A very good and not so good campaign

[Balor01]

Hey guys,

For about 8 yars I have been DM-ing 3.5 ed campaigns and mostly it was fun.

I have a problem with my last campaign through where PCs are just roflstomping my challenges. The thing is, I do not really wish to DM for them anymore even if no one of them is doing anything wrong.

Let me give you an example of two campaigns I DMd and one was Super Fun and other one not so much.

My First campaign(perhaps tenth I have DMd) was with a bunch of noobs. I banned tier 1 and 2 classes, so we had a couple of tier 3 and 2 PCs, they were playing a group of poor kids in slum-like city and over the summer advanced to lvl 4 adventurers. EVERYONE had great time, we even ended our last session (it was super tense) with champagne when PCs managed to break into high-security warehouse and with use of wit loot about 20k worth of goods. Good times all around.

Now for the campaign I am DMing now. I also banned tier 1 and 2 classes, but this time I am playing with one EXCEPTIONALLY tactically and mechanically skilled player. When i mentioned the limitations he just grinned and made a beguiler. What followed were encounters which pretty much finished in one or two rounds resulting in utter annihilation of NPCs.(first round - an illusion to re-route NPC dmg, then crowd controll spells) Its like we have a group of three Supermen walking among mortals.
Now these guys, especially the beguiler, are not braking any rules. They are cool character-wise, they obey all the limitations of metagame, but the thing is they just rip trough everything I set agains them. They are better at using terrain, have much greater knowledge of spell use and mechanics then me and often trump what I want to do by quoting rules. Due to this fact they are also quite good at challenging (and succeeding at breaking) Rule 0.

Come to think of it, an important fact in this case is that I entered in this game really wanting to game with these people. In a campaign, mentioned as First campaign, I had no problem dumping anyone.

Also they often metagame in term of "that guy is waaay too far to be in casting range", "that bow should be +5 mighty in order to do such damage", etc. They are RIGHT, but my campaign has completely slipped from my fingers.
In fact I am spending so much time studying rules I am barely dealing with the story at this time.

Now, a few options are offered in this case like: talk to players. Well I dont really feel like I have to. They are being nice, they play by the rules and are generally quite ok players. We even nerfed the rulelawyering down a bit.

Or play "smartly". Playing "smartly" usually means a position defended by NPCs, full of murderholes, traps that immobilize PCs and alike. This is not playing smartly. This is DM fiat. When NPCs are attacking or both parties spot each other at a same time, PCs win, easy.

It is an arms race - of sort. But the fact is, I have some really nice experience DMing for groups as pre-mentioned, but to tell the truth, I do not feel like doing it for this group anymore. 3.5 is broken, yes, but I had good experience too, so I dunno ...

Would you say I am an incompetent DM? Is encyclopedic knowledge of 3.5 a must for DMing competent players?

I'd appreciate a different aspect on this game of mine.

Fun note: Recetly the group got about three days in-game free time on their hands. We almost had a in-party murder because our optimizer almost went berserk since other PCs were "wasting time" flirting with NPCs.

[eggynack]

You didn't mention it in your post, so I'm wondering if you've considered scaling up the encounters. If the party is just able to out-tactic you like crazy, just having harder opponents could help. Also, I don't think that making your encounters smarter just means fiat. Basically, you have to imagine what a group of PC's would do when given access to the resources that this encounter has, and have them do that. Smart PC's often make very good use of all available resources, and they go into everything with crazy preparation. Have your encounters make very good use of available resources, and have them attack the party after preparing for the fight. A gap in system knowledge can be a difficult thing to overcome as a DM, but it's possible. Also, there're a ton of things that just crush a beguiler, so try making use of those from time to time. I'm not saying that every fight needs to be with a group of zombies with true seeing, but maybe a couple of the fights can be like that.

[Alienist]

If someone is just going to spend their time arguing rules, let them DM.

Since you have 3 candidates for that, I suggest letting each of them take a turn at the helm.

Or perhaps even turn the meta-tables on them. "Oh? You cast an illusion of X? Well, the NPC knows that there is no such thing as a spell of summon X, so they all automatically disbelieve."

Once that grows stale (or the illusions get smarter) "You cast an illusion of Y, but the NPC knows that you would have to be level N to cast Y, and as such it would be a thoroughly inappropriate encounter, and therefore the NPC disbelieves."

Illusions are a lot like the proverbial "I throw sand in the monsters face". That's cool, have a potato. Now though in every encounter the PCs want to throw sand in the monsters face.

If something works, why not keep doing it ad nauseam?

The normal reason is that people get bored. But when you're playing with people who are especially focused on trying to beat the game instead of play the game they will usually have a much higher threshold of boredom, because so long as they're 'winning' they're getting what they want out of it.

Hence so long as illusions are an "I win" button, they will keep button mashing them. They probably don't even think of it as unfair or game breaking, because if they have (as you say) lots of system mastery then they're probably thinking of twenty different ways to break the illusions.

Which brings us back around to the start point. Optimisers are their own kryptonite. You can try to beat them yourself, but then you're playing on their terms on their home ground. Put someone else in the driving seat and see what they do. Take notes.

[Pilo]

The major problem seems to be your tactical skill (no offense).
I would say it is normal for a beguiler (which should have very high int (16+)) to be smart.
Maybe you should try to earn experience from the way your players play.
Maybe your NPC must use nasty tricks (sunder weapons/armors,...), maybe they could critical fail some save and get the loot destroyed.
Or without going that far, use control spell (greater invisibility+summons and illusion), debuff and dispell magic. Use PC classes instead of NPC classes (spellthief, hexblade, ...) for your minions.
NPC could buy riding dogs trained to fight for exemple.

Regarding the time, some players are used to chain scenarii one after an other without pause, or get all the things they want as soon as they want to. But you may explain to them that their characters might want to take a break sometimes or they will start to be fatigued even after they wake up.

[Alienist]

You didn't mention it in your post, so I'm wondering if you've considered scaling up the encounters. If the party is just able to out-tactic you like crazy, just having harder opponents could help. Also, I don't think that making your encounters smarter just means fiat. Basically, you have to imagine what a group of PC's would do when given access to the resources that this encounter has, and have them do that. Smart PC's often make very good use of all available resources, and they go into everything with crazy preparation. Have your encounters make very good use of available resources, and have them attack the party after preparing for the fight. A gap in system knowledge can be a difficult thing to overcome as a DM, but it's possible. Also, there're a ton of things that just crush a beguiler, so try making use of those from time to time. I'm not saying that every fight needs to be with a group of zombies with true seeing, but maybe a couple of the fights can be like that.

I don't think focusing on encounter design is the right solution. But if you do, my suggestion is to every now and then throw large numbers of mooks at the party.

So you think you're superman? Okay, here's an army of orcs that attacks your town. Go do your Neo vs Agent Smith thing.

They'll win, and they'll feel epic doing so. And since 20s are auto-hits, a sufficiently large number of archers is a credible threat...

[Evolved Shrimp]

I'd appreciate a different aspect on this game of mine..

From what you write, I get the impression that you on the one hand and your group on the other like different styles of playing D&D. If this impression is correct:

It doesn't make you a bad DM. The fact that you had multiple enjoyable campaigns over the years suggests that you are a good DM when a group matches your style.
It doesn't make your players bad players.
The best solution may be to change the arrangement, either by letting one of the players DM and you play or by amicably parting ways.

[Balor01]

Hmm, optimizing. I have been thinking about that and have even built a very nerfed supercharger(Barbarian with Lion totem). I am also familiar with sunder and alike. I have cracked open MM2 and this splendid book has it its inventory quite a few things that would probably TPK the team. But all this seems to be going overboard.

Also, now that you have mentioned it ... my party really poorly racts to more difficult threats. I have unleashed some swarms on them which were meant to be mora an RP thing then actual threat(flies in a swamp), but they went completely berserk over "OMG-its-tailored-to-kill-us".

In despite of its shining appearance, this group may be a tad rotten in a way I have never encountered before.

Also:


If someone is just going to spend their time arguing rules, let them DM.

I think you got this very right. Best advice so far.



From what you write, I get the impression that you on the one hand and your group on the other like different styles of playing D&D.

A very good point. I think you are correct. In fact it has been mentioned on a few occasions, but I did not quite get it.

[eggynack]

Also, now that you have mentioned it ... my party really poorly racts to more difficult threats. I have unleashed some swarms on them which were meant to be mora an RP thing then actual threat(flies in a swamp), but they went completely berserk over "OMG-its-tailored-to-kill-us".

Well, if the reason that they beat every encounter is that they whine whenever an encounter is too difficult, that's the problem right there. If they think they can tactics their way past everything, test that assertion. You shouldn't create an encounter that will just kill them, but you should make encounters harder than you've been making them. Complaining when things aren't perfectly tailored for them to steamroller them is some problem player behavior, and if you're going to talk to them about something, that might be the thing to talk to them about.

[SethoMarkus]

It may or may not fix the problem (everyone takes it differently), but have you talked to the optimizer and asked him to tone down his game (or her, if appropriate)? It's one thing to play an intelligent and competent character, and another thing to play "Roflstomp Godsmasher".

Also, never let the characters overrule Rule 0. Have a discussion, compromise, or, as a last resort, retcon if you must, but don't let the players run the show, otherwise you might as well roll up a PC and play a DMless game. If you really need to, explain to the characters why you need to make the changes and if they aren't okay with those changes discuss it until you can come to a fair decision. Let them know that you aren't sure how to proceed forward as a DM if they continue cutting through encounters like butter, and that you are debating ending the game.

The point of the game should be having fun, and that includes the DM's fun as well as the players' fun.

[Cheiromancer]

Have you tried using their own tricks against them? If they use illusions, and thereby steamroll the NPC's, what happens when they encounter illusions? If illusions are really an "I win" button, then you and your players will soon be negotiating how to change how they work. And similarly for other tricks.

What's more likely is that they will quote rules that nerf illusions. That's fine; now you will have those same rules to limit what the PC's do. It's a relatively painless way to learn a different play style.

Also, you don't have to play within the same constraints as PC's. Use Villain Classes (”http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/villain_classes.htm”). Make your BBEG a disguised pit fiend. Have bad guys use rituals to gain powers from Elder Evils. Go nuts.

And remember- the game isn't DM vs players, it's you making a challenging and fun experience for those same players. So if they challenge you on a rule, just smile mysteriously and say 'that's what you think should happen, isn't it?' and keep on doing what you are doing.

[Someonelse]

3 words: Tomb of Horrors :xykon:

I have a group like this. One guy I suspect of being an actual real life genius and two other guys who know every feat and spell in the game. It can become an arms race, you bump up the encounters to challenge them, they either die and get mad and say that was too hard for the average party level, or they walk all over it and get tons of XP and level up so that next dungeon you took so much time crafting will be a walk through the park.
So what I often do when I start getting frustrated is grant XP based on how hard the fight was. If they take a few rounds to win and the enemy manages to get in a couple good hits I will grant full XP. If they end the fight in a round or two or if the enemy can't even hit them without a critical then I cut the XP down by anywhere from 1 to 6 levels depending on the circumstances. If you actually do challenge them and make it hard give them a little more XP. That's not likely though.
Tell your players you're doing this of course, they know how much XP a monster should be worth. talk to your players and be humble. Tell them they know the game better than you and you're just trying to tell a story. Ask them to take it easy and tell them you are going to try to take more control over the game.
I would suggest switching to the XP system from Unearthed Arcana because it is easier to calculate and make changes on the fly. So if one guy got trampled but should have been worth lots of XP you can cut the XP from that one guy and still give full xp for everything else.
Or, another thing I have done before, is do away with XP entirely, just grant levels based on story progress. You can keep them at a level for a long time, when they get to a point where they are finally having trouble, grant a level.
Also, try some survival encounters. Where they face a monster so bad that it doesn't see them as a threat. For example, in a game I'm running now I wrote an encounter where they are riding in a wagon with a merchant caravan and a colossal red dragon swoops down and blasts the merchants with his breath, the PCs are safe from the breath, but they are riding the wagon the dragon picks up and flies off with. I do this with 6th level characters. The point of this encounter is to survive and escape, not to kill a dragon. The dragon doesn't consider them a threat any more than a human considers a mosquito (I just always wanted to see how a dragon collects his hoard).

And did you say something about them breaking rule 0? that's not cool. When a ruling is needed in game and players are quoting rules and making things hard for you, just make your ruling and tell the players that unless it's a matter of life and death for their character you will deal with it out of game. Of course you have to then be humble if it turns out you were wrong, but then you have time before the next game to figure out what to do about it and you don't have players breaking your game.

I feel for you. I can just barely handle my regular players. I can be just as bad though, so now when I play I'm very consious of how much of a headache I'm giving the DM and I try to lay off as much as possible (while still being awesome).

[Someonelse]

It's one thing to play an intelligent and competent character, and another thing to play "Roflstomp Godsmasher".
If you really need to, explain to the characters why you need to make the changes and if they aren't okay with those changes discuss it until you can come to a fair decision. Let them know that you aren't sure how to proceed forward as a DM if they continue cutting through encounters like butter, and that you are debating ending the game.

The point of the game should be having fun, and that includes the DM's fun as well as the players' fun.

I had to do that very thing only a week ago. I started a solo game and the player had a first level character with AC well over 20 and killed everything with one hit. I told him he won D&D and the game was over, either I could tell him the rest of the story or he could make a new character that might have a chance of not winning everything so that when he does it actually means something. The new character he made is also destroying everything without effort. It just isn't fun to play with someone who ALWAYS wins.

[Venusaur]

I had to do that very thing only a week ago. I started a solo game and the player had a first level character with AC well over 20 and killed everything with one hit. I told him he won D&D and the game was over, either I could tell him the rest of the story or he could make a new character that might have a chance of not winning everything so that when he does it actually means something. The new character he made is also destroying everything without effort. It just isn't fun to play with someone who ALWAYS wins.

Why not just give him harder encounters?

[Raendyn]

You are doing somethign wrong: you let them boss you around!

what does it means " he is out of range to cast X" ?
How does he know what is the enemy casting? You named the spell? If yes just reply that it wasnt that specific spell, and you jsut named it with a name they know since it has similar effects, its a god damn unique spell this particular npc researched.

So they should be using +5 mighty bow? Nah we god feats/class/race/psionic powers/magic buffs that boost dmg/range/sight or whatever. you guys arent the only ones using obscure things around.

Just be sharp about how far u let the critique your encounters.

"This is something unique you know nothing about and you cant even use knowledge checks" is a nice reply to over-curiousness, you can let them use Knowledges maybe but they will find little to none.

And because all the above might seem not very polite/friendly, you can/should talk OOC with them tell them that when they metage against your encounters you get annoyed.

Try to throw in some new/different stuff and increase the CR so they can feel the pain every now and then.

I;ve been in your shoes and i believe i understand you well enough, everything I suggested has been used in complete success, more than once.

[Someonelse]

Why not just give him harder encounters?

Because that becomes a vicious cycle that ends with the PC at a higher level than I intended for the material I wrote, which is extensive. And I don't want to have to rewrite the entire campaign for an OP PC

[RFLS]

Huh. Only one recommendation to talk to them about it OOC. What the heck, guys?

[Kane0]

Would you say I am an incompetent DM? Is encyclopedic knowledge of 3.5 a must for DMing competent players?

I'd appreciate a different aspect on this game of mine.


Not at all. It sounds like you are simply outmatched, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. Tell them that they are doing everything perfectly well, so well in fact that you are struggling to keep up. If they are a bunch of good guys like you say they are they should be willing to tone it back a bit so everyone is comfortable. Negate the arms race by admitting defeat before hard feelings kick in, then get right back into the thick of the game/story.

[Big Fau]

You are doing somethign wrong: you let them boss you around!

what does it means " he is out of range to cast X" ?
How does he know what is the enemy casting? You named the spell? If yes just reply that it wasnt that specific spell, and you jsut named it with a name they know since it has similar effects, its a god damn unique spell this particular npc researched.

Um, that doesn't really apply if the player is referring to spells his character is casting


"This is something unique you know nothing about and you cant even use knowledge checks" is a nice reply to over-curiousness, you can let them use Knowledges maybe but they will find little to none.

90% of the time that comes off as the DM being a jerk. It's extremely petty and prone to cause in-fighting. I've been through it several times, including as a player myself. It gets really old after the first two times it happens, and players start to get frustrated.


And because all the above might seem not very polite/friendly, you can/should talk OOC with them tell them that when they metage against your encounters you get annoyed.

Talking to the problem player should be the first reaction of any DM.



Now for the campaign I am DMing now. I also banned tier 1 and 2 classes, but this time I am playing with one EXCEPTIONALLY tactically and mechanically skilled player. When i mentioned the limitations he just grinned and made a beguiler. What followed were encounters which pretty much finished in one or two rounds resulting in utter annihilation of NPCs.(first round - an illusion to re-route NPC dmg, then crowd control spells) Its like we have a group of three Supermen walking among mortals.

Now these guys, especially the beguiler, are not breaking any rules. They are cool character-wise, they obey all the limitations of metagame, but the thing is they just rip through everything I set against them. They are better at using terrain, have much greater knowledge of spell use and mechanics then me and often trump what I want to do by quoting rules. Due to this fact they are also quite good at challenging (and succeeding at breaking) Rule 0.

The problem you are experiencing is the player's skill level is set too high for what you want to do. To put it in metaphoric terms, you've asked the players to jump a low fence and this guy is trying to set a new Olympic record for the pole vault.


Also they often metagame in term of "that guy is waaay too far to be in casting range", "that bow should be +5 mighty in order to do such damage", etc. They are RIGHT, but my campaign has completely slipped from my fingers.

That isn't out of your hands, he's just assessing the situation (albeit in a very OOC manner, although his character would likely have a general idea of things like spell range). The part about him knowing what kind of special abilities a weapon has is completely unjustified (knowing HP totals requires either a very specific feat or one of a handful of spells that a Beguiler would never use, much less have access to).

Some metagaming is expected: The character is smarter than the player (hopefully) and slight metagaming is the best way to represent this trait. The trick is knowing how much is necessary, and when to stop.


In fact I am spending so much time studying rules I am barely dealing with the story at this time.

If doing so is cutting into the session directly, stop. Assign another player to be the rules lawyer, and whenever that guy starts citing the rules from a book you don't fully understand have him run it by your "co-DM".


Now, a few options are offered in this case like: talk to players. Well I don't really feel like I have to.

I feel the need to put as much emphasis on this next line as I possibly can:

The problem can only be solved if you take direct action.

Not talking to the players about the issues you are having is irresponsible of you as a DM, and you are almost asking for the kind of behavior you've been forced to deal with (almost).


They are being nice, they play by the rules and are generally quite ok players. We even nerfed the rulelawyering down a bit. Or play "smartly". Playing "smartly" usually means a position defended by NPCs, full of murderholes, traps that immobilize PCs and alike. This is not playing smartly. This is DM fiat. When NPCs are attacking or both parties spot each other at a same time, PCs win, easy.

No, playing smartly is the party's Wizard deciding to prepare Grease instead of Burning Hands, or the party's Fighter deciding to use readied actions to interrupt an enemy who has Spring Attack.


It is an arms race - of sort. But the fact is, I have some really nice experience DMing for groups as pre-mentioned, but to tell the truth, I do not feel like doing it for this group anymore. 3.5 is broken, yes, but I had good experience too, so I dunno ...

You're not at the arms race point. In fact, you're nowhere near it. The arms race happens when you start upping the ante in response to the players, and they reply in kind. If you start throwing Adamantine Clockwork Horrors at them and they respond with chain-Gating Efreeti to get infinite Wishes to start making up for the destroyed loot/dead characters, only for you to respond with throwing Quaruts at them for breaking some aspect of the space-time continuum, you are in an arms race (all right, that's a very extreme example but it does illustrate my point).


Fun note: Recetly the group got about three days in-game free time on their hands. We almost had a in-party murder because our optimizer almost went berserk since other PCs were "wasting time" flirting with NPCs.

This is an example of what I mentioned earlier (how he's aiming for the Olympic record when you asked him to jump a fence). He's taking it too seriously and you need to talk to him about toning that down. Remind him that your campaign isn't nearly that cutthroat, and that getting onto their cases isn't going to help anyone.


Would you say I am an incompetent DM? Is encyclopedic knowledge of 3.5 a must for DMing competent players?

There's a difference between handling a hypercompetent player and knowing the system. While a high degree of system mastery is a good idea in theory, you need to know what your party is capable of handling and need to limit the amount of effort you put into designing the enemies to prevent the party from being overwhelmed.

Having an "encyclopedic knowledge" helps with system mastery, but it is not mutually exclusive to being a good DM as long as your players are enjoying themselves as much as you are.

To use another comparison: You don't need to know everything about Adobe Dreamweaver in order to build a functional and useful website. It may help you to do so, but it isn't a requisite.

[Soupz]

Fun note: Recetly the group got about three days in-game free time on their hands. We almost had a in-party murder because our optimizer almost went berserk since other PCs were "wasting time" flirting with NPCs.

My suggestion? Try to kill them.

I usually make more decision based games than stat-combat based games. Usually that style works better in modern or futuristic games where gathering intelligence is as important as combat.

Try to kill them in a reasonable fashion.

Time limits.
Misdirection.
Enemies that can one shot them that only exist so they have to flee.
Push heroism. Saving people. Add a static experience award for saving people. Put them in situations where they can barely hold on.

I always go core because I didn't want to pay a hundred dollars to unbalance my game with OP bs. I stop around level 10. At that point it's not survival-resourcefulness anymore. I think Tier lists are bunk. In Core underpowered characters just need more magic crap, stuff that glows.

My players usually get as much experience out of role play and other bonuses as they do from combat. Things like bringing food, telling the best joke of the day, driving the carpool, best role play and completing their characters goals (which it is required that characters have goals). Combat is a waste of an hour.

I've got a player, who normally DMs, that always comes up with something combat overpowered. It's a delight, because with so little we were able to handle epic (sic) challenges. Knowledge and creativity win the day. This is a victory for everyone.

All my players have personal goals that shape the campaign. I don't get the resistance to the idea of rewriting a campaign around players. That's the strength of the game. It's easy to go off the beaten track.

One more thing. I don't really think that my campaigns are an arms race. There's inappropriate encounters that inexperienced players usually want to fight. That is something that I make clear in the first session of every game. The last game campaign started with a troll that could one shot anyone in the party chasing a goblin through the forest. The group let it pass.

I think they learned their lesson.. but they did try to fight the Roc that ate their horses at level 5...

I try to kill them, and I try be surprised when they don't die. I knew they weren't going to die, but they didn't know that. They still think it's them vs. me.

[Balor01]

Thanks to all who replied so far.

I actually DID talk to most problem-oriented player awhile ago and I got a feeling we got to an agreement, but I am more and more seeing that our ways of how to play DnD differ quite much. The way I see it, he likes fights, skipping buying equiptment and just about anything that "interrupts" normal combat.

For an example at a certain point party decided to camp in a tree top. They climbed there and since I did not know mechanics on how to calculate the chance of one of them dropping off(after they set up for sleep), I just rolled 1d20 and made a DC10 in my head. If you roll below, you slip off the branch once during the night. Tree was not high, they were lvl 6, it would be 2d6 dmg. But optimizer got all pissed over "DM annoying players with unimportant stuff", the person who would fall told me: "lol its just 2d6 dmg max," ... what was to be a bit of a fun between encounters turned into a sour exchange of opinions.

Or another example. They were rowing somwhere and a small snake fell on the back of one of the PCs. Unstatted, just RP snakey. "I grab it," said the PC on whom snake fell and I replied: "Yah, you caught it". Then optimizer started to (well, not really RANT but still) that he should roll to Pin and stuff ...

I think I will have a long in-depth talk with entire group next time and perhaps abandon this whole DM-ing for this group (or at least an optimizer with whom we get along nice otherwise).

I think it is just a very different approach to DnD overall.