"I can't handle you guys!" "Well, what did you expect?"

[RobbyPants]

Maybe it's also that GMs expect things to go like in the books and movies and video games they've experienced.  Y'know, the ones where the characters seem to have an automatic motivation to follow the plot and usually pull through despite overwhelming odds.

Overcoming overwhelming odds is easy until the odds happen to you.

This is probably a lot of it. It could even be from old D&D games they've played with other people. They get used to the game running a certain way, and it runs differently with a different group of people.

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

[nijineko]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

[LordBlades]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

Sometimes, a not so rule savvy DM might base an encounter (or worse, story arc) on an incorrect rule (or have a vulnerability in his monsters/plot  exploited in a way he had no idea it was possible). Think what happens to a dragon encounter if the DM doesn't know about Shivering Touch but players do. Or, as a better example, a DM that doesn't realize the Tarrasque is not immune to ability drain and that it can't hurt incorporeal creatures.

[RedWarlock]

Plus, there is always the fear that the non-DM rules-expert will be less than impartial. They correct a rule to proper form when it benefits the players, but not when it is to their detriment. If the DM doesn't know, and doesn't fully trust the rules-expert, who would be able to judge?

[Demelain]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

Sometimes, a not so rule savvy DM might base an encounter (or worse, story arc) on an incorrect rule (or have a vulnerability in his monsters/plot  exploited in a way he had no idea it was possible). Think what happens to a dragon encounter if the DM doesn't know about Shivering Touch but players do. Or, as a better example, a DM that doesn't realize the Tarrasque is not immune to ability drain and that it can't hurt incorporeal creatures.

This. I don't claim to be a rules expert, but I'm the only member of my group who can do math - and D&D combat, at its core, is a game of math. I sometimes curbstomp the encounters without intending to by using a tactic that would be moderately effective against what I consider a properly built enemy, but is encounter ending against what the DM built. It's frustrating for the DM when I play an effective character, and frustrating for myself if I have to consciously hold it back. I enjoy making characters, but I generally don't play them anymore - our DMs have switched to WH40K systems, and I'm the only one who still DMs 3.5, and I enjoy that - a degree of system mastery goes a long way towards making a DM's job smooth.

If I weren't busy trying to get an A in Calculus, I'd probably switch to GURPS. Alas, not even I can find enough time to learn GURPS rules.

To add to the discussion: D&D 3.5 enemies have a surprising amount of holes in them. The tarrasque mentioned earlier is a great example. It was purpose made to be one of the toughest monsters in core... but it's incredibly easy to incapacitate, because WotC forgot important things in its immunity bucket and didn't give it flight, true seeing, or magic natural attacks.
Dragons are in the same boat, as far as I'm concerned. Their saving grace is spell casting, but even that is pretty bad if you use the out-of-the-book spell list.

Both meant to be challenging enemies, and they can both easily become unengaging combat slogs that are less fun and more chore.

[Kasz]

Greetings, all!

So many times I've encountered GMs (especially newbie GMs) who get frustrated and sometimes even stop GMing once things become too unwieldy.  It's like they never expected the rules to apply to them, or to have their challenges so easily overcome (or died to, on the other end).  Maybe it's pride or inexperience that says, "That clever or obvious solution shouldn't be allowed!  I want things my way!"

What are your thoughts and theories on why GMs act this way?

I agree with the earlier sentiment that if it's a newbie GM and high op players that the high op players are at fault. You completely trivialise a red dragon with shivering touch which turns a 4 hour session to a 2 hour session... not the GM's fault. You might cry "well he didn't ban it!" because he didn't know better because he's a newbie. Wheaten's law.

It relates to not stealing the spot light from your other players... no one likes the T1 in a party of T4's if the T1 is soloing encounters.

Anyway the newbie GM is finding his feet, trivialise his encounters and he'll ramp up the CR... problem solved... the main issue is CR is terrible... some CR3's are stronger than CR6's etc. Some combo's are strictly better than just +1 CR.

When someone's new at something like DMing they're not going to be able to DM insanely well first session. They'll grow, settle into a style, pick up tips on the way and become good DM's or they'll ragequit like you mention... some people aren't cut out to DM... if they try it and don't like it fair enough. The main thing is that everyone stays friends and you don't lose a 3 year friendship cause Steve cast a spell you didn't know about in a game and killed the dragon.

TL:DR - If your friend wants to run his first D&D game ever don't take a greenbound summoning druid and then go planar shepherd, or if you do, play it down until he gets into the swing of things. If he rages he's going to rage... if not he'll learn and might become a decent DM.

[InnaBinder]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

Sometimes, a not so rule savvy DM might base an encounter (or worse, story arc) on an incorrect rule (or have a vulnerability in his monsters/plot  exploited in a way he had no idea it was possible). Think what happens to a dragon encounter if the DM doesn't know about Shivering Touch but players do. Or, as a better example, a DM that doesn't realize the Tarrasque is not immune to ability drain and that it can't hurt incorporeal creatures.

This. I don't claim to be a rules expert, but I'm the only member of my group who can do math - and D&D combat, at its core, is a game of math. I sometimes curbstomp the encounters without intending to by using a tactic that would be moderately effective against what I consider a properly built enemy, but is encounter ending against what the DM built. It's frustrating for the DM when I play an effective character, and frustrating for myself if I have to consciously hold it back. I enjoy making characters, but I generally don't play them anymore - our DMs have switched to WH40K systems, and I'm the only one who still DMs 3.5, and I enjoy that - a degree of system mastery goes a long way towards making a DM's job smooth.

If I weren't busy trying to get an A in Calculus, I'd probably switch to GURPS. Alas, not even I can find enough time to learn GURPS rules.

To add to the discussion: D&D 3.5 enemies have a surprising amount of holes in them. The tarrasque mentioned earlier is a great example. It was purpose made to be one of the toughest monsters in core... but it's incredibly easy to incapacitate, because WotC forgot important things in its immunity bucket and didn't give it flight, true seeing, or magic natural attacks.
Dragons are in the same boat, as far as I'm concerned. Their saving grace is spell casting, but even that is pretty bad if you use the out-of-the-book spell list.

Both meant to be challenging enemies, and they can both easily become unengaging combat slogs that are less fun and more chore.

A huge percentage - arguably a majority - of 3.5 monsters are "puzzle encounters" like that, which challenge/frustrate/destroy parties who don't have the correct answer to the puzzle, and on the opposite end, are trivially easy for a party to deal with if they happen to have access to and knowledge of the correct answer to the puzzle.  As I read the OP - and I'll own the reading as my own, and not Endarire's words - DMs who don't expect nearly every encounter to be this way AND expect the party to consistently have a bag full of correct puzzle solutions handy are Doing It Wrong.  There's almost an undercurrent of "every person who volunteers to DM for a group must first pass this battery of competency tests" to the OP's sentiment, to my view (and good luck enforcing that).

[nijineko]

If I weren't busy trying to get an A in Calculus, I'd probably switch to GURPS. Alas, not even I can find enough time to learn GURPS rules.

i must respectfully disagree. the core rules are incredibly easy to learn, and the rest of the rulebooks are purely optional.

here is the GURPS Lite pdf, it is, and i quote, "a 32-page distillation of the basic GURPS rules. It covers the essentials of character creation, combat, success rolls, adventuring, and game mastering for GURPS Fourth Edition." Best of all, it is a free download from e23, the SJGames online pdf store. It is one of the best ways to introduce ones' self, or others to the GURPS system. =D

i hope you can find enough time to read a free 32 page pdf?





*Disclosure: I am an active MIB, a volunteer representative of SJGames. Comments made in this font/color/size are in said capacity. Nonetheless, as a volunteer, I am only authorized to act in the capacities listed on the MIB site, linked here. My comments do not represent the official views or opinions or position in any way of SJGames, Steve Jackson, employees, and any associated properties.



we now return you to your regularly scheduled thread. nothing to see here. move along.

[Demelain]

I can indeed. And now I feel obligated, for fear that men in suits are watching me.

[nijineko]

I can indeed. And now I feel obligated, for fear that men in suits are watching me.

^^

if it makes you feel any better, i used to work for the government too.

[Jackinthegreen]

I can indeed. And now I feel obligated, for fear that men in suits are watching me.

^^

if it makes you feel any better, i used to work for the government too.

Do you really think that'll make him feel better?   

[Unbeliever]

@the Tarrasque and creatures like it

I actually find that, if you want to call the Tarrasque (and creatures like it) a puzzle encounter, it's at least of the right sort.  It tends to reward creativity more than system mastery/memorizing the monster manuals.  The Tarrasque is intended to be a melee monster of epic proportions -- it's really solid in the deal and take damage department.  But, it's a big dumb brute without any exotic abilities other than being immune to a bunch of stuff.  Hence, it's well-known vulnerability to stealth, flight, etc.  Really, to anything that doesn't challenge it in its bailiwick. 

That's a damn sight different than the Troll's sort of obscure -- to anyone unfamiliar with D&D -- regenerative properties and the like.  The ways to respond to the Tarrasque are intuitive, i.e., they benefit relatively little from system mastery.  Contrast that with Shivering Touch + Dragon's or other low Dex monsters.


I happen to like well-informed players, maybe b/c I am one, and generally trust players to know their mechanics.  But, that's in full light of gentleman's agreements, etc.  I happen to like GURPS, too, or I did 100 years ago when I played it.  I wouldn't say that it's not a math game or an exploitable one, though, just FYI. 

Also, GURPS, like nearly every other game on the market (anyone let me know if you have any counterexamples) takes a lot more labor to run than D&D.  The existence of the Monster Manuals and even some vague, crappy guidance as to what to use is a tremendous boon.  I was sort of tempted, largely by nostalgia, to finish up my conversion of Rifts, or something Rifts-inspired (giant robots + magic + whatever + action!), to M&M and it stalled b/c I realized that in order to run the game you would have to create every encounter from scratch, which can get really tedious.

[Kethrian]

I've found that explaining beforehand to the DM that I have a good working knowledge of the rules and offering my help to him, should he want/need it, can alleviate much of the player/DM conflict.  He gets the reassurance that I'm just trying to help the game run smoothly, and if a fight goes entirely lopsided in one direction or the other, I will go over it with him later to help him figure out what went wrong.  I try to make sure he understands any character abilities (mine or other players' characters) that could have a big impact on certain types of encounters.

This is most often gratefully accepted by newer DMs who know they don't have much system mastery at all.  And most other players don't seem to mind either, because I'm not taking sides, I'm trying to help the game run better.  The only real problem anyone has had with it (so far) are the ones who munchkin out, and get called on it because I actually know the rules and am there to help the DM as well, or those who don't know and don't care to know the rules, and think I'm interfering when I suggest how to resolve odd things they do.  Both types have quit the group after just a few sessions, while everyone else stays and has fun.

[nijineko]

I happen to like well-informed players, maybe b/c I am one, and generally trust players to know their mechanics.  But, that's in full light of gentleman's agreements, etc.  I happen to like GURPS, too, or I did 100 years ago when I played it.  I wouldn't say that it's not a math game or an exploitable one, though, just FYI. 

Also, GURPS, like nearly every other game on the market (anyone let me know if you have any counterexamples) takes a lot more labor to run than D&D.  The existence of the Monster Manuals and even some vague, crappy guidance as to what to use is a tremendous boon.  I was sort of tempted, largely by nostalgia, to finish up my conversion of Rifts, or something Rifts-inspired (giant robots + magic + whatever + action!), to M&M and it stalled b/c I realized that in order to run the game you would have to create every encounter from scratch, which can get really tedious.

4th edition of GURPS has streamlined a lot of stuff. much easier to prepare now then ever before. it's a lot like unix. it can be simple and straightforward. but when you pile on the options, it gets bewildering.

[RobbyPants]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

I didn't say it made sense. I said it can be the case.

As LordOfBlades and Demelain said, things can quickly ruin work that the DM planned if they missed or misunderstood a rule. It's certainly not fair to the players, but I've seen DMs make rulings simply based on what's easier for them, or if they prefer their old assumption about the rules to what the book actually says.

[InnaBinder]

That, and a lot of DMs get mad if a player knows the rules better than they do.

why? that makes no sense. if you have a resource (a rulebook, or game notes, or a player who knows the rule books and will rule neutrally based on the rule, not what is best for one or the other) why not make use of it to speed up the game and vet things out?

I didn't say it made sense. I said it can be the case.

As LordOfBlades and Demelain said, things can quickly ruin work that the DM planned if they missed or misunderstood a rule. It's certainly not fair to the players, but I've seen DMs make rulings simply based on what's easier for them, or if they prefer their old assumption about the rules to what the book actually says.

Alternately, the DM rules based on what the pre-errata rule was because she lacks immediate access to that errata, while one or more of the players has read the errata and thus has a different understanding.

[veekie]

A huge percentage - arguably a majority - of 3.5 monsters are "puzzle encounters" like that, which challenge/frustrate/destroy parties who don't have the correct answer to the puzzle, and on the opposite end, are trivially easy for a party to deal with if they happen to have access to and knowledge of the correct answer to the puzzle.  As I read the OP - and I'll own the reading as my own, and not Endarire's words - DMs who don't expect nearly every encounter to be this way AND expect the party to consistently have a bag full of correct puzzle solutions handy are Doing It Wrong.  There's almost an undercurrent of "every person who volunteers to DM for a group must first pass this battery of competency tests" to the OP's sentiment, to my view (and good luck enforcing that).

Indeed, puzzle encounters are practically trivial with the right solutions, but in 3.5 are almost always beatable without(e.g. once you get Big T down to negatives, it is entirely possible to lock him away, with or without Wishes), provided you have luck and plenty of brute force.

In most such cases, the fault tends to lie with the most skilled person at the table, as they are the most able to adjust their play/GMing to fit the group best. The others simply don't have a choice, other than to lean on the stronger person's ability(which is not an option that is universally applicable). Even with someone more capable helping, there are limits.

Broad plot strokes easily abolished by not just individual ability, but with something you can buy(need to cross the kingdom in a hurry? Buy a scroll of Overland Flight to bypass the intervening distance and encounters, or a scroll of Teleport to bypass all the things), can easily wipe out preparation. In fact, such abilities can routinely screw over certain types of groups, where the scenario is predetermined(E.g. skipping the intervening encounters means you arrive at the BBEG's place...two levels too low, and without the plot devices to weaken him).

Offense outstrips defense as well, a skilled(in the optimization sense, which is completely distinct from the DMing sense) DM might make a challenging encounter consisting of high offense creatures(hydras, beholders) attacking from ambush on complex terrain...against a party that is essentially the D&D Iconics is going to flatten them, and they'd be unable to do anything about it. Against a more optimized party it might be down to a coinflip instead, winner takes all.

[InnaBinder]

A huge percentage - arguably a majority - of 3.5 monsters are "puzzle encounters" like that, which challenge/frustrate/destroy parties who don't have the correct answer to the puzzle, and on the opposite end, are trivially easy for a party to deal with if they happen to have access to and knowledge of the correct answer to the puzzle.  As I read the OP - and I'll own the reading as my own, and not Endarire's words - DMs who don't expect nearly every encounter to be this way AND expect the party to consistently have a bag full of correct puzzle solutions handy are Doing It Wrong.  There's almost an undercurrent of "every person who volunteers to DM for a group must first pass this battery of competency tests" to the OP's sentiment, to my view (and good luck enforcing that).

Indeed, puzzle encounters are practically trivial with the right solutions, but in 3.5 are almost always beatable without(e.g. once you get Big T down to negatives, it is entirely possible to lock him away, with or without Wishes), provided you have luck and plenty of brute force.

In most such cases, the fault tends to lie with the most skilled person at the table, as they are the most able to adjust their play/GMing to fit the group best. The others simply don't have a choice, other than to lean on the stronger person's ability(which is not an option that is universally applicable). Even with someone more capable helping, there are limits.

Broad plot strokes easily abolished by not just individual ability, but with something you can buy(need to cross the kingdom in a hurry? Buy a scroll of Overland Flight to bypass the intervening distance and encounters, or a scroll of Teleport to bypass all the things), can easily wipe out preparation. In fact, such abilities can routinely screw over certain types of groups, where the scenario is predetermined(E.g. skipping the intervening encounters means you arrive at the BBEG's place...two levels too low, and without the plot devices to weaken him).

Offense outstrips defense as well, a skilled(in the optimization sense, which is completely distinct from the DMing sense) DM might make a challenging encounter consisting of high offense creatures(hydras, beholders) attacking from ambush on complex terrain...against a party that is essentially the D&D Iconics is going to flatten them, and they'd be unable to do anything about it. Against a more optimized party it might be down to a coinflip instead, winner takes all.

Emphasis mine.  Note that when I brought up similar issues to those emphasized above, a majority of responses put the blame squarely on the DM's (i.e. my) shoulders for not being able to deal with it as smoothly as apparently expected.

[Haakon]

Do you really think that'll make him feel better?   

He's from the government, and he's here to help.
How is that not good news, citizen?

[ImperatorK]

Emphasis mine.  Note that when I brought up similar issues to those emphasized above, a majority of responses put the blame squarely on the DM's (i.e. my) shoulders for not being able to deal with it as smoothly as apparently expected.

That might had something to do with your attitude.