Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Oh, and see my signature for a great quote from Gary on this subject. 
DMs are too easy on their players
- Thread starter Edena_of_Neith
- Start date
I understand why some players object to the "adversarial" nature of the OP, but it seems like to create an atmosphere of suspense (which is necessary for some types of games) the GM has to make the game seem much more lethal that it actually is. The idea is to make the players think that every encounter is potentially lethal, whether they are or not. (And as many posters pointed out, if the game were actually as bad as the OP made it out to be, it probably wouldn't have many players. High lethality is one thing, but nobody is going to stick aroudn if they're rolling up characters every session.)
If you trust the GM, you're more likely to look at the encounter (even the 20HD dragon) from your character's perspective. Whether you run, cower, hide, parlay, beg for your life-- its essentially a role-playing decision. What would my character do in this situation? If you don't trust the GM, it seems like you're more likely to look at the encounter as a player: Is this balanced? Is this guy crazy? There's no way I got HP, attacks, Bluff, Hide or Diplomacy high enough to survive this encounter.
Whether you look at it as a character or a player isn't a measure of your roleplaying ability, but rather how much trust you have in the GM.
If you trust the GM, you're more likely to look at the encounter (even the 20HD dragon) from your character's perspective. Whether you run, cower, hide, parlay, beg for your life-- its essentially a role-playing decision. What would my character do in this situation? If you don't trust the GM, it seems like you're more likely to look at the encounter as a player: Is this balanced? Is this guy crazy? There's no way I got HP, attacks, Bluff, Hide or Diplomacy high enough to survive this encounter.
Whether you look at it as a character or a player isn't a measure of your roleplaying ability, but rather how much trust you have in the GM.
Someone
Adventurer
Stone Dog said:
That's good. As it happens frequently, I feel we're running in circles, telling each other exactly the same. What I can't get is the idea of the DM going against the PCs and trying hard to kill them. A battle of DM against the PCs would be quite stressful and boring for me, from both parts of the table. What I like and try to do is a battle of PCs against the world.
If the bad guy has a small army and is being bothered by the PCs he's not going to sit idly and wait until he's defeated. If he feels threatened he's going to mass his resources and hit the problem as well as he can: it's the bad guy who's killing the PCs, not the DM. If the party underestimates the giant, the giant is going to kill them, not the DM, and so on. Of course there's going to be PC deaths: they are the ones that fight monster vastly more powerful and intelligent than themselves (or at least than a regular human); if the DM roleplays them well it's going to be dangerous for the PCs. Otherwise it'd destroy the game's consistency, but on the other hand the internal consistency helps the players. If they know that the bad guy is arrogant, they may come with a plan to attract him to the front of his small army (EL be damned) and defeat him. An adversarial DM would, on the other hand, backpedal on his description of the bad guy as being arrogant because then the players would have an opportunity to defeat him; I don't think that's what has been advocated by some in the thread, but their poor choice of words certainly made it sound that way.
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Here is what I hate to see:
Party: We want another dull, unexciting, unchallenging game.
DM: Like the last 10 games?
Party: Yeah. Like those.
DM: Don't you want a challenge?
Party: No.
DM: It's painful to keep running games like these.
Party: If you won't run a dull, unexciting, unchallenging game, we'll just find someone who will, and you can play in it instead of DMing.
Here's what I want to see more of:
Party: We desire a challenging game.
DM: But in a challenging game, your PCs may die.
Party: We aren't concerned about that. We are more concerned with the thrill of the challenge.
DM: What about the roleplaying aspect?
Party: We'll roleplay well enough, don't you worry.
DM: This module is a dangerous one.
Party: So much the better.
-
You know, telling the players that you're an easy DM who doesn't kill characters, has surprisingly little effect on the players in the game.
Player memories are astonishingly short. Or perhaps it's the Roller Coaster effect.
You know? You're heading up the first high hill of a roller coaster. Intellectually, you know it's only a ride. But your emotions are telling you you're in danger. And no matter how hard you try to intellectually rationalize that you're just fine, when you are looking straight down 200 feet and accelerating towards the ground, your emotions are screaming bloody murder.
D&D is sometimes like that.
A good encounter can get the blood flowing and the heart pounding, regardless of what the DM said at the start.
Relentlessly pound at the players (as I discussed in my first post of this thread) and they forget all about anything and everything you said, and go into all-out battle mode.
-
Someone said I was backtracking. Well, I'm not.
I think more DMs should be like the way I described, and stand by that.
So how to create a situation where more DMs are like how I described in my first post, and have it actually work?
As I said, a DM - Player agreement is needed pre-game. Players have to want this style of DMing - there are there to have fun, after all. I guess, players should have time to become accustomed to this kind of game, since it is demanding and exhausting and trying (assuming they want an exhausting, demanding, trying game ... and hopefully they do.)
The DM has to distinguish between being tough and being adversarial, and the players need to be able to distinguish between what is tough and what is adversarial. That's not always easy to do, so pre-game discussion is a good idea.
I think players should demand, in general, FAR more out of themselves than I am seeing them give. My opinion.
I think that players should complain less about the magnitude of challenges, and spend that energy on defeating those challenges. My opinion.
I think players often give themselves less credit than they should, and they give their fellow players less credit than they should. My opinion.
I think players oftentimes don't cooperate nearly as much as they should.
I think a DM should demand all these improvements on the part of the players, and more than that, and the players should appreciate and respect the demand and their own capacity to handle the challenge.
If the players want an easy going game, where they converse and socialize and enjoy the company of good friends, that's great. More power to them.
But sometimes a good challenge is what the doctor ordered.
-
A tough, demanding DM (especially one on the order of what I portrayed in my first post) and tough, determined, resourceful players taking on his challenges, is the result of mutual agreement and cooperation in the group, mutual respect between DM and players, mutual respect between players and players, and a particular mindset that approves of constant strong challenges among both DM and players.
And yeah, players can do that. Players can handle that. D&Ders are made of hard enough material to rise to the occasion when the going gets rough. If this is what they want, and what they agreed to prior to the game, then when the challenge comes they should be able to rise and conquer over all enemies. And for the DM, the delight is in watching it all happen that way. He was tough, he was hard, he was relentless and nasty and threatening and blustery and threw the book at the players, and the players loved it and ate it up like candy, and they kicked butt on every obstacle, every monster, every puzzle, every threat.
So yeah, more DMs should be tough DMs. A simple statement, covering a complex situation, but the basic fact is just that.
Party: We want another dull, unexciting, unchallenging game.
DM: Like the last 10 games?
Party: Yeah. Like those.
DM: Don't you want a challenge?
Party: No.
DM: It's painful to keep running games like these.
Party: If you won't run a dull, unexciting, unchallenging game, we'll just find someone who will, and you can play in it instead of DMing.
Here's what I want to see more of:
Party: We desire a challenging game.
DM: But in a challenging game, your PCs may die.
Party: We aren't concerned about that. We are more concerned with the thrill of the challenge.
DM: What about the roleplaying aspect?
Party: We'll roleplay well enough, don't you worry.
DM: This module is a dangerous one.
Party: So much the better.
-
You know, telling the players that you're an easy DM who doesn't kill characters, has surprisingly little effect on the players in the game.
Player memories are astonishingly short. Or perhaps it's the Roller Coaster effect.
You know? You're heading up the first high hill of a roller coaster. Intellectually, you know it's only a ride. But your emotions are telling you you're in danger. And no matter how hard you try to intellectually rationalize that you're just fine, when you are looking straight down 200 feet and accelerating towards the ground, your emotions are screaming bloody murder.
D&D is sometimes like that.
A good encounter can get the blood flowing and the heart pounding, regardless of what the DM said at the start.
Relentlessly pound at the players (as I discussed in my first post of this thread) and they forget all about anything and everything you said, and go into all-out battle mode.
-
Someone said I was backtracking. Well, I'm not.
I think more DMs should be like the way I described, and stand by that.
So how to create a situation where more DMs are like how I described in my first post, and have it actually work?
As I said, a DM - Player agreement is needed pre-game. Players have to want this style of DMing - there are there to have fun, after all. I guess, players should have time to become accustomed to this kind of game, since it is demanding and exhausting and trying (assuming they want an exhausting, demanding, trying game ... and hopefully they do.)
The DM has to distinguish between being tough and being adversarial, and the players need to be able to distinguish between what is tough and what is adversarial. That's not always easy to do, so pre-game discussion is a good idea.
I think players should demand, in general, FAR more out of themselves than I am seeing them give. My opinion.
I think that players should complain less about the magnitude of challenges, and spend that energy on defeating those challenges. My opinion.
I think players often give themselves less credit than they should, and they give their fellow players less credit than they should. My opinion.
I think players oftentimes don't cooperate nearly as much as they should.
I think a DM should demand all these improvements on the part of the players, and more than that, and the players should appreciate and respect the demand and their own capacity to handle the challenge.
If the players want an easy going game, where they converse and socialize and enjoy the company of good friends, that's great. More power to them.
But sometimes a good challenge is what the doctor ordered.
-
A tough, demanding DM (especially one on the order of what I portrayed in my first post) and tough, determined, resourceful players taking on his challenges, is the result of mutual agreement and cooperation in the group, mutual respect between DM and players, mutual respect between players and players, and a particular mindset that approves of constant strong challenges among both DM and players.
And yeah, players can do that. Players can handle that. D&Ders are made of hard enough material to rise to the occasion when the going gets rough. If this is what they want, and what they agreed to prior to the game, then when the challenge comes they should be able to rise and conquer over all enemies. And for the DM, the delight is in watching it all happen that way. He was tough, he was hard, he was relentless and nasty and threatening and blustery and threw the book at the players, and the players loved it and ate it up like candy, and they kicked butt on every obstacle, every monster, every puzzle, every threat.
So yeah, more DMs should be tough DMs. A simple statement, covering a complex situation, but the basic fact is just that.
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Back in Wormy, I saw a giant kick at a Stoneskinned character, and the result was a giant with a very sore foot. Or something like that (the memory is vague now.)
That's where I got the inspiration for Stoneskin.
Stoneskin is a funny critter, in it's 2nd edition incarnation. If a Stoneskinned mosquito was on the road, and a car hit it at 70 miles per hour, the mosquito would be squished. Why? Because the car wasn't attacking it.
But, if the driver somehow (incredibly!!) saw the mosquito ahead of time, and decided 'I'll squash that little pesky mosquito, hahaha!' then the result would be an auto accident, and the mosquito would be unharmed.
Intent determines the matter.
A lot of 2nd edition spells were like that. Magic is magic, and it doesn't always work quite the way a tactician would expect it to. For that matter, it doesn't always work the way any sane person would expect it to. It's ... magic.
Now, if I wish to bring a 2nd edition spell forward to 3rd edition, and use it as a House Rule, that does not make my game a Non-D&D game.
Most D&D games use House Rules, and they are still considered D&D games. My games are no exception.
I'm not 'fudging' the dragon (except for the Dragonfear aspect which I did not use.)
The dragon saw a tasty elven girl, and wanted her as a fresh meal, not a burnt to a crisp meal. Sorta like a person wants his cold drink cold, not boiling hot.
The dragon in no way saw this group of puny, pathetic adventurers as a threat. Why? Because it has killed every group of adventurers that dared to challenge it for the last thousand years. It has flattened villages, towns, and even one entire city. It, to quote Smaug, kills where it wishes, and none dare resist.
So it does not breathe on them. Frankly, the dragon is curious about them ... or, at least, curious about what treasure (unmelted) and items (intact) they might have it could add to it's treasure hoard.
And perhaps it can take the other female back as a prisoner, and make a birdcage for the pretty thing while it sings (the last singer grew staid, and the dragon fried her in sheer disgust at the lousy songs.)
It just so happens that this particular dragon has Cloned itself. If the party somehow kills it, the clone will wake up. The clone will realize that someone killed it, that someone out there dared to strike at it.
You know red dragons. You think Smaug was mad? That's nothing. That's a crying infant compared to the anger of this dragon. There is no retribution too great, no destruction too vast, no violence too extreme, to be venting on everyone in general, for this affront. In one thousand years, nobody has done this thing. The dragon intends to level such vengeance that nobody for the next thousand years will dare even whisper of fighting back.
The dragon does not have a crystal ball, but it will eventually find out who killed it. And then it will seek out the party. THIS time, it will come in it's full might and power, and then some.
Now, the party could have avoided all this.
All the party had to do was hide in the bard's Rope Trick when they first saw the dragon in the distance. The dragon would have passed by, ignored the puny magic it discerned, and headed for the herd of prime deer it was hunting.
The five ogres yonder in the forest were also hiding from the dragon. The party could now fight them, an encounter much more along their level of power. And wait until they are much stronger, before attempting such grand heroics as dragonslaying.
It's the party's choice.
In this case, party chose to fight. They chose to stand and fight. They chose to heroically fight and kill the dragon. And bully for them, they killed it. They will be renowned (and infamous) and certainly higher level as a reward.
But there will be consequences. There always are. The utterly infuriated dragon, who will NEVER rest until it attains vengeance even if it has to spend another thousand years finding the adventurers, is only the beginning of those consequences.
That's where I got the inspiration for Stoneskin.
Stoneskin is a funny critter, in it's 2nd edition incarnation. If a Stoneskinned mosquito was on the road, and a car hit it at 70 miles per hour, the mosquito would be squished. Why? Because the car wasn't attacking it.
But, if the driver somehow (incredibly!!) saw the mosquito ahead of time, and decided 'I'll squash that little pesky mosquito, hahaha!' then the result would be an auto accident, and the mosquito would be unharmed.
Intent determines the matter.
A lot of 2nd edition spells were like that. Magic is magic, and it doesn't always work quite the way a tactician would expect it to. For that matter, it doesn't always work the way any sane person would expect it to. It's ... magic.
Now, if I wish to bring a 2nd edition spell forward to 3rd edition, and use it as a House Rule, that does not make my game a Non-D&D game.
Most D&D games use House Rules, and they are still considered D&D games. My games are no exception.
I'm not 'fudging' the dragon (except for the Dragonfear aspect which I did not use.)
The dragon saw a tasty elven girl, and wanted her as a fresh meal, not a burnt to a crisp meal. Sorta like a person wants his cold drink cold, not boiling hot.
The dragon in no way saw this group of puny, pathetic adventurers as a threat. Why? Because it has killed every group of adventurers that dared to challenge it for the last thousand years. It has flattened villages, towns, and even one entire city. It, to quote Smaug, kills where it wishes, and none dare resist.
So it does not breathe on them. Frankly, the dragon is curious about them ... or, at least, curious about what treasure (unmelted) and items (intact) they might have it could add to it's treasure hoard.
And perhaps it can take the other female back as a prisoner, and make a birdcage for the pretty thing while it sings (the last singer grew staid, and the dragon fried her in sheer disgust at the lousy songs.)
It just so happens that this particular dragon has Cloned itself. If the party somehow kills it, the clone will wake up. The clone will realize that someone killed it, that someone out there dared to strike at it.
You know red dragons. You think Smaug was mad? That's nothing. That's a crying infant compared to the anger of this dragon. There is no retribution too great, no destruction too vast, no violence too extreme, to be venting on everyone in general, for this affront. In one thousand years, nobody has done this thing. The dragon intends to level such vengeance that nobody for the next thousand years will dare even whisper of fighting back.
The dragon does not have a crystal ball, but it will eventually find out who killed it. And then it will seek out the party. THIS time, it will come in it's full might and power, and then some.
Now, the party could have avoided all this.
All the party had to do was hide in the bard's Rope Trick when they first saw the dragon in the distance. The dragon would have passed by, ignored the puny magic it discerned, and headed for the herd of prime deer it was hunting.
The five ogres yonder in the forest were also hiding from the dragon. The party could now fight them, an encounter much more along their level of power. And wait until they are much stronger, before attempting such grand heroics as dragonslaying.
It's the party's choice.
In this case, party chose to fight. They chose to stand and fight. They chose to heroically fight and kill the dragon. And bully for them, they killed it. They will be renowned (and infamous) and certainly higher level as a reward.
But there will be consequences. There always are. The utterly infuriated dragon, who will NEVER rest until it attains vengeance even if it has to spend another thousand years finding the adventurers, is only the beginning of those consequences.
Last edited:
Oh come on. In all those years the dragon did not encounter this spell (did the spell even work that way or did you just houserule it on the spot?) and was not able to make a spellcraft check.
Imo you are worse than a DM who doesn't challange the PCs. A DM who throws overpowering encounters at the players but then breaks the rules and plays the monsters so stupid that the party will win anyway.
In my opinion a DM should not be out to get the PCs but he shouldn't be nice either. What a DM should do is to portray his world "realistically" (logically). When the level 20 PCs decide to help a farmer with a wolf problem then they should encoutner wolves and paragon andvanced werewolves with a PRC. And when a group of level 1 steal the last component for a world dominating ritual from a lich who commands a whole army of undead, the lich isn't going to send level 1 encounters after them but his right hand level 16 vampire.
Just let the NPCs/monster in the game act like they logically would without taking the level of the PCs into account. When they mess with the wrong person they will get an overpowered encounter. And when the dice says that they are dead, then they are dead.
Imo you are worse than a DM who doesn't challange the PCs. A DM who throws overpowering encounters at the players but then breaks the rules and plays the monsters so stupid that the party will win anyway.
In my opinion a DM should not be out to get the PCs but he shouldn't be nice either. What a DM should do is to portray his world "realistically" (logically). When the level 20 PCs decide to help a farmer with a wolf problem then they should encoutner wolves and paragon andvanced werewolves with a PRC. And when a group of level 1 steal the last component for a world dominating ritual from a lich who commands a whole army of undead, the lich isn't going to send level 1 encounters after them but his right hand level 16 vampire.
Just let the NPCs/monster in the game act like they logically would without taking the level of the PCs into account. When they mess with the wrong person they will get an overpowered encounter. And when the dice says that they are dead, then they are dead.
Last edited:
Edena_of_Neith
First Post
Derren said:
Of course the dragon knows the Stoneskin spell (all variants.)
The dragon himself was Stoneskinned (old version) but his Stoneskin failed to protect him because the mage wasn't attacking him. Simply flying into his path wasn't an attack.
Yes, the dragon is familiar with this tactic, since it is commonly used.
But, once again, the dragon was overconfident. Nobody had challenged it for a long time, and it was not expecting a challenge now. It did not consider the elven girl a significant threat, only a meal.
The dragon could have worked his Spellcraft check and spotted the Stoneskin. He was too busy anticipating a tasty meal instead.
Remember that even crashing into the mage for all that damage, then crashing into the ground with a whump and taking more damage, did not kill the dragon.
The dragon is briefly dazed from the two blows, but still has two thirds of it's hit points. (It started with 660, for heaven's sake.)
What the party now has is the *initiative.* Hopefully they will use it to do something smart. If they have an effective attack against the dragon and are heroic, they might attack. Or, if more prudent, they might flee and hide using the Rope Trick.
Because although they fooled the dragon once, they won't fool him again. He now knows he's up against a band of upstarts who think they can take Him (Mr Invincible) on. He is quite angry, and intends to make an example out of these brash adventurers if possible.
And, uh ... ahem.
Breaking the rules?
It is a DM's prerogative to alter the rules as he (or she) sees fit. And almost all DMs alter the rules in some way for their games.
Do you wish to infer that almost all DMs break the rules, and are thus in the wrong?
Don't infer such things. You will be in deep water with no shore in sight.
Tewligan
First Post
Oh, poo - I don't know why this whole thing bugs me so much, but it does. Yeah, your game is still a D&D game, but it's a D&D game with crazy-ass quirks. It doesn't say anywhere in any edition that stoneskin has that overpowered effect. That's like giving magic missiles a knockback, or maybe the target is blinded by the burst of magic for a few rounds - hey, maybe I can knock that fire giant into a conveniently located pit with a magic missile and kill him! And ignoring the fear aura of an ancient dragon is a HUGE fudge. As is saying that the dragon is dazed and unable to react for several rounds when he fell, allowing the party to go all Altamont on him. No player is going to be genuinely worried that something might happen to his character if the dragon just lays there rubbing his aching head for several rounds while the party stabs him. I would feel cheated if I were playing in that scenario. Instead of handicapping too-powerful monsters and gussying up available spells so the party can say they killed an ancient dragon, I would prefer to honestly face a lesser monster and know that no punches are being pulled. Either that, or have my ass fairly handed to me by the dragon if I foolishly stuck around.
Similar Threads
