The harder, the better - dm

[Lucas Blackstone]

I didn't see anything wrong in his " bad player" examples and this guy is a little out of control. If he feels threatened somehow it makes no sense.

A ranger using two bastard swords is perfectly viable and I don't see how there is anything wrong with the concept. Why should he use anything bigger then daggers then if using a weapon that does good damage is power gaming?

Shooting things to see if they are traps or enemies in disguise does not seem unreasonable to me either. Now if you are walking in a village and shooting every villager and basket and door of every hut, then there is a problem. But this DM seems to over exaggerate things and I think all that happened was that the warlock shot a couple statues to see if they were traps or enemies and he flipped out. ( much like the ranger example above).

Trying to kill the ranger and being a non partial DM because the ranger is wielding two bastard swords looks like a severe fault in the DM's style of play, not the players. Just my opinion.

The player in question who tried to reset their encounter powers in the middle of an encounter obviously didn't know what they were doing. And if the DM didn't know how to handle the situation that was both parties not having a clue.

Abuse of the rules ( Melora's Tide, Light on an enemy) is a bad thing. Good use of rules ( dual wielding bastard swords) is not bad at all.

A DM that abuses his power instead of staying impartial because a ranger decided to dual wield bastard swords should probably take a step back from the DM screen and re-evaluate his DM-ing style.

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RULES; IT'S A MATTER OF APPROACH.

First, I'm DMing since I was 9 years old (d&d red box) and now I'm 27, secondarily, there's no such a PPlaya in my group (mmm....just a "low" power playa... ) THIRD, i on't want to fight and struggle with regulatory issues every single breath. I would rather play WH (I quit because of this).


I repeat it is not because I don't know the rules or something like that, we (DM ) need to give player awareness of the game's main purpose, which is FUN+Roleplay. if they do not listen, then they have to face some kind of consequence...

 

[Bran Mak Morn]

but this dm seems to over exaggerate things and i think all that happened was that the warlock shot a couple statues to see if they were traps or enemies and he flipped out. ( much like the ranger example above).

I WOULD LIKE IT WAS SO, BELIEVE ME.....IWASN'T EVEN DMING IN THAT GAME, I'VE BEEN PLAYING IT, AND I HATED THAT FELLOW PLAYER....

Trying to kill the ranger and being a non partial dm because the ranger is wielding two bastard swords looks like a severe fault in the dm's style of play, not the players. Just my opinion.


DIDN'T EVER TELL ABOUT KILLING THE RANGER, I WAS JUST COMPLAINING ABOUT THE VIEW OF A RANGER FACING A MONSTER LIKE A RAVAGING MACHINE OF DESTRUCTION
BUT IF IT'S OK WITH YOU BECAUSE THE DAMAGE IS A LITTLE BETTER

the player in question who tried to reset their encounter powers in the middle of an encounter obviously didn't know what they were doing. And if the dm didn't know how to handle the situation that was both parties not having a clue.

HE WAS COMPLETELY AWARE, EVERY POEPLE WHO EVER FOUND SUCH A PLAYER AS A FELLOW KNOW PERFECTLY WHAT AM I TALKING ABOUT....YOU KNOW WHAT? HE WAS DESTROYING STATUES EVEN BEFORE WE FOUND ANY TRAP, JUST TO BE SURE...


A dm that abuses his power instead of staying impartial because a ranger decided to dual wield bastard swords should probably take a step back from the dm screen and re-evaluate his dm-ing style.

i'm lucky enough to be without such players in the group...

regarding d&d, i like the whole thing, why spoiling it with very very bad metagaming?

 

[Ibixat]

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RULES; IT'S A MATTER OF APPROACH.

First, I'm DMing since I was 9 years old (d&d red box) and now I'm 27, secondarily, there's no such a PPlaya in my group (mmm....just a "low" power playa... ) THIRD, i on't want to fight and struggle with regulatory issues every single breath. I would rather play WH (I quit because of this).


I repeat it is not because I don't know the rules or something like that, we (DM ) need to give player awareness of the game's main purpose, which is FUN+Roleplay. if they do not listen, then they have to face some kind of consequence...

It seems you're missing the point, any Dm who says "play your character my way or else" needs to re-evaluate why they are being a DM in the first place. The DM is supposed to facilitate the fun, not enforce his idea of a players character on the player. If he wants to use two bastard swords the rules allow it.

As far as D10 weapons go all the martial ones have +2 prof bonus and cost 10 or 15g, the bastard swords require a feat have +3 prof bonus and cost 30g. So is a Feat and 30-40g more of your small starting cash really worth +1 more to hit? if the player feels it is, then that's his decision.

 

[Xorn]

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RULES; IT'S A MATTER OF APPROACH.

First, I'm DMing since I was 9 years old (d&d red box) and now I'm 27, secondarily, there's no such a PPlaya in my group (mmm....just a "low" power playa... ) THIRD, i on't want to fight and struggle with regulatory issues every single breath. I would rather play WH (I quit because of this).


I repeat it is not because I don't know the rules or something like that, we (DM ) need to give player awareness of the game's main purpose, which is FUN+Roleplay. if they do not listen, then they have to face some kind of consequence...

From where I'm reading, you didn't know the rules on encounter powers recharging, and you seem to feel that a ranger with two bastard swords is an attempt to "sneak the rules".

I'm not saying you're a bad person for that--but it definitely leaves some holes in the foundation you're ranting from...

 

[Corwin]

IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RULES; IT'S A MATTER OF APPROACH.

I wholeheartedly agree. Your approach is ill advised.

First, I'm DMing since I was 9 years old (d&d red box) and now I'm 27, secondarily, there's no such a PPlaya in my group (mmm....just a "low" power playa... ) THIRD, i on't want to fight and struggle with regulatory issues every single breath. I would rather play WH (I quit because of this).

So there's no power players in your group? But their power playing style is irritating you?

Look, I realize English is not your primary language, so maybe you are just having trouble expressing yourself clearly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt there.

But exactly what does "regulatory issues" mean? And what is your definition of "pwer player"? Because that term is highly subjective and sometimes pejorative. Other times simply descriptive. For example, I consider myself a power gamer. I use the term proudly.

I repeat it is not because I don't know the rules or something like that...

But in at least one of your examples, it absolutely is. You were wrong WRT short rests and the recovery of encounter powers. Had you known the rules, you could have easily corrected the player and moved on. No problem.

...we (DM ) need to give player awareness of the game's main purpose, which is FUN+Roleplay. if they do not listen, then they have to face some kind of consequence...

So anyone who doesn't adhere to your definition of GoodRightFun needs to be shown the light? Is that it?

(And yes, in case you feel the need to ask, I too have been DMing for over two decades and through ever iteration of D&D.)

 

[Lucas Blackstone]

I was scared for a bit that I was the only one who thought that he might be a little overbearing about meta gaming and power gaming because someone might use two bastard swords.

 

[Arbitrary]

You cannot dual wield bastard swords or use any weapon in your offhand to attack with that doesn't have the qualifier of "Off-hand"

pg 215

Some one-handed weapons are light enough for you to use in your off hand while holding another one-handed weapon in your main hand. Doing this doesn't let you make multiple attacks in a round (unless you have powers that let you do so), but you can attack with either weapon.

pg 217

Off-Hand - An off-hand weapon is light enough that you can hold it and attack effectively with it while holding a weapon in your main hand. You can't attack with both weapons in the same turn, unless you have a power that lets you do so, but you can attack with either weapon

Pg 218

Bastard sword, Properties = Versatile

 

[gizmo33]

First, I'm DMing since I was 9 years old (d&d red box)

When I was 9 years old and DMing *all my players did* was blow stuff up. They would also kill random NPCs, steal stuff, act rude to the king, etc.

THIRD, i on't want to fight and struggle with regulatory issues every single breath. I would rather play WH (I quit because of this).

Well, whether or not you play WH or Guitar Hero or whatever is your business and somewhat beyond the scope. To some extent regulatory issues is about rule interpretation, and that, unfortunately is the DMs job. Now if someone walks into the game with a character wielding two bastard swords and you think there is a reason why that's not cool, why not just say so? It's not a confrontation that you have to particularly dread.

On the other hand, players who are vandalizing the dungeon - blasting statues, or writing "Gandalf was here" on the walls, etc. is another issue. That's a question of how tightly you expect PCs to stick to your plot and expectations. The one thing that I would not recommend though is to adopt passive-aggressive techniques involving showing the players how powerful of a DM you are. Oftentimes if you just let the players do what they want, and enforce reasonable consequences, they get bored and start acting normally. If, however, blasting stuff is a really effective technique for dealing with your dungeons then you should consider varying your designs, because the PCs wouldn't have been the only ones to think of this technique.

we (DM ) need to give player awareness of the game's main purpose, which is FUN+Roleplay. if they do not listen, then they have to face some kind of consequence...

I've DMed plenty of players whose idea of fun was blowing stuff up, and whose character's personality was "guy who likes to blow things up". Because do you really think the player is acting this way because he has no intention of having fun?

I can understand not wanting to have confrontations all of the time about rules issues and stuff. I can understand that such a thing would make the game hard to enjoy. But trying to be too controlling about how the players act and what they do isn't fun for the DM either IMO. Respecting your players as creative (albeit weird, sometimes) people can do a lot to diffuse an adversarial DM-Player relationship. Say "I think bastard swords are too heavy for effective two-weapon use, so I'll apply a -2 on the attack rolls if you want to try it out" and leave it at that - no need to be killing off characters.

 

[kclark]

People who complain about blasting statues in a dangerous dungeon, just in case, are going to look pretty foolish when the group encounter a flock of gargoyles.
I can't count the number of times some sort of statue or pillar or what not turned out to be either a horrible monster or devious trap intent on mangling the party.

All it takes is for the DM to say "You blast the statues and shatter some fragments off of them. There seems to be no effect." Then if the player continues to do so you say ok and ask the rest of the group what they are doing. Then after handling thier actions you can return to the overcautious warlock and tell him that the statue is well defaced and the continued barrage seems to have little effect. It takes all of a few seconds to handle what could possibly be an actually good choice (if they were gargoyles or traps).

For some extra fun the DM he can make the trap/statue an important religious icon and have it explode in unholy energy when destroyed. Mix things up though, don't have all statues explode or be traps, let some be just normal statues.