Ponderings on my DMing style

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I've recently ran 2 games in a shared campaign setting located Here. I've had a 2 year hiatus from 3.5 and have not DMed a game in 3-4 years.

With that, here are some aspects of the way I've run my games.

1. Traps are Speedbumps:

Generally, I don't like traps, and their use is usually just a damage speedbump for the players. The only ones I've ever introduced would be traps that damage and rarely a trap for ability damage

2. CR values are raised

I think most CRs are too low, and I raise CRs as I feel necessary. For instance I think it's stupid that a Wizard 1 NPC with negative Con has a CR 1 but an orc has CR 1/2 so I give all orcs 8 HP for CR 1. I changed an Ape with 21 Str high Con and 3 attacks in a Full Attack from CR 2 to CR 4 (it had 4 HD to boot).

3. I don't like Killing Characters

In the past I would often ask how much HP a player had before rolling damage, if the damage I rolled would put someone beyond -10, I'd change in the damage so that their hp would be -9 instead. Recently, a 1st level character with 8/8 hp suffered 19 damage from a Scorching Ray. On the spot, I gave everyone in the campaign an Action Points, and they could be spent to save a character's life and stabilze in the negatives

Monsters tend to move to the next standing PC rather than coup de gracing foes. Similarly, enemies tend to be able to use only attacks that can hurt one party member. Why? Because area attacks might kill a downed or weak character!

4. I "wing" Encounter Difficulty

I don't give a set CR to a party, I either decide I want it to be reasonably beatable and give a couple of appropriate monsters, or I guess at what would be a good challenge for the players and set up the opponents. If I misjudged and made an enemy too hard, I might decide to convert the monster to a lower hitdie, or as recently I might have an enemy retreat from the encounter to a fortress even though s/he might have a chance at TPKing the party.

5. Lots of Fighters and Rogues; few spellcasters

The monsters or NPCs the party will fight will overwhelmingly be fighter or rogue types. Spellcasters are seen but are much rarer, and will not appear in multiples (save Warlocks). The reason? Well, if properly played they can often TPK the party.

Many of the monsters encountered will be enemy NPCs with class levels that are only minorly optimized. 18 Str or 18 Dex, Weapon Focus, etc. Generally only PHB feats and items because I as the DM generally don't wanna put a lot of effort and time into NPC creation. If I need more oomph, I generally just give a higher level NPC.

6. I Trust the Players

I ask PCs for their ACs while monsters attack, but I generally do not keep track of their hp for them. I allow pretty much every official 3.5 published, and would generally allow most custom material that they wanted to play with. I trust whatever uses of abilities I haven't heard of before are legitimate. If something seems off on an ability I'm not familiar with, I'll investigate it after the game and verify it's legitimacy (this has only come up once in my 4 years of gaming).

7. I want the PCs to be powerful

I allow pretty much every 3.5 and would allow most custom material if asked. The only things I would ban would be infinite loops and anything which would completely create no challenge.

I want the PCs to have well optimized characters so that I can throw powerful things against them and not have to worry about if a full attack here or there will slay a party member.

Anyway, those were the biggest things that I thought of. I'm curious if this style is at all common? If you think this style is good, bad, or deeply offends you let me know. I welcome your thoughts.

[mean_liar]

Traps are context-dependent. If you don't have a rogue around or aren't providing enough (or don't want to provide) clues to avoid them as puzzles, then you ought to just toss them and have made the right choice. I sometimes use them for dramatic tension or to set a scene, such as a jungle assault on a locale being prefaced with diseased or poisoned spiked pit traps. Damage that's just going to be healed isn't important unless you want to convey annoyance or engender hatred for the enemy.

I don't use CR and arbitrarily decide when PCs gain a level. That's an even more hand-wavey way to assign XP so I obviously see no problem in monkeying with them.

I don't like killing characters but I roll just about everything in combat out in the open. I also don't start games at first level (usually third), just to avoid the greataxe crit insta-death at the game's outset. I don't like the players to know I'm pulling punches and I generally only do it if I've screwed up the encounter by overestimating what the PCs can take. I generally do this by counting up HP damage on the wipeboard so that I can kill something off after an arbitrary point (such as, "this will avoid a TPK" or "this is boring and needs to end"). Considering the great amount of templating and re-skinning I do of monsters the players aren't in the know and dramatic tension is maintained.

I generally optimize my opposition and NPCs. I have no favoritism towards spellcasters, but I aspire to make every encounter memorable and/or unpredictable for some reason - spellcasters are an easy way to do that without being completely contrived (FIRE ELEMENTALS in the LAVA!).

I think everyone here generally believes in custom material and powerful PCs.

[Archmage]

One thing 4e actually did sorta right was treat traps as monsters that should be thrown into a more complex encounter as opposed to being obstacles in their own right. An arrow-shooting trap or spiked pit on its own isn't very interesting or dangerous, and more elaborate murder-machines are puzzles if the DM isn't willing to allow a (passable) skill check from one of the PCs.

Essentially, if a trap exists to smack a PC with some hit point/ability damage and after doing so the danger has passed, the trap is a trivial speed bump. If the trap threatens an out-of-nowhere OHKO or TPK, it's probably unfair and not fun.

I don't mess with CRs except to note that some creatures are grossly under-CRed and don't expect most DMs I play under to have any idea how to create level-appropriate encounters.

I don't generally intend for a high PC body count, but I also don't fudge it when people do die. You know when you failed a save, and my saying you somehow made it just feels cheap, even if the alternative is your death. The truth is that D&D is the DM's game--you only ever win because you're allowed to do so. But it sucks to remind the players of that (and that's why it's so important to be able to judge encounter difficulty), so I'm inclined to let them earn their victories and learn from their failures. I've never been a fan of no-resurrection settings in fantasy games as a result. Death at high levels in D&D is trivial; death at low levels when nobody can afford a res is a good kick-off point for a quest, as long as you have a way to keep the deceased PC's player engaged.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I like your point about making the encounters memorable. Playing D&D is a form of entertainment not too different from television or movies.

[Avoraciopoctules]

I like traps which alter the battlefield. They are often either very functionally similar to difficult terrain or are one-time triggers which change the area around them.

I ran one scenario a few days ago where there were several types of trap present:
1. Bombs set in walls, sometimes completely hidden inside them. These could be shot or remotely triggered to destroy most of the structures they were attached to. These collapsed tunnels once they were taken by the enemy, disabled stationary weapons and turrets if captured, and could create gaps in walls for surprise attacks on invaders. Almost all of these were unhackable.

2. Bombs attached to obvious tripwires. These were mainly there to slow people down. Also very obvious minefields spaced far enough apart to let infantry, but not vehicles through. Once or twice, they would be connected to doors to give a burst of shrapnel to whoever opened them from the wrong side.

3. Force fields or big blast doors which could be sealed, but which the aggressors could hack open in a few minutes or cut through / blast open.

4. Thermal charges which melted everything around them. Combined with conventional bombs, these would trigger a chain reaction which wiped out everything standing near the main entrance to a base and simultaneously melt it and all the surrounding rock into a solid mass of what would effectively be lava. These would only go off if they were armed, then remotely triggered or shot. They could be disarmed by a cautious force.

5. A whacky semigelatinous forcefield that provided significant resistance to things passing through that scaled exponentially upward with the size of the object. Grenades and people bounced off, but bullets went through without significant slowdown. This was used as cover for a heavy chaingun mounted to a set of large metallic infantry shields.

6. Some concussion charges attached to a big shipping crate filled with heavy stuff. It was essentially a one-time event that slid the crate into a wall, crushing whatever was in between, then shoved it back to roughly where it had been before. This would kill infantry, severely damage or kill light powered armor, and damage heavy powered armor and light vehicles.

[Roy]

Ok, first rule. Games that are not challenging are not fun. This is not to say that I am out to get the players, or that I expect the DM to be out to get me. But I fully expect any DM who does things like cheat to avoid death to be beaten with a sock full of dice, same as a cheating player. If the game is easy for reasons other than cheating, such as gimping the enemies, or only using gimp enemies such a treatment is not warranted, but nonetheless combat you just yawn and auto attack through is not at all interesting.

On that note any campaign I am a part of will start at a minimum of level 3, as below that either people are dying like dumbass mooks constantly, or the aforementioned cheating has to take place to prevent it. Neither are inoffensive or desirable.

I fully expect all parties to be level appropriate. This means a level 5 party should have no problem whatsoever going into a normal kobold nest and kicking their asses, and should also have no trouble taking on a decent number of ogres in guerrilla warfare, though if not careful the ogres will mobilize against them and you might have a problem. If you don't know what that means ask and I will gladly help you get up to par, but don't come crying to me when you die to something weak.

Make the combat interesting. This is actually the hardest thing to do. If you add in bullshit like chandeliers to wank off to, you haven't made the combat interesting, you've just tricked the ignorant into thinking you have, and wasting actions doing that instead of doing their thing. And combat is really, really fast, so you don't have a lot of time to do this in. The best way to do it is with enemies that have some kind of trick to them, or that work well together. That way they can demonstrate it well even in just a round or two, before they almost invariably drop dead. Keep in mind level appropriateness though. At level 3 you can do this with bullshit like tanglefoot bags with Silence cast on them or something. At level 15 you'll need something more like wildly different types of enemies, often monsters with class levels to do it.

Traps... meh. Most of them are over CRed because they're just shit like pit traps that you won't actually fall into anyways. And the magic ones are disarmed by the caster, not the rogue. I really have a hard time caring about these. I only really use them in contexts where they help the enemy, but not any intruders. Alarm traps, negative energy traps (undead), stuff like that. Or at least not hinder the guys running the place. xxx Person traps in a giant lair is perfectly acceptable as well.

I want the players to be powerful. As long as they're at least level appropriate though they're fine. But if they are powerful, it makes things all the better. After all, what conveys more awesomeness - struggling hard to beat enemy x, or walking up to him and pimp slapping him back to the Abyss? My money is on the Epic Pimp. And then when stronger enemy y comes up, then they fight hard.

[mean_liar]

Ok, first rule. Games that are not challenging are not fun. This is not to say that I am out to get the players, or that I expect the DM to be out to get me. But I fully expect any DM who does things like cheat to avoid death to be beaten with a sock full of dice, same as a cheating player.

Respectfully disagree, but I can see where that style of play has merit.

Personally I think that maintaining the story and player interest trumps the desire to play it straight down the line. My experience has been that shoe-horning in a new character (due to death) is usually a major derailment of story and tension and that therefore it should be avoided if at all possible. A character that otherwise dies in the middle of a pitched, heated battle due to tactical fuckups should probably die, but someone dying at the end of a battle because I misjudged what the party could handle (I always run on Nightmare mode) isn't cool.

I totally agree on how to achieve memorability in encounters. Nifty combos should be apparent within 1 or 2 rounds at max.

Examples of play:
http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=50469

[Roy]

Death is a status effect. Unless you're like level 3, there's plenty of ways to come back. If you are level 3, not all hope is lost, but really it's better to just bring in someone else, especially since there isn't much of a story at that point anyways, given that you kind of start there.

The moment it is evident the DM is cheating, it's time to walk. All play, all decision making, all choice has just become pointless. He has immediately made himself as bad as the hurk durk can't attack scenery but mobs can 4.Failtards. And the whole point of not playing 4.Fail is to not have to deal with 4.Failtards.

If it doesn't matter what the fuck you do, why are you there? For good choices to exist there must be bad choices. And sometimes shit happens, like 2d8+9 from an ogre yielding 25. Period, full stop.

[mean_liar]

Seriously, if I decide that I want a crazy-hard battle and then design the encounter with one ogre too many, then fuck it, the players live with that shit? Really? Did that extra enemy's sly elimination really destroy that 4th wall? That extra ogre was necessary for a True Game Experience? Eliminating that ogre prematurely is just Ultimate Fail?

In most cases a well-timed use of Revivify makes it not matter. But sometimes, it does, and sometimes that little push can take it into TPK territory.

It's not EXTREME GAMING, its a collaborative experience. GMs that consistently plan out encounters at the edge of a party's capabilities will eventually step over that line. Either your planning is flawless, or you actually don't challenge your players, or you have great difficulty recognizing your own failings.

[Roy]

It means you can't fucking decide what to do, else instead of having to solve such problems with Dues Ex Machina (which doesn't do anything but make yourself and the players look incompetent) you would just get it right the first time. It's not that hard to do, once you understand what level appropriate means. But really, one ogre making the difference? Either we're talking something like level 3 vs 2 ogres (which still isn't that hard, plenty of save or loses to go around) but 1 ogre is a very significant part of it given that it is exactly half or we're talking about a lot of ogres, in which case what's one more? It probably won't even take extra actions to kill.

Ya know, I see bad DMs do it all the time. And the funny thing is they do it with fucking weird shit like 'a drow in full plate'. Seriously, that's the only thing special about him, and he randomly dies to a collapsing ceiling because even that's enough to kick the party's ass. What the fuck?

[RobbyPants]

I try as hard as I can to make encounters memorable and fun, challenging, but not overwhelming. I have disdain for fudging rolls, at the same time, I don't want an encounter to be too hard. Sadly, this leads me to making too many of them on the weak side.

If, as a DM, I make a mistake and create too hard an encounter, I'll secretly do something behind the scenes to make it on par with what I wanted. I have no problem killing PCs due to some bad tactics or unusual rolling. It's all part of the game. I feel bad though, when it's all my fault. I don't want a TPK because I couldn't design an appropriate encounter.

Luckily, this doesn't happen too often to me.

[mean_liar]

That nominal Ogre probably has Lion totem Barbarian levels and Power Attack and has just drank of potion of Invisibility and/or Flying and/or See Invisible to hit while Raging with their two-handed weapon. At higher levels he might have a level of Swordsage in order to teleport around in shadows. He's a minion added to the general craziness going on in order to add some meat to the encounter, and he's only an example, and he can be an arbitrary level. It's on the fringes where the mistakes are made, where you know what to expect from the BBEG and maybe his LTs, but the weight of the minions... just one too many can be one too many.

It doesn't come up often and its the GM's obligation to hide it - once a PC dies on the table, then there's no backsies. That's foul, but even so I'd consider it with a TPK.

[RandomCasualty2]

It means you can't fucking decide what to do, else instead of having to solve such problems with Dues Ex Machina (which doesn't do anything but make yourself and the players look incompetent) you would just get it right the first time. It's not that hard to do, once you understand what level appropriate means. But really, one ogre making the difference? Either we're talking something like level 3 vs 2 ogres (which still isn't that hard, plenty of save or loses to go around) but 1 ogre is a very significant part of it given that it is exactly half or we're talking about a lot of ogres, in which case what's one more? It probably won't even take extra actions to kill.

Roy, this is three fucking five, the most swingy edition of D&D. Not only can one ogre make a difference, but one bad roll can make a difference in a close fight. Seriously, one botched save on a PCs part can turn the entire tide of battle from sure win to desperate fight for survival. Two botched saves can push that to almost certain TPK.

3.5 is an extremely deadly game. You can totally do everything right in planning an encounter, have your PCs run into a slight bit of bad luck and get fucked over.

Seriously, even if that ogre is nothing more than a wall that blocks the PC from striking the BBEG with his sword, that may well determine the outcome of the fight, because wasting someone's action is huge in such a deadly system.

And in such a system, when you're trying to make challenging fights, it's real easy to go overboard sometimes and fuck it up as a DM.

[hogarth]

Amen on "Traps are speedbumps". Is there anything more tedious than checking every 10'x10' piece of floor, doorway, chest, etc.?

[Roy]

It means you can't fucking decide what to do, else instead of having to solve such problems with Dues Ex Machina (which doesn't do anything but make yourself and the players look incompetent) you would just get it right the first time. It's not that hard to do, once you understand what level appropriate means. But really, one ogre making the difference? Either we're talking something like level 3 vs 2 ogres (which still isn't that hard, plenty of save or loses to go around) but 1 ogre is a very significant part of it given that it is exactly half or we're talking about a lot of ogres, in which case what's one more? It probably won't even take extra actions to kill.

Roy, this is three fucking five, the most swingy edition of D&D. Not only can one ogre make a difference, but one bad roll can make a difference in a close fight. Seriously, one botched save on a PCs part can turn the entire tide of battle from sure win to desperate fight for survival. Two botched saves can push that to almost certain TPK.

3.5 is an extremely deadly game. You can totally do everything right in planning an encounter, have your PCs run into a slight bit of bad luck and get fucked over.

Seriously, even if that ogre is nothing more than a wall that blocks the PC from striking the BBEG with his sword, that may well determine the outcome of the fight, because wasting someone's action is huge in such a deadly system.

And in such a system, when you're trying to make challenging fights, it's real easy to go overboard sometimes and fuck it up as a DM.

So instead of 1 = die, it's 1 = nothing happens. If the worst possible outcome has no effect, why play? No risk, no reward. If you don't like that I suggest immunities, or at least ensuring you aren't failing on higher than a 1. Or just go first. Whichever. Point is sometimes bad things happen, and if you can't deal with that, then I suggest playing Hello Kitty or something of that nature.

Now it'd be different if you were talking about fuck you moments like death no save traps, or sundertards, or whatever. But see, we're not doing that.

[Surgo]

If the worst possible outcome has no effect, why play?

Why do anything? Some people actually enjoy the narrative process and unfolding story, but don't enjoy dying.

[mean_liar]

I was going to post for Roy since I believe I have a decent guess as to what he's going to say, but I'll let him say it. It's only polite.

HINT: It involves those people sucking at DnD. Or being shitty at DnD. Or retarded... at DnD. Or perhaps a combination of all three, and maybe other words too, none of them too pleasing. I don't actually know if he'll include the "at DnD" part either.

[RandomCasualty2]

So instead of 1 = die, it's 1 = nothing happens. If the worst possible outcome has no effect, why play? No risk, no reward. If you don't like that I suggest immunities, or at least ensuring you aren't failing on higher than a 1. Or just go first. Whichever. Point is sometimes bad things happen, and if you can't deal with that, then I suggest playing Hello Kitty or something of that nature.

Now it'd be different if you were talking about fuck you moments like death no save traps, or sundertards, or whatever. But see, we're not doing that.

3.5 can be almost as bad sometimes. Blasphemy can be a no save death spell and even if you get a save, getting taken out in one shot before you even act pretty much sucks.

[Guyr Adamantine]

HINT: It involves those people sucking at DnD. Or being shitty at DnD. Or retarded... at DnD. Or perhaps a combination of all three, and maybe other words too, none of them too pleasing. I don't actually know if he'll include the "at DnD" part either.

Add a few memes and image macros and imply the opponent's is a failure/homosexual. Perhaps create a new term to mock him, if you feel inspired.

If you have to imitate a posting style, do it correctly

EDIT: The lined part was bullshit, after reflection.

EDIT2: I can't believe I corrected the spelling on ''bullshit''.

[mean_liar]

Thank you for your correction. I honestly can't mimic Roy that well because, well... he's Roy.

[Roy]

HINT: It involves those people sucking at DnD. Or being shitty at DnD. Or retarded... at DnD. Or perhaps a combination of all three, and maybe other words too, none of them too pleasing. I don't actually know if he'll include the "at DnD" part either.

Add a few memes and image macros and imply the opponent's is a failure/homosexual. Perhaps create a new term to mock him, if you feel inspired.

If you have to imitate a posting style, do it correctly

Ok, you're mostly right. But the homosexual part is right out. Failure, idiot, dumbfuck, all of those are fair game. Sometimes the fail is to bad it does need an entirely new term to exactly and succinctly describe it. However, sexual orientation is irrelevant.

To Surgo: The narrative process in that case is a known constant, aka you win everything forever. If you've already won, why play?

As for Blasphemy: For it to do that they need to have 10 levels on you. If they only have 5-9 it just paralyzes, which is negated by freedom of movement. Less than that and the worst that happens is one round of no actions... certainly terrible, but not unique, and fucking Silence counters it. A 2nd level spell.

This is me not caring.



Yes, something 10 levels higher than you (or a caster 5 levels higher, with CL boosting stuff) can fucking wtfpwn you. Gee, what a surprise. About the only legitimate instance in which this can come up is when fighting half fiendish monsters due to high HD = high CL + low CR. But most of em don't have Concentration, so you make your Knowledge check to realize holy fucking shit, this thing has one move that can wtfpwn us and someone readies an action to Magic Missile the darkness. Or just cast Silence.



Since it's only 1/day, you don't have to worry much after that.

When fighting actual outsiders that can spam it, you can get daze locked. Here's a novel idea. SILENCE!



With all that said, I expected better from you.

[Guyr Adamantine]

Ok, you're mostly right. But the homosexual part is right out. Failure, idiot, dumbfuck, all of those are fair game. Sometimes the fail is to bad it does need an entirely new term to exactly and succinctly describe it. However, sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Ya know, you're right. That was totally uncalled for. Edited the relevant part.

[A Man In Black]

Ya know, you're right. That was totally uncalled for. Edited the relevant part.

Just a tip: Impugning someone's ancestry with implications of adultery or bestiality never goes out of style.

[Surgo]

To Surgo: The narrative process in that case is a known constant, aka you win everything forever. If you've already won, why play?

You don't know what the future of the story holds. At all. "Not dying" is a tiny part of that.

[Psychic Robot]

Don't bother. Roy is very...rigid in his game ideology.