D&D 5E Moral Quandry Over Possible DM Failures?

[LostSoul]

Some questions...

How many options do you have for adventure? Are there dungeons scattered about or do you take on only what the DM's prepared for that session? If there are multiple options, do they all have the same level of risk? How much time do you have to complete these adventures - can you take it slow and scout, or are you pressed into action?

 

[Sunseeker]

Some thoughts from a guy who DMed the same thing:

I make most of my monsters myself, and the game started before the MM was released. So, if your DM/anyone at the table, doesn't have a MM, either invest in one, or deal with the fact that creatures will not be "by the book". Now, assuming that your DM does have the MM, I can still see a desire to run things would normally be way beyond your level, in a boiled-down version, but that does sort of defeat the point of "learning the edition" which it seems was the proposed intention behind the game(aside from having fun of course).

I started my game with the intention of "stick to the rools". We played for about 3 months that way. I used the MM for guidance once it released, but still made most of my monsters myself and I was very stingy with magical treasure. I was a big stickler to the rules because I wanted to get a good handle on the game. Even when I did give out magical treasure, I made it myself but kept them very in line with what you'd find in the DMG.

I certainly support customizing and stuff, but really, stick to the books if you're a new DM. 5th can feel like earlier editions at times, but if you treat it like another edition you'll almost certainly break it.

 

[Gnarl45]

So what do I do? I like the DM, he spins a good yarn, and he runs the table well, but there's a distinct break from 5e rules that has got my panties in a bunch. Do I just bear it and hope he fixes it in the future? Do I surreptitiously drop hints to my brother-in-law that not is all well? Should I maybe pass a note at our next session? DMing isn't easy, I respect anyone who is going to take the time and effort to do it, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, but made-up magic items that don't fit the party, short-changing XP, and multiple 'deadly' encounters seems like a bit much to deal with.

A DM isn't allowed to make up magic items and modify monsters? I wonder what's going to happen when your DM creates a new monster! Imagine if it looks like an orc but is called an orc grunt and has a battleaxe and a shield!

And what's this thing about magic items that don't fit the party? This is exactly why I didn't want guidelines in the DMG. It creates expectations and creates a conflict between players and DM when the DM tries something different than the guidelines.

As for the XP awards, are you sure your DM is awarding XP by monsters killed? Some DM award XP when you reach a milestone.

And finally, those encounters are deadly for a reason. So you don't rush in there like a brainless moron and use your brains! There are 4 types of encounters: easy ones that are just there to make you doubt, average ones you can rush into, hard ones where you need to think, and impossible ones that you need to avoid.

Your DM isn't doing anything wrong. You need to keep an open mind. RPGs are meant to tell different types of stories. Your DMs will sometimes put a cap on your ability scores of 16 so you never get too strong and create a scary dangerous world. Others will go over the top on magic items and you'll have the joy of playing high powered characters. One day a DM might even give you a pet that can bite without you telling him to do so!

I think you should give it a shot with a more open-minded attitude. You know, try something new! But if you don't like monty haul campaigns, you can always talk to your brother in law. Every type of campaign isn't for everybody. You guys should be able to work out something.

 

[Kikuras]

Awesome advice from everyone so far.

I think a lot of you have in your own way helped me identify what the real problem is. We did have an initial meeting where we got together and discussed what we wanted to accomplish with this particular group, and it was established that we wanted to explore the 5e rules. No when I said that, I may have been thinking 'let's play vanilla, see what works, see what doesn't, and deviate as needed'. He might have been thinking something completely different.

So yes, my expectations were perhaps misplaced, and a rift was formed. Knowing this will help me manage going forward.

For the record, all encounters were planned/necessary to progress the story, no opportunity for side missions as yet. As for overly-difficult encounters, I'm personally not bothered by them, but the distribution of resource use is unsettling to watch. I worry the constant fear of character death by other players is going to wear thin and the game is going fizzle.

 

[BigVanVader]

I think some people are harping on this guy too much. Yeah, the DM's game sounds hella fun, and I totally wanna make a Rogue for it, but his concerns are also completely valid. I've played in games where guys just give insane loot and throw insane monsters, and guess what, if the DM isn't a master? That game can crash into the goddamn mountains like a zeppelin.

That being said...I wanna play in your game, Kikuras. Give me a ride, I wanna play.

 

[LostSoul]

For the record, all encounters were planned/necessary to progress the story, no opportunity for side missions as yet. As for overly-difficult encounters, I'm personally not bothered by them, but the distribution of resource use is unsettling to watch. I worry the constant fear of character death by other players is going to wear thin and the game is going fizzle.

I am not sure if this is the same situation, but it reminds me of a game I played some years back. The DM would give us a choice of two equally-deadly linear dungeons to adventure in. We didn't have much way to avoid or alleviate the deadliness of the encounters. Treasure was sparse and XP was handed out by session, so if you didn't play an optimized character (I didn't) you felt like the more you played the worse your character became.

(The XP-by-session created a perverse incentive to delay and dither during sessions. I didn't do this because that would have been much worse, but I recognized that it was there. That kind of game design irritates me - when the best way to progress in the game is by doing something you don't enjoy. Progress meaning getting to the parts you enjoy or adding enjoyment to what you're already doing.)

 

[jgsugden]

If the DM is receptive, offer feedback. If not, decide if it is a game you want to play in or not. If you make it any more complex than that, you're just asking for trouble.

 

[GMMichael]

So what do I do? I like the DM, he spins a good yarn, and he runs the table well

So, what's the problem?

Snark aside, you shouldn't complain unless other players agree with you. Because what I hear is that you don't like his style - which is purely a matter of opinion.

 

[Kikuras]

BigVanVader, I wouldn't mind having a rogue around, the unoptimized monk in the party is... ... ... lawful good.

 

[Werebat]

Making stuff up is the very heart and soul of D&D. The idea that something is fundamentally "wrong" because this is happening is a concept that is too bizarre to contemplate.

Take a look at your own words up there. Did you even stop to consider the possibility that the OP might be an aboleth, mind flayer, or similar differently-minded being? For shame, sir! Show a little sensitivity to our brethren of the Far Realm!