"old school" vs "new school" DMing.

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

I subscribe to the (what I've been told is) "Old School" philosophy of DMing.

that is "if it makes sense for something to be there, it will. party level be damned"

as well as things like "bad stuff happens, deal with it. the dice fall where they will"

and other such beliefs.

I've also encountered a style of....

and please, bear with me, because I really can't come up with a better way to say this (suggestions are welcome)

"the nothing bad is going to happen to you" style.
now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying that this is the "new school" of thought.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the more modern line of thought is "most things should be level appropriate"

and I"m probably wrong on that, hope I am, that way I'll learn something new.

but I digress.

allow me to give you an example of this difference.

my party descended into the sewers.
what are the first 5 creatures that come to mind when you think "sewer dungeon"

odds are on that list are oozes, rats, and ogutyohs (I really should learn how to spell that)

so guess what was in my sewer? oozes, rats, and other filth ridden monsters.

the party encountered a black pudding. long story short, the Knight's character was.... deprived. of his armor.

my reaction to this unfortunate occurance "dude that sucks, and I'm sorry, but.... tough."

I figure, at 4th level, the loot from the sewer dungeon would more than cover a new suit of non-magical armor.

the player took it well, but another player took major issue with the fact I'd used a monster that could greatly inconvience the player.

so... if you've followed my ramble so far, I guess I have a few questions.

1. if something "would naturally be there" wherever "there" is. do you place it there? regardless of level? (or at least give a good reason why it's not?)

2. does your world center and revolve on the PCs? or do they exist in it?

3. have you ever used a monster that could "greatly inconvience a player"?
spell immunity? flight? "thief-monsters" (I.E. rust monsters, oozes)

4. why or why not?

[Unseenmal]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The PC's just live in my world. And if they run into something that inconviences them then oh well. Sometimes bad things happen to good PC's. I'm not talking about utterly destroying them but an encounter that might be just a little too high for the group every now and again keeps them on their toes. Otherwise, it turns into "We beat up the Orcs and take their copper pieces" over and over again.

And I think its spelled Ogut'jal. If I have my monsters correct

[Kefkafreak]

I think he means Otyugh, and I agree with this, too.

[Feytalist]

Yeah, this is my style as well. I tend to get shouted down a lot.

It is however a good idea to let your players know beforehand. "Sure, go in there, but it's not a good idea..." or some such.

I do generally have worlds mapped out, with "easy" and "harder" areas. The world doesn't level with the characters, and if they want to go somewhere bad, so be it.

I don't regularly use rust monsters and the like, but things like medusas and basilisks are fair game. Let's just hope they packed a scroll of stone to flesh.

[Shadowknight12]

We've already had a similar thread about this before. While I don't mind its existence, there's always an undercurrent of thinly-veiled smug superiority that incenses people into arguing about why the other guy's way of playing is bad.

Newsflash: No two DMs have the same style.

Saying that you belong to an "old school" way of DMing and that there's a "new school" that does things completely different is actually detrimental to discussion. We all know what happens when discussions become polarised, trenches are dug and sides are divided and picked.

[Malimar]

It's the old simulationist ("old school", by your parlance) versus gamist ("new school") versus narrativist (not brought up in your post) debate, and which one is "best" depends entirely on which one a player or group happens to favour.

I, personally, am a hardcore simulationist. But I would never claim it's better than either of the others, only that it's what happens to get my personal brain doling out reward chemicals.

If you happen to have a group of players who mostly favour one of those gaming styles, that one is better for that group. If the group all favours different styles, then the three should be balanced against each other.

[Whammydill]

I think across the editions, that D&D has more become a game to try and "win" rather than a "setting in which to play." Seems like I remember my AD&D days being akin to treking through the Australian wilderness...everything is trying to or can kill you. Now it seems more prevalent to have an out-and-in loot haul. Afterwards its time for some cocoa, a diaper change, and a nap before doing it again. At least the system design leans that way.

Of course this is heavily dependent on the DM, but DM style seems to be largely influenced by what edition they (or who mentored them) started in/learned to play in first.

[big teej]

I think he means Otyugh, and I agree with this, too.

yes, that.
one of these days I will learn how to spell it :smalltongue:


Yeah, this is my style as well. I tend to get shouted down a lot.

It is however a good idea to let your players know beforehand. "Sure, go in there, but it's not a good idea..." or some such.

I do generally have worlds mapped out, with "easy" and "harder" areas. The world doesn't level with the characters, and if they want to go somewhere bad, so be it.

I don't regularly use rust monsters and the like, but things like medusas and basilisks are fair game. Let's just hope they packed a scroll of stone to flesh.

precisely, My world has "safe"(er) areas and it has far more dangerous areas. the more dangerous the area, the more leeway I have as a DM to throw "whatever" into it.

also, I've never used rust monsters either, mostly because I've yet to have an adventure where it didn't feel forced too me. (which occaisionally strikes me as ironic given what I HAVE put in)



We've already had a similar thread about this before. While I don't mind its existence, there's always an undercurrent of thinly-veiled smug superiority that incenses people into arguing about why the other guy's way of playing is bad.

Newsflash: No two DMs have the same style.

Saying that you belong to an "old school" way of DMing and that there's a "new school" that does things completely different is actually detrimental to discussion. We all know what happens when discussions become polarised, trenches are dug and sides are divided and picked.

how recently? :smallredface:
I must have missed it.

and, at the risk of further inforcing that 'slight smug feeling' allow me to clarify what I meant.

I am not taking issue with his way of doing things (heck, when I'm not DMing, he is. and I enjoy the game just fine) I was more speaking of someone who does things differently and feels their way is superior to mine.
for instance, if I have a player who is also a DM, I expect (and welcome) stylistic clash, it helps us grow. I do not welcome my style being disparaged during the game. as that's simply disrespectful.

I am also well aware no 2 people have identical styles. people can have similiar ones though, but I digress.

I never claimed to be "Old school" I've merely been informed (mostly by old 1st ed players and whatnot) that much of how I DM is highly reminisicent of the mentality of "old school" DMs. which I find amusing.

and as I said, (or at least meant to and my have forgotten too) I do not consider "new school" inferior, I don't even like the term new school, I'm just at a loss for a better one.

EDIT:
bloody ninjas :smalltongue:


It's the old simulationist ("old school", by your parlance) versus gamist ("new school") versus narrativist (not brought up in your post) debate, and which one is "best" depends entirely on which one a player or group happens to favour.

I, personally, am a hardcore simulationist. But I would never claim it's better than either of the others, only that it's what happens to get my personal brain doling out reward chemicals.

If you happen to have a group of players who mostly favour one of those gaming styles, that one is better for that group. If the group all favours different styles, then the three should be balanced against each other.

good spot there, I did forget that archetype.
and I totally agree that the "best" style is the one the group enjoys the most.
misfortunately, the problem arises (at least for me) when you're used to 'party style A' and you are suddenly exposed to (perhaps ) a whole group of "party style B, with a pinch of CD added in'

I wouldn't consider myself "hardcore" on any style. though admittedly that may very well be what I am and I'd never know it.


I think across the editions, that D&D has more become a game to try and "win" rather than a "setting in which to play." Seems like I remember my AD&D days being akin to treking through the Australian wilderness...everything is trying to or can kill you. Now it seems more prevalent to have an out-and-in loot haul. Afterwards its time for some cocoa, a diaper change, and a nap before doing it again. At least the system design leans that way.

Of course this is heavily dependent on the DM, but DM style seems to be largely influenced by what edition they (or who mentored them) started in/learned to play in first.

in all fairness, if the group (as a whole) wants to "win" DnD, by all means, the DM should persue some method of obtaining that for them.

I find the mentor bit very interesting, because the more I think upon it, the more I cannot pin down a "mentor" like figure as far as DND is concerned.

though I will admit to having read SEVERAL dming articles before I really felt comfortable sitting down behin

as I typed that. I realized I can.

I openly admit I have modeled my style at least partly on how I percieve the style of a DM I encountered on the net 2-3 years ago.

he was a poster on the gleemax forums, he was known as Oakspar77777

I've still got his thread about "lessons on DMing with my gf" saved on my computer somewhere.
(it's a great read, go lookit up)

so between that and a smattering of encounters with other guys who've been playing longer than I've been alive.
there you have it.


wow I ramble alot when I'm tired.

[Bob the DM]

The way I run my games is here's the world. It's inhabited by tons of different people who have different goals, some of whom are more powerful then you, some less. If my players want to attack everything, even when they're outnumbered and outgunned, then so be it and some of them will die. All of them will, idealy, learn a valuble lesson. When the vampire needs a cleric of Pelor of explore some ruins and retrieve an item and leads you there through both subterfuge and chance then they have to just deal with it. If you try to leave, after a tough fight, he'll try to drive you back with his wolves. If you go back and complete the task for him against your own wishes at least you learned a little bit about what's going on. That's not railroading. You always have the chance to escape, perhaps at the cost of the lives on a group member or two, but that's a very realistic choice when a fleshed out NPC with his own goals and motivation, who is also sometimes stronger than you, tries to trick you into doing their job for them. In the end, when the vampire burns to death through a greater turning check that you had to roll and 18+ on to succeed, in his moment of glory no less, the victory feels that much sweeter, like you're actualy breaking free from an individual's will, instead of the will of plot.

I find that as long as everything that happens to the pcs, including being captured and losing all their gear, feels like it comes from a real person (ie. and NPC with real goals and personality), pcs will take it on the chin and move on. It makes the world seem real when they feel like cogs in a much larger world that is moving and evolving and as long as everyone buys into the notion that the world is real, everyone has more fun in part because of the hardships. They never feel like they're given anything just because they're the pcs. Everything has to be earned through blood, sweat and broken swords.

[Kurald Galain]

Oh I don't know, I had a 2E DM who was absolutely terrified of having anything bad happening to the PCs he was DM'ing for (perhaps unsurprisingly, particularly his girlfriend's PC). He even had random high priests teleport in to heal us at some point, then teleport out again for no reason.

Not that this was a particularly good DM, mind you, but the concept of "kiddie pool" DM'ing isn't new.

That said, various rulesets do clearly encourage certain kinds of DM'ing, ranging from 1E/2E where several common spells and items can randomly kill you, to 4E where going without food for a month won't even inconvenience you in the slightest, with 3E more-or-less holding the middle ground.

[Telonius]

I have a hybrid kind of system. Stuff that should naturally be there, is there. There are rust monsters that want to gobble up your sword, Oozes that will kill your armor, and flying things that you can't get at if you're low-level. But as soon as the players encounter any monster, whether it's something that could "greatly inconvenience" them or not, I call for a Knowledge check on it. The party know-it-all can tell the clanky guy, "Hey, might be a good idea to hang back for a bit." Nobody has ranks in Knowledge (Dungeoneering)? Well, sucks to be them, for this level. Because I always ask for that kind of check, they know it's something they could have figured out if they'd bothered to plan. That's what the Knowledge skills are there for, IMO.

Same way with flying enemies. Nobody has a ranged weapon? That's just silly. Time for full defense and a quick withdraw to full cover.

[kanachi]

I think if you are setting up a situation in your story which drives the players to explore a sewer and you know that placing them into that environment will pit them against things beyond their level and ability then you have a problem. If however they are given fare warning that “terrible things dwell within the sewer which eat the likes of you for breakfast” and they still choose to proceed with the mission then they do indeed deserve a bit of a spanking.

This is ultimately a matter of pacing of the storyline which flows through your world. There is a reason you have you climatic encounter at the end of the heroes journey, not at the beginning.

Anyway, I don’t think this is really not a matter of “schools of though” but instead more a matter of logical and fun gameplay. As a DM you can at any time drive heroes to face a monster which will sunder their weapons, dissolve their armour or reduce their stats to the point of lunacy but ultimately who benefits from that?

Yes dragons live in caves but that does not mean that if you send your players to investigate a cave network they have to have a 1 in 10 chance of bumping into one.

If your heroes however choose to randomly strike out and explore themselves some caves which have little to do with your plotting of the overarching story and as a result you believe they are just acting without direction towards the stories issues… well then a dragon or two is viable way to remind them that they need to keep some kind of focus (even if it is only so they can do some quest to get more badass and eventually come back to kick the dragons ass).

[Valameer]

First, a thread like this has an implicit "my way is superior" tone to it, which is bound to engender passionate responses.

Second, most people are going to weigh in with a neutral-heavy "I can handle synthesizing both ways to make a third." So your dichotomy is about to be pulled down and mutilated.

Third, I am one of the aforementioned people (see 'second', above), and I fail to see how waffling between "new school" and "old school" couldn't be anything but a worthwhile endeavour.

That said, what you call "old school" tends to be challenging at low levels, and easier at high levels, while "new school" works in the opposite way. High level play under "new school" is designed to be the most challenging, whereas in "old school", it may become difficult for the party to find an appropriate challenge - thus forcing retirement.

Anyway. Why box yourself into one style?

[kanachi]

Anyway. Why box yourself into one style?

Agree 100%

Dont forget that if your players are simply allowed to rome the world without direction and if everything follows a logical "dragons live here, trolls live here and goblins live here" path then its very difficult to stop them simply milling about taking on foes they know they can beat in order to gain rewards with minimal risk.

Very few people would fight something if they knew there was a 50% chance of you not coming back alive. However heroes do what they do for reasons which transend this analytical thinking and instead are driven by emotion and storyline.

And i'm not talking about railroading here, simply that there should be a story or quest or goal not simply a world.

[LordBlades]

The way my group does things is the 'realistic' option. We try to play in a world where things aren't just put there in relation with the heroes, but are actually living, thinking creatures with an agenda of their own.

There usually is some warning when you're about to get severely outmatched but if you ignore it, it's at your own peril. If you decide to pay no attention to the stories about the great dragon and enter his cave anyway, you'll probably get eaten.

Of course, this way of playing has some downsides (just like everything in life). Sometimes the most logical course of action for a NPC is not the most entertaining one and this has led to some anticlimactic moments (biggest one involved the level 10-11 party being spectators to the fight between a githianky lich wizard 18 (no connection whatsoever to Vlaakith) and a great wyrm red dragon; it was us who made these two main villains actively try to kill each other, but the final fight was simply way out of our league), but I for one feel the added immersion greatly outweighs such moments fun-wise

[Serpentine]

1. if something "would naturally be there" wherever "there" is. do you place it there? regardless of level? (or at least give a good reason why it's not?)Well... sort of. I mean, everything always makes sense, if only to me. But... very high level characters shouldn't be expected to worry about very low level creatures - that just takes up unnecessary time. So if they're wandering through a swamp and it would make sense for there to be a swarm of stirges, I won't bother getting them to roll initiative or anything, not unless they really wanted to. More like "you swat them aside with your sword", maybe make them more of a terrain issue.
Conversely, I won't expect lower level creatures to have to deal with very high level creatures, no matter how much sense it would make for them to be there. I might have signs of their presence, or have them see it from a distance, or let them avoid it, or at least make it very clear that this thing is bad news and they ought to run.

2. does your world center and revolve on the PCs? or do they exist in it?I tend to build the details of my worlds around the PCs as they go, but the world is very much bigger than them, and they're definitely not the biggest, the toughest, nor even the most important things in the world.

3. have you ever used a monster that could "greatly inconvience a player"?
spell immunity? flight? "thief-monsters" (I.E. rust monsters, oozes)Yeah, I guess. Isn't that called "challenging the players"? :smallconfused:

[erikun]

I tend to be wary about any reasoning that invokes "makes sense" as an explanation, because a lot of the time what the DM thinks makes sense isn't what the players think makes sense. The players are kept guessing until they hit upon the DM's particular trail of logic, and hope it holds out for other locations.

I also note that just because something "makes sense" doesn't mean it necessarily belongs there. Hippos would make sense in the Amazon environment and polar bears would make sense in Antarctica, but that doesn't mean you can find them there.

To use the original example: We have a sewer setting with a Black Pudding, an Otyugh, several rats and some filth. I would argue that this doesn't make much sense at all. The Black Pudding is stronger than anything else there, a voracious eater, and highly reproductive. It eats anything metal or organic. It is going to eat the Otyugh, eat the rats, eat the filth, and keep growing and splitting. It would "make sense" that a sewer system infected with puddings would actually be sparkling clean, which smoothed-out walls, clear water (because all bacteria was gone) and few if any smells. Simply tossing a few slimes into a regular sewer system and leaving it at that, arguably, makes the least amount of sense.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the players should never run into something dangerous, or destructive, or out-of-CR. On the other hand, something nearly twice the CR of everything else in the area is going to leave its mark, and a wary party should be able to read such signs. (Understanding them might be a different matter.) I don't like, say, throwing them up against an armor-eating monster just because that's what was rolled up on the random monster table. Unless we're playing a battle-heavy game where the challange of the monsters is the point, the PCs should have some way of determining what lives there and coming up with ways to avoid it (if they want). I mean, the point is to give your players an interesting location and allow them to determine their own way through, correct?

[Serpentine]

I tend to be wary about any reasoning that invokes "makes sense" as an explanation, because a lot of the time what the DM thinks makes sense isn't what the players think makes sense. The players are kept guessing until they hit upon the DM's particular trail of logic, and hope it holds out for other locations.Meh. It's mostly for my own benefit anyway - I don't know that my players particularly look carefully into anything much, but when everything makes sense (sorry, no better words coming to mind...) to me I feel better about an area or encounter or whatever. A lot of the time, if they ask I'll tell them. Might be worth pointing out that 1. I'm mostly talking about sociological and ecological stuff here, and 2. of my players, I think I have the most education in those sorts of fields.

To use the original example: We have a sewer setting with a Black Pudding, an Otyugh, several rats and some filth. I would argue that this doesn't make much sense at all. The Black Pudding is stronger than anything else there, a voracious eater, and highly reproductive. It eats anything metal or organic. It is going to eat the Otyugh, eat the rats, eat the filth, and keep growing and splitting....The rats and Otyugh can run away, you know :smallconfused: I don't recall black puddings having an especially high movement speed.

It would "make sense" that a sewer system infected with puddings would actually be sparkling clean, which smoothed-out walls, clear water (because all bacteria was gone) and few if any smells.Here you might have a point - and would be pretty snazzy, and could actually be pretty good justification for a government to introduce such creatures to the system deliberately. However, if it's in use, that doesn't mean every bit of it will always be "sparkling clean". Comparatively so, perhaps, for a sewer, but still.
They'll also have their own waste products - what might they consist of, I wonder?

[Godskook]

1. if something "would naturally be there" wherever "there" is. do you place it there? regardless of level? (or at least give a good reason why it's not?)

I try to, yes, but I also try to do DM-y things to make "would naturally be there" typically be more or less level appropriate. I've run ECL+4 or +5 encounters before, and those are ok to have, but at ECL+10, I might as well just narrate the results, they'll be the same.


2. does your world center and revolve on the PCs? or do they exist in it?

Little of A, little of B. If a situation is told to the PCs that requires their attention, and they don't give it that attention, that situation progresses, with or without them.


3. have you ever used a monster that could "greatly inconvience a player"?
spell immunity? flight? "thief-monsters" (I.E. rust monsters, oozes)

My players just got de-leveled from level 6 to level 1. How's that? Not good enough? I've also level-drained, diseased, poisoned, used flying monsters, used undead(against precision heavy PCs), and high-SR monsters. Oh, and that's in 6ish months of my first campaign.


4. why or why not?

Cause I'm not running a "mary-sue" campaign. Things are supposed to be at least challenging enough that the party can fail.

[ragingrage]

Though I have never Dm-ed a game, my DM is similar to the OP's style. However, the thing that makes me really like him is the fact that though he will give us encounter's like that, he wount just randomly spring them on you. If we're going into the aforementioned sewer dungeon, he'll tell us (or give us a Gather Info check) to find out that "The Town Guard tried to clear the sewers, but they were halted as their weapons and armor were melted away from them by a mighty monster" or something like that.\

[erikun]

They'll also have their own waste products - what might they consist of, I wonder?
Given that they are mindless and eat anything organic, it would need to be stone/sand to avoid getting gobbled up immediately. I always considered oozes to have a "perfect" digestive system, breaking down anything they can for food and dropping the rest.

And yes, the Otyugh can leave the area, but for how long? Unless the puddings are cannibalizing each other, they'll eventually eat or push everything else out. Even if they do, there will be a suspiciously-clean area where the frequent - some indication that things aren't "right".

I guess my point, then, that while an ooze might not be out of place, there should be some indicator that it is present.

[Morquard]

I think it depends.

To stay with the OP's example of a party going into the sewers, my question here would be: Why do they go there.

Were they hired to go down there to find the MacGuffin? Then I think the monsters should be somewhat level-apropriate and you maybe shouldn't throw rust-monsters etc at them.
Sure it makes sense that oozes can be there, but that doesn't mean they have to.

If however they got hired to break into some mansion, and they decide "hey lets go through the sewers" instead of climbing the walls, then they might encounter things that are nasty.
Or if they decide to walk into the cave that is widely known as the lair of a black dragon at 3rd level, yeah, they get eaten.

[navar100]

My definition of "old school" and "new school" is different, yet in a way similar, than yours.

"old school" - The DM is the players' enemy. It is his job to kill the PCs as legally as possible. The DM is happy when PCs fail because that means he's a strong DM.

"new school" - The DM just runs the game. It is his job to ensure everyone has fun. The DM is happy when the PCs succeed and empathizes when they fail.

[PollyOliver]

I think it's kind of more complicated. I like the idea of the world being what it is, regardless of the PCs level (and level of competence).

But frankly, it's a game. It's not a game you just win, it's more complicated than that, but it's still a game, and the point of a game is for everyone to have fun. And to the vast majority of players I've ever encountered, bouncing from one death trap to the next over the course of a campaign is not really fun (maybe on a one-shot or a horror campaign, but in general, not so much). There will be unwinnable situations--that's fine, as long as there's some way out. Someone will screw up badly and die, and sometimes there might be a TPK. You don't need to coddle the PCs.

But you do need to make sure that situations have a way out (not necessarily an easy way to win, or even any way to win, just a way out). If they neglect to take it and die horribly, okay. But they should have a fighting (or running) chance, because it's not fun to stumble into an inescapable box of totally inappropriate CR and die horribly. And the point of a game in my opinion is to have fun playing it.

[The Big Dice]

Old School and New School are hard terms to define. Take a look at this (http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/07/a-quick-primer-for-old-school-gaming/) and have a think.

Old school tends to be more about rulings than rules. The GM is in charge of the world and the environment and the way the players interact with the environment around them is more about player skill than it is about character skill.

It's the difference between saying "I'll have a look under the bed, is there anything there?" and "I got a 27 on Search. Do I find anything?"

But there's a spectrum involved and it's surprisingly tough to pin down what is old and new.

[Seharvepernfan]

I dont baby my players, but then I don't use set CRs for certain creatures either. They can encounter CR 3 mind flayers and beholders and CR 15 goblins. However, that doesnt mean that everywhere they go is CR equivalent. Sometimes "goblin hill" is a 9th level challenge despite what levels the pcs are.

That said, if they go in the sewers and get raped by disease, drown, or have their faces eaten off by acid spewing oozes who corrode all their metal stuff, then hey, it happens. Its a game, and if it didnt have a real chance of failure/dying, it wouldnt be fun or fulfilling.

My players know that they can lose their stuff, get injured, and die. They know that npcs can die and **** can easily turn against them.

I would prefer if the DMs I played with were more like this.

[DiBastet]

Me and my players like the realism of supposedly being immersed in a world that isn't about them. They are the great heroes of the story, maybe of the world, but the world doesn't change to be level appropriate just for them. We kinda like this.

So, in the behir hills live, well, behirs. Not a good place to most but the most experienced knights of the kingdom to go. So they won't go there fearing the behirs until they believe they can fight behirs (and semi-advanced behirs and such).

Of course, we have an unspoken agreement that adventure throw at them will usually be somewhat level appropriate, and if it doesn't it will be clear that the adventure is not to fight and destroy. We lift our suspension of disbelief a little to accomodate this part of the gaming.

So, if there's a board with jobs, and one is to kill a dragon, the dragon will be a certain CR. However, if bandits ambush them on the common roads (instead of in the dangerous cr 9 roads), and then there's the plot going and such, it will be more or less on their level. If it's not going to be their level, and they didn't ask for that (like, going to the dangerous roads), it will be obvious. A 3rd level party being raided by a party of cr 9+ monsters will see it clearly, and will be beaten to unconciousness.

In short we keep everything that is in the world with their own levels, but the things that are throw at them by the plot are more or less their level (unless its not meant to be fought).

[Kantolin]

Two problems I've run into with the various groups I've been in involved the 'I build my world, if something happens to you that's not my fault' DMing style... kinda bugged me. In both cases it was outside my normal group, so I played a supportish character and did more watching than roleplaying to try to get a feel for how the group worked.

One was a setting where, apparantly, everything was far too powerful for us (the party) to deal with. They'd apparantly 'restarted' the game several times, so they knew to the north was an ogre band that was nigh-impossible to deal with, south was a green dragon's lair, and other such things like that that they had no clue where to go commence adventuring. They had a nebulous goal, but the sequence of 'You see a group of bandits clearly working for the dread lord you know about'. 'Aw man, we run away.' 'It's too late - they're mounted and you're not as there aren't any horses in town because said dread lord has a monopoly on them'.

It actually didn't bug me too much - this was just me stepping in for a couple weeks out of curiosity, not my normal gaming group - but it usually devolved into 'What did you expect us to do?!' after a TPK, regardless of whether the TPK made sense or not. It went slightly better when we all made evil characters and attempted to work for one of the various evil groups, which made me wonder if that was the actual goal all along ('course, then we got sent to go kill a group we couldn't handle, but had been ordered to do it so it didn't really work out).


The second group had a vaguely similar DMing style, but it went through the counter option. The DM asked me to come in with a backstory, so I did, and the rest of the party commented that I was obviously a newbie for having family members and goals and such therein, and when I tried to follow a plot hook that was firmly thrust upon me, the party refused with a resounding no due to the lizardmen in the swamp being unsolveable.

The result there was that we spent the evening doing overall very little. They took only the easiest jobs against the easiest opponents, and the instant things began to look threatening everyone dove on their various escape routes. They were exceptionally paranoid, the rogue would frequently interrupt the DM's descriptions and ask about traps, and well...

...presumably those two games are more extreme than most things people discuss, but the fact that I ran into two of them has made me leery.

I do have my 'Ogre hill's, where the party is well aware that going there will get you killed at level 1 and bored at level 20 (although sometimes, if the party ends up there too early and has to run, muuuch later the ogres kidnap a somebody from the town and the way too high level PCs get to go and give them their comeuppance ^_^). But usually, I tend towards plots that mostly follow the PCs in level - challenging, but not random between overwhelming and worthless.

Sequences that are overwhelming are usually fairly obvious - punching the king will get you in trouble, but his guards will be about the same level as before when you're epic, so if you'd like to when epic you may punch the king or go find those stupid gnoll who were harassing your town at level 1 and there's little he/they can do about it.

[kyoryu]

I think there's a major difference between "proactive" and "reactive" games, that has to be taken into account.

Having areas of your world that are nasty, and if PCs go there, so be it is fine - so long as the choice to go there is *theirs*.

The more the DM presents scenarios that the PCs have to deal with (react to), the more the DM should be expected to throw "fair" scenarios at them.

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It is the DM's job to provide the PCs with a challenge. Having a high level "plot" dragon around just because "It'll be there" can be rather rude to the players in that they may be forced into a situation where they either simply die or become the thralls of said dragon.

It is not out of the line in the event that the PCs are getting ballsy and therefore demand to fight a dragon because they've been able to take on everything thus far, but just having said dragon randomly be there is rather annoying, as most environs are rather, well, diverse, possibly more so in DND.

While a DM may create a world, it is not to say that it is entirely his alone. As PCs level up, once they are at least level 6, they've probably become major players in at at least a local town. They can either be the heroes of a land or the villains, but they will become major players. Eventually, they will have a say in what goes on in the world, for good or for ill. It is thus the DM's job to give them a challenge, plot hooks, and options outside of simply "Rocks fall, everyone dies."

[Flame of Anor]

My definition of "old school" and "new school" is different, yet in a way similar, than yours.

"old school" - The DM is the players' enemy. It is his job to kill the PCs as legally as possible. The DM is happy when PCs fail because that means he's a strong DM.

"new school" - The DM just runs the game. It is his job to ensure everyone has fun. The DM is happy when the PCs succeed and empathizes when they fail.

I think your definition of "old school" should be the definition of "bad old school". Good "old school" would have the DM's job be to try to kill the PCs (legally) but be fair about it and be happy when/if they win.

[Yahzi]

It's the old simulationist ("old school", by your parlance) versus gamist ("new school") versus narrativist (not brought up in your post) debate, and which one is "best" depends entirely on which one a player or group happens to favour.
QFT.

I generate my worlds by computer. :smallbiggrin:

[Thrice Dead Cat]

It's the old simulationist ("old school", by your parlance) versus gamist ("new school") versus narrativist (not brought up in your post) debate, and which one is "best" depends entirely on which one a player or group happens to favour.

Except it is entirely possible for games to be all three in roughly equal proportions.:smallconfused:

[navar100]

I think your definition of "old school" should be the definition of "bad old school". Good "old school" would have the DM's job be to try to kill the PCs (legally) but be fair about it and be happy when/if they win.

Like I said, "old school".

It is never the DM's job to kill PCs.

[Flame of Anor]

Like I said, "old school".

It is never the DM's job to kill PCs.

Didn't say it was, did I? I said it was his job to try. Just not quite hard enough that it'll work. :smallwink:

[Ravens_cry]

Ah, good old fashioned false dichotomies. It's like one of my favourite jokes: There are two kinds of people in the world.
Those who think the world can be split into two groups and those who don't.
Delightfully absurd.

[Malimar]

It's the old simulationist ("old school", by your parlance) versus gamist ("new school") versus narrativist (not brought up in your post) debate, and which one is "best" depends entirely on which one a player or group happens to favour.

Except it is entirely possible for games to be all three in roughly equal proportions.:smallconfused:

Yes, that's entirely true. To wit:


If you happen to have a group of players who mostly favour one of those gaming styles, that one is better for that group. If the group all favours different styles, then the three should be balanced against each other.

[Midnight_v]

I am a Dm, I became on in response to a so called "Old Schooler" saying the word:
"My world you just play in it"

I took myself and 2 of his players and started a game of respect and mutual entertainment.
If I find myself in convesations with dm's often and some of them seem to think of dm'ing is a chance to impose a god complex he/she's harboring, on others.
"My world you just play in it" is pretty much the halmark of disfunction when it comes to dm'ing in my experience. I find it laugable too because most of those antagonistic Dm's you know the ones trying to kill the players, are the same ones who can't deal well with optimization, at all, and think the spike chain is broken.
I have an excellent working knowledge of the rules so creating adventures that are challenging AND within CR range (I say range because the developers intentionally, and unintentionally under-cr'd some monsters) all while letting respecting the integrity of the player characters story.
Yes the dice can kill you. Yes you will have to roleplay social things out, but thats pretty much know from the start.

The thing is... with so much competition from other entertainment forms, x-box, mtg, Wow... etc.. it sad to see things that seem to make people UNHAPPY to play, I can't tell you how many posts I've seen over the years that are basically
"Help me ruin this Dm's adventure" I used to get mad when I saw that... then I started seeing WHY this came up so often, that same old school attitude, the op mentions, most people seem to have better thing to do with their time fortunately. . .

[Kojiro]

Well, I'm new to DnD, but familiar with RPing, RPGs, and narratives in general, so I'll throw my lot in here. Firstly, on the topic of things making sense, I think that, unless you're going for humor or just doing things for the sake of the "gameplay" aspect, yes, it should all be coherent. However, part of that includes discretion; just because a certain region is a desert, for example, it doesn't necessarily mean that every single creature in the Monster Manual that lives in desert climates will be there. In fact, depending on the exact circumstances, such a thing may not make sense; too many giant predators, especially of a large variety, existing in the same ecosystem would be absurd, even in a fantasy world like that of DnD (particularly when you consider that most of those things would have to eat more than normal creatures). If you're going to stick with the "if it makes sense for something to be there" line of thought, make sure you go all the way through with it, and don't just stop at the point where it screws the players (or conversely makes it too easy for them).

My personal style of running forum/chatroom style RPs, which I would probably more or less apply to DnD and such if I ran a game, meanwhile, tends to have things where they would make sense, but at the same time have a narrative that generally guides the players to where they "should" be, both story-wise and level/power-wise (with some exceptions, but I don't force people into the equivalent of total party kills). Let's say the big bad has his evil tower of doom somewhere that is theoretically accessible to my players, and they are obviously not strong enough to take him yet. The story, through information received and sidequests and such, would guide them to other places to gain the power required for their main goal; however, if they did in fact go to the evil tower, or the cave of an elder chromatic dragon they heard of or anything like that, even after some attempts to dissuade them (probably first an OoC "Are you sure you want to do that?", and probably in-game warnings if they happened to announce their intentions out loud to the various people there), then, well, it would depend. On the way to the hypothetical dragon cave, they'd probably encounter skeletons or corpses or something on the way there, and most wildlife would have avoided the area; evil tower, meanwhile, if they could get in somehow, would probably hit some traps (which, depending on the evil person's personality and such, may or may not be the sort to instantly kill them). If they still didn't get the hint at that point, or perhaps were running towards a situation where they'd go from safe to "evil thing kills you" more or less instantly, well, that'd be their fault. Try not being such idiots next time, and don't blame it on your characters because I'm pretty sure there is at least one reasonable person in your party.

But, yes. While putting things where it'd make sense for them to be, well, makes sense, you should exercise some caution with it, and make sure that it actually does make sense (another example, using sewers this time because they were in the original post, would be some sort of dragon or some other big monster that likes dark, dank places; yes, that's a good environment for it, but it obviously didn't go through the town to get there (unless that's the reason the party's going there too), so unless there's an opening elsewhere for it, this is not the appropriate environment for it). And make sure the game is still fun for the players; it doesn't have to be to the extent of the "new school" (I hate terms like that) line of thought, but just throwing the PCs into a meat grinder with no reasonable chance of victory, through no fault or actions of their own, is going to cause you to lose some players if they have any sense about them. They aren't just playing the game for your benefit, just like you aren't just running it for theirs.

Edit: I'm not saying that the game should be easy, by the way. Challenge level can vary if you're working with what I've stated here. You can make things plenty hard without being unreasonable, and force the players to work for their victory. I'm just saying that you shouldn't send a level-three party to a CR 10+ encounter unless they chose to walk into it (or your plan is a non-fatal plot event beatdown, I suppose), and that whether you want the game to be hard or easy, you should make sure that it makes sense.

[Kurald Galain]

Ah, good old fashioned false dichotomies. It's like one of my favourite jokes: There are two kinds of people in the world.

There are three kinds of people in the world. Those who can count, and those who can't.

[Kenneth]

greetings playgrounders,

I subscribe to the (what I've been told is) "Old School" philosophy of DMing.

that is "if it makes sense for something to be there, it will. party level be damned"

as well as things like "bad stuff happens, deal with it. the dice fall where they will"

and other such beliefs.

I've also encountered a style of....

and please, bear with me, because I really can't come up with a better way to say this (suggestions are welcome)

"the nothing bad is going to happen to you" style.
now, before you jump on me, I'm not saying that this is the "new school" of thought.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say the more modern line of thought is "most things should be level appropriate"

and I"m probably wrong on that, hope I am, that way I'll learn something new.

but I digress.

allow me to give you an example of this difference.

my party descended into the sewers.
what are the first 5 creatures that come to mind when you think "sewer dungeon"

odds are on that list are oozes, rats, and ogutyohs (I really should learn how to spell that)

so guess what was in my sewer? oozes, rats, and other filth ridden monsters.

the party encountered a black pudding. long story short, the Knight's character was.... deprived. of his armor.

my reaction to this unfortunate occurance "dude that sucks, and I'm sorry, but.... tough."

I figure, at 4th level, the loot from the sewer dungeon would more than cover a new suit of non-magical armor.

the player took it well, but another player took major issue with the fact I'd used a monster that could greatly inconvience the player.

so... if you've followed my ramble so far, I guess I have a few questions.

1. if something "would naturally be there" wherever "there" is. do you place it there? regardless of level? (or at least give a good reason why it's not?)

2. does your world center and revolve on the PCs? or do they exist in it?

3. have you ever used a monster that could "greatly inconvience a player"?
spell immunity? flight? "thief-monsters" (I.E. rust monsters, oozes)

4. why or why not?

1. Yes, unless it is totally absurd in terms of it powerlevel relative to the party.
2. its my world, the PC are exploring it and attemtping to save it and/or various parts of it.
3. yes.
4. I like to keep the players on their toes. I grew up playing 1st edition so my encounter are pretty brutal in regards to 3.5. thats only compared to the official adventures and campaigns though.

for me I give players plenty of warnings if there is something in the dungeon that is too powerful for them to fight.
they have free will if they chose to continue what befalls them is their fault, im lukcy enough to have players that alhtough they seemt o enjoy making terrible decisions accept that they got themselves into trouble.

a prime example is the 1st level party was tasked with clearing out an old silver mine of goblins, they cam eupon a pretty crappily sealed off passage with the universal rune for 'stay out danger' scrawled on teh wall, the proceeded to dig out the hall only to find a grizzly bear, i gave them a round to just back away instead teh ranger shot the thing with an arrow. the only thing that prevented a TPK was a lucky critical strike at max damage for the paladin and his greatsword.

the other 3 had to reroll though..

[Autopsibiofeeder]

1. if something "would naturally be there" wherever "there" is. do you place it there? regardless of level? (or at least give a good reason why it's not?)

2. does your world center and revolve on the PCs? or do they exist in it?

3. have you ever used a monster that could "greatly inconvience a player"?
spell immunity? flight? "thief-monsters" (I.E. rust monsters, oozes)

4. why or why not?

1. Yes, but it is not that black and white. The fact that Black Dragons live in swamps does not mean every swamp has one. In general, I try to make dungeons / area's that are 'doable' for the players in general with a sparse 'so tough you can only have one of these encounters a day and someone may very well die'. If something way over their CR is around, I try to discourage them to go there (through in-game information, which they are free to ignore). In the end we play for fun, and players don't enjoy getting their behinds kicked in an unfair fight nor do I enjoy kicking said behinds in that manner. I don't see the point in the 'this is just the way my world is, tough luck'-rationale. It is of course valid and defendable, but just not working out well for me.

2. No, it doesn't. The world is the world. However, my story, or actually their story, centres and evolves around the players. I see it as my job to make sure the book they are experiencing is about them, is fun and does not end abruptly half-way the story. Ideally, they accomplish some stuff that is really relevant for the world or they end up being goofballs in a comedy. That is up to them.

3. Yes, but sparsely so. It can be fun and a nice plot-hook if such poo hits fan, but it gets annoying and frustrating when it happens too often. I feel that way as DM and as player.

4. Yes.

[Tvtyrant]

Given that they are mindless and eat anything organic, it would need to be stone/sand to avoid getting gobbled up immediately. I always considered oozes to have a "perfect" digestive system, breaking down anything they can for food and dropping the rest.

And yes, the Otyugh can leave the area, but for how long? Unless the puddings are cannibalizing each other, they'll eventually eat or push everything else out. Even if they do, there will be a suspiciously-clean area where the frequent - some indication that things aren't "right".

I guess my point, then, that while an ooze might not be out of place, there should be some indicator that it is present.

By this argument there also wouldn't be oozes in the sewer, since they would have nothing to eat. What your saying is perfectly logical, but it is basically just turning the clock on and waiting till your prediction comes true. When the oozes die off the rats will be back, and then eventually the oozes/big monsters to eat them and their muck.