D&D General Does the killer DM exist?

[EzekielRaiden]

Back in middle school had some bad dms. But we were all of 13, of course we made stupid, immature decisions.

I have seen bad dm's on several occasions. I usually don't stay there very long, though, unless it's clearly an inexperience thing (and I can seem them learning).

Yeah, that second part is a huge factor in this. A "Bad DM" is not just a DM who makes bad decisions--because inexperienced DMs often make bad decisions. I would say a "Bad DM" needs to be either hostile to change, unable to really understand that (or why) change is needed, or unable to make change stick for more than a short-term process. And the second and third things there don't strictly require a DM to have a bad attitude or bad intent. It may take a real deep epiphany for a DM to realize they're doing things poorly, and I as a player cannot expect to reshape someone's perspective that much, though if the game is going badly because of the DM's actions, they're still responsible. Alternatively, the DM may just find old habits really, really hard to break, and thus not really put in the effort to make that happen. If so, that's unfortunate and doesn't necessarily reflect well on them, but it doesn't make them a bad person.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And never underestimate how long, in an area with a dearth of DMs, a killer-DM can keep going because people kind of half think that's how DMs work and are prone to putting up with it. Its probably less true now than it was 40 years ago, though.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm a Dark Souls DM.

I make hard challenges; challenges that want to survive, and challenges that want to stop or kill you. To that end, I've killed a fair share of characters in my short 6~ year DM history.

All that being said, I've had many repeat players. In fact, virtually every player I've had online in the communities I frequent has went on to be in another game of mine down the line. The reason is simple: players acknowledge the challenge, and they feel good when they overcome it.

And that's the secret too. I want them to overcome it. I want them to beat my ridiculous challenges. When the players when, I feel good, because seeing a puzzle get solved in weird ways is super stimulating for me.

So, I'm a killer DM. And I'm a Dark Souls DM. But I'm not a bad DM, so my players keep coming back for more punishment

 

[CleverNickName]

If "killing a character" makes someone a bad DM, it seems only fair that "getting your character killed" would make someone a bad player.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm a Dark Souls DM.

So you're happy with the players finding ways to totally cheese your bosses and/or grinding until they're overpowered to deal with situations?

 

[Lanefan]

Yes. Had a DM that had us write up 2 PCs each. Then put us through his version of the Saw movies. One PC after another fell to his traps or impossible-to-overcome obstacles. One PC was killed when they rolled a dice, looked at the list of PCs and told the player that their PC was killed when a giant hand came out and smashed him flat.

Sounds like a fairly typical session to me. That trap's gonna kill someone, might as well make it fair by randomly rolling which character happens to be in its line of fire when it goes off.

=============

More generally: the thread title refers to a "killer DM" but the first post refers more to what I'd just call a bad DM; and there's a big difference. A DM who neutrally runs a highly-lethal but fair game is a killer DM, sure, but that in itself doesn't make her a bad DM.

Inconsistent rulings = bad DM.
Inconsistent application of the environment/setting = bad DM.
Clearly favouring one player (or PC) over another, or picking on one = bad DM.
Frequent and blatant railroading = bad DM (usually).

These above are universal. I try my best not to be any of these and - I think - usually succeed.

Just killing lots of characters doesn't necessarily make a DM a bad DM, or even a bad person, as long as it's done fairly and with at least some willingness to be transparent if called on it. As a player, I tend to have more PCs die than anyone else in our crew; as DM, if your luck says this is your PC's day to die, make sure its will is up to date.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If "killing a character" makes someone a bad DM, it seems only fair that "getting your character killed" would make someone a bad player.

There's just a small power difference here...

 

[CleverNickName]

There's just a small power difference here...

The difference should be small, too. This is a cooperative storytelling game, after all.

 

[Blue]

Absolutely played with them. Back in the 80s, as teenagers and collage age. Old school play when it was nearly the only play in town.

Some were gleeful and intentional about it. Especially in Conventions or other one-shots. Some got angry when players beat their carefully crafted NPCs. Some were just ignorant of how to balance and wouldn't admit mistakes. Some saw it as a "gift" to the players, that they would have real odds to overcome and a win was a big deal - those also gave out monty haul treasure because you earned it. Oh, and some gave out monty haul treasure and then after complaining that the PCs kept killing all of their monsters ramped up the difficulty to eleventy one.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

You see some very similar stuff in early MMO design, which follows pretty closely from trying to emulate several parts of the D&D experience.

Like, it's conceptually interesting to have a super-high-level zone accessible from the opening town, or a big bad nasty world boss hanging out in one of the starting zones, or quests that people randomly stumble into if they get lucky. But in practice, these things end up being much more annoying than entertaining in a CRPG environment. Likewise, a dungeon that has a clear end point, but lots of twisty side-paths that don't go anywhere, sounds like a great way to make an optionally deep and intricate dungeon....but in practice it often just feels tediously confusing. Having to go collect your body so you don't lose your equipment may sound naturalistic, but it's a real downer to have to deal with it. Etc.

Obviously the specific things that don't work as well are very different. But I've found that a significant portion of RPG design, whether programmed on hardware or played on a tabletop, retains bits and pieces of early-edition D&D that have either been completely divorced from the context that made them good/interesting/useful....or that were purely accidental/incidental/ad-hoc solutions that got ossified into Fundamental Traditions.

Maybe? the thing is that the modern designs we ended up with (thinking of the MMO example) are still lacking-- there's a reason WOW Classic did so well, and why games that make exactly the sort of decisions you're finding to be less-than-fun have been having a moment for the past decade or so. I refer to it as "maladaptation" older game styles have problems of course, but the solutions that were implemented traded away too much of what was good about the game in the first place.

Similarly, while I don't think every aspect of old school DND is essential, I do think its interesting to think about what good parts can be retained that weren't if the design is finessed in different ways.

Game Examples:

Valheim has you go find your corpse when you die in order to retrieve your gear and the world around you is pretty brutal, with survival mechanics.

Minecraft similarly has you drop all your items on death and its very easy to get in over your head, the dungeons are generated entirely procedurally and you can get very lost in the dark or even stumble into lava that suddenly fills the room and kills you.

Metroidvanias with intricate dungeon design where everything interconnects are among the most cherished games, with Hollow Knight as a shining modern example.