DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[Nine Hands]

Why is this bad? I actually have several PbP games that all take place in a shared setting, and so there are a decent number of NPCs that were encountered in two or even three games. I find it adds verisimilitude.

I have this happen too. I run three PBEM games which are in the same universe. Two are actually in the same timeline, running parellel to each other. NPCs and PCs make cameo appearances now and then. I even have one game (set in the future) who has a PC who my wife runs, who is a really good guy. In one of the games in the past, he is actually an enemy of the PCs.

 

[Hypersmurf]

One of my pet peeves is when characters won't break up the party even if the characters would probably do so in real life. As a DM schtick, the DMs sometimes use various tricks to bring the party together and force them to stay together, no matter how much dissention there is in the group.

Heh. Our DM encourages us to go off in separate directions.

Someone will say something like "Well, we could send the ranger and the rogue off to check out their story, while the rest of us...", and the DM's face will light up, and he'll start chanting "Oooh! Split the party, split the party, split the party!" and clapping...

We usually figure out a reason not to

-Hyp.

 

[Umbran]

Again, that's just poor game mastering: if the "story" is so tightly written that a game master hasn't left an opening to introduce a new character, then that game master is a nitwit.

Setting aside, for the moment, the "nitwit" comment...

It may have nothing to do with being "tightly written". Near the end of a campaign, when the players are likely all headed for the big end-game, they may not want to go through the process of introducing new characters, as this strongly changes the flavor of the game. In such times of stress or tension, it may well be against character for the rest of the party to admit anyone else.

And I'm sure we can construct other legitimate reasons why you might be asked to hold off for a bit.

Now, going back to the "nitwit" thing - please don't insult people, in specific or in general, just because they like things you don't. The Rules ask you to keep it civil - insults are not civil.

 

[atom crash]

The DM in our college 1E Greyhawk game taught us to never split up the party. He refused to do separate encounters because it took away from everyone's playing time, so whenever anyone would try to wander off by themselves they'd suddenly be jumped by a press-gang of a dozen high-level ruffians. Oops, sorry, roll up another character, and next time DON'T SPLIT UP THE PARTY!

I imagine a scene in which a group of guys are wandering down the street in a fantasy medieval city. One guy stops to tie his shoelaces, and he's suddenly pulled violently into an alley. The other guys look around and shrug their shoulders. Oh well, another one bites the dust. So at the next alley a new guy strolls out and gets into step with the group. That image still cracks me up.

 

[shilsen]

Quite a lot, if it seemed some PC's were taking more risks and-or getting more done than others yet everyone got the same ExP award all the time. Far too easy to get into a mentality of letting other peoples' characters stick their necks out...

Doesn't matter as much, though, in a low- or no-risk game.

Lanefan

Or in a group of good players. Which, luckily, I have.

 

[The Shaman]

It may have nothing to do with being "tightly written". Near the end of a campaign, when the players are likely all headed for the big end-game, they may not want to go through the process of introducing new characters, as this strongly changes the flavor of the game. In such times of stress or tension, it may well be against character for the rest of the party to admit anyone else.

If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?

And I'm sure we can construct other legitimate reasons why you might be asked to hold off for a bit.

Other reasons, perhaps - legitimacy is pretty subjective, however. I'm sure you can justify it to yourself however you like, but I will still see it as poor encounter design when it becomes necessary to fudge the dice to reach the "big finale."

 

[Tinker Gnome]

On killing PCs: I would ask a new group their preference. If they like knowing that they can die at any time, then I will have no problem killing their PCs. If they say that they like to make characters with a lot of backround and would prefer to keep their characters alive, then I will do so. Now, where you have a mix of both types of players is where you have a problem.

 

[Hussar]

*snip*

Over the years I've only played with two really bad game masters - in both cases I excused myself from the game. The experiences didn't predispose me to distrust game masters generally.No one said that a game master always makes the best choices (with "best" in this context being extremely context-specific), only that the game master gets to make that choice, right or wrong. It sounds like you assume that a game master is more likely to make bad choices (based on your personal referent) than good ones - I presume the opposite until demonstrated otherwise.

A game master who makes consistently poor choices will be the one who can't find players after awhile - it's the 'invisible hand' of gaming at work.

Agreed. With the caveat that I am perfectly willing to give new DM's the benefit of the doubt as I believe you are as well. However, my tolerance for GM's who make consistently bad choices has dropped far lower than was once true.

Or, it could be that I hang out on message boards too much. Which is possible. I read threads like these and see DM's saying that it is much better to never kill PC's and that leads me to think that such DM's are common. Much in the same way that some read the comments of players and think that player entitlement is rampant. It all comes down to experience.

In the past three years, I've run three campaigns and played in two more with almost 50 different players. Of the players I've known, I can honestly say that I've only seen one or two that had the entitlement bug that bothers so many. However, I've only had about 10 or 12 DM's and two or three have been bad to very bad.

I suppose that colors my perceptions greatly.

 

[Umbran]

If getting everyone to the "big bang" at the end is so important, then why pretend that the characters will face any chance at all of being killed off or otherwise taken out of play? Why not just cut straight to that big wrap-up and get on with it?

I'm not sure I see how this relates to what I was saying. I didn't say characters should be protected. I said that there are reasons why allowing a new character in may not be appropriate. How those who are left get to the end may be important to both the players and the DM.

There's also a simple matter of facing consequences - many folks dislike how easy it is to get a character brought back from the dead, that it means there are few consequences of death, so there's no real reason to not be stupid. Now, take that concept one step further - if you are always guaranteed a replacement, there's still only so much the player and the party have to face in terms of consequences.

I'm sure you can justify it to yourself however you like, but I will still see it as poor encounter design when it becomes necessary to fudge the dice to reach the "big finale."

Huh? Not allowing a new character to enter the game near campaign end is not "fudging the dice".

 

[Hussar]

There's also a simple matter of facing consequences - many folks dislike how easy it is to get a character brought back from the dead, that it means there are few consequences of death, so there's no real reason to not be stupid. Now, take that concept one step further - if you are always guaranteed a replacement, there's still only so much the player and the party have to face in terms of consequences.

However, why assume that players have little or no attachment to their characters? While there may be little or no mechanical consequences for bringing in a replacement character, there is still the fact that the character that a player has been playing for X amount of time is now dead.

While I know that players don't spend as much time prepping as DM's, I also figure that most players are pretty attached to their PC's. Mechanical impediments to returning from the dead don't really factor into the equation.

OTOH, there are really very few times when it is absolutely impossible to bring in a replacement. Yes, I know they exist, you don't have to throw out examples, but, 99% of the time (a number I just pulled out of my vas deferens), it's not a problem to bring in another PC.

And, really, I prepare my adventures with just such an eventuality in mind. To me, being able to replace/restore dead PC's is part of good adventure design. If an adventure is a completely closed system with no hope for replacement, then there is a flaw in the design of that adventure IMO.