How do you Deal with a DM like this?

[Trekkin]

Several of my friends and I are (or in my case were) in a D&D campaign that has quite frankly gone sour. I simply left, but several of my friends tried talking to the DM about it, and according to them he simply tunes them out; if you ask him a rules-related question unrelated to the campaign itself, he'll generally give a response, but every time they've tried (and, from what I've heard, quite respectfully) to ask whether this or that really had to go on with the retroactive character deaths and the blatant favoritism, let alone to complain that their enjoyment of the campaign has lessened considerably, he'll suddenly act like they no longer exist, checking his phone or just walking off. After they brought it up a few times, he's taken to avoiding the players outside of the session.

Clearly, then, talking to the DM is not an option, simply because it's not possible to communicate with him outside of certain very specific ways. Despite this, they still want to see how the campaign turns out, because he can tell a really engaging story and they'd already invested a lot of time before he started pulling this kind of stuff. They're coming to me asking for ways to survive the campaign and his shenanigans by the rules (3.5), and I'm rather stumped. No one's trying to ruin his campaign, just to live through it. Thus, good Playgrounders, my very torturous query:

Given a combat slugfest 3.5 campaign run by a DM who takes pleasure in foiling the party's class-ability-based exploits and killing off characters whenever possible, how would one go about building a character innocuous enough not to draw specific notice but durable enough to outlast whatever new chicanery the DM decides is extant? A large amount of HP and high saves are rather important, and they're building 9th-level characters at the moment, if that helps.

The other bit of this is how to act to avoid the notice of a DM who delights in deflating happy characters. I can pass on basically anything if there's a demeanor or style of play that might help avoid singling them out.

[Whybird]

Don't look for an IC solution to your OOC problem. If you're not enjoying your GM's style and neither are the other players, chances are your GM's not having a good time either and what he's doing is his way of trying to fix it. Sit down with him and the rest of the players and talk it out -- trying to solve your problems by creating the right kind of character will just make things worse.

[Trekkin]

Don't look for an IC solution to your OOC problem. If you're not enjoying your GM's style and neither are the other players, chances are your GM's not having a good time either and what he's doing is his way of trying to fix it. Sit down with him and the rest of the players and talk it out -- trying to solve your problems by creating the right kind of character will just make things worse.

If I could get him to sit down with anyone or even acknowledge anything of the sort, I would, and we've all tried. For all anyone's been able to determine, it probably has made things worse, as the people who have tried to talk to him are dying far more often. This is a problem we've all decided at various points to just solve by leaving once we're satisfied, but before my friends do they'd like to see the end of the story play out.

I quite agree that the larger problem here is entirely OOC and should be solved there, and there's indeed only one available solution, but everyone still wants to see how it all ends up. It's the matter of living to do so that's got us all stumped, player and ex-player alike.

[flumphy]

It bears repeating that the best solution in the long run is to just quit, but you're probably not going to talk them into it at this point. So, moving on...

We don't really have much information about what draws his ire mechanics-wise, so you'll have to be more specific for help with specific builds.

As for the roleplay aspect, I've played under a GM like that. The solution is for everyone to play characters that are neutrally-aligned and borderline emo. Not extremely depressed--that would attract attention in its own way--but grim and generally pessimistic. A character should have few, if any, hopes to be crushed, and he should have an IC reason to suspect that any hopes he has will be crushed. If they expect the worse or are generally apathetic, then there's not much for a sadistic DM to prey on. If they're not zealously crusading for the cause of good, then it's no big deal if evil unfairly wins.

An exotic race or class draws more attention than a common one. A quiet, stoic character draws less attention than a boisterous, energetic one. You can get away with gruff, but never obnoxiously rude. Never, ever play a braggart. That's just asking to die horribly.

Yes, this strategy leads to much less varied and interesting characters, but they will be more survivable for it. I learned this the hard way.

[Coidzor]

First I'd try reasoning with him.

That seems to have failed in this case.

Then I'd try getting his attention in order to get him to come to the table, and that requires a certain amount of pressure from the group as a whole.

This seems to have failed or not been able to have been attempted.

Then I'd either leave the group or kick the DM out, depending upon how the others in the group felt.

You seem to have been unable to get them to kick the DM out and so you had to leave by yourself.

So I don't see why you're so eager to help them when they so clearly want to wallow in their folly. :smallconfused:

[Krazzman]

How about an Intervention like in HIMYM?

Sounds silly? But it might help.

Else play something simple. And optimize it in Survivability. A Warlock can do this fine on 9th Level, if well played you can see that the character will not die unless the DM really really really really wants it and fudges things. Additional if it is save-loaded there were guides for Saves-man. Monk/Paladin going full into charisma and Wisdom or such sillyness.

Or take the fun in killing the PC's away by playing faceless no-cares with no hope like already suggested.

Hope this helps.

[MagnusExultatio]

No gaming is better than bad gaming. Your DM may be able to spin a tale, but he's horrifyingly deficient in every single other category. Just tell your friends to leave, since it's a lost cause.

[The Reverend]

Magnus = 100% correct.

Either that or they should all play orc barbarians and make waaaaaagh on his campaign. Also read the post on this board about making the dm cry

[Tengu_temp]

If the DM pretends he's not paying attention to you, then make him pay attention to you. Let's see how he ignores you once you start doodling in his books or stealing his phone!

PS. Tengu is not responsible for any side effects of following this advice.

[kamikasei]

At the next session, the entire group should refuse to play until the DM starts actually behaving like a vaguely functional adult and acknowledging people who have something to say to him - even something he may not want to hear.

If the players are willing to let him get away with such behaviour because he has the game's resolution hostage, then frankly I have no sympathy for them.

[Trekkin]

So I don't see why you're so eager to help them when they so clearly want to wallow in their folly. :smallconfused:

Ultimately, because I'm sympathetic to those falling for the sunk costs fallacy. This used to be a pretty good campaign, in fact the best one many of us had ever played, and most of the dissatisfied people still playing are doing so out of nostalgia for that and a desire to say that they saw this whole thing through to the end of the adventure. The satisfied ones are doing so because they get the rules bent (or broken) to accommodate whatever they feel like doing.


As to what he dislikes mechanically, really anything with an ability that's actively used and makes the PC stand out and shine. He tends to like running spellcasters out of spells per day (actually, he tends to like days-long interminable combats in general, but the spellcasters feel it worst), so if there's a really sturdy, simple spellcaster out there, that might help satisfy his desire for PC uselessness while keeping the character alive and in fighting shape. Core is preferred, though, as is simplicity.

The faceless lack of caring is an excellent idea, and it's being implemented on the player and character level relatively soon. On the plus side, we've all gotten really good at churning out backstories.

And yes, Magnus is right. Thankfully, this isn't permanent, and almost everyone's agreed that after the semester's over, so's the campaign. Without it monopolizing our gaming time, there have actually been suggestions of smaller groups for other systems by players who've GMed them before, so with any luck we'll have more varied good gaming rather than bad or no gaming.

[mint]

Right, his strategy is to ignore unwanted behaviour. This is harder to do if the group is confronting him as one.
They could also do the same thing to him. How will he react when the whole group ignores his unwanted behaviour?
Holding a mode of behaviour up to observation is sometimes a good way to start a change. Nobody has a true desire to be a butt. Not really.

[Trekkin]

Right, his strategy is to ignore unwanted behaviour. This is harder to do if the group is confronting him as one.
They could also do the same thing to him. How will he react when the whole group ignores his unwanted behaviour?
Holding a mode of behaviour up to observation is sometimes a good way to start a change. Nobody has a true desire to be a butt. Not really.

That would work if the whole group didn't like how he ran things, but the ones he treats as favorites (~1/3 of the group) wouldn't dream of rocking the boat. It's never been tried, but he'd likely just have the chars played by those ignoring him just stand there (at least if his treatment of those slow to respond with their actions in combat is any indication), effectively kicking them out of the campaign anyway.

...having to type this all out is making me realize just how messed up this all is.

[DoctorGlock]

Your local Home Depot should sell concrete, machetes and quicklime, and hefty bags are commonly available.

A better way is to stage a group intervention. Explain that no one is having fun participating in what sounds like a DM power trip. If he still ignores you state that one of the group is taking over as DM. He cannot run a game if no one wants to play under him, and if someone else is willing to be less of a jackwagon in DMing then that person should get the job. He should not be able to ignore the imminent loss of his game and will be forced to either act or step down. Either way you win.

[kamikasei]

...having to type this all out is making me realize just how messed up this all is.
Do you actually expect that, if the majority of the group stopped play and said they had grievances that the DM was not just refusing to discuss but refusing to acknowledge they wanted to discuss away from the table, and the DM responded to this by ignoring them and continuing play as if they weren't there, the minority of favoured players would go along with him?

Are any of those players among the ones you mentioned hoping to game with later under other GMs? For your sake I hope not.

[mint]

That would work if the whole group didn't like how he ran things, but the ones he treats as favorites (~1/3 of the group) wouldn't dream of rocking the boat. It's never been tried, but he'd likely just have the chars played by those ignoring him just stand there (at least if his treatment of those slow to respond with their actions in combat is any indication), effectively kicking them out of the campaign anyway.

...having to type this all out is making me realize just how messed up this all is.

Well, why do you think the DM hasn't already kicked all your friends out of the group?

[Trekkin]

Do you actually expect that, if the majority of the group stopped play and said they had grievances that the DM was not just refusing to discuss but refusing to acknowledge they wanted to discuss away from the table, and the DM responded to this by ignoring them and continuing play as if they weren't there, the minority of favoured players would go along with him?

Are any of those players among the ones you mentioned hoping to game with later under other GMs? For your sake I hope not.

Yes, I do. They've supported his shenanigans thus far with nary a word of complaint.

And thankfully, no, they're not. I don't think they'd like a normal game anyway.

If I had to guess, he doesn't kick people out because to do so would reduce the size of his audience, and as long as he's got a nice big party he can feel justified in customizing the monsters on the fly to bump their CR.

[Studoku]

I don't think it's mentioned here, but what if you or one of the disgruntled players GMs? Even if none of you have GMed before, I'm sure the kind of players that can put up with a douchebag like the old GM won't mind someone slightly inexperienced if they get a decent game that way.

[kamikasei]

Yes, I do. They've supported his shenanigans thus far with nary a word of complaint.
It may well still be worth a try. The social pressures around "you may not like what the DM's doing, but he is the DM after all, and honestly you're just mad I'm doing better than you" and "we, the majority of the group, want to speak to you, and will not let you ignore us without actually pretending we're not even here" are rather different.

Of course, this requires a willingness to walk away from the game if that's how things fall out once matters are brought to a head. I'd advocate doing that anyway and doing this first simply to call him out, but if the players want to stick it out then this probably isn't viable.

[Tyndmyr]

Hmmm, HIMYM intervention reference...sunk cost fallacy reference. Ya'll have already covered what I wanted to say, so let me just toss my voice in support of the intervention idea. If it fails...ditch the GM.

[hewhosaysfish]

he'll suddenly act like they no longer exist, checking his phone or just walking off. After they brought it up a few times, he's taken to avoiding the players outside of the session.

Clearly, then, talking to the DM is not an option, simply because it's not possible to communicate with him outside of certain very specific ways.

WTF?
Try harder!

Send him an email, with your questions and complaints in it.

Then at the next gaming session, when he denies having received it, hand him a printed copy. Tell him you don't expect him to read it right now when he's got a game to run. Double-check his email address because you must obviously have the wrong one.

After the session resend the email. Then at the next session, ask him if he read either email or the printout.

When he tells you he lost the printout, hand him a spare you brought and tell him not to lose this one.

At the next session, if he claims to have lost the second copy then pull out a folder full of copies, say "It's OK, I have spares", and hand him a third. Suggest he read this one now before he loses it. Ideally the folder should have a picture of Samuel L Jackson on it, captioned "DOES HE LOOK LIKE A BITCH?!"

And if, after all this, he still doesn't get the message that you can see what he's trying to do and you won't be fobbed off then tell it to him explicitly.
Say

I see what you're trying to do and I won't be fobbed off.
You avoid; you ignore me; you pretend to check you phone when I'm trying to ask you questions; you just walk away in the middle of conversations; you lose emails; and generally do anything you can to avoid having to confront any criticism.
It's rude, it's cowardly and it means you think I'm some kind of imbecile, like if you just keep on bull****ing me long enough then I'll just give up.
Well I'm not an imbecile and your bull**** is transparent and I'm not letting this drop.
You've got 2 choices:
Number one - you look me in the eye and say "<<insert name here>>, I don't care about your opinions; you do not matter to me."
or option number 2 - you read the goddamn letter.

I think that might achieve something.

[The Reverend]

Pay attention or I'm setting your couch on fire. Worked really well for me once, toooootally different situation. The key is to set a piece of paper on fire first.

[valadil]

he'll suddenly act like they no longer exist, checking his phone or just walking off.

That's not a gaming problem, it's a social one. I wouldn't game with someone like that, let alone hang out with them. In fact, I had a GM like that so I stopped gaming with him, then I stopped hanging out with him.

But if they really want to see what happens, my suggestion is to show up for the game but don't invest anything in it. Just be a warm body who is there to socialize.

[Oracle_Hunter]

So... the unhappy Players have tried talking to the DM and he refuses to alter his DMing style to suit them. And they keep playing the game they don't enjoy out of nostalgia? :smallconfused:

Well, there's no fixing the DM and - importantly - there is no safety in the rules when the DM has access to Rule Zero. The only way to win this game is not to play -- something you've already done. Good job :smallsmile:

Remind your friends that there is no possible way they can make a character that will protect them from Rule Zero abuse and that they can always leave the game if they don't like it. Short of running a game for them yourself, there is nothing more you can do.

* * *

That said, if you want to foil this sort of DM (which I term a "Bully DM") is the same way you deal with RL bullying -- make yourself an unappealing target. Here, doing things like using copypasta characters (i.e. resubmitting the same character sheet with a different name) and adopting a Paranoia-style indifference to character death will probably help the Players remain sane-ish and frustrate the DM. After all, if you don't express loss from bullying, the bully's sense of conquest is greatly diminished. Fortunately, this is easier to do in-game than in real life.

EDIT: Above all, do not encourage your friends to further confront the DM. It isn't going to make him change and all it will do is encourage his ire. Worse, it can make you look like a jerk to anyone still enjoying the game and turn an ostensibly fun activity into a perpetual power struggle.

And, to be clear, my advice is for the Players to leave the game. There are better things to do with your time than suffering through a game you don't enjoy.

[Hyudra]

DM sounds like a very unhappy person. Could it be that he's got a specific (darker?) mood in mind for his game, and he just lacks the finesse (or even reasonable ability) to communicate this, so he lashes out at those who are outside his 'vision'?

Or maybe he's just a jerk.

Either way, I think Oracle_Hunter's post is very on target. I'd be interested to hear what happened if you shrugged off what he was doing and just had fun with your friends. If he's really got an antagonistic personality, it might be that he'll lash out in some form IRL, and that might be enough to sway the remainder of your group.

[MlleRouge]

And, to be clear, my advice is for the Players to leave the game. There are better things to do with your time than suffering through a game you don't enjoy.

I agree as well. My group was stuck (or perceived ourselves as stuck) in a game like this once, and in hindsight, I am not proud of how we handled it.

In our case, the DM was on a bit of a high horse mixed with an overwhelming desire to please us, which somehow turned into "Aw, don't you guys worry, you'll love what I have planned if you just give it a little longer!" every time we approached him. I suspect it was pride blended with denial.

Either way, he completely ignored our advice and concerns and when one player left, the DM got downright emo over it...So instead of quitting, the rest of us decided to blow up his game. It involved my druid stacking tons of buffs and taking on the rest of the dungeon alone while the rest of the party rushed the boss.

That's long since resolved/apologized for, but really, it was a terrible idea. Especially since he COULD have just had rocks fall on us. Plots like this sound fun in theory, but the best way is probably just to let him down gently and take your leave.

I totally understand the desire to see it through, though. It sucks when you really enjoy a game, but it falls through or goes sour before you get a satisfying conclusion. That could make it a hard decision.

Out of curiosity, do you plan on continuing to game with him after this campaign? Does he usually DM, or is he primarily a player? I suppose he could be burnt out...

[Vladislav]

Your DM is obviously suffering from a bad case of burnout and needs a break. Tell the players to oblige him.

[Trekkin]

Out of curiosity, do you plan on continuing to game with him after this campaign? Does he usually DM, or is he primarily a player? I suppose he could be burnt out...

He's been adding to his DMing load since freshman year, and has been...unnervingly confident about his ability to do so ad infinitum. I'd like to think a lot of this withdrawal is burnout, personally, but I've been burned out and seen burnout, and generally that results in lethargy, not sociopathy.

But in answer to your question, I game with my friends, and he's not acting like someone I'd count as a friend, so no.

[Jay R]

Either you can play the game as is, or change the game, or don't play it.

They have chosen not to stop playing, and, assuming your description of the DM is accurate, the game will not change while players are still willing to play it.

Without changing those two basic facts, it is therefore logically impossible to do anything other play the game as is

The only possible fix left is for the players to decide that playing a different game with a different DM is better than this game as is.

If (and only if) they can make that decision, then the group can go to the next session, and say, "We aren't playing this way. Agree to listen to us and seriously pay attention, or we are all going home NOW."

And he will ignore them.

If the entire group says it and means it, he will be alone in less than five minutes.

Either he will consider it seriously in the next two weeks, or he never will.

But he will not ever consider changing unless the group gives him a reason to. As long as they are willing to play this way at all, it will not change.

[Seerow]

Either way, he completely ignored our advice and concerns and when one player left, the DM got downright emo over it...So instead of quitting, the rest of us decided to blow up his game. It involved my druid stacking tons of buffs and taking on the rest of the dungeon alone while the rest of the party rushed the boss.


This made you feel guilty? **** I wish my players/group would try some crazy **** like that.

[prufock]

I'm normally against in-game sabotage, but sometimes it's justified - like when you've tried reason and the DM acts like an insufferable child. If the game isn't fun, make your own fun.

Game sabotage doesn't require a broken character, it requires a broken player. Play your character as if he was some terrible offspring of Deadpool and Ambush Bug. Refuse to talk to NPCs, instead telling the DM "I check my cell phone and walk away, ignoring them."

[Arbane]

If (and only if) they can make that decision, then the group can go to the next session, and say, "We aren't playing this way. Agree to listen to us and seriously pay attention, or we are all going home NOW."

And he will ignore them.

If the entire group says it and means it, he will be alone in less than five minutes.

Either he will consider it seriously in the next two weeks, or he never will.

But he will not ever consider changing unless the group gives him a reason to. As long as they are willing to play this way at all, it will not change.

What this guy said. Talk to the others, get them to agree before the session.

Alternately, there's the "Pile of Dead Bards" approach - when your character dies, immediately make an identical one who's the first one's son/brother/cousin/mailman. (Also sometimes useful as a way of giving the rest of the PCs a little extra loot.)

[MlleRouge]

But in answer to your question, I game with my friends, and he's not acting like someone I'd count as a friend, so no.

Ah, I see. I only ask because that can really change the game up when you are dealing with social situations like this. It's a much more...delicate procedure to leave a game/remove a DM when it's someone you still hope to game with.

[madtinker]

He might be acting that way because he's tired of running every session. Offer him a break and DM a few sessions yourself. Maybe he'll share enough of his notes with you that if his behavior doesn't change you can finish it by yourselves. Or maybe that is all he needs to snap out of it and be normal again.

[dps]

Hmmm, HIMYM intervention reference...sunk cost fallacy reference. Ya'll have already covered what I wanted to say, so let me just toss my voice in support of the intervention idea. If it fails...ditch the GM.

Sounds to me like he needs to stage an intervention to get the disgruntled players to stop playing. Getting the DM to change (if the information given here is accurate) hasn't worked and won't work.

[Trekkin]

Sounds to me like he needs to stage an intervention to get the disgruntled players to stop playing. Getting the DM to change (if the information given here is accurate) hasn't worked and won't work.

Interestingly, they staged it themselves, among themselves, and all got out yesterday, albeit not before killing one of the favored characters as well as their own(apparently such an act was completely in character, given his [the character's] recent actions).

So the problem has, I suppose, been solved, although not entirely in a manner I'd advocate. This also creates a problem in my own game, where both the favored and the unfavored who got rid of said char are players, and I'm trying to muddle through the ethics of allowing unfettered player control over their chars vs. maintaining an enjoyable game for everyone.