The title of this thread is a direct quote from my friend on AIM recently.
The friend in question is (obviously) a member of my D&D group of which I am currently the DM. We're about to start a new campaign tonight, and he is going to be late, so he wanted to get character generation info ahead of time so he could have a character already ready when he did show up.
We got into a minor argument about the use of templates and about munchkining, when he said that I shouldn't be worried about him trying to munchkin because the other players would be even harder to keep control of. He told me that I need to be more detailed in what I allow and disallow in campaigns. I generally come up with a few things I've allowed/disallowed, and then decide on whether or not to allow something after a PC brings it up and I take a look at it.
He told me that I need to just say what isn't allowed ahead of time and said the quote that titles this thread.
And this deeply disturbed me. I know that the whole DM vs. Players thing is a recurring theme from back in the day. I've seen the concept many times in Knights of the Dinner Table. But I never thought, until he said this, that my players considered the game to be a DM vs. Players game.
The more I look at it, the more this seems to be the case. I don't try to destroy the players, so it's not a mutual rivalry. However, I do feel like the PCs tend to try to break my games or bring the world crumbling down instead of just playing to be heroes/villains.
My players mostly tend to use as much munchkin-y goodness as they can slip by me, and they like to use stuff that will purposefully screw me over. The DM that we had before I took place as the "most-of-the-time" DM left a few months back, but he defintely instated a DM vs. Players mentality into the group.
He would try to screw over the PCs in all of the campaigns that he ran, and when he was a player, he would munchkin even worse than the others combined. So now I've come to the realization that I've been given a group that feels like they can only have fun in D&D by being as crazily powerful as possible and smashing through my campaigns like a video game character on cheat codes.
Has anyone else here had to deal with this type of player mentality at any point in their gaming careers? And does anyone have advice on how to get this mentality to vanish?
|
For me it's about advancing a story, from both sides of the table. Both dm and player are servant to the story.
That being said,...a monkeywrencher can be fun and challenging, and always remember--what comes around goes around and you can grease his game a few months down the road.
Also, I have to agree with you--as dungeonmaster you don't have to have an immediate all-encompassing list of what splat book crap flies and what is grounded. If he says so, just say, "fine. I think the PHB has all the classes and feats and spells anyone could possibly want. I'll reserve the rest of the splatbooks for special npc's."
That'll pipe his ass down.
Simple...before you begin your new campaign tonight, submit to the group the concerns that you voiced here. Inquire if that is the kind of game that they would all like to play, and that will determine the kind of game that you should try to run. If not, come to a concensus and play a different kind of game (perhaps the kind of game that involves roleplaying, teamwork, story building, etc.)
As ever,
ACE
|
|
Simple...before you begin your new campaign tonight, submit to the group the concerns that you voiced here. Inquire if that is the kind of game that they would all like to play, and that will determine the kind of game that you should try to run. If not, come to a concensus and play a different kind of game (perhaps the kind of game that involves roleplaying, teamwork, story building, etc.)
As ever,
ACE
That's (ACE's advice above) exactly what I did sometime back in college and all six of my players said, "I thought the whole idea was to outwit you." Hearing that sentence simultaneously declared by six people in a golemlike monotone, sincerely disturbed me and I ran screaming from the Frat house, my SAN forever diminished...
Wait...
Sorry. Anyway, all six informed me that they had always looked at the game as Player v DM. This was the mid nineties, still playing 1E, no powergaming, but nowhere near the roleplaying in our D&D session that we were getting out of our CoC session. So I remember asking what was different between D&D and CoC, "in Cthulhu, the game itself is out to get you, the Keeper just facilitates." The short of it is I asked the players what kind of game they wanted and what they agreed to (PC v DM) was not what I wanted. I became a player for about six months while we rotated through DMs; no-one really wanted the job, and the group fell apart. I found another group of guys the next summer and they were real roleplayers: the nerds who do voices and draw pictures of their weapons and gear and write 30-page histories of their character's childhood, and so on.
I guess, in the end, you will have to decide what kind of game you're willing to DM.
I'm one of those players/DMs from the olden days, and no one that I know has really ever played that way (i.e. to "beat the DM"). Unfortunately, there are people out there who do make gaming confrontational, and some DMs try to make the game all about themselves or turn it into an effort to kill off as many players as possible. But in my experience this is pretty rare unless the gaming group is rather immature. Those DMs just don't last very long, as players usually get fed up and stop playing.
Since your friend believes this, at least generally, I'd make a point of talking about it in some depth at your next session. Go over all the things you think are important about the game (the experience, the fun, etc) and point out the things you don't want the game to involve. At the very least, you could try turning it into "beating the dice" instead of "beating the DM".
First of all, I like your new avatar, MaxSlasher 2 to the 6.
Secondly, to answer your general question at the end of your rant, yes.
I've had a lot of different groups over the years. Some are team oriented, some are just competitive, some would rather kill the other characters than anything I throw at them, and some just get off on being a pain in my tookis until I have to kick them out of my house. Different people have different takes on what the goal of the game is. You really have to talk to your players straight up and tell them that you aren't interested in playing an adversarial game in which the players think that you are the bad guy they need to beat. Let them know clearly that you aren't out to screw them, kill their PCs, or act in any way maliciously toward them or their characters in any way outside of the normal context of the game (if that's true, of course). Furthermore, that trying to go all munchkin on you isn't your idea of fun. And this is important, so remember it and quote it to them: "If the DM isn't having fun, then no one is." That's a simple truth. So, let them know clearly what your idea of having fun is within the context of your game. If it's focusing more on role-play, swell. If it's gritty combat in a low magic setting with lower powered characters, but with a more than fair shot at overcoming the challenges you present them with, good on you. Whatever your angle, let them know.
Here's some tangential advice that I've found works really well in newly started campaigns to get everything kicked off in a nicely balanced way: only allow the Core Rule books (PHB, DMG, MM) at the beginning of the campaign and after about 3-5 levels of play, start to allow the other source books that your players would like to use (at your discretion). This provides a really well balanced foundation for campaigns and gives the players something to look forward to and a reward to reach. It's a simple and effective way to keep your game from getting out of hand right from the get go. It may still end up muchkined out and broke in later levels depending on what you allow your players to use, but the chances are a bit less.
Hope this helps. And good luck!
Thanks for all of the advice guys. I'm already looking at the session tonight with more optimism now than I was just mere hours ago.
You all are great. :)
PS, Glad you like the avatar, Steve. ;)
I have the great fortune to have a gaming group that I have played with for many years. The DM position rotates between 4 (out of 8) of us and we run 2 campaigns at a time on alternating weeks so we always have 2 DMs.
When I started running my most recent campaign, I sat down with the players ahead of time and discussed what type of game we wanted to play. I informed them that my game would be dangerous and alerted them to some of the primary types of enemies they would encounter. I also told them that I wanted each of them to create the type of hero they have always wanted to play. I only allow one prestige class per character (you can get a 2nd if you finish the first) so with everyone starting at 3rd level they were to make someone with that character concept in mind and I would tweak my game to make sure they could be successful in acheiving their character development goals. This doesn't mean that their character couldn't die on the way to their goals but it did give them a purpose for their character build since they knew I was going to facilitate advancement on a personal level for each player. Through our game (I refer to it as "our" game, not "my" game with the players) I have made sure they have the right contacts and resources available to meet prerequisites for their different prestige class desires. I have also made sure that many of the enemy types I promised have been around for encounters. Ranger types of course appreciate this.
What this accomplished was it created an aura of trust from the players and an expectation that they would behave as heroes. So far they have lived up to the expectation. No one brutalizing random NPCs. They try to act as if they are helping the world they live in rather than terrorizing or dominating it.
The key to that was creating a "hero". They had to be good, or at worst, lawful. I told them up front that they would be war heroes from a decorated battalion. The people of the land recognized them and treated them with admiration. They were not famous as individuals (yet) but a group that they had been a part of had done great things.
My group is an odd grab bag. I have two players that are much more interested in talking adventures than in dungeon crawls heavy with combat and I have another player that honestly complained that he didn't have two 17s or 18s for his paladin when he didn't have a single score below a ten.
Of course, this is the guy that takes the most adversarial attitude toward playing the game. He's been pretty mellow lately, but there were times when we got into some extensive arguements. To minimize that, I tend to push story more than anything else. Letting the action come through dialogue, skill checks and combat, rather than just through one source. My challenge to myself is to try to make a simple climb or open lock check into something more interesting than just a success/fail roll. Describing setbacks, asking for multiple checks as they come up. That way, successes outside of combat feel more triumphant than just a successful d20 roll.
How the hell do you beat the dm anyway?
Apparently by frustrating him with your IC/OC behavior so much he just walks out in the middle of a session.
That or by taking a 2-4 to the table.
Contributor
|
I agree that you should make it clear that it is not an adversarial situation. I also agree that the players may bring this attitude to the table regardless of you having not brought it to the table. But the best way to tell your players that it's mot adversarial is to show them that it's not adversarial.
I'm not saying to go easy on your players, because I don't go easy on mine. In fact I recommend that you hit them with tough challenges to make their victories that much sweeter.
But when they beat you kickass villain that was supposed to get away, say "That was awesome! I guess he won't be back in the next module after all!" When they bypass your mind-boggling labyrinth by casting Find the path say "Wow, you just bypassed what I thought was going to be the toughest part of the adventure. Good thinking!" And when you kill a PC say "That guy was really tough. The fact that you kept him busy so long really helped the rest of the party." And when you kill a whole party, say "Wow, that was brutal. Sometimes the dice just aren't in your favour."
Empathize with the players, and show it. Praise the players when they beat the challenges. And don't apologise when they don't. Because you're the guy presenting the challenge. You aren't the challenge.
Okay, DM v. Player has only happened with two people in gaming groups I have had. I've played a lot of games, and the ones that were most rewarding were the ones where the DM required character backstory (no Orphan crap), and said "this is what I expect at the table, and this is what I try to provide to HELP you and I to make a fun story for all."
As to approaching the group:
Tell them you're not a DM v. Player type. Tell them your game style, and run with it. I agree DMG/PHB/MM1 for the initial part of the campaign, then add source books as necessary. Tell them which source books you are most comfortable, and when it will be appropriate for THEM to ASK you for "feat" training, a "newly discovered spell" or what have you.
I'm very fond of extra material, but as a DM I openly say: ANYTHING not CORE 3 must be asked, unless explicitly described in the opening campaign document (also, I provide a list of source books that I use). If you want to use a reserve feat from Complete Mage, great, if you want to be an Elven Wizard (first level of substitution) with the Collegiate Wizard feat from Complete arcane, I'll laugh at you (I allow neither in my games, although the LATER levels from the elven substitution are okay).
good luck, Good gaming
/d
Okay, DM v. Player has only happened with two people in gaming groups I have had. I've played a lot of games, and the ones that were most rewarding were the ones where the DM required character backstory (no Orphan crap), and said "this is what I expect at the table, and this is what I try to provide to HELP you and I to make a fun story for all."
If we were keeping score Grim would have really gotten some extra points on that whole Shade Ambassador night . . .
If we were keeping score Grim would have really gotten some extra points on that whole Shade Ambassador night . . .Okay, DM v. Player has only happened with two people in gaming groups I have had. I've played a lot of games, and the ones that were most rewarding were the ones where the DM required character backstory (no Orphan crap), and said "this is what I expect at the table, and this is what I try to provide to HELP you and I to make a fun story for all."
ONE incident, mind you, ONE incident. But it was one heck of a fun thing to do.
"Okay, I stab him" rolled dice. -me"You succeed" -KEJR
"Okay, I roll damage" -Me
"No, these are different" -KEJR
"The Shade implodes and then explodes" -KEJR
"WHAT did you just do?!" Meriden
"Fixed the problem" Grim
I'm sorry, but the last time we played that campaign, the new basta--err Ambassador seemed much more capable, and smarter too!
/d
I recently left a D&D group because the DM seemed to be playing a DM v. Players game... he always announced the actions of the monsters in the first person.
With regard to the first post, while it has nothing to do with DM v. Player game dynamics... DMs, please, please, please, please document and standardize your house rules and what is and isn't allowed in your campaign. The only thing more frustrating than having to ask the DM to OK every feat, spell, and item in your character is being halfway into a game and somebody says "Oh, yeah, we don't use the PHB rules for that." Like the game where you had 2 free actions per round... and spot and listen checks were free actions. (In fact, that's the game I just recently left...)
Thanks so much for everything guys. I talked to my group about this, and I discovered that despite any evidence to the contrary, everyone in my group besides the person who said the "infamous quote" did not feel that they had to beat the DM. They all agreed that the old DM did often instate a Players vs. DM feel, but luckily, it only rubbed off on the one player.
And I talked with him about this, and let me just say that I feel like this whole mindset will be dropped from my group as permanently as possible now. :)
Thanks to all of you. You're the greatest people on the internet.
beat the dm; the concept is silly, I juz can't wrap my horns around that. Munchkining doesnt bother me; I can always make my mobs a challenge; I run more of a hard nosed mystery type game with building clues and ever expanding groups of bad guys; the challenge should be to figure out a solution to the scenario; beat the scenario; not the gm. I dont take my scenarios personally, they are written for the enjoyment of everyone in the game, trying to beat the gm sounds personal and downright wrongminded.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think it's strange that some folks here don't <i>understand</i> "Deat the DM" attitudes. Here's my understanding of it:
"Both sides, players and DM's have to play fair. Neither side is allowed to cheat on dice-rolls, and the DM can't just spring new monsters, or monster abilities, or moster-wielded magic items, from the brow of Zeus; they have to be written down and statted ahead of time.
"Every game session, the DM sets obstacles for our characters, that he's expecting will give us a lot of trouble, or possibly kill us. And it's our job to get through those obstacles with minimal loss of character life.
"When we find and disable the trap on the chest, and then think to look for, find, and disable the trap on the hallway outside the room, we're beating the DM.
"When we drop our bags and torches and flee the feral-troll-with-way-too-many-barbarian-levels, and it pursues, and then the rogue climbs out of the <i>bag of holding</i> and grabs the magic cookie, circumventing the deadly combat encounter, we're beating the DM.
"When the <i>dominated</i> seneschal calls the guards to cut us down, and we remember that, three adventures ago, the princess was ever-so-appreciative of our rescue attempts, and we surprise the DM by asking her to intervene in our behalf, and he reluctantly agrees that the guard captaain would follow her orders, we're beating the DM."
And maybe that's the key phrase. When the players outfox the DM, send theyr characters off in logical but unanticipated directions, or use resources in novel ways to reduce the threats the DM has places before them, they're beating the DM's expectations.
Myself, my metaphor as a DM has been "You folks are an elete sports team, the adventure is the opposing team, and I'm somewhere between a cheering squad and a referee.
I think it's strange that some folks here don't <i>understand</i> "Beat the DM" attitudes.
Just wanted to say that I really love blanket statements like this (with typos) when a poster then expounds and completely misses the point altogether that the OP was making.
I don't think Max Slasher26 had a problem with the type of game you are describing. What he described was a subtle difference in which the players' expectations are that the DM is out to screw them over, make arbitrary rulings, and basically try to "beat" his players above and beyond the context of a normal game situation. They've been conditioned to think this way due to the habits of a bad DM. However, considering that his situation has been remedied (or at least improved), at this point it's really all just sounding off for the sake of having a say and being heard with regards to the topic.
Interesting thread. I DM noobs so I don't have this problem, although I have had it in Gurps and Hero system.
I have a question. Because I dropped out of D&D for nearly 2 decades and am recently back--outside of Oz, I don't know what a munchkin is, or rather I can only go on context in here. Is that D&D for a crazed H&S power gamer?
Interesting thread. I DM noobs so I don't have this problem, although I have had it in Gurps and Hero system.
I have a question. Because I dropped out of D&D for nearly 2 decades and am recently back--outside of Oz, I don't know what a munchkin is, or rather I can only go on context in here. Is that D&D for a crazed H&S power gamer?
Munchkins are those who study the game books they have and know of every possible combo to make their character insanely powerful. And they use the combos often.
So yeah, crazed power gamers fits that definition.
(Though I think I've once heard that power gamers are Munchkins who play by the rules and that true Munchkins cheat to optimize. I may be wrong though.)
I think it's strange that some folks here don't <i>understand</i> "Beat the DM" attitudes.Just wanted to say that I really love blanket statements like this (with typos) when a poster then expounds and completely misses the point altogether that the OP was making.
I don't think Max Slasher26 had a problem with the type of game you are describing. What he described was a subtle difference in which the players' expectations are that the DM is out to screw them over, make arbitrary rulings, and basically try to "beat" his players above and beyond the context of a normal game situation. They've been conditioned to think this way due to the habits of a bad DM. However, considering that his situation has been remedied (or at least improved), at this point it's really all just sounding off for the sake of having a say and being heard with regards to the topic.
Yes, this is the type of DM vs. Players situation I was nervous that I was facing.
|
I've been running games for close to 20 years now, in all 3 and 1/2 editions. Most of the players I've played with would be described as munchkins by the standards I've seen applied on these (and other) boards. However, most of those players that lasted for more than a session or two, were also more interested in my storylines than in their gear, and could always be counted on to interact with my worlds in various unique ways.
I've had players downgrade their enchanted gear to be able to afford to start a brewery. (why do i need a +3 sword anyway? +1 is still magical...) I've had other players grasp onto the smallest of my campaign's flavor details and base their end of the campaign around it. All in all, some excellent examples of interactive story telling have occured at my table over the years.
AND THEY WERE ALL MUNCHKINS.
The secret is to understand that story and mechanics are two different things. If my party built characters with no stats above a 13 and I disallowed most of the splat books, does that make them better roleplayers? Emphatically no. Story and mechanics are seperate things. A DM needs to understand how his players approach the mechancis of the game and balance his campaign design accordingly. Your story should be completely immune to any powergaming as long as you understand your group.
And as a final note, whatever munchkinny tactics your party devises could easily be used against them. Remember that many of the villians or NPCs in your campagains will have high intelligence (or advisor that do). use their own tactics against them and a dose of caution will calm things for awhile.
my 2cents.
the 'Ling
yer under fell off <picks it up with a stick and hands it over> here ya go :)
hope yall dont wanna turn this into yet another munchkin discussion thread as I believe it has no relavence; you can have good or bad games with munchkin players; the issue seems to be that of competition between the players and the gm if i get it right; and I just dont under stand that at all. The gm should be more or less invisible to the game from the character perspective and players should play in character; out of character to ask rule questions and the like.
|
|
yer under fell off <picks it up with a stick and hands it over> here ya go :)
hope yall dont wanna turn this into yet another munchkin discussion thread as I believe it has no relavence; you can have good or bad games with munchkin players; the issue seems to be that of competition between the players and the gm if i get it right; and I just dont under stand that at all. The gm should be more or less invisible to the game from the character perspective and players should play in character; out of character to ask rule questions and the like.
No, I'm not trying to turn this into a munchkin thread. However, I simply have noticed that many people seem to think that roleplaying and rollplaying are mutually exclusive.
What i was trying to point out is simply that you can choose to have a non-adversarial perspective or an adversarial one and still enjoy your game.
Example: in a 2nd edition campaign I ran for a small group who wished to play rebel male drow (fully evil characters), I continually maintained multiple story lines and allowed the players to pursue the ones that interested them. Sometimes, since these players were consumate munchkins, they came up with powergaming character/item/spell combos that completely anhilated my adventure's designed structure. Since I anticipated this course of events (because I knew my players), Plan B would be in place and ready to go.
the players viewed this as beating me, and I tended to agree. Later in the campaign, I began to have the party's (surviving) adversaries use some of their own tactics. The party often scried on their enemies and then attempted to "cut the head off the chicken" using a teleportation based assault. So rather than send minions to harrass the party, a session may have begun with a full scale teleported assault from the Elven court of Celene. With the party unprepared, essentially (in their eyes) I won as DM.
The point I wanted to make, is that this competitive feeling some players hold towards the DM is not of itself unhealthy. A DM just needs to change their frame of reference and handle things according to their players prefered play style. My players truly enjoyed when they flet they had beaten me. But if you asked any of them what adventures they liked the most, the top 5 would include several where they felt I had beaten them.
I don't wish to say that those who dislike this viewpoint are wrong, I just wanted to suggest that a confrontational campaign could be not only viable, but fun.
The other answers here have all been pretty good. To address some particular comments:
I'm one of those players/DMs from the olden days, and no one that I know has really ever played that way (i.e. to "beat the DM"). Unfortunately, there are people out there who do make gaming confrontational, and some DMs try to make the game all about themselves or turn it into an effort to kill off as many players as possible. But in my experience this is pretty rare unless the gaming group is rather immature. Those DMs just don't last very long, as players usually get fed up and stop playing.
Excellent point. I’ve told players over the years, “My job is to kill characters, in as fun and fair a manner as possible.” As long as everyone is having fun, the specifics of how that’s happing are of lesser importance. The confrontation is within the scope of the game – character(s) versus situation – not players versus me. If I do my job (create the story) and they do theirs (experience the story), every body benefits. Those that whine because they’re “losing” show their immaturity to everybody, whether they realize it or not and almost always degrade the enjoyment aspect.
Yes, Killer DMs are still out there, but my attitude has always been "I don't need to try and kill PCs, since Players are pretty good at doing that themselves."
Yup! I’ve frequently told players, “My favorite way of killing characters is to let them to it to themselves.” Player mistakes are usually what gets characters killed. I don’t set up “no-win” situations. There’s always a way out. It’s up to them to find it and exploit it, even if it's not one I thought about in advance. If a situation goes against the group and one or more characters get perma-zorched, that’s the breaks. It can (and does) go the other way too. I’ve had many occasions where carefully planned encounters have ended in a comical debacle because my dice went bad and the baddies just couldn’t hit their own butts with a map, a flashlight and a tour guide. You take the good with the bad, and the game goes on.
He told me that I need to be more detailed in what I allow and disallow in campaigns. I generally come up with a few things I've allowed/disallowed, and then decide on whether or not to allow something after a PC brings it up and I take a look at it. He told me that I need to just say what isn't allowed ahead of time and said the quote that titles this thread. And this deeply disturbed me.
Another thing I’ve told my players, “Military axiom – No battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.” There is no way to detail, pre-plan, or totally out think an entire group of other people, especially intelligent, imaginative and motivated RPG gamers. You do what you can in advance and wing the rest as situations that need attention come up. This guy is asking too much and obviously does not understand what DMing, or role-playing in general, is about. It’s an attitude I’ve learned to blow off and attempt to weed out of my game group whenever I see it. Some of these kinds can be salvaged and turned in to good RPG gamers, but from my experience the majority of them aren’t, and I won’t have them at my table anymore.
…a confrontational campaign could be not only viable, but fun.
Agreed, if that was how the adventure was planned and both “sides” know it in advance, that’s all well and good. But, if I put together a mystery/clue based story and the players want to Ultimate Fight their way through it, that’s a problem. Players and DM both have to be on the same wave length or the experience isn’t going to be good for anybody. Sometimes the trick can be getting everybody on that same wavelength.
I think it's strange that some folks here don't <i>understand</i> "Beat the DM" attitudes.Just wanted to say that I really love blanket statements like this (with typos) when a poster then expounds and completely misses the point altogether that the OP was making.
I'd say Chris Mortika was justified in the context of this thread. For one thing there had been close to half a dozen comments prior to his post contending that either no one plays Player vs. DM anymore or that those who do are making a mistake/don't understand how to play/are just immature (that last one pretty much seals the deal - I'm going to respond to something like that).
I was certainly on the verge of making a post defending the style, he just beat me too it.
hmm interesting comments, guess i will ask my players for my two games this week if they feel they are in competition or trying to beat me cause I just can't wrap my horns around the concept.
|
Contributor
|
Funny thing is, I don't think Chris actually said much different from me. The DM sets challenges, and the players compete with them. That can really make a healthy game.
I do think this is different from when the players are actually trying to beat the Dungeon Master rather than the challenges. This happens when the players don't see the DM as seperate from the challenges, which can be faulty perception by the players, or it can be because some DMs can't seperate themselves form the challenges, and do feel like they have lost when the players find a clever way to beat a challenge.
I agree 100% with everything he said, except that i don't think that what he describes IS competing with the DM, It is competing with some awesome challenges and being allowed to compete fairly.
hmm interesting comments, guess i will ask my players for my two games this week if they feel they are in competition or trying to beat me cause I just can't wrap my horns around the concept.
If you don't notice it then they are not trying to beat you.
I'd think this would be especially true because the DM usually sets the tone of the game and it would normally be up to the DM to decide this sort of thing.
Maxislasher, however, pretty much notes the main exception. When a DM inherits a group from some other game that group comes to the table playing the default style of gaming that prevailed under their old DM.
I'll agree that a DM vs. Player style of gaming has become much less common in the hobby. I noticed this over the last 18 months as I inducted a number of new players in the group, one complete newbie and two experienced players. All of them had to be taught by my vets in the group ethos of "We are a team, you watch out for your team mates, and that guy hiding behind the screen - he's the enemy".
Popular antics at my table include Conga Lines. You know where people get in a line and dance in circles and stuff. My players like to do this all around me after a boss fight, while chanting "We killed your [insert most recent BBEG]!, we killed your [insert Lackeys of most recent BBEG]!".
Most common comment from the DM (me) at the table.
"I hate you people so much".
As in...
DM: You guys bought a third copy of the Magic Item Compendium?
All the players in chorus, sounding like ducks and nodding to each other: Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup, Yup.
DM: I hate you people so much
Done right it can be a very passionate and exciting style of play. Keeps the players working together (and against me), so inter-party disputes are almost non existent. This is important for me as two of my vets have a tendency to create clashing personalities for their characters. This focuses them on fighting me and not each other.
|
|
hmm interesting comments, guess i will ask my players for my two games this week if they feel they are in competition or trying to beat me cause I just can't wrap my horns around the concept.
I asked my group this last night and received several perplexed looks and a, "Where's that coming from?"
I've DM'd adventures that were unilaterally designed to kill the PCs (e.g., ToH), but everyone knows at the beginning that's what's going on. Otherwise, the DM facilitates the game. I don't think it would be much fun otherwise: it's not designed as a competitive game in the first place.
|
|
I've DM'd adventures that were unilaterally designed to kill the PCs (e.g., ToH), but everyone knows at the beginning that's what's going on. Otherwise, the DM facilitates the game. I don't think it would be much fun otherwise: it's not designed as a competitive game in the first place.
Ahhhh, but the trick is to convince your players that you ARE trying to kill them, when you actually have no intention of doing so (unless they are so stupid you do it as a lesson). I've been told that "surviving" some of my more devious adventures have been hilights of some of my players experience with the game. That's what I aim for.
You see, ultimately, YOU the DM are the enemy. You write the adventure. You plan the fights, the traps, the NPCs, the plot lines. Essentially, your players are competing against a vision of your devising. If you're good, and tie your players characters deeply into the story line, a party can feel a real sense of accomplishment because they felt a real sense of peril and are strongly invested in their PC's fate.
I guess for my group, this player vs. the DM thing began when I switched to a homebrew campaign back in 2nd edition. When the players knew the story came from me, and that the villain who was laughing at them after he just ruined their night was my creation, they began to look at our games as an attempt to beat me. My job was to engineer things so that they always appeared hopeless, but still allowed clever players to win through in the end.
What can I say, it works for my group.
The 'Ling
The secret is to understand that story and mechanics are two different things. If my party built characters with no stats above a 13 and I disallowed most of the splat books, does that make them better roleplayers? Emphatically no. Story and mechanics are seperate things. A DM needs to understand how his players approach the mechancis of the game and balance his campaign design accordingly. Your story should be completely immune to any powergaming as long as you understand your group.
True, true...I know players who are known for shameless minmaxing but because they are also good roleplayers, so they are welcome also in more story-oriented groups...
And good munchkin knows one important rule: "If it is disruptively powerful, DM will take it away." I and others have consciously avoided overuse of some powerful combos because a) being a one-trick pony is boring and b) DM will cut us more slack.Back to original question...when I started gaming there was bit of players vs DM attitude in the game, but after a while I and other people I play with dropped that attitude. Couple of times I have run across such a group, but usually I quickly find some other engagement on their game days.
Oh, and considering that in most games I play in player vs player conflict happens so sometimes DM just has to sit back and enjoy the fireworks :)
|
|
I personally do not like the Player vs. DM mentality, and whenever that ugly beast raises its head I havce always found a simple solution to slay it:
Throw an encounter at them that will definately end in a TPK. Say a Balor against level 5 PCs. Then, as they scream "its not fair!" calmly remind them that it is if the game is player vs. DM. The DM can always win. Then, calmly ask if player vs. DM is how they really want to play. If they do, tell them about the miniatures rules and join them as a player, since no DM is really required. If not, go back to your regularly scheduled programming...errr..gaming.
Lets me be clear here: Player vs. DM is not the same thing as PC vs. NPC/monster. Here we are talking about munchkinism and the inevitable power-creep that goes with it. I've explained to every player, before every campaign, that no matter how tough you are, I can always kill your character. But thats not my job. The DMs job is to challenge your character, whatever that character is. More importantly, the game begins to "break" when one character is "more powerful" than the others, or weaker for that matter. So strive for balance amongst each other, and I'll adjust the encounters to challenge you.
Its always a good idea to lay down expectations from the get go.
As Steve said above, its better to start with only core, and allow later, than to start with everything, and disallow later.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Hey there, Steve.
When I posted:
> I think it's strange that some folks here don't
> <i>understand</i> "Deat the DM" attitudes.
You replied:
Chris Mortika wrote:
>> I think it's strange that some folks here don't
>> <i>understand</i> "Beat the DM" attitudes.
> Just wanted to say that I really love blanket statements like this
> (with typos) when a poster then expounds and completely misses the
> point altogether that the OP was making.
Thanks for fixing the typo.
I must not have been clear, and so I apologize for the confusion. Several people had said that they didn't understand something, and so I thought to explain it. I wasn't surprised that people didn't necessarily agree with the "contest between DM and players" attitude; I was just surprised that people had never encountered or gotten their heads around it.
I didn't directly addres the original post, because the topic had drifted.
If I'd wanted to make a blanket statement, I would have said "It's strange that most of..." or "...all of..."
In any case, I wasn't writing clearly enough, and I apologize to you and to anyone else confused by my post.
But was it really worth the snarky sarcasm?
Hey there, Steve.
When I posted:
> I think it's strange that some folks here don't
> <i>understand</i> "Deat the DM" attitudes.You replied:
Chris Mortika wrote:
>> I think it's strange that some folks here don't
>> <i>understand</i> "Beat the DM" attitudes.> Just wanted to say that I really love blanket statements like this
> (with typos) when a poster then expounds and completely misses the
> point altogether that the OP was making.Thanks for fixing the typo.
I must not have been clear, and so I apologize for the confusion. Several people had said that they didn't understand something, and so I thought to explain it. I wasn't surprised that people didn't necessarily agree with the "contest between DM and players" attitude; I was just surprised that people had never encountered or gotten their heads around it.
I didn't directly addres the original post, because the topic had drifted.
If I'd wanted to make a blanket statement, I would have said "It's strange that most of..." or "...all of..."
In any case, I wasn't writing clearly enough, and I apologize to you and to anyone else confused by my post.
But was it really worth the snarky sarcasm?
Hey, fair enough. Sorry, sometimes the snark just slips out. I have to make a real effort to restrain it most of the time. But, hey, it was only a mild snark. By the way, no apology necessary. I don't think there were any flames here. Give it time, and maybe we'll see some ;). (Not from me, though. I think I had my say already.)
|
|
I personally do not like the Player vs. DM mentality, and whenever that ugly beast raises its head I havce always found a simple solution to slay it:
Throw an encounter at them that will definately end in a TPK. Say a Balor against level 5 PCs. Then, as they scream "its not fair!" calmly remind them that it is if the game is player vs. DM. The DM can always win. Then, calmly ask if player vs. DM is how they really want to play. If they do, tell them about the miniatures rules and join them as a player, since no DM is really required. If not, go back to your regularly scheduled programming...errr..gaming.
Its always a good idea to lay down expectations from the get go.
While I respect your opinion on player vs. DM gaming, I would like to point out that much of your opinion lays upon how you (and many others) choose to define the concept. I pointed out in my above post that as I am the source of the stories, the challenges, everything outside the players, it essentially IS the player vs. my creation. Its only a small mental step left to see that as player vs me (DM).
I personally have been in several (on the order of 5 - 6) long running campaigns that fit this description. Most I ran, but some I played in. All were rich roleplaying experiences. No one ever left in a huff. Its a game. Games are competitive. Competeing between the Dm and the players can be healthy and fun.
I don't really want to convince anyone that my way is better. I simply want folks to understand that the abuse against this style of gaming in many ways constitutes a prejudice. I would suggest that perhaps you haven't seen it done well and that is why many feel the way they do.
The 'Ling
I'd suggest folks read A Turner's post above. Once one understands that a RPG system is a set of rules that can be appropriated and modified as the community (gamers and GM) see fit, then as long as everyone understands the type of game they are playing then it's all good. When folks come to the gaming table with different understandings and expectations of the type of game that is being played then the group will undoubtedly encounter problems.
Just as an aside:
I think that many games and gaming groups are started without much discussion before an adventure or (even worse) a campaign is started. Something along the lines of: "hey, roll up a dude and bring your books and dice...we'll see where it goes." If the goal is a night out with your buddies than that may be all it takes. I'd wager that sometimes campaigns can be fruitful and enjoyed for a very long time by starting this way as well, but i'd suggest that the vast majority of games started out without any discussion of the game are short lived. This falls into my personal gaming philosophy (found in the rant thread) as democratic gaming. Other forms of governance (say, if a GM doesn't consult with his/her players before a game) can work, but i've found to be far inferior for the benifit of all parties involved (much like the real form of social governance)
As ever,
ACE
I am a little late to the conversation but I just had to add my two cents.
Is there really a right and wrong way to play? I believe the problem is that everyone brings different expectations to the table. When those expectations are vastly different, someone is going to be unhappy. Therefore, I do not see Player vs. GM or even Munchkin vs. Drama Queen as wrong or bad…just different.