Dealing with an "oldschool" DM

[S'mon]

It's the fact that he's not scaling the encounters down AND witholding XP that gets me.

The encounters are scaled down - the monsters are not tactically optimised.

Personally I do that all the time. If I ran all monsters optimally I'd kill tons of PCs. No fun for me or for the players. Occasionally I'll run smart, trained monsters like drow optimally, as a way to scare the players. I'll have hobgoblins use basic tactics like shield walls. But with orcs and such they act like orcs, not like Spec Ops troopers.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have never understood the idea that the DMG is somehow off-limits to the players.

While being "off-limits" is a bit silly since so many groups have multiple people who DM, the contents of the DMG, including what gets used or ignored is for the DM of the game being run at the time. Players may read what they wish in thier spare time but the DM is under no obligation to make sure that player's assumptions about what's in the DMG are correct.

I think that if the DM wants to change how things in the PHB work, thats fine but more communication with the players about such changes is a good idea. This is why I think it was a bad move to include all the combat rules and magic items in the PHB.

 

[aboyd]

I have never understood the idea that the DMG is somehow off-limits to the players.

I can help you understand. Maybe you won't agree, but at least from here on out you'll be able to say that you understand the idea. From the 2nd edition DMG:

The Dungeon Master's Guide is reserved for Dungeon Masters. Discourage players from reading this book, and certainly don't let players consult it during the game, for two reasons.

First, as long as players don't know exactly what's in the Dungeon Master Guide, they'll always wonder what you know that they don't know. It doesn't matter whether you have secret information; even if you don't, as long as the players think you do, their sense of mystery and uncertainty is maintained.

Second, this book does contain essential rules that are not discussed in the Player's Handbook. Some of these the players will learn quickly during play: special combat situations, the costs of hiring NPCs, etc. Others, however, cover more esoteric or mysterious situations: the nature of artifacts and other magical items, for example. This information is in the Dungeon Master Guide so the DM can control the players' (and hence the characters') access to it.

Now, I can't say that this book is where the concept originated. Maybe it was in the 1st edition too. But I can say that D&D has a history of conferring control to the DM. And as such, the DM will control access to treasure, and other DMG-ish things. You may object to that -- in fact, for all I know, 4th edition may object to it just as you do (or not). But at least there is an explanation for how such thinking was fostered over the years/decades.

I would note that I buy into such thinking about the player/DM divide. It sounds like lots of people in this thread would thus find my games to be a nightmarish tyranny of old edition thinking. I'm OK being known as an old school DM if it nets me old school players.

 

[S'mon]

The negotiation issue seems separate. Have you talked to him outside of play about it? Suggest that if he wants to see more talk, he needs to give you a chance before rolling initiative.

Agreed. This is the one area where his GMing seems to be sub-par. Clarify what "roll init" means to him. To most GMs it means "The fight is starting", but he seems to treat it as meaning combat readiness or something?

On balance - 5/4 standard monsters and 4/5 standard XP, plus somewhat reduced treasure, is still balance, just a somewhat tougher balance than the RAW. If combined with higher than average player skill and/or sub-par monster tactics then the actual threat level will be about the same as RAW, or possibly a bit less, as seems to be the case here (14 levels and no deaths?!). Even most players'-rights avocates would not have a serious issue with this, IME. Maybe about the reduced treasure, but not the 4/5 XP.

 

[roguerouge]

And then there's people suggesting that you read the modules and cheat? I mean, are you really that pathetic? I would like to think not. You guys are better than that, don't resort to "revenge"...come on.

What part of Neutral Evil are you not getting, here?

 

[roguerouge]

From what I've read, it sounds like the DM is just handling xp awards differently, using imbalanced encounters (but if player death is still uncommon & they are defeating the challenges, who the hell cares?), and finally, I think he was saying the DM accuses the players of not being diplomatic before an encounter, even though the DM isn't giving them the chance to be diplomatic first.

[snip]
All a guy can do is try to provide "fun" for other players. I personally find adventuring, fighting, roleplaying, & character development the most fun parts about playing D&D. "Rules" are on the bottom of my fun list.

According to the OP, the DM has failed to provide good fighting or role playing opportunities and the module provides the adventuring. And the OP says that the DM berates them as "videogamy" for exploring the dungeon. So what is this DM doing right?

 

[roguerouge]

Really, you should ease up on the guy. This is a completely common thing about running a game. The DM is but one man. He has an entire campaign to run & prepare for while you have a single character to look after. Being a DM yourself, you should be understandable that it's pretty difficult to keep up with every single PCs power level and character wealth...especially as they level up every time and these things change. Personally, I'd rather my DM bone up on making a cool adventure and providing some exciting gameplay opportunities rather than focusing on my character wealth & power level. If I notice a problem during encounters, then I feel it's up to me to let him know so he can prepare for it later when he gets a chance.

Of course, the module provides level-appropriate treasure every step of the way. The DM is going out of his way to strip out the level-appropriate wealth... without telling his players that the genre has shifted from high magic to low magic. And, of course, he isn't providing exciting gameplay opportunities and actively discouraging cool adventure through poor tactics and second-guessing player decisions. He sounds like a joy to play under.

As a DM, if I encountered such a player, I would deliberately hack the treasure in order to disabuse the player of any notion that he could know or dictate this stuff.

Well, as the official Neutral Evil poster in this thread, I endorse this piece of advice. Such knowledge is for the powerful to be used at their whim.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

What part of Neutral Evil are you not getting, here?

Oh my god, no alignment debates!

---

I think the issue with player entitlement and DM entitlement is this: The player and the DM are entitled to enjoy the game they run or play in.
It seems as if talking about any more concepts of player or DM entitlement tends to lead to calling other people names or at least disparaging their play/DM styles or whatever. That can't be useful for the discussion.

Obviously, this is not happening here. At least one player is unhappy.
I note the following:
- Apparantly, none of the player picks up on the idea that you can try to negotiate after initiative is rolled. Considering that the DM apparently complained multiple times on this tells me that neither player nor DM have adapted their behavior or learned from this so far.
- The DM seems to show a misunderstanding on the design considerations that went into 4E and how the game is balanced. It does appear to me - at least through the lens of wayne62682 post - that he changes rules out of ignorance, not out of understanding them. That is not a good place to start, no matter how much you believe a DM is god or a DM always has the final word in everything, or any "entitlement" considerations of players or DM. But of course, we are only seeing one side of the discussion.


Aside from talking openly (and friendly) with the DM:
- Next time the DM calls for initiative, don't assume it's a guaranteed combat. Try to talk with the enemies. Yes, that might mean sacrificing a round or so. If it turns out it won't work (and not just because you rolled badly), you might want to ask your DM why he tells you to negotiate if it generally fails? But maybe it turns out fine, and you've got one problem fixed!

Figure out what the DM expects from the game. Maybe you can do that if you run the game for a while and see how he reacts to situations. Maybe you can do it by asking. Or listening to his complaints or suggestions.

I wouldn't worry too much about suggested XP, levels, magic items by level and what-not. I would worry whether you feel challenged "fairly" - is it too easy or too difficult. It is nice if you know you can trust the rules as you know them, but it's usually more important to have a sense that you're winning because you are smart enough and not because it's too easy, and your failing because you made a mistake and not because the combat was just unfairly hard. Whatever your verdict is, try to explain this to the DM.

And maybe the best thing to do really is "show, not tell" and just run your own 4E game where you do everything "right" as you see it.

If all else fails, and you don't have fun - stop playing. Seriously, even if you generally under optimal conditions have less fun reading a book, doing stuff in the garden or playing videogames, under non-optimal conditions like that, they might be more fun and a better use of your free time.

 

[Melan]

What part of Neutral Evil are you not getting, here?

No offense, but this "Neutral Evil" advice sounds exactly like "horrible, socially poisonous ideas that may not only destroy the campaign but friendships as well" to me. It was not clear from your post that you were being facetious or sincere. IMHO the sensible options before the OP are a) cope, b) discuss, c) leave. You were suggesting d) subvert, which is never a good idea to try in human relationships.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

No offense, but this "Neutral Evil" advice sounds exactly like "horrible, socially poisonous ideas that may not only destroy the campaign but friendships as well" to me. It was not clear from your post that you were being facetious or sincere. IMHO the sensible options before the OP are a) cope, b) discuss, c) leave. You were suggesting d) subvert, which is never a good idea to try in human relationships.

So you think it's more Chaotic Evil then?

I warned you all about alignment discussions!