D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

I very much think that low-level lethality is a bad thing as long as they're still treated as 'tutorial levels', if DMs want to be lethal I'd rather them be pushed to send Nazguls against Lancelots instead of sending Goblins against Hobbits.

SableWyvern said:

For the record, my position is and has consistently been that the sorts of bad GMs being discussed did exist, still exist, and can most likely be found in many different places.

The original claim I was disputing was the notion that once upon a time, running antagonistic and unfun games was the norm for most GMs and only rare GMs, well ahead of their time, were capable of identifying other ways to play. Along with this, I was disputing the notion that the majority of players would just accept antagonistic, unfun games and continue playing anyway. Finally, I was disputing the notion that recognising and calling out bad GMs is something we've only recently discovered how to do.

The idea that these sorts of GMs were the norm and accepted rests on the idea that people will just keep doing something they don't enjoy. I also note that someone running an antagonistic game that the players find fun is not a bad GM or running a bad game.

Based on the discussions I see online, my conclusion is that the main reason for most issues always was and remains a lack of communication and clear, shared expectations. In a social hobby, so many people are unwilling or unable to just talk to the people they're gaming with.

Click to expand...

I don't think people were saying it was the norm, but I think its fair to say that is was more common in decades past and there was a fair amount of bad DM advice that helped support it far longer than it needed to be. Some DMs figured it out for themselves and improved. Some DMs who were bad would remain bad regardless of what was in the books. But the issue was that the rules helped shield bad/killer DMs for many years and more than a few bad DMs learned from other bad DMs and thought that WAS the norm. The community allowed such bad DMs to exist far longer than it should have, and there is still a strong strain of DMs who feel not only is it not bad, but it the correct way to play.

But I take solace in the fact that much of the killer DM fuel is dying out. Many of the more recent DMGs (and other GMGs) have moved away from such antagonism. CR and other streaming shows show positive portrayals of DMing. Killer DMs are mocked, not celebrated. I feel the game is getting healthier when it comes to Player/DM relationships than it was in the 90s.

Remathilis said:

I don't think people were saying it was the norm, but I think its fair to say that is was more common in decades past ...

But I take solace in the fact that much of the killer DM fuel is dying out.

Click to expand...

I will agree that bad GMs, specifically in the "Killer GM" style, are most likely less common today than they once were, by simple dint of the fact that high-lethality games are most likely less common, although it still feels to me that this change was already well underway in the 80s and is not any especially recent phenomenon.

Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that, in the circles I moved in, D&D was just one game among many, and that I mostly looked down on D&D as a simplistic, boring game for roll players for my first 10+ years in the hobby.

Like I said somewhere else, I recognize that the current Play Culture has it's own demons and issues but if you ask me to choose between a better version of the Gygaxian/Old Trad style with less Killer DMs and them being higher-quality.... I would still choose the culture as it is now over that hypothetical better culture.

Minigiant said:

I could see many people having their poorly rolled PCs hold the line and be the sacrifice for the PCs that rolled good stats or got some levels.

Click to expand...

Honestly, it didn't matter as much back then depending on where the bad stats landed. A cruddy Int on a Fighting-Man or Thief was mechanically irrelevant for example. And the range of what was "mediocre" could be quite wide on a number of stats.

Though yeah, "throwing your character on a swordbush" was a known thing too.

Minigiant said:

So a level 4 fighter might be standing on the back of 10 dead allies.

But from the outside, it looks like the DM killed 50-80% of the PCs with dozens of dead.
And i could see a ruthless DM using that to ruthlessly, antagonistically, unfairly, or not fun kill some PCs because it's a few of many.

Click to expand...

It was liable to be subtler than that with successful ones. Setting up overtuned encounters in an avoidable way, but one that only the most on-their-game players would probably detect and figure out. Some people even appreciated that in "hard-but-fair" perception but you always had to question whether all players hitting it were particularly appreciative, especially if they lost a hard-won character that way.

SableWyvern said:

I will agree that bad GMs, specifically in the "Killer GM" style, are most likely less common today than they once were, by simple dint of the fact that high-lethality games are most likely less common, although it still feels to me that this change was already well underway in the 80s and is not any especially recent phenomenon.

Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that, in the circles I moved in, D&D was just one game among many, and that I mostly looked down on D&D as a simplistic, boring game for roll players for my first 10+ years in the hobby.

Click to expand...

Though there were absolutely games outside the D&D sphere that still had pretty high mortality. The BRP sphere was (and to some extent still is) fairly far along on that simply because it can be unforgiving. Oddly enough, it never had the culture where that was a virtue to the same degree, though.

Thomas Shey said:

Though there were absolutely games outside the D&D sphere that still had pretty high mortality. The BRP sphere was (and to some extent still is) fairly far along on that simply because it can be unforgiving. Oddly enough, it never had the culture where that was a virtue to the same degree, though.

Click to expand...

A killer DM can only exist in a game where there is a base level of lethality to enable it, but I've held consistently to the position that the simple fact that it's possible doesn't make it inevitable.

I'm essentially accepting the assertions others are making in this thread that, to at least some degree, any acceptance for this kind of thing is related to commentary such as advice in the AD&D DMG. It should be no great surprise that someone playing a game that rejects many of the premises of D&D can't use certain premises of D&D as a shield for bad behaviour.

SableWyvern said:

A killer DM can only exist in a game where there is a base level of lethality to enable it, but I've held consistently to the position that the simple fact that it's possible doesn't make it inevitable.

I'm essentially accepting the assertions others are making in this thread that, to at least some degree, any acceptance for this kind of thing is related to commentary such as advice in the AD&D DMG. It should be no great surprise that someone playing a game that rejects many of the premises of D&D can't use certain premises of D&D as a shield for bad behaviour.

Click to expand...

That's fair, but I'm surprised more of it didn't carry over. After all, a relatively small percentage of people back in that day didn't hit D&D first. But apparently the new environment evoked a new perspective.

Minigiant said:

I'm not saying any of that.

Click to expand...

You didn't need to. You brought up three issues from several editions ago that 5e designed hard against for all GMs and attributed them to some GMs. That fact alone is the spotlight.

More than one post has commented how it was common for GMs of old to give players extra starting gear have them start at higher levels and all sorts of other stuff to mitigate that lethality,. What keeps getting skipped over is how that GM side act of what was practically noblesse oblige that oftencame with an expectation that the players willingly work with them during character creation. If a player wasn't willing to work with them, maybe that player whodigs inand absolutely must bring in that darksun tortle only got a magic item that reduced their water needs to match everyone else at most instead of the kinds of stuff that came from working with the gm willing and all of the lore conflicts self resolved in a couple sessions with the replacement being a better fit

Minigiant said:

I'm saying that from 0e to AD&D 2e, if the player rolled a d20,, they had a high chance of failure. And if the DM rolled, they had a high chance of killing the PCs. A PC needed a handful of levels before the game wasn't just murdering them from the jump.

Running the game straight made you a DM who was a PC killer. This is before Yes or No.

In order to not kill PCs, (1) players had to avoid playing the game in the book, (2) players had to roll well and run munchkin PCs, or (3) the DM had to actively help them survive.

2 and 3 are where the reputation of killer DMs was likely birthed. Because if you didn't let players run munchkins and didn't help them out, player's PCs would statistically die before they got good. You could be a killer DM by playing straight. This gave controlling people lots of power if DMing.

Antagonistic and Killer DMs were likely not the norm as it would be easy for most Dms to realize that if you play straight, the PCs are gonna die.

Click to expand...

You are only looking at one side of the impact though. All of that also had positive influence on the table & multiple posters∆ have even noted half of those positive influences already.

It was super common for a GM to have players start with a few levels an extra feat some extra cool gear and all kinds of stuff that effectively amounted to GM side noblesse oblige. That basket of CoolStuff from the gm often came with an expectation and player obligation for players to to work with their gm during character creation to make sure their characters would fit (or whatever). Even beyond that it allowed the GM to attach lore and plot/adventure hooks to the CoolStuff they were giving out.

When 5e erased the need for players to feel like not having a basket of CoolStuff from their GM it shifted the dynamic to one where players went from excitedly working with their GM to one where they feel justified in expressing outrage that the gm dare refuse MyChArEcTeR when they were told by wotc in no uncertain terms that d&d should be a vehicle to tell their story rather than yielding to the mere meat computer driving the game's ai supporting said player authored storytelling.



∆ perhaps even you, it's a long thread

tetrasodium said:

You are only looking at one side of the impact though. All of that also had positive influence on the table & multiple posters∆ have even noted half of those positive influences already.

It was super common for a GM to have players start with a few levels an extra feat some extra cool gear and all kinds of stuff that effectively amounted to GM side noblesse oblige. That basket of CoolStuff from the gm often came with an expectation and player obligation for players to to work with their gm during character creation to make sure their characters would fit (or whatever). Even beyond that it allowed the GM to attach lore and plot/adventure hooks to the CoolStuff they were giving out.

When 5e erased the need for players to feel like not having a basket of CoolStuff from their GM it shifted the dynamic to one where players went from excitedly working with their GM to one where they feel justified in expressing outrage that the gm dare refuse MyChArEcTeR when they were told by wotc in no uncertain terms that d&d should be a vehicle to tell their story rather than yielding to the mere meat computer driving the game's ai supporting said player authored storytelling.

Click to expand...

I absolutely do not want my CoolStuff to be by the GM's beneficence, using and getting those CoolStuff is the very reason I play the system in the 1st place! Especially if that 'super common' comes from the GM already being experienced and knowledgeable! Maybe we should all just burn every rule and book that has ever been made and replace them all with 'Trust your GM' if this is what you consider a good thing!

If so many people decided to cushion the lethality maybe the lethality is the problem, and that leaving the problem as is to give DMs more power is just pure GM supremacist... Which is fine of course, I'm a player supremacist.

So yes, MY character and certainly not Your world