is this GM bad or am i just a wuss?

[JamesonCourage]

Iif your other GM finds metagaming to be cheating (which I can certainly see why he would, depending on the game and the style), him punishing it by cheating better makes sense to me.

My reaction to this is similar to Pentius's. And I expect a lot of metagaming from my players - I exepcted them to deliberately build and play their PCs in ways that will push the story forward, for example. And - within somewhat intangible limits - I design and present scenarios and encounters expecting the players to recognise, pick up on and play with genre tropes.

There are lots of different ways for a group to approach an RPG, so each new group has to come to some sort of mutual understanding. The GM trying to enforce that through ingame penalties strikes me as a clumsy approach (and the advice in Gygax's AD&D to do it this way strikes me as some of the weaker advice in that book).

First, I'm not sure why you added a spelling mistake to my quote, but it's all good

Secondly, I'm also not sure why you seem at odds with me, as you didn't clarify. I specifically said that it depends on the group, which I assume you can reasonably agree that group dynamics will differ, as evidenced in your later post:

Which is why I think that there are lots of different ways that particular groups can approach the game.

As for your later quotes, you seem to be disagreeing with a point I never made (at least, by saying you agree with Pentius, it feels like there's an implication of disagreement with me, considering the context of the earlier quote of yours [although I could be mistaken]):

This is why I agree with Pentius that these differences in expectation and approach are better off being discussed out-of-game then handled via ingame penalties.

I said, "Sometimes, saying, "you can cheat, but if you do, I'll cheat better" is more effective", which is blatantly letting the players out of game that you consider it cheating. Now, I haven't discussed how I deal with metagaming at my group. I've simply said how one rule on "cheating" (as I think we both admit varies from group to group) can be implemented more effectively, depending on the group. It does not preclude out of game communication, it specifically includes it. To some groups, I hold to the opinion of "if they want to cheat to 'win' at the game, then it's often best to cheat to make them 'lose' at the game." From my experience, some players respond positively to simply asking them to stop, while some disregard it. The same goes for the rule I mentioned above. People are like children (GMs included) in that they're unique in how you should approach them.

This particular issue was discussed at some length on a couple of recent threads - In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics, and Uhealable injuries.

I personally find it hard to discern the line here. A PC is meant to be prepared to face a firebreathing dragon, even if not desparate but just greedy, although the only reason the player knows this is viable is because of the hit point and saving throw mechanics - but the same PC is meant not to be prepared to jump off a cliff. I'm not sure I see the difference. In both situations I'd expect the player to be able to say something in character if pressed, even if it was no better than "Hey - I'm feeling lucky today!"

You can't discern the line easily, but it's been talked about at length in those very threads, and there are obviously people who agree that there is a line. Just because you cannot personally see the logic behind it, I find it odd it dismiss a line of thought that happens to be shared by many people who do see the logic. Not understanding the logic makes sense to me; questioning the logic makes sense to me; dismissing the logic in this conversation because you don't understand it does not make sense to me.

That's not to say that you're aggressively dismissing it (as others on this board often do), but your response totaled something along the lines of, "I don't see where to draw the line." Other groups do.

As always, play what you like

 

[Rune]

After checking the PHB, I'll have to talk to my DM about that one because I did attempt a tumble around an enemy in one fight and I got opportunity attacked. I think he said the roll was only to decide if I would land behind the enemy at the end of my tumble.

More support for the "your DM is not as experienced as he thinks he is" argument.

I'm not expecting to be given victory on a silver platter but still, I don't like letting a dice decide what I'm facing next. Especially if it's a high LVL monster with no realistic way to escape from.

As for constant victory, I don't see how that can be bad if some of them cost you more than others. As in : "Whoops! That last fight cost us most of our healing supplies. We better be more careful". But being forced to take on severely overpowering CR enemies because the dice said so?

There is a big difference between "being forced to take on severely overpowering enemies" and "encouuntering severely overpowering enemies."

At that point in time, the DM said we couldn't take 20 because our characters hadn't confirmed that the area was clear of enemies.

Again, more evidence that your DM is not that experienced. See, "Take 20" is really for the DM. It's to help move things along, instead of having the player go:

"I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. Yes! A natural 20! What happens?"

 

[epicbob]

There is a big difference between "being forced to take on severely overpowering enemies" and "encouuntering severely overpowering enemies."

True. Although I can't help but wonder what will happen if I get the wrong high CR encounter.

Again, more evidence that your DM is not that experienced. See, "Take 20" is really for the DM. It's to help move things along, instead of having the player go:

"I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. What happens? Okay. I roll to unlock the door. Yes! A natural 20! What happens?"

Which is what more or less happened in the magically trapped library of the goblin base. The team's Sorcerer had to roll 4 or 5 successes in a row of Detect Magic. I don't remember the exact requirements for success but the player rolled so many times I could have taken a dump before he was done.

 

[Rune]

...the player rolled so many times I could have taken a dump before he was done.

It's always good to multitask.

 

[Oryan77]

which means i spend most of the time jerking off.

the player rolled so many times I could have taken a dump before he was done.

Do you guys not have a bathroom near the game table where you could do this stuff in private? Or are you so dedicated to the game that you'll just do your thing right at the table?

 

[epicbob]

do you guys not have a bathroom near the game table where you could do this stuff in private? Or are you so dedicated to the game that you'll just do your thing right at the table?

lol

 

[Lord Zardoz]

in combat, he's nitpicky about pointless stuff. for example :

DM : Which Goblin do you attack?
Me : (with my bow) The closest one.
DM : That's not specific enough.
Me : fine...Goblin number 1.
DM : Dude, i shouldn't have to tell you that you have to choose betwen the melee Goblins and the ranged Goblins. you have to make sure you know this and if you can't understand my subtle hints, it's your problem.
Me : (to myself) are you ing serious???

The reason for the nitpicking is probably due to tracking the HP and AC of the target. It can get problematic when the DM has a large encounter and there are multiple non minion types.

As for the rest of it, I would say that at worst you and the DM just have different expectations from the game. Neither of you are really 'doing it wrong'.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[aboyd]

I'm not expecting to be given victory on a silver platter but still, I don't like letting a dice decide what I'm facing next. Especially if it's a high LVL monster with no realistic way to escape from.

As for constant victory, I don't see how that can be bad if some of them cost you more than others. As in : "Whoops! That last fight cost us most of our healing supplies. We better be more careful". But being forced to take on severely overpowering CR enemies because the dice said so?

There are a number of responses to what you just wrote. I'll run you through all of them.

1. Welcome to sandbox gaming, dude. This is how it works. Sucks to be you, but it's a popular play style that your DM likes. Get used to it. You won't be able to change him on this count, I suspect.
2. As Rune mentioned, there is a difference between encountering a strong creature and being "forced to take it on." The next time this happens, run. There is no need for a level 1 character to go toe-to-toe with a frost giant. This is Bilbo vs. Smaug, the hobbits vs. the nazgul, picard vs. Q, horses vs. tanks, and so on. It happens, both in fiction and in the real world. The only thing wrong with encounters such as these is if the DM comes at it from the angle, "frost giants attack, you're all dead, wasn't that a fun game night?" If he repeatedly serves up unavoidable TPKs and honestly thinks you're all having fun, meh. Not good.
3. Having said that, if these encounters truly bug you, there are many DMs here and elsewhere who will tell you that sandbox gaming sucks. They will run a game straight off of a level-appropriate module, and everything will be balanced (more or less). If you care enough, stop gaming with your current DM and try some other DMs.
4. Finally, while you "don't see how" constant victory is bad, there is an important distinction to make here. That is, you are not running the game. When you make comments like the one I'm referring to, I think two things. First, yeah, that's a fair opinion to have. But second, expressing it in the context of criticizing your DM? Seems like backseat driving. You want him to DM your way, and that's not going to happen. He's not your puppet. I'd encourage you to respect him for the decisions he's made about his game world, and in return, expect him to respect your decisions about your game world. Because really, at this point, you should be running games (and it seems like you're on your way, so good).

I told him the sequence was dragging on too long for my tastes.

Excellent! Be direct! None of this passive-aggressive BS. If you said that and he continued doggedly delivering his discourse, then you have a clear picture of where he stands. As in, he's not standing up for the player's fun.

We tried to force it open with a crowbar but the door was too tough. I tried to break a window to get in but it was reinforced with steel bars.

So... here's an interesting question. When did you hear about the steel bars? By that I mean, did he merely describe the structure as "locked door, tough walls, windows" and the steel reinforcement only appeared once you broke through the glass?

The reason I ask is because there is a type of DM that is very "DM vs. players" in his/her way of thinking. These DMs think their job is to foil success. Left unchecked, these DMs will make up all sorts of stuff to foil (rather than reward) the clever thinking of the players.

My DM is one of those. But he tries to reform now & then. I remember when we were playing through the Red Hand of Doom module, and I used Stone Shape on the bridge to collapse it. He knew that he had a reputation for making stuff up to foil my best ideas, and he knew that everyone at the table felt it was unfair. However, the module itself took into account Stone Shape, and had a paragraph about how steel bars were in place to prevent Stone Shape from having an effect. He actually took me aside and said, "I think that's a good idea, and should have worked, but the module author anticipated that. I'm sorry, I hope you understand." And I did understand. My problem was not that I was foiled. It was that the DM sometimes made stuff up on the fly to break my ideas. But if that steel reinforcement had been there all along with the express intention of preventing Stone Shape from wrecking things, then by all means, I was fairly defeated.

So, I wonder about your DM. Is he fairly stating what is written into the module (or what he's written out himself about his custom world)? If so, then the room was intended to be off-limits, and that's that. Fair. But if he's just sorta thinking in reactionary ways, such as, "Whoa! Damnit, they're persistent. NO, I will add steel bars right now and pretend they were there all along. Ha ha!" ...then I think that is not fun.

As long as I don't have to endlessly search every square foot everywhere I go. That game's going to drag on for a long time...

Some DMs don't understand how to do this in a way that makes the game fun. My friend used to play in a game where the DM demanded that everyone roll for all their Spot & Listen checks when they were on watch. All of them. Literally hundreds of rolls. She hated that game. When I heard about it, I told her that in my games, the same thing happens in concept, which sent her into a panic. But then I clarified that the only roll she would ever need to actually bother with would be the one roll where it mattered. Don't roll 200 listen checks during the hour that nothing is around. Why bother? Assume they were awful rolls, it affects nothing. But when the monster is sneaking into camp? Yeah, roll.

She was hugely relieved.

I think some DMs just have not got themselves to the point where they realize that we should make this about the fun parts rather than just a "reality simulator." It's OK if the DM is interpreting a rule too literally or rigidly or in the most boring manner possible. Talk to him or her. Explain a better way to think of it. See if the DM can be won over. If not, bow out. If so, hey, you helped a DM get better.

At that point in time, the DM said we couldn't take 20 because our characters hadn't confirmed that the area was clear of enemies.

Again, more evidence that your DM is not that experienced.

Well, Rune, I'd give the DM a small bit of credit here. The rules do state that you cannot take 20 if you are under threat. If there were actionable threats coming at them, then clearly he's right. If there were none, but might have been some in other areas that they hadn't cleared, then I can see the DM's confusion a little, but he's wrong. It just depends. How badly did he misinterpret the rule and the scene? For me, it's easy: are we in initiative order? Can't take 20. If the players clear the enemies and we are out of initiative order, then they may attempt to take 20s. It's still possible that a monster may surprise attack them while in the midst of a take 20 check (as it takes 2 minutes), but that's OK, there are rules for that.

I do think the DM is probably botching some things. But I also think we are seeing hints about him knowing the rules or at least basing his actions on something resembling the rules. I'd feel much better hearing his side of it.

 

[Elf Witch]

Well, this is kind of my point. When I set up a situation like that, I expect my players to start thinking "mindflayers" and getting ready for a psionic rumble. I don't see it as bad. I see it as getting into the game.

As for the PCs - who knows what they're thinking? Part of the expectation at my table is that the players will come up with some account, hopefully not absurdly contrived, to explain why the PCs are doing whatever they're doing as a result of the players' metagame knowledge.

This is why I agree with Pentius that these differences in expectation and approach are better off being discussed out-of-game then handled via ingame penalties.

This particular issue was discussed at some length on a couple of recent threads - In defence of the theory of dissociated mechanics, and Uhealable injuries.

I personally find it hard to discern the line here. A PC is meant to be prepared to face a firebreathing dragon, even if not desparate but just greedy, although the only reason the player knows this is viable is because of the hit point and saving throw mechanics - but the same PC is meant not to be prepared to jump off a cliff. I'm not sure I see the difference. In both situations I'd expect the player to be able to say something in character if pressed, even if it was no better than "Hey - I'm feeling lucky today!"

I have noticed that we approach the game differently so we often don't agree on things. We have different styles of play.

I see one of the differences in the mind flayer example you want the players ready to rumble and I want the players to investigate and find out information before that.

If I think a certain knowledge is really important to the game I do things like give all the players a skill in it as a class skill with one point already in it.

I also make it possible if the players don't have the knowledge skills they need to be able to find someone who does. Like in the old days of finding a sage to sell or trade information.

But there are times I don't want them to know. I remember in my early days of gaming when everything was new and scary and you had to guess and experiment with what worked. It is one of the reasons I love DMing with newbies because they still have the sense of wonder they are not jaded adventurers even at first level.

I play DnD for the role playing aspect. I don't want to play a tactical miniatures wargame. I like the aspect of having a character and seeing the characters develop and as a DM I like seeing my players develop their characters.

What that means to me is not just seeing it mechanically though that is part of it but seeing their personalities develop.

What should make every game different is not just the dice rolls but the party make up and I don't mean just class but how the party handles things what they make a priority. I play with a guy who always has his character carry pepper because once he had found some in a treasure room and it saved his life with a dragon. But I secretly roll my eyes now on it because it is boring and predictable. Yes it can be a good tactic but why would every character from halfling rogue, barbarian orc fighter to dwarven scout have it.

Metagaming encourages this kind of play imo. The more you play the more it seems to be a trap of falling into certain standard operating procedures. The game starts to become same old same old. So I try and discourage it in my campaigns.

Certain things make sense like setting watches in the wilderness when you camp, having the rogue check for traps on doors. If you start the game with those skills it assumes you have some experiences with it.

As for the falling thing that is one of my major complaints with level based games and DnD. The way they do hitpoints. Since hitpoints don't just represent how much damage you take but also other things it makes things like falling a long distance to become just unbelievable. Just because you have become a 10 level or higher character falling six stories onto stone should kill you or seriously injure or paralyze you.

I do like a little realism in my game so in real life a marine with 20 years in the field is going to be able to handle combat better then a new fresh out of bootcamp marine. But neither should be able to handle a fall better, well if you think about the younger guy has a better chance because of his youth and better health. The older you are the more injury impacts on you.

It is the same thing with a superior force firing at you I don't care how much experience you have in combat standing with no cover and a 25 people with some training in guns firing at you are going to get hit. It is why I really dislike high level DnD games where the party can't be touched by normal things.

You character does not know what level it is or how many hitpoints it has so it should not be prepared to leap off a building that would have killed it a few months ago in game. Also the character has been hit by weapons in the past so why would you go oh they can't hurt me because they are only level 3.

All that is metagaming.

As for facing a dragon at a higher level and running away from one at an earlier level is not metagaming. At a higher level you have had more experience you have fought and lived through other combats you have gotten better with your weapons , your knowledge has increased you have more powerful magic.

 

[epicbob]

The reason for the nitpicking is probably due to tracking the HP and AC of the target. It can get problematic when the DM has a large encounter and there are multiple non minion types.

As for the rest of it, I would say that at worst you and the DM just have different expectations from the game. Neither of you are really 'doing it wrong'.

His battles generally consist of a stack from a single enemy type. The stacks aren't particularly numerous, either.

There are a number of responses to what you just wrote. I'll run you through all of them.

1. Welcome to sandbox gaming, dude. This is how it works. Sucks to be you, but it's a popular play style that your DM likes. Get used to it. You won't be able to change him on this count, I suspect.
2. As Rune mentioned, there is a difference between encountering a strong creature and being "forced to take it on." The next time this happens, run. There is no need for a level 1 character to go toe-to-toe with a frost giant. This is Bilbo vs. Smaug, the hobbits vs. the nazgul, picard vs. Q, horses vs. tanks, and so on. It happens, both in fiction and in the real world. The only thing wrong with encounters such as these is if the DM comes at it from the angle, "frost giants attack, you're all dead, wasn't that a fun game night?" If he repeatedly serves up unavoidable TPKs and honestly thinks you're all having fun, meh. Not good.
3. Having said that, if these encounters truly bug you, there are many DMs here and elsewhere who will tell you that sandbox gaming sucks. They will run a game straight off of a level-appropriate module, and everything will be balanced (more or less). If you care enough, stop gaming with your current DM and try some other DMs.
4. Finally, while you "don't see how" constant victory is bad, there is an important distinction to make here. That is, you are not running the game. When you make comments like the one I'm referring to, I think two things. First, yeah, that's a fair opinion to have. But second, expressing it in the context of criticizing your DM? Seems like backseat driving. You want him to DM your way, and that's not going to happen. He's not your puppet. I'd encourage you to respect him for the decisions he's made about his game world, and in return, expect him to respect your decisions about your game world. Because really, at this point, you should be running games (and it seems like you're on your way, so good).

My comment about random encounters is in response to your statement about how constant victory is boring. Which I agree with when they're always easy wins.

So... here's an interesting question. When did you hear about the steel bars? By that I mean, did he merely describe the structure as "locked door, tough walls, windows" and the steel reinforcement only appeared once you broke through the glass?

He mentioned the steel bars when I was going to break the window.