What was your worst DM ever? This thread is impervious - roll to disbelieve!

[illyahr]

Of course, the DM doesn't sound that great. However, one thing to consider; maybe your 'bad luck' in finding a good DM has to do with more than just the DM's?

I was thinking along the same lines. If you disliked every DM you ever had, maybe the problem is you? Just like a father who dislikes every one of his daughter's boyfriends.

[Theomniadept]

Where can I find the 'Field Supply Box' you mentioned? I couldn't find it searching through the MIC.

MIC 160, it's the Field Provisions Box and we weren't allowed to buy magic items and even then apparently wizards and clerics all make items nobody can use because UMD is a pretty exclusive club. To anyone who thinks there's ANYTHING redeemable about this campaign, I want you to understand we had to waste entire sessions coming to complete standstills because we ran out of rations, people refused to eat rations every other day, and we would come up with dozens of possible ways to sustain ourselves but because the horsemen of the apocalypse were on the mortal plane Pestilence was killing literally every possible method of sustenance. It literally took us an hour each game session to just wait, literally wait for the DM to drop rations on us so we could continue moving. Then again, not like it would stop us because everything was either live off DM fiat or die, and if we died the tour of his crappy world would end and he knew that wasn't an option.

It could be fun. Depending on what spells you picked, what other feats, what ability scores. It could also be completely useless.

Don't be fooled by the T1 label - it's entirely possible for a Wizard with the wrong choices to be seriously ineffective, even compared to pretty non-optimal team-mates. I've seen it happen, and it's not pretty.

...

Incidentally if I was going for that concept, I'd take Point Blank Shot instead of Weapon Focus: Net - same bonus, and it qualifies for Far Shot, which you really need for that short range increment. At higher levels, use a Ring of Telekinesis to throw a bunch of nets at once for a decent hindering effect when your spells aren't applicable.

The point was that throwing away feats and abilities will make you useless. When players are new, the worst way to introduce them to a system is to release them like a flock of chickens into a highway - they need a little guidance and advice on what is and is not useful. Apparently this is known as rules lawyering and telling other people what to do, even when you're giving them a list of options that they could take that would be viable.

I think both the player and the DM made mistakes during the game. I am quite sure that the story as seen by the player is very different from the DM's one. If the average optimization level of a game is low and yours is high, coaxing others in raising theirs seems pretty bad behavior to me.

Of course, the DM doesn't sound that great. However, one thing to consider; maybe your 'bad luck' in finding a good DM has to do with more than just the DM's?

Optimization doesn't matter when I'm optimizing a paladin and someone else is playing a Wizard. True fact; paladins can't stand against a wizard on any ground, and I was making a build that would allow others to shine in their areas while I shine in my own so nobody's toes get stepped on. Plus, we had how many spellcasters? Yeah, my optimization was for ME to keep up with their base abilities. Yes, I do in fact have NOTHING but bad DMs. Tell me, what exactly about being railroaded through a terrible tour of the DM's fetish world is supposed to be so invigorating? Please keep in mind the following rules about the DM's fetish world:
1. You may not touch anything in the fetish world.
2. You may not kill any fetish NPCs.
3. You may not kill any fetish monsters. Fetish NPCs maay be consulted or relied upon for slaying of said fetish monsters.
4. You may not deviate from the DM's fetish quest. Deviating will simply be met with invisible walls that only allow you to move in the direction of the fetish quest, no matter how bad it is.
5. Since the DM's fetish quest is the entirety of the game, player death is nonexistent, as the fetish quest must be complete to hear the explanation of the fetish cutscene.
6. Drow and female angry angels and Dark Souls are the greatest concepts in writing history and you should be happy that the DM is allowing you a seat on the tourbus of the world.

[...]

Has someone linked to that Trogbard story yet? If not, that needs to be on here.

[Sartharina]

The point was that throwing away feats and abilities will make you useless. When players are new, the worst way to introduce them to a system is to release them like a flock of chickens into a highway - they need a little guidance and advice on what is and is not useful. Apparently this is known as rules lawyering and telling other people what to do, even when you're giving them a list of options that they could take that would be viable

It depends on the amount of advice. From everything else you've said, you take it way, way too far.

Optimization doesn't matter when I'm optimizing a paladin and someone else is playing a Wizard. True fact; paladins can't stand against a wizard on any ground, and I was making a build that would allow others to shine in their areas while I shine in my own so nobody's toes get stepped on. Plus, we had how many spellcasters? Yeah, my optimization was for ME to keep up with their base abilities.

Not a "True Fact". Otherwise the tier list wouldn't be as hotly contested as regularly as it is (Even though it's been found to be true by experienced system users) - There are far, far too many instances of Noncasters outshining Casters in D&D 3.5. You have a Munchkin Myopia that you can't see past. You also seem to be blind to the doublethink in "Casters must take abilities X, Y, and Z to be useful and not ruin their characters" and "A paladin can't stand against a wizard on any ground". A paladin can keep up with or exceed a Wizard that doesn't follow your advice on how to optimize and play the game, and can still keep up with expected performance gradients. 3.5 was designed and balanced around what would seem to be absurdly low optimization compared to what we think of it as now.

6. Drow and female angry angels and Dark Souls are the greatest concepts in writing history and you should be happy that the DM is allowing you a seat on the tourbus of the world.

I can agree with the rest of the campaign problems - but the DM seems to have absolutely lost the point of Dark Souls if he tries railroading as hard as he does. Dark Souls had absolute freedom to explore and challenge/conquer the world.

Has someone linked to that Trogbard story yet? If not, that needs to be on here.

Yes, it's further up.

[Theomniadept]

Not a "True Fact". Otherwise the tier list wouldn't be as hotly contested as regularly as it is (Even though it's been found to be true by experienced system users) - There are far, far too many instances of Noncasters outshining Casters in D&D 3.5. You have a Munchkin Myopia that you can't see past. You also seem to be blind to the doublethink in "Casters must take abilities X, Y, and Z to be useful and not ruin their characters" and "A paladin can't stand against a wizard on any ground". A paladin can keep up with or exceed a Wizard that doesn't follow your advice on how to optimize and play the game, and can still keep up with expected performance gradients. 3.5 was designed and balanced around what would seem to be absurdly low optimization compared to what we think of it as now.

The point of showing the wizard example was because our Favored Soul had 10 STR, put his 4th level gains into it, and focused feats and spells on healing. He would charge into combat and roll attack rolls unbuffed by any of the amazing cleric buff spells. Weapon of choice? Double axe. Did not possess TWF. In Adventures in Missing The Point, the point was that you can completely miss the point of a class/build/concept, and thus explaining what a class can and cannot do to newbies is important, otherwise left alone they don't understand it and end up completely failing and thinking the system is garbage. Case in point: there was an old thread from waaaaaay back in the day where some guy thought Wizard was only a self-buffing melee type character and he played with like a 12 INT because he thought save-or-dies sucked because no monsters ever failed their saves, missing the point of buffing DCs with stats and feats.

In the case of the tiers, no, there is quite literally no way, other than 100% terrible playing that a paladin build sans any and all spellcasting can keep up with a caster build. Another case in point: the wizard took the spell black tentacles. Despite heavy railroading and adding auto-immunities to everything the DM couldn't think of why something wouldn't be grappled (other than the instance where the witches shot auto-dispelling fireballs at the spell) so there were a few combats where he tossed black tentacles and we just took 10 rounds to win with little effort. If you need an explanation as to exactly why the tiers are the way they are, please re-read the excerpts explaining how Wizards and Sorcerers and Clerics can typically solve a problem with a few spells while Dread Necromancers are more limited but can still be of service in most situations, and Samurais fill graves.

If you actually are one of those DMs that thinks more complex = broken, you need to look at the near-infinite number of threads on why even min-maxed the Truenamer is Tier 4 at best, or why Monk is a dip class and not a real class, or why Paladin is a 6 level class (factoring in planar substitution levels) and there is no point to continuing past 6, or why things like Remove Disease on Paladin is not worth sinking more levels into the class, or why Smite Evil and Smite Evil Outsider combined are a halfway decent attack, but Smite Evil alone ceases to exist at level 6. Complex = interesting, specialized, etc. I could have a character with 10 prestige classes still not compare to core-only wizards who invest 10 minutes before game into looking at spells.

Also, 3.5 was balanced? Stay off them drugs son.

[Beige]

snip

I've only had bad DM's, it can't be anything to do with me, and I'mgonna get is a sh***y mood with anyone who dosen't do as I say they should or suggests I might not be perfect...

I think I identified your problem.... you have natural GM traits yet your trying to play XD

[Earthwalker]

[snip]
In the case of the tiers, no, there is quite literally no way, other than 100% terrible playing that a paladin build sans any and all spellcasting can keep up with a caster build.

In the last pathfinder campaign I played in, I played a wizard. He specialized in divination and I played him like a detective (my favourite archtype to play) He choose spells from the divination school mainly. He also picked up a couple of rogue levels to flesh out his skills some more. Was going to go arcane trickster.
The character would not stand a chance in a straight up fight against a optomized paladin, you could also make a paladin capable of over coming more encounters than my wizard. (What the tier system represents). This is not becuase I am a terrible player. The character I made worked how I wanted him to work. I would very much be offended if the paladin in the group started to tell me I needed to have spell x,y or z becuase all wizards have them.

The GM in your post does sound terribad. I would not want to play in his game. I can see why you posted the story in this thread.

I have to say I do agree with what others are saying. When you are not playing to the same optimization level as the group. The solution isnt to get the group to match you, its to just find another game.

This works if the group is hi op and you are low, or the group is low op and you are hi. Play and find the game you are comfortable with.

[DM Nate]

Arms race? New players to a game do need to know basic information...

If you actually are one of those DMs that thinks more complex = broken, you need to look at the near-infinite number of threads on why even min-maxed the Truenamer is Tier 4 at best, or why Monk is a dip class and not a real class, or why Paladin is a 6 level class (factoring in planar substitution levels) and there is no point to continuing past 6, or why things like Remove Disease on Paladin is not worth sinking more levels into the class, or why Smite Evil and Smite Evil Outsider combined are a halfway decent attack, but Smite Evil alone ceases to exist at level 6.

Er, these two do not go together.

[lytokk]

Optimization doesn't matter when I'm optimizing a paladin and someone else is playing a Wizard. True fact; paladins can't stand against a wizard on any ground, and I was making a build that would allow others to shine in their areas while I shine in my own so nobody's toes get stepped on.

I hate to say it, but I made a halfling paladin that outpaced both the psion and wizard in the group. Completely blew them out of the water. Not talking straight damage either. It was up to me to solve about 90% of the social encounters on my own. Hell, even for combat, the DM had to start designing encounters in a way to completely invalidate me, which only resulted in me having to think outside the box and still massively contributing to fights.

Hell, I had a human ninja who completely bypassed whole dungeons while the wizard sat back and twiddled his thumbs.

My point is, player beats class.

[Theomniadept]

I've only had bad DM's, it can't be anything to do with me, and I'mgonna get is a sh***y mood with anyone who dosen't do as I say they should or suggests I might not be perfect...

I think I identified your problem.... you have natural GM traits yet your trying to play XD

I actually did DM a Pathfinder game and let me tell you the best way to learn how to DM is to watch terrible DMs and think to yourself "That was stupid. I'm not going to do that." It is infinitely better to roll with whatever the players can do than it is to just veto stuff they should be able to do Rule as Written, Rule as Intended, and Rule as Common Sense. When the party encountered a burning mansion with the owners inside killed and after the battles one player unlocked the safe and the other used forgery to sign the mansion over to himself I rolled with it because the world is there for the players to play in. Playing in this DMs game was like playing Minecraft on another person's server in spectator mode.

I have to say I do agree with what others are saying. When you are not playing to the same optimization level as the group. The solution isnt to get the group to match you, its to just find another game.

This works if the group is hi op and you are low, or the group is low op and you are hi. Play and find the game you are comfortable with.

Guess I have to explain this; a low op paladin in most campaigns with take some damage and go down. Not nearly as bad as Monk because at least the paladin has some nice class features, but one player playing high op vs. others playing low op is not necessarily a bad thing.

Apparently I need to explain this very, very carefully. Build was Paladin 6/Beastmaster 1/Halfling Outrider 10. So let's explain each level. Very, very carefully.
Levels 1 through 4: With the Slow Trait ad Flaw I move 5 ft per round. Feats taken must be Mounted Combat oriented as they are prereqs for my build. Thus, to all you geniuses who think high op paladin - better than tier 1, please reread this sentence; for 4 levels I couldn't move and had effectively zero feats (well I did have Skill Focus: Handle Animal and that's pretty much equivalent to Antimagic Fields in power so I guess I see the point there).
Level 5: The level where usefulness begins. I am able to use a riding dog with a lance to do double damage on a charge. That's got nothing to do with a build, that's just very very basic game theory. Again, still not an equivalent to the other paladin who joined later who took the Elf Paladin substitution level and got himself a Unicorn which was de facto the most powerful member of the party.
Level 6: Mount becomes celestial. Not much there, I mean it's now got some very minor defenses but it is worth mentioning that the Favored Soul and Wizard could and were summoning regular monsters that also had that template.
Level 7: Beastmaster gives me Wild Empathy and some new skills but given my dumped WIS there's no way I'm out-rangering the ranger. Plus I can't really use the Animal Companion because I want to save that for the dog.
Level 8: This is where I quit. Halfling Outrider gave me nothing because the level at which my mount would jump in power as it becomes an Animal Companion and a Paladin Mount as per the Devoted Tracker feat.....is 9.

So in addition to my build being used primarily for occupying enemies while aaaaalllll the squishy and/or long range characters (sorcerer, wizard, favored soul, dread necromancer, ranger, rogue, archer paladin) rely on my character to not get hit, here's the actual definitive proof that no, my optimization did absolutely nothing to upset any single thing in this game. I quit before the level where my build would actually come to its full fruition and I would be using all of my class abilities (sans my DM fiated loss of disease immunity). So, to anyone who thinks optimization can step on someone else's toes no matter the circumstance, I'd like to hear your take on it. Please, explain how optimizing a build that doesn't reach full potential till level 9 is completely broken and angers the DM. Seriously. Also I'm not sure that the people who are complaining about optimization actually read the first post detailing exactly how bad this game was - again, we were taking my HP (d10 HD, +3 CON mod, +1 HP/level from trait) in damage on singular attacks, and enemies all had DR 10/-. If charging with a lance doing 2d6+8 damage is over-optimization then everything above Commoner in power is broken and needs to be banned from the game.

[Cazero]

Apparently I need to explain this very, very carefully. Build was Paladin 6/Beastmaster 1/Halfling Outrider 10. So let's explain each level. Very, very carefully.
-snip build-

All of this is high optimization, and will appear as needlessly complicated to low optimization players, more so if they don't know what your final result should be.

You are also assuming that wizards are tier 1 regardless of optimization level. It couldn't be more false. A typical low op wizard simply couldn't care less about action economy, and the fact that a save or suck spell can disable an enemy for the whole fight. What he sees is that a fireball will have a immediate, concrete, reliable and measurable effect on the fight. Wich means picking evocation as his specialization school and taking only damage dealing evocation spells is a valid character concept, a coherent build, and tier 3 at most.

On the other hand, yeah, your DM managed to make Dark Souls suck. Some more consistency (like DR/- on heavy armor instead of higher AC, as he obviously did on his "original" monsters) could have solved the sucking rules part, but I guess the plot would still be lame.

[illyahr]

...snip...

This whole thing makes me not want to play with you. It is condescending and you completely ignore the fact that, even though you play a build that hinders your effectiveness, planning your build in advance is evidence of high optimization. Perhaps they enjoyed low-op play?

Yes, the DM was having issues. I'm beginning to think that the issues were more about him preparing a campaign for low optimization players (deus ex events to prevent TPK, etc.) and having to struggle with a high optimization player.

Considering that you posted an opinion in an opinion thread and immediately went on the defensive when someone started asking questions, I wonder what actually happened as opposed to what you have presented here.

[Galen]

To anyone who thinks there's ANYTHING redeemable about this campaign ...

Oh, but we already know there was something redeemable about this campaign. As you said in your previous posts, the players (other than yourself) seemed to be enjoying, or at least not suffering and taking it well.

Honestly, as much as you try to make it a "playing wrong" issue, it seems more like a player-group mismatch issue.

[mikeejimbo]

I was thinking along the same lines. If you disliked every DM you ever had, maybe the problem is you? Just like a father who dislikes every one of his daughter's boyfriends.

No, that seems reasonable. None of them are good enough for my Ada.

[Theomniadept]

This whole thing makes me not want to play with you. It is condescending and you completely ignore the fact that, even though you play a build that hinders your effectiveness, planning your build in advance is evidence of high optimization. Perhaps they enjoyed low-op play?

Yes, the DM was having issues. I'm beginning to think that the issues were more about him preparing a campaign for low optimization players (deus ex events to prevent TPK, etc.) and having to struggle with a high optimization player.

Considering that you posted an opinion in an opinion thread and immediately went on the defensive when someone started asking questions, I wonder what actually happened as opposed to what you have presented here.

Typical DARVO attacks. Note that I didn't tell other players my build other than that I was focusing on mounted combat, and my effectiveness was to be in the mount, who would gain a lot of levels in 'Dog'. But please, explain how optimizing an objectively bad class into usefulness is clearly what ruins games. Lemme guess, optimizing Monk is evil too, they should be played straight Monk 20?

Also, I'd like to actually hear what situation would ever call for throwing a monster with +14 attack and 30 average damage in a 20 ft square against a level 1 party. Please, do explain why it is so imperative that Wealth By Level be cut into a quarter and standard prices be doubled. Or is it really that much fun to track rations across 20 levels?

Oh, but we already know there was something redeemable about this campaign. As you said in your previous posts, the players (other than yourself) seemed to be enjoying, or at least not suffering and taking it well.

Honestly, as much as you try to make it a "playing wrong" issue, it seems more like a player-group mismatch issue.

That's actually incorrect. The goblin player would never break character, which is something I respect, even if his character was annoying some characters are meant to be that way, it adds flavor. The problem was when the DM threw that gigantic butterfly at us; this thing stayed airborne for 4 rounds and we were railroaded onto a 100% open bridge. No cover, concealment, anything. This thing was also arbitrarily invincible to EVERYTHING until it just decided to land, because apparently despite butterflies migrating hundreds of miles, this one needed to land every half a minute (note that the DM actually FORGOT TO MAKE IT LAND, saying "Oh, I guess it needs to land"). The goblin rolled a nat 20 on a Fireball and was told it did nothing. The archer paladin rolled over 16 on two consecutive rounds for both his shots and nothing hit. The goblin player literally walked away from the table to sit on a couch and watch TV while the archer paladin broke down and demanded an explanation for why all we could do that battle was literally stand there and get shot at with butterfly lasers. No, nobody else enjoyed that campaign, they just literally had nothing better to do in life than play in that game.

I was thinking along the same lines. If you disliked every DM you ever had, maybe the problem is you? Just like a father who dislikes every one of his daughter's boyfriends.

Is it so much to ask that I get a DM who makes a game where I can expect my character's skills, background, race, etc. to actually play a part in the story instead of being railroaded through the DM's tour of his world? Is it really that bad to expect standard wealth by level, especially in a game where the DM will be pulling CR appropriate monsters that are created with said wealth in mind?

Seems I need to pull out another story about a previous DM. So this really large guy, Ron, didn't believe in wealth by level. Well, not for current characters. See, he kept allowing new players in and giving them standard WBL but for those of us who were there from the start we got the shaft, which was problematic because I was playing a Fighter/Dwarven Defender and money was necessary to do anything on that build. I just abandoned that character and decided to play a Halfling Rogue/Whisperknife focused mostly on skills but those never came into play. I was told Knowledge (Local) can only let you know about some place if you've been there before, which is like saying you can only know Red Dragons are immune to fire if you have both Knowledge (Arcana) and have shot a dragon with fire.

One dude ends up in prison and I figure it's time to break him out Metal Gear Solid style - I sneak in and pick the lock but they make noise and the guards lock me up with them - they didn't take our equipment because the barbarian originally got himself into prison the old fashion way - break in and break things and break guards, so they're scared. I tell the DM I'm going to use Escape Artist at night to slip through the bars so there's no noise of lockpicking to alert any guards. I get told I can't do this. I tell him that this is the exact definition of the skill. Then the barbarian who was locked up, a fat guy, holds his arm up, points to his upper arm and says "Imagine the width between the bars is half the width of my arm". I had to process this for a moment. HALF the width of a fat guy's upper arm. I'm a HALFling and contrary to popular belief Harry Houdini was not, in fact, mythological. He was very real and could do exactly that as a normal sized human.

Then there was the incident later on - I gave up trying to use skills because on a railroaded game skills are literally nonexistent - you will find what you need to, you will not find what you won't need. You will know what you need to know and nothing more. So I switch to a VoP Healer/Apostle of Peace, and I had to explain to this DM exactly why Wealth By Level is what it is when he threw some outsiders at us (I think they were grey slaads but I can't recall) and he targeted the sorcerer with Implosion.

Thanks to his genius ideas about WBL, the sorcerer was literally given a completely random 'Roll a natural 20 or play a different character' check.

I do have to take one thing back; in my first pathfinder game, despite its unfortunate shortness we did have a good group and a good DM. Then again playing a Bard with a Rod of Wonder is difficult to not have fun with (I secretly hoped to accidentally turn one of the DM's enemies purple permanently just to see the reaction, still do want to do that one of these days). So that's 1 tick for the good DM list, and 5 for the bad list.

[...]

Yes, it's further up.

Which post number is it? I can't find it for the life of me.

[BeerMug Paladin]

More lots of words.

It does sound like you've been in some pretty genuinely bad games. But it seems you also have a dismissive attitude towards players and DMs with a different gaming style as well.

I've had mostly decent DMs, but for the most part, the sub-par ones I've had were at least creative and did usually come up with some decent stories and puzzles, even if they did the typical DMPC kind of shenanigans and milder forms of things other people have encountered before.

Although I did think it was BS the time my kobold sorceror cast Disjunction to get rid of something uber-bad, then I learned the area I disjoined contained 6 more identical artifacts that prompted me to make as many saves to remain a spellcaster.

The game was generally geared towards min-maxers, so I didn't mind the loss that much, as anything I would replace that character with would still wind up incredibly underpowered compared to other players (some of whom probably did cheat). I kept roleplaying the character anyway, who mostly helped out with skills from then on and puzzle solving.

I don't personally put a lot of effort into character optimization. I just pick skills, spells or whatever I think my character would focus on (and spends time in the game doing). I think optimization is generally not fun. I'm there for the roleplaying.

I like spellcasters, but I think utility spellcasters are more fun than combat spellcasters. So for each spell level I sometimes only take one combat spell.

I create characters in normal games with starting levels in commoner, or a fighter with a level in sorceror with an 8 charisma or a wizard who divides every skill point between every skill evenly (except handle animal and hide, because animals are stupid and nothing is more important than hiding). For backstory purposes. For roleplaying purposes.

And while there's nothing wrong with optimization as a play choice, when you've got people like me in a game with an optimizer, you really need to know what you're doing in order for the game not to break for either one of us. It can be done, but it's quite a bit harder to pull off than catering to one particular play style or the other. This tension could make a DM appear to be bad when they're not, really.

I'm fortunate enough that I mostly game with people who aren't min-maxers. So I rarely encounter this sort of problem as a player.

[icefractal]

Well - that's taking it a bit far, I think. Taking classes and feats that are actually beneficial is not some kind of extreme optimization thing, it's what most would consider normal play.

If you're taking Commoner levels, or classes/feats that you can't actually use, then you're intentionally making the character less capable. If that's your intention - you want to play the "in over his head" guy who isn't as competent as his companions - then that's fine. But if you do that and then complain about people outshining you, that's just being unreasonable.

While there was a play-style clash (with Theomniadept), I don't think it was an "optimized vs non-optimized" issue. It was a "by the rules vs seat of the pants" issue. And also it sounds like the GM in question kind of sucked, play-styles aside.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I wasn't saying anything that doesn't nerf the character is power gaming. Just saying that you can have fun without making sensible character building choices. Which judging by the poster's words seemed like an asserted impossibility.

That was essentially what the given example of an enchanter wizard who uses a net demonstrated to me.

While I might not care for character build optimization, there are people who enjoy that sort of thing. It's important to understand that some people prefer the game that way. But it's also important for them to understand there are people who don't have the same draw to the game.

If you don't, you get gaming group issues.

[Algeh]

This was over ten years ago, so some of the details are a little fuzzy to me. I'll do my best.

Spoiler: Prepare for the wall of text.

Show

The long running GURPS campaign I'd been GMing was falling apart due to a combination of GM burnout, player attrition due to it being summer (we were all college students at the time or recent grads), and player personal drama (two players left the group because, long story short, they had broken up with each other and did not tell the group about the breakup, they just both started flaking out on us each week with no notice or explanation, so we kept stalling until "the whole group was there" for about a month), so the remaining four of us decided to let each of the players take a turn at GMing on alternate weeks (in their own settings and with different characters for each) for the summer to give me a break. The four of us consist of:

Me (I'm female, which will be relevant later): Long time GM for the group, been playing and GMing for about 6-7 years at that point. I'm the only GM two of the players have ever known, and they've been playing in my long running GURPS game for over a year.

My boyfriend (at the time; we've long since broken up for completely unrelated reasons), who was one of the two players from my long running game

Another (female) friend who'd been friends with us both for several years and also a part of the previous game

and

That friend's Internet Boyfriend, who had moved to our town for the summer so they could live together in person. I think their first in-person meeting was when they moved in together for the summer. He's been gaming for years, too, just not with us.

Anyway, this story is about Internet Boyfriend's game. All the rest of us are running GURPS games, because that's the system I tend to run and the other players hadn't played anything else. Anyway, Internet Boyfriend and I get reminiscing about our high school groups and 2nd edition AD&D (3rd edition had come out a few years before this, while I was in college and mostly playing GURPS and WoD), and he decides to run a 2nd ed AD&D game for the nostalgia factor. We spend some time orienting the other two as to how this would be different from what they were used to (the GURPS campaign we'd been playing for years was a modern low point value low combat game with no supernatural abilities and lots of mental skill use). So far, so good:

Player breakdown: Internet Boyfriend: DM. Me: Male Elven Bard (DM bent the rules on which races could be bards because I like playing bards and wanted to be an elf for a change for reasons that now escape me). DM's girlfriend: Some female character who I think might have been a Paladin. My boyfriend: I honestly don't remember. Maybe a Gnome Illusionist? That's the type of thing he'd pick.

Anyway, it's a fairly standard "the Bad Guy has a big Dungeon-y building and you're going to stab your way through it, then through him" story, which is a nice change from the story-heavy modern game we've been doing, so that's fine. Anyway, along our travels we meet...a DMPC! He's a fighter! (which, to be honest, we could probably use) And higher level! And named after the DM! (Yes, exactly the same name as the DM, although the DMPC went by the full version of the name and the DM went by a common nickname.) And flirting constantly with his girlfriend's character! (It also becomes clear, as time wears on, that this and the other DMPC, who is a magic user and only teleports in to help us during "major" fights rather than travel with the party, together comprise every "cool" idea for a PC Internet Boyfriend has ever had that no one let him play in their game.) Anyway, DMPC clears the way for us to plod through the Giant Building Dungeon (for a slight novelty, we do go up floors rather than down, as this particular bad guy has an Evil Skyscraper).

I'm not much into the tactical combat part of roleplaying at the best of times (hence choosing to play a bard, who tend to do most of their most interesting stuff outside of combat), and having the DM doing all of the major fighting against himself doesn't really make the experience more meaningful for me. (The most boring version of the Man Against Himself story ever is DM Fighting Both Sides Of A Battle He Thinks Is Awesome.) So, being bored and glad to not be in charge and thus have to be the reasonable one for once, my character starts getting aggressively quirky in an effort for some screen time. Among other things, I announce that I'm shaving trophies from my fallen foes and braiding them into bracelets. This requires the DM to remember which monsters do and do not have hair, and thus I get slightly more DM interaction while he looks that up and tells me if my character found any hair to shave. Even this level of obnoxiousness escalation doesn't get me any meaningful amount of screen time, however (I don't remember the more reasonable things I tried to get something to happen outside of an endless string of combats before escalating to hair shaving of corpses, although I do remember that one of them resulted in us getting a treasure of a never-ending bag of donuts), because the DM is too busy being awesome and killing his bad guys, and also flirting with his girlfriend's character. (The girlfriend in question, being an experienced roleplayer used to story-heavy games with large disconnects between player and character, decided that while she was in a live-in relationship with the DM out of game, her character actually found his newly-met character pretty intimidating and awkward and was not going to reciprocate his affections. At a guess, she also found this pretty awkward out of character since our games generally didn't go there and it was a terrible Marty Stu character to start with, which devalued all of the work she'd put into creating a real character who was, you know, not just her but more awesome in some way.)

So, I up the ante. If the only route to screen time is to flirt with the DM's girlfriend's character, well, I'm playing a male bard with high charisma. I can totally do that too! This does actually result in me getting more screen time, as I am now involved in one of our two main plot threads: the quest to get in that character's pants. (Note: in real life, she and I were long time friends and not at all romantically interested in each other.) She decides her character is pretty much going into full intimidated introvert mode and begins ignoring the both of us, while I play the Hopeless, Hapless, Lovesick Bard trope for all it's worth. There may have been poems involved. The DMPC is still getting a good chunk of the screen time, as he's also deeply involved in the Stab The Way To The Top plot, which is now heating up and getting more playing time since all attempts at the flirting plot now end in his girlfriend saying "my character ignores both of you", followed by a description of what her character is doing in terms of trying to move forward in the dungeon. My boyfriend's character is just not into any of the other characters that way, so he (or possibly she - I no longer remember) is just along for the ride.

Anyway, we end up fighting some vampires or something, which is totally going to kick our butts as we're low level and terribly optimized for actual combat. (Except for the DMPCs, who are, of course, Awesome.) To save our bacon, the high level only-teleports-in-for-the-big-fights-then-back-out-again DMPC (as opposed to the always present same-name-as-the-DM DMPC) teleports us...to the moon! In this game, the moon has breathable atmosphere and is very boring. We wander around without finding anything whatsoever we can use to continue the story in any way, or anything at all other than a bunch of dusty rocks, nor do any of us have a reasonable chance of ever learning to teleport ourselves back. The story ends with us marooned on the moon with no further mention of the Bad Guy or his dungeon. At least we have unlimited donuts to eat (I think we also had a flask of neverending milk).

In unrelated news, many years later my then-boyfriend (the only one with a character not involved in the Flirting Subplot) married the Internet Boyfriend's then-girlfriend (the unwilling focus of the flirting subplot). I don't think any of us have talked to Internet Boyfriend for a decade or so.

Anyway, after reading this thread I now see that this could have been much worse, but it still made me wary of dealing with DMs I wasn't used to. Not enough so to avoid The Game With The People My Friend Met On The Bus a few years later, but that's another story for another time.

[Theomniadept]

The story ends with us marooned on the moon with no further mention of the Bad Guy or his dungeon.

This is why I have a personal rule to never play in a game where the DM is in a relationship with a player. Last time that happened the girlfriends' character turned out to be some reincarnation of an ancient priestess, which was followed by her taking 22 credit hours and dropping game, and leaving the DM written into a corner when a player is 100% central to plot and has dropped game.

But I'm curious as to why he thought teleporting to the moon would...anything. I mean that just leaves me at a loss.

[Marlowe]

Certainly bizarrely random. I was expecting the whole flirting triangle to end in a orgy of jealousy-fueled PvP and the Gm-Girlfriends character to finish by stepping over the cooling corpses of Uber-DM and Elf-Bard and saying "Alas, they're both dead" (turning to Algeh-Boyfriend) "You wanna...get coffee later?"

Random Vampire1: ...there's a nice quiet little place in the food court.
Random Vampire2: We could go double.

But instead you wound up on the moon.

...

Maybe you were supposed to find the Turn X Gundam? Seems no more random.

[Sith_Happens]

The four of us consist of:

Me
...
My boyfriend
...
Another (female) friend
...
That friend's Internet Boyfriend

So, I up the ante. If the only route to screen time is to flirt with the DM's girlfriend's character, well, I'm playing a male bard with high charisma. I can totally do that too!

teleports us...to the moon!

[Xerath]

I think i had one of the worst DM yesterday.

We were playing DnD. Set-up - i've been playing as pretty chaotic character who doesn't remember much from his life. I realised i had some connections with underworld so i just checked if i owe anything to them. It turned i don't and i'm clear. I've found pretty important persona for underworld. As it turned out everyone in town was ok with fact that he is underground agent, everyone knew about it and noone did anything(yea yea in capital good city). That was strange by itself. I didn't have anything to do for a week so i thought i should do something with this little fker. He was imba annoying, talked alot and felt like demigod of this city, threaten me, organised illegal fights. I catched him, knocked him unconscious, threw him over my horse and just run full speed through gates. Well guards were mentalists apparently and just killed me right away(DM didn't even roll anything), cos they somehow knew about my kidnap in huge capital city(i assumed i am not the only person going through gates which is pretty reasonable i think). I fell from my horse with this bastard(he was halfling so it was hard to tell what i have on horse - for those who thought i had 6.5 foot guy under coat) and killed him with my last strike to at least know my action did ANYTHING in this damn world. Then i died.

And here is the thing. I am ok with that. Maybe they got some kind of sonic fast informators. I am ok with my death but i just asked DM why it happened and how come they knew about that + what killed me cos as far as i know this game is based on rolling system and i don't think regular town guards are 360 no scope snipers - BUT STILL OK. And here is when imo bomb comes in:

-You know you COULD run through gates and run away from town with him. But whats the point if underground would kill you anyway?
-DM 17/09/2014
So after short conversation it was just
-That's how things go, he wasn't even that important but it's not how i planned this scenario so underground would kill you anyway. What's the point of rolling if you will die next day. Also this guy will be resurrected tomorrow so yeah.
-DM 17/09/2014

Not giving me any chance to do anything. I have tendency to meet DMs who are VERY bad at improvising and this one is even worse since he says **** like this in my face, not even pretending but just straight up saying "i am god and you will die anyway **** you".

There are few characteristics of DMs in DnD i hate:

1. Poor improvising skills
2. Acting like he as a god
3. Not consistent world, not knowing how to play specific environment
4. Having favorite NPC characters and protecting them for all cost even if it needs breaking rules
5. Treating players not equally

My DM had all of them. And yes it's DM from my last thread. We had some awesome DnD games back in a day until we started to play Cthulhu.

He is trying to mimic my Dming. Problem is i am mostly Call of Cthulhu DM which is pretty much >50% survival game and ALOT of characters die there. But ffs creating character in Cthulhu takes like 3 minutes and in DnD sometimes hours of thinking what it should be. I always treated DnD as fun game, crazy actions, funny scenarios with unexpectable outcome. As soon as DM treats DnD as survival game in such bad manner it becomes impossible to hit any level above 3.

Poor improvising skills

Well you see. It always goes down to one character or one unexpectable action made by players. Then he goes bat**** crazy and usually it's me who dies.

Acting like he as a god

Nuff said. He said i die cos of reasons. Not rolling, not giving me any chance to take any action and not asking for my intents.

Not consistent world, not knowing how to play specific environment

Well he always plays huge capital cities like they are small villages with 1 tavern it's pretty pathetic. Also doesn't care about how informations pass and how long it takes. Everything is disconnected and just doesn't work. Big organisations have connections only in areas he needs to **** over his players but when it comes to saving someones ass - noone is connected at all.

Having favorite NPC characters and protecting them for all cost even if it needs breaking rules

Well i already mentioned he is "god dm". It didn't happen for the first time and it is not last time i guess. Over past years he had 10 000 characters like this, killing players for no apparent reason other than - it's my favorite NPC and you will die for touching him even tho he is not that important for lore.

Treating players not equally

Well i didn't mention his other scenarios when we play with his GF. She is not very good at tabletop games, doesn't have much experience and i understand that. It's ok to explain rules and how to act. She wants to learn the game. But it is not good reason to treat us totally unequally. For her it's ok to almost kill somebody in center of the tavern and just make heroic run through city, then hide in sewers. If i would do that there surely will be 10 Helm clerics behind my back and they will kill me in one shot or probably when i will somehow manage to escape tavern and go to sewers there will be 10x 15 level thiefs hiding and killing me in one shot too - ofcourse IF there won't be 360 noscope sniper on roof killing me without any roll in one shot - that makes sense.

My thoughts
As he explained his reason for this kind of behaviour is - i am experienced player so i should know how something like this ends - which is total bull****. I have enough problems in real life and enough of struggles to deal with. I play tabletop games not for feeling of frustration but for feeling of joy and just having fun, for breaking rules, making something crazy, funny, good, evil and so on. Why for love of gawd do i have to play tabletop game as if it was reallife + axe or crossbow? It's total bull****. I just thought about something - maybe for him playing tabletop games is to have feeling of being gawd and ****ing people over, making them frustrated. I am so pissed off cos i just lost 9+ hours of my life and got nothing but anger and frustration out of it.

Now when i think about reallife+axe thing - heck! it would be way easier to kidnap someone in real life than in this DMs dnd heroic fantasy world.

Alright so now other thing. I am Call Of Cthulhu DM. I am pretty damn good in it - it's not that i am big headed. People say that, they want to play cthulhu with me as DM. They are scared and sometimes scream. People ask me to play Cthulhu and just like it and say it after each scenario. I just found game in which i am good as DM - finally after 8 years of playing tabletop games. I use real life envoirnment like loud mechanic clocks that provide more tention, put light in certain spots of house or room to play with peoples minds. Ofcourse i kill peoples characters if they make some uterly stupid thing like spreading on boneyard which is full of vampires, trying to jump from 15 meters roof. In Cthulhu you have to be pretty good at improvising at least in a way i lead the game. In Cthulhu you pretty much can't predict what players will use to solve puzzles which makes it even more interesting for me. If they kill someone important or destroy something important for lore i always have some way out of it. Sometimes i improvise whole scenario from start to end and it goes good too - not as good as already prepared one but still noone complains. It does not go like - someone will accidently[or not] burn VERY important letter - which would lead group to next stage or tell them how to protect themselves from monsters - and then suddenly 8 foot tall monster comes out of closet behind their back and kills everyone - cos you would die anyway right?

This DM guy seems like he is trying to mimic my Cthulhu DMing in DnD - which is BAD since these games are TOTALLY different and i explained it to him several times. We(players) asked him several times - if you wanna play Cthulhu like scenario just lets play Cthulhu and let it be it.

Then we had another convo after scenario. Well i poitned out again what is bad about it - then he turned crazy again and started to remind me our older sessions which i was DMing when i was like 16 years old - i am like really? It's obvious i sucked back then and made very poor choices as DM but why not talk about recent scenarios. Then he finally stated "ok i will not DM".

Just ffs :D

[DM Nate]

Much anger I sense in you.

[Inevitability]

Much anger I sense in you.

[TheCrowing1432]

Me.

The party of around level 8's decided to go into the underdark. And being brilliant they decided to use sun rods.

I sent a drow death squad after them composing of 4 drow fighters and 1 wizard with fly.

This was like my 1st time dming and yeah it....caused a tpk.

Whoops.

[Sith_Happens]

Me.

The party of around level 8's decided to go into the underdark. And being brilliant they decided to use sun rods.

I sent a drow death squad after them composing of 4 drow fighters and 1 wizard with fly.

This was like my 1st time dming and yeah it....caused a tpk.

Whoops.

Unless the Drow were way higher level than them this sounds like it was the players' fight to lose.

[TheCrowing1432]

Unless the Drow were way higher level than them this sounds like it was the players' fight to lose.

I made them equal level, but the wizard had fly and fireball, they...couldnt handle it.

Flying is insanely effective and I can see why so many people try to use it.

[Requiem_Jeer]

Wait, equal numbers or worse of equal level drow, who have a +2 level adjustment? That's an overwhelming encounter there, on paper.