The stupid expectations of some DMs...

[The Sigil]

2 cents

One of the things that I feel players often forget is that the responsibility for a fun and interesting game is not solely on the head of the DM.

I have known players who deliberately always do exactly the opposite of what the DM wants them to do, just because they think it's funny to watch the DM squirm when his three weeks of planning an adventure go out the window ("okay, he tells us the monsters are east? Great! We head west!"). They also feel that in an improvised adventure, when the DM is being forced to do everything off the cuff, encounters will be easier because they're not as well-planned; therefore accumulating treasure will be easier (worst example of meta-meta-gaming I have ever seen). I have seen players who just sit back and expect everything to be handed to them on a silver platter. Of course, there is the classic "the DM is the enemy to be overcome" syndrome. Player inattention is equally annoying to a DM.

If players are inattentive and don't catch something, that's their fault IMO, and the DM shouldn't worry that he's doing a bad job if they miss clues. If the players are attentive, especially if they're the kind that like to take notes and pore over them during the week (yes, I have had players like this) and they still don't "catch something" the DM should not penalize them... obviously they aren't on the same wavelength but they are trying to interact with the DM's world and his story and trying to understand it. And if they are attentive and not catching clues, it's time for the DM to look at himself and say, "maybe these are more obscure than I thought."

The thing that I think is important for players to realize is that DMs put a lot more work into the weekly gaming session than the characters do. DMs spend hours creating and balancing adventures and creating plotlines and backstories. Players show up to the weekly session and maybe bring drinks or chips.

While DMs shouldn't railroad players, players should be willing to play along when the DM drops hints their way. When I DM I usually have 3 or 4 different adventures ready for a given session. I spread out the "hooks" and let the PCs go after the one they want. Maybe I do a little bit of over-preparation but I make it clear to the players before they are allowed into my campaign that, "I do a ton of work to get ready for the sessions - I am not going to force you to do one specific thing, but I do ask that you select something from the variety of hooks I present instead of constantly trying to avoid the stuff I have prepared." My players (fortunately) respect (a) the work I put and (b) the fact that I'm trying to give them a choice by offering them multiple paths to take - which lead to different endings/rewards/etc.

Usually I "take away" a couple of plot hooks after each adventure and add some new ones. For example, if players have a choice of adventures 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 and they pick 3, when they complete 3, adventures 1 and 4 may have gone away (accomplished by NPCs, the PCs are now in a different geographical location that precludes them from trying them, etc.) but I now present them with hooks for adventures 6, 7 and 8, giving them the choice of 2, 5, 6, 7, 8. This way, they have choices, but it gives the illusion of "if I choose X, I may not be able to choose Y later" and/or "my choice of X affects things in way Z."

DMs should not try to railroad players, but players should not try to railroad DMs either. When I offer you adventure 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5, please don't say, "I want adventure 18." That's bullying the DM and disrespecting the work he puts in.

The DM is not an opponent to be beaten, he is a collaborator in having fun.

My 2 cents. Sorry if it was a bit rantish.

--The Sigil

 

[Piratecat]

The worst mistake I've made recently was forgetting that a PC was now considered an outsider (due to 10th lvl in a prestige class.) Damage reduction, anyone? that wouldn't matter, except I had set up a challenging cool unarmed duel over a magic item, and the duel actually ended up being the NPC trying to whale on the PC while the PC yawned and occasionally tapped her toe. Very funny, but not what I expected!

 

[Pielorinho]

I've had two very frustrating miscommunications in my current campaign:

1) A PC was young and rebellious, and the player wanted her to be completely uninterested in the Gods and to be nearly an atheist. That'd be fine in some games, but I wanted atheism to be unheard of in my campaign, wanted atheists to seem horrible and insane and probably really evil. I explained this to the player, and she refused to accept it for a long time. It didn't affect the plotline much, but it diluted some of the campaign's flavor.

2) After a player was infected with lycanthropy, I set up a convoluted plotline in which a demon tried to frame the lycanthrope for murder. I had great fun running the session -- and so I was astonished when the player called me, really upset about how it had gone. He'd felt manipulated and railroaded. Eventually I realized that the player thought I'd had his character commit murders without giving him any chance of controlling or preventing the action (which woulda been pretty annoying). Once I assured him that I wouldn't have done that, he was much more okay with the plot line.

Daniel

 

[ForceUser]

As a player I work hard to pay attention to the DM and to play my character as effectively and in-character as possible. This is because, as a DM, I know what it's like when players don't pay attention

The worst mistake I've made as a DM in recent memory is when, for "story flavor," I attacked an unconcious PC with a dying wyvern who was "lashing out in pain." The character died and the player group looked at me like I'd just spit on the Queen Mum. They had the perception that I killed the character out of spite, but the true culprit was my desire for dramatic storytelling. I went a little overboard.

Other DM faux pas I've commited:

* Upped the hit points of a pre-planned monster in the middle of a fight because the player group was "killing my big monster too quickly."

* Expanded the dimensions of a cavern complex as it was being explored because the players were "zooming around it too quickly" with wind walk.

I cheated because I was trying to create memorable scenes or drama. I've learned my lesson and I've got a lot more 3E under my belt now. I don't fudge anything anymore; I just plan better.

 

[WSmith]

There is only one type of person in the world...

Haha, this reminds me of an adage my old criminal justice professor and retired cop told my class about how law enforcement can jade a person...

"When I started police work. I thought there were three kinds of people. Citizens, Cops, and Criminals."

"When I had about ten years on the job, I thought there were only two kinds of people, Cops and Criminals."

"When I was ready to retire, I knew there was only one kind of person."

 

[Uller]

As a DM, I've had my share of miscommunications. Two recent examples:

1) Three PCs snuck into a small castle through a hole in the outer wall. They spotted tracks going in and out of the hole that they identified as being from some sort of very large arachnid. The hole lead into a ruined stable. In the center of the stable was a large pile of debris covered in heavy cobwebs. I even explain that there appears to be a large funnel like hole in the top of the pile. Two of the PCs move past the pile to the door to get a look at the court yard. I slip the halfling thief a note saying he spots something shiny in the pile and he says he goes over and examines the pile. He mentions no precautions and doesn't ask the other characters to 'cover' him. Once he is in striking distance, the large hunting spider in the pile jumps out and bites him. This being 2e, he fails his save vs poison and loses enough hitpoints to be unconscious. While his friends drive off the spider, he dies. He was so upset, that he nearly quit! He accused me of purposely drawing his attention to the nest for my own pleasure(true....I wanted them to encounter the spider...but I assumed they would prepare for it and easily drive it off before it could kill anyone).

After talking to him, he said that he thought the pile of debris was small enough that he could look down upon it. I never gave the dimensions, but I did say 'large' and I had given the rough dimensions of the archnids that made the tracks(about 8' diameter) and I felt I gave enough clues that it seemed obvious(to me) that this was a nest of some sort of arachnid. I guess not...The session ended with that fight, so I offered to allow his character to survive(maybe the poison just temporarily paralyzed him). He decided to keep playing, but with a different character.

2) The party was about to enter the Temple of Elemental evil(the original) and after two forays to the courtyard, they still failed to gain entry. On a third try, I finally had to say "Why don't you try one of the doors..."

Sometimes "player stupidity" is because the player is just being stubborn or inattentive. Other times it is because the DM hasn't explained the details properly....

 

[Skarp Hedin]

2) After a player was infected with lycanthropy, I set up a convoluted plotline in which a demon tried to frame the lycanthrope for murder. I had great fun running the session -- and so I was astonished when the player called me, really upset about how it had gone. He'd felt manipulated and railroaded. Eventually I realized that the player thought I'd had his character commit murders without giving him any chance of controlling or preventing the action (which woulda been pretty annoying). Once I assured him that I wouldn't have done that, he was much more okay with the plot line.

Your demons seem to be very good at framing people, if you can even fool the victim into thinking he did it.

 

[Pielorinho]

Your demons seem to be very good at framing people, if you can even fool the victim into thinking he did it.

Well, with newbie lycanthropes, it's not THAT difficult:
1) I altered the lycanthropy curse enough that the player didn't know how it worked (the PC had no way of knowing how it worked); and
2) the first night of the full moon, a lycanthropic character is not at all under the player's control and has no memory of her actions the next morning.

All the demon had to do was kill a couple of people while the lycanthrope was in rat form, make the murder look bestial, and voila.

As a side note, osyluths are not too tough in a mano-a-mano fight, but they totally rock at playing mind games. Invisibility, fly, teleport without error, damage reduction, and SR make them very difficult to pin down to kill; suggestion, telepathy, and major image make it really easy for them to deceive people and mess with their heads. Try it sometime! heh heh heh

Daniel

 

[reapersaurus]

Some of us have had games where what the DM intends the PCs to do is totally lost on the players, or their approach is sabotaged because it differs too much from the DM's intended solution. Any stories to share?

In my experience, MOST games are like this.

Most DM's just throw a story together, then divvy out a couple meandering story-points, and then expect the PC's to "go at it!"

I'm sorry, but there'd BETTER be a damn good reason why my character's going to risk his neck out there.
Most DM's (again, in my experience) lean too much on the meta-gaming knowledge that you're playing an 'adventuring' character.

 

[Chimera]

I agree with you Reapersaurus in that many GMs I've played with seem to have put NO thought into the most basic question of "why the Frell is or would this group of people be interested in performing this mission?" One of the main reasons that I run my campaigns much like Sigil. I offer choices, rumors, paid jobs. It's the players who decide what they want to do.

But once they make those decisions, I don't think I'm being too demanding or "railroading" them by expecting them to COMPLETE their jobs, something I had a lot of trouble with during my last campaign. If it turned out to be anything other than a "straight in, hit the lair and make off with the treasure" adventure, they quickly turned tail and ran. Bloody Cowards.