DMs sure can make life hard... :(

[the Jester]

One of the 2 players that's qutting is my 18 year old son, Kyle. Like most teenagers, he is an avid player, and very good (ah, for those reflexes again!). It'll be tough now, because I've really enjoyed gaming with him. He just decided that he'd had enough, as did the other player.

I guess, because I'm a glutton for punishment, I'll stick around a while longer.

Dude, you are letting your son's love of the game (potentially) get squashed by a crappy dm, and the example you are setting is that, when you have a crappy dm, you just suck it up.

FORGET THAT. Run a game of your own and show your son that D&D can be fun before it's too late and he gets the impression that it sucks.

And even if you don't want to run a campaign of your own, drop out of the crappy game. Life's too short to play crappy rpgs.

 

[On Puget Sound]

You would rather play with this GM and without your son, than make a game that can include him? The GM is wrong, but you may be wronger.

 

[korjik]

You have 10 people and your answer to a world class crappy DM is suck it up?

Tell the DM and his sidekick to take a long walk off a short pier. Tell them that they are too dumb to mess with the fundamental rules of the game, and that you arent going to put up with that.

Also, I have to agree with the people here that you letting your son get exposed to a DM that bad is a big FAIL on your part. Killing the desire to game in a kid is just plain wrong.

 

[frankthedm]

double post

 

[frankthedm]

They (the current DM and the one that switches out with him) said that WOTC could bite them, and the 4e rules along with them - that they were running the game, and that was the final say on that. Period.

I normally agree with that sentiment, but with 4e, too much PC power/options are invested in forced movement. If a game master feels the effects of Slip and Slide shenanigans should be lesser/negated for bigger / heavier critters as a default, 4e might not be the best ruleset for them.

Just how obligated were the players to go through the area with the golems? If the golems are in an area that the character could head to at a later date, the golems may have been a status quo encounter / beefgate meant for when the players are stronger.

Given how you have described them though, i could also see the DM in question just having decided the guardians were stone golems and then looked at the stats. After dong a double take, they still placed the golems there since "If 9 previous edition characters can fight 2 stone golems at 10th level, it is the systems fault if they can't do the same in 4E"

How did the extra players show up? DID the gm know they were coming? More people just showing up unannounced can cause issues with some folks.

Why just 4e? I'd say they are frustrating in every edition of D&D.

in 4E, the math for to hit and defenses is fairly fine tuned so these issues will probably occur at the same time. Also in 4E it takes more than just a few lucky hits to drop most non minions.

 

[Destil]

The problem here was mostly the level difference (and the monsters being soldiers). The fight would have played a lot better if they were level 10-13ish solos instead of 17 elites. That's a big thing in 4E, you can easily use the system's strengths to run a fight like that...

 

[Blackbrrd]

In my experience as a DM encounters in 4e is boring when you need 14+ to hit. Denying all crowd control in the same encounter is pretty harsh.

I am wondering what made the DM think this would be a good encounter. Ask him.

As a character my conclusion would have been that the area is too hard and go somewhere else... You might consider this angle instead of leaving out of character. It might open your DM's eyes.

 

[eamon]

They (the current DM and the one that switches out with him) said that WOTC could bite them, and the 4e rules along with them - that they were running the game, and that was the final say on that. Period.

So it turned in to a very long encounter, especially with 9 players, who missed the majority of the time, while they wailed on us.

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

Sucking it up is part of the game - but that goes both ways. Sure, sometimes you just need to accept DM rulings to keep things flowing, even if they're less than perfect. But that's a short term sacrifice; in the long run, you should basically agree as to how the game should be run - and maybe the DM should suck it up and modify his ideals a little to find common ground.

Certainly if people are leaving then I don't think it's reasonable for the DM's opinion to somehow monopolize what goes. Sounds like the DM has some issues (perhaps specifically with 4e?), and might prefer playing for a while again? In any case, it helps to occasionally play anyhow, for perspective

A 9-person group makes things slow and, well, boring (IMHO). I don't think it's a bad idea to split the group anyhow, particularly if you've got this kind of friction.

Thanks...just venting a bit I guess...

Which is just fine and dandy. I feel for ya .

[...on the topic of frustration of over-level enemies that you can basically never hit...]
Why just 4e? I'd say they are frustrating in every edition of D&D.

In 3e, at least, game balance was less rigorous. You could often find just the right effect to make even drastically over-level combats achievable. Throwing two CR 17's vs. a level 10 party would perhaps have been lethal, but probably not boring and frustrating. Because almost everything is tied to scaling attacks+defenses, using some trick or prep-work usually matters less; you just can't escape the grind vs. high-level opponents.

Well, let's see; A standard encounter for 9 Lvl 10s is 45k xp. This could get upto 50k if you're talking two level 10 solos, which would seem appropriate for what you describe.

2 Lvl 17 Elites is 64 k. SIGNIFICANTLY above your means.

A standard encounter for 9x level 10 PC's is 4500XP. A hard encounter is up to 9000XP. Two stone golems are 6400XP or more (apparently the DM added a few abilities), but that's still solidly within range for a hard encounter.

More problematic is using level+7 opponents, particularly elite opponents (which in MM1 have better attacks and defenses) and particularly soldiers. That trio of choices is particularly poor judgement. It's certainly beyond the DMG guidelines. Using level+7 elite soldiers is just plain stupid (or you hate your players).

As a side note, DM fiat is fine and all, but using it to screw the players? Not cool.

EDIT - Hey, if these DMs aren't working for you, take FireLance's advice - I'm sure those two guys who're quitting still want to play! DM for 'em yourself!

No kidding

 

[Ryujin]

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

 

[babinro]

I don't actually disagree with the use of Stone Golems, given they have extremely low Reflex and Will saves for the party to attack. With a party of 9 people, I'd really hope they don't all focus on AC.

A battle like this should be quite rare though. The OA thing and the no push/pulls thing I would have kept as per the rules though.

In addition, if the battle began to really drag on because of the defense issues, I'd have likely indicated that their armor cracks when bloodied (or on a critical) and causes penalties to AC/Fort making them easier targets.

To each their own. The DM may have simply been experimenting with new types of encounters and getting a feel for what works and what doesn't. If this comes up often though, then it is simply a clash of styles, and they should stop DMing with this particular group or come to some sort of middle ground to keep people happy.