Is this a cruel DM?

[Methos]

Ok. Point taken. Thanks for your clarification. I can see how your view would provide a different experience, and role-playing event.

I probably am being a bit spiteful, and when I talk to the DM in this game and explain to him why I think he went beyond what a DM should have done in the game, I want him to understand that this type of experience quite honestly isn't fun, and might lead to me leaving the group. Maybe the he and the other players feel differently, but I tend to agree with another poster that expressed the opinion that if the game isn't fun for the DM and ALL of the players, it is a failed campaign.

If I'm a bit bitter, I'm not sure that it is unjustified. Lycanthrope, Mummy Rot, and and an impotent character after the distruction of pretty much everything in my possession; all as a 5th level character. I think it is a bit over the top.

I don't have a psychology degree, so this is only friendly advice. I was more aiming at a dark and girtty decline that might fit the campaign better. Dracula is a folk tale. There are other ways to do a decline to madness, maybe while tring to work things out with the DM. Sudden shifts of personality do happen in real life, but they are comparablely rare, unless mind altering drugs are involved.

I am only trying to give you a different perspective on the game. The sudden shift to nasty might be seen as just being spitefull. Maybe that is what you want. I wouldn't blame you, I did the same thing. If you want an interesting experience, this kind of decline might expand your options and you role playing experience. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[LokiDR]

Ok. Point taken. Thanks for your clarification. I can see how your view would provide a different experience, and role-playing event.

I probably am being a bit spiteful, and when I talk to the DM in this game and explain to him why I think he went beyond what a DM should have done in the game, I want him to understand that this type of experience quite honestly isn't fun, and might lead to me leaving the group. Maybe the he and the other players feel differently, but I tend to agree with another poster that expressed the opinion that if the game isn't fun for the DM and ALL of the players, it is a failed campaign.

If I'm a bit bitter, I'm not sure that it is unjustified. Lycanthrope, Mummy Rot, and and an impotent character after the distruction of pretty much everything in my possession; all as a 5th level character. I think it is a bit over the top.

I don't think that your bitterness is unjustified, only that it might get in the way of a solution. Remember, I miss that game I loved to hate. If I had started tell the DM his game sucked and I was going to quit, I don't think it would have gotten better for me. If I had said I didn't like some aspects of the game, maybe it would have.

If you know you can't get over this with your current character, you can always leave. It is a perfectly reasonable response, so long as you aren't doing it in huff, which you aren't. You have thought this through. It might be the best option.

 

[Nail]

If I'm a bit bitter, I'm not sure that it is unjustified. Lycanthrope, Mummy Rot, and and an impotent character ....<snip>....I think it is a bit over the top.

Nah, not bitter at all.....

Sounds like you like the people, like playing D&D, maybe even like th' scenario.... just you hate being, err.....made impotent. Hey, welcome to th' club. Not many people like feeling helpless...that's why authors/screen-writers/DMs use it as a tried-n-true technique to ratchet up th' tension. That's (possibly) why yer DM carried thru with it.

Reasons aside, shelve yer bitterness. Not useful. Experienced players or no, some are gonna be p***-ed off that you abandoned them an' took their stuff. Then comes the "tit-fer-tat" spilling over into other campaigns you might play. Maybe next time someone else gets screwed by th' DM....and your PC gets th' receiving end.

Best course is to see how the next one or two sessions go. If you continue to be emasculated, make a point of talking about it straight up, to th' whole group.

If the message is not received, pack yer things, an' go.

Jus' don't be a whinner about it.

 

[Squire James]

As has been said before, if 5th level characters are being subjected to Mummy Rot and Lycanthropy, it ain't a "low magic" campaign. It's an "adversarial magic" campaign like the Dark Sun setting. The bad guys have essentially already won, and the PC's are just going through the motions. Some people like this sort of game. Dark Sun, Ravenloft, and Call of Cthulu are pretty popular.

IMO, though, this sort of thing is better as a short-term change of pace than a campaign. Hand over your character sheet, thank him for that WONDERFUL one-shot adventure, and inquire about when the regular campaign will start again!

 

[DDK]

Bah! Humbug!

And that's why the CR charts and the 'suggested treasure guideline' lists are useless, and the suggested treasure bit especially should be dropped. If a DM isn't tracking with them exactly, his players point to the book and complain. "I'm level N, I should have at least a +2 weapon and bracers of whininess by now!"

I disagree with this; I haven't been keeping a very close eye on the treasure of the party but every so often have done a total just to give me a rough idea. I've managed to keep their treasure roughly within the suggested limits with only a few tweaks here and there like giving them a straight trade on an item or a 15% break or had items stolen or exhorbitant prices charged.
And since the treasure limits per level are all part and parcel of a PC's power, and thus intimately tied into the balance of the system, I'm happy enough to keep them as is and just play the game.

 

[Methos]

Re: Bah! Humbug!

Absolutely!!

This is exactly why the "suggested" tables were created - to help with game balance!!

If part of the reason why creatures have a higher CR is that they have special abilities. i.e. damage reduction, it has to follow that characters will have the ability to acquire magic items to break through the DR.

What good is a 20th level fighter with no magic weapons? In a fight with a DR creature at higher levels, he is going to get clobbered!! Not every wizard will take item creation feats to create their own items, therefore, a good DM must allow those characters access to the appropriate magic items, unless he is prepared to change the encounters accordingly.

Most DM's should not be adjusting the core rules too terribly much as they are unprepared to deal appropriately with the consequences for campaign balance. I think the 1st chapter of the DM's guide even discusses this.

Ah, the ongoing hubris of man!!! I can make it better than the designers!!

Wrong!!

I disagree with this; I haven't been keeping a very close eye on the treasure of the party but every so often have done a total just to give me a rough idea. I've managed to keep their treasure roughly within the suggested limits with only a few tweaks here and there like giving them a straight trade on an item or a 15% break or had items stolen or exhorbitant prices charged.
And since the treasure limits per level are all part and parcel of a PC's power, and thus intimately tied into the balance of the system, I'm happy enough to keep them as is and just play the game.

 

[takyris]

On the other hand, what's the point of not pitting the players against something with DR 15/+1 until everyone has +1 or better weapons?

As a DM, I would feel completely justified in sending something with DR x/+y against the party in the following scenarios:

When they have no +y weapons, but x is low, enough for a fighter with power attack to damage it provided he uses that power attack -- and when the monster has no special elemental resistances. The party can beat it by fighting smart.

When they have only one or two +y weapons -- this makes the fight more interesting, and people who can't hurt it can try support-role tactics, like grappling.

When no one has a +y weapon, x is high, but the party has been given clues that indicate a way around the monster other than whacking it with a sword until it keels over and gives you xp. As in, party is 5th level, there's an Iron Golem in the next room, and they have no +3 weapons, but I've had ancient writing on the walls, a note on a dead thief's body, and possible information during knowledge checks that indicates that a group brandishing one of the crystals from two rooms back will not be attacked by the iron golem.

All of that is vague, and is a general guide rather than an absolute. But as a player, I wouldn't expect everyone in the party to have a +y weapon when they fight a monster with x/+y. That completely negates the whole point of x/+y.

Not saying that your DM was fair and just and you were an idiot. I'm just making a point with respect to the side conversation.

-Tacky

 

[Heathen72]

Please don't take offence, Methos. I meant my post constructively and as I said at both the start and the end of it that if you really think your GM is unreasonable, leave the game! It seems however, that though you have discussed it with him, to no avail, you still want to play. Therefore, I suggested that you find a way of dealing with the situation in game.

Now, I'm sorry that you find the term 'Metagaming' to be one of opprobrium. It doesn't have to be,* although I suppose in context it sounded as such. Let me clarify what I meant:

Talking to your GM (another form of Metagaming) was a positive and constructive step. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked - seemingly because your GM is unreasonable. Now, you could (probably should) make the choice to leave the game, but as you haven't, I feel that you should deal with the situation in character. (Either that or continue talking with your GM.) Bastardizing your character, or being a pain in the posterior for a few sessions sounds like you're just sulking to pay the GM back. And that wouldn't do anyone any good




*All Metagaming literally means is "transcends the game"

 

[Malhavoc]

Is the DM ever going to toss in his side of the story?


Also, it would suck finding out you 'transform' every full moon. But finding out you're a rat?! Unless you raise turtles in the ways of kung-Fu it is by no means cool. "I coulda been a tiger or a wolf! I'm gunna take a lv. of Ranger just so I can get preferred enemy rat-man."

 

[LokiDR]

Re: Re: Bah! Humbug!

Absolutely!!

This is exactly why the "suggested" tables were created - to help with game balance!!

If part of the reason why creatures have a higher CR is that they have special abilities. i.e. damage reduction, it has to follow that characters will have the ability to acquire magic items to break through the DR.

What good is a 20th level fighter with no magic weapons? In a fight with a DR creature at higher levels, he is going to get clobbered!! Not every wizard will take item creation feats to create their own items, therefore, a good DM must allow those characters access to the appropriate magic items, unless he is prepared to change the encounters accordingly.

Most DM's should not be adjusting the core rules too terribly much as they are unprepared to deal appropriately with the consequences for campaign balance. I think the 1st chapter of the DM's guide even discusses this.

Ah, the ongoing hubris of man!!! I can make it better than the designers!!

Wrong!!

I think you are being a little harsh here. The books are more or less balanced it taken as a whole. If one element is changed, then others need to change. If you are playing a very low magic world, with fairly standard treasure, DR should be on par with what the PCs can do. It can be fun to play these games. The DM should just make himself prepared to deal with all aspects of a change.

A good DM can change the game, and it doesn't mean he thinks he can do it better than the designers, it means he wants a different kind of game. Your DM seems to have done a bad job of this, but that doesn't mean others can't do a good job.

I say, don't just throw out the tables because they don't look good to you. Throw them out and rewrite them if your campain needs it.