A question about DM-ing styles

[Deadeye_Jake]

I recently had a negative experience with a D&D group I had been playing with for several years. As one campaign wound down, one of the players decided to start a new campaign for the rest of us. After a couple of sessions, it is becoming obvious that this DM’s idea of a good time is to prove repeatedly that they are smarter than the rest of us and more powerful than the PCs (duh.) A string of dead characters, really dead animal companions/familiars and broken magic items is making this campaign a real drag for me.

 

I reflect back on some of the best (ie. most fun for me) campaigns in which I have been involved. They tend to be: 1) very little or no PC death, 2) not toooo tremendously mentally intensive, and 3) the feeling that the DM was setting up a good story for me to experience and was not actively working against me through game mechanics.

 

My question is: What type of DM are you/do you enjoy and, if you DM, what motivates you to run a game ?

[Slendertroll]

Yeah, I'd drop that game, personally. The DM is not supposed to be the players' enemy. I'm with you on what makes the ideal DM, and I try to be that way as much as possible when I DM myself.

[ub3r_n3rd]

I agree with Slendertroll, D&D is supposed to be fun for EVERYONE. This isn't a game of PC's vs. DM, it's a game of cooperative imagination where everyone works together to have fun and create a fun story/adventure. I'd talk to the new DM and let him know how you feel, open communication between friends and between DM/Players is key to keeping the group together and keeping the campaign(s) going for the long haul.

 

Personally, I like games with enough danger that if I do something stupid that my PC can die, I run games like that too. I believe if players at low levels think they are going into an ancient red dragon's lair and will, they will find out very quickly that I won't hold punches and they'll end up being fried, but I won't purposely kill them off for no reason or toss things at them during the course of normal adventuring that is well beyond them.

 

The trick is to challenge players to think outside the box, run a fun and interesting story, and make them feel like they are real heroes. It makes me wonder if your current DM isn't sure how to give players that challenge, but not try to kill them all in the process.

Edited September 20, 2013 by ub3r_n3rd

[Crimson_king_of_the_tower]

Well said Uber I agree with that DMing is about telling a story and never have I heard a good story that went "Once upon a time everyone died and the magical artifacts were lost". Having said that I dont want my PCs feeling that at the last moment Ill come up with something to pull them out of danger cause I dont want them to die. I personally have not been a PC in oh say 15 years Im the only DM amongst my friends lol. I want to tell my story cause i know everyone will like it and want to uncover it that is how D&D memories are made no one sits around 5 years after a campaign and says "Hey remember that one time we all died....yea that was awesome". DMs and PCs need to work together

[TGP]

I got a reputation for being a deadly DM for awhile there ... but I never had a TPK. And, I can only remember permanently killing one PC† and one other time letting an important NPC die (the party's cleric).

 

† ---(If somebody teleports their Mage/Thief double-class character, solo, onto the back of a two-headed, fire-breathing, ancient, spell using, Fire-Shielded†† dragon AND once there insists that they can use a Bastard Sword, with its very high damage versus large creatures, to Backstab the dragon, with all sorts of by-rule and by-magic damage boosting bonuses ... they deserve what they get. True story.)

 

†† ---(That would be the old-school version of Fire-Shield. The one that rebounded double damage on an attacker with no savings throw.)

 

 

 

 

 

[Loim]

I like my DMing to be more interactive fiction. I obviously want everyone to have fun. I have fun spinning the story, and hopefully my players have fun helping shape it. The threat of death has to be there, otherwise what's the point? However, I never set out to kill a character. I try to run things so that in any given situation there is no "right" answer. I present the situation, the characters interact with that situation. I then play off their interaction. Sometimes though bad things are going to happen. Critical fumbles, rolling a natural one, meteors, etc. I've also always tried to encourage my players to try interesting things. You never know, it might be the making of the next quotable situation. I also try to make it comfortable for my players to ask me for clarification out of character. I'm not gonna give away secrets, but if you don't know exactly what's going on (to the best of your character's ability) you can't make an informed decision to drop a fireball at your feet.

 

I've only ever had one TPK. In fact the only times I've ever had characters die irrevocably (not able to be raised/rezzed/reincarnated) was when the player planned it specifically that way to "retire" an old character. I have a long running habit of using old PCs as NPCs in my world, which usually works out for everyone.

 

It sounds to me like your DM either has a God complex, or is getting payback for some wrong (imagined or otherwise).

[Orlando_the_Technicoloured]

It should be fun for all concerned,

 

and repeated player deaths are never a good thing unless it fits with the game

 

 

eg Call of Cthulhu where the long running campaign I ran featured the 'Society for Parapsychological Investigation' membership or interaction with which provided the story hook for an ever changing cast of PCs some who lives some who died and many who went mad (A couple of characters made it through the full 5 or so years with only the odd stay in a sanotarium

 

or Paranoia where getting (pointlessly) killed by the computer is a way of life

 

As Crimson says a fantasy quest where everybody dies just doesn't work

 

Is the DM new to it (not playing, DMing) ?

 

if so talking to them may help (do they realise rolling dice behind the screen lets them fudge things to keep the story rolling?)

 

If not probably time to wind things up and let somebody else have a go

[Shakandara]

My question is: What type of DM are you/do you enjoy and, if you DM, what motivates you to run a game ?

 

I've documented my GMing style and views extensively in other threads here, but I'll give you the reader's digest version (you are welcome to talk to me about it the next time we get together to play wargames).

 

I wouldn't consider myself a killer GM, though there have been plenty of character deaths in my games. I tend to run a game that walks a razor's edge; sometimes the players slip and fall, either because they were unlucky, chose poor tactics, or were just being dumb. I occasionally throw un-winable fights at my group; there is always another way out in these instances. If death is no threat, then the game lacks challenge, and often becomes forgettable. If it is too hard, players never develop attachments to their characters.

 

It's the DM's job to find the right balance for each player in their group, as well as the group as a whole. It is always my hope that, in addition to having a good time, my players are better players for having played my game when it is over.

 

If you aren't enjoying your current group/GM, you have two choices. You could try talking to the GM, or you can bail.

 

~v

[Foxfire]

First thing I'd recommend is talking to your group. The other players may be enjoying it. I know I sometimes enjoy swapping characters a lot and some times I just do dumb things.

 

The second thing is, if the group agrees with you, speak to your DM. This is not something you need to be scared of, you shouldn't ever just 'drop the group'. Especially if you've been with them for a while, you should easily be able to sit and chat about what you do and don't like with the current GM's style. If you don't tell them, they will never know.

 

If the group disagrees with you, then you may have to drop group if it's not being fun for you and everyone else is enjoying it.

 

I'm currently starting my career as a GM, I've run like four sessions so far and one of the first things I told the group was to give me feedback about things they do and they do not like. We're all in it together so I want to make sure that they are having fun too.

[ShadowRaven]

I have very limited experience on the Dm side of the screen, though in a bit I plan on running that free campaign made up for the Vampire box for the group, because, well, I has minis to use. That said, I like a DM who doesn't throw anything at the party they can not handle, and doesn't punish the players for making mistakes, but at the same time challenges them, and gives a very real threat of death if you do something stupid or just have plain bad luck

[OneBoot]

I feel for you Deadeye, I've had a similar experience in the past with a DM who was, and still is, a very good friend of mine. It constantly felt like it was "DM vs. PCs" and it just wasn't fun.

 

I agree that a discussion with the DM is in order, since, as ub3r_n3rd said, he might not understand the balance of "challenge players but don't kill them." And if things don't work out or change, I'd say it might be time to join/start a new game.

 

Huzzah!

--OneBoot :D

[buglips*the*goblin]

The question of what is a good game has long weighed heavy in my thoughts. And, actually, for precisely the same problem you have now. It's like some sort of zen puzzle. If a DM kills the party, do they make a sound? DM's of the style in the OP used to be alarmingly prevalent, too. Mostly because back in my teenage years the people who had all the books tended to be spoiled rotten, and the rest of us poor schlubs had to make do.

 

Anyway, over the years I have cobbled together some stuff that seems to make sense. Wasn't easy, though. There are good DMs and bad DMs, and the latter far outnumber the former. But while a Power Player is an annoyance, a Power DM is a Critical Failure.

 

Some people see being in the big seat as an honor. I do not. It's a grotesque job, and I hate it. Unfortunately, I also seem to be pretty good at it. The two may be related. See, I view being a DM as a duty-driven position. And that means lots of work, and I'm not big on work.

 

Some bad DM traits are easy to detect. Like "Versus Mode". Some are subtle, like an overdeveloped world. To be blunt, any DM spending countless hours drawing maps and creating intensely detailed worlds should either spend that time playing Civilization, or spend that time working out story. The setting is only a backdrop, and to be blunt most people will never really care about it. You'll only make yourself bitter. Only create what you must for things to run smoothly and appear to have more depth. There is nothing worse than suffering through reams of read-out opaque history.

 

To run a good game, I've settled on the following Principles:

 

1. All's Fair in Love and Monsters

 

If monsters can do something, so can players. If players can do something, so can monsters. If you create fancy critical hit rules, both groups get them. If Asmodeus uses fireball and it does X, then unless there's a logical reason otherwise, a player can also do X with the spell.

 

2. The story is about the characters, the world is just where they hang out

 

If Duke Dunderhead the Third from 200 years ago relates to what the characters are doing, then give him detailed story. If not, don't. It's irrelevant information. Keep it lean, players have short attention spans. Let their imaginations do the work. Less is more, so it's better to give out Dunderhead's backstory as needed in several bits than one big chunk. The more often you reference him, the more real he will seem.

 

3. Being a character is not a free ride

 

Boromir croaked. Tasha Yar croaked. Being in the credits in big letters doesn't mean you can't die. But that's part of the story, too. If it's a glorious end, people should remember and reference it. Villagers will tell the tale. If it's just bad luck and rats nibble you to death, a good DM will still make it count. Did the other characters leave the body? Resurrect him later as an evil revenant who's ticked off that they treated his life so callously, make him a villain. Or used by a villain. Throw away nothing.

 

4. Actions have consequences

 

Good deeds should bring fame and renown. Treasure is nice, but having NPCs treat a character differently is nicer. Bad deeds bring the opposite. Without consequences, character actions have no meaning. Without meaning, they have no story. The hardest thing for a DM to master, but the thing that will most pay off, is to take all the random crap that happens and, in the end, make it appear like it was all planned from the start. Aim for that, that's the top tier of DMship.

 

5. Drama comes from peril

 

Take the PC's to the wire. Right to the edge. Beat them, smash them, humiliate them, rob them, and bring them to the point of no return. Do this often. But do it with purpose. Some may die, but they'll accept this if this is counterbalanced with opportunities for incredible feats of valour. Build in peril, but build in solutions that play to their abilities. And make them use them. Nobody will remember the time the party killed twenty orcs by breathing on them, but everybody will remember the time things reached ultimate desperation and the Paladin with 2 hit points stood and fought against impossible odds. If he wins, epic legend. If not, then he should still accomplish something by dying. That's trust. PC's will ham it up if they trust that no matter what the outcome will be somehow epic. And make sure when they earn a triumph that they get ALL the rewards. Including, but not limited to, villagers throwing themselves at them and heaping them with praise. A swashbuckler with an epic tale should become the pied piper of strumpets everywhere he travels. Give out some Beatlemania if they've earned it. Also give them jealous rivals, because consequences. A rooftop duel between swashbucklers under the full moon to determine once and for all if Reynaud D'Mustache or Guy L'Darkcloak are best at what they do because one of them's been greedy with the ladies fair can be stuff of legend, too.

 

6. Complexity from simplicity

 

Nothing is worse than wasting 8 hours trying to figure out an overdesigned puzzle. Or wasting game sessions trying to figure out an overwrought mystery. It doesn't take much withheld information to make something mysterious, so keep it light enough to figure out. And don't forget to provide clues and foreshadowing. You can do multiple storylines at once this way, dropping hints of dangers to come while players solve the current problem. 5 simple things going on in various degrees at once will always trump one frustrating mystery. And it makes the world seem alive, too. My group is a pretty high-IQ bunch of people, but they'll still drink clearly labelled elixers of life now and then. So don't make stuff too complicated.

 

7. Where's this all headed, anyway?

 

The DM must have an end-game planned. It all has to be building to something. A surprising number leave this out, I don't know why. But if you know the end, you can work back from that and link it together (even if only tangentially). This is the framework that binds it all together, and what helps achieve #4 - it looks like it was planned from the start.

 

 

 

Now all of that working together, that's going to produce a kick-butt game. It's going to be epic, and enthralling. That's the kind of stuff people will tell other players about decades from now. And I guarantee that if a DM does this, only absolute dire super emergency will keep players from attending. And if word gets out, there'll be a long line of potential recruit replacements looking to get in. Making a game like that is the DM's duty, the DM's most solemn responsibility. And it's tough, which is why most don't manage it. But not managing it, that's okay. Not trying at all, that's inexcusable.

 

 

 

 

Above all, remember this rule:

 

The DM does not make or tell the story. The DM only shapes the opportunity for story to happen.

[buglips*the*goblin]

I'm currently starting my career as a GM, I've run like four sessions so far and one of the first things I told the group was to give me feedback about things they do and they do not like. We're all in it together so I want to make sure that they are having fun too.

 

Bear in mind, though, that player feedback can be a bit like Reaper soliciting our opinions on models that don't match up with sales figures. It's handy to know, but you still have to exercise good, firm judgement. Common are the DMs who are fair, balanced, and exceptional but who, once on the player side of the table, become pushy and greedy for their own character's power at the expense of others. It seems to be natural to try to bend things to one's own immediate interests, so watch for that and try to filter it out of feedback.

[Orlando_the_Technicoloured]

Listen to the Buglips

 

he KNOWS

 

Edited September 21, 2013 by Orlando_the_Technicoloured

[smokingwreckage]

Is this guy running you through old-school, quasi old-school, or OSR modules? Because many of the modules from the late 70's, early 80's were MURDEROUS and there's a bit of a revival of that style gong on.