PDA

View Full Version : Dangerous DM reputation



PnP Fan
2007-09-08, 10:34 AM
Hi!
I've got a problem, and I'm not entirely sure how to fix it. It's a people problem, but it's also one of my own creation.
Basically, I'm a very good liar when I'm behind the GM screen, and I've got a pretty good poker face. Plus, I tend to come up with plots that lead the PC's down the primrose path, only for them to find out that they've done the wrong thing. In short, I'm an Evil DM. But, I never give challenges (traps/monsters/social interaction/etc. . .) that are beyond the party's capabilities. It might be tough, but not impossible. I might bring members of the party to near death, but I've yet to have an actual PC death in any game I've ever run. I hardly ever fudge die rolls, mostly because I don't need to (I'm not perfect, but generally I don't need to fudge die rolls because I step the encounter down a touch). In short, I run games that can seem intimidating, or touch. They are, apparently, so intimidating that I almost had my players quit an adventure last night after two pit traps and a four Kobold (ranger 4) fight, where the kobolds ran away after two rounds. Seriously, they were about to turn around and leave (the consequences being that a bunch of farmers would starve if the PC's didn't retrieve the food that the kobolds stole). Thankfully, they opted to continue. After a couple more traps (the Rogue was rolling truly badly last night), and a little damage, they found the back side to the secret door that the kobolds escaped through. On the map, it very clearly lead back to a room that they had already cleared out. They were afraid to open it! I admit, I want a little paranoia in my party, but they were yelling at one another, there were veiled accusations of cowardice. It was truly terrible. And mind you, we're a group of late twenties to mid-thirties adults, not a bunch of 12 year olds just learning the game (No offense intended to the 12 year olds out there ;-) and generally a nice bunch of people.

So, my questions are:
1. How often do most folks PCs face near-death? Am I wrong (i.e. "not fun") in putting my players in difficult positions?
2. How do you guys get your "adventurous PC's" to actually be Adventurers, instead of book keeping, logistics managers that sit back and try to come up with the perfect tool/magic item to deal with a problem?
3. Typically what I do to balance an encounter is I figure what the ECL for the PC group is (6 level 7 PC's is an ECL of 12, for example). Then I come up with an encounter of equivalent level (bunch of PC classed kobolds, for example). We typically only do one big fight per game day, so they usually aren't strapped for resources/magic. Is this too much? Should I tone it down a bit? Is that what is scaring my players in to inaction? (even though I've never killed a player character doing this?)

I'm about ready to stop running games for these people if things don't change soon. So please, any advice is welcome.

Renx
2007-09-08, 10:41 AM
I'd love to sit in one of your sessions. If they're scared, it just means you're doing a good job. If they're shouting at *each other* in a dangerous situation (especially off-character), there are probably other issues below the surface. Try encouraging problem solving and teamwork. If the players know the other players have their backs, you can throw a lot at them and it's still OK.

What kinds of games do you run, rule-wise? High-magic or low? Core or some extensions, if so which?

Also, always leave a way out.

//Edit1: One encounter per day seems a bit slow. I think 3-4 is the 'recommended'. Of course, with the round/level 3.5 spells you'll just run into players arguing about who has to spend what spell when. Two encounters (especially if they're good quality and long) should be fine. If they start running out of spells and HP, that's good. The more near-death experiences the better. Still, a player can only take constant threat so long before dying ;)

Anxe
2007-09-08, 10:44 AM
Well I am actually playing with teenagers, so my players are munchkins. They play extremely paranoid characters. One of them even refuses to sleep in an inn and goes into a Rope Trick.
They do face near-death quite often. I want the encounters to be fun and I find that happens when they get close to dying, but I do fudge die rolls also, so they die less.
Generally you don't want encounters to be equal with the PCs, but lower level. And the problem with your campaign is that your players don't want to play your type of game. You'd better change it if you want to keep having fun. Try just starting a new campaign of a different style, not much else that I can give you.

Dausuul
2007-09-08, 10:51 AM
1. How often do most folks PCs face near-death? Am I wrong (i.e. "not fun") in putting my players in difficult positions?

Mine face dire battles on a regular basis. I consider a fight to be minor if I haven't put at least one PC into the negatives. To me, the ideal outcome of an encounter or series of encounters is a single PC still standing, with hit points in single digits, and everyone else unconscious but stable.


2. How do you guys get your "adventurous PC's" to actually be Adventurers, instead of book keeping, logistics managers that sit back and try to come up with the perfect tool/magic item to deal with a problem?

Hmm, that really depends on player personality. I generally don't object to PCs trying to come up with clever plans, tools, and magic items; I mean, that's part of the fun, isn't it?

A lot of the time, after I've presented a scenario, the PCs will go into crazed maniacal planning mode, and will spend the next hour debating what to do and perhaps investigating around the edges. That's fine with me. I sit back and relax; I'll only intervene to push them along if it looks like the debate has ceased to produce anything useful. When I do intervene, it's usually by pointedly asking "So, what are you doing? Are you doing X?" That tends to focus their minds.


3. Typically what I do to balance an encounter is I figure what the ECL for the PC group is (6 level 7 PC's is an ECL of 12, for example). Then I come up with an encounter of equivalent level (bunch of PC classed kobolds, for example). We typically only do one big fight per game day, so they usually aren't strapped for resources/magic. Is this too much? Should I tone it down a bit? Is that what is scaring my players in to inaction? (even though I've never killed a player character doing this?)

I don't consider it too much, but then my players are used to tough fights. If yours have played under other DMs who ran things more "by the book," that might be why they're getting spooked now.

It all really depends on your group. If your PCs are seriously scared by the dangers you're throwing at them, you may need to ease off a bit. Of course, you can also drop the occasional not-so-veiled hint, like, "By the way, you guys do see that that room is on the map and you already cleared it, right?" I find that sort of thing useful when the party is vacillating.

Quietus
2007-09-08, 10:52 AM
In general, the encounters I set out for my PC's aren't really all that lethal - except for "boss" fights, in which I tend to see at least 3/4 of the party drop (though many are back up within the space of the fight, due to the cleric being present). Having a reputation as a dangerous DM doesn't mean that you're coming close to killing players regularly, however - I've found that for me, it's more about the mind games I play between sessions. Whenever I'm working on D&D stuff and someone contacts me online asking what I'm up to, for example, I always reply with "Planning out a new way to kill you. *Evil grin*".

That's pretty standard stuff, I imagine, but my players know I don't go easy on them. I don't put them in positions they can't get out of, but they aren't going to have a free walk in the park, either. Hell, some of the most dangerous things they've done, they did to themselves - leaving their one way out of the kobold caverns unattended, dumping a box full of brown mould into a pit and "testing" it with fire to see if it expands.. it's hilarious the situations they put themselves in.

Hadrian_Emrys
2007-09-08, 11:08 AM
PnP, I run games pretty much that way myself. The players are just as fearful, but they eat it up. It helps when you cycle who sits behind the screen. So play a campaign run by you for a few sessions, then switch to a game run by someone else for a session or two to allow the group to decompress and get their sense of impending doom diluted somewhat.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-09-08, 11:09 AM
It's generally known that I'll toss out both easy fights and "Oh my god we're all going to die" fights, practically at random. I also never actually force my players to stand and fight, so it's really up to them to recognize the latter type of enemy quickly and find an efficient way of running, hiding, or whatever their plan is. Players like it when they have a plethora of options at their fingertips and get rewarded for coming up with the most clever way of handling the situation.

Your players really do sound aggravating, though.

Dervag
2007-09-08, 11:31 AM
So, my questions are:
1. How often do most folks PCs face near-death? Am I wrong (i.e. "not fun") in putting my players in difficult positions?
2. How do you guys get your "adventurous PC's" to actually be Adventurers, instead of book keeping, logistics managers that sit back and try to come up with the perfect tool/magic item to deal with a problem?
3. Typically what I do to balance an encounter is I figure what the ECL for the PC group is (6 level 7 PC's is an ECL of 12, for example). Then I come up with an encounter of equivalent level (bunch of PC classed kobolds, for example). We typically only do one big fight per game day, so they usually aren't strapped for resources/magic. Is this too much? Should I tone it down a bit? Is that what is scaring my players in to inaction? (even though I've never killed a player character doing this?)

I'm about ready to stop running games for these people if things don't change soon. So please, any advice is welcome.I think part of your problem is that your players should have a reputation for cowardice rather than your DM having a reputation for dangerousness.

If you're trying to come up with one big encounter per day that meaningfully challenges the players, the problem may be that they come away from that encounter thinking "Wow! We almost died!" And if this happens on every day of adventures, they're going to keep thinking "Wow! We almost died!" over and over, until it produces the effect "Every time we press an attack we almost die!"

This is probably the reason for using three or four encounters in a day of adventuring so that combined they can wear down the PCs' resources. That way, the PCs don't come away from every battle thinking that it was a close-run thing where they could all have been killed if they'd been a little less lucky. Instead, they tend to assume that they can win most of their battles with little trouble, losing only a percentage of their strength, and that all they have to do to be safe if they get unlucky is break off the attack before the next encounter.

Jothki
2007-09-08, 11:40 AM
Would openly mocking them OOC about how they're afraid of a few kobolds have worked there? They might just occasionally need a little nudging, just be sure to never nudge them into a trap.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-08, 11:43 AM
Well, I tend to run games much like the way you describe yours, but here is something I've learned: occasially give the players a cakewalk. In the end, they are adventureres, which means they are more powerful than most of the rest of the world. Not every problem they are tasked to deal with is going to be lifethreatening, or even cause them to break a sweat. So, just throw in the occasional adventure where the dangers is more RP or fail than fail and die. And occasionally one where they just get to kick petard and take names. Let them build up some self confidence.

Besides, it's more fun when you kill them later that way ;-)

One question about your group? Do you have a player who serves as comic relief? Most groups have one, sometimes it's me, and they are a good thing. Players can handle their characters nearly meeting their god's a lot better if someone is joking about it later than if everone is serious about it all the time. If you don't, consider throwning an amusing NPC or two into whatever town they hang out in most of the time who can play that role for the party.

CasESenSITItiVE
2007-09-08, 12:14 PM
i think overly dangerous situations should be used sparingly. i think an overly dangerous, neck and neck type encounter should be a sign of suspense, not a daily occurrence. if they happen too often, it takes away it's value. mind you, i don't think the encounter should ever be easy, adventuring isn't an easy profession. i think a player should be constantly challenged, and in a key moment of the campaign, that's the time they should emerge hanging on by a thin thread. it makes near death experiences more suspenseful, because the players are thinking "wow, that one was close" not "oh, we almost died. again."

leperkhaun
2007-09-08, 12:27 PM
i agree with case, not everything needs to be a tomb of horrors. The only thing that i wouldnt like about you DMing is the always bieng wrong thing, however a couple pit traps (especially with 6 players) and a couple level 4 kobolds is hardly hardly a dangerous situation.

purple gelatinous cube o' Doom
2007-09-08, 12:36 PM
I think putting your PC's through a challenge is a very good thing. One of the best games I've ever been in had a lot of challenges. Heck, the best encounter in the whole game was a red dragon fight we had at around level 15, where I, the party druid was the only person in the party that made it out alive, and it was great. I don't think you should be afraid to kill a character(s) during encounters, so long as the party can get them raised. I think the issue you're having is that you mislead the party all the time, every time. sometimes a suprise (good or bad) is a good thing, but not with everything you do. I can definitely see how that would be annoying. I think you also need to allow your players to do something wild and crazy from time to time so as to spice things up and have a lighter tone to your game at times.

kemmotar
2007-09-08, 01:07 PM
For one thing having tough fights and having the pcs try find a way to win or at least run away(once my monk ran away from a vampire carrying the unconscious rogue and cleris: S)...Maybe your pcs just arent good enough players. Not that they aren't resourceful, maybe you need to add a few supplement books so you can allow the pcs to have more choices...also letting the pcs be a bit more powerful isnt a bad thing. Give them some more loot, allow them to ask for a specific reward or just plain give them more ability points.

Also as it was mentioned before, throw around the occasional easy encounter to get their confidence up or give them the last small batch of xp so they can take the level so they can feel safer. Some small things like that can really help the pcs confidence.

In general i like near death experiences as a player it makes the game exciting.

Golthur
2007-09-08, 01:51 PM
I've played with a DM where every fight was +3-+5 ELs above the party level. It gets very "not fun" after a while, just because you know every fight is likely going to result in at least one character's death.

We had a single player in the group who went through 3 characters in 4 sessions of gaming. Extremely "not fun" for him.

Yes, a very tough fight is challenging and interesting - so long as it's not the only sort of fight you do. Give 'em a bunch of easy mooks every so often. Let the fighters use their "Great Cleavage" to just mow down tons of enemies.

...THEN hit 'em with the tough guys. :amused:

Raolin_Fenix
2007-09-08, 02:21 PM
Let me just say that in my current campaign (as a PC), I am, at present, on my fourth character.

My bard died in an Orc ambush, galloping up to rescue the downed Damsel In Distress who turned out to be an Orc with Disguise Self, and the rest of the Orcs swarmed him.

My fighter/rogue died after springing two annoying traps that reduced him to half HP (man, those dice hate me) and then opening the door into a pack of hellhounds. He stepped inside and swung at one of them, and then they swarmed him before any of the other players' initiative.

My mounted barbarian died in an assault on a Drow surface stronghold, when the Drow wizard blinded his horse. He made a somewhat better showing for himself in spite of it, soaking up two full rounds of attacks by a swarm of enemies before he finally fell to a pair of fireballs. The paladin's cohort died in that encounter, too, when a sword-spider dropped from the wall and impaled both her and her horse. That encounter ended up lasting three full sessions, the latter two bringing in my new ranger (who almost died already, in the third session of combat, to a couple of hits and an Unholy Blight).

That being said, I'm undaunted.

To be fair, I'm in a party of seven PCs. To date, I'm the only one that has actually died (with one exception, but that one was raised). So it's not too much of a stretch to imagine that most of those deaths are my own fault -- although each fight was just as deadly a threat to my companions as it was to me.

I have learned something of caution, but at the same time, I am a PC. I will jest about how every encounter will be my last (and probably be right), but my immortal PC Pride is more important than the threat of doom. After the last two deaths, I was just like, "Yup. Next."

Ashtar
2007-09-09, 04:58 PM
It all depends on the campaign...

In a call of Cthulhu, we went through about 10 PCs in total, with only one character living from beginning to end of the campaign; in part because at one point new character realised he was the only one to know the whole story and thus the only one who could really stop the evil.

In a long campaign in D&D, we usually have very few character deaths. By the time people are dealing with "Save or Die" effects, there is usually a raise that is available. Although, sometimes it does happen that a character just croaks... It's random, usually grisly and came be very effective to create fear and terror in the surviving characters.

BTW, have you ever had an evil enemy, who once he has downed one of your group takes the time to perform a Coup de Grāce on the downed PC? Or even just an extra attack to make sure he never gets up?

In the latest Eberron campaign, where we created 28 point buy characters, 1st level, we've nearly died every fight. This last session, the Kalashtar psion found himself alone against two fighters and miraculously survived with 1hp and the rest of the group down. It was so intense that the DM took off the DM screen and gave us access to every dice roll, so No Fudging on that one! I swear we go through healing potions like they were candy, we've set aside an adventuring fund for them and I'm saving up for a wand of cure light wounds to UMD (I'm a rogue).

Icewalker
2007-09-09, 05:36 PM
Well I can answer #1 at least:

I'd say the party should face quite life-threatening situations, be it a hard encounter or a deathtrap, 2-3 times per adventure MINIMUM.

Vincentrose91
2007-09-09, 06:01 PM
I put my PC's against alot of challenging traps, and if the EL is reasonable, then it is their fault for being unprepared. you really shouldn't be trying to kill them, but also, not make everything just peachy!
So i guess you have to find a middle ground between Challenging and Fun.

Stephen_E
2007-09-09, 09:00 PM
My experiance over 20+ years and many groups is that the player "courage" is a more significant factor on how threatening the encounters are considered rather than the factual danger level.

Some players will frequently go to within a few points of dying without batting a hair. Others will throw their hands up and start working on a new PC if they lose 25% of their hps.

Stephen

dyslexicfaser
2007-09-09, 09:17 PM
It all depends on the campaign...

In a call of Cthulhu, we went through about 10 PCs in total, with only one character living from beginning to end of the campaign; in part because at one point new character realised he was the only one to know the whole story and thus the only one who could really stop the evil.

In a long campaign in D&D, we usually have very few character deaths. By the time people are dealing with "Save or Die" effects, there is usually a raise that is available. Although, sometimes it does happen that a character just croaks... It's random, usually grisly and came be very effective to create fear and terror in the surviving characters.

BTW, have you ever had an evil enemy, who once he has downed one of your group takes the time to perform a Coup de Grāce on the downed PC? Or even just an extra attack to make sure he never gets up?

In the latest Eberron campaign, where we created 28 point buy characters, 1st level, we've nearly died every fight. This last session, the Kalashtar psion found himself alone against two fighters and miraculously survived with 1hp and the rest of the group down. It was so intense that the DM took off the DM screen and gave us access to every dice roll, so No Fudging on that one! I swear we go through healing potions like they were candy, we've set aside an adventuring fund for them and I'm saving up for a wand of cure light wounds to UMD (I'm a rogue).
In CoC, doesn't anyone who survives from start to finish end up pretty insane anyway?

Stephen_E
2007-09-09, 09:30 PM
In the latest Eberron campaign, where we created 28 point buy characters, 1st level, we've nearly died every fight. This last session, the Kalashtar psion found himself alone against two fighters and miraculously survived with 1hp and the rest of the group down. It was so intense that the DM took off the DM screen and gave us access to every dice roll, so No Fudging on that one! I swear we go through healing potions like they were candy, we've set aside an adventuring fund for them and I'm saving up for a wand of cure light wounds to UMD (I'm a rogue).

Get a Wand of Lesser Vigor. 1hp/rd for 11 rds.
MUCH more cost effective for healing, and only slightly weaker for "in combat" healing if things do get that desperate (yeah, I know that the wand does a average of 5.5 hps, but the range of 2-9 can see the "2" come up at just the wrong time).

750gp Wand of Cure Light = 275hps of healing on average.
750gp Wand of Lesser Vigor = 550hps of healing.

Stephen

Jade_Tarem
2007-09-10, 01:34 AM
...they just get to kick petard...

Had to nitpick this. Kicking petards is not a good idea. A petard is not a body part of any sort, although many think it is due to some wierd association they make with the word "hoist" in the expression "hoist by his own petard" - meaning "a plan that backfires." A petard was essentially a barrel of explosive substances used in early days as a kind of sapper or demolition charge. A man would carry this, run up to a wall or fortification, light it, and then run away. Early explosives being what they were, this occasionally led to the barrel going off far too soon. The ensuing explosion would frequently lift the guy clear off his feet and into the air, thus the term "hoist by his own petard."

Thank you, that is all.

On subject: I don't see that you're doing anything wrong, although it's true that, as the guy who wants to kick petards said, the players will become shocked and awed (in a bad way) over time if every encounter is brutal. On the other hand, maybe your players are just wimps.

My suggestion? Run them through ToH. It's kind of like putting a bunch of guys complaining how cold it is in, say, Ohio in the arctic circle. In their underwear. After they experience TPK before technically entering the tomb, your campaign will seem quite cozy and safe. :smallwink:

Kantolin
2007-09-10, 01:41 AM
They were afraid to open it! I admit, I want a little paranoia in my party, but they were yelling at one another, there were veiled accusations of cowardice. It was truly terrible.

Whoa. One second.

Do you mean they were yelling at each other... OOCly? Like, OOCly they were too afraid to keep going because the feeling they were getting was that they would die if anyone did anything?

Now, I dunno about your group in specific. I do know several people who love sequences like that, where they're constantly in fear of death. I also know of several people who prefer less likely to be fatal adventures.

If your group isn't having fun oocly, then you may wish to talk to them about it. Make sure they're having fun, or see if either you or they aren't playing/running the game in a fashion which is considered fun. As when people begin OOC yelling at each other, that frequently means they're not having much fun in game.

Ashtar
2007-09-10, 02:36 AM
In CoC, doesn't anyone who survives from start to finish end up pretty insane anyway?

He started out with high sanity (~75 SAN, 15 POW, I think) and ended with something like 20 SAN left. Also this player has the record number of consecutive SAN saves ever seen in my group (23 if I remember correctly). The DM was EVIL with sanity checks, around half our losses were from that.

For the Wand of lesser vigor, we don't have the book it's from, I think. I'll check with our current DM. Having Heal over Time spells sounds nice.

tid1000
2007-09-10, 07:32 AM
Honestly it sounds like your pc's are feeling overwelmed by the encounters, and possible the "apparent" difficulty.

While you may not be fudging rolls, I bet if you ask one of them off the side, you'd find that they think you are. Also consider that if you are stepping the encounter down a notch than that is also effectively Fudging rolls that you have not yet made.

1 encounter per day is fine. But its not fine if the party has one encounter which pushes them to the limits, than has to rest, and the cycle just continues the same every time. Alot of people may think thats fun, that its challenging, but really its not. 1 encounter obviously means the majority of your session is spent on one combat. I'd suggest going back to more encounters (the recommended 3-4) and save the big things for special occasions. It will be appricated more.

You also posted an example of 6 players at level 7, and said this was ECL 12?
The problem with parties larger than 4, is that a monster that is ECL 12 is far beyond what a group of 7th level characters should be facing. That would be like throwing the group up against a beholder or something similar. Sure they can kill it, but that sort of creature is smart enough to know how fragile its foes are, and start single targetting them, killing them 1 at a time. Generally I take an encounter of equal level (EL 7 vs a 7) and add more creatures into. The mob has an array of bodyguards to balance out the encounter, thus increasing the difficulty but not truely increasing the power level of it.

Stephen_E
2007-09-10, 09:45 AM
For the Wand of lesser vigor, we don't have the book it's from, I think. I'll check with our current DM. Having Heal over Time spells sounds nice.

From Comp Divine and Spell Compendium.
Lesser Vigor:
1st lev Druid/Cleric
heals 1hp per rd for spell duration.
Duration = 10 + CL (max +5).

Thus Wands made at CL1 do 11pts.
Means no one has to be the heal monkey.
In my current DnD campaigm my Druid convinced the party to buy one. The current encounter/adventure has so far involved 8 combats and used 12-13 charges. i.e. around 140pts of healing. Sure the party has to keep me alive, but I don't have to use my spell resources healing people and it's vastly cheaper and more reliable to doing cure wpunds spells.
Do remeber that you can't stack them, so it takes 2 minutes 12 secs to have 2 lesser vigors cast on you and heal 22 hps.

Stephen

Kurald Galain
2007-09-10, 10:30 AM
It's simply fun to have a moderate-level party ambushed at some point by low-level orcs, or face attempted extortion by first level rogues, or something like that.

AKA_Bait
2007-09-10, 10:42 AM
It's simply fun to have a moderate-level party ambushed at some point by low-level orcs, or face attempted extortion by first level rogues, or something like that.

Yeah, also, it's important to remember that even though some monsters the party facces are going to be evil masterminds with intricate plots who are aware of the party's capabilities etc. that not all of them are. Most criminals are... well... below average smarts and so a bunch of low level thugs deciding that they can take the party ought to happen every so often.

Rex Blunder
2007-09-10, 10:57 AM
A petard is not a body part of any sort, although many think it is due to some wierd association they make with the word "hoist" in the expression "hoist by his own petard"...

AKA_Bait might be playing on the fact that petard's original meaning, which inspired the bomb name, is "fart". From there to kicking petard is a small conceptual step. I think Shakespeare was also going for raunchy wordplay there too, lord love 'im.

On topic: As a player, I like the occasional fight that's above our level. That gives us the chance to go into "this is serious guys, we really have to get ready for this one" tactical planning mode. Those high-stakes battles might be the most fun for me, but if every battle were like this, I think it would be like watching the last twenty minutes of six consecutive action movies instead of watching one movie all the way through - you can't achieve the same level of tension without the buildup. Besides, if every battle has a 30% chance or so of a TPK, you're going to go through parties pretty quickly.

valadil
2007-09-10, 11:40 AM
This doesn't directly relate to one of your questions, but I think it works with the general theme of your post.

As fun as it is to be an evil GM, you run the risk of alienating players by making things futile. Yes, it is absolutely possible to turn every single plotline against your players. It takes some creativity and is incredibly fun if you pull it off, but it will eventually make your players lose interest. As soon as the players realize that you can screw them for any choice they make, their choices become meaningless. Why bother agonizing over plot points if you're just going to get stabbed in the back anyway? I had this problem in my first game where the players simply stopped trying because they knew it wouldn't make a difference.

The trick is you have to give the players some victories too. Absolutely turn their friends against them (betrayal is the quickest way to make a villain they really hate) but let the PCs win the fights that ensue. I'm a big fan of 3 part recurring villains. Whoop PC ass in the first fight (possibly the one where alliances shift), but let the PCs escape. Give the bad guy a cowardly retreat the second time around, when the PCs know what they're dealing with. Finally once they've strategized to death, let them have their win. Yes you got to be the evil GM twice to their one victory, but that is an incredibly meaningful victory in the eyes of the players.

I'm gonna stop talking now because I'm rambling and I'm not even sure if this was relevant anyway.

Chaos Bringer
2007-09-10, 11:41 AM
I kind of have the opposite problem. My DM often thinks he's being terribly clever and throws something compicated our way. We usually take it apart within 2 rounds and make him cry. Then he thinks he's throwing a trash encounter at us and it almost wipes us out! Imagine 6 Kobolds with short bows, not that hard right? The DM didnt think that the one bridge we had to cross to get them would be so bad. Well when one of the players commented on how sucky it would be for the kobolds to sabatoge the bridge, i think a trap popped up spontaeniously and dropped half the party in the water. The half wearing plate... What should have been a 3 round fight dragged on forever from dragging us poor heavy bastards from the water (sometimes twice!) then FINALLY getting over there to slaughter these kobolds that could barely hit over our AC. Moral: our PCs fear bridges much more than kobolds.

Indon
2007-09-10, 11:51 AM
Heh, I run my campaign completely oppositely; I've been giving my players such easy encounters that they've become gung-ho about the whole thing. While that's certainly not bad (it just doesn't seem right to render an Exalted party as being overly cautious), I've been working on upping the difficulty and amount of thought required for my encounters, both physical and otherwise.

Citadel
2007-09-10, 12:11 PM
Lot of good advice but one thing hasn't been mentioned. Have you asked your players how they feel about the difficulty level? I have been in situations as a player where myself and the party have been terrified of opening the next door but absolutely loving it. However, recently playing in a SciFi game all the PCs just decided to sit and not move and wait for their inevitable deaths, which was not fun. In that one, the GM bailed us with some deus ex machina: totally unsatisfying. Don't be scared to ask your players what they think. You want to give them a game and a challenge they will find fun. The more they enjoy the game, the more you'll enjoy the game.

Crazy_Uncle_Doug
2007-09-10, 12:16 PM
There's something to be said about occasionally having an easy fight ...

The group I DM for is essentially the same group I play with another day, save for one chair which is filled with a different person either group. The DM for the other group plays in my group. We get a contrast of DMs there.

We both play monsters and encounters that are essentially the same level. However, he tends to be more tactically-minded than I am, and also tends to roll better than I, at least as far as the other players perceive things. Thus, the party I DM for has level 16 characters and perceives their encounters to be just what they like, and the party he DMs for frequently frets about whether they will survive. I'm fairly positive I could run the same adventure he is running for us, and the party would be less concerned about survival.

Also, not everything turns out as expected. The party I run for had more difficulty taking out an Old Green Dragon than they did an Ancient Green Dragon. I had planned for the Ancient to be harder, but they got a couple lucky criticals on him and that was that.

tainsouvra
2007-09-10, 01:25 PM
While your players do have some issues, there is a problem with your DMing as well. The OOC conflict is, of course, a sign that what you're currently doing isn't working for your group--so while it's not inherently bad to change the rules of D&D, your group obviously isn't enjoying your change, so you might want to retract it from now on. The change in question is...

3. Typically what I do to balance an encounter is I figure what the ECL for the PC group is (6 level 7 PC's is an ECL of 12, for example). Then I come up with an encounter of equivalent level (bunch of PC classed kobolds, for example). We typically only do one big fight per game day, so they usually aren't strapped for resources/magic. Is this too much? Should I tone it down a bit? Is that what is scaring my players in to inaction? (even though I've never killed a player character doing this?) D&D's encounter system is based off an average of 4 (sometimes 5) encounters per day which drain an average of 1/4 of the party's renewable resources. It is true that, from a resource-drain point of view, you can accomplish the same thing with one monolithic encounter that drains 3/4 or more of their resources...but that utterly neglects the human factor A party that regularly stomps 4 encounters a day, only draining themselves a little to do so, is constantly having their confidence bolstered by clear success.
A party that regularly struggles to complete a single encounter a day, barely managing to pull out a victory, is constantly having their confidence eroded by near-defeat. Thus, while your players do have some problems (why are they playing if they don't like adventure?), your style of a single ECL+5 fight per day is averse to inspiring player confidence and the adventuring spirit, in addition to never giving the players a feeling that they're playing truly powerful characters. It's a bad idea unless you happen to have a group that loves to get stomped daily--there are such groups, so it's not inherently bad, but you quite clearly do not have such a group yourself.

So, in short, have more encounters and weaker encounters as your baseline, and only throw a massive deadly encounter at them in rare--and dramatically appropriate--situations. To emphasize that point, this doesn't mean you shouldn't ever throw a truly deadly encounter at them...just don't make that the only encounter they face. As much as it doesn't make sense from a resource-use point of view, if your party is feeling overwhelmed, it's often good to throw more encounters at them...but make them easier to win than the party is expecting. Adventurers need to be confident, and players are only confident in their characters when their characters succeed regularly.

For example, I periodically throw truly deadly encounters at my players, at least one per story arc. A couple sessions ago, the party fled with half of its members having barely stabilized (and lucky to have done so) and very nearly suffered a TPK due to a tactical error during the encounter. However, in the same session, they also faced a couple encounters that they thoroughly trounced--despite the encounters having potential danger--so rather than feeling like their characters were totally out of their depth in adventuring at all, they felt like their characters had merely faced a particularly dangerous encounter but that the next one would probably be ok. They were exhilarated rather than deterred. Now, I could have only thrown one or two deadly encounters instead of adding in a few that were easily within their capabilities--and that would have used less resources than the session we ran consumed--but the psychology of it would have been less conducive to a fun session.

Simple rule of thumb, based on how people in general tend to review a risk-vs-reward situation...plan for three clear victories to each near-defeat. If you plan that ECL+5 encounter and nothing else, consider remedying your plan to make it ECL+3 instead, then adding an an ECL= at the beginning of the day, an ECL-2 right before it, and an ECL-2 right after it. Same overall danger, same (or more) resources used, but I bet your players will start doing more adventuring and less bickering.

Edit: I have a reputation as a somewhat deadly DM, but am often called on to DM again by people who have played with me before--even one player who has lost several characters still wants to see what I'll do next. I consider this, in part at least, due to styling adventures to work like I just described. My players are used to succeeding, and thus are willing to confront challenges when they appear, but have a sense of danger from knowing the next encounter could be a nasty one. The thrill of success does come, in part, from the risk of defeat--but if success doesn't come often, the thrill goes away.

tannish2
2007-09-10, 05:24 PM
well, i play with a group where the least lethal campaign we were in recently was expedition to castle ravenloft. at least 1 player dies every session (last night my character went to -30, but with 2 clerics casting close wounds and 3 contingent close wounds spells i managed to live) luckily i have the only 2 characters in the group without divine spellcasting ability (and when i choose to play him, even my kineticist took the cross class power feat to get revivify, its an upper mid level game) but occasionally its a good idea to throw encounters that dont almost kill the party at them if your getting that predictable, and yes, cycling the DM seat is a good thing on occasion have a main DM and just sometimes when you dont feel like it or dont think you will have time to prepare ask someone else if they want to DM that week.

PnP Fan
2007-09-24, 11:40 PM
Someone will probably accuse me of thread resurection or something. . .

I just wanted to thank everyone who contributed to this thread for the good advice. I think the best piece of advice I received was to talk to my players about what's going on. It's advice that I regularly give to other folks on the board, so I guess it's time I tried it for myself. My apologies for not responding to your posts, but I've had to travel a bit for work, and I don't always have time to check the forums, especially when someone else wants to use the hotel computer for actual work. ;-)

Anyway, to clarify a few issues that folks brought up, and that I should have clarified in my OP:
1. I haven't used the red herring plot elements in quite a while (at least a year, probably closer to 2 or 3), but some of my players talked it up so much (in pleasure at the time) that it's now part of my rep. I caused my own problem there. <sigh> So they often spend time looking to get messed with, even when I've got a straight forward dungeon crawl. Even when I used the Red Herring, there was always an opportunity to follow up and correct the mistake. I'm Evil, not a jerk (though the concern for "every plot hook to have a Herring" is a valid one that I discovered on my own.)

2. Not only have I never killed a PC using the method described in my OP for constructing encounters, but I usually don't really drive their hp down very much. Something I left out of the description, is that I try to make individual monsters/NPCs of about equal power level (+/- 2 levels) as any individual PC. So, if the PC's are all 7th level, then the monsters will be CR 6-8, if it's a large group of monsters.

3. I did ask my players if the challenge level was enough, and whether they preferred small groups of powerful creatures (we'd done a dinosaur encounter not too long ago) or larger groups of equal power levels (small horde of kobolds with class levels per paragraph 2). I received a diplomatically noncommital, "yes, variety!" Several posters have suggested that I add in "throw away" encounters that just give players the chance to show off. I will follow this idea.

4. In the short run I will probably have a talk with my players to find out what's going on. I've been watching where most of the dissatisfaction is coming from, and it seems to be from two other guys that regularly DM for this group of people. I'm thinking that might be the source of some of the problem. Ultimately, I think, after this campaign is over, I'm just going to hang up DMing for this group of folks, 'cause the truth is I don't think anything I'm going to do will be "right" (for reasons to numerable to list, mostly revolving around power level, see paragraph 5), and I've got better ways to spend my time (Brown belt here I come!!!! ;-)

5. Someone asked about power levels and whatnot. Typically we start playing at about level 4-6. Pretty much any d20 product is available to the players and DM (except when I DM, I limit them to TSR products, as that's the only stuff I buy, generally). The campaigns typically have a Monty Haul feel to them, with large portions of sessions sometimes spent RPing the sale of lesser magic for better magic items. The PC's are typically kitted out with exactly the equipment they need to make maximum use of their character's abilities (which I don't really have problems with, though for me it sort of cheapens the coolness of magic items in the first place). Attribute generation is typically either 4d6, reroll 1's, pick 3, possibly with several sets (2 or 3 sets of attributes), or it's a point buy with large number of points (40 ish). Oh, and there is a 7th attribute called luck that does a variety of things, though basically it's kind of like Action points in d20 Mod/Eberon.
That's the sort of power that's floating around.

Okay, having said that, and re read it, it sounds like I'm complaining (hopefully not whining. . . I don't like cheese, or very small violins). And I guess I am. But I will say that we generally have a good time. Lots of jokes, and laughing, and what not, so I don't really care how other folks run their games, but I'm getting the feeling that how I run my games is bothersome to some folks, and that's the thing that's got me a little worried.

And yes, they were yelling (not continuously, or in truly ANGRY fashion, but in a definitely argumentative tone that doesn't build the team) out of character. Insults were tossed around OOC by the PLAYERS, not the PC's. If it were PC's that were being cowardly, and making fun of each other, it would be quite humorous. There was no laughter. Things at the last session were better, but still not where they are normally.

Anyway, thanks for the good advice (there was more than what I've referenced, but I'm starting to ramble). I hope to be able to act on it in a week.

PnP