Facepalms and a GM's Lament

[blackouttwo]

*epic facepalm*OK, I just got back from a particularly bad D&D 3.5 session. I've been the GM of my group for the last year and a half, and for quite some time, the group's seemed like it's on it's last legs. I'm not going to hand out RL names, but my players will be known as Chris, Tyler, Andrew, and Dylan, for simplicity.

Today, the group was playing relatively new characters, fighting some homebrewed, low-level monsters I've deemed Ghral(no relation to the Bloodmoon creatures of the same name, I swear.). Said creatures are humanoid and do not wield weapons, favoring their massive claws.

The group comes across an obstacle I've established: A wall of magically-controlled acid. Anything passing through the wall is dissolved failing a Fortitude save, and any living things still take extensive damage. There is a hidden switch in a wall near this acid wall, but they fail their Search checks and neglect to take 20. They decide to start throwing random, miscellaneous things through the acid wall to test out it's lethality. Then, Chris gets the bright idea to throw Tyler through the wall, just to annoy him.

Tyler and Chris make their appropriate Grapple checks, and Chris makes a Strength check, and next thing I know, Tyler's failing his Fort save and dying, Andrew's going into 'standby mode' as I call it, where he just sits there and watches. Tyler and Chris start yelling at each-other, and Dylan finally gets fed up, and then has to leave early because his mother showed up out of the blue with no previous announcements.

In short, I am worried for the group's stability. The whole group looks like it's lately been on it's last legs. Up until a few weeks ago, I found myself burned out due to a sudden annihilation of a carefully-laid plot, and it's attendant dungeons, at the hands of Tyler. And since the group's beginning, Tyler and Chris have been arguing frequently, and on top of that, Andrew's never really been interested in the game. Dylan recently came back to the group after a hiatus, where he got fed up with the arguments between Chris and Tyler.

How am I going to keep my group together and intact? Because I really, really don't feel like finding a new group to start hanging out with on Saturday nights. These guys are friends from school, and D&D is one of my few excuses to get out of the house once a week. Away from the game table, they're great folks, but the minute the game starts, it's like setting off a grenade in a pile of gunpowder.

[AstralFire]

Sounds like it's time to tell Tyler that he has to cut it out or he's going to get cut out.

As for Andrew, I presume you've talked to him about his apparent boredom? If so, what did he say?

[Random832]

This isn't really relevant to your problem, but the obstacle seems just a bit overpowered. Normally, being immersed in acid does 10d6 damage per round [which is survivable as long as the roll doesn't go over 50, which will only happen 0.15% of the time - but quite a dangerous [average 35] amount of HP to lose]. Why exactly did you make it more dangerous?

As for your problem, I'm a bit confused. You said "Up until a few weeks ago, I found myself burned out due to a sudden annihilation of a carefully-laid plot, and it's attendant dungeons, at the hands of Tyler", but in the actual incident you described Tyler was the victim. What exactly did Tyler do? And "annihilation of a carefully-laid plot" sounds suspiciously like "player didn't follow my carefully-laid rails"

[blackouttwo]

Well, to be honest, Chris is the catalyst for the arguments between himself and Tyler. The two work together fairly often, but occasionally, one of them decides to, in a rather metagaming and OOC manner, backstab the other guy. So, it's both of their faults, really. From what they say, they like it.

Andrew, meanwhile, is just often busy occupying himself by playing video games until it's his turn to roll. He claims D&D isn't really fun until it's time for a fight.


This isn't really relevant to your problem, but the obstacle seems just a bit overpowered. Normally, being immersed in acid does 10d6 damage per round [which is survivable as long as the roll doesn't go over 50, which will only happen 0.15% of the time - but quite a dangerous [average 35] amount of HP to lose]. Why exactly did you make it more dangerous?

As for your problem, I'm a bit confused. You said "Up until a few weeks ago, I found myself burned out due to a sudden annihilation of a carefully-laid plot, and it's attendant dungeons, at the hands of Tyler", but in the actual incident you described Tyler was the victim. What exactly did Tyler do? And "annihilation of a carefully-laid plot" sounds suspiciously like "player didn't follow my carefully-laid rails"

They saw fit to annihilate most of the city in which I had the campaign planned, systematically, person-by-person and guard-by-guard, right up to the ruling council. With my entire semi-sandbox-style campaign idea totalled, and all my contingency plans thoroughly wiped out, I was left with little option than to put the game on hold. Every time I set up a campaign idea that's really fairly flexible, they see fit to completely wipe it off the face of the map, and then wait in anticipation for what's next. Last time, there was nothing next, because they took out my last idea, thus leading to my burnout.

[AstralFire]

One of the most cavalierly disrespectful things to do at any social event is to bring something else to do at said event. :smallconfused:

[Xefas]

I would suggest going to each person, together, and also separately, and ask them straight up, in no uncertain terms, what it is they would like to see in the game. What would be fun for them to participate in. What irks them about the game and makes them not want to play. Don't beat around the bush.

If you find you can't meet all of their gaming needs, cut the ones who you can't make happy. For instance, if three of them don't want any inter-party conflict, and the fourth thinks its the best fun in the world to stir things up with the other players, then cut that fourth person. Its better to make three people happy, than to make four people miserable.

If three of them want heavy hack n' slash, no story, just tactical killing exercises, and the fourth thinks that D&D combat is boring, then cut that fourth player.

Its not about being mean to that fourth person. Its about keeping as many people happy as possible.

It sounds like each member of your group just has different expectations.

[Shinizak]

Maybe it's time to take a break from D&D? If you don't want to stop playing with your friends, why not try another system? Maybe GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, or World of Darkness?

[AslanCross]

Ugh, I feel your pain. Never had any problems of this magnitude in my games, thankfully, but I did once have players get up in a screaming fit due to other players being jerks. Once is enough for me. I now know better to choose my players wisely.

Since everyone seems more than a little problematic, I'd honestly drop the group and look for a new one. It just seems that D&D isn't their thing.

I would also take a break if I were you. There's other things to do aside from D&D.

[blackouttwo]

Maybe it's time to take a break from D&D? If you don't want to stop playing with your friends, why not try another system? Maybe GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, or World of Darkness?

We gave that a shot with a homebrewed system of mine(WARPS, if you're not familiar with it, I'm offering the rules for free right now through email, and am going to see to it that they are published, for $$$, but they're already copyrighted, so don't get any ideas), and it wasn't a bad idea. They actually liked the change of pace. But, the problem wasn't the system, it's the player's OOC habits. Some of the same stuff still happened, and some totally new stuff in the same general set of 'Things That Tend To Be Really, Really Bad Ideas' reared it's ugly head.


Ugh, I feel your pain. Never had any problems of this magnitude in my games, thankfully, but I did once have players get up in a screaming fit due to other players being jerks. Once is enough for me. I now know better to choose my players wisely.

Since everyone seems more than a little problematic, I'd honestly drop the group and look for a new one. It just seems that D&D isn't their thing.

I would also take a break if I were you. There's other things to do aside from D&D.

Oh, I know there's other things to do besides D&D, I just really would like to keep this group going. They're all good friends from school, and away from the gaming table, they're some of the best friends a guy could ask for. Sometimes, I offer to just sit around and play some video games or something, but everyone except for Andrew really doesn't like that. Andrew considers it a step in the right direction.


*stuff Xefas says*

Thank you. I'm trying to make everyone happy, here, really, I'm doing my best, but it's like they just want so many different things that they conflict, and on top of that, I can't cover it all. Excellent summary of what I'm dealing with. I really, really don't feel good about cutting out someone who's actually more than just a gaming buddy, though. It'll make me feel more than a little guilty, I guess.

[AKA_Bait]

Maybe it's time to take a break from D&D? If you don't want to stop playing with your friends, why not try another system? Maybe GURPS, Call of Cthulhu, or World of Darkness?

This sounds like a good idea to me. A new system might help with your burn out and get the bored player more interested since I suspect he's a 'crunchy' player and likes combat because it lets him try out his mechanical creations. GURPS might be a good fit.

[Milskidasith]

Acid shouldn't be autokilling your players, but I assume if it was a wall of poison that dealt 3d20 strength damage and had some acid mixed in, the players would have done the same thing, so that really doesn't matter.

First of all, are you running an evil campaign? Your characters appear to relish killing everybody in sight; they are either chaotic stupid disguised as chaotic neutral, or you are really tolerant with your players.

If you want to stick with D&D, tighten the leash on "acceptable" behavior. If your group enjoys freeform, that's fine, but if their character sheet says they are good or neutral, or their sheet says they are evil but doesn't mention utter insanity, then actually punish them for playing stupid evil/chaotic stupid/stupid multiclassed into dumbass.

[VirOath]

It also sounds like you have been bending your head around DMing for a long time and putting alot of effort into the plots.

Take a bit of a break. And I mean from the plots. Not that it should be a mindless hack and slash, just run some things for fun, for the sake of running them, rather than building an arcing campaign around it. It would also give you a way to test things out.

But one shots like this allow you to be dramatically unfair, and you may be surprised with what the player come up with, it may give you some inspiration as well as giving your mind a break.

Edit: I should mention that I'm of the opinion that you never throw away notes, maps or the like. Even if the party completely negates everything you've thought up or their possible outcomes, you can save them to be reused at a later point. It may sound like recycling ideas, but with a bit of a tweak or flair they apply to a much broader situation than you think.

Like how they have completely wiped out a city. Well, would anyone find out? Wouldn't it investigated? There should be evidence of them left there. Maybe the other cities, one of them being similar, is now pushing them to the other side of what you've thought up. They want to play like villains, then swap the roles.

I guess a quick way of saying it is to use the players to fuel what comes next when they go campaign wrecker :smalltongue:

[blackouttwo]

Acid shouldn't be autokilling your players, but I assume if it was a wall of poison that dealt 3d20 strength damage and had some acid mixed in, the players would have done the same thing, so that really doesn't matter.

First of all, are you running an evil campaign? Your characters appear to relish killing everybody in sight; they are either chaotic stupid disguised as chaotic neutral, or you are really tolerant with your players.

If you want to stick with D&D, tighten the leash on "acceptable" behavior. If your group enjoys freeform, that's fine, but if their character sheet says they are good or neutral, or their sheet says they are evil but doesn't mention utter insanity, then actually punish them for playing stupid evil/chaotic stupid/stupid multiclassed into dumbass.

I hardly ever run evil campaigns, and when I do, I try to make the players the 'lesser evil.' I'm one of those 'Good Triumphs!' types, I guess. Been trying to worm my way out of that stage lately. The entire group runs Neutral characters. Chris' character is Lawful Neutral(I know, I know. I called him out on it too), with everyone else being Chaotic Neutral. IC, it's like everyone wants to kill each-other.

As for the acid...that was, ah, not one of my better ideas, I'll admit. I figured the DC was low enough, being DC 12. He just happened to fail it, just barely. So, yes, a lot of the blame for this particular argument falls to me, for setting the stage in such a way. I just never expected Chris to outright kill Tyler's character by tossing him into this wall of magic acid.

[AslanCross]

Well, if you really want to keep it going, then the diplomatic route is the best way. I really would drop Andrew, though. If it's not his thing, then it's not.

[Random832]

They saw fit to annihilate most of the city in which I had the campaign planned, systematically, person-by-person and guard-by-guard, right up to the ruling council.

What level were they? Unless this is a fairly high-level evil group, doing that sort of thing is reasonably going to eventually attract the attention of people they can't handle - then you can put them on the run and try to do some of the same dungeons you had planned.

[blackouttwo]

What level were they? Unless this is a fairly high-level evil group, doing that sort of thing is reasonably going to eventually attract the attention of people they can't handle - then you can put them on the run and try to do some of the same dungeons you had planned.

It was my first time running a high-level campaign that wasn't epic level. I started them off with some decent magic items, and at level 16. The average city guardsman was a Level 3 or 4 Warrior, and the highest level individual in the city was a Level 14 Wizard with a half-dozen Level 10 Fighter bodyguards. The party ripped through them like tissue.

[Milskidasith]

It was my first time running a high-level campaign that wasn't epic level. I started them off with some decent magic items, and at level 16. The average city guardsman was a Level 3 or 4 Warrior, and the highest level individual in the city was a Level 14 Wizard with a half-dozen Level 10 Fighter bodyguards. The party ripped through them like tissue.

Send in the master of that wizard. Epic level, super optimized, uber paranoid wizard. Have him leave his impenetrable fortress of anti scrying, anti teleporting for the first time in years just due to sheer rage, and make sure he makes the party pay.

Nothing says "Why the hell did you do that" like epic level wizards.

[blackouttwo]

Send in the master of that wizard. Epic level, super optimized, uber paranoid wizard. Have him leave his impenetrable fortress of anti scrying, anti teleporting for the first time in years just due to sheer rage, and make sure he makes the party pay.

Nothing says "Why the hell did you do that" like epic level wizards.

That's brilliant. You sure I won't be accused of railroading or copping out like that? :smallconfused:

[Milskidasith]

That's brilliant. You sure I won't be accused of railroading or copping out like that? :smallconfused:

Every wizard needs a master. And if you don't want to make it seem like railroading, just have him hit the party with subtle effects while invisible (after all, if they could kill his student, what about their possible masters? No sense having another epic level wizard enemy).

So just have him floating around with tons of all day buffs, greater invisibility, and hit them with anything that wouldn't obviously give him away (for example, have him be invisible and buff all the enemies before a battle, cast invisibility on traps, tell the enemies they are coming so they all get readied actions, cast a few summon IXs, etc.)

[oxinabox]

honestly, get a new group.
Tell you players your starting up a new game.
Invite them to join.
invite new people.

Those of your old group who were enjoyiong you game, will join those that weren't won't.
and new blood can shed light on how strupid OoC disputes are, when the go IC.

[dps]

It was my first time running a high-level campaign that wasn't epic level. I started them off with some decent magic items, and at level 16. The average city guardsman was a Level 3 or 4 Warrior, and the highest level individual in the city was a Level 14 Wizard with a half-dozen Level 10 Fighter bodyguards. The party ripped through them like tissue.

I hesitate to say this, because obviously I don't have all the information about your planned campaign, but it seems to me that part of the problem may be that you aren't challanging your players enough. That'll get them bored, which will lead to disinterest in the game and exacerbate any tendencies toward OOC stupidity, silliness, or spitefulness.

[blackouttwo]

I hesitate to say this, because obviously I don't have all the information about your planned campaign, but it seems to me that part of the problem may be that you aren't challanging your players enough. That'll get them bored, which will lead to disinterest in the game and exacerbate any tendencies toward OOC stupidity, silliness, or spitefulness.

dps, thank you for saying this, truly. I often feel I'm not challenging them much either. This often stems from their insanely overpowered builds, even from level 1, which often stem from their tendency to complain about the point-buy system. :smallannoyed: So, it boils down to 'their way or the highway', when it comes to character creation.

[Milskidasith]

You are the DM. It should be "your way or the highway" not theirs.

Anyway, if they are playing OP builds, send them encounters 6 CR above normal. Homebrew some nasty extra abilities on to monsters to prevent metagaming. Customize the monsters against the party a bit. The CR system only really works if you assume you have a party of really bad casters and decent melee characters, and even then it's still really, really broken.

[Random832]

Why wasn't there anything in the city above a level 14 wizard if it was a 16th-level campaign? (yeah, yeah, "they were supposed to pick up their plot hooks and leave town" - the best laid plans and all)

An epic-level wizard enemy could make a good recurring antagonist, and maybe if you play it right you can find a way to introduce new plot hooks leading to the same dungeons you were originally going to send them to from the city.

[blackouttwo]

Oh, I threw the CR system out the window right from my start as a GM. Same with the XP system, and loot system. It's a pretty simple case of me knowing when they should level up, and what they should get at those levels.

As for custom monsters, the Ghral I mentioned in the opening post are but the latest of the literally hundreds of new monsters I've taken the time to create. I've also just instantly optimized the stats of humanoids.

And they still win, when I don't fudge the rolls.

[Random832]

Oh, I threw the CR system out the window right from my start as a GM.

Um, huh? Not using it to determine XP awards is one thing, but without CRs, what were you using to determine what was going to be a challenging but not unwinnable fight for them?

Are you statting your monsters properly with feats, special abilities and everything, or just making them a big pile of hit points and melee attacks?

[blackouttwo]

Um, huh? Not using it to determine XP awards is one thing, but without CRs, what were you using to determine what was going to be a challenging but not unwinnable fight for them?

Are you statting your monsters properly with feats, special abilities and everything, or just making them a big pile of hit points and melee attacks?

When they need special abilities, they get them. When they don't, they don't. Most of the time, they do. Most abilities are customized to fit the monsters.

As for what I was determining to use as a baseline, I just asked for a copy of each of their character sheets and used those.

[endoperez]

I have to agree with some other people's comments here: part of the irritation might be with your style of game-mastering. Obviously we don't have all the facts, but insta-death traps, wildly varying difficulty levels, without CR levels your players might not now what to expect about the game... Have you asked, or received, any commentary on your style of DMing?

As someone else already said, it could be good to try out a different system. You could try something like Paranoia, which lets your players blow off some steam, or some horror game where they know death is imminent, or then some game which is about blowing stuff and up and being awesome.

[Lord Loss]

I had a player like that... he ended up trying to break my arm. I ended up kicking him out.

[kamikasei]

It sounds like the basic problem is twofold: Tyler and Chris aren't respecting the effort you put in to running the game for them, and you're bending over backwards to make everything go their way.

You're going to a lot of trouble to create worlds and campaigns for them to play in, and they're screwing with you. Then they screw with each other, ignoring that this bores and annoys the other players.

Obviously it's important to be aware of the players' expectations and take them in to account when preparing a game, but I get the impression that these guys aren't acting up because their expectations aren't being met. They're acting up because it amuses them to tear down what you've built up. They may not mean it maliciously, they may just think it's a lark, but obviously you're fairly invested in the games you run and maybe they need to be made aware of that. If the players are quite casual, maybe it would also pay to be less invested, yourself.

I agree with the posters above who say "talk to the players about what they want out of the game". I would add to that "explain to the players that the game needs a minimal level of cooperation from them - their characters should be capable of pursuing the goals before them, of working together, they should be willing to create or ask for something to do in game rather than just acting out destructively, etc.".

I would also advise tightening up on your off-the-cuff DMing style. Why? Well, because it seems like for these players if everything is solely at your judgment and discretion then they'll wheedle you until you give in. If you establish relatively solid rules you might be a bit better off in that regard - even if it's just as an aid to you in worldbuilding and encounter generation.

So basically: Find out what Tyler and Chris want, and remind them that they have responsibilities as players too. Find out what Dylan and Andrew want too, of course, but they don't seem so much like the ones with the problem. For Andrew, ask that either he leave the game if it is truly uninteresting to him, or at least try to pay attention even when you're at a point that doesn't particularly interest him - if he just switches off entirely and does something else whenever you're out of combat, then not only is he obviously never going to be drawn in, but he's also damaging the atmosphere at the table for everyone else.

[AslanCross]

Oh, I threw the CR system out the window right from my start as a GM. Same with the XP system, and loot system. It's a pretty simple case of me knowing when they should level up, and what they should get at those levels.

As for custom monsters, the Ghral I mentioned in the opening post are but the latest of the literally hundreds of new monsters I've taken the time to create. I've also just instantly optimized the stats of humanoids.

And they still win, when I don't fudge the rolls.

I know the CR system is often illogical and inaccurate, but it's not meant to be accurate to the micrometer anyway. For the most part I've actually found it to be an extremely helpful guideline. Same thing with metered XP and loot.

You could try implementing it for one or two encounters. For all you know it might make for a better experience.

[blackouttwo]

Excellent advice all around. I'll take some of it to heart. I've recently begun to suspect maybe my GMing style is also at fault, and been trying to alter the way I run my games just a bit. Less transparent bad guys and whatnot.

Thanks for the advice, guys. When the next session rolls around(Saturday afternoon, for about six hours), I'll tell you guys how it all went down and talk to the group as a whole, and one-by-one. :smallsmile:

[brainproxy]

I've had better luck with a random group than with my friends playing DnD. For several reasons.

1) I don't have a history with these people beyond DnD. This way we build friendships based around a mutual interest.

2) Since I don't have a history, there is a different kind of respect that is prevalent. One that people generally us with people that they don't have a personal relationship with.

3) Since we haven't invested in a personal or emotional relationship with anyone when someone is brought in, its easy to kick them out if they don't mesh.

4) I find these groups more rewarding, because people tend to bring their "A" game.

[only1doug]

Excellent advice all around. I'll take some of it to heart. I've recently begun to suspect maybe my GMing style is also at fault, and been trying to alter the way I run my games just a bit. Less transparent bad guys and whatnot.

Thanks for the advice, guys. When the next session rolls around(Saturday afternoon, for about six hours), I'll tell you guys how it all went down and talk to the group as a whole, and one-by-one. :smallsmile:


I hesitate to say this, because obviously I don't have all the information about your planned campaign, but it seems to me that part of the problem may be that you aren't challanging your players enough. That'll get them bored, which will lead to disinterest in the game and exacerbate any tendencies toward OOC stupidity, silliness, or spitefulness.

I'd like to suggest you run a couple of one shot adventures with pre-generated characters and very specific mission goals. Call it a "break" from regular campaigns but don't worry about TPKs. Give Andy a character who is essential out of combat so he has a reason to get involved with roleplaying.

ask for a critique afterwards;
how did it compare to normal games?
what was good and bad about it?
anthing that should be carried over to normal games?