The tale of a Rat Bastard DM

[Crimson Cat]

don't know who was wrong, the player or the DM (that's me), but here is what happened.

In one adventure of our campaign (which uses the FR setting), the players wanted to go to an enclave of the Red Wizards to recover some magic items that were stolen to them and investigate what the evil Red Wizards were planning. I designed the adventure so 4 possible solutions were available to recover the magic items. But in the end, the leader of the party decided to steal the magic items instead (tha player claims that the decision didn't come from himself alone).

Bzzz! Wrong choice! The party was still low level (5-6) and I keep saying trough the adventure that the Red Wizards have a high magical security system (ya' know, alarms, glyph of wardings, etc.). But the leader and the other players (being morons for following the leader) still wanted to steal. So I taugh them a lesson; three of them were captured and the leader was petrified. On the next adventure, the remaining party members liberated the captured ones, but the petrified one was shattered to many pieces.

Okay. The lead player got VERY UPSET with me. He said that he wont play anymore because he has played for the beggining of the campaign and never missed a session, gave me a lot of support, etc., so he doesn't deserved to get killed in the campaign. He also said that he wouldn't take anymore of my rigid and strict DMing. I told him that his player got killed by his own error and because of an excess of trust (after all, his PC survived for many difficulties, so the player though that he could steal without bad consequences).

Today, the player doesn't plays with me anymore. So I wonder who was wrong, he or the DM. That worries me a little, because I wouldn't like to accept that I'm a rat bastard and don't want the same thing to happen again.

Thanks for reading this thread full of nosense. I hope to read some comments and suggestions. If there are any Rat Bastard DMs support group, then let me know

 

[James McMurray]

Definitely the player's fault. I don't really have any suggestions on getting him back though. If you cave in to his demands for immortality, he'll only be more insufferable.

 

[Voadam]

I would say you were right, if you had the defenses done out, they made sense, and you let the group know your style of DMing up front, (PCs can do what they want but there are hazards that can kill them.) Also, if the character kill just happened that would be fine, but I would avoid killing characters to make the point that you consider an action a poor choice.

If your style went from DM bending over backward to make things easy on characters then changed your style for what you considered a bad decision and killed his character as an example to him and the other players then I would say that is a poor use of DM power.

In college my roomate died four times in my ravenloft campaign, but everyone in the game knew it was an intense game with lots of danger and horror and that characters could choose to get in over their heads and die. There was no ill will between us.

Red wizards killing a thief seems in character for them, but to truly judge it depends on the game you run and the style you play.

 

[Teflon Billy]

...Okay. The lead player got VERY UPSET with me. He said that he wont play anymore because he has played for the beggining of the campaign and never missed a session, gave me a lot of support, etc., so he doesn't deserved to get killed in the campaign. He also said that he wouldn't take anymore of my rigid and strict DMing. I told him that his player got killed by his own error and because of an excess of trust (after all, his PC survived for many difficulties, so the player though that he could steal without bad consequences)...

Well, I think it's debatable whether this guy had the wrong idea about your campaign. If you had let him "win through" difficulties in the past that he shouldn't have, I can well see why he would have thought that he would this time.

I'm unsure about the term "an excess of trust", I'm not sure such a thing can exist between players and a DM.

If this guy was just a player in a game, I say let him go.

If he was an actual friend I'd say rethink your position.

In any event, clear up what level of mortality is to be expected by your players.

Consistency is the key.

 

[Sodalis]

well, you said ahead of time that the red wiz wer powerful and that should have been a clue that they should not have crossed them.

But you only gave them four answwers to a riddle- instead of leaving it open to them. no matter how muh a DM thinks and plans, and have contingencies, the players will never act according to what the Dm thinks. What may seem obvious toyou, asking for the item because you need it to save a friend for example, is not the first thing a party thinks of. instead, they feel like they need to either take it or con their way through the enconter and so for not accounting for this was a bad on your fault.

Which leads to something I had to deal with- A Dm pit us against a lvl 20 wiz or sorc (i dont know) undead chick. When I asked, "what did she look like?" so i can plan for how to defeat her, he said she looked very old, never mentioning that she was undead, or even hinting at it. At lvl 17, we got kiked pretty adly by her (she sent us intoa maze one by one and hit us as we came out of it)

atthe end of the day, he said, "all youhad to do was walk up to her and mass heal- and she would have been dead..."

but that was not what i had in mind cause i didnt know she was undead- instead I cast antimagic field and ran away under the cover of antimagic...

next time, dont have set answers- leave it open, but have a general idea of what to do- taht way, the players wont be upset that you are out to get them. and nomatetr how obvious the solution, a PC ghroup will never use it- because sometimes, the most obvious, is the most difficult to come up with...

 

[Default Name Player]

To be honest, I think the fault lies with both the DM and the player: First, the player over-reacted for storming off, which is a bit childish without first discussing the issue like adults.

Second, it seems like the DM had a vendetta, based on the line "So I taugh them a lesson". Now, at this point we're at a stylistic difference. Some DMs like to run their campaigns rigidly, with a certain set ways of doing things, while others are more freeform (I'm more of a latter that adapts the campaign and adventure as it goes on, so basically the players help weave the story). I'm not too crazy about the "having 4 ways to recover the item", because it's tantamount to having the players read the DMs mind unless you drop clues or nudge the PCs a bit.

Now, you did say that you that you warned the players that the Red Wizard has a high level of majical security. Unfortunately, if I was a player, maybe this means that the DM is warning us that we need to be careful when sneaking in? That our Rogue needs to be extra careful? Did you somehow weave the warning into the story, like having someone the PCs trust/respect say this, or maybe show the PCs in some way without having to "teach them a lesson"?

In the end, I don't believe the players should have been "taught a lesson" unless the players repeatedly ignored obvious signs. PCs should have the ability to die, but not if it's done unfairly.

 

[Crimson Cat]

Well Voadam, what you say is true, so let me explain a few things.

Some of my current players and I (including the player whose PC was killed) played in another DM's campaign before I started DMing. On that campaign, everything was so easy; we got magic items and other treasures without effort and the risk and chance of dying was almost none.

So I decide to put things a little harder in my campaign. From the beginning, every player knew that this is an intense campaign with LOTs of dangers, but also I compesate with good rewards (so far, the party has acquired a portion of land and a sailing ship).

But since 3 of my players used to play in the other campaign, then they are comparing both DMs, and thus they see me as a bastard DM for putting things difficult.

 

[Quickbeam]

I'll echo my friend Teflon Billy here, CONSISTENCY IS VITAL.

If you habitually allow the players to get in over their heads only to be saved by some unlikely miracle, then you've set a pattern of expectations for them. To kill a character under such pretenses is bad form. However, if you allow PC decisions to result is negative repercussions throughout the game, then your friend was responsible for his character's death.

I tend to let the chips fall where they may when I DM for our group, but others handle their job as DM differently. I don't wantonly slaughter characters, but when they make an obviously silly decision (use your imagination) I don't intervene to prevent PC death. If I have been unclear as to the risks involved in a particular situation, or accidentally mislead the group, I give them a means of survival.

In any event, don't allow a disagreement over a game to ruin a friendship. For that, you'd both be wrong!!

 

[Voadam]

Then I'd say you were fine, the player just does not match the style of game you run.

Being considered a tough DM is not necessarily a bad thing. I had a player say that my games were horribly stressful and emotionally draining and that he constantly felt his characters life and soul were in danger. He also felt it was some of the best games he'd ever played in. Some people enjoy this style of gaming, some don't.

 

[Crimson Cat]

Ok. Everyone seems to be right. I don't need to go around teaching players a lesson.

About the "4 things that I had in mind", I always plan several outcomes and options for an adventure, but I don't lead the players "by the nose" so that these options are made or completed. Actually, some of my players though that I didn't liked when a character did something that deviated the whole adventure. In fact, I encourage them to do so, and from the begginning of our campaign and trough many sessions (more than 30 so far), I have imrpovised a lot because of players action not expected by me.

But with that aside, I'm beggining to realize that I'm a bad, rat bastard DM.