1st rule of Killer DMs: They never admit they are Killer DMs
2nd rule of Killer DMs: See Rule #1
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How different PC motivations support sandbox and campaign play
- Thread starter Doug McCrae
- Start date
1st rule of Killer DMs: They never admit they are Killer DMs
2nd rule of Killer DMs: See Rule #1
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
So you've got nothing but an out of context quote. Got it. Thanks!
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Full Disclosure: I fully admit to being what is considered a "Killer DM" in todays, uh, hmmm....don't know how to put it, so I'll just be blunt: "I'm a Killer DM when compared to a surprising amount of more modern DM's where coddling the players and their characters is preferred to letting them die and change the story/plot". (e.g., DM's that actively try to avoid killing PC's).
Yup. Killer DM.
And dang proud of it too! My players KNOW that I don't pull punches or otherwise favour their PC's. If they want to survive, they have to be smart, cautious, and work together. Alas, my players also have an (as of yet) incurable case of individually-created-PC's-without-consult-to-other-players. Meaning they don't tend to create characters as "a group" (a problem they learned in the 3e days), and thus end up with a Fighter, Barbarian, Fighter, Thief....or Warlock, Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer...or Cleric, Thief, Bard, Thief....you get the point. So when they get to that heavily locked/trapped door, or that impassible stone block, or magical force-field, well, they're screwed. Not my fault. When they DO work together and create complementary PC's (which, I am happy to report, they have been doing ever so slight more over the last half year or so), they do MUCH better. That's how they managed to get the Barbarian to 7th, Druid to 5th, and Thief to 4th; they were all in the same 'adventuring party' (I think the Warlock got to 3rd).
Anyway, yeah. I am "adversarial" in that I am playing the parts of the monsters, NPC's and environment. I "want" to kill/capture the PC's in as much as I'm the 'bad guys'. I mean, if I was one of those "old skool Killer DM's", well, the old quote of "Rocks fall. Everyone dies" didn't just come out of no-where. Any DM can "kill PC's"...its being able to do that and have your players coming back for more that tells you you're doing it "right".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Full Disclosure: I fully admit to being what is considered a "Killer DM" in todays, uh, hmmm....don't know how to put it, so I'll just be blunt: "I'm a Killer DM when compared to a surprising amount of more modern DM's where coddling the players and their characters is preferred to letting them die and change the story/plot". (e.g., DM's that actively try to avoid killing PC's).
Yup. Killer DM.
And dang proud of it too! My players KNOW that I don't pull punches or otherwise favour their PC's. If they want to survive, they have to be smart, cautious, and work together. Alas, my players also have an (as of yet) incurable case of individually-created-PC's-without-consult-to-other-players. Meaning they don't tend to create characters as "a group" (a problem they learned in the 3e days), and thus end up with a Fighter, Barbarian, Fighter, Thief....or Warlock, Wizard, Bard, Sorcerer...or Cleric, Thief, Bard, Thief....you get the point. So when they get to that heavily locked/trapped door, or that impassible stone block, or magical force-field, well, they're screwed. Not my fault. When they DO work together and create complementary PC's (which, I am happy to report, they have been doing ever so slight more over the last half year or so), they do MUCH better. That's how they managed to get the Barbarian to 7th, Druid to 5th, and Thief to 4th; they were all in the same 'adventuring party' (I think the Warlock got to 3rd). Anyway, yeah. I am "adversarial" in that I am playing the parts of the monsters, NPC's and environment. I "want" to kill/capture the PC's in as much as I'm the 'bad guys'. I mean, if I was one of those "old skool Killer DM's", well, the old quote of "Rocks fall. Everyone dies" didn't just come out of no-where. Any DM can "kill PC's"...its being able to do that and have your players coming back for more that tells you you're doing it "right".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Last edited:
In other words you actually agree that even if magic items are for sale, it's not a way to burn money.
P.S.: Looks like this thread exploded over the weekend. TL;DR, unfortunately
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
I do.
And moreover, I'll defend it.
Adventuring is high risk, high reward. Take away the high risk part, and what's left? Not much, really...
Lanefan
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I don't think the GM needs to be trying to kill the party, but I much prefer a GM who is willing to let characters die than one who protects them. I think a GM who strives to be fair but isn't afraid to throw the occasional tough monster and let the dice fall where they may, provides a more engaging experience.
Hiya!
Full Disclosure: I fully admit to being what is considered a "Killer DM" in todays, uh, hmmm....don't know how to put it, so I'll just be blunt: "I'm a Killer DM when compared to a surprising amount of more modern DM's where coddling the players and their characters is preferred to letting them die and change the story/plot". (e.g., DM's that actively try to avoid killing PC's).
Yup. Killer DM.
Anyway, yeah. I am "adversarial" in that I am playing the parts of the monsters, NPC's and environment. I "want" to kill/capture the PC's in as much as I'm the 'bad guys'. I mean, if I was one of those "old skool Killer DM's", well, the old quote of "Rocks fall. Everyone dies" didn't just come out of no-where. Any DM can "kill PC's"...its being able to do that and have your players coming back for more that tells you you're doing it "right".
^_^
Paul L. Ming
As I said, there is nothing wrong with this type of game, it is very nostalgic for me.
But if the DM resorts to "Rocks fall" then you know that your character won the game.
pming
Legend
Hiya!
Correct. Which is why I've never done that. Now, explaining that for the past 4 days as the move into the mountain pass it's been pouring rain and stormy, and they keep seeing more and more indications of fresh rock and mud slides...and they keep going? Well, if the random chance as per my notes indicates a steady climb to a 2-in-20 chance that any sufficiently loud noise can cause one...and the wizard casts a Thunderwave spell...and I roll a 1 or 2 on that d20? Then I'd have no problem with "Rocks fall. Everyone dies". Not that I would do that, I'd give everyone a Save, probably DC 18, on whichever Save they want to use. Fail, die. Simple.
But my players are cautious because they know I would have risks like this in the game. And they know that they can use their playing skill to "read the danger signs" from in-game description...just like any normal person in the real world would.
Being a "Killer DM" doesn't make me a "Bad DM", I guess is what I'm saying...not that you accused me of that, you didn't. Just making a statement about being a Killer DM; it has it's perks as far as successful D&D Campaigning goes.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Correct. Which is why I've never done that. Now, explaining that for the past 4 days as the move into the mountain pass it's been pouring rain and stormy, and they keep seeing more and more indications of fresh rock and mud slides...and they keep going? Well, if the random chance as per my notes indicates a steady climb to a 2-in-20 chance that any sufficiently loud noise can cause one...and the wizard casts a Thunderwave spell...and I roll a 1 or 2 on that d20? Then I'd have no problem with "Rocks fall. Everyone dies". Not that I would do that, I'd give everyone a Save, probably DC 18, on whichever Save they want to use. Fail, die. Simple.
But my players are cautious because they know I would have risks like this in the game. And they know that they can use their playing skill to "read the danger signs" from in-game description...just like any normal person in the real world would.
Being a "Killer DM" doesn't make me a "Bad DM", I guess is what I'm saying...not that you accused me of that, you didn't. Just making a statement about being a Killer DM; it has it's perks as far as successful D&D Campaigning goes.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
hawkeyefan
Legend
I don't think that you have to be either a "coddler DM" or an "adversarial DM".
I like the idea that some games propose of being "fans of the characters". I don't think that means you have to baby them, or coddle the players or any such extreme. But I do think it acknowledges the idea that yes, there is something special about the characters. they are the stars of the story. Yes, they can be in danger, and yes they can die...but the story is still about them, so that shoudl be considered.
I find the "nothing special about these characters" mindset to be a bit odd. If there's nothing special about them, then why have a story about them?
I like the idea that some games propose of being "fans of the characters". I don't think that means you have to baby them, or coddle the players or any such extreme. But I do think it acknowledges the idea that yes, there is something special about the characters. they are the stars of the story. Yes, they can be in danger, and yes they can die...but the story is still about them, so that shoudl be considered.
I find the "nothing special about these characters" mindset to be a bit odd. If there's nothing special about them, then why have a story about them?
A lot of D&D play isn't about having a story. It's about the players beating the adventure using their PCs as the vehicles for doing that. It's a type of wargaming variant - like freeform wargaming (and unlike boardgames and some wargames), the fiction matters to adjudication and can be "played" directly by a skilled player without the need for mechanical mediation; but unlike a wargame each player is playing a single individual character.
A module like Tomb of Horrors, or the Caves of Chaos in Keep on the Borderlands, or even a rather quirky module like Castle Amber, doesn't really make sense except in this sort of context.
Similar Threads
