The Flawed Premise of Game Master [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

LordotheMorning

2012-08-11, 08:06 PM

Deophaun

2012-08-11, 08:18 PM

This is a DM specific problem, even though you've experienced it consistently through multiple DMs. The only way to solve it is to tell them to knock it off and DM better, or find a better DM yourself.

Morithias

2012-08-11, 08:18 PM

My campaign setting works on a very special circumstance. The "Creator God" is the antromorphic personification of the DM. The "Creator" can change the rules of existence, but he cannot change them unfairly or cheat for certain people (I.e if he makes the medium longsword do 1d7 damage, EVERY medium longsword does 1d7 damage).

I tend to take care of the "DM cheating" via making the whole campaign ahead of time and planning every major encounter ahead of time, before the PC's even make there characters. Adventurers are so common that unless this enemy happens to be a personal rival of your, he has no reason to expect it's you.

I figure one of three things will happen.

1. Curp stomp by the PCs: Meh they'll get bored of this eventually and tone it back, or since the world is heavily based around research and advancement someone will steal their technique in a metaresearch way.

2. PCs lose: Meh, there are tons of adventurers, roll up new characters and try again?

3. Fair fight and exciting battle: Perfect.

Water_Bear

2012-08-11, 08:23 PM

I find that generally, it is better to have the GM be the most rules-savvy person at the table. They are be better able make well-rounded encounters, to counter or preemptively ban cheese, and they are less likely to get spooked.

Your GMs, unfortunately, seem to have gotten spooked by your builds and went overboard trying to save the game. They see your high Touch Attacks or amazing Hide checks, and they freak out and overcompensate to avoid having their campaign destroyed. Obviously, you and I know that a Master Thrower is unlikely to be the unstoppable powerhouse who ruins everyone's fun, but a less experienced GM will not necessarily.

If this keeps happening, I suggest that you start your own game or nominate someone at your belt-level of Op-Fu to be the next GM. Once your fellow players get used to the game a little more, they can take turns as the GM themselves.

sonofzeal

2012-08-11, 08:27 PM

This is a common tendency for DMs, but not an inherent flaw in the system. A good DM should throw stuff that caters to members of the party every once in a while. Certain fights should be challenges, and in these it's appropriate to make sure the PCs can't cheap-shot it, but that shouldn't be more than one fight in five.

Of course, with your latter example, it may have more to do with scouting in D&D being hard to pull off in general. I've rarely seen it work, and the primary obstacle is usually the impatience of the other players, or the cruel vagueries of misfortune. I doubt your DM was trying to sabotage your character, just that most places that PCs adventure tend to be hostile environments where "scouting" is another word for "send out the squishy one first".

137beth

2012-08-11, 08:28 PM

EDIT: super ninja'ed! There were no responses when I started typing:O

Too frequently, there are videogames in which slight optimization makes the game pathetically easy. The GM is trying to give you a challenge, because he assumes you don't want the game to be too easy.

However, the case of suddenly using only monsters with high touch AC could be an issue. In fact, the epic level handbook specifically says that if your players have fire weapons/attacks, you shouldn't use only monsters that are immune to fire (you should just use some.)
However, the GM is there for a reason. Unlike in a video-game, the GM should design challenges specifically for the party. As it happens, your GM might not be doing the best job, in which case you should call him/her out on it.

On the other hand, are you substantially more optimized than the other players? Is the GM targeting only your weaknesses, or everyone's? If it is the former, it could be that the GM is trying to prevent your optimized character from ruining the fun for everyone else. It is not fun for the other players if you can mop up the encounter yourself, and they are basically irrelevant.

No, a strict enforcement of the CR system would not help. CR is a guideline, nothing more. Particularly when characters are optimized, the system starts to break down. Have you ever played a videogame where the first boss is harder than the final boss? That means either it was badly designed, or the game assumed that you had a different level of optimization. The GM is a human, and is therefore more flexible can can adapt more easily that a machine. That is why the GM is there. The rules themselves are also guidelines. If you want the game to match exactly what is in the book with no deviation, then perhaps tabletop games are not for you.

That being said, tabletop gaming supports many styles of play. If you and your GM have a disagreement about preferred style, you should talk to him/her about it.

Godskook

2012-08-11, 08:35 PM

On the one hand, I agree with a mild amount of your sentiment. Players optimized for certain things should feel good at those things. On the other hand, you're clearly over-pushing that desire against game balance. You're meant to be challenged, and 3.5 isn't well designed to handle optimization, so a DM is required to compensate, as a good DM.

Which leads to the question: Have you ever DM'ed yourself?

And no, I don't advocate having NPCs always being able to defeat your skill checks(which isn't encounter-defeating on its own), but boosting AC values to deal with an over-optimized player concept seems far more legit, especially if the DM is a 'normal' guy, rather than an expert forum-goer like, say, Fax Celestis, who could come up with more elegant solutions.

Gotterdammerung

2012-08-11, 08:36 PM

Hate the player, not the game:

Sometimes people suck. D&D is an adaptive game, and therefore the quality of the game can rise and fall based on the intrinsic qualities of the players and GM.

I recommend either speaking with your DM about your disappointment. Or finding a new group and praying for the best. Or running your own game so you can be the kind of DM you always wanted to play under (golden rule style).

I personally, can relate to this problem.

I went through several phases of responses.

-I spent some time playing characters that adapted what they did from adventure to adventure so that it was harder for the DM to tailor monsters to counter me.

- I spent some time playing overpowered severely optimized builds so there was no aspect of the character you could be immune too.

- I spent some time playing support characters. Then I could do powerful stuff but through the other players so it drew less attention.

- I spent some time teaching the other players to be more efficient so I didn't stand out.

Eventually you get over it and just play what you want to play, for your own reasons, and let the GM do what he wants.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-11, 08:37 PM

I agree with the previous posters, this is a DM'ing problem, not a system problem. The only viable solution is to talk it out with your DM.

You're supposed to encounter enemies with the counter to your trick -sometimes- but when it happens consistently, that is a big problem. The CR system isn't too borked. Strict adherence with careful choices -can- make for a reasonably challenging game at low optimization levels, but the first character with a signicant amount of optimization will steam-roll most encounters.

Let's take a look at your Master Thrower example. Unless he had a reliable source of bonus damage, i.e. sneak attack or skirmish, his hits, while extremely likely, would've been doing less than stellar damage. Even with weak-spot, he'd be doing base weapon damage, as a small character, and that's it. At level 14 a couple d3's a round is a joke. Even with TWF you'd get what? a dozen d3's tops. That's 24 damage on average. The wizard was doing that at level 7, with a standard action.

Hopefully your DM's will learn to do a better job of DM'ing or you'll find a more experienced DM. That's really all that can be done here.

molten_dragon

2012-08-11, 08:37 PM

I would say it's partly a player problem and partly a DM problem.

The first part is that I'm guessing you are more optimized than the other players in your games. Which can cause problems because it can make the other players feel as if they aren't contributing.

The DM is probably doing what they're doing to help keep you in check so the other players can still contribute. However, they're not going about it in the greatest of ways. The better thing to do would be to sit down and talk to the party, and find out if the other players think there is a problem in the first place, and if there is, to decide what to do about it. Maybe the other players can get some help to make their characters more powerful. Or maybe you need to be nerfed some.

ShneekeyTheLost

2012-08-11, 08:38 PM

You see, as a GM, I tend to do the opposite. If your character is built to an archetype (i.e. Scout), then I tend to give you opportunities where it can come in handy (i.e. Okay Mr. Scout. You're about 100' in front of the party in stealth mode. You come upon a group of bandits hiding in wait for ambushing. They seem to be looking more for caravans than threats, because they don't seem to have spotted you yet. Whaddya do?)

In general, I reward players for intelligent tactical decisions, not beat them down for it.

Having said that, there may be the occasional threat which they are informed of, in advance, that it might be more difficult (i.e. there's a military fortification up ahead with patrols sent out at irregular intervals, using bulls-eye lanterns to clearly illuminate in a large radius around the encampment), but if so, it will be because that particular encounter is specifically supposed to be more challenging. In fact, the clever scout might even find the crack in the defenses and slip in anyways, it just won't be easy, but it might be worth extra XP. Or it might be something another party member is specifically designed to be able to handle more appropriately.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-11, 08:42 PM

Too frequently, there are videogames in which slight optimization makes the game pathetically easy. The GM is trying to give you a challenge, because he assumes you don't want the game to be too easy.

However, the case of suddenly using only monsters with high touch AC could be an issue. In fact, the epic level handbook specifically says that if your players have fire weapons/attacks, you shouldn't use only monsters that are immune to fire (you should just use some.)
However, the GM is there for a reason. Unlike in a video-game, the GM should design challenges specifically for the party. As it happens, your GM might not be doing the best job, in which case you should call him/her out on it.

On the other hand, are you substantially more optimized than the other players? Is the GM targeting only your weaknesses, or everyone's? If it is the former, it could be that the GM is trying to prevent your optimized character from ruining the fun for everyone else. It is not fun for the other players if you can mop up the encounter yourself, and they are basically irrelevant.

That being said, tabletop gaming supports many styles of play. If you and your GM have a disagreement about preferred style, you should talk to him/her about it.

I've already talked to him about it. In fact I showed him this write-up.

In answer to your earlier question, I was more optimized in the late-game of the my first example with the master thrower, but mostly because of the fact that all the other players had multiple characters die over the course of the campaign and I was the only one to survive the whole ride, meaning I got most of the hand-me-downs, so to speak. In my second example, everyone is crazy good (gestalt characters) and I am only one of many.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-11, 08:56 PM

Andorax

2012-08-11, 09:21 PM

I'm guessing that part of the issue is OVERspecialization. It's one thing to be good at something...it's another to stake your character's whole existance on being supremely good. If multiple DMs are all having the same knee-jerk reaction, it's because you're presenting them with a character that has an "I win" button, that either works or doesn't.

Take the uber-charger for example. Either it splatters everything even remotely in the proper challenge range, or else it can't charge for some reason. An uber-charger will frequently find himself in charge-nerfing situations because the DM doesn't want him to sleepwalk through the campaign pressing the "I win" button over and over again.

I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, as my players seem (to me) to be self-restraining and don't over-specialize like this. The party has a diviner...with a bit of effort, she could uber-specialize and I'd have to counter with anti-scrying tactics (in reasonable measure) to keep the challenge intact...but she doesn't. She uses it a reasonable amount, and it works spectacularly well almost every time as a result.

It's just a guess, but I'm thinking that if you weren't over-the-top good at one thing and just spread the wealth of talent around to 2-3 different areas, you wouldn't find yourself being attacked at your one point of strength so much.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-11, 10:11 PM

I'm guessing that part of the issue is OVERspecialization. It's one thing to be good at something...it's another to stake your character's whole existance on being supremely good. If multiple DMs are all having the same knee-jerk reaction, it's because you're presenting them with a character that has an "I win" button, that either works or doesn't.

Take the uber-charger for example. Either it splatters everything even remotely in the proper challenge range, or else it can't charge for some reason. An uber-charger will frequently find himself in charge-nerfing situations because the DM doesn't want him to sleepwalk through the campaign pressing the "I win" button over and over again.

That's true. My stealth in this campaign is very much an I Win button in the sense that I pretty much always have the option to hide and not be seen. It don't always "win" a fight with it, but I certainly can avoid won or escape one. The fact that it's gestalt meant that I could make stealth amazing without sacrificing everything else, so I did it.

I'm not sure exactly what the solution is, as my players seem (to me) to be self-restraining and don't over-specialize like this. The party has a diviner...with a bit of effort, she could uber-specialize and I'd have to counter with anti-scrying tactics (in reasonable measure) to keep the challenge intact...but she doesn't. She uses it a reasonable amount, and it works spectacularly well almost every time as a result.

The problem here is that if she knows how useful scrying is, which as a diviner she does, then she has no reason NOT to rely on it. The character has no knowledge of potential DM retribution, so it really doesn't even make sense for her to not use it to the extent of its usefulness. It pretty much requires you to metagame in some sort of plot-induced stupidity.

Kelb_Panthera

2012-08-11, 10:19 PM

IRL most diviners have a superstition against divining about themselves, because it invites disaster on the diviner that breaks the taboo. That's more self-preservation than stupidity, even if it's decidedly not true by RAW alone.

I know that "diviners" IRL can't actually do squat, but that hasn't stopped them from developing superstitions.

Knaight

2012-08-11, 10:20 PM

It seems to me as though this is a serious underlying flaw in the game, perhaps in all table-top games that make use of Game Masters.

Lets not go that far. At the very least, the concept of balanced encounters as a good thing needs to be in place, and the system needs to be one that supports counters coming out easily. So, a system which contains a CR mechanic, in which most opponents are monsters and basically any can be tossed in whenever? That is a system that practically asks for meta game countering. It's mainly a GM problem, yes, but D&D 3.x contributes to the environment in which GMs do that.

Menteith

2012-08-11, 10:39 PM

If the encounters have in game reasons to have defenses against the PC's strengths, I'm fine with it. A BBEG who's debriefed their minions, scryed on the party, and faced them in combat before has every reason to find a few Scrolls of Energy Immunity against a Blaster, or to start mutating their foot soldiers into Mineral Warriors against a Master Thrower. With that said, I try and find ways that allow PCs to use their abilities to be awesome when it makes sense as well. Most places don't have guards with Mindsight against a Scout, or use Riverine weapons against a Sunderer.

Gamer Girl

2012-08-12, 12:00 AM

It seems to me as though this is a serious underlying flaw in the game, perhaps in all table-top games that make use of Game Masters. Anybody else feel this way? Has anyone had a DM who could subvert this problem? What happened? Am I just a huge whiney munchkin? What do you guys think?

Oh the cry of the Optimizer!

Just look at what your saying: you as the player can Optimize up the Wazoo, but the whole rest of the game should be the 'by the book norm'. And sure that is great for you, as you get a big bonus and automatically just win every encounter and the whole game. And sure you think it's pure fun to say ''oh my character turns around, puts on a blind fold and takes a nap, oh, and, tee hee, still automatically hits the dragon with my amazing build.

Now look at it from the Dm side: The game gets pointless. With bland 'by the book' encounters your character wins before the dice are even rolled. Every Time. And that is no fun for a DM. Would you want to run encounter after encounter where you just automatically lost?

And it gets worse, as some players don't like to play the game on 'auto win mode'. It gets boring and pointless for them: "Oh, Zeus attacks...yawn, I kill him.'' Some players like the challenge of the game and like the chance that they might loose(but then this type of player does not often optimize to cheat anyway).

And it does make sense for foes to buff up, even if they don't optimize. But the world still has the chance to optimize too. Even though an optimized world does 'reduce' the fun if your optimizing just for the power trip(or for the outright cheat).

erikun

2012-08-12, 12:06 AM

This hasn't been a DM specific thing either. Every DM I've played with is guilty of doing this, and honestly it does makes sense from a DM's perspective. What is he supposed to do? Let the PCs rampage through his world unchecked, and let them abuse their power?
I've personally found that allowing PCs to rampage through the world unchecked works fine. I've also found that hundreds of NPCs, when working on something together, have a far better chance of accomplishing it than a group of four random people stopping it.

I think the problem is primarily looking at it wrong from both sides of the situation, but I'll cover that at the end.

If you don't want the game to stagnate, you have to provide a challenge somehow,

In my opinion, a player who is smart enough, and who understands the rules enough to find synergies between classes and feats SHOULD enjoy some benefit over those that aren't capable of doing so.
These two statements seem contradictory. Players who optimize should have an easier time, and yet still be challanged?

It seems to me as though this is a serious underlying flaw in the game, perhaps in all table-top games that make use of Game Masters. Anybody else feel this way?
This isn't as big of a problem with RPGs in general as it is with D&D3 specifically, and you see the same problem with products of the system (Pathfinder, D&D4 to an extent). The biggest problem is the assumption that the game is most interesting when characters are close-to but not quite at the point of defeat.

As I mentioned before, this is a problem from both angles you look at it. The first issue is that not every fight needs to be a challange. Indeed, taking the time to monitor or setup an ambush on a group should result in a benefit towards the group. The other issue is that not every fight needs to be fair. If the party is fighting every group and kicking in all the doors and walking into rooms without looking where they are going, then they deserve to walk into their fair share of ambushed and groups prepared for them.

As for myself when DMing: when my players easily jump and wipe out an encounter, I allow them to loot the bodies and continue onward. Why? Because we measure our enjoyment by fun per time, not fun per encounter. If one encounter wasn't that enjoyable, then just let them finish it quickly and move on - or make it enjoyable. A poorly thought-out ambush may have the archers running into other rooms to get reinforcements; definitely making the fight more interesting!

And on a related note, I hand out XP by dungeon or adventure rather than by monster or combat. Why? The first reason is to make the party more interested in focusing on why they are there, rather than on killing everything there. The second is to skip the boring parts - if you're getting XP for the ooze you know is in the empty room, then why waste 30 minutes fighting it?

This is something that the WotC D&D versions have done poorly so far. There are already plenty of reasons for characters to go hunting down opponents - loot and treasure. If they want the loot, and think it is worth the time, they'll hunt down opponents no matter how dull the fights.

On the other hand, while tying XP to individual encounters does a good job of identifying how well a party can handle it, it also produces bad feelings from the DM when they feel "cheated" out of a good combat, or out of the players when they feel "cheated" out of some easy XP. A lot of other systems simply put down challanges for the party based on the characters and hand out XP at the end for victory; the XP is the reward for achieving the victory conditions, not just for overcoming the challanges.

You see, as a GM, I tend to do the opposite. If your character is built to an archetype (i.e. Scout), then I tend to give you opportunities where it can come in handy (i.e. Okay Mr. Scout. You're about 100' in front of the party in stealth mode. You come upon a group of bandits hiding in wait for ambushing. They seem to be looking more for caravans than threats, because they don't seem to have spotted you yet. Whaddya do?)

In general, I reward players for intelligent tactical decisions, not beat them down for it.

Having said that, there may be the occasional threat which they are informed of, in advance, that it might be more difficult (i.e. there's a military fortification up ahead with patrols sent out at irregular intervals, using bulls-eye lanterns to clearly illuminate in a large radius around the encampment), but if so, it will be because that particular encounter is specifically supposed to be more challenging. In fact, the clever scout might even find the crack in the defenses and slip in anyways, it just won't be easy, but it might be worth extra XP. Or it might be something another party member is specifically designed to be able to handle more appropriately.
I have to agree with everything stated here, as well. It's a good idea to reward characters who are exceptionally good at something, because... well, they're good at it. It's also good to challange them, by presenting them with a situation that they won't be as good with.

Note that there is a difference between "irregular patrols with bulls-eye lanterns" and "the group you snuck up on suddenly lights a bulls-eye lantern in your direction". The first is a known feature, assuming you bother to watch for it, and can be used to the party's advantage. The second ends up more as a HAHA GOTCHA move.

Knaight

2012-08-12, 12:19 AM

Just look at what your saying: you as the player can Optimize up the Wazoo, but the whole rest of the game should be the 'by the book norm'. And sure that is great for you, as you get a big bonus and automatically just win every encounter and the whole game. And sure you think it's pure fun to say ''oh my character turns around, puts on a blind fold and takes a nap, oh, and, tee hee, still automatically hits the dragon with my amazing build.

Now look at it from the Dm side: The game gets pointless. With bland 'by the book' encounters your character wins before the dice are even rolled. Every Time. And that is no fun for a DM. Would you want to run encounter after encounter where you just automatically lost?

Speaking as a GM: Specialization really should be worth something. If a character has incredible aim, it suddenly being windy all the time is abject nonsense. They should generally be hitting. If a character is very stealthy, they should be able to sneak around. Direct counters just happening to be there is cheesy.

That said, indirect counters are a different thing entirely. As long as incredible aim is in play, incredible stealth is entirely valid, and that incredible stealth could very much mean dropping in on the character with near perfect aim in melee with a surprise attack and disarming them of their bow. Moreover, any larger than life game involving characters with near perfect aim can also involve decently sized groups of mooks with their own heightened abilities - say speed. Yeah, that aim is nice, but these guys will be closing from maximum range to melee, and in the time they take to do that you get to fire off fewer arrows than there are enemies. So on and so forth.

And really, even direct counters are more acceptable if they aren't contrived. Someone realizing that a character can toss around a lot of fire and deciding to ambush them from within a river is one thing. Some random person met by chance just so happening to have resistances to the PCs, just like the last bunch of random people? That's pushing it.

Or lets go back to the stealth example. Say we have a stealthy sniper, who is very stealthy, and capable of doing a lot of damage at once from hiding. If they get the drop on someone, they should have a very large advantage. However, the flip side of this is that they aren't likely to be hiding in town, or at some sort of banquet, or whatever, which means that if somebody attacks them instead they are at a disadvantage. That's fine. It's also fine if someone who should be suspicious of assassination from someone like them takes countermeasures. A sudden uptake in perception among the world population? Not cool - the world doesn't revolve around the PCs, it shouldn't be changing to accommodate them.

I'd also note that in character retaliation is one of those things that should scale. If a group is attacked by a slow moving wall of armor that slaughters everything that gets into melee and they go hire mercenaries, they aren't going to hire a melee combatant specialist in swarm fighting with light weapons. They are going to hire a fast moving, long range, armor mitigating/ignoring combatant, probably a mage, who can counter them effectively.

shadow_archmagi

2012-08-12, 01:04 AM

Two things:

First off, if you've reached the point where "If the game is anything other than a cakewalk it's because the DM is deliberately throwing unrealistically powerful enemies at me" is a thought you've actually had, then you probably overdid your optimization.

Second off, good DMing can alleviate this problem, via a number of methods:

1. By explaining the extreme competence ingame "Dear Throwknives, do you remember that time that a band of travelling acrobats because addicted to Haste potions and eventually went so fast they exploded? Their ghosts are haunting my castle, and they won't stay still long enough for my paladins to banish them!"

2. By making your particular talents, while useful, are not in themselves capable of ensuring victory. IE: "I'm really glad you came! You'll be in charge of ensuring that no ghost manages to disrupt the great feast! Stand here where you can cover three out of four of the main hallways- You'll have to run back and forth and make sure none get through. Throwknives I am counting on you because I need to make a good impression on the Archbishop and ghosts will look VERY BAD"

3. By making sure to spend plenty of time focusing on areas where other party members, or even no party members excel. "Well Throwknives, the ghosts are dealt with for now, but they'll be back! You must convince the Oracle to help me, I don't know how because she's always really angry. Anyway she lives on the other side of a mountain which is on the other side of a desert which is, in fact, at the bottom of the ocean. In another dimension. I hope you're as good at persuasion, mountain climbing, camelriding, and holding your breath as you are at throwing knives, Throwknives!"

It's also important to remember that this kind of post is really easy to write while actually pulling that kind of thing off consistently in a game is really hard so you should recognize that your GM is an imperfect being who is shouldering a burden (Even if he enjoys GMing, it's still definitely a burden) for the benefit of the group.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-12, 01:11 AM

Oh the cry of the Optimizer!

Just look at what your saying: you as the player can Optimize up the Wazoo, but the whole rest of the game should be the 'by the book norm'. And sure that is great for you, as you get a big bonus and automatically just win every encounter and the whole game. And sure you think it's pure fun to say ''oh my character turns around, puts on a blind fold and takes a nap, oh, and, tee hee, still automatically hits the dragon with my amazing build.

Now look at it from the Dm side: The game gets pointless. With bland 'by the book' encounters your character wins before the dice are even rolled. Every Time. And that is no fun for a DM. Would you want to run encounter after encounter where you just automatically lost?

And it gets worse, as some players don't like to play the game on 'auto win mode'. It gets boring and pointless for them: "Oh, Zeus attacks...yawn, I kill him.'' Some players like the challenge of the game and like the chance that they might loose(but then this type of player does not often optimize to cheat anyway).

And it does make sense for foes to buff up, even if they don't optimize. But the world still has the chance to optimize too. Even though an optimized world does 'reduce' the fun if your optimizing just for the power trip(or for the outright cheat).

Knaight already said most of what I was going to say. There's a major difference between being matched up against enemies who are strong in their own right and enemies who just so happen to be able to nullify your strengths.

That said, I think you've made a number of unfair assumptions about the way I play. Perhaps you have some bitter experience with some player who did that sort of thing? You seem to have reacted poorly to the word "optimizer", and so I'd like to remind you that there's a difference between someone who wants to make a powerful character and someone who only cares about the accumulation of power. I'm fairly certain that my being concerned with topics such as immersion, believability, and roleplay doesn't scream "harharhar i roll to seduce the mindflayer with my 49 to diplomacy!"

I do believe there's also a flaw in the way you describe DM mentality. The DM does not "lose" encounters. DND is not a board game, or if it is it's a game of chess wherein the DM has every piece while the player has only his king. If a DM wanted to "win", all he or she would have to do would be to dump a whole family of Tarrasques on the party's heads, followed by a hamfisted explanation that it happened as the result of a curse from an ancient forgotten bitter deity and that the players just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and that the DM is very sorry but this sort of thing happens all the time. You can't lose when you have total control of the game. The DM is a referee and an author, not a combatant.

The notion of Players vs. DM is completely unsustainable because the DM can choose to win at any time. There's no contest going on. Personally, I would describe the relationship as more of a matter of having a mutual agreement with the DM that you will listen to and be a character in his story/world in exchange for a fun adventure. The agreement is broken if the players destroy the credibility of the story/world by acting ridiculous (although I suppose not if it's a comically themed game), just as the DM breaks it if he won't allow the players to have fun.

The problem, and the topic of this thread, is what happens when the DM feels the need keep the dramatic tension at a constant high by making the players always at a disadvantage no matter how much they've grown.

Duncan_Ruadrik

2012-08-12, 01:47 AM

what you are describing is a common rookie DM mistake. Every DM is guilty of it at one time or another, and it takes practice to get over it.

For example, I wouldn't consider a Master Thrower "optimized". Its a fun class with a couple nifty tricks, but it needs to be built quite precisely and carefully to maintain decent damage... and even then, that's all it does, deal decent damage at mid range.

The fact that your DM overreacted in such a transparent and ham-handed manner shows his inexperience or lack of rule savvy.

In your current game, your DM is making it difficult for you to scout... it seems with more subtlety than your last DM, but still lacking some finesse.

Scouting really is already difficult, and your DM shouldnt go out of his way to make it harder on you. Scouting doesnt break the game, and you can't kill every sentry single handedly. Perhaps your DM is countering you out of habit?

I feel a character SHOULD be countered occasionally. It forces players to cooperate, forces them to think outside of the box, as far as their characters tricks and abilities are concerned. HOWEVER, no character should ever be countered all of the time... which your DMs appear to be doing to you.

If you have been playing for 16 months... how long have your game masters been game mastering? I've been my groups primary GM for almost 8 years now, and its only been in the last 2 years that i would really call myself good at it.
I'm sure others took less time, and others may never be good at it, no matter how much practice they have.

Basically... your game masters suck.
1.) help provide the practice they need in hopes they will improve. (they may not.)
2.) go find a new, better, GM. ( it can be hard, I know)
3.) IF you feel you can do it better, give it a try!

killianh

2012-08-12, 02:43 AM

I find that there definitely needs to be situations when the players can put their skills and powers to good use, but at the same time I find that while it may not be a "realistic" way of dealing with it sometimes a DM needs to deal with the ways a group plays.

I think that a problem here are the words "realistic" and "Role playing game". the world of an RPG almost always is shaped around the PCs. Their actions and effects on the game world. So wouldn't the idea that the game world advanced along with them make sense as well? When you build a character off of an abstract level system, and if you're able to more with said level then others, the game world should be able to develop at your level as well.

Another problem is that if particular tactics are used to resolve issue after issue regardless of what type then counter measures would be taken both from the metagame side of keeping things challenging but fair, and from the perspective of the game world if its a tactic that happens often then there would be some common defence taken, like the power of illusions leading to the development of the spell mindblank. Consider any drama on T.V. Say C.S.I for example. Most things work out in the end, but then there are episodes where unexpected things happen that would never happen in terms of "reality" like someone having a hate on for some lab rats.

Consider the BSF. Regardless of how good his to-hit rate is, he is useless in most other encounters, and with the amount of range spells, abilities, teleporting, and other ways to impede the fighter. Unless he is optimized specifically to overcome the issues he will be useless, but by optimizing to overcome them he loses out on character resources to optimize his actual role of fighting. Even in a gestalt situation (which can actually be more problematic) without trying to take on ever role, there will be a lot of situations where the BSF is useless.

If someone optimizes past what would be fair then the DM has to change the the game to bring it back to balance. While a player should be able to gain from their optimization, it should also be said that a DM needs to be allowed to tailor the world to suit them

demigodus

2012-08-12, 04:40 AM

LordoftheMorning, just how well do your DM's understand the system? Because if a halfling throwing pebbles is something they need DM fiat to deal with, there is a good chance their system mastery might not even be to the point of being able to gauge your power level.

Over all, if you want to play a specialized/optimized character, your best guess, is likely to calmly talk over the character build with your DM so that he understands just how powerful the character is, or is not. Auto-hitting, for example, isn't very impressive without serious damage. Magic Missile is a level 1 auto-hitting spell, and without VERY heavy optimization, it isn't all too impressive at high levels.

Possibly, go over some other highly specialized builds with your DMs, and together work out how those characters could be countered, without fiating. Let your DMs get familiar with coming up with creative solutions to challenge the party with. After all, at least in 3.5 DnD, unless you are playing a caster, your character either sucks at life, or has exactly one hammer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WhenAllYouHaveIsAHammer). An entire party, between all players, might have 5 or 6 hammers total. They have a few options at which their capabilities utterly surpass human limits, and a lot of other options at which they straight up suck. It really don't make sense if they keep succeeding by picking the options they can't even succeed at against Joe the Farmer. Your DM, on the other hand, has over a dozen tool boxes, each with a variety of tools. Simply because of the nature of the game, he has a lot more options, and it is easier for him to adapt to the party, then for the party to adapt to what he throws out. Consequently he can't expect the party to adapt to his setting, if he isn't able to adapt to their precious few tools without first having to literally take them away.

Just look at what your saying: you as the player can Optimize up the Wazoo, but the whole rest of the game should be the 'by the book norm'. And sure that is great for you, as you get a big bonus and automatically just win every encounter and the whole game. And sure you think it's pure fun to say ''oh my character turns around, puts on a blind fold and takes a nap, oh, and, tee hee, still automatically hits the dragon with my amazing build.

That is a very... creative interpretation of the OP.

There is a world of difference between wanting the entire world to be "by the book norm" as you put it, and being upset, when the result of you scraping everything together to get a +5 to hit (likely by sacrificing something) is that the DM goes back over every single AC number, scratches it out, and writes something 5 points bigger. One of those, while STILL sufficient to run a very wide variety game (reworking monster feats is perfectly legal according to RAW after all. As is adding 1 level of barbarian to that brown bear so it can wear armor, rage, and pounce you to death), is somewhat restring. The other, you might as well not bring the character sheets, and just arbitrarily decide that, say, you hit on an 8 or more, miss on a 7 or less, no matter what the build is.

Then there is the third option where you are upset that you can't auto-hit a dragon while blind folded, which... as far as I can tell you just made up as an example so you could insult his position with a straw man. Good job on your debating skills. I'm sure you will convince someone eventually of something by insulting them based on made up facts.

molten_dragon

2012-08-12, 06:53 AM

Knaight already said most of what I was going to say. There's a major difference between being matched up against enemies who are strong in their own right and enemies who just so happen to be able to nullify your strengths...

...The problem, and the topic of this thread, is what happens when the DM feels the need keep the dramatic tension at a constant high by making the players always at a disadvantage no matter how much they've grown.

I sort of disagree. The problem isn't so much that the DM is trying to have his NPCs nullify your advantage. He should be doing that. The problem is that he's having them ALL do it, and he's doing it in a rather ham-handed and inelegant manner.

I had a player in a campaign I ran that sounded pretty similar to you. He was a decent optimizer, though he didn't go crazy with it. He was playing an archer (actually the hunter class in my sig) and he had really min-maxed his to-hit rolls with his bow. He could hit just about everything. Most of the time, he only missed rolling a 1 or 2 maybe. He also had an ability that let him ignore any cover or concealment when firing. It wasn't a huge problem, because he didn't do enough damage to kill everything in the party outright, but it was mildly annoying.

I dealt with it in different ways depending on who he was fighting. Most critters or average mooks would fight him normally, because they didn't know who he was and what he did. Many would even try to take cover or use concealment to protect themselves, not knowing it wouldn't work (and he loved it when that happened). If the enemies lived long enough, he might get swarmed by melee guys and grappled (he wasn't very good at that) to negate his bow use, but I usually waited until 4 or 5 rounds into the combat to use that tactic, since most enemies would take awhile to figure it out.

More intelligent enemies, or those who knew about the party and their skills/abilities, they prepared to deal with him a little better. Spellcasters would often prepare spells like wind wall that would lessen or negate his ability to shoot at them. Big bruisers would do more grappling than they normally might, since he didn't have a way to negate the random roll to hit either party in a grapple.

And I also put in encounters where he got to shine. Encounters where both parties were aware of each other across a long distance on open ground, and he got a chance to pick a lot of them off before they could even get in range to do anything.

Tailoring your encounters to fit your party is not bad DMing, it's just the opposite. But doing so well doesn't just mean making things hard on them and trying to negate what they're good at (though at times it does mean that). It also means giving them a chance to stand out and be good at something.

It mostly just sounds like you've been unlucky and played with inexperienced DMs.

The Dark Fiddler

2012-08-12, 07:18 AM

OP, I'm currently questioning my sanity, so could you be so kind as to answer a question for me? Did you post this on /tg/ last night?

The Random NPC

2012-08-12, 07:26 AM

OP, I'm currently questioning my sanity, so could you be so kind as to answer a question for me? Did you post this on /tg/ last night?

A quick Google search with /tg/ and the first couple of lines finds a post that is an almost word for word reprint, so I would say yes.

Baalthazaq

2012-08-12, 07:32 AM

Optimizing and power gaming, are different.

You can take a concept (Baron Munchausen), and optimize it (Oooh, if I take a Bard I can get this feat I need earlier).

You can also power game (This adds to damage, that adds to damage, this class is the best for damage, these feats are the best for damage, I win).

I can easily make a master thrower who can lob a shuriken through a brick wall, but why would I do that when the rest of the party have no similar level of ability? Instead of that third bonus to ranged power attack, I take more defensive feats. I broaden my abilities to back up other characters. I raise my survivability or stealth. I develop my character. I take a build that usually doesn't work (truenamer, illusionists of various sorts are some fun ones), and optimize them to the point they're on par with the rest of the party.

Why do you need an advantage over your team-mates? Its not a competitive sport.

Lets say you play in a game with me. You optimize your master thrower. I make a god. I do all the things. If the DM makes tough stuff you die. If the DM makes easy stuff you don't participate as I get my two free surprise rounds and pull its soul out of its backside.

You were looking forward to playing a master thrower, but no. I tell you you've made the wrong character. You don't have the correct build. The correct build is one of these three or four master-cheese builds. (Jump (or dip if you're boring)lomancer, Omnificer, Pun Pun, and a lady I call the witch), and if you want to play a Shadowdancer because you like the flavour text, you're wrong.

You must keep up. I'm winning. I know the rules better than you do.

Its... the DM's fault?

The DM needs to balance the party in some way. If I were him, I'd ramp up the CR, the number of creatures in the encounters, and power up the other PCs (the Barbarian finds an axe significantly above the WBL suggestions, the Dread Pirate finds a Black Pearl equivalent, the Artificer finds a golem loyal to him).

Specifically nullifying player character abilities tends to be a no-no from characters that aren't watching the players, but honestly, AC (or damage) is pretty core. If you have a character that punts out over 100 damage at level 3, there are few things that stop it.

GenghisDon

2012-08-12, 08:18 AM

Alright, I'm having a bit of an issue with table-top rpgs in general. Up to this point, I've only played DnD 3.5, 4.0, and Pathfinder. I've been playing these games for around 16 months or so, and I've picked up a lot in that time. Admittedly, I'm a bit of an optimizer, but I also respect and regard roleplay as a vital element of the game.

My issue is essentially a problem of level scaling. In every campaign I've been in that's lasted long enough to get anywhere, it starts to feel as thought the world is metagaming against the party. If the party or a member of the party is optimized or uses any sort of specific tactic, it becomes ever-increasingly likely that the DM will design encounters specifically to counter them, and it doesn't stop after the first time it happens.

That's good, they are there to challenge the players. Optimizing is begging to be challenged.

My first example is a campaign in which I played a Master Thrower, which that lasted from levels 1-14 (3.5e). My character was a halfling with a fantastic dex score. With all the bonuses he got with thrown and ranged weaponry, he ended up having a superb to-hit modifier for his level at almost every point in the game. And so, at around level 6, the DM started buffing our enemy's AC. There wasn't any real explanation for it, but their AC was consistently far higher than the values listed in the SRD/Monster Manual, a fact I observed but didn't bring up. And then once I got access to the Weak Spot class feature (which makes your thrown weapons resolve as touch attacks), suddenly the only enemies that appeared were ones that had ridiculously high touch AC, but with not much extra armor bonus added on. It was such that even a touch attack with a modifier higher than +20 could still miss. Essentially, due to my extremely reliable and moderately high damage, all the creatures in our world evolved into super-acrobats with deflection bonuses, even those who had never heard of my character in their lives.

This is bad, because I can't see this build being disruptive at all. Is it possible the DM was guarding vs touch spells instead ( one often has to do that )? Myself, I'd be sure you OCCASSIONALY faced a hard to hit foe(s), but certainly I'd never go out of my way to hose this type of PC. In fact, if I was having to guard vs touch spells & that was hosing your PC, I'd "throw" some useful magic items your way to compensate. I'd probably help a thrower in EVERY case with some finds of "melee, but also throwing weapons" with a hurling property ( adds +10' to range increment, +d6 damage when thrown, of the same type the weapon does;=+1 mod)

My second example comes from a campaign I'm playing currently, also 3.5e. I'm playing a Shadowcaster (a class from Tome of Magic, for those that aren't familiar with it) that is optimized for scouting. He has an extremely high hide check and very good spot/listen as well. It's very difficult to detect him unless in an area of bright light or unless divination magic is used. One would hope that with the way I built the character, I could set the party up with surprise rounds for most encounters. I should be able to scout ahead, not alert the enemy to my presence, spot them, and report back the team so we can set up favorable terms upon which to fight (or even evade the encounter)...

But this rarely occurs. Very rarely have I been able to successfully scout for the party. There's always some reason or another that prevents it. Oozes hiding in the floor, enemies teleporting in, mages scrying me, monsters with great spot checks, or just circumstances that completely obviate the need for scouting. Of course, I understand that scouting shouldn't always be possible or applicable in every given situation, but when these scenarios keep stacking up one after another, it starts to strain credulity. The only reason one can provide for this phenomenon is a metagamed one: Surprise rounds are extremely powerful advantages and the DM shouldn't simply hand them out like candy.

While DM's shouldn't hand them out like candy (unless they are perhaps metagaming & using a too difficult otherwise encounter), this is more problematic. Characters built to do X well, should be able to do X fairly well. All of the above failures could & even should happen, but it's the frequency that would determine if it's poor or good DMing.

For any of you who have played Oblivion without mods, you should know the feel I am describing very well. Every time you level up, the game just makes the enemies more difficult, regardless of where you are. This effectively renders character growth meaningless and you start to wonder if you'd be better off just staying at level 1.

Nope, haven't played it. D&D has become more video game like over the years (a BAD thing IMHO, video games were copying D&D origonaly, feedback loops like today are AWEFUL things), but it's NOT a video game & is better the less it plays like one. If you want less video game-y style RPG's, where you can & will meet critters weaker as well as stronger than you, I suggest trying some older versions of D&D or other games. The 3/3.5 DMG very much tells the DM they SHOULD do more or less what you are not liking. d20 actively pursued this by design (which is also why some old school gamers can't stand the system).

Alternatively, suggest this to your DM, or seek an DM that's familiar with older RPG's & their game assumptions & imports that into d20 as best d20 can handle it.

You should be aware, however, that this is a double edged sword. You also get to encounter things that are more powerful, even vastly more powerful, than the party. You better not play thinking everything is supposed to be beatable or fought in this style of gaming, else you will be unhappy (& dead) often.

This hasn't been a DM specific thing either. Every DM I've played with is guilty of doing this, and honestly it does makes sense from a DM's perspective. What is he supposed to do? Let the PCs rampage through his world unchecked, and let them abuse their power? If you don't want the game to stagnate, you have to provide a challenge somehow, but it just seems so stupidly transparent. I see things that have no real reason to exist except for to make things harder and "balance" the game. I'm sick and tired of taking action only to have an enemy NPC say "Oh, I see you're using X, GOOD THING I JUST SO HAPPEN TO HAVE Y ISN'T THAT SO CONVENIENT!" every time. The DM knows who the players are and what they're capable of, but that shouldn't mean that enemies and monsters do to, should it? Within reason, a reoccurring opponent or an opponent that has studied up on the party could take some action to limit your effectiveness, but when it happens every time? Or when someone counters a trick that you've never even used before, or a trick that no one has ever witnessed you using? When an enemy seems tailor-made to slip through all the cracks in your party and make your life miserable? That isn't very fun either. In fact, it might be less fun than a lack of challenge.

see above. The DMs are just following the suggestions they are given, and many d20 players go into nerd rage if they don't follow them ALWAYS.

The system handles lower challenges pretty poorly, mainly because encounters take considerable amounts of time, both to play, and to prepare. Many players will be upset "wasting time" with low challenge, low reward encounters, and more importantly, the DM has often "wasted" even MORE time than that in making/statting up the encounter.

I refuse to believe that optimization is the source of the problem. In my opinion, a player who is smart enough, and who understands the rules enough to find synergies between classes and feats SHOULD enjoy some benefit over those that aren't capable of doing so. This optimization should of course be kept within the realm of roleplayability. I don't believe in stacking templates together. I believe in finding an elegant, synergistic character build whose feats and class features are capable of fitting the "theme" of the character and can be explained reasonably by back story, much in the way a Shadowcaster who is very good at being unseen makes sense from a thematic aspect. If you can do this -if you can make a character who is mechanically as well as thematically compelling- why should a DM simply undo this work by tossing a couple higher CRs at it? Not only does it make me feel as though my character build is all for nothing, but it also breaks my immersion in the game world due to how asinine and contrived the "counters" can become. This means that I can't enjoy the game from an encounters angle OR a roleplay angle. The game becomes an arms-race between player and DM, which the DM will never lose due to his infinite resources.

Optimization is often going to be a problem or create problems, although not as you describe it. It's more or less inevitable & not undesirable to have it as you describe. I can't really talk about that subject on this forum, however.

Can this be fixed? It occurred to me that perhaps a rigid use of the CR system could solve the problem. If a DM were to always match the party against equivalent or lower CR (maybe higher during special circumstances), he could maybe avoid it, but the CR system is completely broken as it is... Perhaps the use of a module could prevent this, seeing as how they are pre-scripted? Or some other system in which the DM doesn't design the NPCs and Monsters, but only the story and scenario?

Yes, it can be "fixed", but it requires changing some game assumptions (& possibly even design) in d20 to do so. You are asking for free cake above, however, which won't work either. You are on the right track, however. More encounters with ECL lower than the party, yes.

The DMG suggests encounters be:
10% easy
20% easy IF
50% challenging
15% very difficult
5% overwhelming

I'd try:
20% easy
20% easy IF
30% challenging
5% very difficult IF
15% very difficult
5% overwhelming IF
5% overwhelming

Or I would at least to try to run a game YOU would probably come to love, anyway. Different players want different things. You need to talk with the other players BEFORE talking to the DM. In all likelyhood, he or she is going to have to try and juggle different expectations & desires (and also realise that what player's THINK they will like isn't actually good for the game or even THAT player's fun, players tend to be AWEFUL at judging such things)

It seems to me as though this is a serious underlying flaw in the game, perhaps in all table-top games that make use of Game Masters. Anybody else feel this way? Has anyone had a DM who could subvert this problem? What happened? Am I just a huge whiney munchkin? What do you guys think?

It's a flaw in the RPG's you have played. It's not universal, although to SOME extent, it is.

I feel the same way, sometimes

I can subvert it, I've not had a d20 DM that could, but I've only had 2 d20 DM's & played only a handful of times. It never bothered me, actually, no doubt because I never truly faced it. In other games, definitely. I don't actually recall it ever being an issue.

Please don't encourage anyone on this board to call you a munchkin, this board has "play nice", "no PvsP", "no offending anyone", child safe type filters on. You'll get someone banned or in trouble.

But taking a risk I shouldn't; NO you don't sound like a munchkin AT all. Claiming to be an optimizer raises a red flag immediately to me, but your descriptions don't match up with being a munchkin, although I believe you are slightly mistaken about what EL's would actually make up happy as a player.

This is a DM specific problem, even though you've experienced it consistently through multiple DMs. The only way to solve it is to tell them to knock it off and DM better, or find a better DM yourself.

This isn't helpful, and it OUGHT be a common D20 DM problem. They are told in the rule books to essentially do this, and egged on by players that have read the same things. Optimization (of the less benign kind) requires the DM do likewise, so as to force the suggested encounter strength paradigm into being.

I find that generally, it is better to have the GM be the most rules-savvy person at the table. They are be better able make well-rounded encounters, to counter or preemptively ban cheese, and they are less likely to get spooked.

I couldn't agree more. It's impossible to comport with this all the time, however. I already don't play much at all due to this. I'd NEVER play if this was always followed.

Your GMs, unfortunately, seem to have gotten spooked by your builds and went overboard trying to save the game. They see your high Touch Attacks or amazing Hide checks, and they freak out and overcompensate to avoid having their campaign destroyed. Obviously, you and I know that a Master Thrower is unlikely to be the unstoppable powerhouse who ruins everyone's fun, but a less experienced GM will not necessarily.

that seems a logical & likely possibility.

If this keeps happening, I suggest that you start your own game or nominate someone at your belt-level of Op-Fu to be the next GM. Once your fellow players get used to the game a little more, they can take turns as the GM themselves.

I'd try talking with him/her first, and pointing out sites like this one (well, maybe not this one, DMing isn't much discussed or even respected it seems). If those fail, move on to Water bear's suggestions.

This is a common tendency for DMs, but not an inherent flaw in the system. A good DM should throw stuff that caters to members of the party every once in a while. Certain fights should be challenges, and in these it's appropriate to make sure the PCs can't cheap-shot it, but that shouldn't be more than one fight in five.

disagree, agree, and think it varies dependant on the players

Of course, with your latter example, it may have more to do with scouting in D&D being hard to pull off in general. I've rarely seen it work, and the primary obstacle is usually the impatience of the other players, or the cruel vagueries of misfortune. I doubt your DM was trying to sabotage your character, just that most places that PCs adventure tend to be hostile environments where "scouting" is another word for "send out the squishy one first".

Scouting is going to fail, sometimes miserably, with some frequency. It should also bring success, even GREAT advantage other times. Punishment should be reserved to those that can't/don't scout, and it's likely to be meted out with no effort at all on the DM's part.

EDIT: super ninja'ed! There were no responses when I started typing:O

Too frequently, there are videogames in which slight optimization makes the game pathetically easy. The GM is trying to give you a challenge, because he assumes you don't want the game to be too easy.

However, the case of suddenly using only monsters with high touch AC could be an issue. In fact, the epic level handbook specifically says that if your players have fire weapons/attacks, you shouldn't use only monsters that are immune to fire (you should just use some.)
However, the GM is there for a reason. Unlike in a video-game, the GM should design challenges specifically for the party. As it happens, your GM might not be doing the best job, in which case you should call him/her out on it.

On the other hand, are you substantially more optimized than the other players? Is the GM targeting only your weaknesses, or everyone's? If it is the former, it could be that the GM is trying to prevent your optimized character from ruining the fun for everyone else. It is not fun for the other players if you can mop up the encounter yourself, and they are basically irrelevant.

A good point indeed.:smallsmile: & yeah, the topic boomed.

No, a strict enforcement of the CR system would not help. CR is a guideline, nothing more. Particularly when characters are optimized, the system starts to break down. Have you ever played a videogame where the first boss is harder than the final boss? That means either it was badly designed, or the game assumed that you had a different level of optimization. The GM is a human, and is therefore more flexible can can adapt more easily that a machine. That is why the GM is there. The rules themselves are also guidelines. If you want the game to match exactly what is in the book with no deviation, then perhaps tabletop games are not for you.

That being said, tabletop gaming supports many styles of play. If you and your GM have a disagreement about preferred style, you should talk to him/her about it.

agreed, agreed, agreed.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-12, 12:32 PM

Well, OP... you've only been playing for 16 months. You need more experience and diversity. As others have said, it seems to be DM specific.

danzibr

2012-08-12, 03:43 PM

Morithias

2012-08-12, 04:07 PM

Yeah, totally. I'll come back to this in a second.

Oh, and your DM sounds like a total tool by the way.

I agree with this post. I work my campaigns out way in advance*, where I expect the power level to be about... fairly optimized. I wouldn't feel bad about TPKing the group a couple times, but basically only if they do stupid things. Like set up a world, everyone knows that the Dark Woods are really dangerous, players insist on going, then they die. Well, that's actually a little off topic.

* I still tweak things a bit. If the party is playing a bunch of Monks and Samurai, then... a few of the encounters might be a bit easier, but essentially the same.

One other thing I should mention. After the campaign is done, all campaign notes are open for the PC's. I do not change things on the fly, and I have the papers to prove I'm not cheating, if you failed your save against the vampire cause the save was 5 higher than normal, well here's proof that she had levels in that undead class and the ability focus feat.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-12, 04:32 PM

OP, I'm currently questioning my sanity, so could you be so kind as to answer a question for me? Did you post this on /tg/ last night?

Yes, I did.

Thanks for your responses, guys. In answer to a few of you, I have tried DMing. My biggest problem was that I tried to homebrew magic rules to fit an elementally segregated system. I gave each element access to a school, banned some of the other schools, and gave universal access to evocation. This actually probably helped a lot with the problem of balance between magic-users and non-magic-users, but there ended up being too many grey areas. Players kept asking me to make exceptions for certain spells because of how clunky and nonspecific the school separation idea was.

I also found that I fell prey to the problems listed in my OP. There were times when I, almost subconsciously, wanted to make the players' job harder simply for the sake of being harder. If the party can burrow under a city to escape the law, I should simply allow them to do it instead of throwing up obstacles. Once the session was over, I took a step back and realized this, which leads me to believe that the urge to counterbalance the party is partly subconscious.

My game only lasted for about 7-10 sessions. It came to an end when one of the players (who no longer plays with our group) threw a fit about the fact that magic was considered illegal in my setting. Note that I did this not to discourage magic use, but more as part of the story, because I granted all the PCs slight inherent magical abilities. It was remarkable how quickly that player's outburst completely sapped my will to DM. The game just simply fell to game decay after that session. Their job was to eventually wear down the prejudice and fear by defending their realm in its time of need. Overall, it definitely had its failures and successes. I used music and verbal descriptions to great effect, and I think in general I kept them very well aware of the power-scale of my world (so they would know whether or not they could potentially pull off something that would involve fighting other sentient races. Combat took forever, however, because I kept getting distracted by all the mechanics flying around, and I should have sifted through the spell list by hand if I wanted to sort spells by element instead of throwing out a blanket of categorization. I'll probably try again some day, because I'm definitely the most rules-savvy one in our group. This also is probably what makes me so sensitive to being countered, because I notice every time the rules are bent.

As far as my current DMs being inadequate... I find that to be a tough pill to swallow. The DMs some of you are describing seem like they must be super-human to have so much willpower and imagination. Both of the DMs whose campaigns are the ones in my examples seem pretty good at the job from what I've seen. The first one was the one who introduced me to DnD, didn't pull any punches, which led to a sense of genuine accomplishment whenever something amazing happened, like this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13574469&postcount=16), which might help you understand why he did what he did to enemy AC, because damage was in admittedly quite high. He did have a nasty tendency to sometimes let the players dig their own grave without offering any sort of warning beforehand, which likely shaped my acute paranoia as a player, and which also ruined 2 out of 3 of the campaigns he started. After about three failed characters and one failed campaign, I grew enough to essentially surpass him in terms of knowledge of the game. He had been playing for a much longer amount of time, and at some times it strikes me as odd that he doesn't know more for how long he says he's played for.

The second one, the one I'm currently playing under, is somewhat new at it. He was interested in DMing ever since I introduced him to the game, and seems in general more interested in it than actually playing. Earlier on, I almost played as sort of an assistant DM, helping him with rule calls, and helping him make powerful NPCs, but he's grown more independent with each passing session. He does have a very bad habit of making quick judgements based off somewhat arbitrary notions of what makes sense to him. An example of this would be when I asked him (as a test) if I could buy and use a Dust Eggshell Grenade after telling him what it does. He didn't see the problem of no-save blind off a 200 gp item until I explained it to him and showed him the other grenade types from the same book. I never did buy any grenades. He also has the bad habit of wanting to show players what's going on behind the screen, but he's been a good DM other than that in my honest opinion. He created a very fleshed-out homebrew setting and a very interesting storyline to go with it. Even better, he makes it a priority to directly involve the characters in the story, and actively works to incorporate our backstory's into the campaign in meaningful and important ways.

What concerns me is the fact that even though these two DMs have been worlds different, they both resort to the same metagamed way of countering the players. Experienced or not, imaginative or not, it seems inevitable I briefly played under a DM with even more experience than my first DM (before schedule issues put the game on haitus), but even he demonstrated a tendency to do the same thing. Even I found myself doing it. Perhaps it really is bad luck, but its starting to seem like a universal thing that DMs do. They are not aware of just how much information they only have by virtue of being the DM, and they forget this when they determine NPC actions. For example, I'm almost positive that the BBEG of my current campaign is not aware that I have the Darkstalker feat or that even that I don't rely on invisibility to be unseen, but I'm also fairly certain that he won't even try to detect me using blindsight or true sight and will instead turn straight to divination magic like arcane eye because the DM knows that it would be the only one to work, even if the BBEG does not.

Tvtyrant

2012-08-12, 05:09 PM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you don't believe optimization is a form of metagaming, only optimization that specifically targets your abilities.

However the very concept of CR, which is implicit to modern D&D, is exactly this form of metagaming. At level 17 all of your enemies are going to be stronger than at level 5, and usually there is no justifiable reason for it except to make the game challenging. Why did the Balors only manage to open the gate to the world after you defeated the Mindflayers who only arrived on their Spelljammer ships after you defeated an army of invading Orcs (who themselves gained class levels as you did).

If we assume optimization is in fact an in-world concept and not a game concept (creatures are aware of what their abilities do and how to make them better), it isn't hard to imagine that they would work to optimize their abilities. For instance, almost everything I have ever faced after level 10 has Displacement or some sort of concealment, because a 50% miss chance is a logical defensive measure for just about everything.

Ranting Fool

2012-08-12, 05:23 PM

As a DM I have been very guilty of changing the world to stop X tactic. And the more I DM the more I avoid any knee-jerk reaction to nerf any ability the players have that is letting them steamroll without having an in world reason. It helps that my Players tend to let captives live and don't always chase down fleeing minions so BBEG's CAN have knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses. Same goes for Bounty Hunters (or Assassins) they would only know what they could find out with gather information or scouting (or div spells at a higher level)

Example: One of my PC's is a Warlock who can be invisible and Fly 24hours a day. Meaning that 99% of the time while he is out in the world he wouldn't be seen (Unless someone knows this and is looking for him) now he has come across a fair bit of foes who can see invisible but only the ones would have cause to (Such as paranoid sorcerers and wizards who are high enough to have permanency or Anti-Arcane hunter guys who often fight wizards) but for a large number of fights he starts of hidden (and so un-targeted) and fought a fair few battles where his foes had little to no long ranged attacks (since he has longer blasts) because they didn't think they would need them / didn't have them close at hand. That said most fighter types SHOULD carry some sort of range weapon since so many dangers can fly / stay out of your reach.

Has this made some of his encounters far easier... yes. But then his character isn't nearly as powerful as it could be if he really wanted it to be.

Other example. Today a group of hired thugs/bounty hunters finally caught up to the PC's but were rather surprised that they had a blasty Wizard with them (Who joined them earlier that day) and weren't prepared for that extra blasting damage. Though because they caught one of them (and one fled) and after questioning him and getting him to swear never to bother them again they let him go (being a merc they are willing to release him for a ransom which they believe he will pay when they are back to town) as being rather nice PC's they don't like to kill off people they capture. Which means that if this person DOES talk others will know that the PC's are hanging around with a rather blasty wizard and who ever paid for them in the first place could find out.

I had a point somewhere... ah yes. It is rather a knee-jerk reaction sometimes from DM's, but it is most often a knee-jerk to stop their world from being broken and DM's (Myself included) need to make their world more stable in the first place so a single Op character of any flavor won't bypass all encounters. Plus any DM who adds anti-X just to spite you is being a jerk.

molten_dragon

2012-08-12, 05:26 PM

What concerns me is the fact that even though these two DMs have been worlds different, they both resort to the same metagamed way of countering the players. Experienced or not, imaginative or not, it seems inevitable I briefly played under a DM with even more experience than my first DM (before schedule issues put the game on haitus), but even he demonstrated a tendency to do the same thing. Even I found myself doing it. Perhaps it really is bad luck, but its starting to seem like a universal thing that DMs do.

That's 2 DMs. That's really not a very large sample size at all. I've been playing for around 12 years now (basically started right when 3.0 came out). I've played under close to 20 different DMs, and maybe half of them have done this to some degree or another. It is definitely not a universal thing, but it is something that most DMs go through for at least some period of time. Hell, it took me probably 3 or 4 years to realize that there were other ways to counter player abilities than "throw bigger numbers at it". It also seems to be more common among DMs who aren't great optimizers themselves.

You need to do one of three things here. Either stop optimizing your characters so much, and the DM won't feel the need to do it, find a more experienced DM to play with that can handle your optimizing, or just put up with it. Really those are your only options. There are DMs out there that don't feel the need to do it. And you need to realize that it's okay for it to happen some of the time.

Togo

2012-08-12, 07:19 PM

Presumably the DM is making these metagaming changes in order to correct for a problem.

Do you know what that problem is, and how do you feel the DM should solve it?

I'm going to guess that the DM feels that without some form of correction, your optimised capabilities will come to dominate the game, either by making a small proportion of the encounters simply irrelevent, or by overshadowing the other players. Maybe he's inexperienced. Maybe he's right. Maybe both. Note that your character doesn't need to dominate every time to cause a problem. Simply doing it a quarter of the time may be too much, if there are more than two other players at the table.

Now you've stated quite definitively that optimisation shouldn't be a problem, so what is it you feel the other players should be doing while your abilities win the encounter on their behalf? What should the DM be doing?

My reading of the situation is that you are more optimised than the other characters. You mentioned that they were dying a lot, and you weren't? It sounds like the DM, having pushed the difficulty of encounters as high as he dares to the extent that the campaign is now quite lethal, still can't stop your abilities from dominating the game, and is desperately trying to nerf you without killing off everyone else. That's what it sounds like from the description, but you're there, so you'll be better able to tell.

Specialised characters, that is characters that are very very good in a limited number of areas, are particularly difficult for a DM to handle. It means that whenever you succeed in applying your abilities to a situation, he loses control over it and you proceed to dictate what happens. That's quite threatening to a DM, particularly an inexperienced one, and may lead to him making the kind of mistakes and arbitrary rulings that have already been discussed.

The difficulty is that you and the DM are trying for different things. The DM is trying to provide a challenge for the party, you've created a character that will, in certain circumstances, only be challenged by something that would kill the party. In addition, you're demanding what a previous poster described as cake - that some situations be resolved easily and quickly in recognition of your character's capabilities.

Might I suggest that there could be mistakes being made on either or both sides?

On the DMs side, it seems he's very wary of letting the PCs succeed. This is a very common mistake, typically made by simply scaling the difficulty of everything to match the capabilities of the characters. Other manifestations include being reluctant to let the PCs simply know things, because it spoils the mystery, and a reluctance to let important NPCs be impressed when the PCs do something cool. It's far better to let the PCs succeed, and succeed well, when they do something well. You're frustrated that your character's abilities, which you've worked hard at, are not being recognised, and are even being swept under the carpet. Presumably you're looking for the game to recognise that your character is very capable, and to allow you to resolve a difficult situation easily using those capabilities. Instead you only get to resolve situations the DM wants to resolve, and everything else is artificially cranked beyond your reach. That's certainly a problem, and might be best solved by the DM realising that his job is to lose, and it's ok to lose hard, rather than making every victory a struggle.

On your own side, you've created a character more capable than the rest of the party, and worse still capable in only a few areas, making the game much harder to balance. You should think about toning down your character, make it closer in optimisation to the rest of the party, and certainly consider making it less specialised, if only because your optimisation may be getting the other PCs killed. You might also want to consider how often your character's capabilities get the spotlight, and get recognition from the rest of the group, compared to each of the other players and the DM. (yes, include the DM in this).

You're the one in the situation. so only you can tell what's going on. I've included possibilites that involve you being a saint suffering from a poor DM, and possiblities of you being most of the problem, and everything in between. Just trying to cover the full range. Only you can tell what chimes with your situation, and what doesn't.

Finally, check whether what you want from a game is what everyone else wants from a game. I had one player who spent ages creating complicated plans, and he wanted them to work and unfold in the game without being constantly frustrated. In other words, the game was coming up the plans, and the DMs job was to describe the outcome. He was in group of people who got bored if they were sucessful all the time, and demanded to have things go wrong so they could fix them. In other words, plans were pointless unless they went wrong.* Combining them in the same group ultimately proved impossible. If you want a game where your design proves successful, and the game world reflects that, then you need to check that's what the rest of the group actually want to play.

-----------
You asked whether this was a flaw in 3.5, or in all tabletop games. There is an element of truth in that. The point is that optimised characters do not enjoy more success. If anything, they have a harder time. The DM decides how hard the game will be, and optimised characters generally get the way they are by making choices and trade-offs and acquiring vulnerabilities. A party with an optimised character in it, or even an entire party of optimised characters, is far more likely to get killed and suffer failure. They push the rules in everything they do, and in order to provide at least some modicum of resistance, the universe pushes back. The result of regularly tangling with CR+4 encounters is that when minor things go wrong, PCs die.

If you want to optimise without this effect, then you need to optimise in a different way. You need to aim for a variety of capabilities, rather than getting as good at possible at one or two. Try and build a character that isn't helpless in any situation, and can always contribute. You don't have to contribute all that much, and certainly not as much as anything that's the main focus of another character in the group. You'll save the group just as often as before, but you'll only dominate the situation when other characters have tried and failed to be effective. It's not a playstyle for everyone, but it's one that I've found optimisers enjoy playing in situations where they have to play down to avoid overshadowing the game. It's technically much harder to do than mere optimisation, so you may need to work at it, but it's something to try. You may like it, you may not.

*Story alery
My favourite example of the 'plan that only exists to go wrong' tendency comes from a victorian steampunk game, where the scientist came up with this as a plan:
1) Build Zepplins for US military
2) Arm Zepplins
3) Mount Difference Engines on each Zepplin, to control flight and weapons
4) Train Difference Engines to exterminate people and protect themselves
5) Network the Zepplins together. This is a network in the sky, so call it 'SkyNet'
6) Rent out Central Command Zepplin as a platform for dangerous lightning based experiments. This will involve the difference engines being repeatedly struck by lightning. My character will go on holiday while this happening, as she clearly won't be needed.

Gamer Girl

2012-08-12, 09:25 PM

What concerns me is the fact that even though these two DMs have been worlds different, they both resort to the same metagamed way of countering the players. Experienced or not, imaginative or not, it seems inevitable I briefly played under a DM with even more experience than my first DM (before schedule issues put the game on haitus), but even he demonstrated a tendency to do the same thing. Even I found myself doing it. Perhaps it really is bad luck, but its starting to seem like a universal thing that DMs do. They are not aware of just how much information they only have by virtue of being the DM, and they forget this when they determine NPC actions. For example, I'm almost positive that the BBEG of my current campaign is not aware that I have the Darkstalker feat or that even that I don't rely on invisibility to be unseen, but I'm also fairly certain that he won't even try to detect me using blindsight or true sight and will instead turn straight to divination magic like arcane eye because the DM knows that it would be the only one to work, even if the BBEG does not.

This is true. After all, as a DM I go to extremes to make sure my players can't do this for their characters. It's easy when you know all the information to 'amazingly' come up with the answer. Like when a ice wizard character suddenly 'just uses' acid attack spells on a skeleton and not their super cool cold spells.

Though a DM can do a lot of this stuff 'off game', unlike the players that are 'on game' all the time. Like in your example the BBEG could take one whole minute to use true seeing and see that it does not work on you and then move away. And he can do it from 100 feet away, and does not need to walk right up to you and say ''Haha I will not look at you with the spell True Seeing!''. And it's not 'that big' of a leap to go for the more reliable things anyway.

And foes do need to be 'a bit' smarter then the heroes to make a story interesting. Otherwise the foes have no chance, and the story can be very boring.

Lonely Tylenol

2012-08-13, 01:27 AM

If your encounters seem like they are full of direct counters, then I'm sorry, but your DM is probably countering you--which may be a DM-specific issue, and may also have to do in part with your level of optimization relative to the rest of the party. I'll give you an example, from a DM's perspective (my E6 game):

I have a player in my game who is optimized to do as much damage as humanly possible, to as many things as humanly possible. At present, he is a Kineticist Psion 5 (though he may be at 6 with the experience gained from last night's adventure; I haven't calculated it all yet) with feats designed to optimize Energy Missile use. In the last two weeks of adventuring, they have been in an adventure that had six total combat encounters, designed both for versatility and game flow. (He was absent for the first week, which had the first two encounters in it; he was present for the second week, and the last four encounters, but I'll give an overview of all six and how each would affect this player.)

The adventure hook: The party's travels through the forest are interrupted suddenly by the sound of rustling in the forest, followed by an unearthly, terrifying scream. The party happens upon a grove within the forest, where they find a towering mass of writhing beings that seems to be amalgamating above what appears to be a dead horse. The thing doesn't initially attack the party, but it emits an ear-splitting scream that rocks most of the party members to their very core, and after realizing that the thing appears to be a mass of mandragora (PF, "Immense Mandragora" with stripped-down abilities), and possibly responsible for the death of the creature, they realized that it was likely a threat to the forest around them and elected to kill it.

After the mandragora dies, the party investigates the horse was actually a unicorn, whose horn had been cut and its stomach split open. While investigating, the party finds themselves surrounded by Dryads and Treants, arrows trained on them, who are asking them what they have done to the Unicorn, which is a sacred beast. (The Mandragora swarm was cut down and most fled, and the ones that died outright had dissolved into ichor and sort of melted back into the ground.) Their negotiations with the Dryad are interrupted by a Cervidal (an NPC who they had rescued from a poaching ring several sessions before), who comes to the defense of the PCs, saying that he knows what the real culprit is: the screams that had alerted them all to come here had been occurring in his section of the forest, from a cave to the south.

The encounters:
Encounter 1: Immense Mandragora (CR12) - The collection of mandragora itself was meant to be a sort of boss in and of itself. I had used the physical stats and attacks of the immense mandragora, but took away its poison and used the shriek of the lesser form of mandragora (which is a single mandragora), hence the CR reduction. As a result, it was a single creature with 232 hit points and plant immunities, etc. Were he there, he would be able to use his Energy Missile on it normally, but since it cannot direct all of its missiles at the same target, he would basically be using his Energy Missile to do single-target damage. By contrast, the Shadowcaster (who could slow the creature with darkness) and the swift hunter Scout (who had Favored Enemy: Plant) might fare better. Sure enough, the Scout--who confirmed two criticals after using his Chronocharm with Rapid Shot--made the encounter less of a potential TPK (if managed poorly) by doing over 100 damage to the thing in one round. Lesson: Some encounters favor single-target over multi-target and multi-target over single-target by design. Diversify - not every encounter needs to have hordes of one-hittable mooks, nor does every fight need to have single behemoths (but this one did).

Encounter 2: Spiders (CR 8) - When they reach the cave, they find that the screams they had heard from the Mandragora are, in fact, emanating from the cave - and, shortly after, they hear the sounds of millions of legs (of various sizes, some rather large, which make the noises more pronounced) skittering from the mouth of the cave. Shortly after, thousands upon thousands of spiders begin pouring from the mouth of the cave, some smaller than one's thumbnail, others larger than themselves, and very few larger than one's house. After firing and attacking at the spiders for a brief time, a few of the party members (lower in the initiative) decide to simply step aside and let the spiders pour out of the cave - and the rest of the party decides to follow suit. The spiders simply pour out of the cave, spreading out in all directions, scurrying up trees and down the hills, and while some spiders mistakenly crawl up some of the party members, for the most part they ignore them. The Psion could have used his Energy Missile very effectively in this encounter, by picking off some of the largest spiders entirely - but it would have been a considerable expenditure of resources for him to clear out all the biggest spiders (as it would have been for any member of the party). This one wasn't designed to be fought, and to be difficult (but not nearly unbeatable) if they did fight it. Lesson: Not every battle needs to be fought (and sometimes, it's not necessarily better to do so). That doesn't mean the fight should be unwinnable if they do decide to fight--sometimes, it can even be very easy--but sometimes, the easiest way to win a fight is not to fight.

Encounter 3: Dark Folk (CR 6) - After entering the caves, they find them absolutely covered in webs (probably from the hordes of spiders that just fled the cave). Eventually, they come across a massive cavern deeper within the cave, which is carpeted, walled and otherwise covered in webs (including the stalactites and stalagmites). As they are investigating (searching the walls around them), three Dark Folk (PF, two are the CR2 versions, one is the CR4) descend from the ceiling (which they weren't searching) and drop down on three of the PCs (three of the ones up front, nearest the center of the cavernous room). The Energy Missile Psion could easily shoot all three of them, but because I didn't know how the grappling rules worked with non-attack roll spells (blech), and hadn't even thought about how the two would interact before the actual fight occurred, I had him roll to see which of the party members he hit. He protested, saying that no attack roll means it always hits (whereas I thought that some sort of concealment effect would occur) and we talked it out (and I asked in the Q&A in-session), but to keep the game flowing at a reasonable pace I made a compromise: a 20% chance on each target to hit the person they were grappling instead. He agreed to the roll and accidentally hit one member of the party, who shrugged off the damage (he just so happened to be the durable one with the high Fort save), and the other two were obliterated. They then captured the third, who couldn't put up much of a fight. I later looked up the Q&A and found out that I was wrong. Lesson: DMs make mistakes. He should have been able to more or less wipe out the encounter without a sweat (and sort of did anyway), by design. My bad. This encounter was meant to mainly benefit the more durable types, who could survive a one-on-one fight, and don't mind being outmaneuvered (the Dark Folk were fluffed as being able to walk along the webs very easily, due to generations of conditioning), and be more difficult for the mobile types (who were ill-suited to walking along webs).

Encounter 4: The Damsel in Distress (CR 6) - Further along the way, the party begins to hear screams which don't sound at all like the Mandragora's shrieking, but instead like vaguely humanoid screams. They make haste down the tunnels, chasing the echoes of the screams, until two of them (one was naturally faster, and the other had cast Expeditious Retreat on himself) happen across a gorgeous young woman running in their direction, crying, virtually inconsolable--and throws herself into the arms of one of the PCs, crying about how she was captured and taken down here by "the dark ones". After the PC she throws herself into the arms of tries to console her, she kisses him hard on the lips--and he really, really wants to help her (Will DC21 negates). Some of the party is suspicious of her--why is she here, anyway?--but they agree to take her along. The Energy Missile Psion doesn't have a social focus - the people that do (the Bard and Warblade) were better served here. Lesson: Not every encounter is a combat encounter. If you're exclusively combat-focused, you're not going to be useful all the time. (Actually, most of his powers are utility powers--but they also don't see a lot of use, because he saves his PP for the nova.)

Encounter 5: The Sister (CR 8) - Continuing down deeper into the cave, they come across a group of drow, including a recurring villain (the evil stepsister of one of the PCs) who was chasing the woman down. They briefly talk, but once the two sisters see her, negotiations fail entirely; they're out for blood. This one is a special rule: I use psionic-magic transparency for the way that spell effects and other like things interact (for example, Dispel Magic dispels psionic effects, and vice-versa), because the lack of reference to non-core material in other non-core books (such as the lack of creatures with power resistance in almost any book that isn't XPH or CP) is a bug, not a feature. This was discussed with the Psion player upon his character selection. The first round of combat, he tries to go nova on the four drow--and fails to pass the spell resistance checks of three of them (but cleanly kills the fourth). The spell resistance was a counter, not just to him, but to magic-users in general; the villain, who was a DEX-based whip-fighter (with the Chthonic Serpent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=131567) and Shadow Hand styles), punished melee by combining boosts and strikes. It was meant to just be a generally tough encounter for all types. Lesson: Some encounters are difficult for everyone by design. They may include soft counters (or even hard counters) to some people, but usually not to the exclusion of others - this doesn't necessarily need to mean metagaming by the DM, and can just mean a generally well-built character.

Encounter 6: The Boss (CR 6) - They come across the Big Bad of this mini-arc, a Shadowcaster who, they come to find, has stolen machinery (Automatons, who are brought to life through shadow magic) from the nation they are working for (something that they actually let happen early in the campaign), and using the Automatons to cultivate an army of Mandragora deep underground, so that they could harvest their ichor to scry on the world above (and also to have an army of Mandragora). As a Drow Shadowcaster 6 with the Shade, Shadow Creature and Dark Creature templates, she had both SR 17 and Cold Resistance 11--but the Energy Missile Psion didn't fight her, because the Shadowcaster, Shadow Hand Swordsage, and Magus (who was half-Drow) fought her alone, while the Psion and the rest of the party fought...

Encounter 7: The Minions (CR 7) - The Shadowcaster villain beckoned for the above three PCs to fight her in her own lair (a pocket of the Shadow Plane that she had created for herself), and she spit out two of the Automatons that she had modified with her shadow powers, and two Displacer Beasts that she had grown within the Shadow Plane - all augmented with the Shadow Creature template from Lords of Madness. All four of them had Cold Resistance--which didn't stop him from killing, outright, the two Automatons in the first round, who failed their saves (but allowed the two Displacer Beasts to shrug off the damage almost entirely, since they succeeded their saves). The next round, he switched from cold to fire (which Energy Missile allows him to do) and resumed as normal. Lesson: A counter need not be absolute. He had feats that specifically let him do more damage with cold-based powers, but he had the option of adapting--which he did--and he persevered, because he did. There was no flat negation of his abilities, so much as there was the necessity to adapt.

This was a string of encounters that happened to have seven encounters, four of which had some form of counter to his specific niche (be they single large enemies, cold resistance, SR, and so on) and two of which just weren't played out as combat encounters (though they both could have), and just because you're a hammer doesn't mean that the whole world's a nail.

Does this happen all the time? Of course not - in fact, the very last adventure before that, they happened upon a tavern absolutely teeming with soldiers from an opposing nation (the advance force of an aggressive push deep into their nation's territory), literally full to the brim of low-level soldier-types... And you can guess who slaughtered most of them, wholesale.

I'm not saying I'm a fantastic DM, by any stretch, but I do believe that this is what a typical session or two at a table will look like, if done right enough, even as the cards are falling against you (as they happened to do for this Psion player most of the time in this session). All good adventures, by design, will have diverse encounters--which, by design, will benefit some players and hurt others. These should not be the same players, all the time.

Morph Bark

2012-08-13, 09:03 AM

It's nigh impossible to play a good game in a as-perfectly-possible-made world, no matter if there are equal amounts of level 20s as level 1s or each level higher has half the amount of creatures filling it as the level previous.

If the DM didn't use primarily encounters of a CR equal to the party level and instead took a grab from the levels instead, then yes, things would get easier as you went on. However, you would be just as likely to encounter a level 16 enemy at level 16 as you are at level 3. You would seriously have to avoid combat for nearly your entire career until you had access to some of your most powerful abilities and best tricks and could afford a raise dead now and then.

However, a high-level character often being countered, even in areas that aren't their expertise (but in which they do have very much above-average modifiers), that is a DM-specific problem, although it is one of the more common DM-specific problems.

Tyndmyr

2012-08-13, 09:07 AM

My issue is essentially a problem of level scaling. In every campaign I've been in that's lasted long enough to get anywhere, it starts to feel as thought the world is metagaming against the party. If the party or a member of the party is optimized or uses any sort of specific tactic, it becomes ever-increasingly likely that the DM will design encounters specifically to counter them, and it doesn't stop after the first time it happens.

This is a common DM problem.

Realistically, the game should change as you level. You gain new things, enemies have new things, it all works out. The power level is higher, but not in ways that result in stagnation. For instance, aerial combat is more likely at higher levels.

It's just lazy DMing, really. Just shutting down players without explanation so nothing ever really changes? Boring, and lame.

Psyren

2012-08-13, 09:29 AM

To show sympathy for the devil DM, I will point out that one-trick ponies are notoriously hard to DM for. Every encounter devolves into either letting their trick work (and battle thus becoming paint-by-numbers predictable), or specifically countering it (which is both contrived and results in the character feeling useless.) It's the same problem with chargers that Saph pointed out in another thread.

Casters, game-breaking potential aside, are actually easier to DM for in this regard. Yes, they can handle everything, but have to pull different tools out of the toolbox to do it. The game is kept varied and fun for both sides, because nothing gets stale - the DM can use a drow hunting party one day, mind flayers the next, a couple of sentry golems the third etc., focusing on narrative instead of building encounters brick by brick.

Thankfully, D&D is a team game, so you can usually solve this by mixing things up. In each encounter, include some enemies that will succumb to the pony's trick, and some that won't. The OTP will naturally gravitate to those targets that are vulnerable, leaving the more versatile characters to either handle the remaining enemies themselves, or make them also be vulnerable to the trick, thus involving everyone.

Knaight

2012-08-13, 12:31 PM

RFLS

2012-08-13, 02:02 PM

To show sympathy for the devil DM, I will point out that one-trick ponies are notoriously hard to DM for. Every encounter devolves into either letting their trick work (and battle thus becoming paint-by-numbers predictable), or specifically countering it (which is both contrived and results in the character feeling useless.) It's the same problem with chargers that Saph pointed out in another thread.

Casters, game-breaking potential aside, are actually easier to DM for in this regard. Yes, they can handle everything, but have to pull different tools out of the toolbox to do it. The game is kept varied and fun for both sides, because nothing gets stale - the DM can use a drow hunting party one day, mind flayers the next, a couple of sentry golems the third etc., focusing on narrative instead of building encounters brick by brick.

Man, makes you wish there were, I dunno, a book that gave melee characters access to a fun set of tricks. Maybe it'd be so big it'd be a Tome...a Tome of...Warfare?

(I'm not making fun of you. Just WotC for not caring about their melee)

On topic, I would say there are two possible sources of this problem, both of which have been adressed.

1) You're over-optimized. Easy to fix.

2) Your DM's a...uhm..."mule." This is not so easy to fix

Either way, both of those problems have been covered here. I would suggest talking to your DM about it. If he doesn't realize he's doing it, then there's not much that can be done. After that, I would suggest branching out a little. One-trick ponies are a pain to DM for, as Psyren pointed out. Maybe at some CC abilities to your shadowcaster. Your Master Thrower could have started picking up some arcane utility on the side. (I'm not lumping this on you, but these are ways to deal with bad DMing

BRC

2012-08-13, 02:37 PM

The DM's job is to present a challenge to the Players. the Ideal DM leaves the players thinking they just won every encounter by the skin of their teeth.
and sometimes this means countering the PC's tricks.
Now, the difficulty is that some tricks have only a few ways they can be countered. Lets look at the difference between Greater and Normal invisibility.

Invisibility is powerful, but it's power is limited. Even a Rogue who uses it to get a round of Sneak Attacks only gets one such round before losing their invisibility. The DM can counter this by having enemies capable of surviving that one round. It gives the PC's an advantage, but not an overwhelming one.

Greater Invisibility, if cast on the rogue before battle, can mean round after round of devastating attacks. If this is a standard tactic for the party, the DM has only a few ways they can counter it, ways they will need to keep using over and over.

Really, the DM is ALWAYS metagaming to give you an appropriate challenge. That's why you fight goblins at first level and Elder Dragons at 20th level. This is no different. This is especially problematic if one player far out-optimizes the rest. You mention how the DM would raise the AC of monsters to balance out your high Attack bonus. He's trying to create challenging encounters, which is difficult when you can auto-hit multiple attacks.

Now, the Dm's response here was probably not optimal, and can lead to an Arms Race, where the DM keeps pumping up their monsters and the Players powergame more and more to compensate. In that given situation, a better idea would have been to boost the monsters HP to compensate for the additional damage you are dealing without penalizing the rest of the party or populating the world with telekinetic acrobat-monsters.

My main problem with your post is that you seem to feel that, because you made a stronger character, you deserve to be challenged less. That's not the case.The challenge IS the game. You don't play DnD to win. You play DnD to Play. You play to create stories and imagine epic battles. You play to think up tactics and trust your character's fate to the roll of a dice. If you are playing so that you can reach the end of the adventure quickly, you are playing it Wrong. You should not Optimize so you have an easier time playing. You should Optimize because you enjoy Optimizing. You should not complain when the DM compensates for your character's power, you should relish the challenge, not to make your character stronger, but to play your character smarter.

A lot of people think that an Optimized character is one that can win a battle in a single move. This is not true. Such a character is little more than a headache for the DM and player alike.
a DM does not fear power, they laugh at power. Even Pun Pun can be sucked up by a suddenly appearing dimensional rift and trapped forever in a Negaplane of infinite death. What the DM fears is routine, is every fight going the exact same way.
A Properly optimized character does not win in one move. They are instead prepared to win a hundred different battles in a hundred different ways. They have a thousand tricks to help them win, but no tricks to win the battle for them. They take as much skill to play as they did to make.

demigodus

2012-08-13, 03:04 PM

Greater Invisibility, if cast on the rogue before battle, can mean round after round of devastating attacks. If this is a standard tactic for the party, the DM has only a few ways they can counter it, ways they will need to keep using over and over.

Creatures with a good listen score. Have a caster that has glitter dust (who is, of course, disguised). Creatures that are immune to sneak attack. Have a group of enemies where everyone is immune to one element, and they have one or more blasters that AoE's the area with that element. If they are fighting animals, have creatures with scent, reach, and trip or improved grab.

Only one of these is a direct counter to the PC's tactics. The others are reasonable things to have against a wide variety of tactics, and might explain why the creatures survived so long. Honestly, simply raising the AC, attack score, or HP is a horrible way to deal with PC optimization. It makes things completely uninteresting, and if the DM is going to do it, they need to say so ahead of time.

This is especially problematic if one player far out-optimizes the rest. You mention how the DM would raise the AC of monsters to balance out your high Attack bonus. He's trying to create challenging encounters, which is difficult when you can auto-hit multiple attacks.

Alternatively he could have used things that gave miss chance. Also encounters can be challenging even if he can auto-hit. Monsters have insane grapple scores. AoE crowd control is pure evil. Or just simply get into melee range of the archer...

Now, the Dm's response here was probably not optimal, and can lead to an Arms Race, where the DM keeps pumping up their monsters and the Players powergame more and more to compensate. In that given situation, a better idea would have been to boost the monsters HP to compensate for the additional damage you are dealing without penalizing the rest of the party or populating the world with telekinetic acrobat-monsters.

That, or you look on the srd, and find the cheetah. Which can do a 500ft distance charge. And has trip. Throw on a few class levels to adjust the CR (say, a monk 10 cheetah for a CR 12 creature), and you are good to go. Now the ranged character needs to use tactics to beat the encounter. He still auto-hits, but if he just starts lobbing stones, he is likely going to die.

My main problem with your post is that you seem to feel that, because you made a stronger character, you deserve to be challenged less. That's not the case.The challenge IS the game.

If you consider making the character to be part of the game, then his reasoning makes sense. The game is a challenge that needs to be overcome by building AND playing a character well/smartly. And honestly, if the response to optimizing, say a 10% increase in damage (accounting for more attacks, increased to hit, increased damage per hit, etc.) is to increase the hp, that is declaring that character building is not, in fact, part of the game. Something that would need to be said by the DM before the game starts really...

You don't play DnD to win. You play DnD to Play. You play to create stories and imagine epic battles. You play to think up tactics and trust your character's fate to the roll of a dice. If you are playing so that you can reach the end of the adventure quickly, you are playing it Wrong.

And here, you are just plain wrong. If a party enjoys making powerful characters and blitzing towards the finish line, then when they do so, they are playing right. You don't get to declare how playing the game is fun, and how it isn't fun.

You should not Optimize so you have an easier time playing. You should Optimize because you enjoy Optimizing. You should not complain when the DM compensates for your character's power, you should relish the challenge, not to make your character stronger, but to play your character smarter.

So, if you enjoy optimizing, you should enjoy the fact that the part of the game you enjoy is meaningless? Because you are forced to use tactics? Honestly, your view is far too one sided. Playing a character intelligently is fun. That does not mean that making the character more powerful so that you can smash encounters (IF building the character poorly would have gotten you killed with that tactic) can't be fun either. You are declaring how you enjoy the game as the one absolute way to enjoy the game. I hope you understand why this is problematic?

A lot of people think that an Optimized character is one that can win a battle in a single move. This is not true. Such a character is little more than a headache for the DM and player alike.
a DM does not fear power, they laugh at power. Even Pun Pun can be sucked up by a suddenly appearing dimensional rift and trapped forever in a Negaplane of infinite death. What the DM fears is routine, is every fight going the exact same way.

Simply taking encounters, scratching out the AC/HP and making them bigger results in routine. It results in the players finding the optimal tactic, and spamming that. If you don't want routine, you do that by picking monsters with various abilities, not putting the tank in tank-and-spank.

A Properly optimized character does not win in one move. They are instead prepared to win a hundred different battles in a hundred different ways. They have a thousand tricks to help them win, but no tricks to win the battle for them. They take as much skill to play as they did to make.

That... is called a Tier 1 character. Only they have nearly as much variety (well, unless you get VERY creative with items... at which point, that is the items, not the character...)

SSGoW

2012-08-13, 03:23 PM

@ OP

One of the things I love to do as a DM is build enemies that are strong against certain PCs and weak against others. Basically have them in units to be able to take out another group.

Of course what usually happens is that the PCs always pick the monsters they are weak against to fight... Seriously it is crazy!

Currently in a 4e game the ranged specialist killed the stuff up close and the fighter ran all over the place through difficult terrain to kill the guys hiding in the back... The guys in the back all had high AC low NADs and the guys up close had Low AC and High NADs... The fight against minions laster foooorever hahahha. They loved the actual battle. Other stuff happened) but they felt like they had an epic battle (which err technically they didn't but they laughed when I said they were all minions and the boss would be coming soon...

So my question is... Are you targeting the wrong enemies? Seriously if you can't hurt one enemy then attack another. Also what you are going through may be your DMs way of "throwing the book at you".

Oh and if you have a problem with the encounters then you would hate me... I play my enemies like Tucker's Kobolds or at least Intelligently as possible ;D most of the time.... Traps of buffing (targeting enemy) is fun when the group thinks they are finished.

BRC

2012-08-13, 03:32 PM

If you consider making the character to be part of the game, then his reasoning makes sense. The game is a challenge that needs to be overcome by building AND playing a character well/smartly. And honestly, if the response to optimizing, say a 10% increase in damage (accounting for more attacks, increased to hit, increased damage per hit, etc.) is to increase the hp, that is declaring that character building is not, in fact, part of the game. Something that would need to be said by the DM before the game starts really...
This is why I referred to a properly optimized character being one with versatility rather than outright power.
As I see it, the DM's job is to challenge the Party regardless of their build. The reason I dislike viewing optimization as a straight "Making your character as powerful as possible" is because, in my mind, the proper DM response to that is simply to scale things up to ensure the PC's are challenged. A character with lots of options and high utility is better because it opens up new options, rather than just doing the same options better.

And here, you are just plain wrong. If a party enjoys making powerful characters and blitzing towards the finish line, then when they do so, they are playing right. You don't get to declare how playing the game is fun, and how it isn't fun.

If that is what the Party wants, then that's what the DM should give the party. However, I have yet to encounter a group that, after a session, said "Alright, we made our characters so powerful that we demolished that adventure! Go us! Let's get another, equally easy adventure next week!". In my experience, most groups would rather be challenged.

So, if you enjoy optimizing, you should enjoy the fact that the part of the game you enjoy is meaningless? Because you are forced to use tactics? Honestly, your view is far too one sided. Playing a character intelligently is fun. That does not mean that making the character more powerful so that you can smash encounters (IF building the character poorly would have gotten you killed with that tactic) can't be fun either. You are declaring how you enjoy the game as the one absolute way to enjoy the game. I hope you understand why this is problematic?

Simply taking encounters, scratching out the AC/HP and making them bigger results in routine. It results in the players finding the optimal tactic, and spamming that. If you don't want routine, you do that by picking monsters with various abilities, not putting the tank in tank-and-spank.

I split these up, but I think I should probably just respond to them together.

What I'm envisioning is a philosophy of character building that lets both the Player and the DM have the most fun.

The Goal of the DM is to make sure everybody has fun. In my experience, players have more fun when challenged than they do when they are just powering through the encounters. If your party just wants to step on enemies, you should give them that.

A "Power First" stance on Optimization is therefore a bad idea. Since the DM is going to try to challenge you regardless, building for straight power means the DM must either inflate the difficulty, or use counters. In the first case, all you have done is made the numbers bigger. In the second case, the DM is limited by the need to counter your tricks, and you are upset that the DM has countered your tricks. This is especially troublesome if you are over-optimized compared to the rest of your party, which means the inflated challenge makes them less useful (This is why I suggested inflating HP over AC, since you beat AC as an individual, but HP as a party).
I'm not saying ALL optimization is bad, I'm saying that "Power First" Optimization is less likely to carry over to fun in the main game, since the DM is probably going to inflate the challenge anyway. If you enjoy optimizing, it is therefore a better idea to focus your talents on creating a highly Versatile character, or on taking a sub-par build or tactic and optimizing it up to the same level as more traditional abilities.

I consider Character building and Gameplay as two different parts of the experience.
Power- First optimization is only fun in Character Building. In Gameplay it either means inflated challenge, or you just walk over the enemies, which gets old very fast.

Versatile Optimization, or "Challenge" Optimization (Taking a sub-optimal class, tactic, or trick and bringing it to the same level as the classic powerful builds) is fun while building characters (It poses a similar challenge as simply going "Power First") AND it carries over to actual gameplay far better, since the DM has less reason to scale things up to counter you.
If the only result of your Optimization is that you deal twice as much damage, the DM is going to have you fight things with twice as much health.

Mind you, this is me assuming several things.

1: The DM is going to try to challenge you regardless of your build (I think they should)
2: This is for a Campaign that the DM is making for your party, not a standard module or something the DM has made beforehand.
3: That you enjoy a Challenging game more than an easy one.
If some combination of these are not true, then my views are irrelevant.

Wyntonian

2012-08-13, 03:41 PM

Well, you see, every girl I've ever dated has been somewhat insane, in one way or another. Therefore, the whole "Girlfriend" premise is flawed, and I should be celibate.

Or, y'know, I could date a young lady who's only crazy in good ways?

Tyndmyr

2012-08-13, 03:58 PM

Knaight

2012-08-13, 04:00 PM

Conclusion: Everyone is crazy. Everyone.

This would be where we get into the flawed premise of crazy.

BRC

2012-08-13, 04:01 PM

This would be where we get into the flawed premise of crazy.

Everybody is Crazy. But I know I am Crazy. And that makes me the only sane one here!

GenghisDon

2012-08-13, 05:46 PM

Some great posts here guys, nicely done.

demigodus

2012-08-13, 07:41 PM

What I'm envisioning is a philosophy of character building that lets both the Player and the DM have the most fun.

I'm pretty sure most of us are. The problem is disagreements over how to get to the goal, rather then the goal itself.

This is why I referred to a properly optimized character being one with versatility rather than outright power.
As I see it, the DM's job is to challenge the Party regardless of their build. The reason I dislike viewing optimization as a straight "Making your character as powerful as possible" is because, in my mind, the proper DM response to that is simply to scale things up to ensure the PC's are challenged. A character with lots of options and high utility is better because it opens up new options, rather than just doing the same options better.

In my view, if you are going to try to properly challenge the party no matter what, you should throw tougher situations at the party, not just scale up the numbers of the same creatures. For example, if your players are powerful enough to take on an entire army, and pull together a victory, don't throw at them a group of 12 poorly armed bandits that are raiding a village, but have their stats boosted up into the high heavens. Make the party fight a dragon ridden by a Sorcerer with the support of some melee monstrosity riding a flying bear (that turns out to be a druid). And have the party defend an entire kingdom from it. If the characters are badass, throw badass challenges at them.

If that is what the Party wants, then that's what the DM should give the party. However, I have yet to encounter a group that, after a session, said "Alright, we made our characters so powerful that we demolished that adventure! Go us! Let's get another, equally easy adventure next week!". In my experience, most groups would rather be challenged.

In my experience, if the DM generally sticks to creatures being by the monster manual or some such, the parties will go and find a tough enough challenge. However, they will feel like badasses, because they earned a really awesome victory. Generally by planning ahead, so that they are actually winning against challenges above their abilities. The same feeling of excitement doesn't come from a less epic fight that got scaled to the same difficulty via number fudging.

The Goal of the DM is to make sure everybody has fun. In my experience, players have more fun when challenged than they do when they are just powering through the encounters. If your party just wants to step on enemies, you should give them that.

Or you could let the party choose. If creatures are mostly at the level presented in the monster manual/srd/splat books, and you present a few potential problems they can go and solve, they can choose their own medicine/poison.

Although, as I'm writing this, I get the feeling this argument is utterly pointless. The ideal solution is to have the DM ask the party before the game ever starts, about their preferences in this regard. And then maybe ask for advice on how to present the types of challenges the players prefer.

Rather then us comparing our personal theories, while being vague so we don't

A "Power First" stance on Optimization is therefore a bad idea. Since the DM is going to try to challenge you regardless, building for straight power means the DM must either inflate the difficulty, or use counters. In the first case, all you have done is made the numbers bigger. In the second case, the DM is limited by the need to counter your tricks, and you are upset that the DM has countered your tricks.

Depends on the counters. If the counters are something you can, say, scout out ahead of time, and mostly work around, that right there is a new and interesting challenge. Power First becomes a problem when you do what someone else's primary role is, but do it a lot better. That, or when your DM doesn't have much skill in putting together tactical combat encounters.

This is especially troublesome if you are over-optimized compared to the rest of your party, which means the inflated challenge makes them less useful (This is why I suggested inflating HP over AC, since you beat AC as an individual, but HP as a party).

I agree that out-optimizing your party is a bad idea. That is why when I DM, the main restriction I have on optimization, is that no one is allowed to be too much more or less powerful then the rest of the party.

3: That you enjoy a Challenging game more than an easy one.
If some combination of these are not true, then my views are irrelevant.

Going to skip most of your post, since at this point we are repeating ourselves, and just respond to this one.

I'm getting a feeling, that we just have different attitudes on how a DM is supposed to be challenging a party.

I dislike challenge by simply inflating HP/AC/saves/damage, because it feels like a case of both the players having a hammer, the NPCs having a hammer, and the two smashing each other until one side is down.

I prefer challenges more along the lines of giving the enemies different movement modes (fly/burrow), maybe throw in some things that are incorporeal if AC is a non-issue (but not too many), ability to close quickly if range is an issue (dimension door + combat reflexes possibly with some tripping abilities, cheetah's sprint ability, etc.), making use of the terrain (say, throwing up a wind wall in a way that the party's archer has to move onto a prime ambush spot to attack), etc.

Essentially, tank-and-spank gets tiresome after a while. And whenever a DM simply raises those numbers, it looks like they are trying to challenge the party simply via tank-and-spank.

BRC

2012-08-13, 08:16 PM

When I say "Inflate the challenge" you seem to assume I mean "Use the same monsters with higher numbers". That is one option, but it could also mean using different, more powerful monsters/

GoodbyeSoberDay

2012-08-14, 01:24 AM

This thread reminds me that Person Man's "metagame concerns" comments in his optimization guides are more useful than any particular combo. Kudos to him.

Disclaimer: Put "In my experience," at the beginning of the sentence when necessary.

GMs know the party should be in a position to win necessary fights, but GMs are people. People have varying levels of competitiveness, but few people like to be crushed, at least at something they care about. Not only that, but players like to be challenged. This is why it's generally a bad idea to play a one-trick pony, or any character whose counter is devastating.I played an Incantatrix once in a high powered game, and I tried to shore up every defense possible. Invisibility, layered illusions, blinking, high touch AC, decent saves, immediate action counterspelling, et cetera. This meant that in general, for my character to be touched by a non-TPK, the enemy had to include either a dispelling-focused caster with True Seeing or a meleer with the full Mage Slayer suite + dispelling weapons who also got buffed by a caster. This meant that any time my character did get countered he generally got his buffs stripped for a while (and most of them if the dispeller had a jacked up dispelling caster level). And a caster who's already spent his slots on buffs... has problems.Versatility is king. Specialization yields higher numbers, but because the countering tendency is so natural (though less ham-handed and better-explained than the OP's example), overspecialization just puts potential character resources in the garbage. If you have many very-good tricks, instead of one incredible trick, your DM can counter you in several ways while you still have a way to contribute. Sadly it's very hard to do this outside of magic use... and ToB depending on the optimization level.

Hyde

2012-08-14, 02:10 AM

The answer to your problem is "GMs are people."

People are flawed. it happens. The GM's job is to make sure everyone is having fun within the context of the game, and it's easy to lose sight of that if you tend to view every PC roflstomp of your minions as "losses"

From your perspective, it sounds like he is trying to "win". Except there isn't a win condition for the GM.

It seems too many people are eager to hold the GM up as this unassailable fortress of virtue- probably because they, themselves, are GMs- if this guy is wrong, then maybe they are, as well.

The solution to your problem is communication. talk to the guy about why he does what he does, see if you can work out his reasoning, and don't take anything he says about your character personally. If things get heated, step away, because that's not what's supposed to happen (this isn't hockey).

As an aside- These kinds of threads aren't very useful, because they're predicated on a false premise. Your situation basically boils down to- "These are my circumstances- people who aren't involved- are my frustrations justified or should I keep my mouth shut?".

Firstly, the person with whom you need to speak is the GM- no one else has nearly enough information (in this case, the other person's perspective) to give you more than an opinion based entirely on anecdotal evidence. Eventually, you'll have to talk to the GM anyway, so they're basically useless, especially if they try to "solve" your problem.

Furthermore, by bringing it up with other people, you're more or less abdicating responsibility for your own frustration- basically "these people said it was okay for me to get angry" (used loosely. I'm not implying you're actually angry or anything), mostly because doing so is unfair to you as a person. You don't require approval to feel frustrated or upset or anything else. In short- don't pass off your feelings as anything else but what they are (I feel frustrated vs. These forum guys said... The first is an expression, the second typically begins an accusation).

Really, this is all going to devolve into a massive "People avoid confrontation because they think it means fighting and everyone is kinda stupid about it" college thesis, so I'm gonna quit while I'm ahead. If anyone actually wants to talk conflict theory and the microsocial rammifications of stratified classes in gaming (The omnipowerful DM vs the ant-like players) then shoot me a PM.

OP: if you've read this far and lost the original tack of this long post, I'll save you the scroll- Talk to your DM about what's bothering you (preferably outside of the table), anything else isn't doing anyone any good, least of all you.

only1doug

2012-08-14, 02:37 AM

And it does make sense for foes to buff up, even if they don't optimize. But the world still has the chance to optimize too. Even though an optimized world does 'reduce' the fun if your optimizing just for the power trip(or for the outright cheat).

My main problem with your post is that you seem to feel that, because you made a stronger character, you deserve to be challenged less.

My problem with your post is that you seem to feel that the OP wants to be challanged less, when what he is complaining about is that every enemy is carrying Kryptonite.

The OP never said he didn't want a challange, what he said was that not every enemy should be immune to his main schtick when they have no reason to prepare against him.
There are other ways to balance against optimisation that to completely negate the ability.

Would you think it reasonable if you created a low level wizard who was designed around casting magic missile and every enemy you encountered cast shield or nightshield before fighting you. (Why would everyone in the world cast shield on themselves just before a fight? Why does this only happen in worlds where the PC's schtick is casting magic missile?)

Endarire

2012-08-14, 02:49 AM

I have my own moment of "shoulda planned ahead as a GM."

In 3.5, the group (level 3 or so) was exploring a tower run by a Thief's Guild. There were lots of Illusions. They had 10 minutes to find a certain object and leave. I figured they'd need most the time.

One detect magic later, and they were quick to sweep the tower and get what they needed. I, as GM, let them have their victory and planned better for next time. After all, the Guild wouldn't want their security so easily bypassed every time.

Also, in the tower was a hidden cache of coins the PCs were somewhat meant to find. They never did. (The location was too obscure, even for an Elf Rogue.)

So what's the best way to combat 'over optimization?' Seemingly, having a world that accounts for it. D&D 3.5 is a game about magic. (There's killing stuff and looting stuff, but you're using magic to go after magic goodies.) Also, since this is a game, players and characters will provide solutions you didn't consider, but which should work. Allow them.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-14, 04:03 AM

Some quick general responses to clear up some confusion:

To those of you who are telling me to talk to my DM. I have, and I do frequently. I'm essentially his biggest critic. I brought him into DND, and I often give him feedback on his games, both about what I like and what I think he can improve (and he chooses whether or not he thinks my criticism is valid. He definitely has his own perspective). You can bet that I discussed this issue with him almost immediately after the session where I felt it the hardest ended. We're good friends that are capable of having an argument without having a fight. I showed him the OP, because often the best way for me to get my thoughts out is to write them down. It's just one of those cases where he has decided to take my criticism with a grain of salt, for better or worse.

To those of you who are telling me to use challenge optimization and versatility optimization: I do. I'm often referred to as "batman" at the table for a reason, and it's not because I'm playing a stealthy character. I disarm traps, I can send Congress of Shadows to keep the party together and informed, I can set up battlefield control with Carpet/Curtain of Shadows and my Kusari-Gama, and I've upped my Bull Rush and Tripping for use with Umbral Fist. I can pretty much always find a way to be useful. We hit a lot of encounters against undead, due to the fact that the current BBEG is a Dead Necromancer/Ur-Priest, but even without my sneak attack and Insightful Strike (which provides 3/4 of my damage) I can still be useful. In one particular defense-based encounter, I resorted to simply Bull-Rushing Morhgs off of cliffs, and got three of them in that way. And as far as challenge optimization goes... Well let's just say Shadowcasters and the Stealth mechanic in general aren't usually considered tier 1, and I honestly expected the Master Thrower to not be quite so powerful. If you still aren't convinced, my next character is probably going to be an Incandescent Champion.

The examples I posted in my original post are just that: examples. They aren't meant to be the crux of this discussion. I'm not looking for a justification for my frustration, I'm trying to keep my faith in the idea of table-top gaming as a whole.

What I'm getting at is this: As a player I am very on point. But I've noticed to an extraordinary degree that the DM's tendency to be on point as well varies greatly in relation to the player he's dealing with. Many, many, many times, I've watched another player be wreckless and foolhardy, but the DM will not punish him due to that player's tendency to be naturally wreckless and foolhardy (even if he isn't new to the game). On the other hand, if a very careful, prepared player were to slip up or let his guard down, he tends to get slammed.

I'm guiding the discussion away from the idea of optimization at this point, because it's not really the core of what this is about. I'm talking about the tendency of a DM to not place traps in a room until a player decides to search for them. I'm talking about points and times where a DM will "settle for less" and he'll let the players crash down the front door of a castle just because the players think they can, or conversely, those times when the DM digs in his heels and gives plot-armor to that castle door so that even when the players prepare their assault well and have a plan, they still fail. I'm talking about those moments where the DM is embarrassed because of how easily his encounter was resolved, even when it's perfectly realistic and honestly refreshing that one or two encounters along the way don't almost kill us. It's about the tendency of the world to adjust itself up or down in proportion to the level of awareness a player has. I've noticed a general trend that DMs are more likely to trap a player because he is smart. Again, I ask you to please look beyond questions of "if you're DM is doing that he must be a jerk", because I feel I can say with certainty that any person in the role of DM acts this way to at least some extent.

When I put it this way, it seems to boil down to a universal human quality: Laziness. DMing seems to be a job that requires the willpower of a machine. The will to violate the players expectations, and the humility to see when the players are outside the scope of what he had planned for. A lot of people out there love designing dungeons and writing stories and the like, but no one likes to see it unraveled, and no one likes it when somebody can correctly guess what's going to happen next. It requires a strange sort of subservience to the player's desires, and yet at the same time requires you to be firm with them.

The reason I call DMing a "Flawed Premise" is because when you really step back and look at the job description, you need to be Jesus. Sure, there are lots of DMs out there that are passable, and they produce a likewise passable experience. This unfortunately seems to imply, however, that the game will always be a mediocre experience once the initial charm of the world and your character and game's mechanics has worn off. The only thing to do at that point is the give the game a rest and come back to it in a few months or to suffer through it, and if you do the former you will never finish a campaign. A book can be fantastic from start to finish. So can a video game or a movie, because these are one-sided and static. A DnD campaign? Doesn't seem to be the case.

Don't get me wrong. DnD has been a remarkably unique and fun experience, but it seems to be that the longer I play, the more I realize that something just isn't quite right with the way the game works. It's too relative. I don't want the world to revolve around me. I don't want it to react to the slightest disturbance I make unless I really am that famous. I want it to keep on spinning with or without me, but the very idea of being a player whom god speaks directly to flies in the face of this. Maybe I'm just rambling at this point, but instead of talking about how a DM should behave, or what the game should be like, or how players should optimize, let's think about what is.

Is it even possible to achieve the ideals you all are describing for longer than just a brief glimmer of brilliance?

Togo

2012-08-14, 08:06 AM

Of course it's possible. It just requires a different playstyle to what you're describing. At it's simplest, a DM running a published module is far less likely to mess with it or change things. There are plenty of DMs who write everything down, and then don't change anything, no matter what happens. The result tends to be a bumpier ride than would otherwise be the case, but it is at least you versus an actual challenge, rather than the DM scurrying behind the scenes moving furniture into place just before the PCs get around the corner.

And you can get the same elements in a DM-made game. I'm very strict with NPCs. An NPC will have certain stats, certain abilities, certain motivations and be prone to do certain things. They may have a plan, and that plan will involve doing certain things at certain times. If the PCs don't do anything, the plan doesn't go away. I had a monarch turned into a vampire, and start turning the country to her evil will. The PCs did nothing about it for two years. So she suceeded in taking over the country, and various people died and by the time they woke up to what was going on, it was really far too late to run the adventure scenes I had planned.

It may be that what you're looking for is what I sometimes call 'kickability'. This is where you can kick the gameworld, and it doesn't collapse in a cloud of dust, cardboard and half-justifed loose ends. The world is a particular way, and walls don't become higher, or monsters more fire resistant, just because the PCs walk by. In short the world is not tailored to the PCs existance. It's an independent entity, with independent logic, and exciting things still happen even if the PCs aren't there.

It's more work for the DM of course, but there are a lot of games out there where the gameworld is fixed, not fluid. It's doesn't constantly change in an attempt to outsmart you. Not impossible, or requiring sainthood, just a different style of play.

Of course, it's a style that can react very badly to optimisation, so you may need to play a less capable character if you want to try it. The reason why the DM is changing the world to stop you is still because they feel you need stopping. How are you intending to address that?

Zombimode

2012-08-14, 08:23 AM

Is it even possible to achieve the ideals you all are describing for longer than just a brief glimmer of brilliance?

Yes.

Being a good DM is not easy. It takes certain qualities and knowledge not everbody posses. But, both can be reached by relatively normal people. So while good DM is something like an art, and also something you have to put some thought into it, it is also not something like quantum physics or philosophy of mind which is only understood by a small cycle of highly specialized people.
With experience, a bit of talent and creativity, as well as the willingness to learn and understand the medium, many people can be good DMs.

Also, you seem of the opinion, that a great game can only be achieved with a great DM. This is false, because while the DM has a great responsibility on the entertainment, the players also do. If there are dedicated players on the table, you don't need to have a super-DM to have a great game. You, the player, are also responsible for the game.

From what you have writen in this thread, there seems to be one problem with your line of thinking: You seem to construct principles where you only have anecdotical evidence.

BRC

2012-08-14, 11:02 AM

I'm guiding the discussion away from the idea of optimization at this point, because it's not really the core of what this is about. I'm talking about the tendency of a DM to not place traps in a room until a player decides to search for them. I'm talking about points and times where a DM will "settle for less" and he'll let the players crash down the front door of a castle just because the players think they can, or conversely, those times when the DM digs in his heels and gives plot-armor to that castle door so that even when the players prepare their assault well and have a plan, they still fail. I'm talking about those moments where the DM is embarrassed because of how easily his encounter was resolved, even when it's perfectly realistic and honestly refreshing that one or two encounters along the way don't almost kill us. It's about the tendency of the world to adjust itself up or down in proportion to the level of awareness a player has. I've noticed a general trend that DMs are more likely to trap a player because he is smart. Again, I ask you to please look beyond questions of "if you're DM is doing that he must be a jerk", because I feel I can say with certainty that any person in the role of DM acts this way to at least some extent.

Well, a good DM will do this to some degree no matter what, but they're goal will be to improvise enough to keep things interesting, while still giving the PC's an advantage for good planning.
Picture it in a three-phase system.

Phase 1: The Set up: The DM establishes the scenario.
"There is an old fortress, situated on top of a hill. A band of Hobgoblin Raiders is using it as a base of operations to launch attacks on the nearby countryside. There is a heavy front gate with Archers on the walls. The Hobgoblin's Dire Wolf Mounts live in the courtyard, with the Raiders themselves largely residing in the Keep."

Phase 2: The PC's Response
"The Wizard will use Major Image to create the appearance of a Dragon approaching the Castle from the south. This will distract the archers, and the Raiders should also take their bows to the walls. The Rogue will Spider Climb up the wall, kill the guard in the gatehouse, and open the gate. The Fighter and the Barbarian will charge in and fight the Wolves while the Wizard throws up a Wind Wall to protect them from the Archers. Then the Rogue will use his Salve of Slipperyness on the stairs, so that when the Raiders come down to the courtyard they will slip down the stairs."

Phase 3: The DM's Response, which is the phase you are having trouble with. Usually, the DM changes nothing, but in some cases it is justified to modify things. Sometimes the DM could have something planned that he didn't tell the PC's (For example, that the Raider's Leader is actually a Werewolf). If the PC's plan is too good (especially if only one or two players came up with it) so as to render the encounter trivial, then the DM could change things to let the other party members shine. However, these Improvisations should usually be reasonable outcomes of the situation outlined in step 1, or Information the DM had already planned. Using the example above
Good Idea: When the Illusion of the Dragon appears, some of the Raiders, rather than going to the walls, stay in the courtyard, ready to escort their mounts to safety if the Dragon attacks. When the Fighter and the Barbarian charge in, they are facing a few raiders in addition to the Wolves.
Good Idea: The DM already knew that the Raider's leader was a Druid who goes to the walls, but uses a Call Lightning spell aid the fight in the Courtyard, bypassing the Wind Wall.
Good Idea: After the first raider slips on the stairs, the others run around to a different set of stairs to avoid the Salve of Slipperyness, increasing the time it takes for them to reinforce the courtyard.
Good Idea: One of the Wolves smells the Rogue sneaking into the fortress, one of the Raiders notices this and starts heading towards the Gatehouse.
These ideas are good because they are Complications to the plan, not Counters to the plan. They use existing features of the scenario (The Raiders are led by a Druid with Call Lightning, Dire Wolves have a good sense of smell, the Raiders are concerned with the safety of their mounts) to complicate the PC's plans and make things more interesting.

Here are some Bad Ideas (The type you were describing).
Bad Idea: The Raiders have a Spyglass of True Seeing, they look through it and see that the Dragon is an Illusion.
Bad Idea: The Archers have special Arrows that bypass Wind Walls.
Bad Idea: The Dire Wolves are actually more Raiders in Wolf Costumes.
Bad Idea: The Raiders are all skilled breakdancers. When they encounter the Slippery stairs, rather than tumbling into the courtyard and landing prone, they simply bust a move. The PC's are stunned for one round by this impressive display.

These ideas are bad because they negate the plan, or don't logically follow from the scenario given above. Unless the DM had already planned for a True Seeing Spyglass to be a treasure, randomly introducing one simply to foil the PC's plans is the worst type of arbitrary, petty DMing. Same with the Archers suddenly possessing magical arrows with the very specific ability to bypass Wind Wall spells. Unless this particular band of raiders was planning to attack a village defended by permanent Wind Walls or something, there is no reason for their arrows to have this oddly situational ability.
Breakdancing Hobgoblins are only acceptable if the PC's can then engage them in a Dance Fight.

And it should be noted that the scenario I Described here does not require "Brilliant DMing" as you put it. DM's, as a whole, are not petty creatures. In fact, with the example here, many DM's may not even bother to introduce complications, the plan could go off perfectly, with the Raiders landing in a comical heap at the bottom of the slippery stairs, ready to get smashed by the Barbarian and Fighter while the Archers look on helplessly. And they would be perfectly justified in doing so. I think adding a complication can make things more interesting personally, but in most cases it's not needed, and when you DO add a complication, it should always be a logical outcome of the established scenario.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-14, 11:03 AM

Obligatory example of awesome DM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836)

Hyde

2012-08-14, 07:46 PM

Well then pardon me.

You're not wrong- I very recently had a crisis of faith as a DM on the other side of this subject.

I did the machine thing. I was Jesus. No one had to worry about meta-gaming because there wasn't a trace of the Bestiary in the world- everything was custom-built and balanced and it was glorious, I spent a multitude of hours a week planning things, preparation probably took twice as long as the actual game but I had that kind of free time, so it was all cool. I had genius players that would play their characters, not just their classes, and no one ever took things personally.

Seriously, it was tops.

And then we got two new players. One new to the table, the other new to DnD.

They weren't interested in the grandiose and masterfully crafted world, they didn't care about backstories, roleplaying, or anything else. all they wanted to do was be the invincible heroes that killed the things and got the treasure, and nothing could ever threaten them ever because that wasn't "fair" and they worked "so hard" on their characters (maybe twenty minutes?).

My favorite line was "I didn't know my druid had healing spells".

It killed my enjoyment of the game entirely. Why should I put in all this effort being a great DM when what I heard most often from my players was "I'm sorry, I wasn't paying attention."

I don't want to have to set the kinds of rules to force players to play like they've got two brain cells to rub together, so it was better to just quit.

Now I play a largely invincible (comparitively) Half-Celestial Warforged Paladin. I've contemplating bringing something else to do during DnD while they take their turns.

Great DMs don't exist because the all-too-frequent terrible players sap their will to live. I'm sure if half of my game had been comprised of people like you, I might still be running it.

GenghisDon

2012-08-14, 08:16 PM

This might sound a bit simple...but play with players you like, Hyde.

BITD we all learned fast that good DM's are rare as hen's teeth. Players were & even today, are dime a dozen by comparison.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-15, 02:00 AM

Looking at the problem from a different angle... Since people aren't perfect, perhaps the system can be improved. I feel like the nature of magic in the DnD universe is a pretty big contributor to the problem. A wizard can pretty much be a counter-in-a-can. All he has to do is memorize the right spells. He can also have a different load-out every day.

The system might feel less contrived if both players and DMs alike weren't able to fall back on "This spells says no." in response to whatever it is you're doing. I've heard a lot of people argue that DnD is not meant to be a low-magic type of game, nevertheless it's a tempting solution. One that would restrict one's ability to shut down another character to their choices of feats/classes (a much more significant investment than knowing a certain spell) and their gear, which can also be made more or less common as necessary.

GenghisDon

2012-08-15, 06:03 AM

There was MUCH less of that in earlier versions.

I'm not sure counters are entirely a bad idea, but they probably shouldn't be so good as pro vs evil, death ward, freedom of movement, mass resist elements, true seeing, energy immunity, delay poison, ect.

Hyde

2012-08-15, 11:50 AM

You could try AD&D (aka 1st ed.) They just re-released the rulebooks in new shiny goldish binding.

One of the first lines basically reads "If you've ever picked up a football, the contents of this book will probably be completely indecipherable to you."

They've really come a long way in making the game accessible to anyone.

I'm uncertain that's a good thing.

Knaight

2012-08-15, 12:27 PM

I'm not sure counters are entirely a bad idea, but they probably shouldn't be so good as pro vs evil, death ward, freedom of movement, mass resist elements, true seeing, energy immunity, delay poison, ect.

I'd actually consider delay poison fine - it doesn't remove the poison, just delays it to buy time for someone to treat it. Done well, this is an example of a spell that synchronizes nicely with mundane skills, as it simply gives people time to get to a healer or gives a healer time to administer a treatment.

Of course, 3.x doesn't exactly have a good skill system, so it tends not to work that way, but whatever.

GenghisDon

2012-08-15, 01:26 PM

Good point Knaight, ignore delay poison then.

You could try AD&D (aka 1st ed.) They just re-released the rulebooks in new shiny goldish binding.

One of the first lines basically reads "If you've ever picked up a football, the contents of this book will probably be completely indecipherable to you."

They've really come a long way in making the game accessible to anyone.

I'm uncertain that's a good thing.

If this is towards me, I DO play 1e, and I've no great need for the books (although if I had extra $, most of my surviving copies are in pretty rough shape & I WOULD buy the new ones).

I don't recall anything like your quote, however. I thought they were reprints in full, did they add text/comments?

Suddo

2012-08-15, 02:51 PM

huttj509

2012-08-15, 04:55 PM

This is a flaw, to an extent, of the game. Though through out your character's career probably stopped hanging out with muggles and started delving into dungeons to fight lichs or dragon, or even goes on inter-planar travel to try and kill gods.

Your environment should change as you level otherwise you might as well just play a spreadsheet simulator as you gain followers and have wars.

Edit: After reading some more. Although I do think that the above is true I don't think its as applicable to the OP as I originally thought. You're more annoyed with how the DM has reacts differently to different players and not how he ramps up encounters from RAW. In this case I'll change my point.
I think the DM, and maybe other players, want a different experience than you. They want a story and challenge with a pseudo-risk element (not killing wreck less players as an example). Where you want the world to be and not to change from player to player, and of course story and challenge. The problem is that usually in order to have real risk death is a very real thing and most people don't like their character dying. If you want something challenging then try Fourthcore (http://www.saveversusdeath.com/) its a 4e deadly dungeon delving and its pretty good. They also have some good ideas behind it and they have some decent podcasts.

I'm not sure you comprehend the OP's complaint.

It's not that enemies get harder.

It's closer to the idea of "gosh, every enemy from the elite troops to the lowliest bandit now has the shield spell to stop my magic missiles because I was killing stuff too quickly for the DM's liking."

It's more accurately "You miss." "But I hit AC 37" "You rolled a 4, you miss." "But Bob bit on an AC 23." "you miss."

Strategies having counters? No problem. More difficult enemies? Hey, it's part of the game to fight bigger stuff. Arbitrary stat bumps with no feat/equipment reason, simply to counteract your schtick which you used feats and equipment to do? Not cool. Not even some handwavium artifact or something, just "nope."

If the response to expertise in a particular area (hitting AC, for example) is to arbitrarily raise AC across the board, especially if it's only for the stronger character, let me know so I can go for breadth instead.

Hyde

2012-08-16, 12:32 PM

Good point Knaight, ignore delay poison then.

If this is towards me, I DO play 1e, and I've no great need for the books (although if I had extra $, most of my surviving copies are in pretty rough shape & I WOULD buy the new ones).

I don't recall anything like your quote, however. I thought they were reprints in full, did they add text/comments?

I actually haven't opened the new books, I assume they're faithful reprints.

It's subtle, but it's the way Gygax words the foreward. lemme see if I can find it.

"...The game's major appeal is to those persons with unusually active imagination and superior, active intellect"

the flip-side being "Eh, I didn't really worry about it if the average schmuck has no idea what's going on."

On another note, my favorite line is "Even the most important material can be altered and bent to suit the needs of individual campaigns".

Anyway, I don't remember who I was talking to originally. probably the OP? I dunno.

GenghisDon

2012-08-16, 01:02 PM

fair enough.

"Even the most important material can be altered and bent to suit the needs of individual campaigns" should be a favourite line for every DM.

Lots of gold in the 1e DMG (along with some rules of variable quality & functionality). I'd recomend it to any/all DMs.

Knaight

2012-08-16, 01:10 PM

It's subtle, but it's the way Gygax words the foreward. lemme see if I can find it.

"...The game's major appeal is to those persons with unusually active imagination and superior, active intellect"

the flip-side being "Eh, I didn't really worry about it if the average schmuck has no idea what's going on."
This is much better phrased - among other things, it avoids the false dichotomy of people who have interest in sports and people who might have interest in D&D being two separate groups. I'd still call it misplaced to a large degree - a baseline standard imagination is plenty, and it's not like 1e D&D is difficult, to the point where a substandard intellect is all it really takes to play. Added to that, the line reads as a justification for ineffective communication to a large degree - "if you don't understand this, you aren't smart; it couldn't be that it is a poorly organized mess".

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-16, 01:34 PM

This is much better phrased - among other things, it avoids the false dichotomy of people who have interest in sports and people who might have interest in D&D being two separate groups. I'd still call it misplaced to a large degree - a baseline standard imagination is plenty, and it's not like 1e D&D is difficult, to the point where a substandard intellect is all it really takes to play. Added to that, the line reads as a justification for ineffective communication to a large degree - "if you don't understand this, you aren't smart; it couldn't be that it is a poorly organized mess".

You know, just adding to your statement: I really don't think D&D lost anything by dropping the elitist "we're smarter because we don't play ball" fallacy.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 02:32 PM

Gygax was a visionary, but held some pretty crazy ideas on various issues all the same. (I remember that one Q&A way back where he said Paladins should kill unarmed prisoners. And let's not forget the healthful benefits of orgies!)

Agrippa

2012-08-16, 02:45 PM

If the unarmed prisioner was anything like Adelai Niska (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Adelai_Niska) or his henchman Crow (http://firefly.wikia.com/wiki/Crow) I'd see nothing wrong paladins killing them on sight. Even if they're unarmed.

Zombimode

2012-08-16, 02:46 PM

Added to that, the line reads as a justification for ineffective communication to a large degree - "if you don't understand this, you aren't smart; it couldn't be that it is a poorly organized mess".

Nah, Gygax just had pulled the Hume on that one:

"This argument will appear entirely conclusive to every one that comprehends it"

-- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature

:smallamused:

Knaight

2012-08-16, 02:50 PM

Nah, Gygax just had pulled the Hume on that one:

"This argument will appear entirely conclusive to every one that comprehends it"

-- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature

:smallamused:

Yes, and Hume had all the clarity of Kant, who understood the value of communication and thus published a book to explain what he meant in one of his previous books rather than doubling down and claiming that all failures to communicate were failures to understand.

Medic!

2012-08-16, 02:54 PM

I can recall more than one "Repent or die" paladin running around in our campaigns. One literally never said anything other than "Repent or die!"

GenghisDon

2012-08-16, 03:37 PM

You know, just adding to your statement: I really don't think D&D lost anything by dropping the elitist "we're smarter because we don't play ball" fallacy.

Uh, Guys, Gygax NEVER said anything about sports players...that was the poster here, Hyde.

Gygax was a visionary, but held some pretty crazy ideas on various issues all the same. (I remember that one Q&A way back where he said Paladins should kill unarmed prisoners. And let's not forget the healthful benefits of orgies!)

agreed, but this idea he thought athletes were mentally inferior or whatever simply isn't among his words/writing.

A writer/salesman buttering up his audience/customer? This is supposed to be rare or a bad idea? Come on folks, the actual statement quoted is entirely harmless.

I'm very aware of the man's flaws, so having to defend him like this is odd, but someone has to it seems.

Starbuck_II

2012-08-16, 04:26 PM

Knaight

2012-08-16, 05:31 PM

Uh, Guys, Gygax NEVER said anything about sports players...that was the poster here, Hyde.

We know that, as it was explicitly pointed out that the quoted piece was better because that false dichotomy wasn't in it. That doesn't mean that the other flaws I highlighted weren't there.

GenghisDon

2012-08-16, 08:45 PM

I disagree entirely with your analysis then; Gygax was a bit of a huckster, a salesman, or PR man is what's going on there. Nothing else. One can make a strong case he HAD to be; RPG's had no penetration into the culture at all in those days. NONE.

"Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books
can bestow. Seeing that you were clever enough to buy this volume, and you have enough imagination to desire to become the maker of a fantasy world, you are almost there already!" DMG pg 9

You can find this stuff in his writing...so what?

It's like a car salesman telling you "you've made a wise purchase in this model" and a million other sales, PR & advertising tricks. Elitist, my ass! Accuse Gygax of blowing smoke up your ass if you like, but that's all it was. He hoped everybody in america (or later, the world) bought that book & read that flattery (nobody could steal PDF's of it back then either).

There IS a small truth behind the "elitist" charge BACK THEN. The game was & is far more complex than games people played back then. Snakes & Ladders, Monopoly, Checkers or even card games or chess simply don't require anywhere NEAR the amount of time & effort to learn to play at a basic level (although some of the latter require wits & time to master). There was no video games. RPG's (& D&D as their daddy) were a whole other level (pun):smallbiggrin: compared to most (maybe all) of what came before. Yeah, even today, MANY people simply would never invest the time or effort to play, and (shocker):smalltongue:, many don't actually have enough basic math & reading/comprehension skill or experience to excell at it right off the bat.

sorry to the OP for going so off topic:smallfrown:

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-16, 08:53 PM

GenghisDon, I see your point, but what I was saying (I can't talk for anyone else) is that I don't think D&D lost anything by dropping that. I'm not judging Gygax for doing that (it was a different time), I'm just glad it's not there anymore.

Knaight

2012-08-16, 09:02 PM

It's like a car salesman telling you "you've made a wise purchase in this model" and a million other sales, PR & advertising tricks. Elitist, my ass! Accuse Gygax of blowing smoke up your ass if you like, but that's all it was. He hoped everybody in america (or later, the world) bought that book & read that flattery (nobody could steal PDF's of it back then either).

It's completely obnoxious in salespeople as well, and they generally aren't trying to dodge responsibility for something (in this case, poorly organized rules).

GenghisDon

2012-08-16, 09:13 PM

Well, I'm certainly not going to say your opinions are invalid, or that, in some measure, I don't somewhat agree with you both.

I do wonder, however, if a little more agressive marketing and rule books that weren't completely devoid of personality might not actually be helpful in increasing the pool of new players & DM's.

Amphetryon

2012-08-16, 09:38 PM

Obligatory example of awesome DM (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836)

Can you articulate, other than pointing at the link, why you find it such a shining example of an awesome DM?

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-16, 09:50 PM

Can you articulate, other than pointing at the link, why you find it such a shining example of an awesome DM?
It's a DM that works well with his players, allows them plenty of liberty, challenges them but does not murder them, builds (several) interesting storyline(s) with memorable characters, has a knack for improvisaiton but also plans ahead... I think it's pretty clear for anyone that even skims it.

Amphetryon

2012-08-16, 09:59 PM

It's a DM that works well with his players, allows them plenty of liberty, challenges them but does not murder them, builds (several) interesting storyline(s) with memorable characters, has a knack for improvisaiton but also plans ahead... I think it's pretty clear for anyone that even skims it.

I did more than skim it. Just sayin'.

willpell

2012-08-16, 10:03 PM

I do believe that some of this sort of thing is appropriate, and I justify it in terms of my game's cosmology as well as the psychology of NPCs (a weak opponent doesn't force them to "bring their A game", while something proven dangerous gets met with unrelenting force). But from the OP's examples, it sounds as if the DMs involved are going way overboard. Your character's shtick ought to be successful SOME of the time, or you're right that there isn't much of a point.

Alaris

2012-08-16, 11:59 PM

As a DM, I can speak from experience... it's hard to build truly balanced, and theoretically fun encounters, without bouncing off of what the players have. That gets even more difficult when the PCs start optimizing to hell and back. This was particularly painful in one of my recent sessions (See Aasimar + Polymorph = Cheesy 41 AC), where I found out that a PC could curbstomp my pre-planned encounters without trying.

Yeah...

Creating a balanced, and fun environment for the players is a lot more difficult than they would think. You have to let them use their abilities, but some of them are just so cheesy that you can't let them run rampant.

The current way I work around this is pretty simple all things considered. I do not create all of my campaign at once. It goes on bit by bit, often shaped by the players. NPCs they encounter, especially in combat, will watch them, LEARN from them. That wizard now knows the PCs are capable of this, and will prepare himself for next time. Initial encounters... well, the enemies are stocked as per normal, often have a way of escape (because, with their gold, why wouldn't they?), and WILL study the encounter.

Please do not be too harsh on the DMs or GMs... trust me, with how broken the CR system, and let alone, a lot of the full game systems are... creating a fun campaign for everyone (INCLUDING the DM. Yeah, he's supposed to have fun too) is HELL.

EDIT: As far as planning goes, I do plan out the main plot of my campaign, but I do not plan out every encounter, etc etc. Wanted to clarify.

Knaight

2012-08-17, 12:21 AM

Please do not be too harsh on the DMs or GMs... trust me, with how broken the CR system, and let alone, a lot of the full game systems are... creating a fun campaign for everyone (INCLUDING the DM. Yeah, he's supposed to have fun too) is HELL.

I wouldn't call GMing and creating a fun campaign hell. It's fun, it's enjoyable, and generally speaking I don't even see where all this alleged hard work comes in. That said, the only reason I find GMing fun, without hard work is because I use a system I like - a system you dislike will suck your will to GM out near instantly, as will problem players.

Alaris

2012-08-17, 01:03 AM

I wouldn't call GMing and creating a fun campaign hell. It's fun, it's enjoyable, and generally speaking I don't even see where all this alleged hard work comes in. That said, the only reason I find GMing fun, without hard work is because I use a system I like - a system you dislike will suck your will to GM out near instantly, as will problem players.

Well, depends on the DM and the players. If you're all there to just have fun, don't focus on keeping stuff too balanced, and the players aren't optimizing rules lawyers, the GM's job is significantly easier.

I like 3.5, quite simply, but it has it's major flaws. The CR system, several broken spells are examples (Polymorph for one). I try to focus heavily on balance, because my players focus heavily on the mechanics (but don't get me wrong, they're roleplayers as well), and making stuff that's balanced, without it seeming unfeasible ("Why did the enemy Wizard have JUST THE SPELL to stop me!?") is... difficult IMO.

demigodus

2012-08-17, 01:19 AM

I wouldn't call GMing and creating a fun campaign hell. It's fun, it's enjoyable, and generally speaking I don't even see where all this alleged hard work comes in. That said, the only reason I find GMing fun, without hard work is because I use a system I like - a system you dislike will suck your will to GM out near instantly, as will problem players.

In the case of 3.5, if you are going for balanced encounters, it IS a nightmare without a certain level of system mastery. Once you have a good bit of system mastery (should be at least comparable to the party's best optimizer as well), then the wealth of options granted to you should make creating challenging but fair encounters quite doable. At that point, whether it is a nightmare or great fun comes down to personality and preferences.

SpaceBadger

2012-08-17, 11:00 AM

Interesting thread, wish I had time to read it all but need to get back to work. Sorry if this advice has already been given.

My ideal campaign as either GM or player is a sandbox where stuff happens on lots of levels and the players respond on the level they can handle. Not saying I have perfected this, it is a lot of work to set up, but this is my goal and as GM I try to at least give the players the illusion that the world works this way.

With that sort of world, it isn't metagaming to have players face appropriate challenges, it is more of an Uncle Ben "With great power comes great responsibility" thing.

At low levels, when the PCs run across an orc raiding party that is larger than they can handle, they need to run away to warn someone who can handle it, possibly doing other interesting stuff along the way to hinder the raiders and help innocents escape.

Later on, the party is more capable and maybe should try to deal with the raiders in some way themselves.

Later on, they are more powerful and should step up to handle greater challenges that were just above their paygrade earlier - and if necessary can be prompted to do this by questgivers or others who have become aware of the party as the party becomes well known, and ask them for help.

All of this stuff is going on all the time, but the PCs should be dealing with what they can handle, letting higher level NPCs handle the higher challenges that the PCs aren't ready for yet (not that the PCs sit and watch DMPCs do it all, just have that stuff be in the background usually), and leaving minor stuff that would be "too easy" for lower level NPCs because the PCs are busy with major stuff.

My 2 cp anyway.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-17, 11:56 AM

I did more than skim it. Just sayin'.
I take it you don't think that's an example of good DMing? Would you mind explaining why?

Balor01

2012-08-17, 03:12 PM

eggs

2012-08-17, 03:16 PM

Finding someone to teach my Fighter Jotunbrud sounds... interesting.

demigodus

2012-08-17, 03:25 PM

Heh. I like this thread. I also like to see optimizers scream, rage and quit. And powergamers, rulebenders/breakers and such.

And how do I do that?

First of all, people level up, when told they can. No farming here. Second, there is no "I am by default an Erudite". In order to become one, PC must find an Erudite master if there is one. If there are only warrior, fighter and rogue class in courrent town, tough luck.
Feats. I like an idea that many optimizers have "I take this feat". Sure, dude. No one learned you that feat, so no, you can not take it. Then we have item acessability. Items may be hard to find or manufacture, heck, there may not even be components for building them. Another flabergasted sight from all raging optimizers.

Now, with this written, I can already smell the flaming dungstorm brewing behind the minds of all would-be Batmans here, but I'll just say this:

Best campaign ever, still rememberd by players 5 years after its end was done with commoner classes. Eventually one of them became paladin and another barbarian, but it was pure awesome the whole time. Problems as mentioned in original post, are usually caused by too lenient DMs.

Also, with such approach, things ar no longer mundane. That +1 flaming longbow really becomes an awesome item. Far more then silly wish spamming or I win buttons.

I love it when some people that prefer very low power games insult everyone who plays even slightly at a higher level then they do, then consider "optimizers" to be the social problems. Here is a hint: if you are insulting the majority of the people playing the game, YOUR views are the problem.

I wouldn't mind playing in a game like you described, IF it was run well. I have been in a similar type game before. However, from the attitude I have seen in your post, I would not game with you. Someone who can't respect those with different preferences doesn't belong in society in my opinion.

Morithias

2012-08-17, 03:25 PM

Finding someone to teach my Fighter Jotunbrud sounds... interesting.

It's also a fundamentally flawed concept. Okay buddy, so I need that guy to teach me power attack..who taught him power attack? Okay, what about him? Him? Her? Who taught the first guy power attack, and why can't I do what he did and teach myself it?

Entering prestige I can see, but feats..no..just no..a caster can get off easy without many feats, play a sorcerer and such since by fluff you just "know" it, you don't study, not allowing certain feats cripples martial more than usual.

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-17, 03:31 PM

Finding someone to teach my Fighter Jotunbrud sounds... interesting.

Isn't that a 1st level only feat?

eggs

2012-08-17, 03:35 PM

It's also a fundamentally flawed concept. Okay buddy, so I need that guy to teach me power attack..who taught him power attack? Okay, what about him? Him? Her? Who taught the first guy power attack, and why can't I do what he did and teach myself it?
I'm having trouble with internet intonation. "Interesting" in this case should be pronounced: "like complete horse****."

I'd be fascinated to see how night classes in Risen Martyr or Eidolon work.

EDIT:

Isn't that a 1st level only feat?
Yes, but if the premise is that feats must be taught, I imagine most characters would have a very hard time finding someone to teach them to have giants in their ancestry, even with all the freedom of backstory to play with.

Morithias

2012-08-17, 03:36 PM

Maybe I'm having trouble with internet intonation. "Interesting" in this case should be pronounced: "like complete horse****."

I'd be fascinated to see how night classes in Risen Martyr or Eidolon work.

Sorry. Not good with reading between the lines.

Amphetryon

2012-08-17, 04:25 PM

I take it you don't think that's an example of good DMing? Would you mind explaining why?

All I did was ask for support for the position, aside from the document itself. I made no comment on the strength or validity of the position, though I did infer from your response to my query that you believed anyone who wanted further evidence aside from the document simply couldn't or didn't even skim it with comprehension (an inference I fully acknowledge may have been in error).

All that said, the fact that the DM was - per the journal - apparently caught off-guard by the idea of training the townsfolk is a warning sign to me that the DM wasn't especially well-prepared for a contingency that's a movie staple. The fact that the journal gave this impression may further be a clue that the DM wasn't as good at improvising as some players would expect, if they could spot the issue. Another red flag for me was the battle where the survivor(s) were left with exactly one HP, which has often come up as an indication of fudging, both in on-line discussions and amongst those I've gamed with. The DM could, in fact, be quite skilled, especially since a good time was apparently had by all. I do know from my own experiences and those of others posted here that DMs who have had these particular red flags come up have heard complaints about it, though.

GenghisDon

2012-08-17, 05:14 PM

I don't believe optimizers are the majority of D&D players, not by a long margin.

They might be, online.

Amphetryon

2012-08-17, 05:32 PM

I don't believe optimizers are the majority of D&D players, not by a long margin.

They might be, online.

May I ask to what this is responding?

ThiagoMartell

2012-08-17, 05:33 PM

I don't believe optimizers are the majority of D&D players, not by a long margin.

They might be, online.

This is very, very true. From my experience, most D&D players are very casual.
But if someone comes to a forum to talk about D&D, it's pretty obvious they're not really casual players.

I don't think Amphetryon's point has any bearing on optimization, though. I don't agree with his complaints (metagaming is not always bad and the DM did improvise very well in the situation he mentioned), but that makes little to no difference. He is entitled to his opinion, after all.

GenghisDon

2012-08-17, 05:33 PM

I love it when some people that prefer very low power games insult everyone who plays even slightly at a higher level then they do, then consider "optimizers" to be the social problems. Here is a hint: if you are insulting the majority of the people playing the game, YOUR views are the problem.

I wouldn't mind playing in a game like you described, IF it was run well. I have been in a similar type game before. However, from the attitude I have seen in your post, I would not game with you. Someone who can't respect those with different preferences doesn't belong in society in my opinion.

This post, or rather, the first half.

EDIT too ****ing slow

Menteith

2012-08-17, 05:49 PM

I think that my group plays a little bit higher power than the norm. Most PbP games I join are what I'd consider moderately optimized. Balor is entitled to run the game the way that they'd like; I count myself lucky that I've never DMed for a person who tried to play at a power level above what would be appropriate for the group. I don't enjoy tormenting my players or intentionally provoking conflict within my group, whether as a DM or player. I think what demigodus objected to was Balor saying that he liked to see players scream and quit, rather than dealing with the issue in a reasonable way.

To be honest though, I have no idea what kind of power level could be considered "normal". I game primarily with a single group, and have been getting into PbPs on these forums, and in both instances, the power level is what I'd consider moderate optimization.

demigodus

2012-08-17, 10:16 PM

This post, or rather, the first half.

EDIT too ****ing slow

I put optimizer in quotes because I was referring to how Balor01 defined them (since everyone has different standards for what an "optimizer" is). Which, in this particular case is anyone who plays a game where they can choose their classes and feats without having to have the DM sanction each choice, then for them to go out of their way to find it, and learn it from someone that has it, and does not fawn over the DM every time they get a magic item that does anything.

I'm pretty sure that most people do not play 3.5 like that, though I have no proof.

However, if we use a more reasonable definition for optimizer, then yes, I agree most people are not optimizers. I'm sorry for being unclear in my statement.

GenghisDon

2012-08-18, 07:11 AM

Amphetryon

2012-08-18, 07:22 AM

True, I don't think they play that way...OR the way characters get designed places like, well, here.

The DM really OUGHT be sanctioning every choice, it's part of their damn job. They do waste rediculous amounts of time doing prep in d20, but that's no excuse to slack on more important responsibilities.

It's not WOTC's responsibility to make game balance, ensure feats, spells, races or classes suit a given mileu, ect. It's the DM's.

It is nice if a game designer is helpful in this area, or makes it pretty easy to do (good luck), but that's all.
If this is true, what is a game designer's job, exactly? To preempt a circular response, please don't say "to design [fun] games," as I think that answer is insufficient.

Augmental

2012-08-18, 07:25 AM

True, I don't think they play that way...OR the way characters get designed places like, well, here.

The DM really OUGHT be sanctioning every choice, it's part of their damn job. They do waste rediculous amounts of time doing prep in d20, but that's no excuse to slack on more important responsibilities.

It's not WOTC's responsibility to make game balance, ensure feats, spells, races or classes suit a given mileu, ect. It's the DM's.

It is nice if a game designer is helpful in this area, or makes it pretty easy to do (good luck), but that's all.

Balor01 says that in his game players could only take levels in a class by finding a trainer for said class, and since he decides what class trainers the players find, he could effectively ban classes by not have any trainers for that class. At which point, you may as well ban the class outright.

GenghisDon

2012-08-18, 07:44 AM

I read his post. It's very 1e, in the training reqs. Quite playable BTW. He'd need to account for self training, like 1e did, so as to allow characters to advance when they lack a trainer.

Jotunbrud or whatnot aren't trained feats, hence the L1 req. If a feat is a simular background/racial type feature & lacks the L1 designation, I'd suggest adding it.

If one wants to ban a class, just do so. I'd agree that not banning it, then simply refusing to allow the character to ever advance, is dickish.

How one would implement "training to advance" rules in the d20 system is an interesting question.

Augmental

2012-08-18, 08:08 AM

He'd need to account for self training, like 1e did, so as to allow characters to advance when they lack a trainer.

Second, there is no "I am by default an Erudite". In order to become one, PC must find an Erudite master if there is one. If there are only warrior, fighter and rogue class in courrent town, tough luck.
Feats. I like an idea that many optimizers have "I take this feat". Sure, dude. No one learned you that feat, so no, you can not take it.

It sound to me like he doesn't allow self-training in his games.

Alienist

2012-08-18, 09:04 AM

That's true. My stealth in this campaign is very much an I Win button in the sense that I pretty much always have the option to hide and not be seen. It don't always "win" a fight with it, but I certainly can avoid won or escape one. The fact that it's gestalt meant that I could make stealth amazing without sacrificing everything else, so I did it.

It is much worse than that.

Stealth like that is game breaking.

Not game breaking as in OMGBucketOfDiceForDamage, but game breaking as in you are taking a multi-player game and turning it into a single player game - which is going to be incredibly boring for everyone else.

Yes it is 'sensible' and 'the intelligent thing to do' to always scout every situation instead of just blindly rushing in... but by doing that you are sucking all the fun out of the game for the other players.

GenghisDon

2012-08-18, 11:29 AM

It sound to me like he doesn't allow self-training in his games.

I don't recall endorsing or encouraging his attitude, or even methods, so what does that have to do with me?

He's probably as far off the "correct track" as most lenient, anything goes d20 DM's are, IMHO. Just going the opposite direction.

Come to the middle, ie: balance, people!

irbaboon

2012-08-18, 12:02 PM

i'm sure what i'm gonna say has been said before. there are different types of encounters. there is a place for each type. usually there should be some simple encounters that give a spot for each player to shine or easy encounters. then encounters should be in place for plot advancement in turn i believe every character should still be able to serve there purpose I.E. a scout should still be able to scout. we'll call that the med encounter. then you have the big bad encounter. the one where the dm gets to shine a little. usually that's the reoccurring npc or end encounter for a session. either way a dm's job is to entertain and in some cases almost win a battle or gain a minor victory to advance the plot. most of all its to entertain. if the players aren't having fun the dm is doing it wrong. when i DM i find my players have the most fun when they think they get one over on me. thats fine. i want them to have a good time. sure i can over compensate to make there optimization moot, but wheres the fun for them. what fun is playing a chain tripper if there is nothing to trip, or playing a caster when you constantly encounter AMFs. the fear of the challenge needs to be there some times but not all the time. let the stealthy guy stealth. let the tripper trip. let the caster cast. toss in some close calls, once or twice a session and your players will love you for it. I have no intent of allowing pun pun but a well planed character shouldn't be punished for knowing the game.

A well planned campaign is engineered to complement the players strengths as well as their flaws.

LordotheMorning

2012-08-18, 06:50 PM

It is much worse than that.

Stealth like that is game breaking.

Not game breaking as in OMGBucketOfDiceForDamage, but game breaking as in you are taking a multi-player game and turning it into a single player game - which is going to be incredibly boring for everyone else.

Yes it is 'sensible' and 'the intelligent thing to do' to always scout every situation instead of just blindly rushing in... but by doing that you are sucking all the fun out of the game for the other players.

I'm inclined to agree with you now that I've had some time to play the character. With nondetection, I'm almost quite literally impossible to find. I don't, however, think it leads to necessarily sucking all the fun out of the game for the other players, especially a campaign that is defensively-based as ours is. We had a session last night, during which they certainly seemed to be enjoying themselves as they plowed through a large group of monsters with near about 300 hp. I, of course, helped, but my inability to tank and my comparatively mediocre damage ensured that I could harry the enemies at best, which is exactly what I did, and just enough to feel useful. I certainly didn't shine in that particular encounter, however. I do know, then when it comes time to dungeon crawl, my character will most certainly have his day. As long as the DM doesn't throw infiltration at us and expect to be a challenge, I think it's proven to be managable (at least atthe level of power we're playing at).

@Balor: I have little qualms about the style you describe. The difference, I think you'll find, between someone like me and a power-gamer is that I don't care about being powerful, I simply care about being the best I can be. If the best I can be isn't actually all that powerful, that's just fine. Just know that if you present me with a good option, I will take it if I can justify it. All I want is to make the best out of what I have. It doesn't matter how powerful "the best" actually is.

Balor01

2012-08-20, 04:27 AM

Aaaaad I'm back.

Not the ***storm I expected, nice.

Just to answer selflearning question: Yes, it exists in my games. It is silly to say someone can not become a ranger if he decides to spend all his life in wildlands. (or dedicate really lots of time to it)

I do not really ban any class, so if a player wants some obscure silly broken feat or class, he will be able to find it. In time. And thus be in debt to an old blue dragon.

Its really amazing how eager are people to play when they are not handed everything on a silver plate but must fight for it.

On occasion player wanted to find someone who could each him "Arcane strike". This included dealings and favors for strong spyguilds, bartering with old gold dragon and eventually meeting with an odd monk who sent them on a quest that turned into a main plot of the entire game. Players totally loved it.

Also max spell level in my setting is 5.

Ranting Fool

2012-08-20, 05:37 AM

I used to think my players were high op (well some of them) reading forums I no longer think that:smallbiggrin:

Guys it's a game with the main focus of the game being on "I can create any world I like for my friends to explore and/or save" and the rules are there to help make things easier to define/describe. High op/everyone starts as Commoners is fine as long as both the players and the GM are on the same page. :smallbiggrin: please remember that and avoid insulting others since you never have to play with them :smalltongue:

In regards to "DM must view all feats and won't let you level up unless trained" I kind of do this (And having just shown one of my players this thread he tells me he's always been happy for me to do this for the following reasons)
"Don't want to brake your world"
"Don't want to level a class that makes no sense"
"You can balance the players so one of us doesn't get leadership:smallbiggrin:"

That said I almost always allow everything as I tend towards being rather liberal when D&D is concerned and only really want to know what new tricks the players have so I won't be too shocked when they turn up.

Only really prestige classes do I say you need a trainer, and not even all those just the ones with a very specialized focus that hasn't ever once come up in the campaign. But then my players tell me they at some point want to advance into X before hand so I can make sure it fits into the world somewhere.

But this is mostly because my players and me agree on the core issues (I mean there are tons of minor rules we don't see eye to eye on)

Back to the OP. Doing a little side questing for the Warlock (level 8 or 9) of our group (since he has been away and the other characters have been doing things and he's a few weeks behind in time + 1 or 2 levels) and he can be invisible 24hours a day. Which is great for him and always been very useful but right now he's been helping out some rebels fight their evil overlords and after robbing the "Chief of police" (not the real title but the best job description so you'd understand) and ambushing and killing a patrol of guards with a few commoners witnessing "A guy with shadowy wings which vanishes from sight" the odds of these evil overlord types being able to deal with flying + invisibility grows greatly.
He knows this and I'm sure he'll start to change his tactics if he plans to cause more mayhem (Because he has very good disguise and bluff he can do a lot of tricks the non-magic way) his ability to fly all the time and be invisible all day has proven to be very powerful in avoiding/bypassing/ambushing a lot of encounters so far but the more he uses the same abilities vs one group the more tales of him will spread. (Though he at least has the presence of mind to have a disguise before going off to do anything dangerous:smallbiggrin:

Now the point I'm making is I think it would have been bad for me to have all the guards be ready for invisibility and flying (since those things are relatively rare in this city, though the police chief did have a Phantom Dog guarding his room, he just managed to steal what he wanted and get away while stopping for a bit of petty vandalism on the BBEG painting) for the first few encounters he had but the longer this goes on the better prepared the guards will be... key buildings protected by more magical enchantments and patrols now bringing some hunting dogs along.:smallbiggrin: