Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="aboyd" data-source="post: 5647082" data-attributes="member: 44797">There are a number of responses to what you just wrote.  I'll run you through all of them.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">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).</li> </ol>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.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.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.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />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.</blockquote>

Verification