Ponderings on my DMing style

[Koumei]

Given this is Roy here, then I can simply safely assume the other side of this debate is right. I totally get that breaking your foe's gear is a dumb idea, I am not getting into his crusade against "sundertards" here: he's just a fucking retard and should have fucked off on the path of enlightenment like PR did.

Anyway, I don't want to lose (generally, character death. Other stuff I can deal with if it doesn't happen often), and I will expect that a tiny bit of bad luck (or the DM using something stupidly good) won't make this happen - if it does, the plan is to passive-aggressive the DM into fixing things. But I can't avoid it without putting some effort in and basically making characters that take luck as far out of the equation as possible. Hell, if I can outpace the entire RNG, I have done my job correctly.

Which is more or less how I DM: I'm not going to pull punches - players need to familiarise themselves with the rules, they can even ask for help in character creation and all - but I might get enemies to spread their attacks around (luckily, players tend to use tag-in-tag-out tactics that makes this the most "realistic" option anyway) or, if I underestimated a foe, choose some bad tactics (like getting the dragon to close into HtH when it COULD win by flying in circles and using its breath. And if they get a really dumb idea and go through with it, they can expect a [Bad End].

[Roy]

And here comes the dumbfuck squad. Yay.

[Surgo]

Frank: I'm not going to get into some Roy retard parade (can we use that phrase more often) so I didn't get past this quote, I just want to respond to something you said on the previous page.

In general, Roy is correct. If you aren't going to enforce the possibility of losing on people if they are unlucky or make poor choices, then the die rolls and choices the players make are completely meaningless. People have to be able to fail if success is to mean anything at all.

While I agree with you in principle I have to say that some people really do just enjoy the narrative process of making a story, don't want to die, and don't seem to have this conscious effort to make that the case by the GM impact their enjoyment. It's perfectly reasonable to say, as you did, "then the die rolls and choices...are completely meaningless". And, yeah, they are. You might as well just play free-form. But, for some reason that's totally beyond me, people still just play D&D instead.

[Blicero]

You could look at it as the players knowing that, barring some exceedingly stupid decisions on their parts, they won't face any totally, permanently affecting consequences like death or whatever, but their characters not necessarily being aware of that.

D&D is all about layering veils of illusion on each other, so what's one more addition?

[Roy]

While I agree with you in principle I have to say that some people really do just enjoy the narrative process of making a story, don't want to die, and don't seem to have this conscious effort to make that the case by the GM impact their enjoyment. It's perfectly reasonable to say, as you did, "then the die rolls and choices...are completely meaningless". And, yeah, they are. You might as well just play free-form. But, for some reason that's totally beyond me, people still just play D&D instead.

Not even. If you want to make sure the story goes exactly how you want it, write a fucking book. Plenty of hack writers out there who have their characters get away with all manner of contrived bullshit just because they're the author. And then you can aim for the horn, and somehow have that work out for you.

[Surgo]

Not even. If you want to make sure the story goes exactly how you want it, write a fucking book. Plenty of hack writers out there who have their characters get away with all manner of contrived bullshit just because they're the author. And then you can aim for the horn, and somehow have that work out for you.

Once again: not dying is only a small part of the whole story.

[Roy]

Not even. If you want to make sure the story goes exactly how you want it, write a fucking book. Plenty of hack writers out there who have their characters get away with all manner of contrived bullshit just because they're the author. And then you can aim for the horn, and somehow have that work out for you.

Once again: not dying is only a small part of the whole story.

Once again, dying is the most forgiving kind of failure. If you have a problem with death but not the things worse than death you're just skullfucking your PCs.

[violence in the media]

Do you people not have complicated social dynamics in the groups you play with? You don't have players that are going to engage in some sort of brinksmanship with the DM if they know there is an active aversion to killing off a PC in play? You're going to do what instead? Throw the PC in jail? Cause them to fail in a quest? Kidnap NPCs that are important (heh) to them? Cripple their character? I'm accepting that I've apparently mostly played with sociopaths and misanthropes, but come on.

Death may just be a status effect in D&D, but it still bears a psychological consequence of finality in people's minds. Death is the thing that makes people sit up and say, "Hmm, that was a bad idea." Or, "Yeah, my character was getting a little out of control. He really needed to be put down." In the players that will engage in the sort of "you better stop me" brinksmanship that I speak of, death provides them with an opportunity for renewal and change. The PC can be raised and change their outlook, the player could elect to draw up a new character, or the player may decide to take a break from the game. All of those are better than the whole game going to shit because a player decided to test the DM.

[Koumei]

Well, Roy is finally on /ignore where he belongs, so he can do whatever he does along with his equals, PR and Shadzar. Moving on:

You don't have players that are going to engage in some sort of brinksmanship with the DM if they know there is an active aversion to killing off a PC in play?

Nope. I play with friends.

I'm accepting that I've apparently mostly played with sociopaths and misanthropes, but come on.

Well there you go. You're playing with the wrong people.

"Hmm, that was a bad idea." Or, "Yeah, my character was getting a little out of control. He really needed to be put down."

Again, in the groups I associate with, they wouldn't say that because they don't go looking for that kind of trouble.

All of those are better than the whole game going to shit because a player decided to test the DM.

And so is "not playing with assholes."

[violence in the media]

I'm thinking you're right, Koumei.

[TOZ]

I don't think I can really claim a style yet. I've only been playing for, I don't even know, 5-6 years maybe? And I've only DMed maybe half of that. I'm still testing out the different D&D rules, so I haven't even tried many other systems.

I have come to enjoy high-power campaigns with crazy shit in them. From characters scaling the construct to hand the grappled NPC a ring of freedom of movement to spellcasters collapsing buildings under the weight of their summons. I want to encourage my characters to do epic things that I will always remember. The Tomes have made me realize that I need to give them epic places to do those epic things.

I don't like character death when there's a campaign-wide story. I like to keep continuity and finding replacements tend to break that. This is mostly due to the fact that I've relied on published modules for my games mostly. For one-shots and games where the plot isn't as important, I don't mind death.

But I do take issue with campaigns where no one can die. We had a campaign like that, where the DM would throw overpowering monsters at the party, then constantly refuse to kill the characters when they went negative. The party would wake up captured or healed by an NPC. The one time we sabotaged the whole party and everyone died for real, with plot hook to continue, he ignored it and reincarnated everyone with a helpful druid and continued the game without change. I prefer games where random die rolls won't necessarily kill you, but stupid actions will.

[mean_liar]

Do you people not have complicated social dynamics in the groups you play with? ...In the players that will engage in the sort of "you better stop me" brinksmanship that I speak of, death provides them with an opportunity for renewal and change.

These metagaming fuckers get the hammer dropped on them, cruelly and spectacularly. I'll echo Koumei's comments: if they don't learn they're disruptive and need to get the fuck out.

[TOZ]

Do you people not have complicated social dynamics in the groups you play with? ...In the players that will engage in the sort of "you better stop me" brinksmanship that I speak of, death provides them with an opportunity for renewal and change.

These metagaming fuckers get the hammer dropped on them, cruelly and spectacularly. I'll echo Koumei's comments: if they don't learn they're disruptive and need to get the fuck out.

+1

Kind of like that whole 'I have enough hit points so I jump off the cliff' scenario. My response would be 'roll 4d6 to determine how many major bones you break.'

[RandomCasualty2]

There's a definite difference between not dying and "you never fail".

You can totally get knocked out or whatever, and actually feel it. The old capture scenario where the PCs are stripped of equipment and have to escape is something that most players dread. Threatening to make the next quest into one of those if they should fail is certainly reason enough for them to fear failure.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Kind of like that whole 'I have enough hit points so I jump off the cliff' scenario. My response would be 'roll 4d6 to determine how many major bones you break.'

WTF? A character has the badass to jump off a cliff and live... and you throw the arbitrary screw at them? Instead of letting them do something awesome?

Do you also nerf goddamn Feather Fall?

[TOZ]

WTF? A character has the badass to jump off a cliff and live... and you throw the arbitrary screw at them? Instead of letting them do something awesome?

Do you also nerf goddamn Feather Fall?

No, because Feather Fall is a reasonable alternative to it.

I should clarify that I do that for metagamers. If they are Joe Blow the Swordsman and the player says 'I'm high enough level to do this, why not' without even thinking that the character would not think that way because, hey, falling 100 feet is fucking scary. Now if they're motherfuckin' Zaraki Kenpatchi and their character doesn't give a shit about 10 or 10000 feet, that's another story altogether.

So I do apologize for not putting it in proper context. It does make a difference about the baseline.

[violence in the media]

These metagaming fuckers get the hammer dropped on them, cruelly and spectacularly. I'll echo Koumei's comments: if they don't learn they're disruptive and need to get the fuck out.

You have no idea of the sheer size of the drama llama that my old groups were able to herd around. I like to imagine that other people had similar bullshit happen with their groups, or that a lot of it stemmed from the people hanging out in many other situations and gaming was just one of many things we did together. In any case, we were playing D&D, it just sometimes stood for Divas & Dickheads.

@TOZ: I have to agree with angel, WTF man? I don't necessarily want to force other people, or myself, to behave like "real people" in D&D land, because we wouldn't be out adventuring if that were the case.

@RC2: So the solution is to threaten them with a shitty adventure? WTF? This is where I say that in my experience, if the rest of the group didn't want to go on a rescue mission, then the offending party or parties would have simply been abandoned. If they were all captured, this is the point where they might decide to just drop the game.

[TOZ]

@TOZ: I have to agree with angel, WTF man? I don't necessarily want to force other people, or myself, to behave like "real people" in D&D land, because we wouldn't be out adventuring if that were the case.

Yeah, I had to reevaluate the statement. Appreciate you and angel's opinions. Mostly it has to do with the power level I've been forced to play with in most of my groups. Most of the time 'realism' was a factor, and it's only after reading the Tomes that I've started kicking that shit to the curb. As you can see I'm still working through it. The Den is a real help for that.

[violence in the media]

I get you on that. The Den has really opened my eyes to a lot of things in gaming. I'm very appreciative of this place.

[TOZ]

I think I need a break from Paizo, considering the conflict between my previous posts. As amusing as it is to argue with idiots, it definitely isn't helping my brainpower.

[Roog]

I should clarify that I do that for metagamers. If they are Joe Blow the Swordsman and the player says 'I'm high enough level to do this, why not' without even thinking that the character would not think that way because, hey, falling 100 feet is fucking scary. Now if they're motherfuckin' Zaraki Kenpatchi and their character doesn't give a shit about 10 or 10000 feet, that's another story altogether.

Mother, may I jump?

[TOZ]

Mother, may I jump?

Yes. Thank you.

[souran]

This conversation long ago traveled over the boundy of what the rules say and to where the nature of the dm and the gaming groups internal poltics come in.

If you play with people who will do bullshit stuff if they think it won't get them killed because their dm does not like to kill people, then you need to adopt a stance more like Violence or Roy are arguing for. IF you are not prepared for a player like Roy he will fuck over your whole game group and wreck the game that everybody else is having fun in because Roy will use the fact that he won't die to bad luck to press the issue and be as powerful as possible.

On the other hand Koumei is probably equally disruptive to Roy's group because he likely doesn't have 2 back up characters planned out at all times for when he gets his ass handed to him. He also will be very slow at making choices playing at Roy's table because in Roy's games not stacking up the bonuses to get off the RNG for tasks with only a small element of danger can become fatal.

They just play with different levels of desire and investment. Roy's players are probably much more willing to accept that if they have to climb a 300 ft. cliff and somebody falls that they are dead and that person makes a new guy. Koumei's players probably know that even if they fail their dm is unlikley to just kill them off when facing just a cliff, but based on what he and others have said they would expect that failure to climb the cliff would result in a carried penalty into combat or the next event.

Other than the fact that mixing these two types of players will result in a "gamesplosian" of hate and dice throwing and name calling and slammed doors there really isn't anything WRONG with either style of play.

[Roy]

Koumei is being a retarded dumbfuck. Not that this surprises anyone as she is on record saying she wants to auto win everything, so it doesn't surprise me at all she gets her panties in a knot when someone takes offense to that.

There's a definite difference between not dying and "you never fail".

You can totally get knocked out or whatever, and actually feel it. The old capture scenario where the PCs are stripped of equipment and have to escape is something that most players dread. Threatening to make the next quest into one of those if they should fail is certainly reason enough for them to fear failure.

Haven't we been over this? Like at least five fucking times now? Great, so you refuse to allow PCs to die... but you make something far, far worse happen instead. That's not being helpful, that's being a power tripping douchebag. Especially since the only way they're beating a force that took them down at full power while the force was holding back when they are much weaker is with DM cock. Otherwise the worst case scenario with 'you all die' is 'adventure over' and the BEST case scenario with 'prison bitch' is 'adventure over'. And this is an improvement?

Only if you're a 4.Failtard. Hundreds of thousands > millions indeed.

This conversation long ago traveled over the boundy of what the rules say and to where the nature of the dm and the gaming groups internal poltics come in.

If you play with people who will do bullshit stuff if they think it won't get them killed because their dm does not like to kill people, then you need to adopt a stance more like Violence or Roy are arguing for. IF you are not prepared for a player like Roy he will fuck over your whole game group and wreck the game that everybody else is having fun in because Roy will use the fact that he won't die to bad luck to press the issue and be as powerful as possible.

No, bad liar. Stop lying. I will use the fact I can't die to tell the DM to write a fucking book and walk. There is no need to add to the dumbfuckery, as it's obvious enough to not need an illustration.

On the other hand Koumei is probably equally disruptive to Roy's group because he likely doesn't have 2 back up characters planned out at all times for when he gets his ass handed to him. He also will be very slow at making choices playing at Roy's table because in Roy's games not stacking up the bonuses to get off the RNG for tasks with only a small element of danger can become fatal.

What have I told you about lying? Koumei optimizes as much, or more than I do. The difference is she expects to invincibly stride through over 9,000 mobs and win the game very, very easily. I expect to be awesome so I can do awesome things, but I /don't/ want it easy.

So what would happen is Koumei would disrupt a hypothetical group by me by whining and flailing whenever anything doesn't go her way. And if that means cheating so the nat 1 doesn't kill her, well she'd probably whine and flail all the harder.

They just play with different levels of desire and investment. Roy's players are probably much more willing to accept that if they have to climb a 300 ft. cliff and somebody falls that they are dead and that person makes a new guy. Koumei's players probably know that even if they fail their dm is unlikley to just kill them off when facing just a cliff, but based on what he and others have said they would expect that failure to climb the cliff would result in a carried penalty into combat or the next event.

I'd expect them to fly up the damn cliff, which isn't hard to do at all. But if for some reason they insisted on climbing, yeah they had better be good at it, or they're going to take a lot of D6s (and die if lower level... and dust themselves off if higher level).

Koumei would expect to auto win the cliff. Which actually isn't that unreasonable, as a cliff is not a very high level obstacle at all. So on that we'd actually agree (then she'd go back to fingering herself to some warhammer organization, and I'd go back to nerd raging at idiots).

[souran]

Koumei optimizes as much, or more than I do. The difference is she expects to invincibly stride through over 9,000 mobs and win the game very, very easily. I expect to be awesome so I can do awesome things, but I /don't/ want it easy.

This is not about optimizing, this is about expectations. Which you point out what YOUR expectations are quite clearly. However, once you stop frothing at the mouth you will probably realize that your expectations of an rpg don't have to be EVERYONES expecations of an rpg even for the SAME game.

So what would happen is Koumei would disrupt a hypothetical group by me by whining and flailing whenever anything doesn't go her way. And if that means cheating so the nat 1 doesn't kill her, well she'd probably whine and flail all the harder.

Fine sure thats what happens. Either way, you have proven that YOU probably shouldn't play rpgs with Koumei and i think at this point Koumei has very little desire to play rpgs with you. SO FUCKING DONT.

I'd expect them to fly up the damn cliff, which isn't hard to do at all. But if for some reason they insisted on climbing, yeah they had better be good at it, or they're going to take a lot of D6s (and die if lower level... and dust themselves off if higher level).

Koumei would expect to auto win the cliff. Which actually isn't that unreasonable, as a cliff is not a very high level obstacle at all. So on that we'd actually agree (then she'd go back to fingering herself to some warhammer organization, and I'd go back to nerd raging at idiots).

Fine, whatever. The important element is that for you death needs to be a real and possible consequence ALL the time. Koumei don't want death to result from boring shit. So they will play such that some other penalty is subsituted for death in non egegious cases. If your not at their table why the fuck would you even care?