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

[Uchawi]

Beyond the fun of enjoying a good story, I also prefer consistency in regards to how the rules are used by the DM or players. You can tell by the DM's style if they like to make stuff up on the fly, or like tinkering with the rules. My biggest concern is consistency. If the DM changes things too much and too often, then it is harder as a player to adapt or trust the DM.

There are a lot of players that develop characters based on certain expectations on how the rules will play out or how they are interpreted. If that starts to fall apart or is less reliable based on how the DM uses the rules then I can understand the apprehension. I have played with DMs that had very detailed worlds, rich plots, and interesting characters, but they also had no problem changing rules interpretations on a dime to suite their needs. I never lasted long in those campaigns, and even if I approached the DM, it was rare they would change.

 

[Kikuras]

How much damage did each ogre take? Because I know if I was converting a 2E module with multiple ogres, I'd use CR 1 "Half Ogres" (hp 30, 100XP) who work more than close enough for ogres. That would also go a ways to explain why the XP was at the amount it was. 1800 troll + 700 (7 half ogres) + 800 (this high ac undead ) = 3300. 3300 / 5 = 550. Either that or the DM is ruling foes who get away are not added to the XP (not a popular rule, but I've seen used before )

The DM specifically mentioned the Ogres had 50+ hp. And while your math does get us to 550, only 375 of it was for combat (100 for showing up, 50 for using the 'last-resort-token', and 25 for role play). And if he wants to hand out XP according to his own schedule, that's fine, I feel, however, that he should make it clear that he is deviating from the SUGGESTED mechanism in the book.

Oh BTW, do expect big fights to be regular, 6 players make lone foe fights a cakewalk and the XP encounter budget does account for this and encourages fights with more numerous foes. Your DM might be erring on the side of too many, but that's hard to say depending on how well the players control the battlefield.

I've already stated I don't have a problem with epic battles, my character shines in such battles, and I've played a lot with larger-than-four groups, I am aware of the difficulty in scaling, the concern I have is for those players that have characters that are less able to handle such combat. It's still too early to tell, but I worry about establishing bad patterns that could lead to group collapse.

That sounds like the group needs a better method of treasure division. Also there are no guarantees magic items are tailored to the characters or that they will fit concepts perfectly.[\QUOTE]

You're very correct here. For the most part this is the first time most of us have ever played together, and when that happens there's a lot of past baggage being brought to the table. My failure on this aspect was assuming (yes, assuming, a big no-no) that we'd be playing a low-magic item adventure, which lends itself to more methodical and discretionary system for granting magic items, in an effort to keep balance, and create interest. There was a goblin-esque fervor over finding such a haul, and they were eager to divide it as fast as possible, and in many cases without thought to tactical party placement.

I think the problem is clear. Your looking through the DMG and modules when you are a player. 4E Hackmaster was tongue in cheek about it, but knowing too much about a game does affect a player.

Well, you're sort of right. I consider the checking of an active module to be rude, and a huge breach of etiquette, however that is not THE problem. THE problem was that my expectations, and the expectations laid out before the adventuring began, were that we would play a relatively vanilla 5e campaign in an effort to familiarize ourselves with the rules, including the DM, and that expectation (whether reasonable or not is not important, I've already admonished myself for having such an expectation) was not met.

What I've found interesting is that very few people suspect that the things I'm complaining about are grounded in a very real concern that he has not at all familiarized himself with the rules, and is basically winging it (which is the case, if anyone was wondering). A valid style, but not always appropriate.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

So were items bid on or what?

 

[Kikuras]

So were items bid on or what?

Once the obviously assignable items went to the characters that could use them, it devolved into a 'dibs' system. Oddly a couple of players gave me "my precious" looks when I started to suggest that maybe some redistribution was in order. I let it go, I didn't want to be the greedy barbarian trying to get a hold on every last red copper that was owed him, especially when it was all as useless to them as it was to me.

 

[BoldItalic]

...

What I've found interesting is that very few people suspect that the things I'm complaining about are grounded in a very real concern that he has not at all familiarized himself with the rules, and is basically winging it (which is the case, if anyone was wondering). A valid style, but not always appropriate.

The encounter and treasure guidelines in the DMG are not set in stone and even the published 5e adventures (LMoP and HotDQ) don't follow them. So, wanting the DM to follow them more closely is a bit unfair.

What you could point out, though, is that character levels in 5e are not the same as character levels in previous editions - they've been rebalanced against different criteria - so what in his mind is an exciting 4th-level encounter is not necessarily right for a party of 4th-level 5th edition PCs. The game's been redesigned and the meaning of "4th-level" has been changed. This is linked to the prevalence of magic items because whereas in previous editions, encounters were balanced on the assumption that PCs have lots of magic items built into them, in 5e that is no longer the case. Encounters are balanced on the assumption that PCs don't have any.

It might be that the DM is throwing magic items at you because he realises your party seems underpowered for his encounters and believes that is the way to correct the problem. In older editions it would have been, but in 5e magic items have been adjusted downwards so that they have only a marginal effect on the power of the PC party. The new way to compensate for a weaker party is not to patch them up with magic items but to weaken the monsters they are faced with.

Suppose you reckon up for yourself, privately, the difficulty level (easy/medium/hard/deadly) of each encounter you are faced with, and announce to your fellow players "This is too hard, let's run away" or "This looks easy, let's slaughter them" as appropriate. This will give the DM feedback and allow him to learn how to balance his encounters. In other words, train your DM gradually, rather than throwing the rule book at him.

(edit - added) Looking at the encounter guidelines, 7 ogres and a troll would be a medium encounter for five 11th-level PCs, or a deadly encounter for five 7th-levels. If you are around 3rd level, you should definitely run away or use clever tactics to split them up and only take on one or two at a time. So, rather than asking the DM to cut it down to just two ogres or one troll, vote with your feet and avoid encounters that are out of your league. He will take the hint.

 

[Kikuras]

The encounter and treasure guidelines in the DMG are not set in stone and even the published 5e adventures (LMoP and HotDQ) don't follow them. So, wanting the DM to follow them more closely is a bit unfair.

I agree it's an unreasonable expectation. The question was never whether or not a DM should deviate from printed material, the question was whether or not it's appropriate for the DM to deviate from printed material when he is unaware of what those changes actually mean and how they translate in terms of game mechanics.

What you could point out, though, is that character levels in 5e are not the same as character levels in previous editions - they've been rebalanced against different criteria - so what in his mind is an exciting 4th-level encounter is not necessarily right for a party of 4th-level 5th edition PCs. The game's been redesigned and the meaning of "4th-level" has been changed. This is linked to the prevalence of magic items because whereas in previous editions, encounters were balanced on the assumption that PCs have lots of magic items built into them, in 5e that is no longer the case. Encounters are balanced on the assumption that PCs don't have any.

Very well described. I would think most DMs could figure this out within the first few weeks of playing, it only took me a couple of hours (reading through the books, reading some reviews, and checking forums). Of course he can always do what he wants, because he is DM, that seems to be the consensus.

It might be that the DM is throwing magic items at you because he realises your party seems underpowered for his encounters and believes that is the way to correct the problem. In older editions it would have been, but in 5e magic items have been adjusted downwards so that they have only a marginal effect on the power of the PC party. The new way to compensate for a weaker party is not to patch them up with magic items but to weaken the monsters they are faced with.

The party isn't really underpowered, we have a monk instead of a rogue, but otherwise the characters function as they should. And I will admit that some of the magic items supplied by the DM did play roles in staving off a TPK in the last big encounter. The monk's spear doing 2d8. The 3rd-level wizard being able to pinch off a couple of Fireballs and a couple of free Witch Bolts. The Fighters shield which grants +6 to AC against ranged attacks. Yeah, we survived, but it was messy and illogical. I would have rather not had the magic items, and a slightly more balanced battle.

Suppose you reckon up for yourself, privately, the difficulty level (easy/medium/hard/deadly) of each encounter you are faced with, and announce to your fellow players "This is too hard, let's run away" or "This looks easy, let's slaughter them" as appropriate. This will give the DM feedback and allow him to learn how to balance his encounters. In other words, train your DM gradually, rather than throwing the rule book at him.

As a rule I don't count avoidable encounters as anything the DM does, but rather it's a PC option, and death or loss is on them. The above mentioned battle was an ambush on the road to the linear destination (Tower of the Heavens) given by the DM. And seeing as we have never battled ogres, nor trolls, and looking them up beforehand/during battle is even worse than module peeking, fleeing was not a logical option.

(edit - added) Looking at the encounter guidelines, 7 ogres and a troll would be a medium encounter for five 11th-level PCs, or a deadly encounter for five 7th-levels. If you are around 3rd level, you should definitely run away or use clever tactics to split them up and only take on one or two at a time. So, rather than asking the DM to cut it down to just two ogres or one troll, vote with your feet and avoid encounters that are out of your league. He will take the hint.

See above comments. It was mostly a free-form combat, where using terrain and tactics can be difficult, and require cooperation from the DM. AoOs were essentially out unless we asked for them, and seeing as we had no idea where we were in relation to each other, it was hard to know when to ask. And again, no idea how difficult any of these opponents were in relation to our own abilities. It's not until the wizard has been down to 0 three times, the Sorcerer two, and the cleric running out of healing resources that you start to think to yourself, "this was a bad idea." The theory of "you lived, who cares" carries weight in this discussion, however it's a combination of smaller related issues that bothers me.

 

[Schmoe]

I need to crowd-source some wisdom concerning table ethics.

I was invited to join a group for 5e hosted by my brother-in-law, a good friend of his would act as DM. Disappointed by the conceptualization of 4e, and tired of the crunchiness of 3.5, I was eager to play. Suffice it to say this was everyone's first go at 5e, so it was pretty well understood that we would have to learn a lot as we went along, including the DM. Anyway, we were a few sessions in when I started to suspect some fishy stuff. Orcs had higher ACs, and the DM was making up items, both mundane and magical. The deal was sealed when our party of 5 level-3 characters, and a level 2 were pitted against 7 ogres and a troll (and an undead assassin with a 22 AC for three rounds). We survived, barely, with 4 of the ogres fleeing... and each player waled away with 550 XP.

To add insult to injury, we had come across a treasure trove (inappropriate for our level), which contained about 16 magic items (very inappropriate considering the general attitude of magic items in 5e), some insanely powerful, some essentially pointless, none were really fitted for the party (my character walked away with 0/16 items due to lack of usefulness), and NONE came out of the DMG. I know he's running a 2e module, and perplexed by the array of magic items, I went to go see if they were legacy items, but they're not in the module either.

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.

First off, from other posts later in this thread, I think it's pretty clear that you expected to play in a game that was run as close as possible to by-the-book. The fact that it's not is the real problem you're facing. You need to decide for yourself if its a game you can enjoy.

Having said that, the combination of over-the-top encounters and Wahoo Magic sounds like a Monty Haul game to me. Those can be fun in the short term, but generally crash dramatically after a while. The other stuff you mention - made up magic items, non-tailored magic items, "short-changing" XP, and customized monsters, can all be stylistic choices that work really well for some games. Personally, I know that I do three of the four all the time.

After all is said and done, though, I wouldn't touch a Monty Haul game with a 10' pole.