DMs are too easy on their players

[Tewligan]

Tee hee - Kelek, in light of your sig quote (which is funny!), I find it odd that you're so easily offended...

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Me is big, me is bad, me is DM, me change rules to mash puny PCs flat. Me is Bizarro DM!
Fear me?

The Auld Grump

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Fear me?

Please fear me? I'll be your friend!

 

[Doctor DM]

Man, this is strange, just last night I had a discussion about this.

A regular who I've known for years (don't really like him, but have known him for forever) was watching us play at the hobbyshop, and he complained that my game was too easy, and wasn't a "good RPG". My players and I said hey, we're having a lot of fun, I don't care if this is the "right" way. (they had just DESTROYED a ton of skeletons and took almost no damage due to some brilliant tactics). He got really pricky about it and went on about how PC's shouldn't be able to win so easily. So I asked my players if they were having fun, and recieved a resounding yes. I then asked they guy if his players were having fun in his game.

He has no game. Hasn't for almost 4 years. I played in the last one he ran, and I can see why. Besides a bunch of other problems he has in his campaigns, he is a classic adversary DM. It's him vs. the party, and of course he'll win every time. No one likes that.

To the OP, I don't think you're quite an Adversary DM, but your pretty darn close. But I'd give your game a shot. A really tough game is, IMO just as fun as one of average difficulty. I just don't want to be making a new character every session.

The bottom line is, the only thing that matters is if everyone is having a good time. I think players would rather smite bad guys, get treasure and save the world than just running away or getting slaughtered all the time, but we all have different tastes. Whatever it is that you do, as long as the players are coming back with a smile on their face, you're doing it right.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I would play in your game.

Captain Obvious says: You can't beat the DM. Well, like I said, Captain Obvious, right? Of course, that isn't what the OP is about. The OP is about not coddling the players, playing the world as it is (which is out to get you lots of the time) and playing the game rather than whining about balance.

I would play in that in a heartbeat.

PCs should be balanced against each other? Please. If I play well enough to get tougher than you, suck it up. And vice versa. When a game of chess begins, everything is balanced. But the game of chess is basically about breaking that symmetry of balance. Before we make characters, everything is balanced. But D&D is about breaking that symmetry of balance, too, at least IMHO.

Again, I'd be in that game in a heartbeat.

And Edena_of_Neith would be welcome at my table as a player, too.

But that's just me. I'm funny that way.

RC

 

[Zurai]

Some of you seem to be missing a point Edena stressed in the original post: the idea is not necessarily to kill the PCs, but to make the players *think* you're gonna kill the PCs...there's a subtle but significant difference.

Not to the players, there isn't.

From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only pretends to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Not to the players, there isn't.

From the players' perspective, behind Door A is a DM that's out to get them, and behind Door B is a DM that's out to get them. The fact that DM B only pretends to be out to get them is irrelevant to the players - the end result is the same.

I may be crazy, but having seen both types of DMs, I feel pretty certain that most players can tell the difference. Of course, some players might not like Edena's style, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

 

[Zurai]

I may be crazy, but having seen both types of DMs, I feel pretty certain that most players can tell the difference. Of course, some players might not like Edena's style, but that's a whole 'nother issue.

If the players can tell the difference, then the DM isn't doing what Edena says he does. As he put it in his first post:

I'm here to KILL your characters ((actually, I'm not, but I must make you *think* I am.))
And you both WILL die, but at least that's fair.
Wait until you see my MONSTERS. Then you will learn what BROKEN means. If you survive, the next monster encounter will be worse!
I have no intention of ever stopping, ever relenting, ever letting up, until your PCs are dead.
etc...

If he actually acts like he says he does, then the effect is indistinguishable on the player end. If it is distinguishable, then this entire thread is worthless because Edena isn't doing what he says he's doing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the players can tell the difference, then the DM isn't doing what Edena says he does.

Surely you can tell the difference between hyperbole and literal truth.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Man, that takes me back. I do get the feeling that 3e is a little too balanced sometimes. CR and EL are useful tools, but they can also feel like a safety net.

That's my feeling as well. When I heard that 3.0 was going to be striving for "Balance", my I was overjoyed, but really all I was wanting (and expecting) was a basically equal power level amongst the PC classes.

I don;t really need (or want) the EL system, I'm not certain what was so idealized about a party of 4 being able to get through an encounter with 25% of their resources gone.