DMs sure can make life hard... :(

[Mesh Hong]

Most of the time a DM's word is law, and simply must be accepted.

If the DMs word is law then I support an orchestrated peoples uprising possibly resulting in regime change.

The DM should only be enforcing laws that the majority of the group agree with (really all the group). Of course during a session a DMs judgement call should be followed for the sake of game flow, but all rulings should be open to debate and criticism at the end or between sessions.

This, however, sounds remarkably like you've got the worst thing possible; a competitive DM. He wants to "win" his game, rather than create a narrative adventure for the players. With the number of people involved I agree with several others. Go out and start your own game.

I completely agree with this though. The DM in this case does not appear to be at all interested in his players (or even PCs), he simply wants to humilate and infuriate them. He is not interested in constructing even remotely fair encounters and wants to powergame the world.

It just isn't fair, even worse in my opinion it just isn't fun. If it isn't fun then what are you doing it for? I am sure you can think of a million activities that arn't fun but result in something worthwhile. (just think you could spend six hours decorating, you might not enjoy it but at least you will have achieved something!)

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

2 of the nine playes have decided not to return - or so they have told me, but they haven't informed the party yet.

If I had a session like that, I wouldn't return either.

These DM's are failing at Rule 1 - a game of D&D should be fun for ALL concerned.

 

[Ryujin]

Mesh Hong, please keep in mind that I'm not saying the DM should be completely autonomous in his decisions. He should listen to any REASONABLE objections and then make a ruling quickly, so that play is not unduly impacted. The issue can then be researched and decided for later play, between sessions.

The point is that when the DM makes his final decision, that should then end the issue (for the moment).

 

[Herschel]

I look at it from the other side: this looks to me like an uncreative player whining because they had a tough encounter. I'd also say 'suck it up'. The powers for the Golems are in Dragon, and if they can't/don't attack the vulnerable defenses of the golems, well that's on them. Sure it was a challenging encounter, but it sure sounds like they lived. There should be some very challenging encounters at times. Two Warlords, 9 PCs is a LOT of attack rolls against a pair of golems with a goodly amount of potential bonuses.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's nothing wrong with tough encounters, but I get the impression that the DM in question seems to have one basic approach to building a tough encounter, which is to make most of what the PCs do just not work. There are more interesting ways in 4e to do it. I wouldn't be too hasty to judge the DM based on a single encounter, but I would also HAVE to fault this as not being a really well designed 4e encounter.

I have used level+7 enemies against a party in 4e. It can actually work really well in very specific conditions and that particular encounter (which was a year ago) is still remembered by the players as a stand-out encounter. Yes, they had a hard time hitting the monster, but it was a controller, not a soldier, so the defense numbers were a bit less stratospheric. I also designed the encounter such that if the players were resourceful they could gain some significant advantages against the monster, which made it exciting for them. As it turned out it was predictably a tough encounter and was fairly close to being a TPK but not TOO close. Mainly it wasn't perceived as grindy because the main emphasis was outsmarting the enemy, not standing toe-to-toe trying to roll a bunch of 15+ to-hit rolls.

 

[Nytmare]

The powers for the Golems are in Dragon, and if they can't/don't attack the vulnerable defenses of the golems, well that's on them.

When exactly did the memo go out explaining that players are expected to metagame to ensure that a good time is had by all?

 

[Ryujin]

When exactly did the memo go out explaining that players are expected to metagame to ensure that a good time is had by all?

When they gave Knowledge skills the ability to glean such information about their opponents.

... though that encounter sounds too tough, by far, weak defences or not.

 

[eamon]

I look at it from the other side: this looks to me like an uncreative player whining because they had a tough encounter. I'd also say 'suck it up'. The powers for the Golems are in Dragon, and if they can't/don't attack the vulnerable defenses of the golems, well that's on them. Sure it was a challenging encounter, but it sure sounds like they lived. There should be some very challenging encounters at times. Two Warlords, 9 PCs is a LOT of attack rolls against a pair of golems with a goodly amount of potential bonuses.

Many classes just don't have the capability to deal with something like this. That's hardly a reasonable requirement, thus. Yes, if you attack ref or will, then the defenses are merely appropriate for a level+2 monster rather than unbeatable. In any case, this doesn't sound like a DM that provided extra options to the PC's, rather, he removed options (such as forced movement).

 

[Herschel]

Being smart is not metagaming. If something is tougher to hit one way and easier to hit another, you hit it the other even if it takes you a round or two to find the easier way. That's common sense, especially if someone's in a life-threatening battle.

There's a difference between "Golems have AC x Fort x Ref x Will x" vs. "Dang, I'm having a hard time whacking this big, immovable baddie straight up with my sword, maybe we and the spellchuckers should attack it's reflex/mobility or its will. What do I know/can I learn about it? Let's rally guys and keep these things away from our casters".

Also, controllers can stun/daze/box/or any number of bad things the golems. They don't have the boatload of immunities they used to.

 

[Herschel]

Many classes just don't have the capability to deal with something like this. That's hardly a reasonable requirement, thus. Yes, if you attack ref or will, then the defenses are merely appropriate for a level+2 monster rather than unbeatable. In any case, this doesn't sound like a DM that provided extra options to the PC's, rather, he removed options (such as forced movement).

The powers were in Dragon, so it's not even like the DM made them up. The OP just hadn't known about them when first posting. The Avenger didn't pack Radient Vengeance or the like, that's the DM's fault? So the spellcasters got their time to shine and the melee damage monkeys had to play defender for an encounter. Cry me a river.

If someone doesn't like how the game is run there are three options: leave, discuss with the option of stepping up and DMing themselves or suck it up.