I'm a player more than a GM, but I've been on both sides of the table.
One of the things I dislike as a player is having rules-legal options shut down or nerfed (especially at the point of use rather than character creation) so that the GM can make sure the story goes the way he wants without the chance of my character derailing the campaign.
I don't like that. When I GM, as long as it's not an ability that contradicts setting-if it's rules-legal, it's game-legal. I'll set up the house rules and custom races well in and advance and invite players to break my campaign. I dare you to try. My last game I GM'ed was a BESM campaign where the character builds were basically Magneto, Lupin III, Teen Wolf, and a scientist Kiara the water-bender. As their power levels grew, it dramatically shifted how they could interact with the world around them. Magneto and Kiara were basically demi-gods while Lupin and Teen Wolf remained closer to bad-ass normals. So, the challenges for the powergamers shifted from surviving to using their powers responsibly and the fallout when that doesn't happen, with the non-optimizers dealing with smaller-scale problems.
The biggest problem was that I misjudged how well Teen Wolf could handle the 'reluctant ally' concept when he went veering into 'enemy' territory, so with my upcoming game I'm asking for character concepts to include RP elements of teamwork. I'm more concerned with character concept and development than power creep. I can always make the campaign more difficult, but if you have a lazy uninvolved character concept, I can't help with that.
I don't really see taking a certain maniacal joy in character death/insanity as a 'dick move' either. Just before Christmas in my Cthulhu game, a character was retired after a bout of indefinite insanity.
It all started with a nasty shock, a hoard of ghouls in a shop basement and flight form the scene at the end of the session before. One investigator was pushed over the threshold into indefinite insanity.
The new session started normally, the aftermath of the botched burglary, research on the larger plot, and snapshots on the Investigators lives, including the now mad investigator romancing and bedding a young lady. This scene was detail rich for the surroundings, the partner, and much else besides(including him doing little sketches of her) but the seduction itself was largely painted with broad strokes.
Shortly their after, the Investigator in question, along with one of the other Investigators where looking into a disappearance. During their investigation, they located a murder scene. Both investigators slowly and methodically made their way into the flat, and slowly, but surely as I described the scene, the players got quieter and quieter, as I described their entrance, the scene, the cannibalised corpse. I gave one last detail, and the other investigator went down stairs, got the landlady and phoned the police to arrest the insane investigator.
That last detail, had been the small pile of sketches on the bed side table. The victim, was the date, and the reason that the players had gotten quieter, was because they started to pick up on the repetition of details from the earlier scene.
I don't suppose it hurt that I had described repeatedly how the insane investigator was feeling very satisfied, and full bellied after a large breakfast.
Now every one at the table could see the delight on my face, and once the scene was done, I couldn't help but laugh and grin. No one in that group seemed to think it was a dick move. The characters retirement was voluntary, and while I got called a great many names by the Player, he is chewing at the bit for more.
Character death can be one of the great moments in role-playing, the pinnical of a character ark. Taking pleasure in that moment doesn't make you a 'dick'
Guess I'm just lucky. Haven't had much of a problem with any GM.
I mostly trust to luck, and carefull selection of which games I run for which players. One player from my Cthulhu game, I would never invite to play either Pathfinder or CC2020 ever again, because it is his stated aim to 'break' both systems when he sits down to play those games. He as a similar view with Cthulhu, but with that system I am comfortable for him to do that to his hearts content(he is closed to madness right now...The man just doesn't know when to stop reading).
This gets to the heart of that issue, which is that if the GM masters the game system in question and can come up with ways of dealing with issues in that game, then they can allow the PCs more leeway in terms of house rules, extra books etc. At the height of the 3E days, I could just about tackle anything sent my way (though all it took was a year away from the game for that ability to diminish) by any player using any book. My philosophy of gaming is also firmly that the PCs are not special (at least rules-wise) in any way, and anything they can do, others can do as well (hence my lack of time for 4E, which puts PCs and NPCs/monsters on completely different tracks). Taking cheap, game-breaking PC tactics and having NPCs and monsters use it against them instead may be unoriginal - and certainly verging on dickishness - but it certainly prevents any complaints about the validity of the tactic when the PCs use it themselves.
I don't really see taking a certain maniacal joy in character death/insanity as a 'dick move' either. Just before Christmas in my Cthulhu game, a character was retired after a bout of indefinite insanity.
It all started with a nasty shock, a hoard of ghouls in a shop basement and flight form the scene at the end of the session before. One investigator was pushed over the threshold into indefinite insanity.
The new session started normally, the aftermath of the botched burglary, research on the larger plot, and snapshots on the Investigators lives, including the now mad investigator romancing and bedding a young lady. This scene was detail rich for the surroundings, the partner, and much else besides(including him doing little sketches of her) but the seduction itself was largely painted with broad strokes.
Shortly their after, the Investigator in question, along with one of the other Investigators where looking into a disappearance. During their investigation, they located a murder scene. Both investigators slowly and methodically made their way into the flat, and slowly, but surely as I described the scene, the players got quieter and quieter, as I described their entrance, the scene, the cannibalised corpse. I gave one last detail, and the other investigator went down stairs, got the landlady and phoned the police to arrest the insane investigator.
That last detail, had been the small pile of sketches on the bed side table. The victim, was the date, and the reason that the players had gotten quieter, was because they started to pick up on the repetition of details from the earlier scene.
I don't suppose it hurt that I had described repeatedly how the insane investigator was feeling very satisfied, and full bellied after a large breakfast.
Now every one at the table could see the delight on my face, and once the scene was done, I couldn't help but laugh and grin. No one in that group seemed to think it was a dick move. The characters retirement was voluntary, and while I got called a...
Never seen anyone who cares very much when their Call of Cthulhu character dies or goes insane.
People play that game fully expecting their characters to drop dead or end up in an asylum, from what I've seen.
The expectations of an Investigator from CoC and an Adventurer from D&D/PF happen to be very different most of the times.
Ha! I wished I dropped dead. The tentacles, oh so many tentacles...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm faily lucky with my group. Of the six regular players one is my wife and one my lodger, so I regularly run character creation stuff by them.
Of the six, four of us have GM'd long term campigns, the fifth is going to be running a one off module (the Mask of Death, as it happens) and the sixth never, ever intends to run a game so the majority of us have some idea of both sides of the screen.
We only use a handful of houserules, such as racial weapons like Claw Blades can be used by other races with the right appendages as exotic weapons.
3rd party/D&D 3.5 stuff is allowed, but you have to show it o the DM, and explain it...and any potential issues (so when I asked for access to the Warcaster class, I also mentioned I was using it as part of a Synthesist Summoner build, limiting my number of attacks, and we changed the ability that made me immune to criticals so I was still blasted on a 20) as well as mentioning it to the rest of the group in case they know any issues.
We've had a couple of iffy players, but all told we're not doing badly.
And I cackle manically all the time.
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
I pretty regularly run using Pre-gens.
Simple fact is that this approach means that I can build from the ground up, campaigns which hinge upon the PCs. Not just their success, but who they are, who their friends are, what their childhood was like.
I can get some of this without pre-gens, but the results are many times better with them, than without.
If you're going to generate all of that yourself, do you even need players?
|
I agree on the Pre-Gens. Unless it is a one off and you just want to be able to pull out quick characters, if you aren't going to let the players decide who they want to be, what are they playing?
That being said, you need to check in with the GM to see if your concept fits the setting, and if it doesn't, either decline or come up with something else that does.
You can have the DM chair when I am cold and dead.
*sign* "He can have the chair. I want the body."
Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.
1) This sort of a broad statement to cover. Some of my house rules make perfect sense to me as I feel they help my PC's survive longer at lower levels. But to someone else they may seem like over kill and may have them questioning my sanity.
2) As a GM when the PC's are about to hit an especially dangerous encounter I try to drop hints and even sometimes outright tell them that it's is about to get ROUGH. We've had enough character deaths now where the players take it seriously but are still game. Which is why I LOVE MY PLAYERS. While I dont cackle with glee over character deaths, I do enjoy seeing my players go "HOLY CRAP, that totally wasnt what I was expecting." or seeing them seriously considering fleeing from a creature / encounter. Which is something that they've done more than once. If THAT makes me a dick DM then I'll wear that tag with pride.
3) I'll agree that that sucks. I hated it as a player and I dont do it as a DM.
4) when teaching the game to new players as not to scare them off? Pre-gens are a must for me. More experienced groups, especially with players that I DON'T know? They get a sheet of character creation guidelines. Because as much as we hear about bad GM's and dick GM's on these boards I've run into many, MANY more AWFUL, douchebag, game destroying, inconsiderate bastard players.
In my experience it's better to start with a narrow focus and expand it once trust has been built. I usually start off with Core rulebook and APG only and feats on approval. Once I know I'm not dealing with a-holes I'm usually very good with letting players play what they want within reason.
5) I've explained my stance on this above. My restrictions have more to do with abusive players than actual broken crunch. As a GM I'm not out to screw you. But please don't be a dick.
I agree on the Pre-Gens. Unless it is a one off and you just want to be able to pull out quick characters, if you aren't going to let the players decide who they want to be, what are they playing?
That being said, you need to check in with the GM to see if your concept fits the setting, and if it doesn't, either decline or come up with something else that does.
I had a DM pull a cute one about a year and a half ago; he had us roll up characters. Didn't give any guidelines. So, I roll up an Elf Ranger.
"Uh, you can't be an Elf in this game."
"Do they exist?"
"Yeah, they exist, but you can't be one. And Rangers are different, they are only from cities and use guns."
"Um... okay. How about a Gnome Sorcerer?"
"Can't be a Gnome either."
"Why not?"
"Same as the Elves."
"Okay, fine. Human Magus?
"Sure."
So, after ditching several other ideas, I get to go with my 5th-string choice on a human magus. I don't mind certain campaign settings having odd race restrictions outside of Core, but for crying out loud at least tell us prior to rolling up characters. Anyway, once we start the first session, he tells us the following:
"Okay, it's actually 27+ years later, your characters are just waking up from having been brainwashed into being evil war generals the past 27 years and have been captured for all the war crimes you've done and are about to be executed. All of your gear is gone. Also, you have to escape and find a special mage who can change your face and your identity, your previous lives are gone."
"So, we're basically NOT playing the characters we rolled up? I now have middle-age penalties to my stats? Awesome."
Situations like this, might as well have gone with pre-gens.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, it's actually 27+ years later, your characters are just waking up from having been brainwashed into being evil war generals the past 27 years and have been captured for all the war crimes you've don and are about to be executed.
So why couldn't I play THAT campaign instead?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, it's actually 27+ years later, your characters are just waking up from having been brainwashed into being evil war generals the past 27 years and have been captured for all the war crimes you've don and are about to be executed.So why couldn't I play THAT campaign instead?
Exactly. If that is how you are starting the game, it isn't a twist you spring on them, it's an introduction you use to establish backstory.
I agree on the Pre-Gens. Unless it is a one off and you just want to be able to pull out quick characters, if you aren't going to let the players decide who they want to be, what are they playing?
That being said, you need to check in with the GM to see if your concept fits the setting, and if it doesn't, either decline or come up with something else that does.
I had a DM pull a cute one about a year and a half ago; he had us roll up characters. Didn't give any guidelines. So, I roll up an Elf Ranger.
"Uh, you can't be an Elf in this game."
"Do they exist?"
"Yeah, they exist, but you can't be one. And Rangers are different, they are only from cities and use guns."
"Um... okay. How about a Gnome Sorcerer?"
"Can't be a Gnome either."
"Why not?"
"Same as the Elves."
"Okay, fine. Human Magus?
"Sure."
So, after ditching several other ideas, I get to go with my 5th-string choice on a human magus. I don't mind certain campaign settings having odd race restrictions outside of Core, but for crying out loud at least tell us prior to rolling up characters. Anyway, once we start the first session, he tells us the following:
"Okay, it's actually 27+ years later, your characters are just waking up from having been brainwashed into being evil war generals the past 27 years and have been captured for all the war crimes you've don and are about to be executed. All of your gear is gone. Also, you have to escape and find a special mage who can change your face and your identity, your previous lives are gone."
"So, we're basically NOT playing the characters we rolled up? I now have middle-age penalties to my stats? Awesome."
Situations like this, might as well have gone with pre-gens.
See now this would have made me want to HATE VISION the hell out of that GM. All that time wasted and for what? That's time we could have actually BEEN PLAYING.
Exactly. Thing is, the other players had no problem with it. They were regulars, and I was the new guy. This must've been their regular course of play, because they were completely unfazed. So, I played along for a few more sessions.
By the time I left the game, the DM had forced 3 goblin npc's into the party as tag-alongs, wanted us to all take leadership and have them as cohorts(I hate goblins by the way), and had railroaded the game so hard I forgot what was even going on. Last session I played, we were on a literal train being driven to our next destination. I just didn't come back.
|
I just left a campaign because the GM was constantly bragging about how many years they spent role playing.
The game seemed like it was tailored specifically for Power Gamers and Meta Gamers; the ones who know exactly the right questions to ask to get the Out Of Game Knowledge they know into game.
You also have to know exactly the right thing to do at the right time and be in a position to convince your party of those actions.
If you have a player or two that are hellbent to do exactly the opposite of what you do/want to do...then it's never going to be a successful campaign and with a GM who fails to recognize these problems of character-breaking or allowing players to play characters that will do nothing but undermine the party...then that's a bad/dick GM. Don't care how many years he's been playing.
This guy isn't that great on the other side of the screen, either.
He's one of those "Always Take the Third Option" type guys.
He goes out of his way to break the GM's game with ridiculous stunts, fully intent on being the One Man Party. If you don't follow him or do everything that he does, he can sick the whole world down upon you because he's gotten all the NPCs to fall right into his lap and the GM is too honest to break character.
I play two games with this guy as a player and in the one I actually had to turn my character into a walking joke. And I give it my all to be the Butt Monkey, too. Which also grants me hella pity points and when he acts like a dick to the character in-game and makes him cry, it gets NPCs and Players mad at him. Like picking on a child. I can't believe how it's working, but I've ruined the character for myself.
I'm having far more fun in the campaign I'm running. They just recently encountered a powerful enemy and I had given them plenty of forewarning. A PC nearly died and an NPC 'did' die (not an important one, but they had to protect him and his buddies in order to qualify for the Bonus XP at the end of the Part), but they STILL said they had fun. If you can drop a 10d6 fire breath weapon on a party of level 5 adventurers and still get kuddos, you're doing something right.
Yes, Ego, Yes. *Stroke, Stroke*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of my favourite things a DM did (well, not so much, as it led to me leaving the group for RPing purposes) was try to tell me exactly how to roleplay my character and insisted I was playing him wrong. The reason for this being that the DM had worked himself into a corner and couldn't think of another way to get out of it.
So the scenario was that we were investigating goblin raids on a seaside town. During one such raid we took one of the goblins prisoner and interrogated him to find out the source of the attacks. The problem here is that the DM didn't want us to find out the information this way but couldn't come up with a reason why the goblin wouldn't know (presumably the 'goblin came from a staging area, not the main enemy base' option did not occur to him). So he urgently started looking for a way of killing off the goblin. Since I was playing a dwarf he hit upon my race's alleged hatred of goblins as a solution to the problem.
So he started asking me why I wasn't killing the goblin instantly. I pointed out that I wanted to complete our mission and earn our reward, so I was up for the interrogation option. He insisted that as a dwarf, I hated and loathed all goblins on sight and would want to kill them instantly. I pointed out that, during character creation, I had chosen (with his consent) orcs as my racial foe with a backstory reason for that hatred, not goblins. I also pointed out that my dwarf had an intelligence of 14 (well above average) and, even if moved to psychotic violence by the mere presence of goblins, would be able to override that in order to learn where more goblins were (and hence be able to kill more than just one).
In the end we had to end the session early as he would not accept he didn't have a leg to stand on. The sad thing was, I was coming up in my mind multiple reasons he could have turned the situation around (the staging post option, the goblin having conveniently suffered severe head trauma when we overpowered him etc) and none of them seemed to occur to him. Very bizarre. Railroading is one thing, but when the DM is actively trying to take your character away from you and tell you how to roleplay him, something's gone seriously wrong somewhere.
Never seen anyone who cares very much when their Call of Cthulhu character dies or goes insane.
People play that game fully expecting their characters to drop dead or end up in an asylum, from what I've seen.
The expectations of an Investigator from CoC and an Adventurer from D&D/PF happen to be very different most of the times.
Short answer:
Tomb of horrors.
Long answer:
Fantasy roleplaying games have always had a very strong strand of "iron mannism". Adventures of the death trap dungeon variety, such as tomb of horrors, have been popular for years, there is a very vocal subset of posters who on this very board who loath the idea of adventures or DMs soft balling them. While not all pathfinder or cthulhu games play out with the death and destruction turned up to 11, there is a strong strange of it in both. In Pathfinder it takes more of a "s*+!, son, you should no better that to trust a room that looks like a perfectly maintained parlour in a dungeon. Time to roll up a new character.", while in cthulhu it is much more "your willingly sticking your nose into this, what the hell did you expect?", but encounters like The shadow clock keep getting written.
In the end we had to end the session early as he would not accept he didn't have a leg to stand on. The sad thing was, I was coming up in my mind multiple reasons he could have turned the situation around (the staging post option, the goblin having conveniently suffered severe head trauma when we overpowered him etc) and none of them seemed to occur to him. Very...
I've been in this situation a lot of times(I backseat DM too much, but I keep quiet). If I see the DM pausing a lot, or struggling, I'll "play dumb" and start asking about the other potential situations I think of, and subtly toss the DM a lifesaver. It's helped a few times.
If you're going to generate all of that yourself, do you even need players?
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
I pretty regularly run using Pre-gens.
Simple fact is that this approach means that I can build from the ground up, campaigns which hinge upon the PCs. Not just their success, but who they are, who their friends are, what their childhood was like.
I can get some of this without pre-gens, but the results are many times better with them, than without.
I need them to breath life into the characters
I very how I use pre-gens. In the case of our current Cthulhu game I used templates which set up key themes, relationships with other (PCs and NPCs), but leaves almost complete autonomy on stats, and allows players to define their characters beyond certain key facts.
Name: Gilbert Colegrove; Famed alienist
Date of birth: 01/09/1882
Gender: Male (hetrosexual)
Class: Upper MiddleWho are you?
You are one of one of Britain's leading specialists on the theories of Carl Jong. You are on a one man crusade to improve conditions and treatment in the asylums of the British Isles, which you consider has come to see as shockingly outmoded. You are a keen sportsman, known for your skill with a shotgun. Your best friends with Dr. Andrew Phillips and Ruth Bradstock, (who has been an occasional lover, despite a ten year age gap).
History
Born in 1882, in Colchester, Essex. You early life was somewhat unsettled and unhappy, thanks to your father's military career, and his tendency towards drink and physical abuse.
You attended Homewood house, then Uppingham, before studying medicine at Edinburgh. During your studies, you first met Andrew Phillips. You where often drinking partners and spent a good deal of your youth together.
While at Edinburgh you specialising in Psychological and neurological illnesses, and upon witnessing the horrors of the british psychatric health system, you developed a disgust for the treatment of common in asylums. You have written two books by 1914, campaigning for better standards of care for those afflicted with mental illness.
In 1908, you attended the wedding of Andrew Phillips and Agnes Dunn (aged 20), where you briefly met a young Irene Dunn aged (8) who struck you as both precious and more than a little odd.
You joined the Neurological society of London, In 1910, it's youngest member.
At the outbreak of the war, you joined the Royal Army Medical Corp, as a captain. By 1916 you work moved you to the newly opened Craiglockhart Military hospital, to treat those with shell shock. It was here that you met both Ruth Bradstock and Donald Finley. Since the war, you have been in private Practice, and continued your campaigning.
Character creation:
Add +2 to your edu if it is below 18
+20% psychology
+20% psychoanalysis
Six such sheets where written up, they interwove the investigators with each other, and various NPCs and plot seeds.
The character who populate that game, I am informed by their players are near universally counted amongst their favourite characters ever. Even on player, who has often told me he would never in a million years have chosen to play a gay war poet, loves his character Donald Finley greatly.
I've had my fair share of compliments form the group for the game, but hey that could be so much smoke being blown.
Instead, I judge campaign success by two metrics:
1, length. At Twoish years and still going, I feel it fair to say that the game must be doing pretty well, especially as I have seen most of the players walk out of games they didn't like
2, anecdotes and in joke generated.
Its been two years since six people crowded into my little flat, and told stories of horrors amongst the shell shocked officers of craiglockheart, and yet, the most widely shared and loved in joke in my circle of friends is this 'Sausages for lunch, I haven't had sausages in ages.' which was a recurring phrase from the first adventure I ran for them.
|
|
I've been in my share of groups. Over the course of my gaming life, I've had the misfortune of meeting LOTS of dick DMs. Because of this, I've grown incredibly paranoid of all GMs in general. I've also stayed to being the DM, which my players like because I'm more than fair. It's kind of like being the employee who's had so many terrible bosses that you want to become your own boss because you know you'll be 10x better than any of them.
Things that make me leery are:
1) House rules that make me completely question a GM's sanity.
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
3) Obvious favoritism towards a particular player. Namely their significant other, or their best friend they've known for forever, while the rest of us are destroyed regularly, or kept out of the loop for information. "Military" campaigns are especially bad for this (where their best friends are captain and lieutenant, but you're just a grunt who's not allowed to do anything unless your commanding officer says so).
4) Not being allowed to build your own characters. At all. Only the GM gets to roll your stats, pick your race, class, background history, etc. Because only he knows what'll fit in his campaign and you can't.
5) This is more for 3.5 but "Core Only". Why? Because everything else is broken and therefore not allowed. Bull. That's a stupid rule. Complete Warrior wasn't broken. You can't tell me that Samurai class was better than the fighter.Another thing that's made me cautious is I've come to ask the group how many characters they've gone through before I joined. If the number is 2+ each, and they still haven't made it to session 10 yet, that's a valid concern.
Share your stories with the vast number of dickish DMs you've had to deal with in your lifetime? I've lost count how many I've had, but I know I've been in about six groups already.
I guess I'll punch-in on these, too.
1. Never had the experience of too much house-ruling.2. I'm in a game right now where every fifth word out of the GM is a giggle or snort...
3. I've heard OF this, but never had a problem with it. You totally wanna get laid that night, but some could stand to be a little more generous to the rest of the group some of the time.
4. This one gets on me the most. I like to create a concept and then run with it in any manner that I can; even bending rules out right. For instance, I've been absolutely pining to play my Mute Sorcerer (with a Genius Guide feat Eschew Incantations) just to try role playing something different or interesting.
Shutdown by 4 different GMs.
5.See above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow. It's pretty different thing when you get both sides of the story isnt it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
#5. Really? Roflmao!
Guess I'm a dick DM then.
In 4E encounters I got that dick DM label for not allowing characters to use free heals from clerics in between sessions because they were "out of combat".
I'm a 31 year DM. In MY experience, splatbooks unequally increase power between characters. Meaning that some characters are awesome and some characters suck. This causes player frustration, interplayer friction and player apathy and people quit playing till the next game. It also unnecessarily increases encounter design difficulty and time required to construct encounters. Then the cycle repeats.
The splatbook powercreep happened in AD&D(Unearthed Arcana), 2nd Ed (kits) 3.X (splatbook of the month) 3.P (-sigh-), 4E (PHB 2 especially) and now I'm seeing it in the 5E playtest materials ( and it doesn't even have splatbooks yet!). You would think in 28 years we would figure out how to handle powercreep.
I really wish that all of the core classes were on equal footing with splatbook classes. But you you know what they say:" if wishes were horses then beggars would ride."
Now I wanna "Dick DM" t-shirt.
|
|
#5. Really? Roflmao!
Guess I'm a dick DM then.In 4E encounters I got that dick DM label for not allowing characters to use free heals from clerics in between sessions because they were "out of combat".
I'm a 31 year DM. In MY experience, splatbooks unequally increase power between characters. Meaning that some characters are awesome and some characters suck. This causes player frustration, interplayer friction and player apathy and people quit playing till the next game. It also unnecessarily increases encounter design difficulty and time required to construct encounters. Then the cycle repeats.
The splatbook powercreep happened in AD&D(Unearthed Arcana), 2nd Ed (kits) 3.X (splatbook of the month) 3.P (-sigh-), 4E (PHB 2 especially) and now I'm seeing it in the 5E playtest materials ( and it doesn't even have splatbooks yet!). You would think in 28 years we would figure out how to handle powercreep.
I really wish that all of the core classes were on equal footing with splatbook classes. But you you know what they say:" if wishes were horses then beggars would ride."
Now I wanna "Dick DM" t-shirt.
Try not to take it so personally.
The OP is only stating the points that he's most likely seen "The Worst" of. It's like people who say they hate McDonalds and it makes them puke. Doesn't necessarily mean McDonalds' food is puke-worthy; it just doesn't sit well with that individual.As far as powercreep and PC's becoming too powerful... What is it that escapes these DM's who parade how many decades they've gamed and it still eludes them that, DUDE; YOU'RE F%@~ING GOD! That Power Gamer? Who thinks he can whoop up your monster? You see that monster's AC that your Power Gamer can hit on a 5? It just doubled. OOOH MAGIC! Come up with something cute:
"You do [that] at the monster for the third time; he's so used to your attack pattern now, that he's able to brush it off. However, he has to stay so focused on you, everyone else get's +5 to hit." The Power Gamer eats some damage and the other party members get to lay into the monster. If the Power Gamer looks on the verge of a fit; let him have the killing blow.
Lessons Learned.
I've been a DM for 6 months. *Throws arms in the air* Players are preferring to play in my game over our resident DM who also proclaims 30+ years of DMing/Gaming. My combat is fun, yet not a cake-walk; my story is intriguing and the goofballery that sometimes occurs is hilarious.
Oh, and the most important thing; I trust my players.
|
|
I've had fairly good luck over all. Been playing RPGs for 30 years and only three 'dick DMs'... two of whom eventually recovered.
The least bad was one who felt that it was improper to tell the players anything that they didn't ask about or assume that their characters did anything which they didn't specifically state. Sounds harmless? Actual scenario;
'Ok, we'll stop at this inn for the night and then continue down the road in the morning. We pay the innkeeper and go to our rooms. Anything happen during the night?'
DM: 'Nope'
'Great, we continue down the road.'
DM: 'Ok, you are surprised by three 80' tall giants.'
'Isn't this area open grassland?'
DM: 'Yes'
'So how did we not see three 80' tall giants approaching?'
DM: 'You didn't say you were looking for giants.'
'Arggghhh.... oh hell, nevermind. We draw our weapons and attack.'
DM: 'You don't have any weapons.'
'What?! Why?'
DM: 'You didn't say you brought your weapons with you when you left the inn.'
Eventually that actually turned into a great DM... but only after I spent an entire game session telling him everything my character did and asking a billion non-stop questions about the environment around us. We made it through two EMPTY rooms in five hours... but it was worth it to convince him to actually tell us what the characters see/hear/etc and take obvious character actions for granted.
The other two... well, let's just say they made the first guy look good.
80' tall stealth giants.
|
|
For the original points raised:
2) um no ... unless it is for actual glee at killing off PCs. I've only ever seen this as a theatrical tool, nothing more.
4) single shot adventures, not a problem. multiple year campaigns, problem.
5) I have no problem with "Core Only". In fact I tend to run with only core books allowed, everything else needs approval. Why? Because I do not want to have to purchase EVERY 3PP publication out there (my wallet would hate me if I even tried to do it); because there are certain classes/feats/items/etc. which are broken and I prefer to be able to kill the concept before a player invests time in building something they would not be able to use in game; because some things just do not mesh with the campaign one is running ... such as a gunslinger in a world without gunpowder ...
2) That's nice that you've only seen it as a theatrical tool. I'm actually jealous of you. Me? It's more like this: DM "How hp do you have left?" Player "I'm at exactly 1 hp." DM *cackles* "Then you die. Everything attacks you, sensing that you're near death and they want BLOOD. Start rolling up your 4th character." Other players "But he wasn't even in the fight." DM "Oh well. That's what you get for not healing him up during the two rounds of rest I mercifully gave you."
4) Agreed.
5) I have a simple fix for that. You tell the player: You want it? Did you buy the pdf or book to learn about it? Yes? Then bring it to me or give me a copy. I will look it over. It might not work this campaign, but maybe next campaign we can fit it in. You don't have a copy? Well, I'm not getting it, so no.
1: But I was just saying it's too subjective to be a reliable test of badness. For example I love 3d6 in order, I would both run and play such a game. I don't like roll for class. You would assume I am being a dick if you see me running such a game when it would be far far from the truth. Some house rules look bad until you see the GM use them and create a lot of fun.
2: But wouldn't you end up walking out of a fun game if you heard the GM do this... when in reality he was just joking with you? Sometimes it's hard to read people.
4: Ok I will give you that... I find it's best to work with a player when adjusting their background to match the world. The only times I have seen this used were when the GM wanted to tell a specific story with specific characters in mind. I didn't like those games very much. I am a player's advocate when it comes to playing the character.
5: But that is an example for lazy GMing not dickishness. There ARE broken builds. This example shows a GM who would rather just ban a whole book rather than learn the broken build enough to ban the part that breaks it.
1) I wouldn't play in such a game. I roll terribly. I always have THAT character and I will whine about how everyone else rolled straight 18's across the board (and it's happened many times) while I'm lucky if I don't have two stats below 10. "Oh, well, you're just that good of character in your class. You can still have fun in this death trap of campaign that kills everyone who doesn't have at least all 14's across the board." No, I can't, and it's quite likely you wouldn't let me either. >_>
2) No, no joking. The DM who inspired this one, I swear got a woody every time he killed off a PC.
4) Agreed. I'd want to work with the PCs. I find this to be the absolute worst when the DM's also playing favourites. "Here. My girlfriend will be the gold dragon, my best friend will be the cloud giant, my best friend's wife can be the wartroll with PC stats, and you can play this elf commoner." Gee, thanks.
@Zombieneighbours -- I point you to the above. It's a dickish move if you're purposely going after a certain player, and are too happy about killing off the characters on a regular basis. I mean, shouldn't the point of a campaign be to have a player's character last throughout an entire campaign, NOT seeing how many characters you can kill off before your players finally have enough and leave your game? Unless your player's being a dick in game with every character, there's no excuse why you'd kill off every one of his PCs within a few sessions of their creation. DM's shouldn't be proudly putting notches in their belts.
CoC, I've played. A lot my friends have too. It's always hosted at the local convention in all of it's incarnations (Tech, original, etc). If they're not dead by the end of the one-shot, they consider it to be a relatively bad game.
1) This sort of a broad statement to cover. Some of my house rules make perfect sense to me as I feel they help my PC's survive longer at lower levels. But to someone else they may seem like over kill and may have them questioning my sanity.
2) As a GM when the PC's are about to hit an especially dangerous encounter I try to drop hints and even sometimes outright tell them that it's is about to get ROUGH. We've had enough character deaths now where the players take it seriously but are still game. Which is why I LOVE MY PLAYERS. While I dont cackle with glee over character deaths, I do enjoy seeing my players go "HOLY CRAP, that totally wasnt what I was expecting." or seeing them seriously considering fleeing from a creature / encounter. Which is something that they've done more than once. If THAT makes me a dick DM then I'll wear that tag with pride.
3) I'll agree that that sucks. I hated it as a player and I dont do it as a DM.
4) when teaching the game to new players as not to scare them off? Pre-gens are a must for me. More experienced groups, especially with players that I DON'T know? They get a sheet of character creation guidelines. Because as much as we hear about bad GM's and dick GM's on these boards I've run into many, MANY more AWFUL, douchebag, game destroying, inconsiderate bastard players.
In my experience it's better to start with a narrow focus and expand it once trust has been built. I usually start off with Core rulebook and APG only and feats on approval. Once I know I'm not dealing with a-holes I'm usually very good with letting players play what they want within reason.
5) I've explained my stance on this above. My restrictions have more to do with abusive players than actual broken crunch. As a GM I'm not out to screw you. But please don't be a dick.
1) It is a broad statement, and I admit to having rules that'll make the game safer for players. I'm talking about them going "What the Hell is wrong with you, mentally." Thinking the rule is stupid is one thing, but thinking that the rule is messed up to the point that they seriously have to wonder if even creating a character with you is worth the pain they're about to endure.
2) Yeah, but see you LET your players get away. If you railroad them to their deaths, that's different. And I don't just mean you let them die. I mean, you break their very character's will and soul, and make it absolutely agonizing. If it's purposeful torture, that's one thing. But if a pack of intelligent half-fiend wolves with NPC levels suddenly show up, and TPK the party, and cut off your every turn, including knowing about your teleporting abilities and have anti-magic fields, and you're gleefully enjoying taking them all out despite being level 5, and then cackling gleefully while the players look on at you and your dickishness and obvious insanity... that's what I'm talking about.
4) Even when teaching the game to players I at least make the suggestion to them. I sit down with them with a list of feats, and explain the skills, and help them level them up. I've got one of those in my group now. Everyone else, just let me know what you're doing and taking, and then we'll go from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dick DMs, like dick players, can be insufferable. What can I say, dicks be dicks...
As for 1) through 4), I generally agree. 1) Is mostly subject to interpretation, sanity isn't always a game designer's forte either...
As for 5) a game doesn't have to use ALL published material to be complete. Core is enough to play a complete game and some. The reason to use splat are just as valid as reasons not to use splat. And yes, there is such a thing as too many options, even if all options are equally valid, fitting and pertinent (which in 3.5 was unfortunately not the case).
The way I see it, each "cruch" supplement is a set of published houserules, which brings us back to point 1)
Thus you may like it or dislike it, but IMO, there's nothing "dick-y" about restricting a game to to core, or one supplement, or some supplements, or all but one supplement. For that matter, there's nothing "dick-y" to play E6, even if that leaves 75% of the material out (well not exactly, but you get the point). Whether you enjoy E6 or not is a totally different matter.
'findel
1) Every group has their own particular way of interpreting the rules. When you move from group to group you might find that the new group doesn't always see things the way "you are sure the rules state"
2) I run Rappan Athuk and The Slumbering Tsar Series. They are Sand Boxes so of course their are opponents that will kill party members if they don't immediately run from them
3) I show no favoritism to my wife in my games. In fact she often complains about being picked on
4) I use an array for stats. It is a 32 point buy. Would you rather use your own 15 point buy? Go right ahead. Your grave is pre-dug for you.
5) The Complete Warrior was broken. Get over it. At least 2/3rds of it anyway. Enough to exclude it as a source. Then again Complete Arcane and Divine were a lot more balanced so I used them. I also used a lot of other sources depending on the campaign. Some were Core only and campaign specific sources which were around 30 and gave more options than most of 3.5.
Do some players think I am a dick? I am sure there are a few. Most though feel that I am balanced and fair and try and make it fun for players. Do I rule 0 when I think it makes sense? Yes, but I will listen to my players opinions before doing so. Are some of Ultimate Combat and Magic broken? Problably and we are looking at each source with the long term experienced players looking at balance issues. Things that are not unbalancing we will use. Same goes for Ultimate Race Guide when we get to it.
"Core only" means the DM is a dick?
Never mind...I think I see the problem.
To the OP, I think you're past the point of diminishing returns here. Your descriptions of 'Richard the DM,' especially in point 2, have become rather over-exaggerated. I'm actually reminded more of Dick Dastardly (a cartoon villain) than any Dick DM.
Now, if you have been unfortunate enough to actually meet a human being who behaves as you have described, then I would recommend that you not play with them again. Actually, I'd recommend a restraining order, or possibly having them committed for the public welfare. But I think it is a good deal more likely that your perceptions have become more... skewed by emotion than you may realize.
|
|
1) Every group has their own particular way of interpreting the rules. When you move from group to group you might find that the new group doesn't always see things the way "you are sure the rules state"
2) I run Rappan Athuk and The Slumbering Tsar Series. They are Sand Boxes so of course their are opponents that will kill party members if they don't immediately run from them
3) I show no favoritism to my wife in my games. In fact she often complains about being picked on
4) I use an array for stats. It is a 32 point buy. Would you rather use your own 15 point buy? Go right ahead. Your grave is pre-dug for you.
5) The Complete Warrior was broken. Get over it. At least 2/3rds of it anyway. Enough to exclude it as a source. Then again Complete Arcane and Divine were a lot more balanced so I used them. I also used a lot of other sources depending on the campaign. Some were Core only and campaign specific sources which were around 30 and gave more options than most of 3.5.
Do some players think I am a dick? I am sure there are a few. Most though feel that I am balanced and fair and try and make it fun for players. Do I rule 0 when I think it makes sense? Yes, but I will listen to my players opinions before doing so. Are some of Ultimate Combat and Magic broken? Problably and we are looking at each source with the long term experienced players looking at balance issues. Things that are not unbalancing we will use. Same goes for Ultimate Race Guide when we get to it.
4) Is that a slam? No, I don't want 15 point buy thank you very much. However, I also don't want to play the 32 point buy gay pedophile half-human that sodomizes the fey and is currently on the run from the masses, and is secretly CE and eats the bodies of little boys. I walked away from that group the second I found out what kind of depraved crap they were into. And gamers wonder why people thing D&D is all about devil worship and the dark forces.
5) The Complete Warrior was SO not broken. My 10th gray elf wizard vs. your 17th level dwarf samurai. Let's go.I'm reading your responses and I'm thinking you're a bit of a dick. Maybe it's how you're wording things.
"Core only" means the DM is a dick?
Never mind...I think I see the problem.
If you think it's me, then I say read the entire sentence before thinking that I specifically said "core only means the DM is a dick". Because not properly reading it is also a problem.
|
|
I tried to write this a few times, and kept doing rewrites because I was being too blunt. So let's try this instead:
To the OP, I think you're past the point of diminishing returns here. Your descriptions of 'Richard the DM,' especially in point 2, have become rather over-exaggerated. I'm actually reminded more of Dick Dastardly (a cartoon villain) than any Dick DM.
Now, if you have been unfortunate enough to actually meet a human being who behaves as you have described, then I would recommend that you not play with them again. Actually, I'd recommend a restraining order, or possibly having them committed for the public welfare. But I think it is a good deal more likely that your perceptions have become more... skewed by emotion than you may realize.
Actually, they're over-exaggerated at all. In fact, I complained about it on a public forum like this, and I got kicked out of the group. He showed it to the players, and backed him up despite the fact that they knew I was right, and even commented so. Their response was "He's the DM. His rules. His game. That's just how it is." He doesn't even look at me now when we're at public conventions. I'm been told that since my leaving he's started to get better, but still seems to revert back to his old ways from time to time. I've actually gotten to see one of the old players since then, and he said that they mostly do board games now. No one else wants to be DM.
Yes, I have been unfortunate to meet a human being who behaves like that. Six in total, actually. Who were that bad. Three were even in one group.
To put it in perspective, these were the people who caused me to leave gaming for seven years because I couldn't deal with the idea that there were possibly more people out there like them, running games.
I point you to the above.
okay, I assume you mean this?
4) Agreed. I'd want to work with the PCs. I find this to be the absolute worst when the DM's also playing favourites. "Here. My girlfriend will be the gold dragon, my best friend will be the cloud giant, my best friend's wife can be the wartroll with PC stats, and you can play this elf commoner." Gee, thanks.
Not sure why your pointing me at this. Each template for the above mentioned game Gave a bonus to +2 bonus to either pow, int, edu or dex(the four most powerful statistics) and a total of plus 40% in certain skills key to the campaign.
They where assigned to players randomly so far as I remember.
I don't know what I have said that makes you think your opinions of favouratism.
@Zombieneighbours -- ... It's a dickish move if you're purposely going after a certain player, and are too happy about killing off the characters on a regular basis.
I don't.
I mean, shouldn't the point of a campaign be to have a player's character last throughout an entire campaign, NOT seeing how many characters you can kill off before your players finally have enough and leave your game?
It is a two year campaign of Call of Cthulhu and only three investigators have died, gone insane or otherwise left.
Of those, one tried to alter mythos magic, and rather than just kill them outright(a serious suggestion I have seen from some of the best writers in Mythos gaming), I gave chances for success, and escape with life and sanity intact, and more than a few chances to pull back from the attempt. They choose to continue, the dice ruled against them, and died horribly. One committed suicide, without prompting from me.The last was arrested as described above, and all but handed himself in.
That said, no the point should not be "to have a player's character last throughout an entire campaign". The only point is to have fun. In Call of Cthulhu, that can be achieved in many ways, such as solving interesting mysteries, or the reproduction of the feel of certain Mythos stories. Death and madness is a part of Mythos gaming. It is the eventual end of all Investigators if they don't turn away from the truths of the Mythos
I don't fear that joy I take in a good Investigator kill is likely to drive away my players, because experience has shown me that my players rather enjoy it as well.
Unless your player's being a dick in game with every character, there's no excuse why you'd kill off every one of his PCs within a few sessions of their creation.
This is the very worst time you can possibly kill of a player character. It doesn't solve the underlying problem, and breeds animosity. The list of players who would sign up for "I'll kill your characters if i think your being a dick" is far smaller than the list of players who will sign up for "It is going to be a really hard slog through a death trap dungeon, with the difficulty turned up to eleven."
DM's shouldn't be proudly putting notches in their belts.
Again, not doing this.
CoC, I've played. A lot my friends have too. It's always hosted at the local convention in all of it's incarnations (Tech, original, etc). If they're not dead by the end of the one-shot, they consider it to be a relatively bad game.
One shots play differently to campaigns.
Now over all I kind of feel like your shifting the goal posts here.
You originally said this
2) Evil cackling and giggling whenever they know full well that they're about to kill a character off in a battle that none of us had a chance of winning.
but now your saying
...seeing how many characters you can kill off...
I will happily take great pleasure in killing, maiming or driving beyond the point of sanity any character ever. I'll do it especially in encounters they have little chance of winning. But they signed up for it. They know what I am about, that their PCs are fair game if they make bad decisions and that I sign post unwise courses of action in my descriptions, plot and set up.
1) Every group has their own particular way of interpreting the rules. When you move from group to group you might find that the new group doesn't always see things the way "you are sure the rules state"
2) I run Rappan Athuk and The Slumbering Tsar Series. They are Sand Boxes so of course their are opponents that will kill party members if they don't immediately run from them
3) I show no favoritism to my wife in my games. In fact she often complains about being picked on
4) I use an array for stats. It is a 32 point buy. Would you rather use your own 15 point buy? Go right ahead. Your grave is pre-dug for you.
5) The Complete Warrior was broken. Get over it. At least 2/3rds of it anyway. Enough to exclude it as a source. Then again Complete Arcane and Divine were a lot more balanced so I used them. I also used a lot of other sources depending on the campaign. Some were Core only and campaign specific sources which were around 30 and gave more options than most of 3.5.
Do some players think I am a dick? I am sure there are a few. Most though feel that I am balanced and fair and try and make it fun for players. Do I rule 0 when I think it makes sense? Yes, but I will listen to my players opinions before doing so. Are some of Ultimate Combat and Magic broken? Problably and we are looking at each source with the long term experienced players looking at balance issues. Things that are not unbalancing we will use. Same goes for Ultimate Race Guide when we get to it.4) Is that a slam? No, I don't want 15 point buy thank you very much. However, I also don't want to play the 32 point buy gay pedophile half-human that sodomizes the fey and is currently on the run from the masses, and is secretly CE and eats the bodies of little boys. I walked away from that group the second I found out what kind of depraved crap they were into. And gamers wonder why people thing D&D is all about devil worship and the dark forces.
5) The Complete Warrior was SO not broken. My 10th gray elf wizard vs. your 17th level dwarf samurai. Let's go.
I'm reading your responses and I'm thinking you're a bit of a dick. Maybe it's how you're wording things.
If you think it's me, then I say read the entire sentence before thinking that I specifically said "core only means the DM is a dick". Because not properly reading it is also a problem.
"Core only" means the DM is a dick?Never mind...I think I see the problem.
Wow.
Your responses here, to brvheart's pretty reasonable and non-aggressive statements in particular, are so far from relevant and appropriate that I think you're really making bugleyman's point for him...
Calling brvheart a bit of a dick (in bold) is also against the messageboard rules. Please refrain from insulting people. It's not just the rules, or even polite, it's plain common sense - insulting people and name-calling tend to sway people away from your point of view.
Wow.
|
|
@Zombieneighbours -- You took everything I said as it referring to you, and took it out of context. None of it was directed at you. I was giving examples of what I've been exposed to in D&D. Again, not a slam at you or CoC games.
Wow.
...it's plain common sense -
There's no such thing as common sense. it doesn't exist. It's a made up term so other people can feel superior and lord it over others. So yeah, wow.
There's no such thing as common sense. it doesn't exist. It's a made up term so other people can feel superior and lord it over others. So yeah, wow.Wow.
...it's plain common sense -
No, it really isn't.
Common sense is stuff most people should know. You know that hot things burn you when you touch them, yes? That's common sense.
It's also fairly common knowledge that insulting someone tends to make them biased against you and your argument, however good of an argument it may be (which is why I generally only insult people when I could no longer care less what their opinion was). And that is what Hewy said. Which is common sense.
@Zombieneighbours -- You took everything I said as it referring to you, and took it out of context. None of it was directed at you. I was giving examples of what I've been exposed to in D&D. Again, not a slam at you or CoC games.
There's no such thing as common sense. it doesn't exist. It's a made up term so other people can feel superior and lord it over others. So yeah, wow.Wow.
...it's plain common sense -
No appropriate or relevant reference to anything in my post, just a nitpick on the validity of the colloquialism "common sense"?
Ok. Colour me surprised.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm surprised it took this long for the thread to escalate.
However, I'd say it might feel unfair for some rather than move to insults.