DMs vs. PCs - stop this nonsense.

[martyrX]

As a roleplayer who is both a DM and a PC in several campaigns, I often wonder why there is so much animosity between DMs and PCs. I don't experience this in my own games at all, but I often read about this problem in this forum. In this thread, let us attempt to help both parties understand each other, and perhaps save a game or two.

DMs:

Barring flavour ("there are no gnomes in my world") and rule exploitation (pun-pun) why do you have a problem with letting PCs create whatever character they want? No matter how powerful, annoying or silly they may be YOU as the DM have ultimate power. If you are smart about it, there is no PC that can 'ruin' your game. The PCs enemies are whoever you want them to be, can have any abilities you want them to have, etc. Uber druid got you down? You can create the exact same character, but levels higher. Seriously, what are you worried about?

Case in point: I allow pretty much anything in my games and the players love it. When we converted from 2nd edition to 3rd, I allowed them to keep "mage haste" - a version of haste which allows wizards to cast 2 spells/round. Sound unbalanced/too powerful? Guess what - enemies can cast it too.

On the TPK: YOU are the DM. YOU can TPK any time you want...easily. Good for you. Now that you know that, try not to do it purposely (unless for a very good reason), as that is no fun for anyone. Now, if the PCs get themselves killed, that is a different story. Even when that happens, you can be creative and give those PCs a chance to redeem themselves.

'Fun' TPK example: We encountered a HUGE sphere of annihilation, without knowing what it was. We were brave, and stopped a crazy evil wild mage from controlling it and destroying waterdeep, but when the sphere was destroyed, we were destroyed with it. At that moment, our DM got out of his seat and exchanged places with a fellow player. The campaign took a rather crazy turn as our souls were somehow transported into Ravenloft, and we suddenly had a new DM. So exciting, creative, awesome, and none of us saw it coming.

When you are uncertain about a decision, just make it a die roll and move on (this is rollplaying after all :) ). Not sure if you want to allow a certain book in your game? Either make a decision for a good reason (NO psionics in my world) or roll the die (ok, 11-20 on d20 means i will allow psionics). ANYONE who has a problem with die rolls making decisions should not be playing d&d.

PCs:

First, try to understand that it is quite likely that the DM is putting 10X the amount of work into his campaign as you do into your character. I am only saying this because I think that some players don't see this. It takes a lot of work to make a great campaign, and YOU as a PC can help make the campaign more fun, more interesting and more challenging with good gameplay. Really, this is a TEAM effort, work like a team.

DON'T create a character that you KNOW will annoy your DM. It's a terrible way to begin a campaign together. DO challenge your DM with creative characters and innovative gameplay - DMs love it.

Be willing to concede powers/abilities/rules/etc. At any moment your DM's campaign world can change - suddenly the connection between the elemental plane of fire and the prime material is cut off and you can't cast fireball. Don't cry, be creative and find a way around it. Try to solve the problem. You DM most likely put that challenge in your way for a reason. Heroes find a way, they don't whine.

Case in point: Kryptonite basically strips superman of all his abilites, and I don't remember him crying about it. He met the challenge, defeated the evil guys, and became even MORE of a hero after overcoming such an obstacle. What would you do if your DM introduced a substance that took away all of your powers? Most PCs would hate it. I say, in the world of fantasy, if superman can do it, you can too!

Last, and most importantly, THE RULES ARE A GUIDE. I know it's been said before, but it can't be stressed enough. Everyone has house rules - accept them and move on. Sometimes there are NO rules for a situation - argue your case, but in the end, accept your DMs decision an move on. Really, what would you rather do - argue or play? If your answer is argue, join the debating team, go to law school, or visit an internet forum .

ALL:

This game isn't DM vs. PCs. You are really on the same team. Don't ruin the game for each other (unless that is everyone's idea of fun). The more I think of it, the more I realise that it makes NO SENSE to think of D&D in this way.

Now, let's hear it! Anyone have any more solutions to this apparently rampant problem?

[Tar Palantir]

I agree with you in general, but I also believe that a certain amount of conflict is beneficial. If the players know that the DM will try to kill them, they will not only improve their own tactical abilities, but also become more involved in the game, because of the very real risk to their characters. Likewise, as a DM I enjoy players trying to throw a monkey wrench in my machinations; it tests my improvisational abilities and forces me to raise the bar just enough to maintain danger without precluding victory. There is a clear competition and us-against-them mentality, but it's more akin to a friendly game of dodgeball than a thermonuclear war.

[valadil]

No matter how powerful, annoying or silly they may be YOU as the DM have ultimate power. If you are smart about it, there is no PC that can 'ruin' your game.

I disagree. If you have one PC who is miles above the others it's damn hard to write encounters. Either challenge the rest of the group and leave the power gamer bored. Or you challenge the power gamer and risk killing off the rest of the PCs. I haven't personally had to GM this situation but I've seen it ruin games of GMs far more competent than myself.

Otherwise I totally agree with you. Maybe I haven't had to deal with power gamers because I GM to tell a story with the PCs. It's totally not adversarial, so they have no reason to test my ability to counter their powergaming.

[martyrX]

I agree with you in general, but I also believe that a certain amount of conflict is beneficial. If the players know that the DM will try to kill them, they will not only improve their own tactical abilities, but also become more involved in the game, because of the very real risk to their characters. Likewise, as a DM I enjoy players trying to throw a monkey wrench in my machinations; it tests my improvisational abilities and forces me to raise the bar just enough to maintain danger without precluding victory. There is a clear competition and us-against-them mentality, but it's more akin to a friendly game of dodgeball than a thermonuclear war.

Completely agree. I love when I am challenged as both a DM and a player.

The needless conflict I am referring to is out of game, not in game.

[Hzurr]

I agree with the OP, but I definitely understand where valadil is coming from. The power level of the game needs to be something that the PCs/DM agree upon together. If you have 2 members of the group who are extreme min-maxers, and two who are playing "average" characters, but all players enjoy combat; things will get a bit rough because it's hard to tailor things to all players equally.

I am 100% onboard with the OP's idea that the game is not DM vs. PC. This is a game to have fun, and we're all in it together. If one side or the other has "fun" at the other side's expense, this will decrease the overall enjoyment of the group in the long run.

As far as things like uber-optimized characters or TPK, this depends on what the group likes. For the PCs in my game, they're fully aware that if the dice go against them, or they use poor tactics, I have no hesitation in killing their characters. This makes them really focus on tactics, teamwork, and communication, and it makes the game more enjoyable overall. That being said, they also know I'm not going to go out of my way to kill them, and am not trying to "win" the game by slaughtering at least one PC/session.

[Jerthanis]

I think DMs should be able to nip whatever balance concerns in the bud for encounter building purposes. The Players need to realize that the DM can conjure arbitrarily high numbers to oppose you, and there's no build you can muster to overcome the DM's ability to pull out another legion of exploding skeletons.

However, DMs should also realize that balance problems aren't usually extreme enough to really have THAT big of an impact on encounter design. Many good powergaming strategies rely on teamwork anyway.

[Choco]

That being said, they also know I'm not going to go out of my way to kill them, and am not trying to "win" the game by slaughtering at least one PC/session.

You don't DM Dark Sun or CoC do you?

I also completely agree with the OP.

Though from what I have seen, most of the problems that do come up is when you get people with incompatible playstyles together. For instance, there are killer DM's out there and there are uber optimizers that love playing with those DM's, and if you get a killer DM with a group of casual players, or an uber optimizer with a more lenient DM, all hell breaks loose if someone is not willing to change. And that is the entire problem, unwillingness to change to fit in with the group better.

No play/DM style is necessarily better or worse than another, but styles are often very incompatible. Problems arise when you have a minority of players with styles incompatible with the rest of the group (powergamers with RP'ers who purposely cripple their characters for story, for instance) and/or if one or more players styles is incompatible with the DM's style. And even when talked to, some people are completely unwilling to change because "that is what is fun for them", even though it is killing the fun for the rest of the group. If people just left groups they are incompatible with or played it their way as opposed to wrecking the game for everyone else we would see a lot less of these hostile threads.

Same goes for "railroading" accusations. Some DM's run very story-heavy games and some players like those types of games. Other players go so far as to consider a quest hook "railroading" and purposely ignore it or do the opposite just to spite the DM. Some DM's just run perfect sandbox games, letting the PC's run the game and just facilitating what they want to do, but when they have players that like some direction they are bound to get bored.

So yeah, my basic point is that if you do not fit in with the playstyle of the group you are in (whether you are DM or player) and are not willing to change to fit the group, do everyone a favor and leave voluntarily for a group that better suits your style.

[martyrX]

I disagree. If you have one PC who is miles above the others it's damn hard to write encounters. Either challenge the rest of the group and leave the power gamer bored. Or you challenge the power gamer and risk killing off the rest of the PCs. I haven't personally had to GM this situation but I've seen it ruin games of GMs far more competent than myself.

Otherwise I totally agree with you. Maybe I haven't had to deal with power gamers because I GM to tell a story with the PCs. It's totally not adversarial, so they have no reason to test my ability to counter their powergaming.

I disagree. If you have one PC who is miles above the others it's damn hard to write encounters. Either challenge the rest of the group and leave the power gamer bored. Or you challenge the power gamer and risk killing off the rest of the PCs. I haven't personally had to GM this situation but I've seen it ruin games of GMs far more competent than myself.

Otherwise I totally agree with you. Maybe I haven't had to deal with power gamers because I GM to tell a story with the PCs. It's totally not adversarial, so they have no reason to test my ability to counter their powergaming.

There is always going to be a 'most powerful' in a group, but no matter how powerful, they always have weaknesses. Smart BBEGs will try to exploit these weaknesses. I also imagine that opponents will see the powergamer for what he is, more powerful, and prepare for him specifically. Does the BBEG fear the powergamer druid? Then he will be ready for him! Once weakened, it will be time for the other PCs to shine, by either saving their big hero, or by having to defeat the BBEG themselves.

Point is, it is impossible to challenge everyone equally, all the time. As a DM, take turns. If you have a puzzle-solving player, give him puzzles to solve. If you have a social player, give him political situations to play.

Imagine this scenario: PCs want to destroy a doppleganger/demon who has taken over a city's senate. The social character has to convince a lackey to tell him who the demon is. The puzzle-solving character has to solve the riddle which allows access to the demon's secret hide-out. The powergamer attempts to take on the demon face-to-face. To help the team, the thief has to option to steal the demon's secret-powergamerkilling weapon (which is discovered by either the social or puzzle-solving character). If you are really smart, you will allow the puzzle-solver to discover (and be able to exploit) one of the demon's weaknesses, and the social character may join the senate to help stop the demon's plans. Suddenly, the powergamer isn't actually more powerful than the rest.

As a DM you should make a special effort to make each PC important to the storyf. This allows you to exploit the PCs ultimate weakness - their dependence on each other. If the powergamer can take any monster on, fine. Can he take them on AND make sure his friends don't die in the process? Force him to make a decision - does he fight optimally and let his friends die, or does he save his friends and be forced to fight in a way that is less advantages to him?

For example: Make it clear that if the PC thief doesn't survive they are in big trouble - perhaps he is the only one the thieves guild are willing to give their reward to. Now when you threaten the thief in battle, the powergamer has a decision to make.

[martyrX]

You don't DM Dark Sun or CoC do you?

So yeah, my basic point is that if you do not fit in with the playstyle of the group you are in (whether you are DM or player) and are not willing to change to fit the group, do everyone a favor and leave voluntarily for a group that better suits your style.

Or Ravenloft ;).

Your point is a good one, but what about those who have no choice? I don't know if you've noticed, but D&D isn't the most popular pass time out there - for some it may be a miracle to find ANYONE to play with.

In the case of playing styles - it is the job of both PCs and DM to compromise. DM loves story-based play, but a PC likes hacking? The DM in this case should treat hacking as a reward for the player - like treasure. You've solved the mystery - now you get an amazing battle challenge! Likewise, the PC shouldn't expect a total hacking game from this DM, and certainly shouldn't be 'upset' about it. To both these individuals I say - challenge yourselves! Just TRY having fun another way. Give stories a chance, give hacking a chance!

[Choco]

Or Ravenloft ;).

Your point is a good one, but what about those who have no choice? I don't know if you've noticed, but D&D isn't the most popular pass time out there - for some it may be a miracle to find ANYONE to play with.

In the case of playing styles - it is the job of both PCs and DM to compromise. DM loves story-based play, but a PC likes hacking? The DM in this case should treat hacking as a reward for the player - like treasure. You've solved the mystery - now you get an amazing battle challenge! Likewise, the PC shouldn't expect a total hacking game from this DM, and certainly shouldn't be 'upset' about it. To both these individuals I say - challenge yourselves! Just TRY having fun another way. Give stories a chance, give hacking a chance!

That is another point I probably didn't make clear enough. It is not the DM's (or the player's) job to make sure everyone is having fun, it is the responsibility of the entire group to come up with some workable compromise together. If that is not possible, someone has to go. I was not clear enough to point out that the extreme of leaving a group or removing someone from one should only be resorted to when the problem player/DM is not willing to change/compromise. Good call catching that.

As for the people who have no choice... I would rather not play than play but not have fun with it. The exception is when I play with RL friends just to hang out with them. I play or DM about 3 games a week if I am lucky, and the game I play with the friends I have outside of gaming is by far the weakest one. But even though the game itself is weak, we all just use it as an excuse to hang out so it is all good. Now if one or more of us was actively being a pain in the ass and causing anger in the other group members, it is time to either remove someone from the group or do something else together.

[valadil]

There is always going to be a 'most powerful' in a group, but no matter how powerful, they always have weaknesses. Smart BBEGs will try to exploit these weaknesses. I also imagine that opponents will see the powergamer for what he is, more powerful, and prepare for him specifically. Does the BBEG fear the powergamer druid? Then he will be ready for him! Once weakened, it will be time for the other PCs to shine, by either saving their big hero, or by having to defeat the BBEG themselves.

Smart BBEGs will exploit weaknesses. Random encounters won't. I can't always find an excuse to have enemies possess knowledge of that one weakness and have a way to exploit it. And I wouldn't want to either. I'd like to be able to threaten the PCs in a variety of ways. If all my monsters deal sonic damage on a fort save with no SR, that makes for a monotonous game that I'd be bored to run.

Point is, it is impossible to challenge everyone equally, all the time. As a DM, take turns. If you have a puzzle-solving player, give him puzzles to solve. If you have a social player, give him political situations to play.

I generally agree with that. When I GM I actually write out who gets the spotlight for each scene* and if I notice a player getting bored, I queue up their scene. It helps keep everyone involved.

But, you don't always have a puzzle solver, people person, and a combat monster. If I had that party I'd let everyone shine in their own area. The situation I find more frustrating is when everyone wants to beat up the monsters, but nobody does it as well as Mr. Powergamer. His touch AC is so high that if you even want a 25% chance to hit him, your monsters have a 95% chance to hit the next best player's regular AC. I've seen it happen (though as previously mentioned, I wasn't GM for that game. IIRC correctly, the GM asked the PC to retire the character and reroll something sane).

Please keep in mind, I do agree with your overall message and I'm glad to see someone else posting it. I'm not playing devil's advocate because this is the internet and I need lulz dammit. I see non-adversarial GMing as an ideal to strive for, but that can't always be achieved. This is one case where I would fail at being a non-adversarial GM.

*not that I'm going to force people in or out of the spotlight, but some plots are written for certain characters, and I expect those characters to have an interest in those plots**.

** Yay for footnotes!

[Grommen]

Here is the problem. When you run a game (DM/GM/God mode) you put in hours and hours of work. I would typically say 4 hours of background to every 1 hour you actually play with people. Your reading, thinking, taking notes, either making or modifying characters. Your looking at making sure it's balance, if the story flows, what parts to present and how. All this time you have to realize that your going to loose every fight, and in the end the bad guy is most likely not going to win, not loose his horrid plan into motion and wreck havoc all over the world. Now at the same time you need to make it look like the players just barely stopped the bad guys plans, nearly die several times, and on occasion make them look good! To easy of an adventure they get bored....Too hard and they think your just playing god and picking on them.

So what if you whack a player or two, they can just make more! Not like they spent ten hours this week making up a plot that no one payed attention to anyway.

O ya and you don't get thanked enough.

Now from the players standpoint. You make a character. You most likely spend time creating them. Though you they are projected into life. They are not alive, but in many ways they live, they breathe, and they develop and grow. Quite quickly you become attached to them, because they are your intellectual development. They are in whole or at least in part, a piece of you. So as is human nature you want to protect the creation. You don't want him to slip in the mud rolling a "1" on some check, only to get run though by a city guard and killed. Nope if your going to go out it's gong to be in a blaze of glory screaming mad into the mouth of a dragon. Or better yet mount the dragon on the wall of your keep.

How dare the DM say otherwise, what has he done!

And their in lies the problem. DM's need to realize that players like their characters very much, and players need to realize that DM'ing is not easy.

Case and point last week. I've probably spent 15 hours on this pactular adventure. And as usal I'm getting my DM hoop kicked in a lot of the fights. Pathfinder Palidians rock people.

One of the fights I've been looking forward to was a show down with a level equivalent Green Dragon. Players were supposed to come though the front door and BAMM meet flying acid spewing Razorhorn! At the time of the fight they were a little banged up and the casters were out of spells, due to the fact that this would be encounter #5 or 6 on the day (yes it does happen in real games). This being a boss fight I was a wee bit concerned. They had no idea that a dragon was in the area as well, so if things go bad for them it's looking more and more like a TPK.

They did however hit a stroke of luck, and chose to sneak in the back door. This being a few large pains of glass window around the back of the building they wanted to infiltrate. So I let the dragon, who resides on a ledge in the back of the building, be sleeping (a fair reward for thinking if you ask me). The rogue in the group (who had a really tuff night with the dice) managed to pull off a "20" on on the die roll for a total of like +30 for stealth to enter the room unnoticed by the sleeping wyrm. I'm thinking he'll just slide past and head into the keep knowing that they are fools to attack a dragon with no buffs, and no healing. I was wrong! The rogue dives onto the dragon stabbing away with his sneak attacks. Our Palidian uses the smite evil power and runs up to the dragon and smotes the snot out it and our fighter/sorc leaps off the wall and slams his bastard sword (scoring a massive critical) between the wings of the dragon. Suffice to say this is the last time I'll let a sleeping Dragon lie around them. My dream fight ended a few rounds latter with the dragon only scoring a breath weapon attack for 20 points on the Palidian.

Moral of the story, I'm getting picked on cause I let the dragon sleep, when I personaly know that I would have killed them if I had not made it a bit easer. The fight could have still gone horrible for them. If any one of them had missed their attack and the dragon got airborne they had almost no way to bring him thing down.

[martyrX]

The situation I find more frustrating is when everyone wants to beat up the monsters, but nobody does it as well as Mr. Powergamer. His touch AC is so high that if you even want a 25% chance to hit him, your monsters have a 95% chance to hit the next best player's regular AC. I've seen it happen (though as previously mentioned, I wasn't GM for that game. IIRC correctly, the GM asked the PC to retire the character and reroll something sane).

I would not throw too many completely random encounters at a group with such imbalance. Of course, it may be fine to let the powergamer shine here and there (i.e. just dominate like he can).

At other times, just one twist in an encounter can alleviate this problem - what if one of the random monsters had stunning fist? One stun - bad AC and sneak attacks for powergamer. One stun - powergamer drops his weapon (and another monster grabs it and takes off!).

Or do the opposite - make the high touch AC necessary for a certain aspect of the fight. Maybe the PCs are on a ship being (randomly?) attacked by a kraken and only the high touch AC powergamer can avoid being grappled often. Problem is, SOMEONE has to steer the ship through those treacherous rocks. The rest of the PCs fight, and the powergamer steers the ship. Give the powergamer a chance to fight as well - rule that he can steer (a move action) and get one attack. Without him, they are lost to the rocks. Without the rest of the party, the kraken will destroy the ship. Everyone 'wins' (unless, of course, they lose).

I guess my point is - there is always a way.

Please keep in mind, I do agree with your overall message and I'm glad to see someone else posting it. I'm not playing devil's advocate because this is the internet and I need lulz dammit. I see non-adversarial GMing as an ideal to strive for, but that can't always be achieved. This is one case where I would fail at being a non-adversarial GM.

No offense taken at all. I see that we are on the same page.

[valadil]

At other times, just one twist in an encounter can alleviate this problem - what if one of the random monsters had stunning fist? One stun - bad AC and sneak attacks for powergamer. One stun - powergamer drops his weapon (and another monster grabs it and takes off!).

But in order for that Stunning Fist to hit the guy with absurd AC, it's likely to be able to take down the other players as well. If your NPC monk winds up next to an unoptimized PC, does that mean he should hold back on the SF because he's waiting to wail on the power gamer?

What I'm getting at is that even if the power gamer does have gaps in his defenses, the rest of the PCs are likely vulnerable in that way too, possibly moreso than the power gamer. Unless his weaknesses are huge, anything that threatens him will threaten the other players just as much if not moreso. The trick isn't in finding a way to exploit the power gamer's one weakness. It's finding a way to exploit the power gamer's weakness without obliterating the rest of the party if they get caught in the crossfire.

[Altima]

If your players aren't on their knees, weeping tears of blood, and begging for you to end it all, you're not doing your job as a DM.

*ahem* I mean, yes, the original poster does have some good points.

As for uber characters, well, there's always a chance of someone trying to sneak in cheese. Of course, it could be someone innocently playing a concept and it simply working out really well (or the jerk sold his soul to the dice gods--I hate those players). Generally, when players gain a new level, I tend to send some diverse 'random' encounters at them to gauge how well each player handles certain situations.

As for players creating the kind of characters they want...well, some players are simply stupid, and like to create characters who I can't even see living past childhood. Of course, if a player wants to play a character bad enough, he will learn to sell the idea to his DM. Case in point, one of my favorite characters in a campaign I was running was a halfling blackguard.

As for TPKs, well, sometimes the players ask for it. Other time, it's an accident of fickle dice. Though, more than once, I've been pleasantly surprised by ingenuity of players--such as going from an arctic to desert environ with no supplies. An impossible situation for some people, but tell the players they're going to die, and they tend to (wo)man-up to the situation.

[Cyrion]

But in order for that Stunning Fist to hit the guy with absurd AC, it's likely to be able to take down the other players as well. If your NPC monk winds up next to an unoptimized PC, does that mean he should hold back on the SF because he's waiting to wail on the power gamer?

What I'm getting at is that even if the power gamer does have gaps in his defenses, the rest of the PCs are likely vulnerable in that way too, possibly moreso than the power gamer. Unless his weaknesses are huge, anything that threatens him will threaten the other players just as much if not moreso. The trick isn't in finding a way to exploit the power gamer's one weakness. It's finding a way to exploit the power gamer's weakness without obliterating the rest of the party if they get caught in the crossfire.

That's just intelligent targeting. Players do it all the time. Your party comes into a room in the castle, confronted by the Evil Wizard and several conjured flunkies. Which enemy does the party specifically target for serious hurt? They may have to go through the flunkies, but they're going to focus on getting to the enemy that could seriously hurt them, and they're going to hold their nastiest attacks for him.

Intelligent NPC and monsters should do the same thing. Yes, that monk is probably going to hold the stunning fist for the power gamer and generically pummel the weaker character. That power gamer is going to draw a LOT of attention from the toughest baddies. As a DM, the challenge becomes balancing it so that if the BBEG manages to take out the uberpowerful character, he's been weakened enough so that the rest of the party can finish the battle and rifle through the powergamer's pockets ressurect/revivify their comrade.

[martyrX]

If your players aren't on their knees, weeping tears of blood, and begging for you to end it all, you're not doing your job as a DM.

*ahem* I mean, yes, the original poster does have some good points.

As for uber characters, well, there's always a chance of someone trying to sneak in cheese.

And as a DM, you don't even need to sneak in the cheese to use against said uber character. i don't see a problem here.

As for players creating the kind of characters they want...well, some players are simply stupid, and like to create characters who I can't even see living past childhood.

it's fantasy - who cares? I know some people IRL who probably shouldn't have made it past childhood, but somehow they made it...why not the barbarian/druid with INT 3 (or whatever)?

As for TPKs, well, sometimes the players ask for it.

asking for it because they made a mistake in game? fine. asking for it cause you wanna show 'em who's da boss? not good.

[Altima]

And as a DM, you don't even need to sneak in the cheese to use against said uber character. i don't see a problem here.

I was implying that the PCs would try to do it, not the DM. After all, there's not really a point, since a DM can randomly smite people. Not very fun, but it is within a DM's domain.

[arguskos]

Eh, I think the issue with one player being far and above beyond the others is more that the others won't have much fun really. I mean, one dude is doing everything and is overshadowing everyone, it's wise to ask him to dial it down.

Personally, I demand my players get my copies of their characters (online, in person, I don't care, but I want them for records and personal balance use), and that way, I can spot potential issues before they become problems. "No, I'd prefer you don't take Celerity, it's too powerful for this game." "Dodge is pretty weak, would you prefer Midnight Dodge or another Dodge-Equivalent feat that's better?" Etc..

[Jayabalard]

If you are smart about it, there is no PC that can 'ruin' your game. The PCs enemies are whoever you want them to be, can have any abilities you want them to have, etc. Uber druid got you down? You can create the exact same character, but levels higher. Seriously, what are you worried about?

This sort of arms race makes the game unfun for me, whether I'm an uninvoled player, the problem player, or the DM.

When you are uncertain about a decision, just make it a die roll and move on (this is rollplaying after all :) ). Not sure if you want to allow a certain book in your game? Either make a decision for a good reason (NO psionics in my world) or roll the die (ok, 11-20 on d20 means i will allow psionics). ANYONE who has a problem with die rolls making decisions should not be playing d&d.

I don't see rolling dice as an inherently better way of making these sorts of decisions than just picking what makes the most sense at the time, trusting your instincts, or minimizing risks.

This game isn't DM vs. PCs. You are really on the same team. Don't ruin the game for each other (unless that is everyone's idea of fun). The more I think of it, the more I realise that it makes NO SENSE to think of D&D in this way.

Some people really enjoy this style game; and there are several game systems that are based around doing this.

[illyrus]

I think it is a problem of one or both sides being unwilling to listen. In the case of the DM he or she thinks their game is just fine even though all the players are complaining about their frustration level with it. In the case of a player sometimes his defense becomes "it's not that my character is overpowered, rather I'm just a 'better' player than the others and/or the DM".

At least that seems to be true with the people I've played with; getting a person to admit that their actions are causing a DM vs Player environment seems to be the hardest step. Most people (myself included) try so very hard to not see fault in themselves.

As to a solution I don't know the answer, if a player isn't willing to listen as a DM you can always overrule the player. If it's the DM and discussion fails then you can either accept it or leave.

[martyrX]

I was implying that the PCs would try to do it, not the DM. After all, there's not really a point, since a DM can randomly smite people. Not very fun, but it is within a DM's domain.

I got what you meant - and I meant that it doesn't matter, because the DM can do the same.

[martyrX]

This sort of arms race makes the game unfun for me, whether I'm an uninvoled player, the problem player, or the DM.


I don't see rolling dice as an inherently better way of making these sorts of decisions than just picking what makes the most sense at the time, trusting your instincts, or minimizing risks.

Some people really enjoy this style game; and there are several game systems that are based around doing this.

How can there be an arms race when one side has unlimited resources? My point is, the DM need not worry about an 'uber' player, because he can ALWAYS challenge him/her.

Sure, die rolling isn't the best way to make decisions, and it should be used as a last resort. But if no one can agree on something, it could expedite the process, instead of arguing about something that is probably not that important all night.

If you enjoy DM vs PC, great. There are plenty of games for that. D&D is not one of them (once again...unlimited resources vs. limited).

[Jayabalard]

How can there be an arms race when one side has unlimited resources? My point is, the DM need not worry about an 'uber' player, because he can ALWAYS challenge him/her.

Because it encouranges certain types of players to keep trying to come up with something to one up the DM.

Sure, die rolling isn't the best way to make decisions, and it should be used as a last resort. But if no one can agree on something, it could expedite the process, instead of arguing about something that is probably not that important all night.

I still don't see it as any better than "ok, I'll just pick one"

If you enjoy DM vs PC, great. There are plenty of games for that. D&D is not one of them (once again...unlimited resources vs. limited).

I don't, but there's nothing wrong with the people who do, or the people who play D&D that way.

nor does unlimited resources vs. limited really have anything to do with it.

[illyrus]

Personally I'd never use a die roll to determine whether content was allowed in a game or not. Though I can see it being a "better" approach due to the fact that it's a form of compromise. From a player's perspective you're giving him an even shot at getting the content he wants in the game world. Ideally it would end an argument with a player.

I think the viewpoint of it being "better" only works if you take what the OP said as a whole as opposed to cherry-picking concepts.

[martyrX]

Because it encouranges certain types of players to keep trying to come up with something to one up the DM.

which they cannot do. They can one up monsters, BBEGs, what have you, but not the DM.

I still don't see it as any better than "ok, I'll just pick one"

I doubt it is better and I would never need to do it with my group. But I constantly see players (edit: on this forum) complaining about their DMs making 'arbitrary' decisions. Perhaps this could be a way for DMs to garner some goodwill if they need it.

I don't, but there's nothing wrong with the people who do, or the people who play D&D that way.

nor does unlimited resources vs. limited really have anything to do with it.

If the DM purposely limits him/herself, then yes. Once again, I was referring to DM vs. PCs out of game, not in game.

[Kesnit]

How can there be an arms race when one side has unlimited resources? My point is, the DM need not worry about an 'uber' player, because he can ALWAYS challenge him/her.

But unless it's a solo campaign, the DM challenging the "uber" player risks making a game that is impossible for the non-uber.

Some things just can't be fixed. If I have a powergamer playing a WIZ in the party with a decent Bard, Swordsage, and Warlock, encounters are going to either be solved (for all practical purposes) in one round by the WIZ, or be death traps for the other 3.

[Fiery Diamond]

I DM. I have never had to deal with the DM vs. PCs mentality before, primarily because I make clear before the game begins how I intend to run the game. I think that if DMs did that more often, there would be less compatibility issues. (That said, sometimes there are players who are just jerks and want to have things in a certain way regardless of what you said...I'm dealing with one of them right now with a combination of IC and OOC and the situation is improving.)

I tell people before we start that I view D&D as collaborative story creation (note: story CREATION, not story TELLING). We're all joint authors, so to speak. They each control a PC (a main character) and I control the rest of the setting. "The rest of the setting" includes scenarios and happenings in the world, but the actions of the PCs greatly affect what will happen in the world and what scenarios will occur. I enjoy when players are creative and throw things at me that I don't expect. I want the players to drive the plot, not me - but there will still be a plot; this requires me to interpret how the players' actions will affect the game world.
On the other hand, the primary objective is to have fun. If you can't play nice and respect the other players, there's the door. Doing random crap just to screw with either the other players of the DM is not acceptable, and will be punished in game unless so bad as to warrant ejection from the game.
I also make it clear what kind of material is allowed and what kind of game (you're heroes, not anti-heroes or villains) I intend to run.

[Toric]

Heroes find a way, they don't whine.

I am sigging this. Real adventurers don't complain to their gods when faced with impossible odds (unless they're clerics), they just get the job done with what resources they have at the time (unless they're artificers).

The original post is very very close to my approach to D&D. It's a team effort. The end goal is for everyone to have fun, and it's a goal that everyone should ideally work toward. When one PC achieves something great, everybody celebrates, and when one person feels like they're lagging behind, the rest of the group chips in with advice. It's-a nice.

[Tyndmyr]

which they cannot do. They can one up monsters, BBEGs, what have you, but not the DM.

Of course you can one up your DM. Your DM is human, and thus, beatable. The question is not if you can, but if you should.