Bad DM Trends

[goto124]

And if that doesn't work, he places traps everywhere Tomb of Horrors style. Even the doors and drawers want your brains.

And all NPCs are either dumb or have unusually large egos. So your diplomancy will not help.

[BayardSPSR]

Any negative response motivated by "but I didn't expect/want you to do that."

[JAL_1138]

And if that doesn't work, he places traps everywhere Tomb of Horrors style. Even the doors and drawers want your brains.

Hey now, some people like that kind of game.

A 10-ft pole is an adventurer's best friend.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Hey now, some people like that kind of game.

A 10-ft pole is an adventurer's best friend.

At least until it triggers a trap and suddenly becomes a 3 1/2 foot pole...

Or the guy that built it knew people use such things, and all the traps are actually 8 feet in front of their triggers.

[Keltest]

At least until it triggers a trap and suddenly becomes a 3 1/2 foot pole...

Or the guy that built it knew people use such things, and all the traps are actually 8 feet in front of their triggers.

In which case the appropriate action is to just ignore them. Somewhat less useful.

[Kalmageddon]

Every NPC is an ******* that treats the PCs like dirt regardless of how famous, charismatic or fearsome they are.
This is surprisingly common around here, so much so that I almost expect it nowdays...

Any negative response motivated by "but I didn't expect/want you to do that."

Yeah, the GM isn't allowed to have limitations, right?

[JAL_1138]

At least until it triggers a trap and suddenly becomes a 3 1/2 foot pole...

Or the guy that built it knew people use such things, and all the traps are actually 8 feet in front of their triggers.

I've done both of those, and had both of those used against me.

I've also broken a 10ft pole into four 2 1/2 ft sticks to use as truncheons when nobody brought bludgeoning damage.

[Solaris]

It helps to hand off control of the DMPC to a player during combats; that will alleviate suspicions that you're favoring them in any way and ensure you don't use OOC knowledge to their advantage even unconsciously.

I've found that if you're playing with the sort of people who get suspicious about favoritism at the drop of a hat, you're better off finding a different group to play with. I've neither the patience nor inclination to help someone with their paranoid neuroses, and if they want to hold things their previous DMs have done against me then they can see themselves right on out until they work out their issues.

Fortunately, I've not run into that sort of player in real life. Most of them have done a pretty good job of comprehending that not all DMs are secretly the same person.

[Alikat]

I don't like when I build a certain strength or tactic into a character then suddenly every enemy happens to be built to deal with said strength. For example in a 3.5 game I had a dex based kobold fighter I managed to pump up to around 42ac at lvl 12. Suddenly every enemy had a 30+ attack rating.

[Keltest]

I don't like when I build a certain strength or tactic into a character then suddenly every enemy happens to be built to deal with said strength. For example in a 3.5 game I had a dex based kobold fighter I managed to pump up to around 42ac at lvl 12. Suddenly every enemy had a 30+ attack rating.

Well to a certain extent, the DM is required to give you encounters that can actually challenge you. Theres no game if the result of every combat can be perfectly predicted before it starts.

[VoxRationis]

Yeah, if you hyper-optimize a character to be untouchable by standard play, you'd better expect that to happen. Otherwise, the story of the campaign will be somewhat bland, since every fight will consist of people trying and failing to even scratch your considerable HP pool.
Of course, your DM could have done that a different way, like making you fight magic-users with touch attacks, but one way or another, there's going to be a sudden shift in enemy makeup and ability.
edit: Ninja'd. I mean, if you had made your character's AC high but within normal ranges, that's one thing. Pumping it up to match those of CR 20+ dragons? That's not going to fly without some sort of change.

[Kurald Galain]

Well to a certain extent, the DM is required to give you encounters that can actually challenge you. Theres no game if the result of every combat can be perfectly predicted before it starts.

The key here is "every enemy".

It's fine if some enemies you meet are resistant to your strength, or specifically attack your weakness. It's not fine if all of them do. For example, I once had a wizard character who was fond of the spell Flaming Sphere (which, I should note, is nowhere near overpowered in the first place). The DM decided at some point that a large enemy could use his club to hit the sphere and make it fly far away like a golf ball. Now it's fine and funny if that happens once... but from that point forward, every single time I used the spell, some enemy would kick or punch it out of the combat area, making the spell completely worthless for the rest of the campaign.

Don't challenge PCs by negating their strengths. Challenge them by attacking their weak points.

[Keltest]

The key here is "every enemy".

It's fine if some enemies you meet are resistant to your strength, or specifically attack your weakness. It's not fine if all of them do. For example, I once had a wizard character who was fond of the spell Flaming Sphere (which, I should note, is nowhere near overpowered in the first place). The DM decided at some point that a large enemy could use his club to hit the sphere and make it fly far away like a golf ball. Now it's fine and funny if that happens once... but from that point forward, every single time I used the spell, some enemy would kick or punch it out of the combat area, making the spell completely worthless for the rest of the campaign.

Don't challenge PCs by negating their strengths. Challenge them by attacking their weak points.

When the strength of the PC is "has no obvious weak points" that's rather difficult. Im not sure how "Only faces enemies that cast spells that allow for no saving throws" is any less contrived or annoying than "Only faces enemies actually capable of striking you in combat".

[Necroticplague]

Treating "huh, my plan didn't account for that ability you have" as "cheating" is also a bad trend I've seen in some. Just because you forgot that a ghost can move through walls doesn't mean I'm cheating when I move through a locked door to look for the key on the other side.

Similar note: treating all the enemies as if they have the same abilities (and thus tactics). All the enemies run up, hit, repeat until one side falls over (much like most MMO enemy AI, come to think of it). Combines with the above when you find away around that one tactic they all share.

[Kurald Galain]

When the strength of the PC is "has no obvious weak points" that's rather difficult.

But that's an extreme outlier and nobody is actually talking about that.

[BayardSPSR]

Yeah, the GM isn't allowed to have limitations, right?

I should clarify. GMs can and should have limitations, for themselves and for players as well. Collectively working out what everyone's expectations are before the start of the first session is a great thing that everyone should do. "Stay on script" is a terrible expectation to have. For experienced GMs, it's arbitrarily controlling and should be unnecessary; for inexperienced GMs, it's an excellent way to not get better at dealing with the unexpected.

It's like house-rules. House-rules are great in principle, because everyone should modify the rules to suit the needs of their group - but that doesn't mean every house-rule is good.

[Keltest]

But that's an extreme outlier and nobody is actually talking about that.

The given example was ludicrous AC, making more standard encounters unable to hit them at all. Theres nothing stopping that player from just walking up to mages and murdering their face to stop them from spellcasting at them, so that weakness is severely mitigated as well. And even if that didn't work, there are ways for the party members to assist in protecting them from spellcasters.

There are still ways to affect that character, but most of them are going to be just as contrived as everyone having massive attack scores.

[Kalmageddon]

I should clarify. GMs can and should have limitations, for themselves and for players as well. Collectively working out what everyone's expectations are before the start of the first session is a great thing that everyone should do. "Stay on script" is a terrible expectation to have. For experienced GMs, it's arbitrarily controlling and should be unnecessary; for inexperienced GMs, it's an excellent way to not get better at dealing with the unexpected.

It's like house-rules. House-rules are great in principle, because everyone should modify the rules to suit the needs of their group - but that doesn't mean every house-rule is good.

That's far more reasonable, thank you.

[Solaris]

The given example was ludicrous AC, making more standard encounters unable to hit them at all. Theres nothing stopping that player from just walking up to mages and murdering their face to stop them from spellcasting at them, so that weakness is severely mitigated as well. And even if that didn't work, there are ways for the party members to assist in protecting them from spellcasters.

There are still ways to affect that character, but most of them are going to be just as contrived as everyone having massive attack scores.

They're at twelfth level. The spellcaster shouldn't be caring about AC anymore, nor should the caster be sitting there waiting for the mundane to murder them in the face.

[Keltest]

They're at twelfth level. The spellcaster shouldn't be caring about AC anymore, nor should the caster be sitting there waiting for the mundane to murder them in the face.

If the spellcaster is dedicating actions to avoiding getting facemurdered, they aren't dedicating actions to killing the party, so its STILL a win for the tank.

[TheIronGolem]

The given example was ludicrous AC, making more standard encounters unable to hit them at all. Theres nothing stopping that player from just walking up to mages and murdering their face to stop them from spellcasting at them, so that weakness is severely mitigated as well. And even if that didn't work, there are ways for the party members to assist in protecting them from spellcasters.

There are still ways to affect that character, but most of them are going to be just as contrived as everyone having massive attack scores.

The given example was a very high DEX-based AC. There are plenty of ways to deny a character their DEX to AC - ways that, unlike simply cranking up the baddies' to-hit so that AC is pointless, the player can deal with through resourcefulness and tactical thinking. Feinting. Invisibility. DEX damage. Grappling. That's just off the top of my head. A DM who can't challenge a dodge-monkey without resorting to Big Numbers either isn't trying, or doesn't want to.

The point is, a bad DM just negates the player's advantages, whereas a good DM sets it up so the player has to apply them in different ways.

[Keltest]

The given example was a very high DEX-based AC. There are plenty of ways to deny a character their DEX to AC - ways that, unlike simply cranking up the baddies' to-hit so that AC is pointless, the player can deal with through resourcefulness and tactical thinking. Feinting. Invisibility. DEX damage. Grappling. That's just off the top of my head. A DM who can't challenge a dodge-monkey without resorting to Big Numbers either isn't trying, or doesn't want to.

The point is, a bad DM just negates the player's advantages, whereas a good DM sets it up so the player has to apply them in different ways.

Your point is somewhat diminished by giving ways of neutralizing a DEX advantage as your examples.

[NichG]

But that's an extreme outlier and nobody is actually talking about that.

Its not so much an outlier as a class of player behaviors that occurs in a subset of the player population - generally those who have discovered how far you can push optimization in the system, but at the same time haven't learned to consider the long-term consequences of doing so. They're still riding high on 'I can't believe I managed to get the numbers this high!' and haven't gotten bored of steamrolling fights or taken into account the effect of their optimization on other players yet.

Its why experienced players who know how to optimize often learn to focus on party-friendly or DM-friendly forms of optimization such as specialized buffers, making an otherwise lackluster class function competently, or trying to flesh out a strange theme rather than just taking the most powerful options across the board and pumping their numbers as high as they can or going god-wizard or things like that.

(Incidentally, the more the DM reacts by changing the world, tactics, etc and getting into a sustained arms race with them, the more they'll get the message that they're being rewarded with increased attention, even if that is directed at neutralizing their advantage. If you want to get players off of this habit, glossing over entire combats 'okay, the dragon can't hit you and you can't fail to evade its breath, so you go and kill it - what next?' makes the point a lot more obvious and the player can more pick up that large numbers don't necessarily make the game more fun)

[JAL_1138]

Your point is somewhat diminished by giving ways of neutralizing a DEX advantage as your examples.

Having some enemies have a plausible counter some of the time is different than giving everything an insanely high attack bonus, I'd say. Difference in degree mainly. There's not much point in trying to gain any advantage if it's just going to get nullified every single time by something that heavy-handed--"yeah your AC doesn't do **** anymore, everything hits you anyway." Ok, you're dex optimized. Sometimes that should work. 5e for instance built the entire rogue class around being a dodge-monkey. Let it work sometimes. And then throw a spellcaster at them, and now they've got a tough fight. Then throw mooks that can't hit them without doing something clever at them again later.

If something's a broken combo, shut it down by saying so and houseruling...but if it's manageable, let people get some kind of advantage if they want it so long as it doesn't wreck the game completely.

If you were playing a 2e Fighter and had the option to take weapon specialization, but if you did, the DM was just going to decrease absolutely everything's AC by the same amount you invested in it, you'd be annoyed. Not to say that huge-numbers munchkining isn't a problem, too, but it's a balancing act.

[TheIronGolem]

Your point is somewhat diminished by giving ways of neutralizing a DEX advantage as your examples.

No, because those things can all be resisted, countered, or otherwise dealt with. They don't just say "screw your AC and all you did to get it".

[JAL_1138]

No, because those things can all be resisted, countered, or otherwise dealt with. They don't just say "screw your AC and all you did to get it".

This. Much better and more succinct way of putting it than mine.

[Mr.Moron]

But that's an extreme outlier and nobody is actually talking about that.

Once somebody has gone through the trouble of pumping their AC to 42 at level 12 it's hard to take anything they're doing in good faith. If they're introducing one mechanic that degenerate, it's probably safe to assume that in general their actions are going to be acting against the best interests of the game. Or at minimum it's being done to insure they're top A#1 king dunker of winning D&D than anything else.

[SowZ]

Once somebody has gone through the trouble of pumping their AC to 42 at level 12 it's hard to take anything they're doing in good faith. If they're introducing one mechanic that degenerate, it's probably safe to assume that in general their actions are going to be acting against the best interests of the game. Or at minimum it's being done to insure they're top A#1 king dunker of winning D&D than anything else.

I don't know about that. Investing in AC defends against a large number of attacks, but it is easy to get around and far, far from the best source of evasion. They could have stacked miss chances or gained immediate action teleports or any number of ways to mitigate ever taking damage that are far more munchkiny that AC optimization. And yet people are less likely to say that someone is playing the game in an anti-social way soley for taking Abrupt Jaunt.

[Jay R]

One of the best ways to tell a poor DM is his habit of insulting other DM's playing styles. That indicates that he thinks that there is only one good way to play.

[BayardSPSR]

One of the best ways to tell a poor DM is his habit of insulting other DM's playing styles. That indicates that he thinks that there is only one good way to play.

Even if she insults the other GM for being inflexible and thinking there's only one good way to play?