DM Hazing

[VoiceOfReason?]

Hrm, not the reaction I expected exactly; let me explain a few things:

-yes, we had no shortage of DM's, this was the largest gaming "group" I have ever seen, short of convention crowds-at times numbering 25+ of us (not all at one table). Our group existed for 6 years before I moved away and to my knowledge still gathers 2-3 times weekly for various games.

-Because we always had 10+ people willing to play any game that anyone wanted to run, there were generally 2-5 campaigns in progress at a time, with as many on hold as DMs gathered and recorded new ideas.

-I did DM regularly for this group, often with 2 or more campaigns ongoing simultaneously. I got the treatment twice, once for blatant railroading (in which the characters did nothing but speed through every adventure and purposefuly failed to complete each one) and once for imposing a house rule that hindered melee combat (the group killed all their fighters and made a group consisting of wizards, sorcerers, druids, and clerics-which had a profound effect on fomulating adventures, forcing me to rewrite most of the campaign or lift the rule).

-This was never done to a new DM. We the players always did what we could to get a new DM's first campaign off without a hitch (unless it was simply unplayable). Considering nearly half of every group's PCs were played by people who were presently or formerly a DM themselves, it was a forgiving atmosphere when that was what was called for. For the same reason, our newer DM's had all the experienced advice they could want, and help from all sides (from players in the game or from players/DMs in other games) calculating CR's, devising plot hooks and adventures, etc.

-Don't think for a second that the DM's didn't retaliate. 4d6's dropped for character generation on a regular basis.

-Dispite how my first post may have come across, we weren't simply trying to ruin a game. It would have been much simpler to walk away or euthanize the game in favor of a new one. The hazing was not malicious. We were all friends, saw eachother every day at school. It was more like a rules argument taken to an extreme. The players presented their argument (by tormenting the DM), and the DM presented his (by continuing what he was doing). Eventually one side or the other would win out when
a) the DM conceded to the players' demands and stopped pissing them off in-game;
b) the players decided to continue with the game as the DM had it scripted and just deal with it; or
c) the DM got frustrated, cancelled the game, and was usually given first dibs on the timespot next week if he wanted to come up with another, or alter the first one to better suit the players' preferences.


perhaps the sheer size of our group dictated different polotics than other, smaller groups. And now that I think on it, none of the smaller groups I played in went to this extreme.

 

[RandomPrecision]

It's not that we disliked our DM's style - he was just bad at what he was doing. After we screwed up his campaign, he didn't make the same mistake again. We made him a better DM, instead of leaving him and searching low and high for another DM, leaving him to wallow in bad-DM-ness. Bad isn't a style of DMing, it's a quality; while we could look for a better DM, it proved to be more convenient to make this one better.

 

[Rel]

It's not that we disliked our DM's style - he was just bad at what he was doing. After we screwed up his campaign, he didn't make the same mistake again. We made him a better DM, instead of leaving him and searching low and high for another DM, leaving him to wallow in bad-DM-ness. Bad isn't a style of DMing, it's a quality; while we could look for a better DM, it proved to be more convenient to make this one better.

A lovely idea to be sure.

I think where many of the posters in this thread might disagree with you is your methodology. Perhaps there are more direct and productive ways to help him improve his DMing skills than "screwing up his game".

 

[Ranger REG]

i find Alcohol works best. make a game of it.

It does not always work. Back in the early 90's, we were consuming alcohol during a Star Wars game session, that my bucket of dice ... had another use.

 

[Sir Elton]

If somebody did that to me, I'd pack up my dice and catch the next bus home.

 

[RandomPrecision]

If somebody did that to me, I'd pack up my dice and catch the next bus home.

You know, everyone seems to be taking this pretty harshly, but it's not like anyone stepped out of the rules. The party should be pretty free to do whatever they want, otherwise, the DM should indeed go home, and create characters of his own, playing them against his own monsters to make sure that they never do anything other than what he wants them to. The DM should be prepared to deal with what could happen. He might make strong predictions about what the party will do, but he must also accept that he's not dictating the party's every action. You might say that you can lead a party to water, but you can't make it drink. If the party wants to tip over the entire trough, that's unfortunate for your preparations, but if the events/characters planned for aren't entirely superficial, they'll still have influence in the post-alignment-shift world. There are quite a few examples here, but if the DM plans for the party to help defend a town from an invading army, and the malcontent party sacks the town for themselves, that does alter the scenario, but I don't see why it makes further adventuring impossible. Why can't the army show up anyway? If they consider the party hostile (which they still very well might), the party hasn't destroyed the adventure, they've only made it much more difficult. Or, perhaps that party will join with the antagonists, which would allow for either a drastically different campaign, or a great betrayal that will allow the DM some element of revenge. I don't think there's anything to go home and pout about - life goes on, and the game certainly can as well.

 

[Evilhalfling]

You know I played in a large group as part of a collage club, normally we would divide into 3 or more games when a DM was bad, we just stopped playing the game. Dm's came with a single session prepared and if it was bad the group would play something else next time. We played some bad games ( including one of mine) and some good. One game started with - 3 days after the sun was swallowed by a gaint Pyramid you are hired to escort a wagon full of weapons to .....
We weren't mature enough to actually talk it over, but we didn't trash bad games either.

 

[ThoughtBubble]

You know, everyone seems to be taking this pretty harshly, but it's not like anyone stepped out of the rules. The party should be pretty free to do whatever they want, otherwise, the DM should indeed go home, and create characters of his own, playing them against his own monsters to make sure that they never do anything other than what he wants them to. The DM should be prepared to deal with what could happen. He might make strong predictions about what the party will do, but he must also accept that he's not dictating the party's every action. You might say that you can lead a party to water, but you can't make it drink. If the party wants to tip over the entire trough, that's unfortunate for your preparations, but if the events/characters planned for aren't entirely superficial, they'll still have influence in the post-alignment-shift world. There are quite a few examples here, but if the DM plans for the party to help defend a town from an invading army, and the malcontent party sacks the town for themselves, that does alter the scenario, but I don't see why it makes further adventuring impossible. Why can't the army show up anyway? If they consider the party hostile (which they still very well might), the party hasn't destroyed the adventure, they've only made it much more difficult. Or, perhaps that party will join with the antagonists, which would allow for either a drastically different campaign, or a great betrayal that will allow the DM some element of revenge. I don't think there's anything to go home and pout about - life goes on, and the game certainly can as well.

Tipping over the trough is an issue because it's about meeting someone halfway. I mean sure, it's a trough. What are troughs for? Drinking. Sure, they get bumped, and sure, they tip over on occasion, and sometimes horses just aren't thirsty and don't drink. But to maliciously tip over a trough someone set up just wastes the effort that went into setting up the trough. And maybe it's just the last few 60 hour work weeks talking, but I don't really have time or patience for players who look to go tipping over that trough.

If there's a sign reading "today's adventure this way" and everyone decides to go the other way, then not much is going to happen. However, if the party really wants to go to the theif's hometown to help out the rebellion, then I'm cool with that, as long as I have some warning to prepare. Like, say, after they finish this session's worth of pressing stuff with the invading army of undead.

And finally, the party should be free to do what they want only as long as they don't abuse it. Just like the DM should be free to do what he wants only as long as he doesn't abuse it.

Maybe the atmosphere is different. Maybe it's a setup where you can joke the next day "Gotcha good, didn't I?" and plot revenge. And, if so, that's cool. Some of that goes on in my games too. There have been times where I've just stared and said "That was unexpected." and my players just giggle maniacally.

Of course, there are also the times when they're just staring at me, shock and horror on their faces as the hammer that's been set in motion swings down with a final ringing impact.

So, as a player, there are times I push my DM. Divination is an amazing specialty school to destroy plans, and a 6th level wizard has plenty of spells to radically change a situation. But I try to push in ways that don't hurt the game, and just get the DM pushing back. As a DM, I throw hooks, curves, and the occasional straight jab at my players, but I also make sure they have a time an a place to shine, and feel good about getting the best over their opponents.

In both cases, I'm careful to avoid pushing too hard though. I've been in five games that have packed up and walked because one side gets too pushy about keeping the game going in the direction that they think it should go in.

There are emotions, impulses and people on either side of the screen. And as long as everyone remembers that, and is cool with how things turn out, then there isn't any problems.

If the DM forgets, he's better off writing a book. If the player forgets, he's better off playing a video game.

It's the give and take interaction that I really love.

 

[Razz0putin]

<You know, everyone seems to be taking this pretty harshly, but it's not like anyone stepped out of the rules. The party should be pretty free to do whatever they want, otherwise, the DM should indeed go home, and create characters of his own, playing them against his own monsters to make sure that they never do anything other than what he wants them to.>

well it sounds a little better now. however to give a literary example It might have been in the rules for aragorn to cut elrond down for the experience but it doesn't help the spirit of the thing. By the same token the Gm could always feasably say all of the enemies the players have made over the last few adventures team up to squash them but that's not in the spirit of things either. Beware quoting something just on the case of rules. That way leads to the rules lawyer side

 

[DarrenGMiller]

You know, everyone seems to be taking this pretty harshly, but it's not like anyone stepped out of the rules. The party should be pretty free to do whatever they want, otherwise, the DM should indeed go home, and create characters of his own, playing them against his own monsters to make sure that they never do anything other than what he wants them to. The DM should be prepared to deal with what could happen. He might make strong predictions about what the party will do, but he must also accept that he's not dictating the party's every action. You might say that you can lead a party to water, but you can't make it drink. If the party wants to tip over the entire trough, that's unfortunate for your preparations, but if the events/characters planned for aren't entirely superficial, they'll still have influence in the post-alignment-shift world. There are quite a few examples here, but if the DM plans for the party to help defend a town from an invading army, and the malcontent party sacks the town for themselves, that does alter the scenario, but I don't see why it makes further adventuring impossible. Why can't the army show up anyway? If they consider the party hostile (which they still very well might), the party hasn't destroyed the adventure, they've only made it much more difficult. Or, perhaps that party will join with the antagonists, which would allow for either a drastically different campaign, or a great betrayal that will allow the DM some element of revenge. I don't think there's anything to go home and pout about - life goes on, and the game certainly can as well.

There is a difference between not drinking and tipping the trough, then hacking it up with their swords and laughing about it. If the party walks away from the water, then so be it, but if they are intentionally destructive just to screw with the DM and/or the game (as was the original case) then it is not the actions themselves that destroy the game, but the attitude that caused the players to act that way that becomes the problem. IMO, there is a level of trust and a social contract that must exist between players and DM and BOTH sides have to uphold these things.

Which brings me to:

It's not that we disliked our DM's style - he was just bad at what he was doing. After we screwed up his campaign, he didn't make the same mistake again. We made him a better DM, instead of leaving him and searching low and high for another DM, leaving him to wallow in bad-DM-ness. Bad isn't a style of DMing, it's a quality; while we could look for a better DM, it proved to be more convenient to make this one better.

Look, I know that there are good DM's and bad DM's, as well as good and bad players, but who made you the authority on what is good and what is bad? Who made you the DM police? Did it ever occur to anyone to talk to the DM and tell him your feelings about his DM'ing, then work with him to improve? The whole "we made him a better DM" line smacks of self-importance. Good thing he had you guys as players, or he would have had to "wallow in his bad-DM-ness" all the days of his life.

DM