Am I a Mean DM?

[Thornir Alekeg]

Regardless of whether or not you had intended for them to run away you needed to plan the encounter as if they wouldn't (since players seldomly do what is expected - it is what makes the game fun and challenging, especially for DMs).

I will really have to disagree with you on this one. If you always balance the encounter to the situation, then the players never have to worry that they should be running away. "Don't worry, the DM wouldn't never put us into an unfair situation, so we can stand and fight, even though we have no armor." As long as the DM gives some kind of indication that this fight may be tougher than thought, ("The warrior whirls his sword in a display of power and skill that you have rarely seen") it is the players responsibility to learn to read the signs and take appropriate action. If you always prop up the players with near perfect balance and minimal risk, they will never learn to stand on their own.

Back to the original intent of the thread. It sucks for the player, but I would not say you are a mean DM at all. You just are not as soft as some (myself included)

 

[irdeggman]

I will really have to disagree with you on this one. If you always balance the encounter to the situation, then the players never have to worry that they should be running away. "Don't worry, the DM wouldn't never put us into an unfair situation, so we can stand and fight, even though we have no armor." As long as the DM gives some kind of indication that this fight may be tougher than thought, ("The warrior whirls his sword in a display of power and skill that you have rarely seen") it is the players responsibility to learn to read the signs and take appropriate action. If you always prop up the players with near perfect balance and minimal risk, they will never learn to stand on their own.

That wasn't my point. My point was that the DM should count the encounter as being of a higher EL than it normally would due to the circumstances. Probably a +2 (as specified in the DMG) and not think it is an even up encounter.

Also there is a big differrence between coming across a fighter and a wizard (not knowing their levels/abilities) and coming across say a dragon. One the players' think they have a chance at defeating ("hey we outnumber them") and the other it is obvious to the most casual player that they don't stand a chance.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

I wouldn't say you were a mean DM at all. Not every game should be all about the PC's and how great their might is. If anything, I think that DMing can tend to be very boring.

I've never DMed a session myself, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt. But, if I had to give any advice, I'd say that the next time your run an ultra low-level session, or any session where you know your campaign is going to involve survival over "kill the bad guy," you should just warn your players implicitly before hand.

I've played a session very similar to yours, although with a different system. We spent a majority of our time running from zombies, and overall just trying to make it out. And, we had some great impromptu moments where a PC would do something totally bizarre (like try to shoot a Desert Eagle out of a moving car on a bumpy road... and rolling a 1), and then we'd spend the next hour or two fighting off hoards and carrying off unconscious bodies.

What made the session enjoyble for the players was that the DM told us ahead of time what the general theme of the campaign would be like. We knew before we even started that this would be a dark tale, where the good guys (namely us) weren't going to be able to kung fu our ways to the top of the tower.

I think if your players are made well aware that they shouldn't be in the mind set that there are necessarily any gains to fighting in dire situations without armor, then they'll be far less likely to be disenchanted with the game's outcome should they choose to play it.

 

[Erithtotl]

While killing a player is not being a meany, I would have some questions about your game. I too would be a little dismayed at the '13 sessions, 2nd level' thing, even the biggest roleplayers in my group bitch about not getting to higher levels quicker. In addition, I know that as a player I dont' enjoy having 4 'dead player' NPCs hanging around with my group being played by the DM. It really intrudes, and I would have a tendancy to 'put them in the corner' as a way of saying that we didn't want them around anymore, not to mention that would play a big part in soaking up XPs from the rest of the players. Finally, a 13 session campaign where 4 players quit and the rest only made it to second level can feel both very disjointed and unsatisfying.

So while I think what you did on the lines of killing a player 2 sessions before the end wasn't mean, I can imagine that there might be a little more resentment coming out in the player's comments because of frustration with other elements of the game. Obviously without knowning all the other details its impossible to know for sure but that would be my gut reaction.

 

[Hjorimir]

My players understand that encounters are not always created with their level in mind and often find themselves running for their lives. I think once you come to that point, it creates a more healthy role-playing environment as the world and adventures seem less constructed and the players are forced to make strategic decisions on what and what not to do.

That being said, never forget the game is meant to be fun for all (i.e. both the players and the DM). I'd have a talk with the players and see if you can all agree on what is fun for everybody and adapt that playstyle everybody agrees upon.

 

[ptolemy18]

While killing a player is not being a meany, I would have some questions about your game. I too would be a little dismayed at the '13 sessions, 2nd level' thing, even the biggest roleplayers in my group bitch about not getting to higher levels quicker.

Well, I was going by the suggestion in the core books that in the 'average' campaign, people raise a level about once every 6 sessions. That seems to be calculated on a scale of two encounters per game (which would equal 150 XP per session at 1st level, or 300 XP per session at 2nd level). Also, some of those 13 sessions were spent in town with no combat encounters. It's true that I might still be a little cheap with the XP. (Anyway, one of the survivors just reached 3rd level... and of course they got more XP for the hideously overpowered fights. :/ )

In addition, I know that as a player I dont' enjoy having 4 'dead player' NPCs hanging around with my group being played by the DM.

Actually, they were being played by the surviving players. So it was more like a "everybody has two characters" situation... but the guy who died was the player's "real" original character.

Finally, a 13 session campaign where 4 players quit and the rest only made it to second level can feel both very disjointed and unsatisfying.

Yes, it sucks that so many people dropped out... all I can *hope* is that it was due to circumstances other than my DMing. The player-group was made up of people who mostly didn't know eachother before they started playing the game, and a lot of them were "casual" gamers, so they never quite clicked.

In order of the 4 drop-outs:

* One person quit because his "trivia nights at the bar" at his work had been scheduled on the same night as the game.
* One person quit because he didn't like all but two of the other players. :/
* One person quit because he decided he wanted to watch some TV show with his wife on the same night as the game. Also, he too didn't like one of the other players.
* One person quit because it didn't work with her schedule... she got up at 5:30-6:00ish for work and the games ran until 10 or 11 on the previous night. (She tried it for 12 sessions, then started complaining before she quit, but that was the only night some of the other people could play.)

Now, obviously, in addition to all this, my campaign must not have been that compelling or people would've GLADLY dropped out of some dumb ol' "trivia night at the bar" and "watching TV with your loved ones" in order to play D&D... right? I think? :/

Well, anyway, nobody ever complained specifically about my DMing, except one person who said that I was spending too much time letting people split up into individual groups when they went into town and stuff. ("I go to the weaponshop!... I go to this temple!... I go to that temple!... I go pick pockets!...") Afterwards, I tried to cut down on this, but he (drop-out #2) never showed up again, so he didn't get the chance to see the "fruit" of my efforts. Oh well...

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

I, too, must echo the idea of 'why are they so low level after 13 sessions?' That makes me think you are a meany.

Well, in my last campaign in which I was a player (not the DM), we played for four years. At the end of that time (after everybody had died and restarted with new characters one level lower at least two or three times) the baseline party level was 15th level.

So... that's about 3 1/2 levels per year.... I think I was actually being more generous with the XP in my campaign. Whether it's still harsh compared to the "National D&D Average Experience Point Totals", I dunno.

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

Well, anyway, nobody ever complained specifically about my DMing, except one person who said that I was spending too much time letting people split up into individual groups when they went into town and stuff. ("I go to the weaponshop!... I go to this temple!... I go to that temple!... I go pick pockets!...")

Now that I think about it, this might tie in to the general "didn't know eachother before they started playing, and never completely clicked together as a group" aspect of the players, which was passed down to their characters. :/

Jason

 

[ptolemy18]

When you say "campaign" do you mean "campaign" as in, "this campaign consists of 13 sessions and then the party will move on to another campaign against a new foe," or do you mean "campaign" as in "once this campaign is over, we'll start a new one in with different characters in a different world"?

It's more like "It seems like the game doesn't work with people's schedules, so let's play to the end of this adventure and then maybe that'd be a good point to consider quitting."

In fact, I actually came out and pretty much said that... which I don't know if it was a good idea or a bad idea... :/

Jason

 

[Bagpuss]

Four players is a decent (in fact I believe average) sized group, if 4 came make it regularly that's no reason to quit. Heck our group only has 3 players, we only play once a week 7 to 10, and half of that time is spent in OOC jokes and chat. Its a wonder we get anything accomplished.

13 weeks playing once a week, to 2nd level isn't that slow a progression depending on how many battles you get a session. I mean you are only ment to level every 14 encounters so if you only manage 1 or 2 battles a week, then you are actually ahead of target.

Still 8 players means you probably had to split the attention far to much, you should be glad you cut the fat. Drop the NPC's and pay more attention to the people that actually attend. Why the hell are you still carrying around 4 NPCs?