How to deal with new DMs?

[Valthonis]

Hello everyone! I've read this forum on and off in my many years of being a D&D player but I finally decided to make an account! Anyways, let me get right to the point.

A friend of mine is a newbie at DMing, but he wants to DM this new campaign of elves at level 15. So it's a high-level and high-power campaign. My question pertains to how the DM is swinging his ban hammer left and right simply because he does not like a certain mechanic or rule. Examples include the ban of any fortification (crit negation) and the ban of the Natural Spell feat. Those are not the only things he has banned, but I don't feel as though it's necessary to list them all.

As a veteran player, I kind of find a lot of these bans to be a little ridiculous. Any suggestions on how to politely inform my DM that he is using the ban hammer too much without risking more use of the ban hammer? Thanks in advance!

PS: I've already tried to suggest replacement rules but they have been denied. Such as only being able to use natural spell out of combat.

[Sylthia]

Have you played with him as a player before, or is he new to D&D? There's not a lot you can do, if he's the one DMing short of not playing while he DMs. Did he tell you about these house-rules beforehand, or does he ban things on the fly?

[NMBLNG]

Also, have you considered playing at MUCH lower level?

[Sylthia]

For new DMs, it can sometimes be nice to do a one-shot campaign, just to get used to the DM chair, and I agree that that high a level to start at can be a bit hard to run for someone who's never DMed before. If he doesn't want to start at level 1, suggest the 4-6 range. You start to feel a bit more powerful and have options, but it isn't overwhelming.

[eggynack]

It's a little hard to assess whether or not you're correct about the degree to which he's swinging the hammer in the first place. Fortification is certainly an odd choice, but natural spell seems reasonable, given how crazy druids are. Do you have any other examples of what he's doing that you feel are representative of overbanning? Ultimately, most solutions to this problem are going to involve conversation of some kind. You might want to consider just playing his way, and seeing how it goes, but if that's not an option, the best way to inform someone of something is to inform them. Just say stuff, preferably when you're the only ones there, and get his side of things. There's not really some all powerful script on most issues, so the best method is just normal friend talk things. If that doesn't work, you can always just not play.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Is he new to 3.5, or just to the GM's chair? Are the bans on-the-spot or (as it sounds like) in advance? And could you give some more examples of what he's banning? I've never heard of Fortification bans, although it's possible he wants to use rogues/ninjas as major enemies, but banning Natural Spell is an entirely reasonable move, so he's maybe 60-40 at the moment.

As for your question... maybe ask him politely about some of the sillier bans you say he's made? But do go easy one him; he is starting GMing on hard mode.

[Valthonis]

I've played a few campaigns with him and he isn't new to D&D. But he certainly doesn't have the knowledge base of a lot of the core books. He prefers open-ended campaigns where it's more story telling than RPing with dice-rolling mixed in. I think it's because he reads too many Forgotten Realms books...

But to answer your second question Rezkeshdadesh, he is banning things during character creation. We've been working on our characters for about a week now to solidify stats/abilities as well as back-stories and the such and someone will mention how they have some resistance/ability/feature that they are going to enjoy having and then he (the DM) pulls out the ban hammer. And then one or more person will have to go back and rework their character. Some more examples include banning all Endure Elements effects (which we convinced him to change his mind about) and not allowing certain multi-classes (to be specific, he would not allow me to multi-class druid/wiz and so instead I am going as a druid/sorc).

In regards to playing lower leveled characters, I suggested that but he said that he wants us to be fighting demons and the such and that he wanted us to have access to higher level spells and abilities...

So as you can see I'm kind of stuck...and I want to give him a chance but at the same time I'm not sure if I want to deal with the excessive (or what I feel is) use of the banning.

[Juntao112]

In regards to playing lower leveled characters, I suggested that but he said that he wants us to be fighting demons and the such and that he wanted us to have access to higher level spells and abilities...

Except he doesn't?

[Forum Explorer]

From the sounds of it he's wants a high level game, but not a high optimization game. If so then I recommend just toning back your optimization and go with a weaker build. Also you mentioned that he did change his mind about some bans so he's willing to change his mind over some stuff if you really feel you need it.

Overall though? Stick with him and let him get some experience. And make it clear that you don't want bans when the game actually starts.

[Mnemnosyne]

Yeah, this sounds like someone who really wants to take on much more than he can handle. He doesn't want to admit he can't handle it, so he's chopping it down to size with all kinds of crazy unreasonable bans.

Explain to him as nicely as you can that you feel the amount of bans, especially on common, non-abusive stuff, is unreasonable and you just won't enjoy playing. Point out how he keeps responding to people being excited to have fun by prohibiting the very things they're excited about. Depending on his personality, this might be the best angle to come from.

Another tack to take might be to try to get him to understand that no matter how thorough his bans, players can always find a way to break the game that he hasn't thought of, and would have to fiat away mid-campaign. Instead, he should just trust the players not to try to break the game, and let them have cool abilities as long as they don't abuse that trust.

[Balor01]

This is a very interesting topic, especially from my perspective as a DM.


Explain to him as nicely as you can that you feel the amount of bans, especially on common, non-abusive stuff, is unreasonable and you just won't enjoy playing.

This is something I as a DM would just roflstomp with Rule 0. If you need that Sonic Antimagic Arcane Strike in order to enjoy yourself - just find another game. It irritates me quite a bit when people directly link enjoyment with blingy spells and broken feats.


Point out how he keeps responding to people being excited to have fun by prohibiting the very things they're excited about.


If they want to hack and slash trought a bunch of mooks, they can go play Diablo III.


Another tack to take might be to try to get him to understand that no matter how thorough his bans, players can always find a way to break the game that he hasn't thought of, and would have to fiat away mid-campaign.

This. After we pass the initial tantrums over limitations, Players get dumbfounded as they actually enjoy callenges with, say, tier III. characters. The initial whining (every time!) still pissess me off.

I am however very opposed to fiating anything. If nerfed PCs managed to pull something off it is a prize not to be taken from them for any reason, even if it fumbles DMs plans.


Instead, he should just trust the players not to try to break the game, and let them have cool abilities as long as they don't abuse that trust.

Well this right here is impossible. Lets say you play a character at 60% of his abilities, but then you meet a boss battle where that Ranged strike That hits Touch AC will come exceptionally handy. Of course player wil use it and kill that opponent no problem. Then go back to his 60% ability.

Now the responce to this is of course endowing the boss with high Touch AC via spells, but then it is just an arms race.

Nerf them hard I say and watch them cheer as they take down that beholder.

While batman wizards can have thier sanity slowly rot in their own custom demiplanes while being omnipotent.

[eggynack]

@Balor: I think that you misunderstand the issue, as I did at first. The problem isn't that he's banning stuff. That's perfectly fair game for any DM. The problem is that he's continually banning stuff after the players have put effort into making a character using the stuff he's banning. If the DM just had a stable ban list prior to character creation, that'd be no problem, but that's not what this is. Moreover, it's impossible to evade these bannings, because there's no immediate and apparent connection between what is powerful and what gets banned. A player could spend awhile putting together a cool sneak attack rogue, and then the DM bans sneak attack, despite that not being an overpowered ability. The DM is doing something wrong, because if he doesn't want wizards in his group, he should say that before someone builds a wizard. As is, the OP should demand that the DM put together a complete ban list before he creates a new character. It's a good amount of work, but that's what you should do if you want a ban list.

[Balor01]

Oh, right.

:smallbiggrin:

[Der_DWSage]

I can see three solutions right now, but the tenant behind all of them is 'patience.' You seem to already be showing some of this, but...yeah. Just be tolerant, and wait for him to see some of the ramifications behind what he's doing. And if he does veer from things, maybe you should volunteer to help out behind the scenes.

1)So far as the banning during character creation goes, maybe you should take a different tack. If he's swinging that banhammer willy nilly, ask him if he would prefer to just take a description of the character, overarching requests from the player as to what the character should be, and then make the character himself? It may be less of a headache for all involved, despite still being a headache in of itself.

2)Ask him if he would be willing to participate in a little Thought Optimization arena before or even alongside the campaign. If he sees some of the more common exploits-and the counters to them-he might become more openminded to low-tier optimization. This is a more long-term solution, but a handy one.

3)He seems at least semi-reasonable and prone to reason, from some of the things you posted. Perhaps ask him to set up a solid list of the bans and houserules he intends to use, post them on the GiantITP boards, and then let us rip them to shreds politely critique them and offer gentle guidance.

[CRtwenty]

Sounds to me like he's trying to "balance" the game without any real idea of what is and isn't unbalanced in the system. Really the only thing that will eventually fix this is experience DMing. All DMs have to deal with Players finding a way to breeze through encounters the DM thought were going to be hard because of lack of experience. It's a right of passage. 3.5 has so many abilities, and counters that something's gonna slip through.

My advice would be to convince him to play a lower level game, where a lot of the super broken stuff hasn't come online yet. But since it appears that he isn't willing to do that, really all you can do is just wait for him to realize his mistakes on his own. DMs aren't born, they're made through experience.

[undead hero]

Sounds like he has a few PCs created already for HIS story and wants to mold you guys into fitting those concepts because HIS story is all that matters.

Remind him that although 3.5 is a roleplaying game, it is very much a hack and slash game at its core. One of the big arguments when it came out was that it turned D&D into a more videogamey RPG.

Oh and good luck

[Valthonis]

Except he doesn't?

I don't understand what you are referring to.


From the sounds of it he's wants a high level game, but not a high optimization game. If so then I recommend just toning back your optimization and go with a weaker build. Also you mentioned that he did change his mind about some bans so he's willing to change his mind over some stuff if you really feel you need it.

And yes, I actually tried to take that into account already :) I'm definitely the most experienced player in the group that I'm in so all the spells that I've taken/planned on taking were party buffs/heals/enemy debuffs. And yes, he isn't completely unreasonable and close minded, but it is still a cause of frustration, which is why I created this thread.


1)So far as the banning during character creation goes, maybe you should take a different tack. If he's swinging that banhammer willy nilly, ask him if he would prefer to just take a description of the character, overarching requests from the player as to what the character should be, and then make the character himself? It may be less of a headache for all involved, despite still being a headache in of itself

I fear that would be much to daunting of a task due to the fact that the campaign is high-leveled. Maybe for low-tier classes it wouldn't be a problem, but at the same time I think our players prefer to have control over the customization of their own characters (as do most people).


2)Ask him if he would be willing to participate in a little Thought Optimization arena before or even alongside the campaign. If he sees some of the more common exploits-and the counters to them-he might become more openminded to low-tier optimization. This is a more long-term solution, but a handy one.

I'm not familiar with this. Could you give me a link/explanation to how it works?


3)He seems at least semi-reasonable and prone to reason, from some of the things you posted. Perhaps ask him to set up a solid list of the bans and houserules he intends to use, post them on the GiantITP boards, and then let us rip them to shreds politely critique them and offer gentle guidance.

I'll see if I can get him to actually make a solidified ban list first.


My advice would be to convince him to play a lower level game, where a lot of the super broken stuff hasn't come online yet. But since it appears that he isn't willing to do that, really all you can do is just wait for him to realize his mistakes on his own. DMs aren't born, they're made through experience.

Maybe I'll retry to convince him to drop the level to at least 10 or something. And yes that second statement is very true. I'm actually a terrible DM, not because I don't understand how to play the game, but because I have a terrible poker face and I unintentionally make things way too obvious...


Sounds like he has a few PCs created already for HIS story and wants to mold you guys into fitting those concepts because HIS story is all that matters.

Remind him that although 3.5 is a roleplaying game, it is very much a hack and slash game at its core. One of the big arguments when it came out was that it turned D&D into a more videogamey RPG.

Oh and good luck

I'm not going to lie and I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing on my own DM, but this is somewhat true. He definitely wants to mold the campaign into his idealistic Forgotten Realms-esque story book. And thanks! - to both you and everyone who has responded. I appreciate the input.

[CRtwenty]

I'm not going to lie and I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing on my own DM, but this is somewhat true. He definitely wants to mold the campaign into his idealistic Forgotten Realms-esque story book. And thanks! - to both you and everyone who has responded. I appreciate the input.

Ack, sounds like you've got a pretty good chance of getting railroaded pretty damn hard. That's never any fun for anybody who gets involved with it.

[Big Fau]

I'm not familiar with this. Could you give me a link/explanation to how it works?

A thought experiment in D&D is basically acid testing an idea before making a ruling on it. He's saying that, prior to banning something, your DM should run a set of sample encounters against the offending material to see how it fares. A large problem with the knee-jerk reaction is that the material being banned doesn't get tested properly (like his ban on Fortification, which makes very little sense and is a nerf to the classes that really need it).

His ban on Natural Spell is actually a good thing, depending on why he did it. If he did it because he knows the Druid is overpowered, it's a good call on his part. If he did it for pretty much any other reason, he's not wrong but needs to do a fact check.

But from the sounds of it, your DM won't want to do a thought experiment (or won't see why it's a good idea).

[Valthonis]

A thought experiment in D&D is basically acid testing an idea before making a ruling on it. He's saying that, prior to banning something, your DM should run a set of sample encounters against the offending material to see how it fares. A large problem with the knee-jerk reaction is that the material being banned doesn't get tested properly (like his ban on Fortification, which makes very little sense and is a nerf to the classes that really need it).

His ban on Natural Spell is actually a good thing, depending on why he did it. If he did it because he knows the Druid is overpowered, it's a good call on his part. If he did it for pretty much any other reason, he's not wrong but needs to do a fact check.

But from the sounds of it, your DM won't want to do a thought experiment (or won't see why it's a good idea).

While I understand that Natural Spell can easily break a game, I still feel that it is unnecessary to ban it even out of combat. His reason was that he doesn't like the idea of an eagle shooting laser beams out of its eyes. But I will see if he is open to the idea of the thought experiment.

[undead hero]

Ack, sounds like you've got a pretty good chance of getting railroaded pretty damn hard. That's never any fun for anybody who gets involved with it.

See you are a bit off there.

Plot or what you call railroading is great. Players use the derogative term railroading when they aren't happy with the plot of the game even when they knew that there would be a plot.

It is up to the DM AND the players to work together on this.

DM is running a resistance against the crown type game but the players keep running off to slaughter orcs and goblins? The players are at fault when the DM isn't prepared for a sandbox game not the DM.

Before the game the players say they want a sandbox game and the DM agrees. The DM then pushes a plot and won't do anything other than that? That is on the DM.

At least the OP knows what's he's getting into so if he gets railroaded then it is his own fault and not the DMs.

[undead hero]

While I understand that Natural Spell can easily break a game, I still feel that it is unnecessary to ban it even out of combat. His reason was that he doesn't like the idea of an eagle shooting laser beams out of its eyes. But I will see if he is open to the idea of the thought experiment.

Umm this is why I allow it :smallbiggrin:

[Kalenjii]

I'm another one of the people in Valthonis' group, from what I've gotten from talking with our DM, all of the bans he makes are just his personal flavor reasons, eg natural spell because he doesn't like the idea of animals shooting spells or fortification because he doesn't think people should be able to be immune to crits and such (he even thinks undead should be able to be crit/sneak attacked but generally leaves them the way they are). We shall see how this goes.

[Big Fau]

I'm another one of the people in Valthonis' group, from what I've gotten from talking with our DM, all of the bans he makes are just his personal flavor reasons, eg natural spell because he doesn't like the idea of animals shooting spells or fortification because he doesn't think people should be able to be immune to crits and such (he even thinks undead should be able to be crit/sneak attacked but generally leaves them the way they are). We shall see how this goes.

Fluff is mutable. Natural Spell doesn't just allow the Eagle Druid to shoot lasers, it allows the Bear Druid, Wolf Druid, Tiger Druid, Shark Druid, and so forth to do so. Yes, it is ridiculous, but it's no different than that same Druid using Still and Silent spell to accomplish the same task.

Here's the key part: It's effectively both Still and Silent Spell without the +2 spell adjustment (although Still and Silent have other benefits that Natural Spell doesn't). Why the Devs didn't make Natural Spell a metamagic feat is anyone's guess, but it isn't.

Banning things based purely on flavor is a bit of a bad idea, especially given how easy it is to alter the flavor of something to be completely different.

[undead hero]

Fluff is mutable. Natural Spell doesn't just allow the Eagle Druid to shoot lasers, it allows the Bear Druid, Wolf Druid, Tiger Druid, Shark Druid, and so forth to do so. Yes, it is ridiculous, but it's no different than that same Druid using Still and Silent spell to accomplish the same task.

Here's the key part: It's effectively both Still and Silent Spell without the +2 spell adjustment (although Still and Silent have other benefits that Natural Spell doesn't). Why the Devs didn't make Natural Spell a metamagic feat is anyone's guess, but it isn't.

Banning things based purely on flavor is a bit of a bad idea, especially given how easy it is to alter the flavor of something to be completely different.

+1

Whenever some brings up fluff/flavor in an argument I laugh since flavor and fluff is so changeable.

Kinda like when ppl say psionics don't belong in D&D lol

[Blackadam]

my tip for dealing with new DMs or well just about any DM is just be nice respectful give them coffee and don't argue nitpic over every effen rule regardless of if you agree with them or not. remember they are people too make mistakes coffee helps bribe them and they are final judge on what rules work and how in their world

[Mnemnosyne]

I'm another one of the people in Valthonis' group, from what I've gotten from talking with our DM, all of the bans he makes are just his personal flavor reasons, eg natural spell because he doesn't like the idea of animals shooting spells or fortification because he doesn't think people should be able to be immune to crits and such (he even thinks undead should be able to be crit/sneak attacked but generally leaves them the way they are). We shall see how this goes.
DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

In my experience, this attitude is one of the most dangerous in a DM and one of the least likely to be broken through experience. At least the one making arbitrary, poorly-thought out changes due to balance can sometimes be taught and shown that certain rules are good and fine and that the game works better if you trust the players to play instead of try to make Pun-Pun.

On the other hand, the one making bans because of personal flavor doesn't understand refluffing, attaches one very specific interpretation to everything, and is difficult to impossible to convince of anything because there's no facts, numbers, data, or reasoning behind their arguments. Explanations of why the rules are this way tend to hold no water with them. Some of them can be convinced, but others can't.

One way you might be able to deal with this is ask him to run an experiment. Try to figure out what things go against his idea of 'flavor', then create a character using lots of mechanics that he thinks are 'wrong', but fluff them in a way that fits. He has to go along with the experiment by allowing you to never actually tell him what you're doing, just tell him the results of what you do for the sake of the experiment, though. Optionally, create two identical characters, but describe them completely differently. Make one of them obviously out of place, and one of them fit very well into the type of campaign setting he wants to run. Then, see if he realizes without being told that the two characters are actually identical, if you just run them through the experiment and he never sees their sheets and is only told the results of their actions.

[Valthonis]

DANGER! DANGER WILL ROBINSON! DANGER!

I lol-ed so hard...


...trust the players to play instead of try to make Pun-Pun.

I think the DM thinks that I am attempting to make Pun-Pun...even though I have explained to him in full detail about how my character is sub-par in regards to optimization. Unfortunately, I think I'm just going to sit this campaign out. Maybe watch it from the sidelines every once in a while.

But once again, thanks to everyone who responded. There were a lot of good ideas put forth. Maybe this thread will help someone else out too.

[fishyfishyfishy]

I lol-ed so hard...



I think the DM thinks that I am attempting to make Pun-Pun...even though I have explained to him in full detail about how my character is sub-par in regards to optimization. Unfortunately, I think I'm just going to sit this campaign out. Maybe watch it from the sidelines every once in a while.

But once again, thanks to everyone who responded. There were a lot of good ideas put forth. Maybe this thread will help someone else out too.

Sometimes that is the best response. Good on you for recognizing that your play styles don't mesh and making this decision. Too many times I see people try to force things and they only end up causing trouble.