of a "Campaign 101" to hopefully help us survive in his games.

I'll wait and see how this turns out.

Also, a big thanks for all the replies.

 

[Kzach]

and I'm not seeing any game I would want to be involved in.

Well like I said several times, we need more information. There are so many permutations of events that could or could not be bad DM'ing that it's impossible to judge without having a much clearer idea of how the PC's got to the positions they were in.

I used what information was given to me and made a guess as to what I thought might be happening. Note all the variables in that statement.