What's the most obnoxious thing a DM can do?

[ondonaflash]

I mean specifically. What are annoying things that DMs have done in the past that you hated? Tell the story, share your pain. I want to see what works and what doesn't. And it doesn't have to be the most obnoxious thing either, it could just be little things (about the campaign) that annoyed you and ticked you off. This is a chance for you to share your horror stories.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Mordekain's Disjunction. TPK in a spell slot, and it renders any characters that survive or are rez'd completely worthless. Beyond that, it's a mess of confusing bookkeeping, every player rolling 30+ saves at different bonuses, and everyone looking up that obscure sourcbook they found their sneakers in. Fortunately, I've never had a DM try it on me.

[Yukitsu]

"That monster totally only had 65 hit points."
"But it's only supposed to have 40. And I tallied the damage the entire combat. We dealt 246. Even with DR 10, it should have been 146 dealt to it. Also, it's a random encounter. We don't need a CR 9 random encounter when we're level 7, and you don't use EXP for levels."

[valadil]

Here are some things GMs have done in the past to seriously irritate me:

Yell at the players for fighting a bunch of vampires who broke into their hotel room and threatened the PCs. Apparently because the GM is a pacifist, all characters should be too.

Roleplay everything. Talking our way past the guards is great. Chatting up the lunch lady is not. I roleplay to experience things that I can't in real life. I'm more than happy to fast forward past the mundane and irrelevant passages of game.

Push combat over everything else. I was in a game where we didn't even go over each other's names for the first 4 hours. We didn't find out the cleric was female until the second session. And this was that particular DM's idea of a heavy roleplaying game.

Ignore player/characters. I was once a cult leader in a Mage game. The GM had no clue what to do with me. Instead of telling me to make another character, he put my character in jail for 3/4 of every session. I just didn't get to play. I'd have been much happier rolling another character and actually getting to play the damned game.

No disclosure. Another GM bragged about how he ran things by the book and all his NPCs were balanced against us, but he did make up some new rules. After we got whooped in combat, we asked to see an NPC of his. The enemy had 4 different instances of weapon specialization, 3 of them doing more than 3 damage. The GM told us we were noobs for not taking feats we didn't know existed. That's the only game I intentionally got myself kicked out of.

[Badgercloak]

My friends and I were playing Eberon for the first time and in that campaign the following happened.

1. Randomly decided, in game, certain rules no longer work. He made us stand in 5' wide tunnel going one at a time past some over powered moster that was immune to all our attacks.

2. After the first game the DM said you're not playing your Dwarven Monk because you're going to play a Human Cleric because the party lacks a Cleric.

3. Not pay attention to what we say. We spent half an hour, real world time mind you, trying to figure out this one fraking clue and in the end the first thing said was the correct answer.

4. Shoe horned us into basically doing scenes he wanted to do. Once the Soulknife was using pair of spider climb boots. He was scouting from the ceiling when suddenly spike trap. Then he strong armed us into doing a dramatic roof top fight scene even though we had the foe indoors and well handled.

5. Made us go through hell then have all the treasure disapear. Needless to say we stopped playing after that.

[Marillion]

My very first DM, who was also new to DMing, was actually very good. He mixed puzzles, roleplay, and combat in a very lovely portion, was always fair, and admitted when we caught him offguard. He only had one very tragic flaw: He COULD NOT say no. Because of this, the group was half super-optimized and half...well, not. And because of this, as a group of 2nd level PCs, we were able to completely slaughter an entire orcish army that had like 200 warriors in it with some very careful planning. He was getting better with that, though, before we both had to leave college. But at first, he was so weak-willed that things that shouldn't have happened, happened, to the detriment of the game.

[Guancyto]

The enemy had 4 different instances of weapon specialization, 3 of them doing more than 3 damage. The GM told us we were noobs for not taking feats we didn't know existed. That's the only game I intentionally got myself kicked out of.

This is hilarious to me, because no matter how much homebrewed Super Superior Greater Weapon Specialization you stack on, it's still an awful feat.

I don't really have any great stories, but there was the one time the GM pulled a "rocks fall, everybody dies" on our group when we didn't want to fight his troll. At level 1. With an actual cave collapse. When we weren't underground.

"Throw tantrums when things don't go his way" is probably on the list, though.

[Kroy]

A badly run DMPC.

[ondonaflash]

Yeah, I tend to run my DMPCs like final fantasy 4. I play one as long as he's convenient storywise then I kill him, turn him to stone, or drown him to make way for the new character!

[Korivan]

1. Immediatly sending us against rust monsters once the fighter got his nonmagical speed reducing plate-mail.

2. Allowing no room for error, if we didnt go to one room in the dungeon first, we were overwhelmed by things twice our difficulty rating.

3. No warnings or clues about number 2.

4. Not allowing our mage to find scrolls, or gain spells as they level up. I was this mage, and ended up being 7th level and still only had first level spells. All because he read on a forum that said mages were overpowered...fine, i get it, limit them, don't neuter them.

5. Not reading the Challenge Rating in the DM guide. He thought that our levels combined made the callenge rating. We were one 5th, four 3rd level characters against an elder elemental. Ya, a few level 3 characters are gonna plow through 10-15 DR and 400 hp with no magic items whatsoever?

6. Favoring some players over others. Four sessens and only 1 player finds all the magic gear, all things only they can use or have value beyond selling.

7. Letting things get out of hand. Team killing destroys the group and makes people mad, when it starts, the dm should to put their foot down.

[Deepblue706]

I'd have to say is 'be uncompromising'. The DM's whole job is about providing a good time for his or her players. While this should still be accomplished through the confines of the rules of the game, the DM ought to give everyone a chance to speak, and every idea a moment of consideration. If something is not covered by the rules, the DM ought to try to accomodate the player, within reason (use existing rules as guidelines to try something special). If a player has an idea that is absolutely stupid, the DM ought to try to accomodate the player, within reason (allow something to be attempted, but make the PCs sell the ideas to NPCs they request aid from. Never have automatic failures, but give a penalty, etc).

The DM must compromise his or her own desires regarding the campaign, in order to better suit the players; because it's all about them. Allowing super-villains automatic escape, putting PCs into No-Win scenarios, and otherwise railroading is no good. Complete denial of any request without hearing out the rationale behind it is likewise no good. The DM who is uncompromising effectively tells his or her players that the game is about him-or-herself first, them second.

[Thajocoth]

Show up an hour late.

That's the worst I've had... Though, I've only had 3 DMs.

[Quietus]

First not-me DM I had. I was playing an Exalted, Vow of Poverty Sorcerer. I used those metafeats that add the [good] descriptor to my spells, and made them do more damage against evil creatures, half against neutral, and none to good. He freaked out because I wanted to make my Good+Good meta'd fireball white in color rather than orange/red, and forced me to make a Spellcraft check I could only succeed at if I rolled a nat 20, and if I failed the roll, I lost the spell.

Same DM got upset when he had some crazy winged-demon-lion things leap out of some bushes, purposefully attack the two mages of the party (putting both of us at near death), and we responded with Teleport spells going straight up. Several hundred feet up, in fact. And then blasted with fireballs as we fell. And got even MORE upset when I was catching his Paladin+homebrew "win" PrC DMPC (advanced all Paladin abilities, then added basically rage and a "Become half celestial" template x/day) - in the area of my fireballs when I'd meta'ed the fireballs to do no damage to Good-aligned people.

Later, we get snuck up on by some bear-worshipping orcs. Not one of my Prying Eyes managed to see them, because somehow these guys destroyed every single one of them (and there was around 20), with no rolls involved. They jump on us, tie us up, take us to their camp, then demand we pass a "Test of manhood" if we wanted their help; This test involved melee fights, four of their best against us. And he got really pissed that my sorcerer and the wizard hung back for a good five rounds casting buff spells (offensive spells were disallowed, of course, despite me being built to blast, and him built for blast/necromancy), turning ourselves and our familiars into dragons that were actually *capable* of fighting in melee before we waded forward, and even more pissed that we out-meleed him and his brother after doing so.

This guy's just always seemed to have it out for me - us, really, after my friend playing the wizard managed to land the killing blow on a Deathbringer (big nasty undead tank monster) he'd been trying to Magic Missile to death in a game I was running. One of the last times I played with him, I made a Rogue/Shadowdancer whose entire thing was using Shadow Jump for mobility. First place he puts us is a dimensional-locked forest where I can't use the ability I based the character around. He wasn't very happy, however, when I started using my summoned shadows smartly.

[Knaight]

Run a railroad plot based on a book he was writing, that I had previously helped him edit. GMing based on books being written is now explicitly forbidden in our group.

[FMArthur]

I once had a DM who ate while talking. And he was almost always eating during our sessions.

[ondonaflash]

First not-me DM I had. I was playing an Exalted, Vow of Poverty Sorcerer. I used those metafeats that add the [good] descriptor to my spells, and made them do more damage against evil creatures, half against neutral, and none to good. He freaked out because I wanted to make my Good+Good meta'd fireball white in color rather than orange/red, and forced me to make a Spellcraft check I could only succeed at if I rolled a nat 20, and if I failed the roll, I lost the spell.

Dude's never heard of IMEs? They're like a staple of all of my campaigns. Plus that's completely irrelevant to the gameplay! Why even bother to disallow it?

[Fortinbras]

Well let's see. One DM as my character basicly playing enforcer to a shadowy guild run by a friggin hero deity. My character happens to be a LG Dwarven prince Samurai/Warblade from a city that's all the way over the mountains but this hero deity just materializes and tells me to go kill some people some place and that is the whole adventure. Sometimes it gets interesting after that but only sometimes.

[Recaiden]

Changing something, anything after PCs have killed each other over it.
And DMPCs can be pretty bad.

[wykydtron]

Dude's never heard of IMEs? They're like a staple of all of my campaigns. Plus that's completely irrelevant to the gameplay! Why even bother to disallow it?

What are IMEs?

[The New Bruceski]

I got bored with a campaign (we were always doing this, one guy DMs for a month until he gets bored and another of us wants to try. We were 12 or so at the time.), so I flushed the party. Sudden wave sweeps down the tunnel washing them into a big toilet bowl.

[Curmudgeon]

Keep the PCs alive regardless of poor choices or bad dice rolls. It's no fun if there's no risk.

[Keld Denar]

DMs who violate the Treaty (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=54).

[Magicus]

DMs who violate the Treaty (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=54).
Hey, I think illusion spells like that are great. As long as the players aren't jerks about it, at least.

But back on topic, I find it annoying when a DM fails to provide adequate wrap-up after a campaign finishes. My group recently concluded a great, long-running set of games, but after we saved the day (by killing Lolth's avatar), the only conclusion we got was something along the lines of "Well, your character spends the rest of his 2000 remaining Dwarven years founding his own school of the martial arts. Oh, and you don't have any more trouble from the Underdark until very near your death." It was a tad disappointing.

[R. Shackleford]

We were playing Star Wars. It was my first time ever RP'ing, and I rolled and built a diplomatic class.

Which rendered me pretty useless when the setting was revealed to be a desert wasteland of a world with nothing but monsters. No other people. My character had a few crowning moments of awesome, like when my noisy crickets KO'd the boss monster out of the blue. But then the difficulty ramped up and I got killed.

Cue to the next session, when 4e comes out. ... and the same thing happens. No NPCs. No story. We rolled characters, then entered a cave and fought monsters. I played a Warlord, so it wasn't as bad. There were puzzles that were thought out, but it was straight combat. And treasure wank. And the week after that, the same thing.

I guess it is to be expected. Most of them play Magic, so I think its not a stretch to reason that Magic players that play DnD would all be munchkinish.

[BobVosh]

DMs who violate the Treaty (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=54).

Bah, AGC is almost a perfect example of "Most obnoxious thing a player can do."

From That Lanky Bastard on this site, we get this gem:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784

Return of worst DM ever:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95189

Hmm, anyway. DMPCs.
A lot of game tropes: Child Soldiers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChildSoldiers)
Screw the rules, I have plot! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitler4e1mm02)
Obvious Cheating DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGMIsACheatingBastard)
Lots of trains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TabletopGames?from=Main.TabletopRPG
Go down the list, you will find some that are terrifically annoying.

[Gnaeus]

Inadequate descriptions. Especially combined with problems with only one solution.

We once had 3 PCs who spent an hour trying to get into the dungeon entry portal. Open locks... autofail. Knock...Fail. Complicated strength solution involving our BSF and a block and tackle...Fail.

Turns out it was a manhole cover. Only way in was to return to the nearby dwarf settlement to get the special wrench/key. I don't know how we were supposed to figure that out from the description we got. And of course, no xp for that hour of frustrating gaming because the manhole cover wasn't a threat.

grr..

[Eldariel]

Once we were assaulted by a Babau-assassin in Natur (a town in the Abyss) and rolled knowledge, our DM conveniently forgot to mention the Protective Slime-ability. He also forgot to mention it's coated in slime. He also forgot to mention my scimitars (I was a Dervish) started to hiss and smoke with acid when I hit the thing.

He finally remembered after 3 rounds of combat. The Babau was pretty much dead, as were my Scimitars. Luckily they were "only" with +3 worth of enhancements (yeah, I hit it quite a few times; the damage adds up).

[Tengu_temp]

Keep the PCs alive regardless of poor choices or bad dice rolls. It's no fun if there's no risk.

http://jasonmc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/picard-facepalm.jpg

Not everyone has a gamist mindset and plays RPGs for the challenge, you know. Some people play them for the story and roleplaying.

[ondonaflash]

What are IMEs?

IMEs are "Individual Magic Effects". Basically its a roleplaying option where magic is stylized by caster. The player controls things like the spells appearance, its colors, and the specific shape it takes, so long as it doesn't contradict the crunch of the spell. Like how "Jim's Magic Missile" spells "Jim Dark Magic" in the smoke it leaves behind. :smallbiggrin:

[Mastikator]

Run a railroad plot based on a book he was writing, that I had previously helped him edit. GMing based on books being written is now explicitly forbidden in our group.On the other side of the coin, if you base the book on the game instead then it's not a bad idea since the characters wrote themselves and were more "unique" in context of the book, and the plot progressed more naturally.
..
Holy crap! Is OotS based on an actual game!? O_O
:P

-

Anyway, I would say (from the things I've experienced, of course) is a DM who stops a player from roleplaying the character he wants to roleplay for the sake of keeping to the plot or keeping party harmony or whatever.

[Saph]

Not everyone has a gamist mindset and plays RPGs for the challenge, you know. Some people play them for the story and roleplaying.

Have to say, I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. Combat without challenge is an almost guaranteed recipe for boredom in my experience, and it doesn't lead to particularly good roleplaying either.

As for my own answer to the question, I think it would be . . . to not show up. Without notice. It's happened a few times to me, and it annoys me far more than someone who just doesn't know how to run a game.

- Saph

[DragoonWraith]

There was that guy who posted recently about a DM who had everyone play pregnant women, and completely railroaded everything... in exceedingly creepy ways.

[Swordguy]

Put up with players in his group who insist that everything has to be by the RAW, in every single instance, and who memorize things like the Montrous Manual so they can call the DM on it when he tries to switch things up to make the game more interesting for his players. Or players who insist that the DM having a theme or metaplot in which the players may take part if they wish or having an opinion on what the players are doing at all is "railroading". Or players who insist that because something that will completely and totally break the game and destroy an enjoyable experience for everyone else in the group is technically possible within the rules, that they have an inherent right to exploit it as much as possible and the rest of the group be dammed.

Putting up with crappy players, would, I suppose, be the main bullet point of this rant. If they aren't willing to play by the DM's preconditions for the effort of running the game, they need to go. Or be removed. Preferably by force.


Badly-run DMPCs (and there ARE some that are well-run, just not a lot) are a close second, though.

[horus42]

I would have to say when the GM has it out for you. When he'll bend the rules so far that they snap, just because it was his plan the entire time to kill off -all- the PCs, instead of come up with an actual ending.

For example: We were playing Vampire: The Requiem (our first time trying it out) We were attacked by a Nosferatu, who somehow had a friggin' howitzer strapped to his back. (And I'll not get into how that's even possible, because it isn't. No matter how much super Vampire strength you have, you can't carry heavy artillery on your back.) He one shot killed the whole party on his first turn.

Or another time, where we actually should have won, but he had the final boss heal all of the damage we dealt (even though he shouldn't have been able to heal more than one health level per turn) And then (and here's the best part) we all had heart attacks and died.

Needless to say, we don't let him be GM anymore.

[Deepblue706]

Have to say, I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. Combat without challenge is an almost guaranteed recipe for boredom in my experience, and it doesn't lead to particularly good roleplaying either.


I do agree 'combat without challenge' is pretty damn boring, but perhaps it's not the most obnoxious thing a DM can do, because there are some players who don't really mind.

[Saph]

I do agree 'combat without challenge' is pretty damn boring, but perhaps it's not the most obnoxious thing a DM can do, because there are some players who don't really mind.

Yeah, true enough. It doesn't rank worst, though it's still one of the faster ways I know to make a session boring.

Thing is, though, a lot of the other things people are describing at least make for funny stories afterwards. :) When you get stuck in a railroaded you-must-win dungeon crawl, you don't even get that. It's just hours lost out of your life.

- Saph

[Quietus]

Dude's never heard of IMEs? They're like a staple of all of my campaigns. Plus that's completely irrelevant to the gameplay! Why even bother to disallow it?

He was the type of person who was a Bad Rules Lawyer, in every sense of the word. If something wasn't strictly by RAW, it wasn't allowed. Therefore, a fireball MUST be a certain color, and MUST be a tiny bead shot from the end of your finger. Apparently somehow it would be game breaking if I were to throw mine like a baseball, and have it be colored white, even when it was Super Good Aligned.

Of course, there was two problems with his rules lawyering. First, sometimes, he rewrote the rules to give him what he wanted (see the above "Paladin" notes; it was perfectly fine for him to create a whole new, extremely powerful, easily-qualified-for prestige class for his Paladin DMPC. Who he introduced by having us walk into his house, where his God had come to the material plane and was chatting with him. But white colored fireballs? Gods no.). This wouldn't have been a real problem if he'd been reasonable about it, but hell, reasonable isn't - wasn't - in his vocabulary.

Second, he failed at knowing the rules. Hell, we were all new to the game.. but whenever I was DMing he'd challenge me on a rules thing at least once a game, usually closer to once an hour. He'd stop the game, feeling I was breaking some rule that ultimately wouldn't matter, demand we wait for him to look it up.. then smugly present his argument, including quoting a portion of the DMG, or PHB, or MM. To which I would usually take the book from him, read *the sentence immediately following what he read*, proving him wrong.

This is the same guy that felt my 3d6 sneak attack damage, at level 10 or so, was too powerful (This was the Shadowdancer), so he made it so I could only sneak attack once a turn. Never mind that I only had three attacks (TWF and an iterative).. and did the lowest damage of the party. 3d6 damage? WAY too powerful!

[Tengu_temp]

Have to say, I'm with Curmudgeon on this one. Combat without challenge is an almost guaranteed recipe for boredom in my experience, and it doesn't lead to particularly good roleplaying either.


You can have challenging combat without killing the players. In my games no PCs die in random battles, they can at most get incapacitated - they only face death in them if the whole party dies, but that never happened so far because my players are smart enough. All PC deaths happen only if they have plot importance, or if the players act in really stupid and obnoxious ways (which haven't happened either). I hate both the revolving death door effect, which greatly cheapens the significance of death (I don't play DND 3.5, in my games ressurections almost never happen), and players shrugging when their characters die and pulling out a spare sheet, which destroys roleplaying and the bond between the player and his/her character.

[Callos_DeTerran]

Back in a modified version of 1st edition, I was playing a mage/cleric and was relatively new to the game. I didn't know all the monsters and whatnot, just what was important to my character. So our group had some intense adventures (like fighting a REALLY old red dragon that, by rights, should have killed everyone (except for me, who ran at the sight of it by choice) except there was a mis-read of a spell description so only one character besides mine survived (not that it was a problem, with that game there was a built in ressurreaction for our characters). The only reason I bring up the encounter with big red dragon is, the DM mentioned needing a calculator to keep track of it's hit points.

So a couple in game weeks later, the newly revived group is heading out to an island for supplies (or something) when a random encounter strikes mid-voyage. Before the creature is revealed, the DM mentions he's going to need the calculator again. Now, at the time, I didn't know many monsters and stuff and went off what I knew from movies and books and whatnot on big sea monsters. So I stretched out (I always do when there's a big encounter, I don't know why) and said offhand.

"Man, this thing is probably like a kraken or a sea dragon.."

Only to notice the DM staring at me. I look around for a moment when he accuses me of looking at the Monster Manual he had open in his lap. To be honest, I can see how he had come by that idea since I was sitting away from the table (it wasn't big enough to fit everyone) and had my back against the same wall the DM did. Could have easily seen the book.

Course, I became more then a wee bit angry when I then got struck by lightening for 5d6 for 'cheating' when I hadn't...then the kraken killed me. Though that WAS by accident.

[Curmudgeon]

You can have challenging combat without killing the players. In my games no PCs die in random battles, they can at most get incapacitated Then it's just not fun.

I'd much rather have my character die because that's a risk of adventuring than expect to always win. Sometimes you die because your character wasn't well-suited to the sorts of things you encountered, and then it's better to come back with a different type of PC.

[Tengu_temp]

Because it is so fun when a treasured character with a rich personality and history you spent years connecting to dies.

I guess you just have a different approach to RPGs - less about roleplaying and story, more about challenging combat (which I like too, just not to the point when the former suffers because of it). That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the DM being merficul is universally obnoxious - it only means it's against your chosen gamestyle.

I'd also like to point out that none of my players ever complained about my policies regarding PC deaths, so calling it "simply not fun" is just
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

[Kyouhen]

Keep the PCs alive regardless of poor choices or bad dice rolls. It's no fun if there's no risk.

Fixed it for you. If the dice start rolling heavily against the PCs and they start having a hard time against something that either wouldn't make for an interesting death or shouldn't have been able to kill them anyway then they should be saved. Poor choices, on the other hand, should get little sympathy. If a player wants to stab the king in his own castle with half the king's elite guard and a dozen spellcasters in the same room don't let them live.*

*Disclaimer: You may still save them if there is a good reason for the soldiers to not protect the king or they come up with an extremely clever escape plan. It just better be a really freaking good plan.

[Deme]

How about this, as a compramise (sp?): A DM going too far for his/her players in either direction (too "safe" or too "dangerous") is a bad, obnoxious thing?

[Flickerdart]

How about this, as a compramise (sp?): A DM going too far for his/her players in either direction (too "safe" or too "dangerous") is a bad, obnoxious thing?
Too dangerous isn't bad if the DM is open about it, as long as it's spelled out that you should be making optimized monsters and not RP types.

[Tengu_temp]

In general, it's obnoxious to run a game with accent on things the players do not like, without telling them - a cynical world where only the biggest bastards win for players who prefer heroic adventures, coutrly intrigues with almost no combat for hack'n'slashers, Exalted for those who value heavy realism, FATAL for anyone, et cetera.

[mistformsquirrl]

Lots of things...

But those that have happened to me personally:

DM didn't show up, didn't give any notice - not even a phone call - and no, it wasn't an emergency. (I'd easily forgive it if he'd say... sprained an ankle even; but no, he went to a party. Yeah)

Offer other players XP behind my back to kill my character.

Killing my next character because he wasn't "cool enough" in his estimation.

Offering XP to burn my psionics guide. (I've listed these before in another similar thread so I'm sure others are reading this for the 2nd or 3rd time <T_T>)

Different DM: Not awarding promised loot. Note: This would be fine if it were a once in awhile thing - like "You really should not have trusted that guy..."

But playing Shadowrun - our DM almost never let us collect our pay. After 3 different jobs, we ended up literally scrounging our dead foes for ammo (at which point we started asking "Why would a Shadowrunner keep doing this highly dangerous line of work if they aren't even getting paid enough for food and ammo?!")

DM Fiating you into a no-win situation. There are exceptions to this, but generally it's railroading in it's penultimate form.

Telling a player how to run their character (there are exceptions to this of course, especially if the player is disruptive - but I'm talking "I don't like your character, so I'm going to try to force you to play a different one." type stuff - including simply trying to roleplay "for" the player)

Giving wayyyyy too much loot. With exceptions, this is dangerous - and unfortunately one I myself have done more than once <_ _> /shame

It sure sounds nice getting +5 everything at level 6... until you realize the campaign isn't much fun anymore as you're so powerful you can kill anything that isn't WAY above you in CR. And sadly those monsters can probably kill you straight away with some goofy abilities you can't defend against yet.

Taking away xp for remarkably petty reasons.

Playing favorites.

Worse - playing favorites with an NPC as the star of the show. "Err, wait, why can't the NPC just do this, why are we here? To witness their glorious AWESOME?"

Etc...

There's a ton of really REALLY obnoxious stuff a DM can do sadly <x,x>

Of course to be fair, there's an almost equally long list of things Players can do in a similar vein <x,x> so the real lesson is: Game with people with similar likes as yourself. Don't game with jerks.

[Jade_Tarem]

Specifically? I once had a DM grant only half XP for a rather large pair of monsters. Why? Because we used magic on them, which apparently made the fight easier (No, really? That's what spells are for!). We spent half an hour trying to explain the concept of daily resource expenditure, to no avail - he was the DM, dammit, and HE CANNOT BE WRONG. EVEN IN REAL LIFE. YES, EVEN THEN.

Which brings me to my pet peeve and entry for this thread... the DM will make mistakes. Are you the DM? You - yes, YOU - will make mistakes. Lots of them. It's perfectly ok - 3.5 is pretty complicated, and so are GURPS and a number of other systems. Your players will not point, laugh, and leave while spitting in your face because you forgot that Power Word Intoxicate doesn't have a save, or that one of your PCs has flying jump knockback kick and your BBEG is standing right in front of a large window 66 floors up, and you really, really want him to last more than one round. You can be wrong - it's ok. Just back up, correct the error, and move on.

"Whoops, my bad, sorry about that. He's a bit farther forward." Is much better than, "You miss." "But I rolled a crit!" "You MISS. And die."

I can't tell you how many times I've run into that problem.

P.S. The thing with the window did happen one game, but the GM was good enough to take option one, admit like a man that he hadn't thought of that, and then we went on to have a thoroughly enjoyable boss fight anyway.

[The Blackbird]

Worst thing a DM can do.

Railroad plot, but whats even worse it anti-character development

Railroad plot sucks, but have you ever had a DM who didn't give a crap about Roleplaying? It sucks, I've had four DM's other than myself my dad and my brother both who are very good. (It like, runs in the family cause I'm decent too.) And two of my friends tried it, one of them started DMing when he had never played DnD before, so it was railroad plot of DOOM along with strange unexplainable things happening. But I cut him some slack and just dubbed the campaign "original", he let us roleplay quite a bit and I can deal with railroad plot. My other friend who DM'd had played the game for 2 years, he didn't have a railroad plot, but that was only because his campaign had no plot at all. We never roleplayed, the entire campaign was just fighting really easy encounters, the only death was caused by stupidity. Even at the finale meeting this friend of mine just threw another easy encounter, and that was it no plot, no roleplaying, super easy, not even a ending thingy or a finale boss, he just said "I don't have anything else prepared so...I guess were done."

Anti-Character=:smallyuk:

[shadzar]

Get up and leave in the middle of the game.

[Sewercop]

Ohh.. There are loads of issues, but i will mention some..

-favorites among the players. This sucks beyond belief in my book. Even if you are the favorite yourself it sucks.

-Different difficulties for different characters for the same task. AAAAARGH.
I can not stress how irritating that makes me feel. In combat,saves,dc,the mobs ac etc etc shrug

-Railroading, the kind where you sit in the wagon and sip a cup of tea listening to a story that you can not define what so ever.. Kudos if the gamemaster tells a entertaining story thou :)

-Gmpc!!!!! I hate them. Yeah really.. I have killed a few of them knowing that my character probably will die without it. I had this gm that had a fetish for young girl npc(gmpc) that were crucial for the plot(tea drinking railroading type) that always had to stick it to you. Because they were always the best. The gmpc of this gm always had a flaw.. He made the character with stats every time. HIHIHI Enter me(min\maxer in every game, still a roleplayer thou) and whooping the gmpc as soon as i get the chance.
Cause he could not design a mechanicly good character if his life depended upon it in any game. He was a good gm thou, besides that. And he learned.

Many many gamemasters suffer of the gmpc disease, it can be cured but it is not easy. (i have had it myself)(it can come back even if you have had it before)

But i really just wanna cry when i get the hint of a gmpc.

-When there are no risk at all. One word.. Boring. some may like it, i do not.

-When the gm changes a rule without telling the group. A cardinal sin in my eyes. Frustrating.

-Or not following a rule that is important in the game
etc etc etc
and then some more.

Being a gm(mostly) and a player i have done many mistakes myself. I have even done some of those unforgiving things i mentioned(more than once probably). There is one thing i know, as a gm you will eventually screw up.

[CrazedPachyderm]

Anyway, I would say (from the things I've experienced, of course) is a DM who stops a player from roleplaying the character he wants to roleplay for the sake of keeping to the plot or keeping party harmony or whatever.
The DM should be flexible and allow the players to play who they want to play, but the player also has to be mindful of the rest of the party's fun. There is more than one person playing the game, and it's up to everyone to not drag it down for everyone else, which includes playing a character that will incessantly cause party conflict. I once knew someone who tried to play in our Call of Cthulhu campaign without actually wanting to investigate anything. The DM bent over backwards trying to accommodate her, but ultimately she was asked to leave the game.

--
I once played in a supposedly "no-magic" campaign (mostly because the DM was new and thought magic would complicate things) where the DM was allowed to have enemies with magic and would throw monsters at us that were extremely difficult without magic. In the last session, he thought it'd be cool to kill us all off with some dragons (they were actually wyverns) and threw a hissy fits when we were winning.

[Irreverent Fool]

"That monster totally only had 65 hit points."
"But it's only supposed to have 40. And I tallied the damage the entire combat. We dealt 246. Even with DR 10, it should have been 146 dealt to it. Also, it's a random encounter. We don't need a CR 9 random encounter when we're level 7, and you don't use EXP for levels."

Metagaming is an annoying thing players do. :smallbiggrin:

My pet peeve? DMPCs when none is needed.


Because it is so fun when a treasured character with a rich personality and history you spent years connecting to dies.
If you've spent that long working on a character, death is probably just a speedbump. Both you and Curmudgeon have valid viewpoints. Therefore, you are both wrong.

The most obnoxious thing I've ever had a DM do aside from running a sterotypical invincible cooler than the party superpowered DMPC (insert hyphens) is to run an amazing game... for all of three sessions. The worst part is, we keep falling for it because he's such a good DM. His stories are grand, his combats epic, character deaths (and oh are there deaths) relevant to the story... he just seems to lose interest after about three games no matter who he DMs for. A few months later he'll get another group together, sometimes with some of the same people. His games are so great, they just never last very long. :smallfrown:

obnoxious
sig

[DragoonWraith]

There was the DM a few weeks ago trying to deal with a player insisting that he take Assassin (and not a non-evil Assassin variant) despite his Good-aligned party complete with Paladin. That's definitely a situation where a DM should say "no".

On the flip side, the guy the other day who came by with a DM who was forcing the Ogre Fighter with 45 Str to instead be a Dracolich with a fixed progression. No character building options of any kind at any level, even in the future. That's incredibly rude to even suggest. Especially considering how insane the rest of that party was...

[Drascin]

I'm usually very hard to frustrate. But there is something that does peeve me - when the DM makes the players feel like they're only the side characters, not the protagonists. I've always believed that players are supposed to be the focus of the story, and the rest of the world runs mostly on the background. It's there, some higher and some lower, but it doesn't really take the spotlight until something crosses paths with the PCs or otherwise affects them. The DM spending half the session detailing everything that has happened while the PCs were in the dungeon and the brave adventures of Count Lestu and talking to himself (NPC to NPC) can get really boring really fast.

Yes, I once had a DM like this.

[Quietus]

-Gmpc!!!!! I hate them. Yeah really.. I have killed a few of them knowing that my character probably will die without it. I had this gm that had a fetish for young girl npc(gmpc) that were crucial for the plot(tea drinking railroading type) that always had to stick it to you. Because they were always the best. The gmpc of this gm always had a flaw.. He made the character with stats every time. HIHIHI Enter me(min\maxer in every game, still a roleplayer thou) and whooping the gmpc as soon as i get the chance.
Cause he could not design a mechanicly good character if his life depended upon it in any game. He was a good gm thou, besides that. And he learned.

Many many gamemasters suffer of the gmpc disease, it can be cured but it is not easy. (i have had it myself)(it can come back even if you have had it before)

But i really just wanna cry when i get the hint of a gmpc.

The question is, do you denote a difference between a GMPC and an NPC that travels with the party? The first, in my opinion, carries a decidedly negative note, but if done well can be of use - some people note a difference, however, and some figure they're the same thing and bad across the board.

In one of the games I'm playing in (looking forward to having the next installment on Monday, when I finally get to put my "level 8 druid soloing watchtower" plan to test), we have an NPC the DM plays that travels with the party - or did, she's not been as present of late. Halfling cleric of Ehlonna, she and my Druid come head-to-head sometimes over disagreements (I worship Obad-Hai; She doesn't take kindly to my tendency to be a little more ruthless than she is). But she's played basically as submissive to the party, acting as a healbot/buffer, supporting our party. She does have occasional moments of awesome where she outshines one of us for one reason or another, but typically is used to make the party live longer/be cooler than they would be without her.

[Swordguy]

I'm usually very hard to frustrate. But there is something that does peeve me - when the DM makes the players feel like they're only the side characters, not the protagonists.


Heh - L5R actually says flat-out that that's the correct way to play the game. You AREN'T the big movers and shakers, and in all likelihood never will be. Shut up, be a good mindless samurai, and do what your daimyo tells you. You should see what it's like on their forums - if a PC gets "uppity" the "correct" answer for the GM is to have the PC removed from the game (whether via killed in his sleep, transfer to a new duty station [read: fiat] where you can't participate any more, daimyo tells you up front to "seppuku 'cause I don't like you", or whatever).

I'm a DM of the "players don't have inherent rights to screw up everyone else's game experience - you're at the DM's table and you play by his rulings or not at all" school...but man. That crap just ain't right.

I do NOT approve. :smallyuk:

[Ovaltine Patrol]

Take your players dice rolls as suggestions.

[Sewercop]

There are a huge difference between a gmpc traveling with the party and a npc doing the same. I see the difference.

This is just my opinion thou.. Some groups can enjoy having a gmpc.
I just find it obnoxious.

But I am marked with horrors from behind the screen.
The grins and the sound of dices rolling.
Bizarre chuckles and snorting sounds of joy.
Little hurrahs and tearful eyes of awesome peering over the screen.
Ensuring us that the annoying Gmpc has defeated the bbeg.

[Decoy Lockbox]

I guess it is to be expected. Most of them play Magic, so I think its not a stretch to reason that Magic players that play DnD would all be munchkinish.

I don't know what you are talking about, but everyone I play D&D with also plays magic, and they range from anti-powergamer, powergamer, munchkin, average joe, etc. You are mistaking "playing magic" with "playing magic only to win". Lots of magic players make whacky and flavorful decks, some of which are actually pretty good.

But enough about that.

I've had many DMs over the years, but two stand out in my mind as the worst of the worst:

DM #1 ran our 3.5 game with a 2nd AD&D mindset, which meant that any item/spell/class that wasn't in AD&D, we couldn't use. Also, we didn't get to pick our starting equipment, he just rolled some random sh*t from the book. My level 6 rogue started with 3x cure light wounds potions, some artwork, some gems and a suit of mundane leather armor (no weapons or tools). For some reason the local shopkeep was willing to trade me two +1 shortswords and a +1 mithral chain shirt for those potions and paintings. Also, he didn't give out loot...ever. So by level 9, my rogue's gear was still the same as it always was. In order to get money, I had to literally break into people's houses, stealing silverware, clothing and such, just to sell them for the cash that I needed in order to eat. Dammit, I'm a level 9 rogue in a fantasy RPG, not a f*cking crackhead!

Also, he sent us up against stuff that was way too hard, like a custom monster based on "death" from the book of revelations, who used finger on death to kill our cleric, at level 4. He also sent us up against beholders at level 5 (it killed the same cleric with a disintegrate ray), Polar Worms at level 6 (it again killed our cleric, who had just been raised from the dead, with it's breath weapon).

This same guy banned the "+X to stat" items because they were "too overpowered". So clearly he wasn't' even remotely familiar with the idea of "game balance".

He railroaded us constantly, and had a level 15 invisible pixie druid that followed us around "helping" us out and making us follow his crazy plotlines.

He didn't use xp or the "level up every x session" system, he just gave us levels whenever he felt like it. The party was random leveled characters, and if you died and didn't get a rez you came back at level 1.


My second bad DM had inconsistent playtimes, sent us up against heinously overpowered stuff (MM vampire monk at lvl 3, beholder at lvl 5), which he somehow played stupidly enough to let us win, giving us like 2-3 levels per session. Also, we had a bunch of female drow in our party, and this guy was a real stickler for forgotten realms lore so.....yeah.

[Narmoth]

Well, we had a mission to clear up in some castle dungeon. Our group (3.5) was really big, with about 8 players. He only sent rat swarms and a few giant rats on us for the whole day. Then at the end, we come to a hall where even the walls light up on detect evil.
There we encounter some guy in dark armour. The paladin detects evil on him (surprice) and we try still first to arrest him (just in case we weren't supposed to fight him). Failing that, we attack.
Turns out he was much higher cr than appropriate and gives us a great beating.
The dm explains this with "you weren't supposed to fight him jet" Well, what should we do? Evil guy in evil place, pally in group, hired to rid the area of evil?

[Tengu_temp]

Which brings me to my pet peeve and entry for this thread... the DM will make mistakes. Are you the DM? You - yes, YOU - will make mistakes. Lots of them. It's perfectly ok <snip>

Hell yeah. Couldn't agree more - I played with one f*ck (mostly on my NWN RP server) who couldn't admit to even a single mistake too many.
http://ffrpg.republika.pl/approve.PNG



If you've spent that long working on a character, death is probably just a speedbump.

Why? Because you can get raised? As I said before:

I hate the revolving death door effect, which greatly cheapens the significance of death (I don't play DND 3.5, in my games ressurections almost never happen)
So yeah.

[Dixieboy]

When the DM isn't playing with you

He's just telling his own story.
With spectators.

[HealthKit]

This will probably sound silly to a lot of people, but...

I get annoyed when DMs hand out too much exp. Or just level everyone up at the end of the session regardless of what actually happened.
I'm not the most experienced player out there, having had only 2 DMs in all my playing, but it's happened with both of them.
For example, in the 4th edition campaign I'm currently playing everyone's characters made it to level 6... without anyone having used their then new 5th level daily attack in combat... at all, due to lack of any combat whatsoever.

I'm sure worse things have happened to players and this isn't something that I getting all worked up over, it's just an annoyance. I'd like to think exp is something to be earned, not handed out like candy.

[Curmudgeon]

Fixed it for you. If the dice start rolling heavily against the PCs and they start having a hard time against something that either wouldn't make for an interesting death or shouldn't have been able to kill them anyway then they should be saved. That's not a fix, either. I like honesty. As a DM I roll the dice out in the open where everybody can see them. Sometimes the dice roll high; sometimes they roll low. The PCs should be smart enough to realize when it's just not their day, and running away to regroup is the wise course of action.

[Kemper Boyd]

When the DM isn't playing with you

He's just telling his own story.
With spectators.

This isn't actually always bad. Sometimes player characters should be involved in things that they are part of, but they're not the ones in the driver's seat. The important thing is to remember that they have to have a part to play in the events to keep it more interesting.

[Kemper Boyd]

That's not a fix, either. I like honesty. As a DM I roll the dice out in the open where everybody can see them. Sometimes the dice roll high; sometimes they roll low. The PCs should be smart enough to realize when it's just not their day, and running away to regroup is the wise course of action.

Problems tend to appear whenever the DM does a mistake. Like throw a too hard monster at the players or whatever, resulting in completely unnecessary and pointless PC deaths.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Because it is so fun when a treasured character with a rich personality and history you spent years connecting to dies.

I guess you just have a different approach to RPGs - less about roleplaying and story, more about challenging combat (which I like too, just not to the point when the former suffers because of it). That's fine, but that doesn't mean that the DM being merficul is universally obnoxious - it only means it's against your chosen gamestyle.

I'd also like to point out that none of my players ever complained about my policies regarding PC deaths, so calling it "simply not fun" is just
http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t64/Coyoteesharptongue/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpgI've had one of my favorite characters of all die in essentially a random encounter. It was unfortunate, but that's the chance. The story, IMHO, is about people who go into dangerous places and do dangerous things, and sometimes they die, not fighting the BBEG, but just because the odds catch up to them. It's unfortunate, but it happens.

[Kyouhen]

That's not a fix, either. I like honesty. As a DM I roll the dice out in the open where everybody can see them. Sometimes the dice roll high; sometimes they roll low. The PCs should be smart enough to realize when it's just not their day, and running away to regroup is the wise course of action.

Still think you should go easy on them if it's excessive. If a level 6 party is getting beaten down by a pair of dire rats thanks to bad dice rolls, don't kill them. Do you really think such a party would think "Hey, these dire rats are kicking our asses. We should flee from this enemy that shouldn't be more than a nuisance"? Letting the dice do their thing is okay, but not when it gets to the point where it results in a TPK against an enemy the party could take down in one round.

[Ravens_cry]

I've had one of my favorite characters of all die in essentially a random encounter. It was unfortunate, but that's the chance. The story, IMHO, is about people who go into dangerous places and do dangerous things, and sometimes they die, not fighting the BBEG, but just because the odds catch up to them. It's unfortunate, but it happens.
That is precisely why I hate random encounters. They don't make sense from a story or simulationist perspective, they are just filler. Your walking through the wilderness and pow, magically 3 goblins and an orc appear. Or a gelatinous cube and four lizard men. The latter actually happened. It was going to be 3 lizard men and an angel. They use up PC resources, player time, and give nothing that adds to the game but some random treasure.
It's one thing to die doing something that matters or at least is integrated into the game world. Random encounters are neither.

[Mastikator]

The DM should be flexible and allow the players to play who they want to play, but the player also has to be mindful of the rest of the party's fun. There is more than one person playing the game, and it's up to everyone to not drag it down for everyone else, which includes playing a character that will incessantly cause party conflict. [snip]Perhaps I should tell my story :p

There was me, who played an elven cleric, a friend who played a human mage and another friend who played a human assassin, and the DM.
We were all inexperienced, and pretty much only the DM knew anything about the game mechanics, and this was a small Swedish game, so there's no srd to look stuff up on. The DM decided to make up for his lack of knowledge by filling the gaps with free form improvisation. And it worked.
But he also wanted to railroad the game, utterly and completely.

We started off in a town, I don't remember the exact details, it was about 5 years ago and this was my first game, but we basically met up with an elven priestess who gave us a quest to escort her to another town, and we were also accompanied by the DM's own character from a previous game, which became his DMCP. I suppose he figured that if he gave us a powerful NPC he could throw big mobs at us without fearing we'd die, and bigger mobs = more interesting apparently.

We went off to the town, it became dark and we needed to sleep, so we camped off the road.
Once it was the mage's turn to guard the camp he, uh.. wanted to grope the priestess. The DM said "no", my friend was stunned and was like "wtf, I thought this was roleplaying", the DM caved in, rolled a d20 (in this system high = bad), it rolled pretty high. The DM said that as the mage tried to grope the priestess he fell on her, she woke up and the mage was lucky enough to explain that he didn't mean to fall on her. (lucky being that she forgave him and went back to sleep).
He wanted to try again, but the DM basically said that if he did it again he's get a lightning bolt in his head and die.

Had he allowed him to do that again, and he'd wake her again and she'd know what he was trying to do, she would scream, woken everyone up, and we'd use peer pressure to make him act more like a gentleman. And he would figure that from a roleplaying perspective grouping sleeping priestesses isn't the best of ideas, instead he got the out-of-character perspective that the DM is a fascist control freak.


The moral of the story is that it is okay to let the worst possible thing happen as a DM because then the DM isn't the bad guy, it's the player causing the trouble in the first place, and it's more likely he'll better himself if he knows he did something wrong in the first place.

[yilduz]

I've had a few DMs that I might call "the worst DM ever" if it weren't for the rest of them. Seriously, I've had some horrible ones. Some of the major annoyances included:

-"Angels descend from the heavens and heal you all" after the Wizard centered a fireball on the fighter because "it hit the bad guys, too" (it was actually the fighter's idea) and then the wizard ran into melee with his quarterstaff because the fireball was his last 3rd level spell. In fact, any of the instances where an epic cleric we've never met teleports in to heal us all so we don't die is kind of lame. I agree with all the people saying stupid decisions that lead to death should kill the PC. In every game I've played where the DM didn't let anyone die, things got out of hand because nobody felt they had to worry about death so they did outrageous things they wouldn't have otherwise done.

-DMPCs. STOP IT! If it's a bard, or someone that only pops in once in a while, or something like that, fine... but a character with unlimited gold and 5 more levels than the highest-level PC is stupid, especially since the DMPC is always leading the battles, always the one that saves the day, and always the most important character in the story. That's fun for everyone else. -_-

-Don't give players everything they want (and more) just because they whine about something. Seriously, I had a DM that always wanted to make sure everyone liked him, and he tried way too hard. A player would complain about something and the DM would let that player into a room full of chests overflowing with magical items for no reason.

-Anything involving the word "can't." I hate that word in game, it's a horrible word. When it comes to making a character, of course it's necessary to say no to things, but when a player says "I want climb the side of the building and get on the roof so I can snipe with my bow," don't just say no. Let the player try to do what he wants to do rather than force him into something he would normally try to avoid.

[The Mentalist]

I have a few things from my last game that may qualify as pretty annoying.

Railroading: Pretty generic stuff, I can understand new DMs doing it (I'm not going to mention that the guy has been running games for 20 years) I can tolerate it most of the time just so long as it's subtle, but no.... HE GIVES US MAGIC COMPASS!!! I'm not kidding. Said magic compass doesn't even work as we ended up trekking back and forth across the continent three times before we find the darn thing.

The Chosen One: One character in our party of varying levels of optimized folks is a Paragon Half-Dragon Fighter. I ran the LA for his character, a 23 amid level 12's does not make for a good game for the rest of us.

Doom Monster: So all is going well, we collect three major artifacts (given away pretty much) and we encounter the Ship of Death. We're level fourteen by this point and there is a 100HD undead on this boat, loads of fun.

The Anti-Climax: We finally get to fight the demi-god dracolich and I manage to two spell it.

[Blackjackg]

Well, I've mostly had either good GMs or great GMs, but the most frustrating experience I've had as a player was in an Exalted game.

Basically, the Storyteller in this game reads the books obsessively and min-maxes his NPCs. So those of us who aren't as familiar with the best combos or who have chosen to make our characters for flavor rather than for combat effectiveness are generally toast. Add to that that he regularly awards himself two- and three-die stunts, and combat becomes a genuine pain in the ass.

That being said, he was creative and fun, and a good friend. Getting our asses handed to us regularly was a relatively small price to pay for gaming with him.

[Tengu_temp]

Does that ST post on these forums? Because he really reminds me of a certain person around here...

[Stormthorn]

Bah, AGC is almost a perfect example of "Most obnoxious thing a player can do."

From That Lanky Bastard on this site, we get this gem:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23784

Return of worst DM ever:
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=95189

Hmm, anyway. DMPCs.
A lot of game tropes: Child Soldiers (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ChildSoldiers)
Screw the rules, I have plot! (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ptitler4e1mm02)
Obvious Cheating DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheGMIsACheatingBastard)
Lots of trains (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Railroading)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TabletopGames?from=Main.TabletopRPG
Go down the list, you will find some that are terrifically annoying.

Whats wrong witht he GM cheating? I think it says i can in my DM handbook somewhere.

Child Soldiers arnt bad. They are awesome. Because it gives the groups paladin a moral problem that cant be solved with "I call him evil, smite him, and loot the body" especialy if you make them Chaotic Good child soldiers.


He didn't use xp or the "level up every x session" system, he just gave us levels whenever he felt like it. The party was random leveled characters, and if you died and didn't get a rez you came back at level 1.
Those last two bits sound really crappy.
But i like the idea of leveling when story appropriate not after winning X encounters of ELC Y. What made that rat swarm more special than the one before it? Can i wait to level until right after i kill the rat-king please?

[Tengu_temp]

I don't see how fighting an obviously CG child soldier is a bigger moral dilemma than fighting an obviously CG adult soldier. Of course, I consider murdering a child no worse than murdering an adult, either.

[Blackjackg]

Does that ST post on these forums? Because he really reminds me of a certain person around here...

If he does, it's under a name I don't know. I kind of suspect that kind of behavior is not uncommon in Exalted storytellers.

[Stormthorn]

I don't see how fighting an obviously CG child soldier is a bigger moral dilemma than fighting an obviously CG adult soldier. Of course, I consider murdering a child no worse than murdering an adult, either.

But most people get very upset over the idea of killing children. And for child soldiers specificly the fact that they are brainwashed since they could first understand language makes them more tragic than a mercenary who chooses to fight.


Does that ST post on these forums? Because he really reminds me of a certain person around here...
Does he remind you of me? My online nickname is often ST for obvious reasons.

[dr.cello]

I once had a DM who let his son play in the campaigns. His son would evidently complain about things until his dad would let them have them; the kid was pretty munchkinny. Unfortunately, the way he'd punish his son would be to make his super-powerful magic weapons really dangerous to the rest of the party. He had a shuriken which scored a critical hit half the time, and the DM arbitrarily decided that, since I was standing opposite of the target one time, the shuriken went through and also hit me. Unfortunately, I was a level 1 rogue (the DM wouldn't allow anyone to start at higher than level 1 even though the party was level 4-5). It did something on the order of 30 damage to my poor 6-hps-max frame.

This same DM was a big fan of fumble rolls; any time you roll a 1, it's a fumble. This was the second time I was in the negative hit points in this encounter. The first time was because I fumbled with my short bow, and rolled 'do double damage to yourself' on the fumble table.

Alas.

So, I have noticed a lot of people complaining about the DMPC, which, in many cases, is annoying. Does this extend to a DM who just has an NPC that is essentially the party's minion, handling some of the mundane stuff nobody's interested in doing for their own characters or otherwise helping the party stay alive but taking a back seat?

The only DMPCs I've encountered have been a tech specialist in Star Wars who handled things like computers, demolitions, and healing, but no real combat, as he was a coward; and a D&D cleric who, naturally, did healing and a little bit of combat. They basically made the party more viable.

[Thajocoth]

People mention being very against DMPCs. This is something I've had to do before... A temporary patch while a player is too busy with life to play, or while we're looking for another player and have too few. In one group I'm running, I'm about to introduce a Hybrid Fighter/Warlord DMPC as the party temporarily lacks a defender and has been lacking a leader. As a hybrid, they're not particularly good at either, as they're meant to be a patch, not a player (and they'll be leaving after 2 more battles anyway, right after the party fights the current villain). In this particular case, we thought we found somebody reliable, but they weren't, and now one of the regular players is dealing with moving and stuff, so he's temporarily out, leaving only 3 players left. How, out of curiosity, in that sort of a scenario, would you continue playing without a DMPC?

[Stormthorn]

People mention being very against DMPCs. This is something I've had to do before... A temporary patch while a player is too busy with life to play, or while we're looking for another player and have too few. In one group I'm running, I'm about to introduce a Hybrid Fighter/Warlord DMPC as the party temporarily lacks a defender and has been lacking a leader. As a hybrid, they're not particularly good at either, as they're meant to be a patch, not a player. In this particular case, we thought we found somebody reliable, but they weren't, and now one of the regular players is dealing with moving and stuff, so he's temporarily out, leaving only 3 players left. How, out of curiosity, in that sort of a scenario, would you continue playing without a DMPC?

You dont. Im think im going to have to DMPC in the game im planning on starting because we dont have a tank.
I think its ok since im not over-optomizing him and making him 1 level lower than the rest of the party members.

[Kyouhen]

So, I have noticed a lot of people complaining about the DMPC, which, in many cases, is annoying. Does this extend to a DM who just has an NPC that is essentially the party's minion, handling some of the mundane stuff nobody's interested in doing for their own characters or otherwise helping the party stay alive but taking a back seat?

The only DMPCs I've encountered have been a tech specialist in Star Wars who handled things like computers, demolitions, and healing, but no real combat, as he was a coward; and a D&D cleric who, naturally, did healing and a little bit of combat. They basically made the party more viable.

I think the general idea is that the DMPC is a character that represents the already omnipotent DM in the game, and is important to the story in some way. The fighter that bosses everyone around, the wizard that sits on his ass until you're about to die then one-hits everything. The DMPC always needs to be considerably higher in level than the rest of the party.

Mercenaries, hirelings, little kids that carry your bags are all just NPCs that happen to be following your party. For the most part they do what you tell them to do and if you get sick of them you tell them to go away or kill them off. They're just as powerful as the PCs, if not less so (ie your cowardly cleric) and rarely take the spotlight. These are acceptable additions to the party when needed.

[Blackjackg]

How, out of curiosity, in that sort of a scenario, would you continue playing without a DMPC?

Theoretically, you could throw slightly less powerful opponents after them. Alternatively, get the players to design a temporary "patch" character and nominate one of their own to play it. Both viable alternatives to DMPCs.

When I started playing, DMPCs were pretty commonplace. In fact, for a long time, I thought that was the definition of NPC. Characters would stride into the local tavern and announce "we're going into the Dungeon of [dungeon], who's with us?" and wind up with a couple of cronies and a mysterious cloaked warrior. I guess that's because the point was more to survive than to get the biggest slice of the XP pie that you can. Even now, when I DM, my players often have a crony tagging along. They can provide a little extra balance (read:Band-Aid) or maybe a few pieces of necessary information. They can even be great roleplaying tools for PCs to bounce off of, for good or ill. No harm, no foul.

The DMPC that everyone complains about here is of significantly greater (or at least equal) power than the PCs and tends to steal their thunder. It's basically the gaming equivalent of a Mary Sue. This is pretty reprehensible under most circumstances, and I'm kind of surprised it's as common as it seems to be.

The trick (and it's not exactly a tricky trick, really...) is to keep them low-key. Make them, at most, equal in level to the lowest-level PCs. Under normal circumstances, they don't speak unless spoken to. Let the players dictate their actions, to a reasonable extent (they can elect the DMPC to carry the lantern, for example, but not to go ahead of the group and set off traps). The DM can even fudge a few rolls to keep them from kill-stealing in combat. There's no reason DMPCs can't be done, but they should certainly be done intelligently.

[arguskos]

I've had one of my favorite characters of all die in essentially a random encounter. It was unfortunate, but that's the chance. The story, IMHO, is about people who go into dangerous places and do dangerous things, and sometimes they die, not fighting the BBEG, but just because the odds catch up to them. It's unfortunate, but it happens.
Hey, I apologized afterwards. At least it wasn't in the main game, which by the way, we'll be picking up again in August. Sorry for the lack of info recently, class has been brutal.

Anyways, on the topic of character death being a major no-no, I'd have to say that I actually don't mind too much. I mean, if my hard work is killed off by something I can't stop (such as DM fiat), I'll be pissed. But, if I get a fair chance to either prevent it from happening, or at least fight back, I'm fine with it. Being a hero/adventurer/superhero/whatever is dangerous work. Death is thy companion, so it makes sense that eventually, it'll catch up to you.

[Guancyto]

So, I have noticed a lot of people complaining about the DMPC, which, in many cases, is annoying. Does this extend to a DM who just has an NPC that is essentially the party's minion, handling some of the mundane stuff nobody's interested in doing for their own characters or otherwise helping the party stay alive but taking a back seat?

It's actually pretty simple. The DM cares about his DMPC.

I mean, he might kind of like acting out a hireling if they're particularly long-term or notable, but when the chips are down and someone has to be in front of the big ambush, the hireling's toast. That's not going to happen with a dyed-in-the-wool DMPC.

To the DM, the tag-along NPCs are his playthings. The DMPC is his child.

[dr.cello]

People mention being very against DMPCs. This is something I've had to do before... A temporary patch while a player is too busy with life to play, or while we're looking for another player and have too few. In one group I'm running, I'm about to introduce a Hybrid Fighter/Warlord DMPC as the party temporarily lacks a defender and has been lacking a leader. As a hybrid, they're not particularly good at either, as they're meant to be a patch, not a player (and they'll be leaving after 2 more battles anyway, right after the party fights the current villain). In this particular case, we thought we found somebody reliable, but they weren't, and now one of the regular players is dealing with moving and stuff, so he's temporarily out, leaving only 3 players left. How, out of curiosity, in that sort of a scenario, would you continue playing without a DMPC?

Well, I figure there's a few options for not having a DMPC. (I don't think DMPC is a problem, especially if you limit their involvement.)

One, play with an unusual/underpowered party. This can be fun for the challenge and inventive thought involved, and the different tactics it provides. (Admittedly, this probably works better with 4 or 5 still.) A party with only strikers and controllers could set up ambushes and try to take down their enemies that way. It's not optimal, but can be fun for a while.

Two, have one of the PCs hire an NPC, probably with NPC stats, and that PC basically controls the NPC instead. This runs into some obvious problems (who gets to hire the NPC, etc), and you may want to keep some level of DM control over the NPC, but it does do away with the presence of a DMPC.

[Ridureyu]

I'd say the worst thing is probably when the DM consistently fudges rolls in favor of the monsters.

[Tsotha-lanti]

It's actually pretty simple. The DM cares about his DMPC.

I mean, he might kind of like acting out a hireling if they're particularly long-term or notable, but when the chips are down and someone has to be in front of the big ambush, the hireling's toast. That's not going to happen with a dyed-in-the-wool DMPC.

To the DM, the tag-along NPCs are his playthings. The DMPC is his child.

This is precisely the difference between DMPC and NPC. The DMPC is the DM's "avatar" in the game, and that is always a bad thing, at least potentially.

[dr.cello]

I think the general idea is that the DMPC is a character that represents the already omnipotent DM in the game, and is important to the story in some way. The fighter that bosses everyone around, the wizard that sits on his ass until you're about to die then one-hits everything. The DMPC always needs to be considerably higher in level than the rest of the party.

Mercenaries, hirelings, little kids that carry your bags are all just NPCs that happen to be following your party. For the most part they do what you tell them to do and if you get sick of them you tell them to go away or kill them off. They're just as powerful as the PCs, if not less so (ie your cowardly cleric) and rarely take the spotlight. These are acceptable additions to the party when needed.

Ah--the DMPC who exists exclusively to tell the DM's story, while the PCs just sort of hang around to watch and maybe help.

[Ridureyu]

In the game I'm in now, we're low on players (and one just dropped), so the DM had to make a PC just to boost us a bit. So far, the DMPC has helped with providing quests and occasionally nudging us in the right direction if we're totally spinning our wheels and off-base, and tries to fill the current gap in our party makeup during fights.

[Thajocoth]

I see the problem... It's not a DMPC of the sort I'm thinking of... It's the DM AS a PC. That's just an obvious confliction of priorities, IMO.

When I insert a DMPC, it's to fill a gap the party needs filled (heals &/| meatshield), and I only control it myself if no other party member suggests actions. RP-wise, I might give a little BG flavor, but they're mostly quiet unless the party wants them to say something. And, as an upside, I can occasionally use them as a hint dispenser if the party can't decide which way they feel like going. THIS is what I think of when you say DMPC. A PC that the DM plays directly just doesn't make logical sense.

[Anxe]

My players have never been pissed off at my DMPCs. The first one I gave them was just to round out the party and then he died heroicly on their first adventure when I realized they didn't need him.

The second one I gave them is a powerful mage who sits in his tower and gives them advice and occasionally teleports them to where they want to go, but only when he feels like it. The mage says that he'd rather watch them bumble around in his scrying ball than help them out.

The third one is a Paladin type who is far more powerful than the players. He's level 20 and they're currently level 12. He usually has to hang back and protect the pretty princess who follows him around though. And when he does rush in I find the Warmage and the Favored Soul are doing a lot more damage than the Paladin is.

Are these bad DMPCs or good DMPCs?

[Blackjackg]

Are these bad DMPCs or good DMPCs?

Well, let's see...


My players have never been pissed off at my DMPCs. The first one I gave them was just to round out the party and then he died heroicly on their first adventure when I realized they didn't need him.

Sounds fine. Depends on the heroic death. If he showed up the PCs or stole their boss kill or something, it might be iffy territory.


The second one I gave them is a powerful mage who sits in his tower and gives them advice and occasionally teleports them to where they want to go, but only when he feels like it. The mage says that he'd rather watch them bumble around in his scrying ball than help them out.

I wouldn't call this a DMPC. More like a friendly NPC who occasionally does them a favor. If he doesn't travel with the group, he's probably not a DMPC.


The third one is a Paladin type who is far more powerful than the players. He's level 20 and they're currently level 12. He usually has to hang back and protect the pretty princess who follows him around though. And when he does rush in I find the Warmage and the Favored Soul are doing a lot more damage than the Paladin is.

This one's a little more worrisome. Why are a level 20 Paladin and his princess hanging around with a group of level 12s? What role do they play in the party, and in the story? Generally speaking, you should not have a character 8 levels higher than the group travelling around with them.

[Zeful]

http://jasonmc.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/picard-facepalm.jpg

Not everyone has a gamist mindset and plays RPGs for the challenge, you know. Some people play them for the story and roleplaying.

Your point? Roleplaying should never prevent the consequences of their stupid actions from happening.

[dr.cello]

Your point? Roleplaying should never prevent the consequences of their stupid actions from happening.

Indeed. I think the story is more interesting if there are some consequences for stupid actions and if there is a chance for failure--you don't have to play for the challenge, but what's a story without conflict, or the chance that your plans will fail?

[Drascin]

Indeed. I think the story is more interesting if there are some consequences for stupid actions and if there is a chance for failure--you don't have to play for the challenge, but what's a story without conflict, or the chance that your plans will fail?

I think Tengu meant that, unless the players do something very, very stupid (ie, stabbing the king in his throne room without a very good escape plan prepared), "failure" shouldn't necessarily have to mean "death". There are usually plenty of ways for the players objectives to go wrong and force them to have to fix them, without resorting to making them make a new sheet.

That said, the players I'm currently DMingh actually want the risk of death pending over their heads and have told me as much, so I turned up the lethality. I still won't kill them in less important fights, though - however, they don't know that :smallwink:. They only know one of them already got gutted by a crazed vampire (the first "true boss"), so they're satisfied thinking they could die at any moment. After all, being a DM is not unlike being an illusionist.

[dr.cello]

I think Tengu meant that, unless the players do something very, very stupid (ie, stabbing the king in his throne room without a very good escape plan prepared), "failure" shouldn't necessarily have to mean "death". There are usually plenty of ways for the players objectives to go wrong and force them to have to fix them, without resorting to making them make a new sheet.

That said, the players I'm currently DMingh actually want the risk of death pending over their heads and have told me as much, so I turned up the lethality. I still won't kill them in less important fights, though - however, they don't know that :smallwink:. They only know one of them already got gutted by a crazed vampire (the first "true boss"), so they're satisfied thinking they could die at any moment. After all, being a DM is not unlike being an illusionist.

Sure, failure doesn't necessarily mean death, but if you have a story filled with death-defying stunts, it is a little more exciting if there was actually some risk of death there. I'm just saying you shouldn't close off one of your options.

Death is a tricky thing to handle, though. If you have a revolving door it ceases to be meaningful; if it's permanent, you risk it being more annoying and less dramatic if it happens at the wrong time. (Though arguably, you probably shouldn't be risking yourself on frivolous things if you can't be resurrected easily...)

[Kris Strife]

This one's a little more worrisome. Why are a level 20 Paladin and his princess hanging around with a group of level 12s? What role do they play in the party, and in the story? Generally speaking, you should not have a character 8 levels higher than the group travelling around with them.

Group discounts at the inns along the way?

Ensuring the princess remains chaste?

They're bored and want to watch them bumble around in person? (kind of like prefering to go to the game instead of watching at home)

[Omegonthesane]

Group discounts at the inns along the way?
Granted, but he could give them his seal to prove they had his favour. The only alternative is intimidating the innkeeper into a discount, which isn't very likely to not make you fall.


Ensuring the princess remains chaste?
Why's she attached to the party though? And what's to stop him wooing her and getting in there himself? Sex is in absolutely no way an evil act, and he has Remove Disease...


They're bored and want to watch them bumble around in person? (kind of like prefering to go to the game instead of watching at home)
A near-Epic paladin has better things to keep himself occupied.

I could believe it if your party was more of the evil side, and he was there not to back you up in combat but to sword you if you dont' do your jobs. Or if you were working for evil and he was a Blackguard doing the same "Work or die" threat role.

[shadzar]

Are these bad DMPCs or good DMPCs?

There is no such thing as a good DMPC. A DM doesn't get a PC, he has everything else in the game that is NOT a PC. When the DM wants a PC they should come around to the other side of the screen and no longer be the DM.

[Irreverent Fool]

I don't know what you are talking about, but everyone I play D&D with also plays magic, and they range from anti-powergamer, powergamer, munchkin, average joe, etc. You are mistaking "playing magic" with "playing magic only to win". Lots of magic players make whacky and flavorful decks, some of which are actually pretty good.

I think the point he was trying to make is that long-time players of magic (myself included) have developed a habit for looking for 'combos' and 3.5 facilitates that in many cases. "If I use spell A with this ability from PrC X and this feat from book Q I can kill everything in a 10-mile radius!" Even if one just plays the card game for fun, this can be an almost instinctual action.

obnoxious
sig

[Eldariel]

There is no such thing as a good DMPC. A DM doesn't get a PC, he has everything else in the game that is NOT a PC. When the DM wants a PC they should come around to the other side of the screen and no longer be the DM.

But when the party is lacking some vital members (for example, if it's a 2-player party), adding a DMPC is one of the least painful ways of alleviating the problem. When the reason for DMPC's existence are party considerations, not DM's own desire to be a PC, it's perfectly ok.

[shadzar]

But when the party is lacking some vital members (for example, if it's a 2-player party), adding a DMPC is one of the least painful ways of alleviating the problem. When the reason for DMPC's existence are party considerations, not DM's own desire to be a PC, it's perfectly ok.

This is going to grow to a thread its own and hijack this one, so start a thread for it stating your views, and I will join in that thread to discuss the thing known as "DMPC", and will give others a chance to discus it without completely derailing this one.

[Kris Strife]

Granted, but he could give them his seal to prove they had his favour. The only alternative is intimidating the innkeeper into a discount, which isn't very likely to not make you fall.

I meant both groups are just traveling in the same direction and decided to travel as a group for the discount



Why's she attached to the party though? And what's to stop him wooing her and getting in there himself? Sex is in absolutely no way an evil act, and he has Remove Disease...

Who says the princess is single or not in an arranged marriage? And I meant they were there to keep the paladin from getting in there. :p And the 'escort person x to place y' is a pretty standard quest... Or see above.


A near-Epic paladin has better things to keep himself occupied.
So does an epic level mage.


I could believe it if your party was more of the evil side, and he was there not to back you up in combat but to sword you if you dont' do your jobs. Or if you were working for evil and he was a Blackguard doing the same "Work or die" threat role.

Hm... Don't really have anything to say on this one as I wasn't part of the roleplaying group in question. :p

[only1doug]

I heartlessly allowed PC inaction to cause PC death, and enjoyed it.

Beyond the mountains of Madness Campaign (Call of Cthulhu) (no plot info in spoiler, just reducing wall of text)

the players were warned that the campaign would be dangerous and difficult, one player decided to generate a Kid character, I specifically warned him that this was unwise, he chose to anyway.

the PCs joined an arctic expedition, the kid was refused permission to join, he begged and pleaded and another PC vouched for him and declared that he would be responsible for the child.

after awhile on ship the seas became rough and several of the party became seasick (including the kid). the guardian PC responsible for the kid PC decided to lock him in a cabin. time passed on the ship and every couple of game hours the guardian PC was asked what he was going to do. after about 6 hrs he checked on the kid PC, he's thrown up all over the cabin, it was filthy. the guardian PC retrieved his gear and locked the kid PC in. 3 weeks later the guardian PC checked the cabin again. it smelt much worse in there now, there was kid (no longer PC) decomposing on the floor.
(constant vomitting + de-hydration = dead PC)


also in that same campaign came a catchphrase we still occasionally use today - "Special" Pemmican.

(spoilered for taste - this isn't a nice mental image, look away now if squeamish)

you have been warned

pemmican is a foodstuff, like iron rations, that is ideal for use in arctic conditions.
After weeks of eating Pemmican the PC's were tired of the same thing at every meal.

"I really hate f**king pemmican"
"you've been F**king the pemmican? Guys, don't eat any Pemmican that has a hole in the middle!"
"why not?"
"it's 'Special', don't eat the 'Special' Pemmican"

[Tengu_temp]

I think Tengu meant that, unless the players do something very, very stupid (ie, stabbing the king in his throne room without a very good escape plan prepared), "failure" shouldn't necessarily have to mean "death". There are usually plenty of ways for the players objectives to go wrong and force them to have to fix them, without resorting to making them make a new sheet.

Pretty much. I see nothing good in punishing PCs with death for bad luck - it does not reinforce the tension either, because you can't feel worried about a PC you're completely disattached to (and DMing in the "the thief did not find the poison trap and I declare her dead" way promotes disattachment from your character). It only works if you're running a survival horror, cyberpunk, Paranoia or any other game where it's a part of the course - but I don't. I DM games about heroes and if they die, they die heroically - not to a bunch of random mooks.

As for DMPCs, I think that what matters here is how the players feel about them - because even if the DMPC steals the spotlight and the players feel more like his sidekick than the other way around, as long as he's cool enough that they don't mind it, who cares? That is a rare case and requires careful handling, however - it's usually best if it's the PCs who play the main role, with the DMPC tagging along as a friend/sidekick/living plothook/etc. Now, I disagree with the only good DMPCs being expendable. personality-less hirelings with no plot importance - all of my tagalong NPCs had well-defined, unique personalities, fought along the players as equals (unless the NPC in question was a non-combatant) and had their own plotlines. The key here was not to steal the spotlight - even in the plot relating to the NPC in question, it was the players who played the major active roles - and to make these NPCs fun and interesting, so the players will like them.

[Diamondeye]

The most obnoxious thing I've ever had a DM do aside from running a sterotypical invincible cooler than the party superpowered DMPC (insert hyphens) is to run an amazing game... for all of three sessions. The worst part is, we keep falling for it because he's such a good DM. His stories are grand, his combats epic, character deaths (and oh are there deaths) relevant to the story... he just seems to lose interest after about three games no matter who he DMs for. A few months later he'll get another group together, sometimes with some of the same people. His games are so great, they just never last very long. :smallfrown:

obnoxious
sig

Do we know the same guy? This is my best friend in college.

Aside from one Shadowrun game that lasted through our junior year and reappeared sporadically in our senior, we had a zillion games like this: RIFTS, Palladium (shoosh, I don't mind the system at all) AD&D (both 1 and 2E; this is pre-3.0) even Centurion! We tried at least 5 different card games during the magic-spinoff craze and none of them stuck eith him either although Magic did last a bit longer than the others, The only game that consistently held his attention was WH40K; even Fantasy Battle, Epic, and Necromunda didn't.

He ran the same great plotlines with vivid NPCs and descriptions and so forth, and then getting bored with it. The worst was during our extra semester after our senior year. We were playing a 1E campaign he was running. He was also dating some chick (he tended to get bored with girlfriends at a similar rate) and went to her place on a Saturday night. Playtime was Sunday at 1:00 pm, and he'd said he'd be there. At 4:30 he shows at the apartment he shared with some of our other friends who were also playing.

"Well, I just didn't feel like rushing back to run a game when I could be spending time with <whatsername>, I just didn't feel like playing today"

That would have been session 3. Next week? Sure enough, TPK, although at least we did enormous damage in the process. Still, dying to a Death Spell at what were approximately level 5-6 characters was... irritating.

He was a better player in that regard than DM.

The other horrendous DM I had was a guy who wanted to run an evil campaign, but he wanted to totally redo the 2E magic system because he didn't like it - just for mages though, not clerics or druids. Unfortunatley he didn't actually do anything to conduct such revision, he essentially just banned magic even though it wasn't supposed to be a magic-less campaign. Fortunately this lasted only 2 sessions before everyone got tired of this guy that always played weird characters - in this case an 8' blue skinned elf wih no reason whatsoever for exiting in the first place who got into the typical "why does everyone treat me differently even though I'm totally bizarre even for a fantasy world, and apparently just popped into existance because my player is weird" thing.

[Zeful]

Pretty much. I see nothing good in punishing PCs with death for bad luck - it does not reinforce the tension either, because you can't feel worried about a PC you're completely disattached to (and DMing in the "the thief did not find the poison trap and I declare her dead" way promotes disattachment from your character). It only works if you're running a survival horror, cyberpunk, Paranoia or any other game where it's a part of the course - but I don't. I DM games about heroes and if they die, they die heroically - not to a bunch of random mooks.

If the players don't or can't understand that things are going south quickly and it would be a good idea to run, then they're not being punished for bad luck, they're being punished for lacking the wisdom to understand that their not invisible.

Yes D&D is about heroes, but as cliche as this sound, heroes aren't born, they're made.

[Korivan]

I see DMPC on this thread alot and it reminds me of this one guy we dont play with anymore. Back in 2nd edition, his DMPC was a Fighter 20/Mage 20/Cleric 20 with full 25 stats, max hit points and custum magic gear. This guy kept bringing this thing in every time we got in a bind without at least giving us at least a round or two to try to turn things around ourselves. Im a firm believer that the only time a DM plays a PC is when its a small group, and they need a cleric, at which point I pretty much leave him in the back and just throw the occasional cure spell...assuming i dont forget about him.

[Tengu_temp]

If the players don't or can't understand that things are going south quickly and it would be a good idea to run, then they're not being punished for bad luck, they're being punished for lacking the wisdom to understand that their not invisible.


I'm pretty sure you're perfectly aware that there are many situations where bad luck can cause the situation from "everything is in control" to "lol I'm dead" in one round, without giving the player any chance to react.

[Tsotha-lanti]

I'm pretty sure you're perfectly aware that there are many situations where bad luck can cause the situation from "everything is in control" to "lol I'm dead" in one round, without giving the player any chance to react.

Especially true in games that aren't D&D. Every RuneQuest player knows the "damn trollkin syndrome", which is when you dodge the great troll's maul, block the dark troll's club, and get killed by a lucky crit from the completely insignificant trollkin who only had a 10% chance to hit anyway and could never have penetrated your armor on a normal hit.

[Swordguy]

Especially true in games that aren't D&D. Every RuneQuest player knows the "damn trollkin syndrome", which is when you dodge the great troll's maul, block the dark troll's club, and get killed by a lucky crit from the completely insignificant trollkin who only had a 10% chance to hit anyway and could never have penetrated your armor on a normal hit.

Heh, yup. Of course, that's more of an issue with high-lethality systems (CoC, L5R, Rolemaster, WFRP, RQ, etc) than it is with D&D, as long as the DM is running primarily HP-based damage. If becomes true for D&D is the DM is running stuff with loads of Save-or-Dies/Lose...but it's not the "default" the way it is in those other games.

As long as stuff is doing primarily HP damage, it's fairly rare for a monster to completely wipe out a character in a single attack outside of very high and very low levels. Theoretically, then (assuming non-stupid players), there's going to be a chance for the PCs to take stock and decide to fall back if necessary. The fact that most players don't choose to do so (or can't even conceive of an encounter they can't beat) isn't the fault of the DM in this scenario...it's the fault of the players.

[aarondirebear]

When the DM isn't playing with you

He's just telling his own story.
With spectators.

Sounds like the last BESM game I played in.
Nothing we did mattered because he had a deus ex machina planned.
He railroaded us and got pissed off whenever we tried something OTHER than his solution.

I have to constantly run an npc cleric because there are 3 members in my group at the moment and none of them's the healer. A kobold cleric to bahamut named Pippit. they seem to like him i guess.

[BigPapaSmurf]

None of these things is remotely as bad as PCs who nitpick their DM cause they feel something he/she did is not in their rulebook that way. This is why I created/modified most of my monsters and magic items. PCs should not have encyclopedic knowledge of everything in the universe and any PC who tries to use such knowledge that their character would never have known is an ass. LOL at all of you complaining about running into things way over your CR, it's called running away.

[Fitz10019]

... it could just be little things (about the campaign) that annoyed you and ticked you off. This is a chance for you to share your horror stories.

A DM I had decided my spell failed because the creature was CR 8, and my spell was level 1, like it was an equation.

The creature was a Mind Flayer, and the spell was Horrible Taste. The flayer was trying to suck out the brain of a party member mid-battle. It failed the Fort save, then he said the spell didn't apply because it was first level, then the MF planeshifted away. It should have been nauseated, limited to move actions.

[Irreverent Fool]

A DM I had decided my spell failed because the creature was CR 8, and my spell was level 1, like it was an equation.

The creature was a Mind Flayer, and the spell was Horrible Taste. The flayer was trying to suck out the brain of a party member mid-battle. It failed the Fort save, then he said the spell didn't apply because it was first level, then the MF planeshifted away. It should have been nauseated, limited to move actions.

"No your random obscure spell that happens to actually be useful for once doesn't work in this exact situation it was intended to be used for!"

In an unrelated 'bad DM' story, I was once playing a dwarven cleric and jumped out a window after a thief onto a small section of roof. My cleric was in full plate, so the DM decided that to not go toppling off the sloped roof I should have to make a reflex save. Reasonable enough. I rolled a natural 20. He said that my character still fell off the room, hit the ground, and broke every bone in his body.

I don't have so much had a problem with what happened as much as he gave me a roll to avoid it and decided my roll was irrelevant.

obnoxious
sig

[Partysan]

I see the problem... It's not a DMPC of the sort I'm thinking of... It's the DM AS a PC. That's just an obvious confliction of priorities, IMO.

When I insert a DMPC, it's to fill a gap the party needs filled (heals &/| meatshield), and I only control it myself if no other party member suggests actions. RP-wise, I might give a little BG flavor, but they're mostly quiet unless the party wants them to say something. And, as an upside, I can occasionally use them as a hint dispenser if the party can't decide which way they feel like going. THIS is what I think of when you say DMPC. A PC that the DM plays directly just doesn't make logical sense.

Oh it does. As long as it's a real PC it can work out perfectly. Being a real PC meaning: not getting stuff the others can't get, being on the same power level as the rest of the party, not stealing the spotlight all the time and (here the DM kicks in a bit) not solving the puzzles for the party (but giving hints is allowed) etc.

Example spoilered for length:

I once played a D&D 3.5 Campaign together with 3 friends who lived at a boarding school near my house. We were all between 17-18.
One of them had never played, one had but was very passive (though after a while he really blossomed up), one was relatively new to DMing and I was an experienced player but not a good DM.
Our DM was going to be the one who had only DMed few short campaigns (lasting about 3 sessions) with me helping out by providing feedback after every session. He had become a great DM after less than half of the campaign and it was certainly one of my best games ever.

Now, that DM had a DMPC travelling with us. And he really was like a PC. He didn't sit back passively but talked to us in character, played out everything he could when in a pinch and generally wasn't in any form less a PC than us.
BUT he also wasn't more of it. HE wasn't more powerful than us, he didn't get to steal th spotlight, he just was a great addition to the party, roleplay-wise as power-wise. In fact, a lot of roleplaying fun came from his character (an ice-specialized sorcerer) and mine (a goliath legendary weapon scion) constantly arguing (he made fun of me being "primitive" and I bugged him because of his cold problem... more to that later on), but they became friends after a while without ever admitting.
This DMPC had actually most of the things that could have made him a nuisance. He was a tragic character AND he had some special style to him (to gain control of the ice, he was magically being tattoed, but the tattoes were incomplete and he couldn't touch anything with his hands without it freezing. not even people, who didn't freeze instantly but were constantly dealt ice damage). Moreover he was a blaster with a bit of BF control. He talked with a big mouth. And he had an own quest series attached to him, complete with personal nemesis.
But - so had we. Everyone of us had his own story which was being advanced by the GM while playing through the main campaign. We were all equal to him and HE WAS ONE OF US. NO MORE NO LESS. Given, when we had to solve puzzles, he only made wrong suggetion and only give a hint when we couldn't think of a solution. He had his time when he really shone out, but everyone of us had his time, too. It really was as if there was one more player, not the DM playing a character. And we all loved that character.

So, what do I want to say: DMPC aren't a problem, even when they are powerful, stylish and so on, as long as they aren't more so than the players. Even if they are there all the time.

[hewhosaysfish]

A DM I had decided my spell failed because the creature was CR 8, and my spell was level 1, like it was an equation.

The creature was a Mind Flayer, and the spell was Horrible Taste. The flayer was trying to suck out the brain of a party member mid-battle. It failed the Fort save, then he said the spell didn't apply because it was first level, then the MF planeshifted away. It should have been nauseated, limited to move actions.

Did you take the opportunity to ask if you were immune to low-level spells too? :smallamused:

Also


If the players don't or can't understand that things are going south quickly and it would be a good idea to run, then they're not being punished for bad luck, they're being punished for lacking the wisdom to understand that their not invisible.


Most of the time -if the meaning is still clear- I'll ignore a typo, take it in my stride.
But sometimes the double meaning and the mental image it creates are just too funny. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0025.html)