DMs do you trust your PCs?

[Elder-Basilisk]

Well, my campaign didn't get past 8th level, so my players never fought as much as one dragon or tarrasque of any kind. If I needed to scare 'em I tossed ogres with 4 fighter levels or max HD advanced assassin vines at them. What I meant by scaling is that if player X wants to play a 30 strength half dragon (and for some reason I let him), he can expect to be going up against fiendish dire bears and girallons--or normal orcish barbarians five levels higher than him (character level+3 (ECL)+2 (because big bad guys deal with the whole party at once). Even a character like a half dragon barbarian (there was one of these in the RttToEE campaign I played in) can be pretty easily challenged in melee--you just need creatures whose CR justifies them being a challenge. (Actually that half-dragon was the first character to die in the campaign--half dragons tend to have low hp due to ECL).

Ick on scaling campaigns. If my players make it to epic levels ever, I don't want new more powerful creatures to come down. I want them to have to work for much longer (like years OOC) to level up.

For instance, if the Tarrasque and Great Wyrm dragons are about the most powerful creatures in my setting, save for gods and such, then players are just going to have to settle down once they are Mordenkainen powerful. They are just going to have to settle minor disputes, keep general order on an epic scale, and wait for that next super-baddy to come along...

Also, from viewers experience, scaling doesn't work if you like to vary encounters based on planing and enemy experience/intelligence.

And don't concieve that I don't use the rules, but I do cancel out overly powerful characters by simply setting them up against stronger/luckier enemies just enough that the game is evened out, but I don't change the rules for the creatures.

For instance, idiot bakemono goblin swarm fight. The wizards and clerics are all about equally challenged by the enemy with thier different skills, but if the Half-Dragon Ogre Barbarian with a 30 strength is untouchable and always kills, every now and then I'll let a kobold life, or dodge. The logic being that the encounter should not depend on the Barbarian killing everything without being challenged. I just get "lucky" enough to make sure he's sweating just as much as the rest of 'um.

 

[Victim]

I trust players as far as I can throw them.

However, I don't really feel compelled to limit their choices in terms of character building, except in very special cases. I generally try to nip the characters built around one round kills, whether by save DCs or damage multipliers in the bud. Overall power isn't as big of a deal. I've even redesigned characters that weren't very good. For example, when a 15th level monk does about 13 points of damage against AC 30, he's not going to be very useful. Everyone was making fun of the character and the player was considering retiring him. However, with a few changes in magic items and the weapon finess feat, the monk became pretty dang good. I can usually min max better than the players, so if they're powerful, I can play rough with them.

The reason I don't trust players is because if there's something stupid they can do, or something that derails what I've been working one, they'll do that first. If I assume that they'll take certain things into account - like scrying - they won't. If there's a way to cause intraparty conflict, they'll find it.

 

[Darkness]

... If there's a way to cause intraparty conflict, they'll find it.

Heh. That reminds me of a friend of mine who once insisted that (in Werewolf), any kind of party composition could work.

His players' group consisted of the following:

A Red Talon (which hate civilization and technology)
A Glass Walker (who exalt technology)
A Get of Fenris (who tend to be very "macho")
A Black Fury (who are violent feminists)
A Shadow Lord (who tend to be generally disliked because they are often conniving, back-stabbing schemers)

All of these characters were "Ahrouns" - i.e., born under the sign of the Full Moon, which makes them the chosen warriors of their kind (although another friend of mine - the freak/near-munchkin that I mentioned in my earlier post - once "proved" that all Werewolf Auspices are warriors: Galliards sing and kill, Theurges talk with spirits and kill, Ahrouns just kill, Ragabashs sneak/jest and kill and Philodoxes talk and kill, or something to that effect ) - and, as such, quite violent and ill-tempered.
(Note: It's of course quite unlikely that a Werewolf pack of more than 2-3 members consists only of Ahrouns - or any other Auspices -, much less five Ahrouns of different tribes.)

Now, to their credit, the player characters finished the adventure without killing each other off.
Almost, that is: On their way back home, they came upon a lone survivor of their enemies - a Werewolf of the Black Spiral Dancers (which is the one Werewolf tribe who's fighting alongside the "normal" Werewolves' sworn enemies; they are also quite tainted and very, very mad - often in a violent kind of way). And the player characters began to argue about who of them would have the honor to duel this enemy. When the Shadow Lord tried to force his aspirations of leadership on the - unwilling - other characters, things started to heat up. And when the Get of Fenris said something to effect that this was "mens' work" and hence, given that he was the only "real man" among them, his job, the situation went to hell in a handbasket.
After some very bloody moments, only the Red Talon was still alive (but near death, too). He managed to slay the astonished Black Spiral Dancer somehow and began to drag himself home...

 

[Lela]

I trust my players completely. I know I can always find something to challange them. For instance, to make combat harder, you have a pool of blood for which they must make Balance checks to walk in (DC 10) or fight in (DC 15) and still avoid falling. Not high enough to screw them over, but still something to add a little bit of edge to the encounter. And that Half-Dragon Ogre Paladin is still quite volnerable to falling down. Add in undead (who are somehow feeding off the blood), who don't need to make balance checks, and you've just given something extra to make it harder on the PCs.


On the other side, I know that I can trust my players. I also know that limits aren't necesarry to protect the game itself, as I've seen them all excell equally without any limits whatsoever, each coming up with an amazing character concept. But some of them want limits.

One player in particular can never feel that he's playing a normal character. It's always got to be Drow, half-something, or a new overbalanced class. Now there's nothing wrong with this. But in the end, he just wants to push the limits as far as he can. So I set limits and slowly relent to his pleas for drowdom.

It's helps him have a more enjoyable time being what he wants and the other players don't mind. Especally when I point out his ECL and lack of HP, Skills, and Ability increases.

It's a style question really. What does your group look best in?

 

[Doc_Subtlety]

As a DM, I see it as my job to entertain all of the players.

I trust them to cooperate with me about some stuff, but not everything, based on...well, I know these guys.

For example, my players understand game balance, so I don't tend to limit classes, races, items, or even levels. If we discover something is broken in play, people don't tend to argue if I change the rules. Most of them have DMed, so we tend to agree about what's broken anyway.

(In fact, they wanted to play 30th level characters a few weeks back, and I think it's going all right.)

On the other hand, my players are very, very bad at the teamwork thing. Big egos, differing expectations, differing approaches to gaming. So, I go ahead and force the issue.

My usual approach is to design challenges that nobody can handle alone: mean dungeons, engineering problems, etc.

This last time, I went ahead and banned Chaotic PCs, and had everybody come up with a unified background for their characters - a shared secret, and a pact.

*shrugs*

If they ever figure out how to be a group without being pushed, I'll let them figure that out for themselves, same as with power levels.

(I wouldn't care now, except that group fragmentation leads to some people not getting a fair share of play, and it makes my job tons harder.)

 

[Leopold]

I am there to provide entertainment to the PC's as well as keep the rules as I see them and they are writen in check. If a PC wants to take an ECL then I make sure it's story driven and not something to be munchkinny.

I don't look when a player rolls his stats, I just have them roll them and then report back to me, too much micromanagement tends to ruin the game.


If there is a question in the rules as to how something is done, I usually side with the players and allow them to do it until i get clarification, after all they are heros and they do do odd things that are unexpected. Once things are clarified, if needbe, then we continue onward using whatever clarification was used if any.

Overall, I am just a humble storyteller and they are the actors in my story, let them have fun and feel the power of the story as they weave and live their way through it..

 

[JacktheRabbit]

How simple minded of you.

I am currently running a dwarven wizard who has a toad familiar. It fits his personality and quite often the toad is used as the eyes in the back of the wizards head.

It depends if they can pass a simple test:

"Assuming your character could have a Familiar, what would he choose?"

If they would pick a Toad, then I run the game differently (and I die a little inside).

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Wow a min/max munchkin for a DM. Who also lies through his teeth to his players multiple times every session.

How utterly exciting.

I don't trust my players at all. They love to try and abuse rules and such. I don't limit the game either. I just rely on the all-powerful DM screen. I know I can control any scenario, and I know I can do it well.

If I have a PC that has a really fugly +30 to hit on all attacks at level 1 (something I don't think is even possible by the best munchkin), I just tell the player he misses every once in a while.

Player 1: 17
Me: You hit
Player 1: 8 Damage.
DM: Insert Description here.
Player 2: 49, critical threat!
Me: You miss.
Player 2: How?
Me: (rolling noise) He managed to dodge your attack. I rolled a 20 rather than his normal AC since your confirmed to hit nomatter what, which isn't very fair to the creature, and I rolled a 20.

If I have a PC that has an instant death spell with a Will Save DC of +40 attacking creatures with no will save whatsoever...

Player 2: Save or die, DC 40
DM: (rolling noise), I pass.
Player 2: How?
Me: Natural 20

My assumption is that players should hit/miss about 10% of the time if they are a Core Fighter, about 25% if they are a mid-fighter, and 50% if they are a wizard or such. I also assume creatures fail about 50% of thier saves. My players still havn't caught on that I really don't care what they roll, and it's been 2 years.

All I'm saying, is DMs unite. Do not fear the munchkin. Do not fear Min/Maxing. Do not fear unbalanced rules. Do not fear horribly unbalanced races. Do not fear Save or Die. Do not fear anything. Quit being cowards, you have control, not the rules. You are the final word. Do not fear the game system, embrace it as a friend. Don't be afraid to kill players, and don't be afraid to let the BBEG die. Just enjoy the game for what it's worth, and play because it's fun.

 

[Renaissance Man]

Trust your PCs?

Yeah - I trust them to whine about the parameters I set, and to weasel through any loophole, real or imagined.

 

[National Acrobat]

I allow just about anything, I trust my players. I have 2 rules when it comes to them wanting to play weird, unusual, powerful or what not characters or when wanting to try new spells, feats, classes, races or magic items.

1-If the PC's can have it, expect it to be used against you at some point down the road and don't whine about it when it happens.

2-Accept the consequences of your choices, especially when playing evil characters or using highly disruptive items or devices, such as a Sword of Life Stealing. Expect commoners and such to hear of your exploits with your life draining sword and for your reputation to proceed you.

Other than that, I am pretty wide open.