DMs are too easy on their players

[Numion]

Holy cow, Numion, I *sincerely* hope that you are making this up outright, or at *least* exaggerating heavily-- but given the thread posts above, I am just not sure.

EDIT: Respecting Umbran's request, I am editing my opinions about the above. I still hope that Numion made the whole bit up, though. I am going to run with that assumption for the sake of my own sanity.

Hell naw, it's true! He told the whole story some years back when people had (rightly so) trouble believing he had a legit 121st level character. He got the levels the way I told. The characters history was pretty crazy in other ways too. Like real crazy. IIRC it involved aot a sex change into a female and then Elminster as a lover or something like that..

Then, the butt-pirate incident

 

[Nifft]

Like real crazy. IIRC it involved aot a sex change into a female and then Elminster as a lover or something like that..

You might be a munchkin if... Elminster uses polymorph any object on himself expressly to become your female lover.

, -- N

 

[Arkhandus]

Be interesting to know which posters mainly play, mainly DM or do a bit of both when they discuss what rights the players have to demand off the DM or vice versa..........

I mostly DM, and I still agree with Remathilis.

'Jes fer reference.

 

[Lanefan]

AS A PLAYER, I DEMAND.

As others have mentioned, not perhaps the most diplomatic of beginnings...

1.) A fair shot against most "planned" encounters. You should not hand me a first level PC, give him a +1 sword, and expect him to do anything with a great wyrm dragon. A well played Wyrm can kill a low level PC no matter what he does, tactics be damned. Unless you (the DM) are willing to give me a Loony-Tune's Style method of defeating him or are willing to play him absolutely bone-stupid, I cannot, nor should not survive such an encounter.

You're assuming, obviously, that the encounter would be confrontational, in which case you have a point But if your 1st-level guy becomes the Wyrm's henchman, or familiar (!), the opportunities for story and role-play are boundless!

2.) Reasonable treasure for a character of my level. "Reasonable" does not have to be the DMG wealth guideline, but it must be a.) equal to other PCs at a given level and b.) enough to handle the challenges the campaign is dolling out.

This is not a player's right. Much more useful for a Bill of Rights to put in that players have the right to decide how to divide such treasure as their characters may find; that usually ensures relative equality within the party.

3.) I expect to be challenged, not abused. I want to know that there is a sliver of margin of error, and not a grisly game of "guess what I'm thinking or you're dead". Deadly logic puzzles, impossible DCs, save-or-die (or worse, no save, just die) effects and other "meatgrinder" methods are a sure fire way to remove a portion of your player pool.

Tied together with 5 below...

4.) Regular enough advancement to make me feel like the things I do in game are being rewarded. This includes regularly giving out XP/character points/whatever and proper treasure/equipment (see 2.) Nothing is more disheartening to know you have played for 6 months to reach 3rd level and have a mwk sword...

This is not a player right. If the DM is trying to have a campaign last longer than a year or two and slows down the advancement to achieve this that's his-her perogative (but see 5 below). If you need more frequent gratification, I have no sympathy.

5.) Character Generation and House Rules SPELLED OUT before they affect my character. If something is being "playtested" I want to know before I become teh guinea pig. If you don't have elves, use only PH spells, or use a complex method of determining critical hits, please tell me before I decide to roll up an elf, pick a spell out of SC, or get my arm lobbed off by a kobold.

Don't stop at char-gen and house rules. Everything should be spelled out rules-wise as far as possible before puck drop, and then not changed in mid-game unless it has not affected ANYTHING yet. Also in the initial write-up should be a note that your character *will* at some point die; whether true or not, the expectation is there and plaeyrs are deep-down ready for it.

6.) Inform me WHAT type of game you intend to run. Not the genre, the TYPE. Social-political intrigue? Grim-and-gritty realism? Mystery and exploration? Kick-in-the-door dungeoneering 1-20? A world infested with undead? Planescape? These things will determine the character choices I make, and will affect my enjoyment accordingly.

To some extent, this might not even be known until 3 or 4 adventures in and the group has established an identity and playstyle. To ask for it up front might get you what turns out later to be a meaningless answer...

7.) The amount of personality/history/role-playing I put into my PC is directly proportional to his anticipated lifespan. I'll give detail and richness to Remathilis, the noble-turned-outlaw elven thief looking for his lost love, but not to Bob, the 5th fighter I've rolled up in 4 sessions...

As there's nothing saying you won't die in your first encounter, your anticipated lifespan should always be zero, with anything beyond that being a bonus. This should not be tied to your ideas for the character or how much effort you want to put into expressing them.

8.) We are the Players. Not your audience. The game is about us, our characters, and our choices. It is NOT about a.) your uber PC b.) your carefully detailed pseudo-realistic world, c.) your intricately complex storyline or d.) your ultimate uber badguy of ultimate destiny. We are the ones here to play, not to watch you tell a story to yourself.

The DM has a right to expect to be entertained by the players. The players have a right to expect to be entertained by the DM. 'Nuff said.

9.) We are your friends, not your subordinates. This is not a job, classroom, or dictatorship. We do not have to bow to your demands on time, place, playing style, or anything else. I am not here to be lectured to about gaming, history, religion or politics, I'm here to kill some bad things and take their stuff.

This one would see you invited to leave my table.

10.) Above all, I'm here to have fun. If I'm not having fun, I reserve the right to petition change to make the game more fun. If not compromise can be reached, I reserve the right to leave or find another person to DM.

This is the only one of these I can agree with, except if by "find another person to DM" you mean a table coup leading to the overthrow of the current DM to be replaced by a different DM for the same group, that is not a right.

Said mostly from a DM's perspective, though all my gaming is as a player these days.

Lanefan

 

[kaomera]

I'd pretty much agree with Remathilis, except for changing 'DEMAND' to 'Expect'.

I won't give my DMs demands and I won't stand for players making demands of me. That is just plain rude. They are not paying me to run a game for them.
I'm for discussion and consensus. You want something, we'll all discuss it.

I run the game I want to run which, luckily, is a game my players want to play. Bully for me.

If a DM runs a game and it doesn't meet my expectations I reserve the right to do something else instead. I do not have the right to demand he runs it how I want.

Well, to me demanding X from a DM and walking out of a game that does not feature X are pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying that "demand" isn't a loaded, poor choice of words, but it's also pretty accurate.

As a DM, I want to know what a given player's expectations (X-pectations?) are, and also specifically which ones are not open to discussion. I've had too many players come to me and say, f'rinstance, "I'm thinking of playing a Samurai.", when they in fact mean "I will not be playing in your game unless I am allowed to play a Samurai." If a Samurai isn't really appropriate for my game, then this leads to wasting many hours over several weeks trying to wheedle out of them just exactly what about the Samurai they like so that we can find a character that will fit into the game and also provide them what they want. When I could have, instead, been trying to fill a vacancy in my group that I really didn't know was there...

I've been thinking more and more that some sort of actual "group rules document" that specifically lays out the responsibilities and boundaries of both players and DM might possibly be a good thing for my current group. I haven't actually put anything like that on paper since I was 12... The big hurdle would be that my current group is having many of the problems it is having largely because they just don't want to / won't / can't discuss the game (and their expectations for it, etc.) in a really meaningful way...

 

[robberbaron]

I think you got me right.
I would walk if I didn't like the game a DM was running but I wouldn't whine like a little girl to get him to change his game to suit me.

This thread seems to be going round in circles.

This is what I infer from the conversations (there might be more I have missed, but I didn't study psychology):
There are players who want DMs to run the games they want to play in the manner, and with the options, they want.
There are DMs who run the games they want to run and who hope their players will want to play them (I'm in here).
There are groups who seem to agree what game they want to play then a DM runs it.
There are people who have a view somewhere inbetween these.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think you got me right.
I would walk if I didn't like the game a DM was running but I wouldn't whine like a little girl to get him to change his game to suit me.

OK.... So would you speak to your DM like an adult member of your gender about one thing that was making an otherwise enjoyable expereince troublesome?

 

[Remathilis]

......I endorse anything Remathilis says.

Can I Sig that? ;-)

Ok, a couple days of interesting points came through the pipe, and rather than respond to each individual criticism, I'll try to give commentary to the ten points.

0.) "Demand" - By Demand, I mean "I'd like the DM to know I don't expect the following ten things to happen or I won't remain a player long." Put another way "these things give me satisfaction in an RPG, not having them makes me unsatisfied".

1.) A "planned" encounter is one where the ability to avoid it is nearly impossible (short of giving up on the current plot hook) but there is no specific goal to the encounter other than "to overcome it" be it through diplomacy, stealth, guile, magic, or force of arms. A first level PC who meets a wyrm dragon who will become there patron isn't an "encounter" but a plot device. The PCs have to have some level of risk (can they take him in combat, successfully negociate, or sneak past him) but without an practically guaranteed chance of failure.

2.) This one is to basically say "Hey, keep the loot even, and keep it relative to our challenges". If you fight orcs all the time, gold on ail and whores and sharp sword is sufficient. If you expect us to fight Demons, you better allow us some access to holy, cold iron weapons eventually. Don't pitch Giants at PCs who only have ACs in the upper teens (the best of them).

3.) Sure, there are always something badder than the PCs, and there are some things we cannot do (jump a 35 foot cliff unaided at 5th level) but then, don't expect us to do so. Goes back to one: leave an option for failure that doesn't lead to dramatic death. Its a bit Anti-Tomb of Horrors, PCs should (usually, but not always) get a second chance at (if not success) escaping a terrible situation if tactics/dice/luck fail. Don't make every challenge a fight to the death.

4.) Give me some sense I'm making progress, both in story and in the game. I don't care if you give 1/2 xp, 1/4 xp, or level us every 6th session, just the feeling I'm accomplishing something with my character, watching him grow, and being rewarded for my good playing and problem solving.

5.) Some DMs forget to inform you of things, like "In my game, gnomes are 7 feet tall and eat nothing but tar, didn't I say that before you rolled up your gnome bard?" Or they love to share with you their new limb-removal system RIGHT about the time your PC first gets critted. House rules can (and have) been the dealbreaker with me and certain DMs, I'd like to know what I'm getting into before I do it.

6.) Some DMs love to run a social-political game. Others run beer-and-pretzels D&D. I just want an inkling as to what you expect. I won't make a half-elf courtier for a B&P D&D, nor a half-orc bbn for a game of courtly intrigue.

7.) If you run a killer DM game where PCs routinely are cattle for the slaughter, I will not put more into the game than I need to. If I come up with a background, but you never even read it much less use it, I will have my next PC's family slaughtered by orcs. I don't want to get attached to a character who is going to be ignored or slain outright. If a good character dies, that's life. Bad luck happens, but there is no reason I should not take preparations if I see it coming...

8.) Games should focus on us, the players. Not the exclusion of all else, but enough so we are not lackeys to your Pet NPC (who gets to do everything important), tourists to your intricately designed world (which we have no real chance of influencing) or playthings to your uber-baddie (which we have no chance of facing, let alone stopping). Make us matter, or post it as a story-hour and I'll read it at my leisure.

9.) There are some DMs who use their role as gamemaster to be a bully pulpit. They think they have the perfect gaming philosophy, and if you do not share it, you will be assimilated or destroyed. Its rare, but I've seen it. They use the DM power to express their own views on morality, society, ethics, race, gender, and justice. Almost always, its to the detriment of the players and PCs. One word: Don't.

10.) As a player, I want to know I have a voice in the game beyond the one attributed to my character. I want to be able to give feedback (last session was awesome), criticism (I don't like that new crit system), suggestions (how bout we try this) and corrections (I know you said vampires are immune to lightning, but the MM says...) in a reasonable manner (that doesn't disrupt a game/session) and have my voice count. It ties back to 9 a bit, that we aren't here for DM amusement, but here for mutual amusement. Sometimes, that needs to be re-iterated to some DMs.

I hope that clears up some misconceptions about my Player's Bill of Rights.

 

[Kichwas]

I hear, constantly, of balance.
Encounters should be balanced. A weary worn down party should be allowed to rest and recover. An adventure should not be overwhelming or underwhelming. Character class abilities should be on a par with each other. Character items should be on a par with each other.

I say: nonsense.

If I were your DM:

- You can count on me to throw encounters at you, and you can count on them to almost never be your CR. Some will be pushovers, some stupendously difficult. How will you know beforehand? You won't, typically.
- So you are beaten down? Out of spells? Low on hit points? Need to rest? I do hope you found a good hiding place or a spell that allows you to hide. Because the entire dungeon is after you, and *they* are not going to wait for you to rest and regain your strength.
- I don't owe it to you to be reasonable. I'm here to KILL your characters ((actually, I'm not, but I must make you *think* I am.)) Get it? KILL them. You better run, better hide! You better figure out how to fight well. You better know your spells. My monsters do!

[snipped]

Now why can't more DMs be like that?

In my opinion the problem is that the DnD mechanics for players are all about resource management. Everything has charges, uses per day, etc.

If you are running a group of just rogues, monks, and fighters, sure, there is no resource to manage other than hitpoints and you can leave them to the world.

But in nearly any other combination if you let loose certain classes become unplayable.

Imagine a raid on a village of Kobolds living in a cave complex the way it would 'go down in the real world' - unstopping violence as the Kobolds defending their home from agression. Midway into the second skirmish all the magical support of the assaulting team would be tapped out, and they would fall from the sheer weight of numbers of a whole tribe of kobolds.

There is no logical way to explain why a tribe of kobolds would not send their entire tribe to stop a home invasion by some 4-8 hostile monsters (humans and elves). Or at the least, why they would not all be aware of it.

But we have become accustomed over the years to putting those empty storage rooms, or not having anyone wander into the guard shack for 8 hours while we let mages rest, etc...

And that 'brand of illogic' sweeps across the entire genre of DnD.

DnD builds its playability not by balancing all the classes directly, but by limiting the resources of some - making their abilities more potent but less often available, and forcing a certain thinking, a certain playstyle. DnD balance works best when you keep these resource characters at some mid-point in their availability. While they are full they are over-powerful, once drained, they are often useless. You have to stage it all just right to keep them in a game of allocation.

If you go against that grain, you make some of the core assumptions of the game engine unworkable.

A no holds barred approach might work in something more directly balanced - such as Hero / BESM / GURPS / Shadowrun (each with its own, other problems) - but when a game balances by using resource allocation, failure to pay attention to that is not equally 'punishing' to all the members.

If you want a harsh, hard to win game of DnD, that is an admirable goal, but you need to do it in a way that impacts all the core class choices equally, or simply remove the disfavored classes from the roster.

If you want to show them what an assault on Kobold Manor ought to really be like, do it in an RPG other than DnD. Probably GURPS, much as I don't care for the new edition of that game, it would probably show them what that assault ought to really look like if it was real, better than the other choices I know of at least. And in that game, I could keep them on their toes 24/7 and feel I was being equally hard on all of them in doing so. I'd go nuts with my frustrations against GURPS doing so... But I could do it and feel even handedly harsh about it.

 

[Arkhandus]

Can I Sig that? ;-)

Yes.