DMs are too easy on their players

[Midknightsun]

As for the OP's initial post. . while over the top, I tend to agree with the general gist of the argument. I DM pretty tough too, its just my style. But I never make things impossible, nor do I go after PCs to "win" . . . because its too easy to TPK. The challenge lies in keeping them on their toes, and keeping players from being completely comfortable. I've had past instances where more than a few characters starting getting really upidy after a series of relatively easy encounters. They started talking a lot of smack to the wrong people . . . and well, natural consequences lead to a pretty hardy beat down. It wasn't about my ego being attacked, because, frankly, I found some of the stuff genuinely funny, but there were already things in place that they messed with too early (despite my attempts to clue them in).

Now, I throw in easy encounters on purpose so the PCs get their chance to shine and perform beatdown or two themselves, but try to create a world that isn't perfectly scaled to them . . . sometimes running away is the best idea (or heck, pleading for your life). If the PCs aren't really being dopey, they should be able to avoid a horrible encounter. That being said, I believe in Karma. If the characters start chasing down fleeing enemies and killing them all the time (for instance), I think it very appropriate that I have them chased and harried if they flee. However, I won't be the first to open up that cage. I'm also big into giving the players clues about the nature of some of the things they may be facing, especially if there's a good chance some of them may die.

As a player, I don't want my DM to coddle me either. If I done something dumb, I deserve to get my anatomy rearranged. Heck, sometimes I expect to just be outclassed and realize I might have to do a little thinking outside the box to survive. And sometimes my character may die. As long as I'm not on McBuff #17, I don't mind. I figure its the chance my character takes for being an adventurer. Of course, I'd like my chance to shine now and then, but i don't think that's at odds with a tough DM's philosophy (at least not this tough DM).

I find it interesting that I've seen, time and again, many posters claim how they don't want their hobby to be stressful, because they have enough of that in real life. I can definitely relate to real life stress, having more than a good share myself, but go on record as saying I still like my games to be tough. But I think many of those who talk of this are referring to DMs who put them in deathtrap after deathtrap and seem to actually gain waaay to much satisfaction from the act. That I can relate to; I hate those types of DMs as well, but I would rather a tough DM than one who creates a walk-through for me. YMMV

I will add is that the thing I hate worse than a weak DM, or a tyrant DM, is the competitor DM. To me, its the DM that gets you in a corner until you know you're going to die (because he needs to "win", of course) and then lets you off the hook with some sort of Deus Ex Machina BS (or starts to hold back so you can succeed). I'd rather be killed, thank you, then get a victory served to me because of DM fiat.

 

[darkseraphim]

Well, the expectations of the players are different.

When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge. The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.). The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died. You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.

Nowadays, people aren't playing for the challenge as much as they're playing for personal aggrandizement. They become so invested in one character that they can't imagine playing if that character died. Also, they aren't interested in NPC muscle, because those NPCs are *not* the aggrandized PC, and therefore not interesting.

Personally I play old-school P&P for the first fix, and online MMOs for the second. But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it. It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.

 

[takyris]

Well, the expectations of the players are different.

When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge. The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.). The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died. You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.

Nowadays, people aren't playing for the challenge as much as they're playing for personal aggrandizement. They become so invested in one character that they can't imagine playing if that character died. Also, they aren't interested in NPC muscle, because those NPCs are *not* the aggrandized PC, and therefore not interesting.

Personally I play old-school P&P for the first fix, and online MMOs for the second. But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it. It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.

That statement uses some value judgments that attempt to put objective values on subjective experiences.

I can believe that you played that way, but the old "Guy who challenged Orcus and took his stuff and then killed all the gods" stories have been around since forever. Don't blame 3.0 for munchkinism. The only difference I see is that there are more people playing, more voices adding to the discussion... and therefore, more people talking about their important story or their uber-level character.

I'd agree with you that the game has shifted intentions in a lot of ways, but where you see "aggrandizement", I see some people wanting to tell stories that are deeper than a simple justification for "why we're going through this collection of rectangular rooms and hallways filled with random monsters". People on both sides of the wargame/story fence can play with an eye toward aggrandizement, and neither side of the fence is wrong. It's all about what you and your group want.

 

[Harmon]

Recently- due to our level, our characters have needed a Revivify at least once per campaign (at least), and we lost a cleric to a trap. Could any of the deaths been avoided by better planning, hind sight would say yes, but if we had all the proper scrolls, and been in the right place at exactly the right time then things would have gone better too.

Do we plan as well as we can? Most of the time I feel like we have missed something- did we know the NightFang Spire was loaded with vampires and undead? Nope. Did we take a but stomping going through it? Yep. Did we have fun? Yep. Did we lose people? Two as I recall. Did we get them back? Yep. Was the last fight EL above us? Just barely.

About old school D&D vs newer versions- it isn't AD&D vs 3.5e D&D, its about making a challenge that is believable and win-able for the PC/Players.

The OP seems to my view to be calling out Players and calling them wimps for not figuring away through battles that are a dozen CR above the PC, which he could be right on, he's got a good argument that some Players just want to "roll to hit, and damage. Move to the next," but can he force a group to think about their tactics by TPKing every week? Personally, I would fail the CR 20 Red Dragon, cause my characters would run and hide. Realistically the dragon would find them, and that would be that. However, this group I game with does not have the time or patience to work on new characters weekly. We like history with characters and not a continuous line of "George, the ________" characters.

I suppose I fail at the ultimate test of gaming- imagination in tactics. How do you beat a CR 20 dragon at 5th level with a realistic compliment of supplies and spells (Scroll of Stoneskin is not realistic to me at that level)? I have no idea.

Keep it civil, and keep it going.

 

[Mr. Patient]

When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge.

...

But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it. It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.

Polls have shown that a majority of the EN World community began their gaming careers in the period from 1978-1983. I go back to the Holmes set, myself, and I can't say that I find much appeal in the OP's approach. I don't think it's generational.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I'm going to try to discuss the OP.

I don't consider myself a Rat-Bastard DM. What I'm trying to do, however, is to create a feel of believability in the games I run.

I do believe that running encounters in the game that would be always in the APL-4 to APL+4 range of CRs creates a feeling of expectations and entitlement for the players, sooner or later.

On the other hand, I think it's actually more believable to run encounters in that range. Lets face it, an 9 CR range of encounters is pretty large. To me, an environment where you even as an adventurer would decide to go where you could both "run into" something outside that range and it would automaticly be hostile to you is a bigger stretch than a world where you have to go looking for that level of danger or be a bigger deal yourself to attract it. As an adventuring party gets to the point where they can get to areas of greater danger, they move up into a higher range. And that's leaving aside encounters that scale themselves by the party's response.

(on the other hand, some folks seem to be defining an encounter in a sort of "being aware that it's there" sort of way, whether it notices or cares you exist.)

 

[Lanefan]

Bah! Youngsters! As a DM I used to kill characters before they even were made!

In all seriousness, I've twice killed characters before they joined the party.

Once was when two players needed replacement characters due to deaths in Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun; the party was deep in the temple and these two newcomers wandered up to the now almost undefended front door. Note that I said "almost" undefended; the few Norkers on guard should have been a complete pushover for the two PC's but no, they blew it...

The other time was when a party was in town looking for a new Thief (I forget what happened to the last one). They heard of a possible recruit and through go-betweens arranged a meeting that night in a rather seedy local tavern. Party arrives just in time to see a fight break out over someone cheating at cards; the new Thief was (I think) the accuser, and through a spectacular series of bad rolls ended up dead on the floor before the party realized she was who they were there to meet!

Lanefan

 

[kaomera]

The other time was when a party was in town looking for a new Thief (I forget what happened to the last one).

Was he, perhaps, stolen?

 

[WildWeasel]

Back in the harsh days of earlier games in 1E and 2E, all this nonsense I'm hearing would have received a reception far, far colder than anything *I'm* writing now.

Wow, you must have played some radically different 1E/2E than me, as I've seen every kind of whining then too.

 

[Hussar]

Well, the expectations of the players are different.

When I started in 1979, the game was seen as a challenge. The purpose was to become a better player (group tactics, improvisational thinking, creative spell use, etc.). The fun part was that if you played well, you usually lived; if you didn't, you surely died. You stocked up on men-at-arms and hirelings for extra muscle and did your best.

Nowadays, people aren't playing for the challenge as much as they're playing for personal aggrandizement. They become so invested in one character that they can't imagine playing if that character died. Also, they aren't interested in NPC muscle, because those NPCs are *not* the aggrandized PC, and therefore not interesting.

Personally I play old-school P&P for the first fix, and online MMOs for the second. But for those who began D&D in 3E, they never experienced the earlier approach, so they don't enjoy it. It's just another aspect of the adventurer vs. superhero, 70s kid vs. 90s kid rearing its ugly head.

LOL! Oh thank you for that. I haven't laughed that hard in quite a while. ... oh wait... you were making a joke right?