The stupid expectations of some DMs...

[LostSoul]

We compromised and much fun is had.

I think that is what makes good players and DMs.

 

[Falcon]

Maybe it's because we are all good friends, and we all KNOW we can just get together to "hang out" and not even play at all if we want? I'm sorry it's so bad out there for games right now.

That is the sad point, it seems.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I would disagree with this tactic entirely. The players are not the characters. A player with average intelligence could be playing a super-intelligent PC, and you're going to penalize him for it. That's just bad form.

Or, make sure that the truth is messed up before they get it... A DM I played under used to delight in making sure that crucial verbal clues/instructions were relayed to us via the player who was least likely to remember it accurately. If given 3 pieces of information, he would competely forget one and hopelessly mangle another.

 

[S'mon]

As a GM, I'm not going to intervene to keep heroic PCs alive when their actions would normally get them killed. If heroically defending the town against the big dragon gets them all killed, so be it. Life is like that. The heroes of 9/11 are still dead.

OTOH, those guys who died giving their lives to try to save others are going to be remembered by any survivors - they will pass into legend. Bards will sing folk songs about the 1st level characters who died as heroes, long after the 20th level PCs who through caution kept themselves alive to grow far more powerful have passed into dust.

The universe doesn't care about heroes, but other people do.

In my game, If you save a town from the bad guys for as much gold as you can extract, you're a mercenary. Don't expect gratitude. If you do it for freely proferred reward (pretty much the D&D default), the townsfolk may be grateful, and respect the PCs' obvious abilities, but you're not true 'heroes'. If you do it and REFUSE any reward, you'll be a true ocal folk hero, the type who have songs sung about them.

 

[ninthcouncil]

I would disagree with this tactic entirely. The players are not the characters. A player with average intelligence could be playing a super-intelligent PC, and you're going to penalize him for it. That's just bad form.

It sure could be annoying sometimes... However, he knew when to stop.

In certain types of campaign (lots of intrigue and/or Lovecraftian ickiness, for example), the players should feel uncertain of the accuracy of the information they get (even when it's true). But I'd agree that just screwing the players around for the hell of it isn't a good idea.

 

[Dinkeldog]

It's more than that, ninthcouncil. If the DM expects the players to separate out player knowledge from character knowledge, then he (or she) needs to be willing to boost player knowledge from what character knowledge would be.

 

[ninthcouncil]

If the DM expects the players to separate out player knowledge from character knowledge, then he (or she) needs to be willing to boost player knowledge from what character knowledge would be.

I can't disagree with that. The point I was trying to make in my reply was that sometimes, the characters can't be sure that what they think they know is in fact true.

My original story about our rat bastard referee doesn't actually link up with this very well, except that it was a device to get us "on the defensive" immediately, which was a sensible position to be in when playing that campaign

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

I can't disagree with that. The point I was trying to make in my reply was that sometimes, the characters can't be sure that what they think they know is in fact true.

That's a classic issue of DM'ing: getting the players to identify when something is said by the DM as the DM, and when he is saying it as an NPC, and not to necessarily believe everything the NPC says, jsut because it's coming out of the DM's mouth...!

 

[sword-dancer]

.

If you are playing Neutral mercenaries only concerned for themselves, well then there are different expectations to be sure!

Not sure if i understand you right.
There is nothing inferior IMPPOV to play an merc, than an hero, if this fits your style, mood or is more fun.

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.

Even for good the risk must be worth the price, and i didn`t mean gold , magic items, but in what to achieve, what betterness comes from the action taken.

Being a cautious mercenary who works a problem out slowly is a good way to become a "Good Mercenary".

Now here is the point i think we got wrong
Being a cautious hero who works a problem out slowly is the way of cautious man who act carefully, but the reasons and motivation is what counts in the end for the risks and sacrifices he do.

Many people sneer at the concept of Good people who sacrifice themselves for others

I do not sneer.

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!". Can we not have selfless acts that are not deemed

Yes I can, Storm at The high Clerists tower, The last battle of Manetheren.
But there is the difference of being heroic sarifice, beliving you could make a difference, and senseless waste, believing yxou could do nothing what counts.

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....

Since i didn`t want to profanize their memories(and I´m sure you didn`t want it), I say this, if all other things of 9/11 is gone to dust their memory should be always remembered as the true heritage of 9/11.

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

I agree full with you.

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.

And depending on character, to sneak, stealth, trick... to avoid the fight and handle this ebcounter in a non fighting way, didn`t make it less challenging than fighting it down.
OTOH it gives time and place, where you must show your true colour.

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?

No as long as in the encounter was a reasonable chance of surviving,(reasonable ingame reasons, not necesarry outgame reasons), if it goes wrong because we played stupid or made wrong decisions, or had bad luck so be it.
A PC-s are immune to death is boring, or PCs could ony die if they are STUPID is also boring.

"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."

But the character believe he has areasonable chance to be cictorious, especially since he has the advantage that dying and saving means winning.
If not instead of wasting his life, try to soften the impact of the monster, helping the inhabitants of the forests would in the long run more heroic.
Maybe not so glorous but not less heroic.

JLXC - you are so off in my mind.
You are a DM that SO rewards (and expects) Lawful Stupid behavior, that your player doesn't even collect money or treasures from his good deeds!

You subsidize his stupid gaming decisions by actual diety-intervention!
All to make this "heroic" ideal be effective in your game world.

That's just bad play, in my judgemental view.

If it fits the style of campaign and world, why not.
OTOH more or less direct mangling of gods is not my style.

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.

Not necesarry it depends on the situation, if in fighting the dragon tomorrow there is nothing to gain, say time for the villagers to flee, it is stupid.
If rescue time is bought it is heroic, if the PCs dies or not, and no iwouldn`t begrudge a GM for this, if i play a heroic PC, if not the PC would run.

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.

This is a god example, especially in the long run Tanis is no less heroic than Storm or Steel.

 

[rounser]

Not necesarry it depends on the situation, if in fighting the dragon tomorrow there is nothing to gain, say time for the villagers to flee, it is stupid.
If rescue time is bought it is heroic, if the PCs dies or not, and no iwouldn`t begrudge a GM for this, if i play a heroic PC, if not the PC would run.

I think you're missing my point.

To reiterate, if the DM doesn't settle on a campaign style and keeps flip-flopping between encounters in which he expects PCs to act heroically or conservatively in order to "solve" them, and (in the play style which JLXC suggests) he doesn't bother to drop any in-game hints regarding what is the expected solution this time around (assuming one exists), he shouldn't be surprised if the players react to the situation in a way he doesn't like, or didn't intend, and has no right to complain for sending mixed messages.

Now, why would I raise this? Because there is a whole other thread devoted to players not retreating when the DM thinks they should (and thus the players are "stupid") or, as on this thread, not acting heroically when the DM thinks they should (and thus the players have "no moral values" or are cowardly, or the modern world is flawed because people think in shades of grey, and good is really neutral and neutral is evil etc. etc.). I think DMs should look at their own performance, and work out if their expectations and DMing style are responsible for the "stupid" involved, rather than the players.