dnd 3.5 - Challenge my party.

[Joseph Rossow]

First of all, nowhere in my original post did I advise that a DM add 1,000's of hit points to their monsters. Here's what I said:

"Putting a boss out there with 1,500 hp will make for, at least, a long enough encounter for the player's to savor the thrills of fighting an epic enemy."

So let's lay that issue to rest.

Second, while I do not wish to debate here the different ways a DM can manage their players, I stand by my assessment of this DM's group. Clearly, he feels "regret" for not limiting his player's characters grown, and I am advocating that he push back and assert himself (just not by taking away the powers and items his group has already acquired).

Third, if I'm going to give someone advice on how to challenge high-level characters, without knowing their specific capabilities or tactics, their usual adversaries, or their settings, I'm going to recommend brute force. It is simple and effective.

We could debate how a band of fire giants might best fight on the rim of a volcano, or discuss the best traps for a lich's tomb, or ponder the best assortment of spells for an evil sorcerer, but if those don't exist in this DM's campaign then it doesn't really matter.

Fourth, I am a proponent of meaningful, decisive encounters. But I'm not going to derail the thread further with a prolonged defense of this. Suffice to say, I think that sending adventurers into a room full of skeletons (EL of their level) to get loot (also of their level) is a really lame sounding adventure.

Let me address some individuals for a moment.

Celebrim,

As the DM, your job is to lose.

I disagree. It's the DM's job to entertain.

You just try to lose in a way that makes it look like the PC's won even though the odds were stacked in the monsters favor.

How is this not yanking players through hoops? If a DM only makes it "look like" the PC's won, then they never actually achieved victory themselves. Whereas, when my players survive a combat encounter in my games, it's because they earned it, not because I tricked them into thinking "the odds were stacked in the monsters favor" when really it was my "job" to "lose." THAT, your quote right there,is a terrible piece of advice.

Finally, you seem to be proud of your "Killer DM" status. Tell me, do you enjoy "bumming out" all the players at your table? 'Cause that'd be messed up.

malkav666,

Thanks for the criticism. It'd really help me if you could give an example of the way I "portrayed opinions in text rather than... points?" I'm just not sure what you mean by this and I don't want to keep making this mistake.

Thanks again for reading all.

 

[Celebrim]

I disagree. It's the DM's job to entertain.

Fine, I agree too. I can keep agreeing that is the DM's job to entertain while still agreeing that it is the DM's job to lose. Stating that it is the DM's job to entertain doesn't address the point.

I stated that it was the DM's job to lose to contrast the DM's role in the game to that of the usual stance of a game player. Normally, a game player is trying to win. For a DM though, winning is not a challenge at all. The DM can always win. The DM is omnipotent. As a DM, you are in almost all cases designing a challenge such that the forces at your command are less than what you think you can win with. Please, if you disagree, publish a module which is not designed according to this principle and see how well the editors and playtesters recieve it.

How is this not yanking players through hoops? If a DM only makes it "look like" the PC's won, then they never actually achieved victory themselves.

That's a misquote, and if you quote the full statement the answer to your question is clear.

When a DM designs a dungeon, or an adventure, or anything else, one of the things the DM is guided by is that there is some worthwhile goal which is achievable as the expected result. There might be encounters which are beyond the characters ability. The players might set goals for themselves that are beyond the character's ability to achieve, but there exists some worthwhile pursuit where the expected result is 'the player's win'.

I say this in constrast to the alternative, which is, "The expected result is that players are going to lose." It's quite easy to create a setting, dungeon or adventure where the players cannot win. Such is not really the perogative of the DM, and if the players discover that the DM has done so, the DM will likely have a revolt on their hands. Instead, the players enter the game with the implicit expectation that they can accomplish something and that they aren't there just to be abused by the DM. (I've seen some CoC scenarioes that potentially violate this construction, but then again, most players know when sitting down to a session of CoC that 'we win' isn't necessarily an achievable outcome.)

So, the DM designs the scenario to be 'won', but by no means does that mean that the PC's victory is certain. They could be beset with bad luck or poor choices. Whatever victory the player's achieve is certainly their own. The DM is not yanking the players through hoops, because the DM has deliberately diminished the power of his forces such that the players have a chance and have freedom of action, and usually (though not always), can take the initiative.

But they haven't 'beaten' the DM because the DM isn't trying to set up a balanced game where the odds of victory are equal on each side (do this, and the game will never last more than a couple of sessions before a TPK). At most, the DM tries to give the players the feeling that they've triumphed against long odds, but pretty much every player knows at some level that they were supposed to win the game just as every player of a video game knows that the game was designed by the game maker to be 'winnable' as opposed to 'impossible'. All I'm saying is that the DM just tries not to diminish the players justified sense of accomplishment by continually reminding them of this fact.

Whereas, when my players survive a combat encounter in my games, it's because they earned it, not because I tricked them into thinking "the odds were stacked in the monsters favor" when really it was my "job" to "lose." THAT, your quote right there,is a terrible piece of advice.

Really. Whereas, when my players survive a combat encounter in my games, it's because they earned it. However, they are likely to know if they reflect on the matter that I could have easily added a few more ogres, given the monsters just a few more advantages, added another encounter or two and they would certainly have lost. They know that I didn't do those things because I wasn't trying to win. I was trying very hard to leave open a path of victory for the players. I was in effect, trying to lose and at some level everyone knows it. That, once armed with my inadequate forces I try to push the players to their limit rather than handing them a victory is certainly true, but I take no satisfaction at all in 'winning', and generally get really bummed out if I do.

Now, if in your games as DM you aren't doing that, I should be very very surprised. In fact, I know you are doing that, because if you weren't, you wouldn't have players. If you set the odds in your favor, if you TPK the players in every combat, if you try to 'win', then there is no game and the players will quickly refuse to play it.

Finally, you seem to be proud of your "Killer DM" status. Tell me, do you enjoy "bumming out" all the players at your table? 'Cause that'd be messed up.

The irony of this is you just attacked me for being too soft on my players because I was trying to lose. Now, with no apparant cognitive dissonance, you attack me of being too hard on my players and enjoying defeating the players. So what is it, am I too hard or too soft? For the record, I was the one that said I take no pleasure in player deaths, and I was the one disagreeing with you when you implied that players deaths could be really fun. In theory, I suppose that they could be fun, but in practice I've never seen one that is. I'm not the one who implied killing PC's is fun.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't know that arbitrarily manipulating monster attributes and stats is acceptable at every table in 3.5E. In any other edition, sure thing, but 3.5E has the conceit that PCs and enemies are built using the same system, and throwing that system out the window is a substantial houserule you can't just slap on.

3.5 has the conceit that anything with Int 3 or higher could be a 42nd level barbarian.

 

[pawsplay]

Folks, this has to be a Troll. I can't possibly imagine anyone keeping a group by DM'ing like this. This has got to be the absolute worst DM'ing advice I've ever heard.

No, you are wrong, El Mahdi. While it may be bad advice, according to you, it certainly can't be the worst, because that's pretty much how I run my games. Since I know some campaigns do not survive their DMs, I can only conclude that this is NOT the worst DMing advice ever by any possibility. You might want to strongly considering apologizing to this guy for rudeness, for shouting troll, and for preaching the One True Way.

I think the advice offered was fine, and would probably improve many games.

Do not apporach your players about the topic because it will make you look weak? Seriously?

What is this, Conan the DM?

I can't speak for myself, nor can I say with certain what was meant by that choice of words, but I believe a DM should show resolve. If I put the PCs up against a dragon, it's because I think there is a small but measurable chance the dragon will kill them all. Otherwise, there is little point, for me, in the whole exercise.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Casualoblivion: I tell my players right out, something to the effect of: "While monsters follow the same rules and mechanics as PCs (I won't give a dragon PC's breath weapon a 1/encounter limit and the dragon NPC a recharge time), I am absolutely not...EVER fully statting out classed NPCs. You guys have 24/7 to build and optimize. I have to create your next batch of corpses on a week's notice. I am NOT wasting my time optimizing all of them to match what you do. If I want to just give bonuses that sound about right to save time, I will do so." Any DM that doesn't want nightmarish preparation times should do the same. Now stop derailing the thread with your 3E bashing.

I wasn't aware I was bashing 3E. I was speaking of my experiences running 3E and as a member of the 3E community when I was part of it. As for the rest, you told your players right out, which is my whole point. I told my players right out when I did it. Its a significant change you need to inform people you're going to implement.

As to point 1. I have never seen this player in real life. I have seen them talked about on internet forums, and maybe even seen some heated debates about RAW on the char op forums. But in the real world I just don't run into this large portion of the 3.x community you are speaking of, in fact I have not run into any of them. I play with powergamers,munchkins, and emo roleplayers when the need strikes and I am a gaming slut. I game with whomever. I have seen arguments with the players vs the DM in some cases. And they were always over the verdict of some ruling that the DM had made that they (the player) felt was unfair. I have never in my entire gaming life seen a player get upset just because the DM had decided to alter the rules for whatever reason (to clarify if a player gets upset IME, it has been over the verdict, not the act of rules modification in and of itself). I have not witnessed it even on a single occasion. So while you say it is a large portion, and I say i is not. I just have to assume that neither of us have any real representation of how the community feels about it as a whole. And in the long run I don't think it truly matters. So the only part of your post that really seems to be on point is" Your personal experiences may vary...."

As to point number 2. I don't particularly care about the 4e edition wars. I think they are stupid and I am tired of reading about them. I don't care who flipped out on what internet forum over whatever rule was abandoned. None of the folks I know in real life were flipping out. They still are not. But I imagine you know more about 4e and the edition wars surrounding it, as I try not to participate in either.

If I sounded rude, I apologize, it was certainly not my intent.

love,

malkav

Any given person's personal experiences are going to be a lot narrower than the entirety of the gaming spectrum. The range of experiences on a given forum are going to be a lot broader than any single person's personal experiences as well. There is wisdom in not assuming that other people's experiences mirror your own.

 

[El Mahdi]

No, you are wrong, El Mahdi. While it may be bad advice, according to you, it certainly can't be the worst, because that's pretty much how I run my games. Since I know some campaigns do not survive their DMs, I can only conclude that this is NOT the worst DMing advice ever by any possibility. ...snip...

I think the advice offered was fine, and would probably improve many games.

I can't speak for myself, nor can I say with certain what was meant by that choice of words, but I believe a DM should show resolve. If I put the PCs up against a dragon, it's because I think there is a small but measurable chance the dragon will kill them all. Otherwise, there is little point, for me, in the whole exercise.

I think you either mischaractarized or misread my post. I was very specifically talking about not seeking player feedback at the risk of appearing weak.

The rest of his advice, whether I agree or not, simply expressed a different approach to gaming than I would play. An approach I neither criticized nor even commented on.

Showing resolve and conviction as a DM is an excellent trait. One that I also did not criticize. I would expect it's a safe bet to say, no matter how hard you may be on your gaming group (and that's not a bad thing), that you would not ignore feedback from your players or purposely set out to make them feel cheated. I don't really know you personally, but I'd still think that's a safe bet.

The tone of this: "First, contrary to what some have said, I recommend you do not approach your players on the topic. Going to your players for approval makes you look weak, and your players will capitalize on that and walk all over you. You are the DM. You make the decision."

Sounds very similiar to this: "...crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and ... hear the lamentation of their women."

Thus the Conan the DM quip.

If you don't see it, that's fine. My wife only gets about a third of my jokes. A professional comedian I am not.

Regardless, despite my not commenting on the rest of his advice, it was delivered in an arrogant and adversarial tone. So...

You might want to strongly considering apologizing to this guy for rudeness, for shouting troll, and for preaching the One True Way.

Troll (noun) - internet slang - Someone who posts controversial or inflammatory ... messages in an online community, such as an online forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

I call it like I see it. A low post guy who nobody knows, but obviously understands how forums works, jumps in with both feet telling other posters how they are wrong in an arrogant and adversarial manner. Ten posts total on the site, and every one of them in this thread carries the same tone. From reading his posts it seems his only reason here is to pick a fight. Maybe I'm wrong about his intentions, but I honestly can't see another reason for posting in this manner as a "new guy".

Apologize to Joseph Rossow? Not going to happen.

I will, however, apologize to olay. As everyone who has carried on this fight with Joseph Rossow, or anyone else, for the last two pages, should aplogize to olay also.

I don't know if this was Joseph Rossow's intent, but we have all threadcrapped on olay.

olay: I'm sorry for getting started, even unintentionally, a complete threadcrap on your request for advice. ENWorld isn't usually this bad, and I hope you don't stay away because of it.

 

[pawsplay]

The rest of his advice, whether I agree or not, simply expressed a different approach to gaming than I would play. An approach I neither criticized nor even commented on.

I wonder if you couldn't have made the same points without the hyperbole or attacking his supposed motivations.

 

[roguerouge]

Try having them face themselves.

Why not just throw a Mirror of Opposition at them? I loved that item and there's a reason that it's been around since forever: it's fun. You only get to use this item once per campaign, though, so make it count.

Design a bizarro group modeled on their strengths and weaknesses. Everybody loves Hulk vs. Hulk battles, but it's even more awesome when its your Hulk vs. their Flash and vice versa.

Charms. As a player, when someone else was in the spotlight, I'd spend my time thinking about how I could take them out if my PC was charmed/dominated. Lovely moral and tactical dilemmas abound with enchantments.

 

[roguerouge]

Another idea: Have them face the good guys. Sometimes we think that just because they're heroes, it means that they haven't got any enemies on their side. The motivation can be as varied as jealousy, evil schemes setting them against one another, fake prophecies, time jumpers out to stop the party from a disastrous mistake... whatever. The look on your players' face when you drop Angels on the battlemat and say "Fight!" will buy you a precious tactical advantage.

 

[El Mahdi]

I wonder if you couldn't have made the same points without the hyperbole or attacking his supposed motivations.

Perhaps.

Nobody's perfect.