DM Schticks That Grind Your Gears

[kigmatzomat]

So if death isn't a big issue, why is lack of it such a big issue? Is it like air? You only miss it when it's gone?

Death is a consequence of actions. If I can't die, causality fails as my actions fail to have logical consequences. What other things do my actions fail to affect?

Plus I can have a PC refuse to return from the afterlife, giving me the option to play a new character. And I've played characters (that I liked) where it was a stated fact that he was 99% unlikely to return from the dead because of his beliefs. You don't have to be a fanatic to think that heaven will be a nice place.

 

[Particle_Man]

I don't necessarily mind characters dying (I can always make another), especially if it was a "heroic death", but do mind them being "altered" beyond my character concept's boundaries. This could be a rogue losing his hands (no open locks or disable device? Sucks to be me) or a good character getting "super-charmed" to do evil (or permanently converted to some other alignment by magical fiat). Oddly, I have learned that *getting* something that should be good can hurt the character concept, such as getting a cool magical item that changes the character concept from "Gord the Rogue" to "The Magic Item, also starring its wacky sidekick, Gord". I don't mean getting taken over by an intelligent item, but altering my combat tactics in a way that is more effective, but less personally fulfilling. That is not a DM flaw, but a flaw in me, that I have since (hopefully) corrected. Now I try to only take items that fit my concept, and let others get the "power stuff".

 

[Emirikol]

DM's are obsolete and should become extinct

I've been DMing since day 2 of learning this stupid game. That's something like 25 years of DMing dozens of games every year. Once in a great while, I'll settle for being 'lowered' to player status and I'm pretty critical of my DM's (making them leave in tears or breaking up the group so I can steal the players)...just kidding, that's the machavelli in me

My top list:
1. #1, NUMERO FRICKING UNO: SLOOOOOOOW COMBAT DM'S who aren't even making combats interesting..they're just stupidly slow!
2. Dm's who don't have names for any NPC's
3. Dm's that can't run an NPC interaction to save their lives
4. DM's that talk about anything other than the game (i.e. their character in another game, video gaming, life in general, sex life, etc.)
5. DM's who run a game in a world (any world) and then run it like any other sterile, impotent D&D generic game. HEY IDIOT DM! If you're running in Eberron, maybe you'd want to have Psionics and Warforeged maybe today eh? Maybe you could READ something on a region and make us feel like we're somewhere other than in Bob's basement!
6. DM's who don't read your background, skill set, or feats to use it in a game.
6. DM's who use dice or food instead of some kind of miniature (even if it doesn't look like what we're fighting).
6. DM's who have a bunch of house rules, but never writes them down.



jh
extinct


..

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Look ... He Bears the Mark!

I've been DMing since day 2 of learning this stupid game.

Dark Lord:

I'm curious ... what do you think of this campaign material?

-Samir

 

[Silver Moon]

My Old PC Runs This Bar

Or whatever. The DMs old characters have not only been advanced to high levels and positions of power, but have enough spare time to bust the party's balls while serving them ale.

Guilty as charged! But to be fair, the middle-aged gnome's background had him running a tavern for two centuries before he was ever a playing character, so it made sense him going back to that line of work upon semi-retirement. It's safe to say that at least a few players must share this peeve since in one module the enemy took over the tavern and the PC's had great fun trashing the place in the battle that followed.

 

[Silver Moon]

Here's another one: His name? Uhm... Bob: The DM never comes up with names for anyone.....Towns can fall into this category as well.

Indeed. Some 20 years after he DMed it one of my player's is still living down the fact that the capital city of the county his character was from was named.....Capital City.

 

[Keifer113]

.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.

If I have to play an NPC for an evening, or if I get to run a monster or two during combat while waiting for my new character to be introduced, that's cool. If the game master told me to take a hike for three weeks because it would muck up her plot to bring in a new character, then I'm happy to pack up my things and find someone else with whom to play, because that game master should be writing fan fic for the web and accumlating rejection notices from fantasy publishers, not running a roleplaying game."Fun" isn't defined for every gamer as "not dying except when it's dramatic enough," Keifer113. That may be your definition - it's most definitely not mine.

It's a game, and part of the game is resolving the element of chance with dice.

Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?

 

[Keifer113]

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.

I've seen players do a 3 game mega combat session a couple of times. Throwing in a brand new PC would be absurd under most circumstances. "Luke, you are the only hope for destroying the Death Star....oh wait, here comes Pink Five...where did she come from?"

 

[Hussar]

Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?

This is something of a straw man arguement. Actually, it's not something of, it IS a strawman. Since the goal of Monopoly is to force the other players into bankruptcy, then it wouldn't make sense to bring them back in would it. Unless the goal of your DnD game is to be the last man standing, the comparison is bunk.

So the player misses a session. Oh well. Them's the breaks. He comes in AFTER the fight. If you have battles that last three full sessions, then perhaps a little bit of brushing up on the rules is in order. If this is happening frequently, then perhaps a shift in design may be in order.

99% of the time, it is not a major issue to bring in a new character. Sure, bringing in a new character in the middle of a battle may not be feasible, but, an entire campaign should not be one fight. It happens. The player sucks it up and takes the time to create a new character while everyone else finishes the battle.

Where's the problem? It's a game. Characters die. Depending on the DM, they may die frequently. It happens. Cheating so that Player X gets to finish the adventure is like using cheat codes in video games. Sure, you beat the game, but, in such a lame way that it robs victory of any meaning.

 

[Storm Raven]

Interesting concepts. So when you play monopoly and someone is forced out via bankruptcy, you let them back into the game with commensurate properties and cash?

When D&D becomes a competitive game in which there are winners and losers declared, you might have a point with this line of argument. Until then, it is just a non-sequitur.