Legendary Actions and More of Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories

[Cluedrew]

Which leads into the bigger topic, if a player intentionally builds their PC with a weakness, is the DM obligated to always avoid that weakness? And if so, how is it a weakness at all?

I am going to agree with what Pelle implied which is what people want out of that situation changes. Also obligated might be the wrong word.

So I get the feeling that you group would prefer that you don't make the weaknesses come up so they aren't weaknesses, they are just places you don't have to spend character resources (at least Bob fits this idea).

For me personally I don't want the GM to avoid or seek it out. Just let the story play out and they should come up occasionally. Especially if it a weakness I planned, its part of the character so I would like it to come up often enough that people remember it and know about that part of the character. However I wouldn't want it hammered on though unless its a character concept about fighting some disadvantage. But I would like to highlight as many different parts of the character as possible.

[zinycor]

Nothing sweet about it, I am actually feeling really depressed about the whole affair.

I really don't get this... You had a good talk with the group you have had problems, serious problems, for a while. The talk went ok, and you are now making the rational decision of stopping to play with this group... And you are depressed about it? I truly don't get it.

[Talakeal]

I really don't get this... You had a good talk with the group you have had problems, serious problems, for a while. The talk went ok, and you are now making the rational decision of stopping to play with this group... And you are depressed about it? I truly don't get it.

Because I genuinly enjoyed gaming with them a whole lot?

The talk didnt go ok at all, the purpose of the talk was to find common ground and solutions, and all I discovered was that their distrust and anger toward me was much deeper than I ever imagined, to the point where finding a solution is all but i possible.

[Quertus]

Weaknesses? I suppose that it's slightly a matter of gaming style, slightly a matter of system, and therefore only *mostly* answerable.

My answer is, the world/adventure should be the world/adventure, created without prior knowledge is the PCs, and with the belief that *most* PCs could have fun with the world/adventure. The PC should be the PC, created without knowledge of the world/adventure, and with the belief that it could be enjoyable in most worlds / on most adventurers - at least, within a genre or set of genres (space opera murder mystery; fantasy dungeon crawl; whatever).

If your fantasy hex crawl compatible character is not having fun on a fantasy hex crawl, then y'all should work to diagnose the problem, so that more compatable choices can be arranged.

In short, the GM should (IMO) not only neither "avoid not seek out" a weakness, they probably shouldn't even be aware of it in the first place.

Unless, of course, your style dictates otherwise, it becomes a problem, or you have the skills to diagnose and prevent problems from happening in the first place.

[Great Dragon]

I really don't get this... You had a good talk with the group you have had problems, serious problems, for a while. The talk went ok, and you are now making the rational decision of stopping to play with this group... And you are depressed about it? I truly don't get it.

I think that I might have a similar problem.
The Logic of the Situation does not reduce the Feeling of Loss.

For the most part, it is incredibly difficult for me to do World-building even for a Region or a small area without someone to share (or at least be) with. I get depressed, lose focus, and can't stay interested.
But, I have been diagnosed with Depression. I don't want to assume the same for Talakeal.

[zinycor]

Because I genuinly enjoyed gaming with them a whole lot?

The talk didnt go ok at all, the purpose of the talk was to find common ground and solutions, and all I discovered was that their distrust and anger toward me was much deeper than I ever imagined, to the point where finding a solution is all but i possible.

Look, I have left groups too, and yeah, it can be hard. But in the end we are only doing this as a hobby, therefore you should try to make it enjoyable, and by playing with toxic players (such as Bob) you are only damaging yourself. In regards to the other players, if they had such a different way to see the hobby, then is for the better that those differences are know known.

You now are free to begin a new, go find another group of players, be polite, be open, and air their feelings into account, and enjoy the game.

[Excession]

AFAICT they want to use gaming as an outlet for self esteem issues, and mostly enjoy the power fantasy aspects and, more importantly, to get the illusion of control in their lives.

... but they dismissed that as saying that in a movie you know it is going to come out all right in the end, RPGs don't have that level of security so the tension is scary instead of fun.

These two sentences in particular come across as kind of condescending and insulting to your friends. The style of game they like is perfectly reasonable, and they aren't lesser people for preferring it. You aren't winning by wanting a different style.

The point about movies is a good one. I would say it dismantles your argument, not dismisses it. IMO, combats (especially boss fights) should feel like they were close, like maybe the PCs only had a 50/50 chance of winning. The problem with that is that losing every second boss fight isn't fun. In stories, the writer is responsible for making it seem touch and go until the heroes finally overcome the enemy for that sweet victory. In computer games, you get a save point before the fight and you get to keep trying it until you succeed, but probably only use 5 minutes per attempt.

In TTRPGs the same thing often relies on illusion. The players need to feel like they only just scraped through, without actually losing most fights when they don't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

In TTRPGs the same thing often relies on illusion. The players need to feel like they only just scraped through, without actually losing most fights when they don't.

In my experience, players think fights are way tougher than they really are unless they're experts with the MM memorized. In part because they can't see the opponent's Status of Forces--they don't know HP, reinforcements, special tricks, etc.

[Talakeal]

I am also kind of getting frustrated with my player's bitching, to the point where I don't trust them about not trusting me.

For example, they said that it would never occur to them to restrain a foe without killing it, but not two sessions before they charmed a rust monster rather than risk their weapons attacking it.

Likewise, there was another incident I didn't mention in the previous thread, where they tried to trap the unkillable monster in a room with a wall of stone. Now, I give a reflex save to avoid being trapped*, and it succeeded (by a single point, man I wish it had failed), and I describe it as leaping forwards and just scraping through the gap before the wall solidifies, but the players insist I told them that it simply smashed through the wall like kool-aid man, and so they didn't try that strategy a second time.

The thing is, later that session, another enemy went through that corridor and they questioned how that was possible when it was sealed off with a wall of stone, to which I explained that it looks to have been excavated while they were recuperating in town. Now, this was a perfectly valid question at the time, but in hindsight, if they thought a big guy had just smashed through a wall, why wouldn't they just have assumed there was a giant hole in it? I almost feel like they are gas-lighting me at this point.

These two sentences in particular come across as kind of condescending and insulting to your friends. The style of game they like is perfectly reasonable, and they aren't lesser people for preferring it. You aren't winning by wanting a different style.

The point about movies is a good one. I would say it dismantles your argument, not dismisses it. IMO, combats (especially boss fights) should feel like they were close, like maybe the PCs only had a 50/50 chance of winning. The problem with that is that losing every second boss fight isn't fun. In stories, the writer is responsible for making it seem touch and go until the heroes finally overcome the enemy for that sweet victory. In computer games, you get a save point before the fight and you get to keep trying it until you succeed, but probably only use 5 minutes per attempt.

In TTRPGs the same thing often relies on illusion. The players need to feel like they only just scraped through, without actually losing most fights when they don't.

Yeah, I am feeling kind of dismissive and insulting towards my friends, so if you are reading that into my words it is understandable.

I actually agree with you 100% on illusionism; in reality my players typically only suffer a "loss" maybe once every 15-20 sessions, but the rest of the time I typically make them feel like the just
scrape by, and it is that feeling that they don't like; they want to feel like bad-asses stomping a mud-hole on their opponents.

Look, I have left groups too, and yeah, it can be hard. But in the end we are only doing this as a hobby, therefore you should try to make it enjoyable, and by playing with toxic players (such as Bob) you are only damaging yourself. In regards to the other players, if they had such a different way to see the hobby, then is for the better that those differences are know known.

You now are free to begin a new, go find another group of players, be polite, be open, and air their feelings into account, and enjoy the game.

As I said earlier, I am thoroughly enjoying the game, and Bob is mostly a pleasant person at the table. Apparently, though, my players are not enjoying the game, and are constantly bitching about it after the session.

Also, I am still going to be playing with the same group, I am just not going to DM. Although, odds are I will be roped back into DMing after they tear down whoever volunteers to take my place.

I will try and find a new group, but my experiences with finding groups in the past have been complete failures. All of the established groups already have a DM and an established heirarchy, I have never been able to start a new group from scratch, especially not now that I am living in a new city where I don't know any gamers who aren't already part of my group.

*: Have for years ever since my first 3.5 game where the fighter spent what seemed like half the campaign bored out of his mind in a force cage, and this is written in the house rules that the players have read, so it shouldn't be a surprise.

[Excession]

In my experience, players think fights are way tougher than they really are unless they're experts with the MM memorized. In part because they can't see the opponent's Status of Forces--they don't know HP, reinforcements, special tricks, etc.

Yes, and I think that is necessary, and hopefully by design. Without the illusion of fights being hard, you either get constant losses/TPKs if the fights are actually hard, or you lose the feeling of challenge if the fights are and appear easy.

I'm not sure if hiding details from the players is necessary to produce that illusion, though it is common. I have run games where players could see enemy HP totals, resists etc. and they still seemed to work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, and I think that is necessary, and hopefully by design. Without the illusion of fights being hard, you either get constant losses/TPKs if the fights are actually hard, or you lose the feeling of challenge if the fights are and appear easy.

I'm not sure if hiding details from the players is necessary to produce that illusion, though it is common. I have run games where players could see enemy HP totals, resists etc. and they still seemed to work.

That hidden information is part of it, but part of it is that they don't know what's next. This is especially true for non-obvious fights where you might have waves of enemies (is this the last wave or are there still several to go?) or where the enemies behave somewhat intelligently.

And I agree that it's necessary, once I thought about it. But it was certainly surprising as a new DM--I knew that they'd just steamrolled the encounter...but they didn't. They thought it was much harder. Which got me to thinking that maybe DM perceptions are necessarily biased and non-reflective of what the players see. Same goes for puzzles--things that are obvious to the DM usually aren't so much to the players. Or maybe the reverse--they see something you failed to and blow right through it. But that's rarer, IMX.

[Excession]

... it was certainly surprising as a new DM--I knew that they'd just steamrolled the encounter...but they didn't. They thought it was much harder. Which got me to thinking that maybe DM perceptions are necessarily biased and non-reflective of what the players see. Same goes for puzzles--things that are obvious to the DM usually aren't so much to the players. Or maybe the reverse--they see something you failed to and blow right through it. But that's rarer, IMX.

I've run into the same thing at the strategic level as well. The players thought they had gone completely off-script, while to me they were still basically following the plot of the book I had based the campaign on. They did get more off-script later on, related to selling quest hooks to NPCs. It was all logical, and I could hardly argue that a small NPC army wouldn't be a solid tactical choice for that particular dungeon.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I've run into the same thing at the strategic level as well. The players thought they had gone completely off-script, while to me they were still basically following the plot of the book I had based the campaign on. They did get more off-script later on, related to selling quest hooks to NPCs. It was all logical, and I could hardly argue that a small NPC army wouldn't be a solid tactical choice for that particular dungeon.

I've had players think they were off script. Jokes on them--I didn't have a script. I'm too lazy to build scripts beyond "here's a situation, go mess with it and we'll see what happens." I'm running 3 different games in the same setting (although different parts of it) and it's a living world[1], so there's no way I can do more than minimal plotting (as opposed to situation/scenario building). Plus, the one time I tried they took a hard left at reality.

[1] I run a bunch of short-term campaigns in the same world. At the end of each campaign (one school year), I bundle everything that happened together and make the resulting changes to the world. Retired characters become NPCs, and those NPCs are movers and shakers. I always end with "and what's your character's goal now?" I've had everything from "retires to a small village" to "I want to find a way to go talk to the man behind the curtain, the being/entity/thing above the gods. Not because I really care, but because it'll make me a great celebrity."

[kyoryu]

I think the problem is that most players don't want to lose their characters, and most RPGs are very bad at loss conditions other than characters.

This is a holdout from D&D, where at Gary's table, you'd have multiple characters, and if one died, it was just one of them. Kind of like X-Com.

I run games where the players lose. A lot. All the time. Like, at least once per session, usually a lot more.

This works because:

A) I run a game (Fate) where the players can always back out of a combat and escape with their lives.
B) There's other things at stake rather than "KILL THE PCS", and those are communicated clearly.

So the players lose, but what they might lose is "the bad guy gets away with the Maguffin" or "You don't get the contract you want" or something like that. Think of the losses that most characters face in TV and movies, and you get a good idea of what I'm talking about.

[Cluedrew]

Also, I am still going to be playing with the same group, I am just not going to DM. Although, odds are I will be roped back into DMing after they tear down whoever volunteers to take my place.

Two things. First: Are they not aware of this? Second: If that happens... think very carefully about how you run that game. And what is laid out before you start running it. Also you probably shouldn't but I don't expect that to happen.

A) I run a game (Fate) where the players can always back out of a combat and escape with their lives.
B) There's other things at stake rather than "KILL THE PCS", and those are communicated clearly.

I think Fate should be the iconic table-top role-playing game. Not because it is better than D&D (not that it isn't) but because I think it is a more friendly to new players for reasons like this. Also it is a generic system which is an extra point. Of course if I was actually in a position I might look a little deeper and pick something else - I have heard Fudge is strictly mechanically better than Fate for instance - but the system would probably look more like Fate than D&D.

[kyoryu]

I think Fate should be the iconic table-top role-playing game. Not because it is better than D&D (not that it isn't) but because I think it is a more friendly to new players for reasons like this. Also it is a generic system which is an extra point. Of course if I was actually in a position I might look a little deeper and pick something else - I have heard Fudge is strictly mechanically better than Fate for instance - but the system would probably look more like Fate than D&D.

There's a lot of structural holdovers from Gary's game that... don't make sense outside of fairly narrow scenarios. For clarity, I'm a huge fan of old-school D&D and happen to love those narrow scenarios.

I tend to look at games as not being "good" or "bad", but, in general, being good or bad for specific things. And at the end of the day, I don't think that D&D is super amazing at doing what most people want to do when they hear about roleplaying, especially with the strong push towards "collaborative storytelling".

[Talakeal]

Two things. First: Are they not aware of this?

Aware of what part precisely?

[zinycor]

As I said earlier, I am thoroughly enjoying the game, and Bob is mostly a pleasant person at the table. Apparently, though, my players are not enjoying the game, and are constantly bitching about it after the session.

Also, I am still going to be playing with the same group, I am just not going to DM. Although, odds are I will be roped back into DMing after they tear down whoever volunteers to take my place.

I will try and find a new group, but my experiences with finding groups in the past have been complete failures. All of the established groups already have a DM and an established heirarchy, I have never been able to start a new group from scratch, especially not now that I am living in a new city where I don't know any gamers who aren't already part of my group.

You live at a small town?

[OldTrees1]

Because I genuinely enjoyed gaming with them a whole lot?

The talk didn't go ok at all, the purpose of the talk was to find common ground and solutions, and all I discovered was that their distrust and anger toward me was much deeper than I ever imagined, to the point where finding a solution is all but i possible.

Oh, the talk sounded like it had a better tone despite the disappointing information gained from the clarity of the talk. That is what I had meant by bittersweet. Obviously it was just bitter (but hopefully a bitter medicine). I expect things to get better for you, but I understand the depression and road ahead.

[NichG]

Which got me thinking; how much is the DM really culpable for making (or running in the case of a module) encounters that specific characters will struggle with because of self imposed personality quirks?

Which leads into the bigger topic, if a player intentionally builds their PC with a weakness, is the DM obligated to always avoid that weakness? And if so, how is it a weakness at all?

As I said upthread, every build guide recommends that martial characters have ways to deal with flying and incorporeal foes, but if the party chooses not to, does that mean that all of the flying and incorporeal creatures in the MM are now off limits?

Part of running the game is reading your players and understanding their motives for what they do. Part of playing the game is reading the DM and understanding what is possible at that table. Open communication about what the game is supposed to be lowers the difficulty of both of these tasks, at the cost of spontaneity. However, messing these tasks up is worse than lacking spontaneity, so generally communication about expectations is strongly advisable.

Someone might give their character a weakness for various reasons relative to what they want out of the game:
- They want to experience struggle to force themselves to be clever
- They think weaknesses make characters more three dimensional and realistic, and see dealing with a weakness as part of their job as a player
- The weakness is there for giggles or jokes or playing off for table interactions but isn't meant to seriously impact game where it counts
- They think it isn't a real weakness
- They can gain strength elsewhere from taking that weakness, and it's a calculated risk as part of optimization
- They want to be powerful at something and grudgingly accept a weakness in exchange because the system forces them to
- They want to use the weakness to excuse strength elsewhere that would be socially unacceptable 'you say I'm OP, but my shellfish allergy means I could be killed by crab monsters, so I'm balanced!'
- Their level of system mastery means that they don't understand or anticipate their choices leading to a problem

Whether it's kosher to bear down and attack that weakness, have occasional threats to that weakness, or studiously avoid it depends entirely on what the player intends by it. Similarly, taking that weakness is a good idea for the player only if they can be sure the DM is on the same page as them about it.

It's not 'one side is right, the other wrong'. It's 'bad gaming is bad for both sides, and if either has the ability do something simple (like explaining what they want out of the game) to prevent it, they should'. If the player is bad at this (not an experienced gamer, not mature, etc) more responsibility falls on the GM. If the GM is bad at this, more responsibility falls on the player.

That's responsibility, not guilt. Doing something to make the situation right matters. Assigning blame for the situation going wrong is less important, except where it informs a strategy for things not going wrong next time.

[Great Dragon]

PC Weaknesses:

This is a sore subject with me.
If you choose to have a weakness, it should impact the PC at least 60% of the time.
Otherwise, what was the purpose for having it?

In D&D, these don't have much impact in most Editions, and are mostly an RP situation for the PC to deal with. Weaknesses in Other games have far more impact on the PC

I agree with Quertus that the World should not target a PC's Abilities/weaknesses specifically.

An Adventure can target those, but should make sense, especially in hindsight.

Now, I like to work with my Players in making their Characters, and if they chose to have a weakness, I'll build that in along with their strengths.

Unless the PC starts out with a Villain (1), foes need to Figure Out what the PC's weakness is, usually from actions during the Encounter.

(1) I love making "Classic" Villains.
One where their Power is usually obvious;
Their weaknesses are telegraphed;
and their Monologue is cliched.

But, I have a whole Pyramid of Villains.
As has been stated in my To the 9th thread - I dislike "stupid" foes. (Dumb Monsters can exist) Sure, I use these for New Players and even for most 1st to 3rd level PCs.

But, as the PC gets Higher Level, the foes get both stronger and smarter.

I almost feel like they are gas-lighting me at this point.

This is a possibility, see below.

Also, I am still going to be playing with the same group, I am just not going to DM. Although, odds are I will be roped back into DMing after they tear down whoever volunteers to take my place.

When (most likely not If) that happens, state that you will only do so if there are some compromises and solid agreements from them. Make sure they know, and agree, to the things you've chosen to do as the DM.

If they just want easy Murder-Hobo-ing games, then I'd seriously recommend just sticking to Modules and doing Dungeon Crawls with Obvious Goals.

Save your Beloved World for those Players that show interest in it.

Focus your Encounters around the Boss/BBEG, where Minions are just (mostly) Fodder. Drop Random Encounters, unless the Party stays in one place in the Dungeon for to long. (Taking a Short Rest has a risk, and things will change over a Long Rest)

I will try and find a new group, but my experiences with finding groups in the past have been complete failures. All of the established groups already have a DM and an established heirarchy, I have never been able to start a new group from scratch, especially not now that I am living in a new city where I don't know any gamers who aren't already part of my group.

Spoiler: Patience

Show

I moved to Portland OR a little over a year ago. I didn't know anyone that gamed, and was clueless even where to look.

Googled Gaming Stores, and found three close to me.

Started hanging out at each, and found one I liked. (Until it closed). Joined another DM's game, and met people. (Watch out for Click Groups, but Don't Assume)

Offered to DM to everyone I met.
Joined Meetup and advertised there.
It took nearly eight months to get anyone interested.

Now, I DM three groups: and a player in a fourth Retro Clone game once or twice during the month.

Now, I got Super Lucky -
All of my Players are great.

Only the first DM caused me problems, and I did my best to help them even as I was leaving.

But, I had no way of knowing that these Players were going to be compatible when I met any of them. And, as mentioned before, I have lost some Players.

Relax, and don't rush. Try another DM's game for a month before judgement.

Perhaps be more involved in Character Creation, and show the Players how they fit into the World, and ways they can affect it.(IMX especially useful for New Players)

[Kardwill]

Also, they seem to have a really weird idea about the relationship between players and DMs. Basically, as far as I can understand it, they think the DMs job is to kill the player characters but give the illusion of being fair and balanced, so the DM is always looking for the opportunity to trick the players into killing themselves with what appears to be a reasonable challenge so they can achieve their nefarious goals while looking innocent.

Sadly, that's not weird at all. That's a classic mentality for players that were "trained" by bad/adversarial GMs. They become paranoid and think the GM is there to "get them", and their goal is to outwit him.
I've seen it a lot in younger players. If everyone around the table is at the same page, and if the table mood is playful, it can be fun. You can even joke about it without being really adversarial (I like to tease my players when they trash one of my boss monsters too easily - "Damn. Well played, but I'll get you next time")
But when the players and the GM are serious about it ? That's when the stuff from "RPG horror stories" happen (tantrums, slow and boring gameplay, gloating killer GMs, punishment for "bad" players, etc...)

I've become a "Yes GM" specifically to train my players out of that mentality

In general though, the tension of not knowing what something is or where it came from can be pretty effective, and part of that is giving it weird unexpected powers; for example if you were fighting some far-realm infected kobolds with ants for blood, it is a lot more effective to simply have them launch acidic spines in combat than to have some guy yell "watch out! They spit acid!" while leaving town; basic show don't tell. Mechanically it isn't really a screw job, not any more so than them picking up rocks and chucking them anyway, but it can really up the creep factor.

But that encounter would be much better if it was hinted at earlier. Corroded landscape, acid-burned bodies, that kind of thing. That way, when the ant-looking kobold sprays them with acid, they will think "Okay, that was this bugger's fault", not "What the hell?" Maybe they will even suspect something when they see the ant abdomen, or take action against acid-based attacks, and will feel clever when their suspicion is confirmed. "Show, don't tell" is a narrative rule, but foreshadowing is an important tool too!

One of my personal rules of thumb is "surprise is overrated, suspense is better". If I completely surprise my players with something important, then I failed to properly introduce it. The best twists are those that we should have seen coming, the ones that "make perfect sense" afterward.
If a player can see something coming, then he has a chance to do something about it. It doesn't feel unfair

[Pelle]

Likewise, there was another incident I didn't mention in the previous thread, where they tried to trap the unkillable monster in a room with a wall of stone. Now, I give a reflex save to avoid being trapped*, and it succeeded (by a single point, man I wish it had failed), and I describe it as leaping forwards and just scraping through the gap before the wall solidifies, but the players insist I told them that it simply smashed through the wall like kool-aid man, and so they didn't try that strategy a second time.

Those kind of situations are kind of unavoidable, and may not be due to ill intent at all. Peoples' perception of what has happened is different, not everyone remembers the same details, maybe they were distracted or put more emphasis on certain words. And the situation in your head can never be conveyed fully accurate to the players, they only get an interpretation of it and need to imagine it anew themselves. The only way to improve this is more communication, and asking for confirmation that you are one the same page. As a GM, it can also be impossible to to know what the players have understood wrong. I find the best way to clear that up is to ask what the players' intention is with their actions, especially when what they do looks weird. Misunderstanings will happen though, and it's on everyone to handle them in good faith.

What you can do to avoid the misremembering above is to roll in the open, and establish the stakes beforehand. "The monster is leaping forward and trying to squeeze through. It has +5 to the Reflex save, what is the DC?" *roll in the open - everyone can see it was lucky and succeeds by one* "It barely scrapes through!" That leaves no room for the players thinking it smashed through the wall unimpeded.

[kyoryu]

I'm going to make an analogy about the risk thing.

Gambling.

If I go to Vegas and play Blackjack, I know how the game works. Any rules different from "standard" are posted clearly. When I put my money down, I know how much I can lose, and what I can win.

The game doesn't change while I'm playing. There aren't hidden rules. The dealer can't decide that suddenly I must draw another card, or, outside of well known situations, that I can't draw another card.

Similarly, the stakes are well known. If I bet $20, I stand to lose at most $20 (there are situations where you can increase this, but always voluntarily). In this way, I always know what my losses are and can manage my risk appropriately.

And yet, there is still tension in gambling. The tension is around "do I win? Do I lose?" Not around any surprises the game would put on me.

If the dealer could suddenly decide that the rules were changed in a way that made me more likely to lose, or to force me to bet much more than I did, then the risk is much higher, and all of a sudden when I decide "do I bet? How much do I?" I have to take all of that into account and my bets will be much smaller. If the dealer can suddenly decide that my bet needs to be 10X what it was, then I will probably only bet $2 instead of $20, if that's all I want to lose on one hand.

Having the outcome of the hand be in doubt is enjoyable for many people. Having the parameters of the game change generally isn't.

[NichG]

As a counterexample to that, I personally won't play with a DM who doesn't homebrew stuff for their campaign or adapt the rules of the world on the fly. My playstyle is experimentation, and if I can just read the rules there's nothing to discover.

This is why it's important to know your players.

[kyoryu]

I’m not saying that you need to use monsters RAW. It’s more about the impact that gotchas have, and mostly how having reasonably known stakes can help reduce anxiety in games where loss is a more frequent thing.

The other way is “trust that the GM will give us appropriate encounters”. Which I personally kinda find boring. But as you said, “know your players”

[Talakeal]

Another issue that Bob has with me, which speaks more toward the evils of "gentlaman's agreements."

I let Bob craft a custom magic item which allows him to deal direct damage to his enemies. It turned out a lot stronger than I anticipated, but I told him I wasn't going to nerf him or take it away. I also told him that I forgot to put any targetting restrictions on it, which means he could, in theory, just sit back at camp and nuke the monsters in the dungeon from miles away, and so I asked him to please only use it on things he had LoS to.

During last weeks game, a large fire-breathing monster was guarding the dungeon. The players decided to run past it rather than killing it (which was fine), but once they were deep inside the dungeon Bob said he was going to start using his magic item on the guardian beast. Now, ironically, the monster was already dead, having succumbed to an ongoing damage effect they put on it before retreating, but Bob didn't know that. But I said to him "Bob, remember what I said about only using your magic item on things you have LoS to." And that was the end of it, at the time.

But during our conversation, he told me that he really resents me for "Constantly threatening to take away his item". So, I am not really sure how to resolve that.

I'm going to make an analogy about the risk thing.

Gambling.

If I go to Vegas and play Blackjack, I know how the game works. Any rules different from "standard" are posted clearly. When I put my money down, I know how much I can lose, and what I can win.

The game doesn't change while I'm playing. There aren't hidden rules. The dealer can't decide that suddenly I must draw another card, or, outside of well known situations, that I can't draw another card.

Similarly, the stakes are well known. If I bet $20, I stand to lose at most $20 (there are situations where you can increase this, but always voluntarily). In this way, I always know what my losses are and can manage my risk appropriately.

And yet, there is still tension in gambling. The tension is around "do I win? Do I lose?" Not around any surprises the game would put on me.

If the dealer could suddenly decide that the rules were changed in a way that made me more likely to lose, or to force me to bet much more than I did, then the risk is much higher, and all of a sudden when I decide "do I bet? How much do I?" I have to take all of that into account and my bets will be much smaller. If the dealer can suddenly decide that my bet needs to be 10X what it was, then I will probably only bet $2 instead of $20, if that's all I want to lose on one hand.

Having the outcome of the hand be in doubt is enjoyable for many people. Having the parameters of the game change generally isn't.

Sure, and that works in Blackjack.

But in Blackjack the odds of losing are high (over 50%), and there is real money on the line.

In an RPG the odds are really stacked in the player's favor, and generally failure has no mechanical consequences.

The stakes (and the drama and tension that result) are purely narrative in nature.

Also, keep in mind that you are assuming the dealer is changing the rules on the spot, which is the same thing my players are accusing me of, when that is very much not how I operate.

Those kind of situations are kind of unavoidable, and may not be due to ill intent at all. Peoples' perception of what has happened is different, not everyone remembers the same details, maybe they were distracted or put more emphasis on certain words. And the situation in your head can never be conveyed fully accurate to the players, they only get an interpretation of it and need to imagine it anew themselves. The only way to improve this is more communication, and asking for confirmation that you are one the same page. As a GM, it can also be impossible to to know what the players have understood wrong. I find the best way to clear that up is to ask what the players' intention is with their actions, especially when what they do looks weird. Misunderstanings will happen though, and it's on everyone to handle them in good faith.

What you can do to avoid the misremembering above is to roll in the open, and establish the stakes beforehand. "The monster is leaping forward and trying to squeeze through. It has +5 to the Reflex save, what is the DC?" *roll in the open - everyone can see it was lucky and succeeds by one* "It barely scrapes through!" That leaves no room for the players thinking it smashed through the wall unimpeded.

Yeah, misunderstandings happen. The frustration is that they accuse me of doing it intentionally. But then they also accused me of ignoring the wall later in the session.

Like, you can't have it both ways. Either you are mad at me for tricking you into thinking there is a hole in the wall when there wasn't, or you are mad at me for having enemies pass through the wall, those are mutually exclusive.

Sadly, that's not weird at all. That's a classic mentality for players that were "trained" by bad/adversarial GMs. They become paranoid and think the GM is there to "get them", and their goal is to outwit him.
I've seen it a lot in younger players. If everyone around the table is at the same page, and if the table mood is playful, it can be fun. You can even joke about it without being really adversarial (I like to tease my players when they trash one of my boss monsters too easily - "Damn. Well played, but I'll get you next time")
But when the players and the GM are serious about it ? That's when the stuff from "RPG horror stories" happen (tantrums, slow and boring gameplay, gloating killer GMs, punishment for "bad" players, etc...)

I've become a "Yes GM" specifically to train my players out of that mentality.

Maybe, but I am not sure where they would have picked that up. Most of my gaming has been with them, and most of the DMs we have played under who weren't me were the overly easy fudge in the DM's favor so it doesn't derail the plot train type.

Now, I may have a theory about this. My players don't want to plan ahead, and they don't want to communicate with one another, and this causes them to fail a lot. But, they always look for someone else to blame rather than trying to improve, and maybe this has snowballed in their minds into a plethora of killer DMs.

But that encounter would be much better if it was hinted at earlier. Corroded landscape, acid-burned bodies, that kind of thing. That way, when the ant-looking kobold sprays them with acid, they will think "Okay, that was this bugger's fault", not "What the hell?" Maybe they will even suspect something when they see the ant abdomen, or take action against acid-based attacks, and will feel clever when their suspicion is confirmed. "Show, don't tell" is a narrative rule, but foreshadowing is an important tool too!

One of my personal rules of thumb is "surprise is overrated, suspense is better". If I completely surprise my players with something important, then I failed to properly introduce it. The best twists are those that we should have seen coming, the ones that "make perfect sense" afterward.
If a player can see something coming, then he has a chance to do something about it. It doesn't feel unfair

Agreed. And I like foreshadowing, but it doesn't mean anything. In my experience, most players have some combination of being oblivious, not caring about the "fluff", or having memory problems that they don't pick up on anything that isn't flat out stated to them (and often even then). Which is why the three clue rule was invented, and people have advised me to up it to the five clue rule or the ten clue rule, and at that point it is less foreshadowing than just me belaboring a point.

You live at a small town?

Not at the moment, no. But even when I lived in San Francisco I had trouble finding players.

[Segev]

I'd look around for gaming stores and gaming clubs. I know most colleges have them, and while you're probably not in college, you could always contact the gaming club leadership and see if they permit non-students to join or have recommendations of places to find groups to play with. Gaming store owners probably know a few groups they could point you to. Or would let you put up a sign offering to run a game or two at their store.

I'd offer more advice, but I'm lousy at making friends and meeting new people, so I don't have much useful experience to offer.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd look around for gaming stores and gaming clubs. I know most colleges have them, and while you're probably not in college, you could always contact the gaming club leadership and see if they permit non-students to join or have recommendations of places to find groups to play with. Gaming store owners probably know a few groups they could point you to. Or would let you put up a sign offering to run a game or two at their store.

I'd offer more advice, but I'm lousy at making friends and meeting new people, so I don't have much useful experience to offer.

I found a new 5e group by posting on D&D Beyond's forums. Never met them before in my life, but it's going decently (if a bit much on the evil side for my personal tastes, but not too much to handle).

[zinycor]

Not at the moment, no. But even when I lived in San Francisco I had trouble finding players.

That's very weird, personally I would go to a local store, then ask for their Facebook, instagram, Twitter and whatever else they use. Then offer to GM a couple of games for new people into the hobby, after a while (let's say a month) you should have a fairly big number of people ready to play with you.

Anything is better than continue to play with your current group.