Respect for the DM?

[Aus_Snow]

But Im wondering if there is a deeper issue here. Like maybe the way the game mechanics are taught or even the game mechanics themselfs.

Not that I'm aware of. Of course, I could still be wrong there! But no, honestly, I've played and run a fair few different things in the years I've been a roleplayer, and game mechanics in published systems haven't been the cause of any major drama, sense of entitlement, or suchlike. Those things have been present, here and there, but that's just been down to gamers and their own (other) issues, albeit occasionally with other gamers.

I have read on forums, several times, about people swearing black and blue that certain rules systems (e.g., D&D 3e) encourage or even create some players' sense of entitlement, among other things, but I've never seen any evidence in real life to support that theory.

1.) As a DM you pour over sources, books, and stories collecting ideas and building a game. You make it unique and involve all the players and characters to make it interesting for everyone. When you get to your second or even your first scene of the evening and the players don't like what they are fighting or were suprised to see themselfs at a disadvantage for once they get upset and claim that the encounter is "unfair" due to the fact that they have to work for thier treasure.

And uh, speaking of entitlement, or a sense of it anyhow. . .

Also, when you say 'for once' re: being at a disadvantage. . . is that really the case? Literally, I mean. I do realise that's unlikely. Just thought I'd ask.

2.) You warn the group ahead of time that a rule will be changed for a paticular encounter. You explain why to the best of your ability without giving away the encounter ahead of time. You also go through the effort of making sure that everyone in the group fully understands the new rule. When it comes time to use the rule and they dont' like it, they refer to it as "retarded" or "stupid". Instead of simply telling you why they dont' like it and why its effects are too negetive, they go on a rant about how "dumb" it is, without citing a reason why. These types of things could be taken personally becaue you spend every free minute you have writting for them and they, inturn, bash your game.

Would you mind providing some detail, like say, the rule and encounter in question - or at least the gist of them, and maybe the effects that the change had?

It sounds like the rule might've hosed some PCs. . . is that even close? If so, and teh rule's not anywheer near RAW, and you started the campaign as RAW (or pretty much with that assumed) - then well, I think they have a right to complain. Whether it's right to complain or not, in a given situation. But that was a few 'ifs' and 'ands'.

So, how 'bad' was it really?

3.) When some one in the group requests an item from a source book or a source you paticularly don't like, trust, or you may even think it is broken. At first a second appeal is to be expected providing that they can give a decent reason why THEY think it would be ok for them to have it in your game. But when you have to say "No" 3, 4, and even 5 times what do you do then? You may have reasons that you cannot reveal to them yet. The item or ability may not fit the campaign world. The item may even be broken. Isn't it a little disrespectful to assume that your DM is just skrewing you or not considering your opinion of what is fun?

My advice: keep it simple and straightforward. Tell them before characters are even discussed, which books and/or other sources you'll allow material. If necessary, be more specific about which things you will allow. Then make it clear that you will not accept anything else, and that's that.

A 'default deny' policy, IOW. It means you have to make so many fewer calls, and have so many fewer arguments on such matters. None, in fact.

4.) Last one, I promise. I get the attitude from my players, more often than not, that the game is them vs me. Not the characters against the monsters, enemy, or even the challenge. I, the DM am targeted alot with snide, offensive, or even generally mean comments. Which I usually tack up to them just meaning to aim thier comments at the villians in the game and not me. But it goes beyond comments or name calling. They expect me to skrew them at every turn and they expect me to try to kill them every chance I get. This is generally not my intention, I write and perform every game, whether they realize it or not, with plenty of chances for them to get out of every bad situation they put themselfs in. An example of this is a paticular player who continously makes bad decisions and gets himself killed often (once every 3 games on average). He gets mad at me that "I" kill him or that my games are too tough.

Don't take &%@! from anyone, for starters. It's a hobby, a game, a fun pastime with friends. Not an excuse for people to be *******s.

If it *is* his or her bad decisions that causes the death of all that player's characters, oh well. They'll learn. Or not. It's probably the best way to learn, too. Hopefully they'll pick up tips from other players, or from you. Maybe do a bit of reading and/or analysing. Whatever it takes. Or it could be that roleplaying games with - what's the stumbling block, tactics? - the particular elements in question as a significant focus, are not for them.

Now don't get me wrong, I have had a million fun times with these same people but I feal heavily underappriciated and generally abused as a DM. I feal that it is harder than people think to write a game and even hard to write a GOOD game. I feal that there is more to just throwing together some story and plot line. You want everyone in the group to have a good time and be entertained therefore you have to manage the tastes and concerns of everyone at your game table including you.

Hm. But this sounds more like a two option scenario: 1) Thicken that skin (i.e., change to suit the situation); or 2) Take mamacat's solid advice, or another out (i.e., change the situation to suit you.)

So give it to me straight! Is this me or has respect for the DM gone the way of the dinosaur?

Dunno, mate. Eyeballing the averages for folks in general, I'd say both. But I truly don't know. Only you can, I s'pose.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I will give examples of what I mean by players "disrespecting" thier Dms.

1.) As a DM you pour over sources, books, and stories collecting ideas and building a game. You make it unique and involve all the players and characters to make it interesting for everyone. When you get to your second or even your first scene of the evening and the players don't like what they are fighting or were suprised to see themselfs at a disadvantage for once they get upset and claim that the encounter is "unfair" due to the fact that they have to work for thier treasure.

Something I've learned over the past few years is that players almost never care as much about your campaign world as you do. I used to hand out ten or fifteen page backgrounds when I started a new campaign. Invariably, one maybe two players would read it and the others wouldn't even glance at it. They just don't care. They want to go out, play, have fun, and by and large, not get too involved in someone else's imaginary world. They care about what's directly related to them. Beyond that, I've found most players couldn't possibly care less.

However, you've outlined two issues here. You're saying that the work you do for your campaign is under appreciated and the second issue is that your players are complaining that your encounters are too difficult. I've already talked about the first one, but, let's look at the second one.

Later in your post, you mention that a player is getting perished every three sessions. That means that your encounters are certainly not easy. It may very well be that your players are on to something. Your encounters may very well be too difficult. Step back for a moment and look at why they are having so much difficulty with encounters - are they just tactically inept? are the encounters significantly higher Encounter Level than their Average Party Level? what about PC wealth - too little can seriously hinder party effectiveness - are they significantly behind on what's expected for their level?

Or, is it something else? Are the encounter set-ups increasing difficulty? If every encounter the enemies use Sun Tsu level tactics in a setting which perfectly enhances their every action then, yeah, that's a bit tougher than things might usually be.

I'm not pinning this on you at all. Don't think that I am. I'm just trying to come from a different angle and propose a possible reason for the grumbling beyond just, "Oh my players suck".

2.) You warn the group ahead of time that a rule will be changed for a paticular encounter. You explain why to the best of your ability without giving away the encounter ahead of time. You also go through the effort of making sure that everyone in the group fully understands the new rule. When it comes time to use the rule and they dont' like it, they refer to it as "retarded" or "stupid". Instead of simply telling you why they dont' like it and why its effects are too negetive, they go on a rant about how "dumb" it is, without citing a reason why. These types of things could be taken personally becaue you spend every free minute you have writting for them and they, inturn, bash your game.

Ok, this one can REALLY go both ways. It could very well be that your players lack the mechanical knowledge to explain why they don't like your mechanics. It could just be a gut reaction. It could also be that they think the new mechanics are only in place to penalize them. Coupling this issue with the issue below about the idea of DM VS Players adversity, it could be that they think the only reason you are changing rules is to artificially make encounters more difficult.

You haven't given a specific example, so it's a bit difficult to give more specific advice other than to say, step back and re-examine why you are making these changes. What purpose do these new mechanics serve? Why do the existing mechanics fail to meet whatever goal you are attempting to achieve?

Also, do these mechanics serve to penalize PC's without adversely affecting the opponents? For example, if you add a mechanic whereby you need to make a Reflex save every time you take damage while the ship the party is currently aboard rocks in a storm, but the enemies they are fighting all fly with no problems in this storm, then, yeah, I'd probably get a bit cheesed. You're making a difficult fight (fighting flying creatures) that much more difficult for no other reason than to make the fight harder.

3.) When some one in the group requests an item from a source book or a source you paticularly don't like, trust, or you may even think it is broken. At first a second appeal is to be expected providing that they can give a decent reason why THEY think it would be ok for them to have it in your game. But when you have to say "No" 3, 4, and even 5 times what do you do then? You may have reasons that you cannot reveal to them yet. The item or ability may not fit the campaign world. The item may even be broken. Isn't it a little disrespectful to assume that your DM is just skrewing you or not considering your opinion of what is fun?

I run into this one all the time. Players buy books and they want to use those books. It's not exactly wrong of them. However, yeah, you just have to stick to your guns here. If you don't want X in your game, then that should be the end of the discussion. Unfortunately it rarely is, and players sometimes will try to wheedle you into submission.

I think the best answer here is to be very firm, but, also to really chart out why you don't want X in your game. If it ruins a later plot, screw it, change your plot. I find it far easier to simply change some future plans than to constantly deal with badgering players. YMMV and all that.

4.) Last one, I promise. I get the attitude from my players, more often than not, that the game is them vs me. Not the characters against the monsters, enemy, or even the challenge. I, the DM am targeted alot with snide, offensive, or even generally mean comments. Which I usually tack up to them just meaning to aim thier comments at the villians in the game and not me. But it goes beyond comments or name calling. They expect me to skrew them at every turn and they expect me to try to kill them every chance I get. This is generally not my intention, I write and perform every game, whether they realize it or not, with plenty of chances for them to get out of every bad situation they put themselfs in. An example of this is a paticular player who continously makes bad decisions and gets himself killed often (once every 3 games on average). He gets mad at me that "I" kill him or that my games are too tough.
/snip

Well, I've mentioned this above, and I think your issues seem, at least from the little information we have here, to be linked. You are creating new rules, limiting player options, and possibly setting up encounters that the players feel are too difficult. That's a perfect storm of problems.

The advice to talk to your players is certainly valid. Make your concerns plain to all of your players. However, it would also be a good idea to step back and see if you really are causing your own problems.

Why are the players asking for new options? Is it because they see themselves in an arms race with you, because they feel you are stacking the deck in every encounter? Are you stacking the deck? I don't mean intentionally, but, it could be that you are not on the same page as they are about what a given party should be facing. Take a look at some published adventures. See how they set up encounters. Compare those encounters to your own.

As I said, it could quite possibly be that your players are a bunch of jerks. That's certainly possible. But, it could also possibly be that you've started a bit of a circle yourself by presenting the players with encounters that they feel are too difficult, and then further stacked the deck by creating new mechanics for these encounters.

A bit of self examination is never out of place.

Sorry for the extremely long ramble.

 

[buzz]

I still think this a people issue, not a game issue, but Hussar makes good points.

Why are the players asking for new options? Is it because they see themselves in an arms race with you, because they feel you are stacking the deck in every encounter? Are you stacking the deck? I don't mean intentionally, but, it could be that you are not on the same page as they are about what a given party should be facing. Take a look at some published adventures. See how they set up encounters. Compare those encounters to your own.

D&D generally rises to the level of the most experienced/adept player. If there's too much disparity between that player and the ones with the next most rules mastery, you get un-fun, IME. The top rank player either makes the encounters too easy (as a PC), or makes them too hard (as a DM).

Ergo, said player either needs to dial back their mastery, say, by intentionally handicapping themselves, or they need to aid the other players, say, by deliberately powering them up.

As the DM, the OP is actually in a good position to help rectify these issues. Scale back the ELs a bit. Allow the players to use some of those options you've been denying them. Review their PCs and point out ways in which they could be more effective. Send them to the optimization boards over at Wizards and let them tweak their PCs.

Or, better yet, ask them what they want out of the game. They may not be after typical high-challenge, tactical-focus D&D. They may want to just explore the game world and don't want to worry about "winning." If what they want just isn't compatible with your kind of fun... don't play D&D with them.

 

[Hussar]

I'd just like to say that I hope I don't come off as too much of an asshat. I'm really not trying to be condescending or anything like that. Just trying to offer advice.

 

[haakon1]

As the DM, the OP is actually in a good position to help rectify these issues. Scale back the ELs a bit. Allow the players to use some of those options you've been denying them. Review their PCs and point out ways in which they could be more effective. Send them to the optimization boards over at Wizards and let them tweak their PCs.

Nod, teaching noobs how to make effective characters is important. For example, I had a player design a Ranger archer who had Toughness instead of Precise Shot, which meant they were getting -4 for firing into melee ALL the time. I advised them on how to fix it and let them change feats.

Also, as a DM you can both teach players good tactics and show them bad tactics with the monsters. I've put a enemy character into a bad situation -- like where they can be backstabbed -- more than once, as an in character thing for stupid monsters that are agroo'd up, and to show them what NOT to do.

 

[Felix]

1.) As a DM you pour over sources, books, and stories collecting ideas and building a game. You make it unique and involve all the players and characters to make it interesting for everyone. When you get to your second or even your first scene of the evening and the players don't like what they are fighting or were suprised to see themselfs at a disadvantage for once they get upset and claim that the encounter is "unfair" due to the fact that they have to work for thier treasure.

Perhaps this is not meant to be objective, but this description paints the players in a poor light. There are indeed unfair encounters, and ways that a DM can exploit his omniscience that put upon the players. Because this description is equally as vague, it's impossible to say what's what, except that the work you put into the game is the only thing you embellish.

2.) You warn the group ahead of time that a rule will be changed for a paticular encounter. You explain why to the best of your ability without giving away the encounter ahead of time. You also go through the effort of making sure that everyone in the group fully understands the new rule. When it comes time to use the rule and they dont' like it, they refer to it as "retarded" or "stupid". Instead of simply telling you why they dont' like it and why its effects are too negetive, they go on a rant about how "dumb" it is, without citing a reason why. These types of things could be taken personally becaue you spend every free minute you have writting for them and they, inturn, bash your game.

House Rules are not generally problems as long as they are consistent. They can be a pain, and not all House Rules are created equal. It doesn't help that you don't mention what rule it was that you changed.

Did you change a rule for only one encounter, and then things reverted to normal?
Did you change the rules for the NPCs while maintaining them for the PCs?
Did you account for the House Rule when figuring out the difficulty of the encounter?

There are ways that House Rules can go bad, but again, you withhold the details that would exonerate or condemn your rule.

3.) When some one in the group requests an item from a source book or a source you paticularly don't like, trust, or you may even think it is broken. At first a second appeal is to be expected providing that they can give a decent reason why THEY think it would be ok for them to have it in your game. But when you have to say "No" 3, 4, and even 5 times what do you do then? You may have reasons that you cannot reveal to them yet. The item or ability may not fit the campaign world. The item may even be broken. Isn't it a little disrespectful to assume that your DM is just skrewing you or not considering your opinion of what is fun?

What is the item? A 500gp gem that makes all their base belong to us is right out. A scroll of Cure Light Wounds is much less so.

Details...?

4.) Last one, I promise. I get the attitude from my players, more often than not, that the game is them vs me. Not the characters against the monsters, enemy, or even the challenge. I, the DM am targeted alot with snide, offensive, or even generally mean comments. Which I usually tack up to them just meaning to aim thier comments at the villians in the game and not me. But it goes beyond comments or name calling. They expect me to skrew them at every turn and they expect me to try to kill them every chance I get. This is generally not my intention, I write and perform every game, whether they realize it or not, with plenty of chances for them to get out of every bad situation they put themselfs in. An example of this is a paticular player who continously makes bad decisions and gets himself killed often (once every 3 games on average). He gets mad at me that "I" kill him or that my games are too tough.

From a certain point of view, it is players vs DM. The DM selects and controls all the obstacles in the PCs' path and the players must overcome them. The DM also knows a whole lot more about everything than the PCs do, and it is possible to abuse that knowledge.

It seems odd that you are assualted verbally in such a manner by all who sit at the table; or at least those not assualting you don't come to your support.

I feal heavily underappriciated and generally abused as a DM.

Are you a first-time DM? First time DMing with this group? You say you've gamed with these guys for a long time, so are you stepping into someone's DMing shoes? Frankly we don't know anything much at all about your game for lack of details, so it's hard to say either way. It's possible you have a well designed, compelling game world and story and your players are behaving irresponsibly. It's also possible that you are unwittingly frustrating your players, and are on the receiving end of their frustration.

I feal that it is harder than people think to write a game and even hard to write a GOOD game. I feal that there is more to just throwing together some story and plot line. You want everyone in the group to have a good time and be entertained therefore you have to manage the tastes and concerns of everyone at your game table including you.

This is true. It is also true that what one person believes is interesting, well designed and immersing, another person may thing is pulp-rag trash. You've entered the world of the subjective, so allow for the possibility that something you've worked very hard on appeals not at all to your players, nor are they really at fault for not appreciating it.

So give it to me straight! Is this me or has respect for the DM gone the way of the dinosaur?

People (players included) who are well adjusted, polite, and considerate have always been rare. I think it is a mistake to venerate the past when in all likelihood these exact same troubles existed in the beginning of D&D.

 

[GammaPaladin]

Yet another group of players may want to explore the world they are in and the story that they are helping build with the fights as a backdrop. It's often a mistake to assume that someone with different motivations than you really has the same ones but is pursuing them immaturely.

"Gabe" of Penny Arcade had an interesting blog once on what he looks for in a video game, and it isn't a challenge. He enjoys the "new art" of a game, seeing what it can do and what can be done within it. Some players enjoy rpgs in a similar way. They aren't at the table to be challenged, but that doesn't always mean that they just want the stereotypical rewards of a "challenging" game without the work, it can mean that they want something different from the game experience.

I didn't characterize anything as immature... My point was simply that some players may not want a terribly challenging combat game, and that there's nothing wrong with that. Even if their motivation is achievement-based (Wanting to be the uber gods of goblinslaying), there's nothing wrong with that either.

I understand about the explorer mindset. Back in the day when I played MUDs, I'd score 90% or more explorer type on those "What type of MUD gamer are you?" quizzes, and that was accurate. I'll occasionally cheat in singleplayer video games, just so that I can see what the stuff towards the end is, and how cool it is.

Believe me, I understand that.

I'm simply pointing out that the "I want challenging combat" type is only one type of RPG gamer, and that if that's not the style of most of the players in your group, then they are going to complain, because you're not running the game they want to play.

Whether you get all uptight about it and decide that their playstyle is subjectively "worse", than what you want to run... It doesn't matter. The reality of the situation is that if you run the game you want to, they won't enjoy it, and they'll whine.

You can either continue to run it the way you are and put up with the whining (Which will probably lead to the players deserting you at some point), cave in and change the game you're running to match what they want to play, or find another group.

There are really no other options.

So it's basically a matter of deciding how attached you are to the difficulty level you're providing. If you're not going to have fun if you dial down the difficulty, then I'd say you should probably retire as that group's DM.

Otherwise, I'd dial down the CR of all the encounters for a bit, and see if they like the game a little better.

 

[Squire James]

Maybe I'm slowly morphing into an "old fogey", but I've found a general lack of respect among a LOT of people these days. Respect is a two-way street, but lack of respect is unilateral. My advice to the OP should sound rather familiar, but I suggest going down this list until something works or you hit the last item...

1. Talk to your players about your perceived respect issues. Be sure to mention that, if the player wants certain things in your game, respecting your effort is more likely to get those things than unabated complaints. On the other hand, if someone says "Well, I kinda like your game, but..." you had better be listening to what follows! Respect is a two-way street, and not respecting the players is a pretty good way to engender a lack of respect within them.

2. So player's comment is something like "I hate your game" or something kind like that. Offer them a chance to run their own game. If they accept the offer with reasonable grace, you may find out they're a better DM than you. Let him run the game a while, and learn.

3. So the player not only hates your game, he doesn't feel like becoming DM for some reason (or he stinks worse than you do). Ask them something like "Um, if you hate my game but don't want to run one, why are you here?" If he has an acceptable respose, go back to step 1 and go back to talking about respect being a two-way street and all.

4. Ask yourself if this player's presence merits going through some changes to your game. Sometimes it is better to throw an otherwise-good player a bone or two and go on. If, however, you can't stand that guy any more than he does you, go on to step 5.

5. Give it up. If this person's your friend, explain that you want to remain friends but you do not wish to game with him. If he's not, boot him out.

Try to spend more time with step 1 than anything else, because it's the most likely to work!