The stupid expectations of some DMs...

[sword-dancer]

When the things you encounter start talking to you, and then you just attack them, and then you are suddenly dead.... it may be because the DM was going to let you off... but you assumed that every encounter is winnable. You're right, they are not ALL winnable, but most of us will WARN you first.

One thing is clear in my games, every challenge may be survivable, this means definitely not winable!

DM's WILL REMEMBER when you see innocents getting wasted because you wont even TRY to help. We Also fault you for hunting some person/thing/quest only to run at the last because the encounter might be dangerous.

Depending on Alignment, and Character of the character(and the situation),
Why should the character run in like the stupid US (Hollywood) Cav?
First of all if my char had a selfish, egoisticalk Alignment/attitude
Why should he risk it`s neck?
Second if the character regardless of alignment/attitude sees/believes his chances are slim to none
Why shouldn`t he be punished for not helping, self sacrifice is heroic, senseless wasting your life stupid

WELL DUH! We as the DM are SUPPOSED to challenge you sometimes, this means you may have to deal with powerful foes. You may avoid that encounter, but eventually the DM will set you up another... and another... and another....

The chalenge I agree with you to the fullest, but to avoid a encounter to clever planning, sneaking behind it, instead of challenging/fighting it, is IMPOV an absolut acceptable way to handle it.
Throwing for that encounter of encounter at the Party is one of the things tha falls under my definition of.
the WORST failures and METAGAMING a GM can do !
The same as if the GM didn`t want that you have success, the you you aren`t allowed to have success.
Not under this circumstances it is impossible to have success.

HERO. The word means something.

Mercenary. That may be what most of YOU think Hero means. I'll take pay to kill the Evil, but not too much Evil at once, and I aint gonna die for ya but I can beat a lot of little evils and gain levels and get tough and maybe THEN I can tackle that Big Evil which is now a Small Evil and so I'm good.

No. You are not, sorry.

The Question is, is HERO part of the character concept, definition or Mercenary or adventurer/freelancer.

On the other hand your definition of Hero is a bit narrow IMHO.
The ethical/moral reasons for the decisions you made, and the actions you take then define the if the PC is going the heroic way.
And if he sees stupidly wasting his life will change/help nothing didn`t make him a coward.

 

[JLXC]

If you are playing Neutral mercenaries only concerned for themselves, well then there are different expectations to be sure! This is becoming the "Main" way to play 3E I've noticed. It's better to live than to risk too much. Very modern thinking.

In MY games, if you are good there is a price for it. Good means sometimes you may take enormous risks for little to no "Profit". Good is an alignment becoming more rare, not because they are all getting killed for being stupid, but because players are scared to be a hero. In my game a HERO is somebody who will attempt the incredible or impossible, and I reward that sort of play! Being a cautious mercenary who works a problem out slowly is a good way to become a "Good Mercenary". Many people sneer at the concept of Good people who sacrifice themselves for others. This is normal because I think Evil is the alignment of the modern person. Sure they think they are good, but they are so selfish that they are Evil by default. I cannot count the number of threads I have read about "Stupid Paladins" who "Go down fighting when it would have been better to run away!". How wonderfully cynical. Can we not have selfless acts that are not deemed "Stupid" by modern thinking?

What about all the firemen who lost their lives on 9/11 trying to help people, even though the risk was near suicidal? If this was a D&D party most of you would say....

"Well your fireman should run outside and look for some more people to help, but being inside is just dumb"

"My character grabs the nearest person and leaves, then gets FAR away in case this building goes down. Hey I helped someone, I'm good!"

"Those Paladins were SOOO dumb rushing into that burning collapsing building to help those peasants. What were they thinking?"

HERO. Once again I say it MEANS something. Even if some of you are too cynical to see it anymore.

 

[JLXC]

The chalenge I agree with you to the fullest, but to avoid a encounter to clever planning, sneaking behind it, instead of challenging/fighting it, is IMPOV an absolut acceptable way to handle it.
Throwing for that encounter of encounter at the Party is one of the things tha falls under my definition of.
the WORST failures and METAGAMING a GM can do !
The same as if the GM didn`t want that you have success, the you you aren`t allowed to have success.
Not under this circumstances it is impossible to have success.

I was not suggesting that DM's throw the SAME encounter at you if you avoid it heh, unless the encounter is someone hunting you. I am suggesting that as you adventure most DM's DO figure out what to do to challenge you. They figure the CR and the ECL and do their best to give you a "good fight" without instantly slaughtering the party. Some encounter are supposed to be hard, maybe even kill a character or two if they are not lucky, and bad rolls can send one of those encounter into a total party kill situation. Does this mean the DM was out for you? Or was the DM trying to challenge you and it just went badly?

If you are never really challenged by an encounter, you never know what bravery and strength of will is. If the game gets too easy, it gets boring. It's not about surviving, it's about FUN! Fun is winning a difficult battle and knowing it could have went the other way. Fun to ME is not winning "Yey Another Battle" and having used up a potion. YMMV

 

[Kichwas]

Well I'm with JLXC on this one, as my arguments above made clear a few days ago.

Most players just don't have what it takes to be heroes. Probably because most modern people don't even understand the concepts of heroism or 'Good'.

We've elevated neutral over to 'good' and put evil where neutral used to be.

I'd say we've done the same thing on the law-chaos axiom. Along with the same inability to understand it.

Which results in mercenary PCs with players who think they're doing lawful good.

Although just as often our innability to understand law and good makes that one alignment end up a parady of misconceptions.

Most player's don't deserve the game you hand them. They squander it completely and it just gets frustrating.

Maybe there are too many DMs here and that's why this thread has turned into it's opposite. But I also think the problem is so prevailing that it's only natural for this thread to turn into what it has, even if it was mostly just players posting in here.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

I think what this thread illustrates isn't that the problem of players not understanding good is so prevailing that the thread naturally turns into player bashing. I think what it illustrates is how prevailing the theory is by GMs that they basically are perfect, and that any time a game goes wrong it is because the palyers are lame and don't really understand or know how to truly play the game.

Heroic is one thing dumb is another. It's one thing to fight a fight you fully expect to die in when you think your death will mean something, it's another to throw your self at a dragon, knowing that the dragon will still wipe out the entire town anyway. One is heroic, one is dumb. I think most players probably understand the differnce between good and neutral and evil perfectly well, the problem may lie in the GMs understanding of what kind of game the players want to play, and in the GMs ability to communicate effectively which situation the party is in, one where they can fight heroically, or where they can just die dumb.

Silly me but if a group is reacting in similar ways to a situation described the the GM, and it is in a way the GM doesn't like. My bet is the single GM is miscomunicating more often than the entire group is misunderstanding. Now if the GM is having problems with one player, sur emaybe that player is being dense, if it's the entire group though, I'd maybe consider not bashing my players and instead look to myself. That's what I do when I gm, cause yeah usually the entire party doesn't get the point of my adventure. I more often figure it is because I suck as a GM than figure that every person I game with sucks at playing. I'm personally trying to figure out whay my players want, and trying to change my game to suit them instead of just complaing about all my players and expecting all of them to change to suit just me.

 

[rounser]

We've elevated neutral over to 'good' and put evil where neutral used to be.

I doubt it's an artifact of the "modern world" - game theory suggests that there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour in humans - in-game and out. I think you're maybe waking up to the idea that "neutral" is how most people live - because it works? (Applying D&D alignment to real people is also, I think, an exercise in futility. The person who might under one set of circumstances murder you might save your life at the expense of their own under another.)

The reason why people tend towards the middle path (even if they write "good" on their character sheet) is that outside of RPGs, there are significant disadvantages to both "good" and "evil" behaviour. As most of us probably know, those who consistently display "good" behaviour may get exploited, backstabbed and outcompeted by those who aren't, and those who consistently display "evil" behaviour may get persecuted, reviled and ostracised for their actions. The middle road allows for guarding yourself against the actions of others whilst respecting their needs - within reason - as well.

I did say "in-game" for a reason. The "heroically good" approach can work in a game of D&D if the DM ensures that it does. I think the frustration occurs when the DM sets things up for the "heroically good" approach to work, and the players "cheat" by taking the "conservatively neutral" approach instead. Why would they do this?

I think it may have to do with a lack of trust in the DM in some cases - especially if the DM has betrayed them by punishing them for taking the "heroically good" approach in the past - by killing their characters when they fight to the death in a combat that the DM has decided "the odds are too great, they should obviously retreat from if they're not stupid," for instance! (And I know this is a common DM conceit because of the number of examples in the "stupid players thread"). Here the DM has made a situation where the heroic approach doesn't work, but doesn't register that players can't mind-read for when he wants them to be heroic and when he wants them to use discretion. I'd suggest that he has no right to complain when the PCs meet his next encounter set up with a heroic solution in mind with a more conservative approach, because in the past they got beat down on purpose, by the DM, for taking the heroic approach consistently. "I want you guys to be heroic except on those occasions when you guess that I don't want you to be!" Players, bring ESP to the gaming table.

Some "grim n gritty" style DMs have even been *ahem* bragging recently that their worlds stomp out player/PC idealism. I hope these aren't the same DMs expecting heroics from their players. Players learn quickly, and if their attempts at heroism are actively punished or consistently for naught, they'll probably get the message and adapt to a more practical style of play.

When I think of a heroically good character, and this discussion in general, I think of Ace Rimmer from Red Dwarf. In several episodes he comes up with a self-sacrificing plan which involves his death in order to save the other characters, and they say, "What a guy." If he wasn't stopped each time, he wouldn't be there for more than one episode. I think that this is the character that JLXC and arcady perhaps want to see more of, which is fine - just make sure that there are a few neutrals there to bale them out! This is workable in D&D - think of Sturm from the Dragonlance Chronicles, and the convincing Tanis had to do to stop him from fighting suicidal odds at the Inn for reasons of pride, his code, justice and honour.

In short, discretion is often the better part of valour, and if the DM expects heroism from PCs, he has an obligation to make sure he doesn't flip-flop between punishing them and rewarding them for it - depending on his mood. If attacking the dragon is "stupid" today ("The stupid PCs should have retreated!") and heroic tomorrow ("I'm going to punish them for not attacking that dragon! They're no heroes!") then the PC's behaviour makes sense as a reaction to the mercuriality of the DM's style.

 

[Limper]

Fuel!

In my game a HERO is somebody who will attempt the incredible or impossible, and I reward that sort of play!

Posted by JLXC

Lord if I had a dollar for every DM I've heard say this..... you may be different but I am skeptical. Can you site anything.... cost vs. benifit.... what do you concider a reward for this sort of play?

Good analysis of the good/evil dynamic there rounser.... very good indeed.

 

[Drakmar]

yup.. DM's can have unreasonable expectations. For example one of my old DM's could not understand "HERO" concept characters...you know.. the one that ACTUALLY IS Lawful Good. Self-Sacrificing etc... So...they tended to die very quickly... So my longest running character was a self-serving cautious power-hungry mage... he did do Great Things.. he just was not a "Hero" now that he is a king he may have history re-written so that he is in the history books...but that is not in gameplay..

Yesterday I ended a campaign that I am DMing... and the players and I all sat down and discussed the problems with the game (this was my first real campaign)... and they were..

In a small group (ie 3 players) don't have a Chronicler.. That detracts from that Player's ability to join in on the roleplaying.

Don't let players create backstories that are way to complex... the simpler archtypes with one or two plot hooks are much better in the long run.

One thing as a DM that I learned was that you should always run a short campaign with a new group to learn their style of play etc.. then do the long campaign.. that said.. the one I just stopped went for 9mths.

Now.. I had written up a idea for a world for them to play with... and yesterday we all sat around and discuss what style of play they wanted.. they chose "HERO".. so... I modified my world. it now has a different feel to what I had originally thought up. In fact because I threw it out to the players to "mess up" I now have a major plot arc, a major motivation for the characters, and the knowledge that this is what they picked to play.

But it is true.. there has to be good DM/Player communication.. Everybody has to realise that you play to have fun... not for the DM to win..... However.. if a player really enjoys getting Stuff.. then the DM has to cater to that without detracting from the other players fun.

um.. thats my ramble.

 

[JLXC]

Re: Fuel!

In my game a HERO is somebody who will attempt the incredible or impossible, and I reward that sort of play!

Posted by JLXC

Lord if I had a dollar for every DM I've heard say this..... you may be different but I am skeptical. Can you site anything.... cost vs. benifit.... what do you concider a reward for this sort of play?

Sure I will. This only applies to my game however so YMMV.

I had a player Ranger/Druid with a Wolf Companion in a Solo game. He was watching some 5 Giants (Hill) and some 40 Orcs getting ready to attack a Caravan. He was 8th level. He REALLY thought about it. He decided to circle around the back of the Giants and then when the attack happened to attack THEM from behind and maybe make them think it was a double cross or a trap for them! I thought the player would just RUN like hell, or maybe rush to warn the caravan, even though I let him know there wasn't time and he was on the wrong side. The attack happened, he attacked the Rear with Summoned Animals followed by Arrows and lots of screaming. The Giants and Orcs were confused by the turn of events and it was enough to allow the caravan to really get organized, and they decided to just not continue the battle. The player waved to the caravan and left.

Years later (In game terms) the legend of the Elf with the Silver Blades and the White Wolf still circulate and I have given the PC a bonus to social checks with most caravans that pass through that area because of the legend. Also, one of the survivors became a Ranger of Meiliki because of the incident and sought out the character for training. He really felt like his effort was noticed in the world, and it made him feel good. Me too.

For a more current example read on....

The player is keeping the woods clean, he's now 17th level after many many adventures. He discovered an Old Green Dragon in his forest and went to ask it to piss off. It attacked him (Single elf, Green Dragons love to eat, you get it) and they went toe to toe. The Dragon and the Player were down to single digit HPs. They both decided to leave and so they did. This pissed and scared the dragon soo much that the Wizard from the Cult of the Dragon who has been pestering him to become a Dracolich made sense. So the dragon became a Dracolich. The player gathered some items, scouted for a few days, then moved into the dragons territory being obvious. The now Dracolich moved in and REALLY almost killed him that time, it was SOOO close and the player did little to the Dragon. The player has given much thought to this. He went to talk to some old allies and called in some favors and now he, and a few dragon/undead hating Goodies are gonna attack the Dracolich again! He knows he may die. He knows it because I told him flat out that he would die if the dice fell badly. He smiled and said:

"I have played this character for years, and I KNOW he would never allow this evil thing to continue to stay within the boundries of his forest. He would rather die trying than to just let this thing think that Good would sit by while Evil grew stronger."

My Hero.



If he succeeds he is giving up 90 percent of the dragons horde, if found, to those who helped him. He will use the 10 percent to donate to his church. He is more worried about Evil than money. He's Neutral Good. He wont even search for the horde but to destroy the dracoliches Phylacetary. (Sp?)

How have I rewarded this hero because of his courage and steadfast determination in the face of Evil?

His animal companion is blessed by Meiliki and is a Half-Clestial/Ranger/Druid. He is a whole character himself heh.

He has had a town in the forest founded for him, and he protects it and those in it, as well as trains the next generation of his church.

He is loved and respected by many powerful folks in his world, who have seen his selfless behavior. This has allowed him to get help and even powerful magical items, when he was in need for naught but to ask. He has helped them as well, it's a two way street.

He is well known in the area of the world he lives in as a Tireless advesary to Evil and a staunch defender of Good.

His god has steered him to discover some really powerful items that were made in her name. (This mainly because he just leaves money and such alone, he doesn't care at all for gems and even magical items, unless he needs to give them to his town or friends)

My respect for him as a player has improved greatly over the years.

There is much more, but I swear, as a DM I reward Heros!

 

[Limper]

JLXC you may be an exception. Your points are well made on the subject of Hero... your style is not common. I actually think you've inspired me to a post..... this one on: lazy DM's killed the Hero.

In order to play hero there has to be some incentive, not from a character point of view, but for the player. I seldom have felt my good deeds make any impact while playing, I never have felt comfortable with showing mercy..... its hard to "Play" at mercy when you know they'll probable kill you whole home town for your effort.

As an aside... nice reply.

So what do you think JLXC? Did the lazy DM kill the Hero?