Signs your DM is an imcompetent twit.

[King_Stannis]

of course there are bad dm's.....

a bad dm is one who has lost control of his group, as i've heard all too many times on these boards.

without going into rapidity of levelling up and the "this dm allows this rule but doesn't allow that rule...", the real test of a dm is this:

is everyone have a good time? perhaps not all the time, but on
the whole, does everyone have a pretty good time at the table?

it really all boils down to that.

 

[Darklone]

Hmmm

I liked the thread about "How you know your DM needs a break" more.

This one ... well I think it was intended similar.

For the DMs... *sigh* I know some groups who WANT that stuff. I think all they wait for is Neverwinter Nights that I can code "adventures" for them to go bashing and leveling. Looking for another group? No way, these are my friends (sue me)

And I do have other groups too

What about this one:
You know your DM is an incompetent twit if you ask him if you hit and he asks:"Why didn't you roll a d100?"

 

[Vocenoctum]

In his defense, a party with average level of 2.5 should be able to handle a CR5 encounter. Perhaps with a character death, but them's the breaks. Let me guess -- when you were 1st level, you expected him to line up pairs of goblins and orcs for you to kill, right, because ALL encounters should be 1/4 as strong as the party.

A balanced encounter would be CR3, since I'd say we're on the leading edge of our average. A CR one or two higher greatly increases the chance of character death, and in this case that DMG line was spot on. But, more importantly, the DM said it's MY fault for the death in a very public manner. She assign's foes likely to do serious damage to us, and the results of said damage are my fault?
Perhaps I'm just bitter about her mismanagement of an ogre ambush that killed my PC before, but I've DMed plenty and it rubs me wrong.

Also in his defense, much from FRCS and a TON of stuff from the Dragon is incredible cheese (Improved Rapid Shot, anyone?). He should at least be willing to review it, though.

Oh, definetly, it's the dismissive attitude that irritated me though. The feat in question was Inscribe Rune, I'm not high enough level to get it for a while, and figured Rune's fit the feel of the tundra/ norse campaign better than potions. She dismissed it out of hand.
The Domain's were Fate, Renewal and Retribution from the FRCS, and Force from Dragon if that matters. It was just as much because of the other allowed stuff as the stuff I wasn't allowed though. Including a reruling of a previous domain that I've had for the months I've been in this game so that it was suddenly useless.

In any case, I think both mine and DocM's cases comes down to "you try to communicate with the DM, and he/she has already decided you're wrong".

I try to discuss my problems with the DM/ GM, but a dismissive attitude irk's me to no end.

 

[Forrester]

All I can say is that the DMG says a "balanced" encounter (one of CR equal to the party's average CR) is one that should consume 1/4 of the party's resources, i.e., be roughly 1/4 of how strong the party is.

Which, frankly, doesn't seem "balanced" to me at all. It seems extremely wimpy and boring. In my campaign the average encounter is probably one to two CRs above the party's average CR. A CR 5 encounter should make you all sweat -- and a CR 5 ambush, well, yes, make you sweat a *lot* . But it's not unfair. (Blaming you for the character death might be -- but I wasn't there :0 ). No comment on the rest, though -- it does sound like the DM has problems.

Just wanted to voice my opinion on this whole CR thing.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

The problem here is what makes the CR higher. An ogre is a high strength foe, that means if you use it or something in that vein there is no challenge, instead there is just an increased chance of an instant kill.

All I can say is that the DMG says a "balanced" encounter (one of CR equal to the party's average CR) is one that should consume 1/4 of the party's resources, i.e., be roughly 1/4 of how strong the party is.

Which, frankly, doesn't seem "balanced" to me at all. It seems extremely wimpy and boring. In my campaign the average encounter is probably one to two CRs above the party's average CR. A CR 5 encounter should make you all sweat -- and a CR 5 ambush, well, yes, make you sweat a *lot* . But it's not unfair. (Blaming you for the character death might be -- but I wasn't there :0 ). No comment on the rest, though -- it does sound like the DM has problems.

Just wanted to voice my opinion on this whole CR thing.

 

[Vocenoctum]

All I can say is that the DMG says a "balanced" encounter (one of CR equal to the party's average CR) is one that should consume 1/4 of the party's resources, i.e., be roughly 1/4 of how strong the party is.

Which, frankly, doesn't seem "balanced" to me at all. It seems extremely wimpy and boring. In my campaign the average encounter is probably one to two CRs above the party's average CR. A CR 5 encounter should make you all sweat -- and a CR 5 ambush, well, yes, make you sweat a *lot* . But it's not unfair. (Blaming you for the character death might be -- but I wasn't there :0 ). No comment on the rest, though -- it does sound like the DM has problems.

Just wanted to voice my opinion on this whole CR thing.

Every encounter can't be the climactic one, or it gets overdone. Think of it like you're sneaking into a goblin or orc castle. You meet patrols of orcs that aren't large, and fight balanced encounters. Then, when you come upon a "boss" it's a more dangerous battle, with suitable rewards.

Also, in the game I DM, the players want to rest too much. In a game with too high CR's, they tend to fight, then rest, then fight, then rest, etc. Which is really boring for me and is unrealistic in the dungeon environment. (I even told them the goblin's were reinforcing their numbers, but I don't think they believed me

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yep, if every fight is that tough then the party holds nothing back. The end result is they drain themselves 100% in one fight and then just rest for a day. If you hit them again before they can rest then they would be right in complaining to a degree.

Every encounter can't be the climactic one, or it gets overdone. Think of it like you're sneaking into a goblin or orc castle. You meet patrols of orcs that aren't large, and fight balanced encounters. Then, when you come upon a "boss" it's a more dangerous battle, with suitable rewards.

Also, in the game I DM, the players want to rest too much. In a game with too high CR's, they tend to fight, then rest, then fight, then rest, etc. Which is really boring for me and is unrealistic in the dungeon environment. (I even told them the goblin's were reinforcing their numbers, but I don't think they believed me

 

[kamosa]

Fighting monsters above your crit level doesn't neccesarily mean that your GM is lame. Like most things the devil is in the details. It sounds like DocMoriartty's problem lies in the fact that the GM runs them so that they are particularly easy to beat.

A good campaign should have a mix of monster types. Ones that fight in clever, devious mixed in with monsters run at normal level, and the occasional tactics challenged bad guy. Variety is the spice of a good campaign.

I'll give the counter point to what everyone is telling Doc. Sounds like his DM need to spend sometime as a player, learing what makes the game fun for them.

 

[kamosa]

Another dump gas on the flame war post from reapersaurus. Who could have predicted that?

Oh.

My.

God.

I am constantly amazed at the self-important DM's on this board, who would look ANY situation, or even mistake, in the face and say "whining player" or "why don't you try it" or quote Rule 0.

Face it, you DM-apologists: DocMoriarity has painted a very damning picture of a DM that sucks.

Say it - DM's CAN suck.

Ahh... isn't that helpful in removing your self-delusion?

He's not saying every DM is incompetent - I also don't see why DM's here are feeling defensive.... unless you share the same qualities as his DM, you shouldn't be feeling defensive, and if you DO share qualities, maybe you should concentrate on that problem.

BTW: leveling up every session is bad.
That's an established belief.
One Reason: it doesn't give the player enough time to get acquainted with the new abilities that come with each level, and it's not beneficial to character development in the long run.

 

[Forrester]

Every encounter can't be the climactic one, or it gets overdone. Think of it like you're sneaking into a goblin or orc castle. You meet patrols of orcs that aren't large, and fight balanced encounters. Then, when you come upon a "boss" it's a more dangerous battle, with suitable rewards.

Well, there's a DM school out there that "sneaking into a goblin castle" should be that straightforward -- you come upon patrol after patrol that is 1/4 your strength, and miraculously get to the Big Boss before any general alarm has been raised, before patrols have quadrupled in size, ambushes have been set, strategic retreats have been made, and eventually the entire force has been mustered against you.

Lots of action for the party, they don't expend their resources quickly, etc. etc. A dungeon-crawl, pretty much.

I don't belong to that school. I suppose a party of well-trained and intelligent rogues might be able to pull that off -- but most parties aren't played that way.