DMs sure can make life hard... :(

[frankthedm]

based on that email chain, it sounds like your dm is a jerk. You were more than civil and he was an ass about things.

Yep.

Hell, I wouldn't be too surprised if the DM is trying to drive people off to thin the herd.

Okay, note taken on not using the Dailies soon enough. We just figured (going by past encounters) that as tough as the Stone Golem Guardian Form creatures were, that the end of campaign Boss was going to be tougher.

The stone golems were probably supposed to get rid of your dalies. That the party did get through the fight causes me to wonder how many 'ringer' characters the group has though.

Oh, i'd suspect the EotC boss has a very good chance of wiping the party. The caster will be a high level solo, so he will be practically unhittable. I say practically since the group still has their dalies. Though don't be surprised if the boss also has some high AC flunkies too .

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My observation from DMing 4e pretty regularly is that pretty much all of the "dud" encounters I've run, ones that were too long and boring or frustrating for the players, incorporated higher level monsters. There were also great encounters that used higher level monsters, but the risk of a dud is closely associated with overleveling in 4e. Lots of DMs seem inclined to do this for some reason though and it seems hard for some of them to "get it".

I'd also note though that the duds also usually had some other factor on top of higher level monsters. The usual culprit is an encounter with too few interesting options or too little room to move around. Higher level monsters can aggravate this too since they last a long time and its likely the fight will devolve into a slugging match towards the end.

If you are going to use a higher level monster the fight has to be significantly dynamic. There's got to be ways to outmaneuver the enemy, pull off some kind of outrageous stunt, special tactics, or some objective besides just dealing damage to zero hit points.

I unleashed a Carrion Crawler on a level 1 party for instance. This was interesting because the party spent most of its time figuring out how to maneuver so that it couldn't crawl around the front line and get to the warlock and the wizard that were doing most of the damage. Plus they had to be on their toes to avoid losing anyone. There were also some items like a barrel of oil they could burn it with when they got it to the right spot. The players liked this encounter a lot. The monster was fairly hard to hit, but not impossible and they moved around a good bit, plus they were definitely in fear of their lives! Later the CCs got a reprise at level 7 and that was fun too since now they were just a moderately tough monster.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

1. I think it is fair to call the DM a jerk, but for one reason only -- the quoted email. Knocking down strawmen in an argument with friends is just plain jerky behavior.

2. Let's NOT call the poster a jerk about his and his son's play choices, shall we? We don't know anything about their relationship, his son's opinions on the matter, or his long term plans.

3. Why are zombie movies fun? Because they involve killing lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots (!) of zombies. Yes, eventually there comes along a King Zombie or whatever, but if the movies were nothing but "Fight the King Zombie for 2 hours", well, people wouldn't be making zombie movies at all, because no one would pay to see them.

Same in D&D, and note: it's NOT a matter of FREQUENCY of encounter types -- it's the DURATION of the fights. So 10 easy fights and 1 hard one can still be a bad ratio, if the 1 hard fight takes twice as long as the 10 easy fights combined.

Some may disagree, but that's how I see it.

 

[Colmarr]

they said it was a DM ruling, deal with it... that they were running the game, and that was the final say on that. Period.

Sometimes, as a player, you need to accept that the DM is the arbiter of rules in a game. However, any DM who uses the sort of approach you are reporting is not a DM that you want to be playing with.

D&D is, at the end of the day, a co-operative game. Your DM(s) appear to have no intention or ability to interract co-operatively with the players.

You need to take them aside and explain the problems as you see them (by which I mean their approach to discussion, not their blatant disregard for the rules). If they're not interested, take as many of the other 8 players with you as you can and start your own game.

One of the great advantages of 4e is that it's so easy to DM.

One of the 2 players that's qutting is my 18 year old son, Kyle.

I'm sorry, but if you're old enough to have an 18-year old son and bothered enough to be posting here, then you should be doing something about this.

Be a good example to your son - try to resolve the situation with the DM(s) but if you can't, then leave with him.

 

[N0Man]

Your DM is definitely being unreasonable. I'm chiming in with the chorus of folks that say you should try putting on the DM Cape. You understand the importance of the game being fun and fair, and that alone puts you ahead of many DMs.

I will say that I don't particularly approve of posting his first and last name in these quoted mails. I'd have kept it first name only, or refer to him by an alias. Even if he is a jerk, he might get get upset if he googles himself and finds this ;-)

I played with a power tripping DM a couple years ago as well, and it really does ruin the fun.

 

[eamon]

I will say that I don't particularly approve of posting his first and last name in these quoted mails. I'd have kept it first name only, or refer to him by an alias. Even if he is a jerk, he might get get upset if he googles himself and finds this ;-)

Oh yeah - OP, you should definitely edit that message and get rid of the (last) name. This is already the 4th hit on google, here ;-).

 

[Engilbrand]

3rd hit on Google.

I played with a power-hungry douche-DM a couple of years ago. I wanted a game to tide me over until 4e came out, so I found a local group. It was absolutely horrible. He was power-hungry, had no true concept of balance, and even went so far as to change my description of something really cool. I was not a fan. (On a side note, I left the group by sending a mass email while drunk. That was awkward. I finally said everything I had wanted to say.)

The DM is the arbiter of the rules, but I don't think that counts as making up rules on the fly to mess with the players. I mess with the rules quite a bit, but I'm also DMing for 2 friends and everything that I do is to add to the fun and the story. "You tell me." has become my favorite response when one of them asks for a description or a name. They seem to love it, too. It's also where most of the ideas for the game have come from.

Tell your DMs to shut up and read the DMG 2. Also, let them know that their callous regard for the players' interest may cause them to lose players. If they don't care, then stop gaming with them. At the very least, you should leave if your son leaves.

 

[rayous]

lol, this thread is the 3rd option that comes up when you google his name. Thats hillarious.

 

[jbear]

I think its the combination of things that created what sounds like a tense and unfun encounter, where tempers probably flared and things started feeling a bit less like a game and more something personal. Tense is good if it's fun. Bad when combined with unfun. No moving, no hitting, no recourses against the creatures placed in your path... I wonder what the DM thought would be cool about that.

9 people is very difficult to run for a start. Even if each person takes 2 minutes with their turn... thats going to be 20 minutes a round! 3 rounds would take an hour... And if you wait twenty minutes and roll a 16 ... and miss. Pffft. Better to stay home and scratch your nads.

Unfortunately, with 9 players, the loss of two, three or even four people is unlikely to phase your DM, because he'd be left with an optimally sized group.

I think the other worrying thing about your DMs attitude is the 'screw wizards of the coast' sentiment. He's not screwing anyone over apart from the players. WOTC, I'm sure, couldn't care less about anything he does to their game.

I'm also of the opinion that your loyalty should lie with your son. That doesn't necessarily mean just abandoning the group. DMs fiat is fine. But DMs are not the only ones playing the game. Its not just THEIRS. There needs to be an openness on the part of the DM to receive constructive feedback/criticism about the game s/he is running. It doesn't need to go on at the table, but certainly afterwards, with calm and in private, I think you should have a talk to your DM and express your frustrations.

 

[Turtlejay]

So being rude to this DM is probably not the way to go. I read the emails, and I saw him as being defensive more than anything else. The encounter presented had only 2 problems:

- 9 PC's

- level+7 soldiers

Granted, both of those are firmly in the DM's hands to fix, but I have been a DM who prepared for 7 and got 11, I know it is tough to add to an encounter on the fly and not make it suck. Do we know what his *original* plan was?

This is not the first thread you have started discussing your DMing woes. Have you talked to him, frankly and honestly about it? Sure, an email with a list of grievances may seem like enough, but a face to face where he can understand that you are serious sound in order. If that is to awkward for you, I'm not sure you have a leg to stand on. Really, the goal is for you and he to both enjoy yourselves playing D&D. If that is not addressed, then you should enjoy yourselves *seperately*, but do please give him a chance to try it your way.

Jay