Was I a RBGM?

[takyris]

Ditto P-Bar in all major areas. Things you did that were not RBDMish:

1) You messed with their plan for the stated reason of messing with their plan, not because you'd decided beforehand to have an important plot twist or something.

2) You just told your players that no matter what they do in the future, if you don't like the way things are going, you're just going to drop in something to mess it all up without making a whole lot of sense. Which means that the players are less likely to show initiative and do anything inventive, because that will just lead to you doing your thing anyway.

3) You told them what you were doing. If you ARE going to do what you did, it's important to create the illusion of it being something that was going to happen from the beginning, and it was unfortunate for them but inevitable.

4) You allowed a player to create a character you couldn't handle from a game-planning standpoint (the monk). If you let someone make a massive diplomat dedicated to peace, you need to come up with reasonable ways to a) let him use his abilities and feel good and b) get around his ability so that combats still happen often enough to be fun for the group. What you did is a bit like letting a sorcerer take Invisibility, getting frustrated as he walks through the camp undetected, and then ruling near the end that the shaman has an amulet that lets him see invisible creatures, although that amulet won't work for the party if they get it after the fight.

Not RBDM. Not evil DM or bad DM or anything like that either, though. I think you can solve the situation with better planning and a bit more flexibility with regards to your adventures.

 

[Templeton580]

If RBGM stands for "Railroad-Building Game Master," then yes.

 

[shilsen]

I thought that was normal DMming .

Apparently not. See first post on this thread

 

[palleomortis]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! The players made it out alive, they accomplished their task, and they got exitment out of it. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!!! It has always been my opinion that the DM is always right. (of course, somtimes I disagree with myself) The campaign you have is not the fualt of the DM. I once was put against a younger dragon at level one, and lived to tell the tale. It not only was fun, but if not for that, I would have died a thousand times already. I learned how to play the situation to my advantage rather well. I say if the players are mad at you, let them be. But just remember, there is never a game without the DM. (Also, In my opinion, there is very rarely a RBGM, just a bad player who thinks the DM is to good for them. Load of crock if you ask me.)

 

[gizmo33]

FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!! The players made it out alive, they accomplished their task, and they got exitment out of it. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED!!!

To play DnD. Aribitrary DM fiat telling me "you survived" isn't a satisfying game IMO. Depends on player vs. DM style though - some players don't mind sitting back and being told a story (or so I've heard - not that I've ever met any). Doesn't sound like the player of the monk got any "excitement" out of the situation. Sounds like he felt that the DM arbitrarily nerfed his diplomacy ability to support his story.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

You decided you wanted things to be different than the way it was turning out, so you could use the plot hooks you had, so you made a decision to sabotage what the players were doing.

It should be all about the players, not all about you.

Did you give the players an opportunity to stop what was happening? Drop a few hints that someone was still out there hunting? Allow a spot check to notice the hunter? Allow a PC to throw himself in front of the arrow, or knock the target out of the way? From the way you described it, you just decided to drive the game the way you wanted it to go. Keep it up and you will find that your party won't be creative or inquisitive, they'll just wait for the DM to tell them what to do, since anything else will be screwed anyway.

Nope, not RBDM at all by my understanding of the term. RBDMs are seen as evil geniuses - not because they abuse DM power, but because they twist your own expectations and use your own ideas and solutions against you. You hate them but respect them for what they are able to pull off, and look forward to trying to outwit them next time.

 

[apesamongus]

But, your monk is being a dink. First of all, complaining about the relative difficulty of encounters is kinda meta-gamey.

Um... The player complained, not the character. Nothing a player does OOC can possibly be meta-gamey, because it's not happening in the game in the first place.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I have to agree, the Monk had a reason to be upset, when the PCs found a solution you torpedoed it in an arbitrary, unlikely, and unfair manner. They found a peaceful solution, you didn't like it, so you caused it to fail. Not due to any inherent flaws, but because you didn't like it.

The game is not unsalvageable, but you may want to think about things before doing something like this again. Players don't like railroad rides.

The Auld Grump - who has left games that had DMs who pulled that kind of nonsense too often.

 

[Whimsical]

Just remember that as a DM every choice you make rewards a certain type of play style and punishes another type. So when you design your campaign and its encounters you need to ask yourself: are you punishing your players for undertaing a playstyle that you actually want to encourage?

So if one of your campaign themes is "Lethal force is the ultimate solution; everything else is a waste of time," then your scenario played out just right. Please inform your player that he is playing in an undesired manner so that he can rectify the situation.

 

[squat45]

Ok guys...

Before too many of you all jump on my case, I've been letting this sit a while...

Yes, the monk had a TON of opportunities to use his diplomacy skills, and used them very well. He managed to avoid numerous conflicts and bloodshed, all in the while promoting his beliefs.

Yes, they knew that there was one guy out there and the player of the character knew that they had to find the last, unaccounted guy. I had already introduced him as a goblin hunter, criminal, evil (and hinted at that he was an assassin), and that he was not captured or killed.

No, I did not allow a spot check as he was a decent distance away, behind the party and in heavy cover. If the party had mentioned that someone was looking around, watching, etc, I would have.

No, I did not completely make this up, it was always an option... didn't think, however, that the rolls would go this good for the party.

This was the 1st adventure in the campaign... he plans on keeping playing the same character... oh, I didn't mention that the player was the best man in my wedding and we've been friends for 11 years or so, so he is very open with what his feelings and thoughts are. He was a little frustrated, moreso because he now feels like his reputation/honor is going to take a huge hit.

No, I do not not like this character, in fact, he is easily one of my favorite all time characters to start off, and he will have plenty of opportunities to use his skills and abilities later on.

Looking back and talking to my wife (who was one of the players), she was expecting that to happen... and in fact, she was surprised that it took so long for this guy to reappear. Didn't talk to her until after I posted this...