The Player vs DM attitude

[Dausuul]

Shoulda picked a squisher metal?

Next time go with metallic hydrogen.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

What can I do to combat that attitude both among my players and when I play in games DMed by other people? And does anyone else see it as the same problem I do or is this just my hangup? What do you think?

I have not yet read beyond the OP, but my own solution to this problem is much the same as any other interpersonal problem that might pop up during a game. That is to treat it with liberal doses of open and honest communication.

As a DM, my favorite thing in a game is to have the players think that they are doomed, and then to come out ahead. This takes some amount of subterfuge, the occasional overwhelming of the players with superior force, and so on. In order to get my players to buy-in to these sorts of situations, I tell them, "I want you guys to win." and, "my favorite thing in a game is to have the players think that they are doomed, and then to come out ahead."

When the occasional need to kidnap, imprison, or kill the PCs comes up, I usually do so by fiat. For instance, in the campaign that I most recently started, the premise is that the characters are in a sort of adventurer's afterlife, a never-ending dungeon populated by the 'souls of those lost in the world's many dungeons'. So, at the beginning of the campaign, I killed them. "You die," I said. And that was how the campaign got started. Later on, I will fill the players in on how, precisely, they died, and what the heck they are doing here. But, for now, all that they need to know is that they are stuck in a spooky megadungeon, surrounded by all sorts of critters that want to eat them.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Some thoughts on training players out of 'attack everything on sight'.

The tactic of attacking everything on sight has several origins that reinforce each other.

1) D&D tends to have short combats where going first is a big advantage.

Good point...

2) Evasion:

Need more advice.

3) Stealth:

Need more advice.

Most DnD rules are based on combat, not around negotiation or stealth. In fact, many PCs are so bad at either (or both!) that they sit around doing nothing when that comes up. (Being bad at negotiation isn't horrendous, if you don't mind sitting doing nothing, but being bad at stealth harms your fellow PCs too.)

Maybe it's just me, but I think my enjoyment of a game increases the more times I get to roll dice. Best way to do that is combat.

But I'm definitely not calling this bad advice. It's good advice. Just needs more crunch.

never let their characters be kidnapped or arrested (as in the above example)

A DM might see that as a short-term "loss of control" but players see this as long-term. (Put yourself in their shoes!) When will they get their power back? They don't know! When will they get their items back? They might never (a big deal in 3.x)!

 

[Celebrim]

Maybe it's just me, but I think my enjoyment of a game increases the more times I get to roll dice.

???

I suspect our criteria for what makes a good game are so far apart, that I'll be unable to advise you. The situations that I set up in the examples were designed to be system and mechanical independent. Sneaking is relatively easy when you 100% cover, or when you're a couple hundred yards away and have 90% concealment. What matters in those situations is the choice to take a certain course of action, and much less the die rolls. If you cause situations like this to hinge on a die roll or a series of die rolls, then you are basically turning them into save or suck situations, or worse yet a series of save or die situations. And even at best that's still rote die rolling with minimal player involvement.

It's possible to turn this sort of thing into a chase scene or similarly dynamic non-combat encounter, but you'll want do so with a CR +3 or so monster/encounter rather than a CR +8 one. But even then, you are risking the situation spiralling out of control in one of several ways. You don't want to punish players badly for just having bad luck. If you are going to force them into a sitaution where they are over their heads, you don't want to then trust to the luck of the dice to keep them alive. Also, a dynamic chase/evasion scene as an alterative to combat is something you want to train a player up to, not something you want to spring on a player whose used to solving all problems by attacking hard and fast. So its better to start out with some situations that involve clear choices than a situation where its not entirely clear what the best approach is and which can get out of control quickly.

An intermediate stage in this training might be to present the players with a situation where they know they are supposed to catch the quarry and its trying to evade. The chase scene in 'Mad God's Key' is an excellent example of this.

 

[The Shaman]

My suggestion is: Stop trying to make the players trust NPCs.

Yup.

Make the npcs worthy of trust, and leave it to the players and their characters to decide what happens next.

 

[The Shaman]

One thing DMs have to get away from is creating plots rather than situations.

Quoted because it needs to be said again and again.

 

[ExploderWizard]

One thing DMs have to get away from is creating plots rather than situations.

This may just be semantics, but I run in exactly the reverse direction. I love to create plots and usually write many of them for a campaign. The key to all of them is that none of them belong to me as the DM. Each plot is attributed to someone or some thing in the game world.

I let the players create the situations that involve them.

 

[Nifft]

This may just be semantics, but I run in exactly the reverse direction. I love to create plots and usually write many of them for a campaign. The key to all of them is that none of them belong to me as the DM. Each plot is attributed to someone or some thing in the game world.

I let the players create the situations that involve them.

I think this is indeed semantics.

What you are calling a plot is a valid use of the term, but from the player's perspective it's not the plot of the game -- it's some guy's plan, which they can disrupt or not.

Cheers, -- N

 

[The Shaman]

I think this is indeed semantics.

What you are calling a plot is a valid use of the term, but from the player's perspective it's not the plot of the game -- it's some guy's plan, which they can disrupt or not.

I'm with the cheery penguin on this one.

 

[SpaceWestern]

Sure, I'll fudge the odd roll in favor of the party, but don't try something insanely stupid..."I'm going to stop the dragon from breathing on the party by shoving my fist down its throat!" That will not end well. If I give you any odds of success, they will be slim and I will not fudge.

Being a player with a highly over-active imagination, I find myself seeing a full party being pummeled and beaten to a pulp. While the group is down and unable to get away, the dragon opens its mouth, shining the group with the glow of it's incoming onslaught.

However, before the dragon is able to unleash it's devastating attack upon the party, a complete manifestation of a tanned yet impressively muscled forearm that is the size of a full grown giant's arm is thrust forward into the open mouth of the dragon.

Surprised and horrified, the dragon watches as it's face is stuffed full of the tanned arm, forcing the dragon's breath weapon to spill out and then fill it internally until the dragon simply explodes into a rain of meaty confetti over the completely surprised party members. The dragon and the arm are all but gone, leaving the adventurers quite alone.

Amongst the rubble and debris that littered the area, the Sorcerer looks towards the Cleric and says, "Alright... I believe in your God now."

"Damn straight," replies the Cleric.

"And, don't you forget it!" The paladin cries, his legs the only things visible from behind the destroyed wall.