[3.5] What does a sadistic DM do?

[Sampi]

He runs a campaign where all the characters start as 1st level wizards.

That's correct. I've now ran three games with that. Two of them with adventures I found off the net, too. My aim is to get the players thinking with their magics, and using it to the greatest efficiency. Also, get them to be realy careful in what they do. No kick-down-the-door playing here, thank you. At the moment I have seven players, and run adventures to two, three or four characters at a time. All are different specialist wizards (no Illlusionist).

There are three mitigators to the difficulty of all-wizard play, two of them rules mititgations, the third an in-game support. There is also a Deus Ex (who I haven't had to use yet.)

The first and milder house rule is that due to their common training the wizards may use cooperative casting in two ways:
1. If they all sacrifice a Transmutation spell in memory, they can all get the benefit of one of those spells. For example, if one had Enlarge person, another had Animate Rope and a third had Expeditious Retreat, they could cooperatively cast and all get the benefit of Expeditious Retreat. This only works for the Transmutation school for fluff reasons - their master is an epic-level Transmuter (the Deus Ex).
2. They may cooperatively cast a single second-level Transmutation spell. This is one-use, and recharges when they get back to their base of operations. The actual spell depends on the characters in play.

The second and harsher rules mitigator is that all the character have an alternate class behind them. At character creation, I asked a question of each player: if you hadn't been a wizard, what class would you have been? Once per adventure, a player may choose to "regress" to that class and gain the abilities of a first level whatever, losing his wizard powers for the encounter. There is, however, a price for this. If any character regresses during the adventure, there will be no XP reward for any character. Also, in times of stress the characters may face involuntary regression, avoided by Will save. In this case, only the regressing character loses XP.

The in-game mitigator is their support: they are the apprentices of an epic-level transmuter with nigh unlimited resources. (He is actually an old character of mine who I played through the World's Largest Dungeon. Don't ask.) They get access to the spells they want, he loans them magic items at his discretion, and gives them support in money, magic or other ways when necessary.

The transmuter keeps a school of wizardry, designed to groom very talented apprentices for himself - he is building a very powerful network of friendly arcanists. He also has a slightly sinister way of using these apprentices for his own purposes: he gathers information through magical organs surgically grafted onto his apprentices. Because of this, all the apprentices have something physically strange about them. One has antlers, another pitch-black skin and a third has completely white eyes. The grafts do give the apprentices benefits, too. For example, the human apprentice with the white eyes has gained darkvision.

The game is roleplaying-heavy, with a great focus on magic. I do include "dungeons" to keep the action going, and thus far every game I've ran has had at least one player on negative HP. My players tell me they've been having fun, so I guess I'm not a total sadist after all.




If you've read this far, you're probably wondering why I posted this. The answer is: just to share. Of course, you are free to comment, suggest or criticize. All feedback is welcome.

[Killer Angel]

He runs a campaign where all the characters start as 1st level wizards.


The only sadistic part, is the one when the DM "force" a player to play a certain type of character.
If the players agree, it's only fun.

[Crossblade]

The forced regression seems a bit mean too. Nothing as bad as playing a Wizard, stated properly, then being told "ok, now you can't cast your spells, you're X class again... and you get no EXP."

Also, the situation of:
PC1:"Hey guys, I can solve this! Rogue powers activate!"
or
PC2: "Guys, that hard fight really hurt us, but we should push on instead of heading back... Cleric powers activate!"
Countered with:
DM: "Fine, nobody gets exp then."

Just seems mean spirited.


Other than that, if a DM can pull off a great story by telling the players they need to be a specific class, doesn't seem bad to me at all. Low Magic campaigns are played all the time, after all.

[Sampi]

Just seems mean spirited.


I haven't actually used the forced regression yet - I'm keeping it a hazard for the time my players stop actively regressing. I might not penalize it as harshly after all - do you have any good suggestions for another penalty? But I AM keeping the no XP rule for voluntary regression. It's there to keep the players thinking on how to solve the problems with (arcane) magic. I want them try to keep being a wizard.

Your examples: if they indeed had a rogue or a cleric, those options might be viable. Since they do not, the rule is to keep them thinking about other options.

And remember, XP is not the only reward. I've given three players a pearl of power (they found a second-level one which their master swapped for three first-level ones). Also, there's been money and some scrolls. Oh, and one cloak of resistance. Also, one player has made a deal with a local merchant for identifying magic items that come into his possession, and three players have made good friends with a local kobold warren.

Thanks for your feedback!

[Psyx]

Forcing players to play a specific character class in a game with a Mary Sue uber NPC telling them what to do. Where do I sign up?!

[Sampi]

In Helsinki, Finland. Oh wait, you were being sarcastic?

Forcing players into a class? They knew what they were signing up for. Nobody was forced into this game.

Mary Sue? Maybe, but I played that character to level 21. I've earned the right to use him. Also, he's not built to be unbeatable, he's just just a very high-level tier 1 character.

[Earthwalker]

Forcing players to play a specific character class in a game with a Mary Sue uber NPC telling them what to do. Where do I sign up?!

Its all down to the game you like to play. I would not mind if I was told to play a certain character class and have an NPC giving me missions, I could fit in that game a while. It would eventually get to me I would think if I felt I had no control at all.

The thing that worried me most was the, "I will give you this ability, but if you use it you will be punished" why not just not give me the ability. If it is a case where I have to regress to succeed but then you don't give xp ? Seems odd and why not make it so they just don't regress.

Even worse is if bob regresses then I get punished ? Very odd.

[Cheesy74]

with a Mary Sue uber NPC

Buddy, I'm not sure you know what Mary Sue means. Yeah, they have a powerful leader. Not all extraordinarily powerful characters are Mary Sues. In fact, almost none of them are.

[Myth]

*snicker* let's wait a few levels and see who gets the short end of the sadism stick. Heheh, Wizards.

[Sampi]

Oh, I'm eagerly waiting for them to start actually playing Wizards. It's not actually about sadism, it's about magic.

I just put sadism in the thread title to attract readers.

[Psyx]

Buddy, I'm not sure you know what Mary Sue means. Yeah, they have a powerful leader. Not all extraordinarily powerful characters are Mary Sues. In fact, almost none of them are.

I'm an author. I probably do.

The GM mentioned it was his old PC.
That always puts the dread into me: The concept of playing a lackey for the GM's old PC, who is now epic level and generally uber. I've encountered it before and it generally doesn't end well, especially if the players attempt to kill, usurp, betray or leave the NPC.

[Sampi]

Ah. Now I get your point about Gary Stu (he's male). Thank you for clarifying.

In starting the campaign, I just felt that he was a good background character - for that is what he is. He's never been in the adventures except for the beginning (hook) or the end. I'm avoiding using him mechanically as much as possible. Some of the characters have expressed a wish to explore further, and he has encouraged them (even so far as to contacting someone with a Spelljammer since that was what a character hoped for). I'm definately not going for lackeys, I want self-willed agents.

I'm also not actively going for self-insertion, but I do understand the dangers inherent in the character for that. That's why he's mostly seen in the laboratory and the library, giving out background and handing the characters problems to be solved. I do admit to not wanting him completely gone from my gaming, since I grew quite attached to him in the years of playing him.

I would like the characters to go off on their own but that's not possible yet, since I've just started to explore the world with them. As soon as they have enough background and they've developed their characters, they'll start having their own agendas. This is a young campaign, and just developing.

Anyway, thanks for the warnings. Much appreciated.

[Psyx]

I do admit to not wanting him completely gone from my gaming, since I grew quite attached to him in the years of playing him.


As long as the characters aren't mechanically reliant on him, he doesn't 'tell' them what to do excessively and he doesn't turn up in person EVER during adventures, most of the problems have been headed off.
The attachment can be bad though. I personally always try to keep an attitude of 'If I couldn't bring myself to pointlessly kill this NPC by having him drown in excrement after being exposed as a pervert, then I'm probably subconsciously steering the narrative and the player's choices'. That's to say; getting attached to NPCs can be a very bad thing, especially when players want to act against them. And by definition, every NPC that used to be the GM's PC *is* a character that they're attached to.
Put yourself in the shoes for a moment of the party sitting there, calling the NPC a douche-bag and trying to kill him in the most belittling and humiliating way possible. A lot of GM's wouldn't like it, even if they could get past the 'Your plan won't work' reaction.

[BridgeCity]

Ah. Now I get your point about Gary Stu (he's male). Thank you for clarifying.

In starting the campaign, I just felt that he was a good background character - for that is what he is. He's never been in the adventures except for the beginning (hook) or the end. I'm avoiding using him mechanically as much as possible. Some of the characters have expressed a wish to explore further, and he has encouraged them (even so far as to contacting someone with a Spelljammer since that was what a character hoped for). I'm definately not going for lackeys, I want self-willed agents.

I'm also not actively going for self-insertion, but I do understand the dangers inherent in the character for that. That's why he's mostly seen in the laboratory and the library, giving out background and handing the characters problems to be solved. I do admit to not wanting him completely gone from my gaming, since I grew quite attached to him in the years of playing him.

I would like the characters to go off on their own but that's not possible yet, since I've just started to explore the world with them. As soon as they have enough background and they've developed their characters, they'll start having their own agendas. This is a young campaign, and just developing.

Anyway, thanks for the warnings. Much appreciated.

I think it was already said, but an issue that may arise here is if the players decide to betray and/or kill your old PC. Turning on the employer/quest giver is something that often happens in peoples games (according to these forums at least, never in a game I've been in) so the possibility is very real, and it would most likely turn the game into a DM vs. Players game because you wouldn't want them to kill a character that you are obviously very fond of. This could lead to major tension, in and out of game.

Another thing that grabs my attention is the regression mechanic. You allow the PCs to chose a secondary class, but impose a punishment on them for using it because you want the game to be about magic, so why bother with the regression in the first place? If you want them to focus on magic, just being wizards and having no backup is the best way to do that.

I know that as a player there are no circumstances in which I would choose to revert and cost the entire party their XP. I would always, always look for some other way around it, and if there really was no way other than by regressing, then you as the DM have forced them to take a particular action and then punished them for it, which is not all that cool.

So while it seems interesting, I don't really see it's point with such a heavy penalty.

I would also suggest that your old PC doesn't actually go with the PCs on their quests. I really can't see what use they will be, because anything they come up against he could handle with no effort. Surely it would make sense for him to be engaged with important business with his school, and therefore sends his apprentices out to do his bidding? That's how quite a few of the games I've been in have started, and it works quite well. New characters have purpose, without having someone standing next to them telling them what to do every step of the way.

Obviously, this is all just my opinion on how I'd prefer things to be, your players may have different views.

[Sampi]

Hmm.

He could die.

He could even die in a humiliating way. I'm used to my characters dying and that being the end of them. I guess my attachment to him is that he was the character that did not die. If he dies, then he'll no longer be that. But he'll still be an integral part of this campaign's past, even if dead.

Not that he doesn't have contingencies for that eventuality in place - while sticking to the rules of the game. He is legitimately powerful, after all. But there's always a way to end anything if one digs long enough.

As to the character collectively betraying and/or trying to kill their old master, sure. If they can pull it off and if they have reason to do it, why not? I've not really given them a reason for it though.

But once again, I appreciate this discusssion. Using him one of the worst dangers in the game.


As long as the characters aren't mechanically reliant on him, he doesn't 'tell' them what to do excessively and he doesn't turn up in person EVER during adventures, most of the problems have been headed off.

No mechanical reliance. He gives them room, board and laboratory and library access in exchange for running errands/solving problems. It's mostly an employer/employee relationship with a master/apprentice background.

He does not tell them what to do, just gives them things to accomplish. And that only as long as they don't have their own things to accomplish. Even these have been worded in the way of "..should you choose to accept."

Yeah, no turning up in person. Even if the characters call for help in a proper way with genuine need, he'll likely send someone else. It's not like an epic-level wizard could spend his time bailing out his apprentices every time they get in trouble.

[Sampi]

Oh, and about the mechanic. I know it's harsh. The point is to make the regressing a final resort for bailing out of a situation they never should have gotten into.

The players haven't seen it as a problem yet. If they do and start complaining, I'll see what can be done. I might give them the option of no regressing at all.

But seeing as so many of you are extremely emotional by the loss of XP as a punishment, I will reconsider that for the involuntary regression. Again - anyone have any good ideas for that?

[BridgeCity]

Oh, and about the mechanic. I know it's harsh. The point is to make the regressing a final resort for bailing out of a situation they never should have gotten into.

What I was saying here was that if you want them to rely on magic, so much so that you punish them for not doing it, then why give them the option not to? Why not let them get into situations they shouldn't and then HAVE to use magic to get out of them? Isn't that what you really want? Offering a fallback just seems a little counter-productive to what it sounds like your going for, thats all.


The players haven't seen it as a problem yet . . .

If thats the case you have nothing to worry about.


But seeing as so many of you are extremely emotional by the loss of XP as a punishment, I will reconsider that for the involuntary regression. Again - anyone have any good ideas for that?

For me, its not the XP punishment, its more just general punishment that would stop me from using it. If I'm playing a wizard, I want to use wizardly ways to deal with things, just like if I'm a fighter I always try to stay as far away from spells as possible (obviously gear is a different matter). So what I was saying, maybe not clearly, was that I already wouldn't want to rely on regressing, and the punishment, in any form, would cement this even further.

A way to tone down the involuntary regression could just be to have it apply a temporary negative level or something similar, like when a Knight breaks their code. Penalties to hit and saves etc. for whatever time period you feel works.

[Sampi]

What I was saying here was that if you want them to rely on magic, so much so that you punish them for not doing it, then why give them the option not to?

Because as long as they're first-level wizards, anything with any damage-dealing capacity can kill them. I want an intrinsic way of them getting out of that, while they know it's a cop-out and will get punished for using it.

I don't want too many character deaths in the first games, after all.


A way to tone down the involuntary regression could just be to have it apply a temporary negative level or something similar, like when a Knight breaks their code. Penalties to hit and saves etc. for whatever time period you feel works.

Good idea! I'll work on that.

[pffh]

You could also have them use spell slots when regressing at a 1 level/1 round (or harsher 3 levels per round would make them think hard before doing so at a low level) so if they need a rogue for a few rounds the guy that has that regression can sacrifice some of his spells.
It could be fluffed that when regressing you exert so much mental strain on yourself that your mind can't handle the pressure of keeping all the spells or somesuch.

[Crossblade]

Wait... so why don't they just multiclass into whatever class instead of having to worry about regressing?

[BridgeCity]

Because as long as they're first-level wizards, anything with any damage-dealing capacity can kill them. I want an intrinsic way of them getting out of that, while they know it's a cop-out and will get punished for using it.

I don't want too many character deaths in the first games, after all.

Good point. I've never played a wizard, and I tend to stick to martial characters, so I'm used to having decent hit points and a big stick to hit things with in most situations. Upon reflection, a party entirely made of wizards would probably need something as a backup for when it all goes to hell.


Wait... so why don't they just multiclass into whatever class instead of having to worry about regressing?

I imagine the reason would be along the lines of wanting to keep their casting ability as strong as possible. The guy in charge of the school isn't going to be interested in sub-par magicians, he want's the best.