Is this unreasonable as me as a DM?

[suplee215]

Basically, I am having some issues with my players and it culminated in this. I am running a final leg of a campaign and they are leveling up 5 levels from 11 to 16. Is it unreasonable of me to ask to see their character sheets to make sure everything is on the level and we both have an understanding of what they are working with? I am being accused of trying to learn their abilities to make the campaign impossible for them I think and not showing them what I am making.

[J-H]

Not at all. I always ask for character sheet copies after level-ups.
1) It lets me know what abilities and spells to look up and prepare for in the game. Sorcerer just took sickening radiance? Out of all the 4th level spells, I can be familiar with it so that there's no hold-up in game.
2) Error-checking: This is how I found the guy who was running a 20-point buy fighter in a 27-point buy game. He wasn't very effective that first session with low stats!
3) Inventory review. My players have forgotten some magic items, or written them down incorrectly. There's also at least one area in the game where you need a specific item type in your inventory to activate a bit of magic. Nothing harmful.
4) Hey monk, did you know that you can two-hand that versatile weapon to make it 1d8 instead of 1d6?

Someone who wants to hide the character sheet is either up to something, or has had a prior bad experience with an adversarial DM.

[suplee215]

Someone who wants to hide the character sheet is either up to something, or has had a prior bad experience with an adversarial DM.

Sadly I might have totally screwed up this game and he sees me as an adversarial DM due to some things I have done even though I keep trying to not do that. And we have had multiple talks and I thought we were on it but now he is refusing this request (as is another party member).

[Kane0]

If thats the case then you have to decide between keeping them happy by not forcing the issue and your own peace of mind by going over those sheets. It doesnt sound like you can get both.

[Jerrykhor]

That's a weird attitude to have. I thought every player knows that the DM has the right to see your character sheet.

Gaining 5 levels in one shot is bonkers though, not sure what you're up to.

Regardless, you should tell your players not to have this Player vs DM mentality. Its not healthy, and if the DM has this mentality, the DM always wins.

[suplee215]

Gaining 5 levels in one shot is bonkers though, not sure what you're up to.



Basically I ended the campaign because personal **** came up and I needed a break from dming as someone else DMed for a bit and then I was going to start up a new campaign. But apparently people were very annoyed by that (2 weeks before I ended it I took a poll of players to see if they wanted to continue or end it and it was literally a 50/50 split with deciding factor to continue just on that but then I decided to just end it without another poll because getting all the players to repond is a hassle). So now we are doing a final blast of that campaign with the 5 levels as something I know they will enjoy to see their characters there and stuff.

[sithlordnergal]

Hmmm, on the surface it isn't...but if there is some history between you and your players, then I can see why the players might be concerned. Personally, I don't see an issue with it, I like being kept updated on party stats as a DM, it allows me to know if the random battle I'm going to throw at them is unreasonably difficult or not.

[suplee215]

Hmmm, on the surface it isn't...but if there is some history between you and your players, then I can see why the players might be concerned.

Quite honesty I am unsure if I gave him reasons to be concerned or if this is just how he thinks. He is one of the more tactical members and plays a lot of video games. Probably a combination of both.

[ezekielraiden]

If your players can't trust you to know what's on their character sheets, you have much bigger problems than just this campaign finale.

It's not extreme of you to want to know what's on their new character sheets. It is extreme of them to want to know all your plans in exchange for it. That's...kind of completely inappropriate, for a variety of reasons.

[Zhorn]

As a DM asking to see player's character sheets? Non-issue, or at least this shouldn't be. If anyone has a problem with this, it's more a reflection of some other problem; most likely a perception of the game being DM-vs-Player, mistrust, or intentionally trying to pull some underhanded tactic.

It's probably for the best that the campaign is wrapping up, as continuing under that condition is not a health mindset to play in.

[DarknessEternal]

A DM is required to know everything the PCs have if they actually want to be a good DM.

[kazaryu]

Basically, I am having some issues with my players and it culminated in this. I am running a final leg of a campaign and they are leveling up 5 levels from 11 to 16. Is it unreasonable of me to ask to see their character sheets to make sure everything is on the level and we both have an understanding of what they are working with? I am being accused of trying to learn their abilities to make the campaign impossible for them I think and not showing them what I am making.

going into this i'll not necessarily comment on the overall situation, i lack too much context. however, this player is clearly exhibiting a player vs DM mentality. and *needs* to understand that
1. you as the DM get final say on all of his abilities anyway. full stop. you can't adjudicate that if you can't see their character sheets.
2. learning what players *can* do so you can tailor encounters to them, is....well i won't say its what a DM should do, because there are a few other DMing styles that are equally valid. however, this is a perfectly valid DMing style, in fact its my own style.
3. if you were looking to make things impossible for the players, you wouldn't need to learn their abilities first. unless you're allowing your players to see the statblocks of monsters (which i assume you're not) you are free to change them whenever you want, including mid fight. which means if they pull an ability you didn't know, you can just spontaneously give the creature a counter to that and they needn't be any the wiser. so chill out and let the DM do their thing.
4. if you wanted to learn most of what they can do, all you need is 1. their class/subclass and 2. their level. those two datums are enough to learn between 75%and 90% of what a character can do. (with the variance due to casters).


as far as advice goes: i'd suggest having an honest conversation with them. be open minded, give them an opportunity to express their actual concerns, why they think the way they do. its entirely possible they've been misinterpreting things you've been doing. its also possible that you've overreacted a few times and have a few things to work on. However, i don't think you should ever explcitly or implicitly concede the right to examine their character sheets. because their behavior is sus as....

[suplee215]

Thank you all. I did have a talk with him although it got somewhat heated and nothing has really change. Ultimately he thinks one of the things he wants to do has an easy counter measure I'll figure out and exploit because that is what he will do and he respect me as a tactical mind. While I keep saying this isn't DM vs Player he is still not budging on the mindset I think. While I do fear I'm just a sucky DM who encouraged that somehow I also think the guy just have this. he also does say what makes the game fun is seeing the players and the DM react to situations they don't expect and stuff.

[LudicSavant]

It's pretty standard to let the DM see your character sheet.

[stoutstien]

Thank you all. I did have a talk with him although it got somewhat heated and nothing has really change. Ultimately he thinks one of the things he wants to do has an easy counter measure I'll figure out and exploit because that is what he will do and he respect me as a tactical mind. While I keep saying this isn't DM vs Player he is still not budging on the mindset I think. While I do fear I'm just a sucky DM who encouraged that somehow I also think the guy just have this. he also does say what makes the game fun is seeing the players and the DM react to situations they don't expect and stuff.

One theory or DM style to prevent this issue is to make it clear that the game and more importantly every encounter are made prior to any DM knowledge of what the PC are capable of. He probably would be more open if you had the encounters premade before you spot check the PC sheet.

[suplee215]

One theory or DM style to prevent this issue is to make it clear that the game and more importantly every encounter are made prior to any DM knowledge of what the PC are capable of. He probably would be more open if you had the encounters premade before you spot check the PC sheet.
Except with the 5 level buff I didnt feel comfortable with that as I have to take a deep dive to figure out what they can and cant handle.

[stoutstien]

Except with the 5 level buff I didnt feel comfortable with that as I have to take a deep dive to figure out what they can and cant handle.

Use a pseudo party. 5e is very forgiving in terms of balance through out an adventuring days. If your actual party has a fighter, wizard, cleric, and a ranger use a Barbarian, sorcerer, druid, and a rogue. Overall they may have different approaches to problems but they should be able to handle similar difficulties.
If you are using the knowledge of their exact characters to plan out your game they absolutely have a valid complaint. If you are not comfortable running the game blind of the PCs you might be playing at a tier the table overall isn't ready for. I see it a lot moving into tier 3. I know a lot of people really want to play the higher levels but it's exponentially more difficult to run a good game the higher you go.

[suplee215]

Use a pseudo party. 5e is very forgiving in terms of balance through out an adventuring days. If your actual party has a fighter, wizard, cleric, and a ranger use a Barbarian, sorcerer, druid, and a rogue. Overall they may have different approaches to problems but they should be able to handle similar difficulties.
If you are using the knowledge of their exact characters to plan out your game they absolutely have a valid complaint. If you are not comfortable running the game blind of the PCs you might be playing at a tier the table overall isn't ready for. I see it a lot moving into tier 3. I know a lot of people really want to play the higher levels but it's exponentially more difficult to run a good game the higher you go.

Fair on this to an extent but doesnt a good DM craft the battle for the party? That is what I want to do and I think I have done it. It's possible we arent ready especially as I know some players are going to need help either because they are new or they just need help for this (and some players are bringing in new characters). But also attempting to end the game and move on to a new place caused issues

[Onos]

I'm not going to rehash the whole "the GM gets to see the sheets, PERIOD" argument, since it's been pretty clearly covered.
I will say that one approach you could take with your problem player(s) is to inform them that without seeing their character sheets you can't really prepare appropriate rewards. This may be a greater or lesser issue at your table but to take the extreme example of "magic items can only be found and never bought" your Fighter may never get fancy weapons or armour that they like, casters may not get the Ioun stone they want etc.
Hopefully approaching it from the point of view of helping your player may sort out the issues you're having.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Just tell him to show his work or stay home on game day.

[suplee215]

I'm not going to rehash the whole "the GM gets to see the sheets, PERIOD" argument, since it's been pretty clearly covered.
I will say that one approach you could take with your problem player(s) is to inform them that without seeing their character sheets you can't really prepare appropriate rewards. This may be a greater or lesser issue at your table but to take the extreme example of "magic items can only be found and never bought" your Fighter may never get fancy weapons or armour that they like, casters may not get the Ioun stone they want etc.
Hopefully approaching it from the point of view of helping your player may sort out the issues you're having.

As a final horah and them getting top end magic items last time and this being an excuse to use them I dont see this working.

[stoutstien]

Fair on this to an extent but doesnt a good DM craft the battle for the party? That is what I want to do and I think I have done it. It's possible we arent ready especially as I know some players are going to need help either because they are new or they just need help for this (and some players are bringing in new characters). But also attempting to end the game and move on to a new place caused issues

This is a subject of some debate. We are definitely going into the realm of theoretical game management.
IMO tailoring the game around the individual players isn't a good idea both from A mechanical and a immersive point of view.
1) by tailoring the game around the players you are removing all power of their choices. Part of each individual character development within a game is them reacting to the world. as they level up and become more powerful their choices are driven by what they've experienced and what they can expect to see. if they do well in an account because you let them if they do badly it's because you didn't want them to regardless of what decisions they make.
2) by building tailored encounters to a specific party you leave yourself very little room for error. By knowing and countering the party's primary strategies all the time you might think you're making the game better but those other strategies that you see they may not. you might think it might take them one or two turns to figure it out it might take them four or five and in 5e that's long enough to turn a seeming medium the hard encounter to deadly or TPK territory. Blocking the party's primary strategy is fine every once in awhile but it needs to happen organically.
3) the level of individual metagaming that is appreciated at any given table is something that can only be solved at each individual table. by stating to your players that you are building the game around their specific PCs you're shifting that point a great deal. I would not be surprised if it's a common habit at your table for one of the players to start communicating knowledge they have about the NPCs that they are facing off against to the others. By you building the game around the players of players are going to start looking for ways to gain an edge. From reading the monster manual little more often to maybe even try hiding some of their ideas and plans from you.(like not wanting you to see their character sheet). This usually start the vicious cycle of players using different approaches and the DM reacting and ratchets up the deadliness. the most likely outcome to this is a table usually does one or two encounters a day then the party strategically retreats, recharges and repeats. Then the DM tries to force more encounters in so the party streamlines their characters even more to be purpose built to quickly finish the new quota.
it should start sounding very much like what someone would describe as a DM versus the player mindset.
really did it start out at the DM laughing maniacally and trying to figure out a ways to kill their party. the vast majority of time I think it's a DM trying to make the game better just going about it the wrong way.
4) building party specific encounters is largely unnecessary. 5e PC are flexible and hearty. is long to use a good mixture of different types of encounters that might occasionally trip up any party it's fine.

Now after this seemingly big wall of text I'll share my approach. Use it, disregard it, make fun of it, doesn't matter but it does work. I planned my games out story arcs or blocks and at the beginning of each one of these arcs I roll up a completely random party that has equal number of members and within a level or two.
My pool is a mixture of characters in my hopper that I wish to play at some point or retired PCs from others and a hand full of ones I built just for this.
A lot like Shadow boxing, I just kind of run through it in my head without actually rolling any dice or tracking resources. If an encounter is questionable I might do a blow-by-blow. It's also important to look at this from the entire resource recovery cycle and not individual encounters.
it seems like a lot of work but you get the point where you could run through 30-40 of them in 20 minutes.

There are countless other theories and strategies of building a good game and I suggest you at least experiment with other options other than building the game off the character sheets.

[Tanarii]

Except with the 5 level buff I didnt feel comfortable with that as I have to take a deep dive to figure out what they can and cant handle.


Fair on this to an extent but doesnt a good DM craft the battle for the party? That is what I want to do and I think I have done it. It's possible we arent ready especially as I know some players are going to need help either because they are new or they just need help for this (and some players are bringing in new characters). But also attempting to end the game and move on to a new place caused issues
It sounds to me like the player is right, you want to see their character sheets so you can tailor the encounters to the party.

And no, that's not what a good DM does. It's not necessarily a Bad DM move. But neither is it a good DM move. It's a style of play, with benefits and downsides.

Generally speaking I feel that a DM should keep a copy of character sheets, and usually there's no reason for a player to balk at it. But you've already admitted this player has you dead to rights with their reason.

[suplee215]

It sounds to me like the player is right, you want to see their character sheets so you can tailor the encounters to the party.

And no, that's not what a good DM does. It's not necessarily a Bad DM move. But neither is it a good DM move. It's a style of play, with benefits and downsides.

Generally speaking I feel that a DM should keep a copy of character sheets, and usually there's no reason for a player to balk at it. But you've already admitted this player has you dead to rights with their reason.

Not really because their reason is I'm never going let them use it if I know about it.

[ad_hoc]

Fair on this to an extent but doesnt a good DM craft the battle for the party? That is what I want to do and I think I have done it. It's possible we arent ready especially as I know some players are going to need help either because they are new or they just need help for this (and some players are bringing in new characters). But also attempting to end the game and move on to a new place caused issues

This is anathema to me.

Personally I feel for the PC/party's traits to have a real impact they need to be able to impact the game as is. If everything is tailored to them, then they don't really mean anything. It doesn't matter than you can do X because once you are able to do it then A, B, and C in the adventure was changed to fit with it.

This is true both for removing or adding challenges.

Allow the game to happen organically. Allow for there to be tough situations where the party needs to come up with clever solutions to get by.

[suplee215]

Now after this seemingly big wall of text I'll share my approach. Use it, disregard it, make fun of it, doesn't matter but it does work. I planned my games out story arcs or blocks and at the beginning of each one of these arcs I roll up a completely random party that has equal number of members and within a level or two.
My pool is a mixture of characters in my hopper that I wish to play at some point or retired PCs from others and a hand full of ones I built just for this.
A lot like Shadow boxing, I just kind of run through it in my head without actually rolling any dice or tracking resources. If an encounter is questionable I might do a blow-by-blow. It's also important to look at this from the entire resource recovery cycle and not individual encounters.
it seems like a lot of work but you get the point where you could run through 30-40 of them in 20 minutes.

There are countless other theories and strategies of building a good game and I suggest you at least experiment with other options other than building the game off the character sheets.

This is interesting even if it kinda feels like you are assuming I'm at an extreme edge of the opposite side. I have been thinking of doing either a module or using a setting book in the next campaign so I am not entirely making the world for similar reasons so I can see where you are coming from.

[suplee215]

This is anathema to me.

Personally I feel for the PC/party's traits to have a real impact they need to be able to impact the game as is. If everything is tailored to them, then they don't really mean anything. It doesn't matter than you can do X because once you are able to do it then A, B, and C in the adventure was changed to fit with it.

This is true both for removing or adding challenges.

Allow the game to happen organically. Allow for there to be tough situations where the party needs to come up with clever solutions to get by.

I do that. I dont tailor every single encounter but I also do put in moments for them to shine or struggle in specific moments. Not every single thing is and I do allow them the freedom to surprise me (or at least i hope I do). I had them encounter the underground fungus not knowing that someone had speaks with plants that created an amazing moment.

[stoutstien]

This is interesting even if it kinda feels like you are assuming I'm at an extreme edge of the opposite side. I have been thinking of doing either a module or using a setting book in the next campaign so I am not entirely making the world for similar reasons so I can see where you are coming from.

Based on your post i assumed you are in some way building the game around the PCs. I wouldn't say it's the worst thing a DM can do but it's definitely not on the list of good things. It's a very risky strategy with very low payout.

It's interesting you bring up published material. The same way at GM would be upset that the players read ahead in a published adventure to gain an edge, from the player's view point this is exactly what you're doing to them.

[suplee215]

Based on your post i assumed you are in some way building the game around the PCs. I wouldn't say it's the worst thing a DM can do but it's definitely not on the list of good things. It's a very risky strategy with very low payout.

It's interesting you bring up published material. The same way at GM would be upset that the players read ahead in a published adventure to gain an edge, from the player's view point this is exactly what you're doing to them.

Honesty at this point between this and a heated talk I am no longer sure what I am or what people think. The best way I can describe it is like for the necromancer in the party I am providing plenty of chances for him to use his ability or i throw them in icy terrain as some members have things that can avoid that. Or I gave a boss fight an item that prevents the hold person spell but also was useful for the party as a whole as it's a sea going campaign and having something that gives a swim speed was good. I didnt make every encounter safe against hold person but I wanted to see the encounter. I also built an encounter where there was a group of skeletons that got animated in the middle of the fight behind them as a way to attack from behind if they focused on the main threat. While that was done because I know the party can do things, I do not think it's a horrible encounter either and it led to a different outcome than I expected with it as the party did some smart things around it. It just feels like I wouldn't have made an encounter like that if I didnt take I to account the party.

[ad_hoc]

I do that. I dont tailor every single encounter but I also do put in moments for them to shine or struggle in specific moments. Not every single thing is and I do allow them the freedom to surprise me (or at least i hope I do). I had them encounter the underground fungus not knowing that someone had speaks with plants that created an amazing moment.

Are they really 'shining' though?

If the trap is only there because the PC can disarm it, then the disarm ability is not actually doing anything. Because if the PC didn't have the ability there would be no trap. In both cases traps don't pose a challenge.

And do you really need to put in a 'gotcha' to counter their abilities to make them struggle? That sounds adversarial and not fun at all.

Try playing some published adventures to see what balanced adventures look like and to experience what not changing the game to match the PCs does too.

[stoutstien]

Honesty at this point between this and a heated talk I am no longer sure what I am or what people think. The best way I can describe it is like for the necromancer in the party I am providing plenty of chances for him to use his ability or i throw them in icy terrain as some members have things that can avoid that. Or I gave a boss fight an item that prevents the hold person spell but also was useful for the party as a whole as it's a sea going campaign and having something that gives a swim speed was good. I didnt make every encounter safe against hold person but I wanted to see the encounter. I also built an encounter where there was a group of skeletons that got animated in the middle of the fight behind them as a way to attack from behind if they focused on the main threat. While that was done because I know the party can do things, I do not think it's a horrible encounter either and it led to a different outcome than I expected with it as the party did some smart things around it. It just feels like I wouldn't have made an encounter like that if I didnt take I to account the party.

Fairly tame thread overall.
the real question is it have you asked your players if this is behavior that they want? you might view it as giving them a chance to shine bit they might view it as a participation trophy. the evidence that the players are reluctant to show you their character sheet is showing conflict in player expectations.

[kazaryu]

This is a subject of some debate. We are definitely going into the realm of theoretical game management.
IMO tailoring the game around the individual players isn't a good idea both from A mechanical and a immersive point of view.
1) by tailoring the game around the players you are removing all power of their choices.
2) by building tailored encounters to a specific party you leave yourself very little room for error. By knowing and countering the party's primary strategies all the time you might think you're making the game better but those other strategies that you see they may not. you might think it might take them one or two turns to figure it out it might take them four or five and in 5e that's long enough to turn a seeming medium the hard encounter to deadly or TPK territory. Blocking the party's primary strategy is fine every once in awhile but it needs to happen organically.
3) the level of individual metagaming that is appreciated at any given table is something that can only be solved at each individual table. by stating to your players that you are building the game around their specific PCs you're shifting that point a great deal. I would not be surprised if it's a common habit at your table for one of the players to start communicating knowledge they have about the NPCs that they are facing off against to the others. By you building the game around the players of players are going to start looking for ways to gain an edge. From reading the monster manual little more often to maybe even try hiding some of their ideas and plans from you.(like not wanting you to see their character sheet). This usually start the vicious cycle of players using different approaches and the DM reacting and ratchets up the deadliness. the most likely outcome to this is a table usually does one or two encounters a day then the party strategically retreats, recharges and repeats. Then the DM tries to force more encounters in so the party streamlines their characters even more to be purpose built to quickly finish the new quota.
it should start sounding very much like what someone would describe as a DM versus the player mindset.
really did it start out at the DM laughing maniacally and trying to figure out a ways to kill their party. the vast majority of time I think it's a DM trying to make the game better just going about it the wrong way.
4) building party specific encounters is largely unnecessary. 5e PC are flexible and hearty. is long to use a good mixture of different types of encounters that might occasionally trip up any party it's fine.



EHHH, i mean, i see your point, but it comes down to a few things.

your point 1 works both ways. tailoring encounters to your party can also empower choices. it allows you to more easily bring out those niche scenarios for niche abilites. remember players are there to have fun. now, the caveat is that its not something you want your players to find out you do. although its less harmful than if you were to fudge dice, and your players found out. it can stil harm their fun if they find out you've been doing it, ruin the illusion so to speak.

for you point 2. in a similar vein as the above, 'tailoring the experience to the party' isn't just about blocking their primary strategy. indeed, if it is their primary strategy, chances are...you know it anyway. but its also about knowing what they can do so you don't consistently give them trivial encounters, which is unfun in the long run.

all-in-all, while i won't (again) say that its the 'correct' way to DM. it is a very high reward style of play

going back to the topic at hand, it also seems its a bit late for this to work like that, since they already assume that that is what he does. loses that verisimilitude. although i will point out, if this player thinks that you as a DM with say 'no' to whatever it is he's hiding, there's a good chance its some cheese. on the other hand, if this is meant as a least hurrah, idk if thats a bad thing. i mean, im currently planning a 1-2 shot adventure at lvl 2- with gestalt characters, and will actively encourage the players to bring whatever cheese they can come up with. it can certainly be fun for individual sessions.

[JoeJ]

Not really because their reason is I'm never going let them use it if I know about it.

That seems odd. Are they only planning on using that ability once? Because after the first time, you'll know what it is regardless.

[stoutstien]

EHHH, i mean, i see your point, but it comes down to a few things.

your point 1 works both ways. tailoring encounters to your party can also empower choices. it allows you to more easily bring out those niche scenarios for niche abilites. remember players are there to have fun. now, the caveat is that its not something you want your players to find out you do. although its less harmful than if you were to fudge dice, and your players found out. it can stil harm their fun if they find out you've been doing it, ruin the illusion so to speak.

for you point 2. in a similar vein as the above, 'tailoring the experience to the party' isn't just about blocking their primary strategy. indeed, if it is their primary strategy, chances are...you know it anyway. but its also about knowing what they can do so you don't consistently give them trivial encounters, which is unfun in the long run.

all-in-all, while i won't (again) say that its the 'correct' way to DM. it is a very high reward style of play

going back to the topic at hand, it also seems its a bit late for this to work like that, since they already assume that that is what he does. loses that verisimilitude. although i will point out, if this player thinks that you as a DM with say 'no' to whatever it is he's hiding, there's a good chance its some cheese. on the other hand, if this is meant as a least hurrah, idk if thats a bad thing. i mean, im currently planning a 1-2 shot adventure at lvl 2- with gestalt characters, and will actively encourage the players to bring whatever cheese they can come up with. it can certainly be fun for individual sessions.

There's definitely something to be said about the smoke and mirror style of DMing. Person never been a fan of it from either side of the screen and an adamantly against using it without the players' knowledge. In my mind it is the same as fixing dice rolls. I repeat it's fine as long as the players are on board.

There's a chance to players trying to hide some questionable mechanic interaction but also equally likely that they're just trying to keep their daily spell loadout a secret. The example of a NPC being flat-out immune to hold person is a good example. How many spell slots and actions were wasted? especially true of there is no way for the players to find out this information beforehand. That's not rewarding to the players. It's flat-out punishment based on their spell choices. It's a treadmill style of gameplay why nothing the players do really matters.

The player unwilling to show the DM their character sheet is bad. the reason why the player doesn't feel confident they can show it to the DM in good faith is way worse.

[tchntm43]

It's always interesting to read threads like this because it reminds me just how differently people approach playing this game.

For example, this question wouldn't even make sense in my campaign. I worked with each player 1-on-1 to help them create characters with backstories that fit into the game world I built (and it went both ways, as I let each player's decisions in building their characters influence how i put the final touches on the world the campaign takes place in). Most adventures I write involve one or more characters' backstories and sometimes it leads to them making some tough choices. Between each adventure, they hand me their character sheets so that I can print off fresh copies for them that are clean of eraser erosion, and I frequently walk around the table to remind myself what people have for items remaining and spell slots remaining. Since they were all new to the game, each level up I sit down with them and help explain how the different options they have at level up work (but I let them choose, of course).

On the other hand, I'm aware that many other people play a version that's on the opposite side of the spectrum, where they create characters on their own with very loosely-defined backstories, and they don't only play that character in a single group, but rather join different groups temporarily with new people each time. I don't think there's anything wrong with playing this way, it's just very different.

I think the answer to the OP's question depends a lot on where on the spectrum this game falls.

[JoeJ]

I do that. I dont tailor every single encounter but I also do put in moments for them to shine or struggle in specific moments. Not every single thing is and I do allow them the freedom to surprise me (or at least i hope I do). I had them encounter the underground fungus not knowing that someone had speaks with plants that created an amazing moment.

For me, it would be a much better moment if I did know beforehand that somebody could speak with plants, because I would then be able to actually think about what the fungus would know rather than try to pull something out of my rear on the spur of the moment.

[micahaphone]

When I know that my party has no thieves tools, I limit how many locked chests or doors they run into - it's not fun. Tailoring some parts of your campaign is a good idea. Just like how if you have a fire themed sorcerer player, maybe don't have a dungeon full of fire immune monsters.

[ad_hoc]

When I know that my party has no thieves tools, I limit how many locked chests or doors they run into - it's not fun. Tailoring some parts of your campaign is a good idea. Just like how if you have a fire themed sorcerer player, maybe don't have a dungeon full of fire immune monsters.

What is the point of having thieves' tools?

What is the point of having different damage types?

[tchntm43]

What is the point of having thieves' tools?

What is the point of having different damage types?

He's not saying he'd eliminate them completely. It's good to have some locked doors/chests, and some fire immune monsters, to emphasize "here is what your party is deficient in at the moment". Encountering a few fire-immune monsters that cause a party that's been relying heavily on the wizard's fireball spell might make them put more thought if forced into deciding between accepting a gift of a Flame Tongue vs a Frostbrand sword, or it might make the wizard recognize that at the next opportunity to learn new spells, they might want to forgo that other utility spell they were thinking of taking in lieu of picking up an alternate damage spell. But to make all the monsters fire immune would likely be seen by the player of that wizard as an intentional targeting of the character by the DM, and lead to resentment and possibly that player quitting.

I tailor things somewhat to the party, but there isn't a huge need for it in my case. I do try to create situations where they might recognize that they can solve something a certain way, perhaps making use of a spell or tool they have pretty much ignored so far. For example, in the last adventure we added a character to the party who came with silk rope and grappling hook. They needed to get into a tower but there were too many guards around the entrances to the stairs, and when I considered that they could use the grappling hook, I decided to make that more viable by leaving the windows of the tower above the first floor glass-less. They ended up using a Broom of Flying instead (which I had also forgotten the party had), and that was cool because they had yet to use it.

[patchyman]

It's always interesting to read threads like this because it reminds me just how differently people approach playing this game.

You seem to play a more narratively-oriented style game, as do I.

I do have a question to the OP though. If I want to create a moment for one of my characters to shine, pretty much all I need is class, sub-class and background. Is there a particular reason you need to see their character sheets to craft a moment for them to shine?

[Tawmis]

Basically, I am having some issues with my players and it culminated in this. I am running a final leg of a campaign and they are leveling up 5 levels from 11 to 16. Is it unreasonable of me to ask to see their character sheets to make sure everything is on the level and we both have an understanding of what they are working with? I am being accused of trying to learn their abilities to make the campaign impossible for them I think and not showing them what I am making.

It's interesting that they'd refuse such a request.
As others have said - they either have something to hide or... something to hide.
I am pounding my brain thinking what bad experience they could have had with a DM.
Every session, I collect the character sheets (most of them have copies of their own; but I collect the "rough draft" version while others have clean copies or have them digitally).
I do that because all of my D&D stuff goes together. And when I write recaps of the adventure I can look at the character sheets and get all the information that I need.
Someone refusing to "turn over" their character seems a bit combative in my view.

You're literally skipping a mess of levels for the game; why wouldn't you want to "error check" to make sure things are good?

[suplee215]

When I know that my party has no thieves tools, I limit how many locked chests or doors they run into - it's not fun. Tailoring some parts of your campaign is a good idea. Just like how if you have a fire themed sorcerer player, maybe don't have a dungeon full of fire immune monsters.

This is the type of thing I am talking about mainly. Not every single choice I make is around the PCs but I feel like a game that doesn't take into account some of the characters and players will just be empty. Ultimately I try to make sure there are multiple ways to complete a problem and stuff to not force the players.

also thanks to everyone. Sorry if I seemed difficult at times in this thread. Overall the guy keeps saying he sees me as his equal on a tactical level and if he was in my shoes he'll counter what I do and that "combat is player vs DM on some level" (paraphrasing). Ultimately he did tell me he is planning on using Sentinel and thinking on Mobile. My bet is he expects my creatures to either not run away or only attack him to ignore sentinel but I'm not going do that.


You seem to play a more narratively-oriented style game, as do I.

I do have a question to the OP though. If I want to create a moment for one of my characters to shine, pretty much all I need is class, sub-class and background. Is there a particular reason you need to see their character sheets to craft a moment for them to shine? Mainly just to error check, make sure everyone picks the amount of feats and remember everything about their abilities and to get a feeling for what rules I should have on hand. Especially for this player as we have had multiple instances at the table of delaying process as me and him argue over the rules of the game which just drives me nuts and in the next campaign I'm going try to make a rule against that.

[opaopajr]

[...]
Mainly just to error check, make sure everyone picks the amount of feats and remember everything about their abilities and to get a feeling for what rules I should have on hand. Especially for this player as we have had multiple instances at the table of delaying process as me and him argue over the rules of the game which just drives me nuts and in the next campaign I'm going try to make a rule against that.

Same guy again?! Them some trust issues. :smallamused:

At some point there is really nothing you can do. Without the Leap of Faith no game reliant on authority's judgment can work. Sports have referees for a reason, and also game ejections, too. :smalltongue: You are not being paid for therapy at the table; it's not your job to continuously accomodate someone with issues larger than your little hobby fun-time can handle. :smallwink:

[ad_hoc]

This is the type of thing I am talking about mainly. Not every single choice I make is around the PCs but I feel like a game that doesn't take into account some of the characters and players will just be empty.

You just called a lot of people's games empty.

The vast majority of games really as most people play published adventures.

You like what you like, but best not to trash on the way other people play.

I have zero interest in your game but I'm not going to call it worthless.

[Mr Adventurer]

You just called a lot of people's games empty.

The vast majority of games really as most people play published adventures.

You like what you like, but best not to trash on the way other people play.

I have zero interest in your game but I'm not going to call it worthless.

Absolute nonsense - most people make up their own adventures, settings, even worlds and cosmologies and don't touch published adventures with a barge pole because they're not fit for their particular purpose.

Also, OP didn't "call those games empty" - they said they felt like such a game would be. It's a valid opinion. Take your foot off the gas.

[Tanarii]

Not really because their reason is I'm never going let them use it if I know about it.
Sounds like they either have shenanigans planned, or are worried about, as you say, a feat like Sentinel being less than effective because you'll work around it. (I read the thread to this point but replying to your last reply to me.) OTOH Sentinel is generally a win-win whatever the enemy chooses to do, like Booming Blade or Polearm Master or Protection Style, if the enemy changes their behavior to bypass it you've accomplished a goal already. It's just that some players want a specific choice to be made with such devil's choice abilities.

Don't get me wrong btw, I keep a copy of all players character sheets at their latest level. It's necessary for error checking, and awareness of that fact also acts as a deterrent to ... uh, creatively intentional errors. I just don't tailor to them. Of course, I can't, since I don't know who will sit down for the adventure in advance.

[suplee215]

You just called a lot of people's games empty.

The vast majority of games really as most people play published adventures.

You like what you like, but best not to trash on the way other people play.

I have zero interest in your game but I'm not going to call it worthless.

I didn't mean any offense to it but also published adventures are a bit of a different thing. And even with the published adventures, the few I've played anyways, a DM has leeway on catering for the group (such as making enemies more or less suitable and everything). Also from the few I've played players did try to integrate themselves into the world and stuff beyond just being a random player character. Perhaps I'm just too caught up in DND being a collab story telling process and that characters should be more than stats (but then we're getting away from the discussion) though.

[Azuresun]

The vast majority of games really as most people play published adventures.

That's quite a claim. Got any sources to back it up?

[ad_hoc]

I didn't mean any offense to it but also published adventures are a bit of a different thing. And even with the published adventures, the few I've played anyways, a DM has leeway on catering for the group (such as making enemies more or less suitable and everything). Also from the few I've played players did try to integrate themselves into the world and stuff beyond just being a random player character. Perhaps I'm just too caught up in DND being a collab story telling process and that characters should be more than stats (but then we're getting away from the discussion) though.

How are you equating a game where the DM doesn't cater obstacles and challenges to character abilities to having the characters be a pile of stats?

In a game where the adventure is agnostic to the specific PCs; the PCs have a much better opportunity to be individuals by how they interact and engage with the adventure.

Taking the locked doors and chests out because no one has thieves' tools deprives the PCs of showing that aspect of their characters.

You also call it a 'collab story telling process' but if you're writing everything to match up to the PC's abilities and traits then you're depriving them of choice. You're writing the story and expecting them to go along with it.

Contrast this to an adventure that the DM has not written. The DM and players both respond to each other and create a story out of the framework provided. All manner of things might happen. No one knows ahead of time as there are (should be anyway) many ways to approach different challenges. And sometimes challenges will be too hard or too easy for them. Maybe they fail an objective and then the story takes a new turn as they need to work around it. Or maybe they pull off a sweet victory that leaps them ahead of the evil doer's machinations.

That's collaborative storytelling. Not carefully controlling everything ahead of time towards an expected outcome in order to give the illusion that the player's choices matter.

[micahaphone]

That's collaborative storytelling. Not carefully controlling everything ahead of time towards an expected outcome in order to give the illusion that the player's choices matter.

Please stop with your hyperbole. No one is saying "carefully control everything so that your player's characters are the perfect fit to fight the enemy and solve every puzzle", we're saying "if your players are interested in one part of the game or are on a theme, don't shut down that theme or force them to do parts of the game they're not interested in".

If my players (no rogues/thieves tools) delve into a random dungeon they find while travelling the underdark, there are still traps. Chests will still have locks on them. But not every corner is trapped, and not all loot is kept in a locked box.

Yes, include a fight with fire immune enemies even if you have a fire draconic sorcerer in your party. Let them figure out how to work around it. But don't make several sessions worth of content that contains only fire immune enemies.

You're completely blowing our statements up to ridiculous levels in order to be outraged at us.

[ad_hoc]

That's quite a claim. Got any sources to back it up?

First, let me say that the statement was in opposition to the stated claim that most players don't use published adventures. I believe the evidence, such that we have, is much heavily weighted to them using them.

Adventure sales numbers is a starter.

Unless your position is that the majority of sold adventures aren't played and bought solely for reading? Some of them will be by hobbyists for sure, but I don't think that is true of the majority of sales.

Adventures sell very well for WotC. It's why they keep making them at the pace they are.

Demographics is another one.

The vast majority of 5e players are new to RPGs. I know this because the number of people playing is unprecedented. There are roughly as many people playing D&D now as there have been in total from 1974 to 2014.

And the popularity continues to climb at a rapid pace.

All those new games are not popping up over night with brand new groups creating their own adventures and settings from scratch.

I know that's not hard evidence, but come on. That's just not happening.

No, what is happening is that people get invited to a game. They enjoy the game and buy a starter adventure and start their own game. Then they buy a big adventure and play that. Then maybe they create their own adventures, but more likely they continue to buy published adventures as they enjoyed the previous ones. And if they didn't enjoy the adventures, well, they probably aren't sticking around to make new ones.

Many of the hobbyist gamers who either converted to 5e or picked up the game after being away are going to be playing published adventures too - if for no other reason than not having time to create their own.

Personally I have the time to make them, I just prefer not to reinvent the wheel and use material that is already there. If I feel there is a problem with an adventure I will edit it, but I otherwise enjoy playing it as is.

No, I think the people who end up with both the inclination and time to be able to create their own adventures from scratch has to be the minority.

Now, if we're talking about the people who are so into hobby RPG gaming that they're posting regularly on obscure message boards? Then sure, I could see the case for the majority of those posters playing their own adventures. Even in that group though I think the amount playing published adventures would still be high.

[blackjack50]

Basically, I am having some issues with my players and it culminated in this. I am running a final leg of a campaign and they are leveling up 5 levels from 11 to 16. Is it unreasonable of me to ask to see their character sheets to make sure everything is on the level and we both have an understanding of what they are working with? I am being accused of trying to learn their abilities to make the campaign impossible for them I think and not showing them what I am making.

Anyone who is upset that you are looking at their character sheet so you can plan is being childish. If you wanted to, as the DM, you could kill them by making them face 5 enemies with access to wish spells. If you wanted it to be impossible...it would be. Period. How can they expect you to plan a feasible encounter without knowing what is impossible for them?

[suplee215]

That's collaborative storytelling. Not carefully controlling everything ahead of time towards an expected outcome in order to give the illusion that the player's choices matter.

Yea, well good thing that isn't what I'm doing at all no matter how many people accuse me of that.

[Witty Username]

I have never played a game that my character sheet was not DM knowledge. Usually that would be to make sure that the players had their sheets written correctly, sometimes because characters required dm approval (usually to catch party comp problems), in one case we were fighting an opponent able to copy our abilities. I mean you at least need to know their passive skill, and stuff like AC can speed up play. It is a practical requirement, but I will admit that any alternative would be a little alien.

[Kane0]

Yeah i’m the DM and I store the players‘ sheets and do the level ups with them, mostly because i’m far and away the most dedicated and knowledgable member of the group but thats not saying they’re all noobs. Only two of five are new players.

In fact, they trust me far more than they should.

[loki_ragnarock]

To the OP:

Life's short.

Tell him you'll enjoy playing in the game he runs.

But if he doesn't want to step up to DM, then he can turn over his sheet or find someone else who has the chutzpa to actually run a game.


You don't need him, he needs you.
You are a DM; there aren't that many, and you are under no moral, ethical, or legal obligation to be one.
If he's willing to step up to take on the mantle, enjoy being a player for a while; the world always needs more DMs.
If he's unwilling to live by your rules or adopt his own, then his cowardice means you get to play on without him with nary a backwards glance.

You are mother$%^&ing Atlas. Shrug.

[Jerrykhor]

Always remember: No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Soon you will realise that some people you just can't get through. There's no talking to them, they are 100% stubborn and set in their ways. You'd do well to boot them from your game, even if they are your IRL friend. Don't make the mistake of thinking 'He's my friend, therefore i must play with him and tolerate him.' The truth is, friends don't need to agree with each other, and friends don't always need to do things together.

If he holds a grudge, then maybe he's not a friend worth keeping.

[kazaryu]

Contrast this to an adventure that the DM has not written. The DM and players both respond to each other and create a story out of the framework provided. All manner of things might happen. No one knows ahead of time as there are (should be anyway) many ways to approach different challenges. And sometimes challenges will be too hard or too easy for them. Maybe they fail an objective and then the story takes a new turn as they need to work around it. Or maybe they pull off a sweet victory that leaps them ahead of the evil doer's machinations.


ok so, the two halves of this statement, are not mutually exclusive. you imply that because we're talking about crafting encounters based on the party we have rather than for any possible party, that we leave no room for the players to exceed exquisitly, or fail miserably. this is untrue. it *can* be something that happens, but its far from an assured result.

take my parties first pair of encoutners. (this is pathfinder, so if you're confused by something i mention, thats probably why.there's also going tobe some 4e elements here)
encounter 1: party starts off with their hometown under siege. undead pouring in from all sides. townsfolk all gather and begin trying to make their way to the nearby caves. however the swarm is getting thicker and thicker. without the party doing something to either slow the swarm down, or speed the townsfolk up they're going to get overrun before they reach the cave. i run this as a skill challenge, see what my party can come up with. over the course of it the druid uses their 4th level spells and so does the wizard (including command undead) but they were astoundingly successful (didn't fail a single skill check). the vast majority of the town is able to gather in the caves. however, this is where the second part of this attack comes into play.

the cave they went to has only 2 exits. one to the outside world, and a tunnel to deeper beneath the mountain. this tunnel is filled with skeletons. teh party get a quick breather, before they're now forced to contend with an encounter against several minion level skeletons (not literally minions, their HP was just naturally low enough that they may as well be minions). but the real threat, is the skeletal umberhulk. which shows up and nearly one shots the druids Roc companion.

point being i designed this encounter, knowing full well the wizard had the *command undead* spell. i designed it knowing that if he didn't use all of his castings of command undead during the skill check he'd make short work of the follow up encounter. and i didn't, at all, do anything that would force him to use them. i was ok with him rocking this encounter, in alot of ways it was built into the encounter itself. however he didn't have it. and due to rolling extraordinarily well on its attack rolls, the umberhulk nearly killed the wizard, the druid, and the druids companion. as in, the wizard was literally 2 hp away from dead. not unconscious, dead.

this is an example of how i consider party members abilities when building encounters. i almost hoped the wizard would be able to command undead, because then big bad would know that that is something he's capable of. as it stands, he doesnt, but now the wizard knows what they're up against, i'd wager in the future he'll be more wary of using those spells so quickly. If he is, then he'll get another opportunity to make short work of an encounter later down the road.

[suplee215]

Always remember: No D&D is better than bad D&D.

Soon you will realise that some people you just can't get through. There's no talking to them, they are 100% stubborn and set in their ways. You'd do well to boot them from your game, even if they are your IRL friend. Don't make the mistake of thinking 'He's my friend, therefore i must play with him and tolerate him.' The truth is, friends don't need to agree with each other, and friends don't always need to do things together.

If he holds a grudge, then maybe he's not a friend worth keeping.

I DM at a store that charges all players (including me, I'm not collecting the money) so I dont have complete say over bans and stuff. I have debate leaving a few times for a few reasons but I do ultimately enjoy it. This guy is usuallygood, just lately he been, in my opinion, criticizing things and not even realizing what he criticizing. Perhaps also I been going into defense mode but he doesnt understand why I am taking what he says to mean I'm not doing a good job at DM (even though I explained I'm trying to not have a atmosphere of dm vs player and the fact that there is one is therefore probably a reflection on how I been dming). Honesty its probably my own insecurities and imposter syndrome acting up along with him not realizing how common it is for a DM to ask for character sheets.

[diplomancer]

Suggest to the player that he DMs for a session. Once he realizes the sheer amount of material a DM has to handle, he will stop worrying about any "exploit" you could find out by hidden synergies in the Character sheet. Even with full information, a competent player knows far more about what his characters can do than a DM could.

[opaopajr]

suplee215, the fact that you doubt and self-reflect speaks well of your intentions and counters most assumptions that you are running an Antagonistic GM v. PC table. :smallsmile:

That said, there is no way to get through some people the effort that goes into being "an impartial fan of other's PCs" while hosting everything else -- without them being an emcee (MC, master of ceremonies) and host themselves.

So diplomancer is absolutely correct. This player needs to be on the other side of the screen for a bit. Once the shoe is on the other foot a great deal of mutual respect and leniency is learned. :smallsmile:

You are taking a break to up these PCs by an entire tier. This is a good time to let someone else drive the table as you prepare. Let's see if they can empathize with your requests afterwards! :smalltongue:

[pming]

Hiya!


Sadly I might have totally screwed up this game and he sees me as an adversarial DM due to some things I have done even though I keep trying to not do that. And we have had multiple talks and I thought we were on it but now he is refusing this request (as is another party member).

Let me guess...you are trying to "build encounters to the PC's capabilities" aren't you? My suggestion is to stop doing that. The reason, I think, your players are starting to rebel or otherwise 'not trust you' is because they'll be bopping along all fine and dandy. Then they gain a level and the someone gets some ability/spell that lets them, say, 'read minds'. Then, when the players characters have somehow ticked of some seemingly random stranger in the bar, and the PC goes to 'read his mind to see if he's planning on killing them or something'...suddenly "it doesn't work...because he has X". Then later on in the session, another PC has an ability and he tries to use it on said 'bad guy', only to find "Oh, he's resistant to that, so only takes half damage". ... ... To the Players, it's as if, somehow, the entire world has suddenly changes SPECIFICALLY to thwart their newfound abilities/spells.

But if you don't give a flying flumph what your PC's races are, classes, spells, abilities, magic items, etc, and only go by gross estimation "They're about level 6'ish", you can create encounter charts, dungeons, wilderness, NPC's, etc that fit your WORLD and not your Players CHARACTERS. It gives the Players the ability to use their own brains and internal campaign-logic to suss out if they should travel through the Swamp of Frogs...or go around it, through the Forests of Mists; they know that if they go through the forest, they can prepare for it and not suddenly find themselves fighting creatures that seem to specifically be placed there to thwart the wizards new spells, or the paladins new abilities.

Once you start doing this, your Players will start to trust you again (hopefully!). Once they understand you don't care one way or the other if their PC's live or die, and that you aren't "building encounters to oppose them" or "building adventures specifically for their PC's", they'll develop a feeling for the world and start to really get into the campaign more than trying to min/max their PC's and keep their 'stuff secret' from you so that you can't pre-plot and use it against them.

Or...just keep doing what you're doing and accept that you ARE going to have a VERY adversarial game; but it won't be YOU who is being adversarial...they will be...because they don't trust you to be Neutral/Ambivilent.

That's my 2¢ anyway.

[Safety Sword]

This thread man.

What I see is a DM trying really hard to please their players and some of those players not trusting the person, who frankly, puts way more work into the game than anyone else. It makes me sad. You have the right to see the character sheets of people that play in your game. If one of my players didn't trust me to make the game fun I would be offended. We would have the talk, and then we would never play a game together again.

Anyway, on to the remedy: I read every post in the thread and it wasn't until pming posted that I thought you got the right advice.

Don't worry about tailoring the encounters to your PCs. Honestly, your job as DM is to provide problems, not solutions.

PCs are just stumbling around the world looking for trouble. They don't just find trouble that suits their capabilities and currently prepared spells or whatever.

And if they don't like it, they can go away. And that goes for your players too.

[suplee215]

Thanks all. Its solved and hopefully will not cause an issue further on. Also helped that when we did talk about his character we went into discussion of how awesome some abilities are but also he had a minor error on his sheet about his attack bonus being off due to not counting the magic weapon. And that is what I was mostly doing this for even though this thread turned into discussion about encounter building, which despite what people think is relatively low on my intent with this. While it does play a role (such as I am making sure theres a graveyard for the necromancer if he so chooses) I feel like this discussion got messed up due to that.

[ezekielraiden]

Thanks all. Its solved and hopefully will not cause an issue further on. Also helped that when we did talk about his character we went into discussion of how awesome some abilities are but also he had a minor error on his sheet about his attack bonus being off due to not counting the magic weapon. And that is what I was mostly doing this for even though this thread turned into discussion about encounter building, which despite what people think is relatively low on my intent with this. While it does play a role (such as I am making sure theres a graveyard for the necromancer if he so chooses) I feel like this discussion got messed up due to that.

I'm very glad to hear that you resolved the problem amicably. It sucks to see a happy group break up, especially for something so (seemingly) small. Good luck and good gaming to you!