So this has happened quite a few times in a Dnd campaign I’ve been playing in and having been a Dm I personally find it bad form- but wanted the perspective of other DMs as I simply may be out of touch and thinking my own Dming rules are perfect ( ;) ) when in fact they are opinion.
Several times over the course of the campaign - we the players, specifically one player comes up with a clever plan or a way to respond to a encounter and says “oh I have a great idea” upon an epiphany. The Dm then interjects with whatever is going on in the game and insists that we or this player tell him our idea saying “I’m the Dm I can’t be surprised “Bob” “ or “your not allowed to surprise me, I have to know, I’m the Dm ”.
Personally I’m always thrilled when my players cleverly outmaneuver me and surprise me. It’s thrilling to have people challenge my encounters and be brilliant with their creative ideas.
Ex) Druid casts spike growth on s group of Hobgoblin Bubears. They stop in response to only the commander taking damage. They hold their ground and the commander fires a few shots at the Druid to break concentration. At this point the player exclaims he has a clever idea and the Dm insists he must tell him. The Druid does so not wishing to create conflict or disrupt the game despite feeling like that’s not quite fair. The Druid after narrowly getting missed shape shifts into a badger and digs down 15ft and hence keeps his concentration. We win the battle of attrition as the superior force can’t move to match our tactics.
I could be likely just thinking its poor form or unreasonable and be wrong in this. Luckily this time there was no in game way to counter said tactic as the Dm does seem to play fair with the encounters he brings to the table and not mirror us with whatever’s he needs. Yet, I can’t help but feel that such an insistence leads one to meta-ing the monsters reactions but also takes the fun out of the cleverness of the pc for both the pc and dm.
Am I being a nut job or? Thank you for your responses!
Sometimes it is good for the DM to know what the plan is so they can both make sure it is possible and to make sure they are educated enough to have it play out correctly. Only a bad DM would use the meta information against the players.
As a DM I love it when my players surprise me. In the context of how Gallazius put the one specific situation I think it's a bad idea to stop the combat and ask my players to detail their plan to me. I want my combats to move as fast as possible so if I heard a player say "I have an idea!" I'd say "Great! I can't wait for your turn in the initiative!" It's OK to see it as it plays out. Period.
I prefer to have my players in the moment and I react to them as the NPCs in the world vs. knowing everything and narrating results.
Where I've had to tell the players "No, I'm the DM and I need to know this if I'm going to make it a part of the game for you!" it was newer players who were keeping their background details secret from me. I caught on when she literally told me that there were things about her family I didn't know and she was excited about when they'd show up in the game.
She had never told me a thing about her family, or birthplace. I talked with her after that session and let her know that I'd be thrilled to bring in a family story, but I had to know it to share that fun. She told me she thought the game was DM vs Players. I told her I failed her and we went over the character.
Stuff like that? I want to know in advance so I can make it part of the story. Combat tactics? Surprise me.
As a DM I love it when my players surprise me. In the context of how Gallazius put the one specific situation I think it's a bad idea to stop the combat and ask my players to detail their plan to me. I want my combats to move as fast as possible so if I heard a player say "I have an idea!" I'd say "Great! I can't wait for your turn in the initiative!" It's OK to see it as it plays out. Period.
I prefer to have my players in the moment and I react to them as the NPCs in the world vs. knowing everything and narrating results.
Where I've had to tell the players "No, I'm the DM and I need to know this if I'm going to make it a part of the game for you!" it was newer players who were keeping their background details secret from me. I caught on when she literally told me that there were things about her family I didn't know and she was excited about when they'd show up in the game.
She had never told me a thing about her family, or birthplace. I talked with her after that session and let her know that I'd be thrilled to bring in a family story, but I had to know it to share that fun. She told me she thought the game was DM vs Players. I told her I failed her and we went over the character.
Stuff like that? I want to know in advance so I can make it part of the story. Combat tactics? Surprise me.
That's how I would prefer to DM...it's great that the party/table come up with ideas well outside what I thought they would do. If a player gets a great idea, usually my party has a hard time keeping that to themselves until their turn, so they end up blurting it out, and I usually tell them that they'll have to wait and see if it work at their turn. I wouldn't arbitrarily stop the flow/momentum of an encounter to interrogate a PC to tell me their idea to let them know if it is feasible enough. If they lob something at me on their turn, I usually mull it over for a few seconds and figure out what checks to put in place or if the mechanics would feasibly allow for it. That can slow the momentum, but it also usually allows for a cool moment to potentially allow for that player to have a shining moment.
That being said, I think we'd all agree that we probably DM differently. There are enough personalities out there that perhaps the DM can't stand to not know what the PC is queuing up. If that's the case, hopefully the table can be accommodating, or the DM can learn to adapt. I get that it's difficult for some people to roll with the unknown. I'm not sure that there's a right or wrong way to look at this.
Some DMs are very structured, they know how everything for that session is going to go, they have contingencies planned for many different possibilities, and they're more comfortable that way. Some DMs plan as little as possible, preferring to let the game unfold with every decision made by the players, they improvise the majority of the game, and they find it very entertaining. Most DMs are somewhere in between, planning for most of the game, improvising when things go off script, and just rolling with whatever happens. The type of DM you have is going to really alter the approach you have to take as a player and how information is passed back and forth.
What you explained in your example is perfectly fine in my books. The DM asked to know what the plan was, the plan was executed, and you guys succeeded in your combat. On the other hand, if the DM had used that information to make the plan fail, then there's a problem. I almost always just explain the scene, ask what the players are going to do, and then resolve the actions. I don't ask for advanced notice on what the players intend to do, I just roll with what they've got. It's led to some very odd on the spot rulings, but I also let my players know that anything they use against me is usable against them. I find that, unless proven otherwise, DMs are generally pretty fair even if they know what your plans are in advance.
Personally, I think I'd be bored if my Players couldn't surprise me :)
I'm definitely in the "know as much as you can about the world, the situation, and the NPCs - let the plot unfold in real time" camp - and my Players are free to chose any path of action they want.
However, I often stop and ask the Players, "OK, what are you trying to do, and how are you planning to do that?", meaning over the short term in this encounter/scene only.
This is mostly so a) I can figure out if what the Players believe about the situation and what the Characters would know are in alignment ( Oh, wait, no - this is the BLUE Bugbear, not the Purple one ), b) I can start figuring out what the reactions of the NPCs and/or Environment is likely to be, and to start figuring out DCs.
I don't see why the DM can't or shouldn't know what the Players are planning, nor do I see why a Player should object to explaining their ideas, since encounters are not, and should not be the DM vs.the Players.
If you can't - or won't - trust your DM not to meta-gaming the world reactions based on the DM's knowledge, there is a problem at you table - but the DM wanting to know what's going on so they can fairly and realistically adjudicate the world and the NPC reactions isn't it.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Sometimes it is good for the DM to know what the plan is so they can both make sure it is possible and to make sure they are educated enough to have it play out correctly. Only a bad DM would use the meta information against the players.
I agree with ermfish6 here on the detail of I need to make sure that what they want to do is possible or at the very least plan how the enemy might respond to it. That being said, I have no problem waiting until they try to enact the plan, but it may come off as a bummer if it turns out to be impossible and the players have to be like "OK, well my character should know its impossible, and in that case I won't have my player do that and they would do this instead." This could be especially hard to retroactivley undo in game if their setup requires something that takes a few turns
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews!Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Our dm believes a Dm does play the monsters and other characters. He even gets personally offended when we treat characters our characters don’t like poorly. Such as telling an old bumbling elder he was a coward for not standing up to bandits and allowing them to kill a man and kidnap his daughters and wife. He doesn’t think a dm narrates. Other times I have in game passed messages to characters about how I planned on doing a heist for a job. I passed a note to a fellow player in game and asked if they were interested in making some extra money. The Dm insisted on knowing what the note said - even before the player had a chance to think about the proposition. The Dm also has made a necklace cursed after the Druid wore it without checking if it was cursed first. The Dm confided in me saying “Because he wore it Willy nilly it’s cursed now and will slowly turn him into a sload and he’ll loose his character”.
With that information in mind - is the perspective different?
As many of us have said, the fact that he's asking for the information isn't a bad thing, it can be quite helpful at times.
However, this information does let us know that the way he's using the information is faulty. The DM should be impartial and fair, whether he's acting as an NPC, Monster, adjudicating actions, or giving out items. To use this information as a way to lord over your decisions is simply improper. This is something that should be addressed by the players to the DM, explain what you've explained to us. Opening the lines of communication is the biggest step, just don't expect the DM to change over night, and expect them to be defensive, it takes time to change bad habits. If all else fails, you may need a new DM or a new game all together.
It doesn't change whether or not a DM needs to know what's going on in the world.
If accurate, it does change whether or not you should be playing with a DM who takes that approach. If I was playing with a DM who had adopted a "me vs. the Players", and "reality is going to change to punish Players who don't play the way I would", I'd walk.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Our dm believes a Dm does play the monsters and other characters. He even gets personally offended when we treat characters our characters don’t like poorly. Such as telling an old bumbling elder he was a coward for not standing up to bandits and allowing them to kill a man and kidnap his daughters and wife. He doesn’t think a dm narrates. Other times I have in game passed messages to characters about how I planned on doing a heist for a job. I passed a note to a fellow player in game and asked if they were interested in making some extra money. The Dm insisted on knowing what the note said - even before the player had a chance to think about the proposition. The Dm also has made a necklace cursed after the Druid wore it without checking if it was cursed first. The Dm confided in me saying “Because he wore it Willy nilly it’s cursed now and will slowly turn him into a sload and he’ll loose his character”.
With that information in mind - is the perspective different?
So, there are two issues:
A DM wanting to know what's going on in the game. This is perfectly understandable, as the DM has to adjudicate the events. Whether or not you tell me before you take the action or you wait to surprise me while taking the action, I still have to make the same determination: what happens.
If you give me some time to think about what will happen (because interactions are often complicated), then the game might flow more smoothly. If you do not, then be ready for me to say "Okay, hold on...I have to figure out what happens here". It's often the case, for example, that you don't know everything about the world. You are going to plan some crazy action--polevaulting the mote when the guards' backs are turned, etc etc. If you don't tell me, then I can't say to you "As you contemplate that, you seem to notice the telltale glint of a wall of force halfway across the moat." If you just wait until your turn and go, you are committed. AND then I have to figure out with no warning what happened, which may mean there's a pause in the action.
Your DM is (may be) a d-bag.
This is entirely separate from the notion above about the DM having to know things.
I can see why a DM might resort to something like this (simply because improv can be very difficult, particularly if the PCs have a crazy idea) but IMO the DM should at least hear the idea out first before making a call
I love it when my players surprise me and do something clever and unexpected. Occasionally they will surprise me and do something extremely boneheaded and unexpected.
I do not have the monsters change their plans just because I know what the players are up to. The monsters don't know what I know. Some DMs take an adversarial stance and use every scrap of knowledge they have against the layers, some even do things like changing the game in response to player actions. "Oh, you didn't check that necklace for curses before you put it on? Well, now it's cursed."Unfair cheating in my book if the necklace had not been decided to be cursed before the player decided to put it on.
If the DM is asking to be told in advance so they have time to think of a counter, that is not a good DM. Wanting to be told in advance so the DM has a moment longer to figure out what happens is fine.
"Oh, you didn't check that necklace for curses before you put it on? Well, now it's cursed."Unfair cheating in my book if the necklace had not been decided to be cursed before the player decided to put it on.
Agreed. I will say that it's okay to sometimes spontaneously decide these things. But it has to do with motivation.
If you originally planned that the necklace wasn't cursed, but then something happened in the encounter that leads to them getting the necklace that makes you think it would be cool that the necklace is cursed, then by all means change your mind and make it cursed. :) You don't have to make all of your DM decisions before the session. And cursed items aren't 'punishments', they can be cool plot points or even treated like flaws.
For example, if the bad guy has the necklace, and during combat, your rolls are terrible and all sorts of unfortunate things happen to the bad guy just by dumb luck, enough so that the players are noticing "Man, this guy can't manage to do anything, he was super tough last time we fought him", and this shiny necklace they've seen him wearing is new...it's fine for the DM to suddenly and secretly decide that the necklace is why the rolls are bad :) This would be fine, because your motivation isn't to be mean, or punish anyone.
But if your motivation is "I'll teach him!", then you're just being a jerk.
Well the plan from what I’ve learned is to teach him a lesson. The necklace will turn him into a sload or something like that and he’ll lose his character once the transformation is complete
I don't see a problem with the teaching a lesson aspect. Actions in D&D have consequences and you can't drive that home unless there are consequences. However, doing something just to teach the lesson, without bringing in some story element and to the extent of losing a character seems a bit vindictive. It could easily be changed into something that becomes a quest for the party to try to overcome as their friend slowly becomes a sload physically and then mentally. It has some story behind it and can give depth to the characters, particularly the one that spent time as a sload and therefore obtained some peculiar tastes that he had before. The lesson could then be given by the NPC at the end: "That's part of the danger of adventuring, you never know what kind of loot you'll run up against! Next time be sure to do what you can to ensure that your new found gear isn't cursed or something." Then the party can ask how it is that they do that so they know what is expected of them.
I'd talk to the DM and see if it's something he might have ruled on a bit harshly and regretted it after. I had a player, as a level 1 character, run into a cave and pull who knows how many enemies into battle (he knew at least 3 goblins and 3 wolves, in addition to at least 1 hobgoblin and 2 other goblins the party was engaged with already). Two of the goblins with the wolves had left and one had since come back and the player was still saying, "Don't kill the wolves, I want one for a pet." He didn't know that the goblins had reported to forces that had decided to prepare for the players to come into an ambush instead of bringing at least another seven goblins plus the one that didn't come back, along with at least a hobgoblin, a bugbear, and another wolf, which amounted to about somewhere between half and 2/3 of the sort dungeon but was expected to be hit in 3 separate encounters. I was a little perturbed with him, particularly since his bard friend had just healed him back into conciousness. So I had Maglubiyet strike him dead. I realized a little later that I was a tad overzealous in my lesson dealing, so I changed it to knocked him stable but unconscious. (To my defense, I asked him if he wanted to yell out Leroy Jenkins and then had the party watch the video for reference and he still went in to the cave and pulled the others into combat.)
As for knowing what the party is planning, I agree that some things are easier to adjudicate if you have some time to look up the rules, but it shouldn't change your response as a DM much. If one of your monsters happens to have a spellcaster that has a water spell available to try to flood out or drown the druid, then great. That's a natural response that the creature would try to do to end the spell. Don't create a spellcaster on the fly with every water spell available to do it though.
Well the plan from what I’ve learned is to teach him a lesson. The necklace will turn him into a sload or something like that and he’ll lose his character once the transformation is complete
The role of the DM is not to teach the Players a lesson. At best, the DM is there to show the Players how the world reacts in a realistic and plausible manner.
If it is the case that a) The necklace wasn't cursed until the Player annoyed the DM by not playing the way the DM thinks the Player should play their character and now b) the DM is essentially killing that Player's character to make a point, then the DM is an ******* with whom you probably shouldn't be playing.
I can see the DM using that sort of ( still underhanded ) tactic to introduce an adventure hook: "Oh no, you've been cursed, luckily the curse can be broken if you ... <insert adventure here>", but essentially one-shot killing a Character because you don't like something the Player did, is bullshit.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I don't see a problem with the teaching a lesson aspect. Actions in D&D have consequences and you can't drive that home unless there are consequences.
Agreed - but teaching the Player a lesson along the lines of "This is how the world works, and now you have to suffer the consequences" is one thing. I've done that. A Party got in a lethal throw down in a crowded bar, in the center of town, in the middle of the day, on the same city square that held the local guard keep. They were subdued, arrested, tried, got to argue their case before the court, make skill rolls to try to persuade the tribunal that what they did was justified ( and did really well on that actually ), and ended up in prison for a few months, paid a fine, and we went on adventuring.
That's completely different than "you as a Player did something I personally find annoying. DIE!" - which is what this is kind of sounding like. That might not be the case here - we're only hearing one perspective. But if it is, I'd counsel to not play with that DM.
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I don't see a problem with the teaching a lesson aspect. Actions in D&D have consequences and you can't drive that home unless there are consequences.
Agreed - but teaching the Player a lesson along the lines of "This is how the world works, and now you have to suffer the consequences" is one thing. I've done that. A Party got in a lethal throw down in a crowded bar, in the center of town, in the middle of the day, on the same city square that held the local guard keep. They were subdued, arrested, tried, got to argue their case before the court, make skill rolls to try to persuade the tribunal that what they did was justified ( and did really well on that actually ), and ended up in prison for a few months, paid a fine, and we went on adventuring.
That's completely different than "you as a Player did something I personally find annoying. DIE!" - which is what this is kind of sounding like. That might not be the case here - we're only hearing one perspective. But if it is, I'd counsel to not play with that DM.
Agreed. I'm hoping that the DM had a case of bad judgment like I had in the example I outlined from my previous experience and decides to change it from just killing off a character to a plot hook that can further the story that the group is telling (hopefully without the PC just dying because his player pissed the DM off) or completely forgetting about the curse if it hasn't been addressed in session or to others in the group. And as you said, we've only heard one side of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So this has happened quite a few times in a Dnd campaign I’ve been playing in and having been a Dm I personally find it bad form- but wanted the perspective of other DMs as I simply may be out of touch and thinking my own Dming rules are perfect ( ;) ) when in fact they are opinion.
Several times over the course of the campaign - we the players, specifically one player comes up with a clever plan or a way to respond to a encounter and says “oh I have a great idea” upon an epiphany. The Dm then interjects with whatever is going on in the game and insists that we or this player tell him our idea saying “I’m the Dm I can’t be surprised “Bob” “ or “your not allowed to surprise me, I have to know, I’m the Dm ”.
Personally I’m always thrilled when my players cleverly outmaneuver me and surprise me. It’s thrilling to have people challenge my encounters and be brilliant with their creative ideas.
Ex) Druid casts spike growth on s group of Hobgoblin Bubears. They stop in response to only the commander taking damage. They hold their ground and the commander fires a few shots at the Druid to break concentration. At this point the player exclaims he has a clever idea and the Dm insists he must tell him. The Druid does so not wishing to create conflict or disrupt the game despite feeling like that’s not quite fair. The Druid after narrowly getting missed shape shifts into a badger and digs down 15ft and hence keeps his concentration. We win the battle of attrition as the superior force can’t move to match our tactics.
I could be likely just thinking its poor form or unreasonable and be wrong in this. Luckily this time there was no in game way to counter said tactic as the Dm does seem to play fair with the encounters he brings to the table and not mirror us with whatever’s he needs. Yet, I can’t help but feel that such an insistence leads one to meta-ing the monsters reactions but also takes the fun out of the cleverness of the pc for both the pc and dm.
Am I being a nut job or? Thank you for your responses!
Well... The DM does not play the monsters, they are the narrator. And in order for the DM to narrate properly, they need to know what is going on.
How would a player hope to enact any plan without telling it to the DM?
Maybe I am not understanding your problem.
Sometimes it is good for the DM to know what the plan is so they can both make sure it is possible and to make sure they are educated enough to have it play out correctly. Only a bad DM would use the meta information against the players.
As a DM I love it when my players surprise me. In the context of how Gallazius put the one specific situation I think it's a bad idea to stop the combat and ask my players to detail their plan to me. I want my combats to move as fast as possible so if I heard a player say "I have an idea!" I'd say "Great! I can't wait for your turn in the initiative!" It's OK to see it as it plays out. Period.
I prefer to have my players in the moment and I react to them as the NPCs in the world vs. knowing everything and narrating results.
Where I've had to tell the players "No, I'm the DM and I need to know this if I'm going to make it a part of the game for you!" it was newer players who were keeping their background details secret from me. I caught on when she literally told me that there were things about her family I didn't know and she was excited about when they'd show up in the game.
She had never told me a thing about her family, or birthplace. I talked with her after that session and let her know that I'd be thrilled to bring in a family story, but I had to know it to share that fun. She told me she thought the game was DM vs Players. I told her I failed her and we went over the character.
Stuff like that? I want to know in advance so I can make it part of the story. Combat tactics? Surprise me.
That's how I would prefer to DM...it's great that the party/table come up with ideas well outside what I thought they would do. If a player gets a great idea, usually my party has a hard time keeping that to themselves until their turn, so they end up blurting it out, and I usually tell them that they'll have to wait and see if it work at their turn. I wouldn't arbitrarily stop the flow/momentum of an encounter to interrogate a PC to tell me their idea to let them know if it is feasible enough. If they lob something at me on their turn, I usually mull it over for a few seconds and figure out what checks to put in place or if the mechanics would feasibly allow for it. That can slow the momentum, but it also usually allows for a cool moment to potentially allow for that player to have a shining moment.
That being said, I think we'd all agree that we probably DM differently. There are enough personalities out there that perhaps the DM can't stand to not know what the PC is queuing up. If that's the case, hopefully the table can be accommodating, or the DM can learn to adapt. I get that it's difficult for some people to roll with the unknown. I'm not sure that there's a right or wrong way to look at this.
Some DMs are very structured, they know how everything for that session is going to go, they have contingencies planned for many different possibilities, and they're more comfortable that way. Some DMs plan as little as possible, preferring to let the game unfold with every decision made by the players, they improvise the majority of the game, and they find it very entertaining. Most DMs are somewhere in between, planning for most of the game, improvising when things go off script, and just rolling with whatever happens. The type of DM you have is going to really alter the approach you have to take as a player and how information is passed back and forth.
What you explained in your example is perfectly fine in my books. The DM asked to know what the plan was, the plan was executed, and you guys succeeded in your combat. On the other hand, if the DM had used that information to make the plan fail, then there's a problem. I almost always just explain the scene, ask what the players are going to do, and then resolve the actions. I don't ask for advanced notice on what the players intend to do, I just roll with what they've got. It's led to some very odd on the spot rulings, but I also let my players know that anything they use against me is usable against them. I find that, unless proven otherwise, DMs are generally pretty fair even if they know what your plans are in advance.
Personally, I think I'd be bored if my Players couldn't surprise me :)
I'm definitely in the "know as much as you can about the world, the situation, and the NPCs - let the plot unfold in real time" camp - and my Players are free to chose any path of action they want.
However, I often stop and ask the Players, "OK, what are you trying to do, and how are you planning to do that?", meaning over the short term in this encounter/scene only.
This is mostly so a) I can figure out if what the Players believe about the situation and what the Characters would know are in alignment ( Oh, wait, no - this is the BLUE Bugbear, not the Purple one ), b) I can start figuring out what the reactions of the NPCs and/or Environment is likely to be, and to start figuring out DCs.
I don't see why the DM can't or shouldn't know what the Players are planning, nor do I see why a Player should object to explaining their ideas, since encounters are not, and should not be the DM vs.the Players.
If you can't - or won't - trust your DM not to meta-gaming the world reactions based on the DM's knowledge, there is a problem at you table - but the DM wanting to know what's going on so they can fairly and realistically adjudicate the world and the NPC reactions isn't it.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
I agree with ermfish6 here on the detail of I need to make sure that what they want to do is possible or at the very least plan how the enemy might respond to it. That being said, I have no problem waiting until they try to enact the plan, but it may come off as a bummer if it turns out to be impossible and the players have to be like "OK, well my character should know its impossible, and in that case I won't have my player do that and they would do this instead." This could be especially hard to retroactivley undo in game if their setup requires something that takes a few turns
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
Our dm believes a Dm does play the monsters and other characters. He even gets personally offended when we treat characters our characters don’t like poorly. Such as telling an old bumbling elder he was a coward for not standing up to bandits and allowing them to kill a man and kidnap his daughters and wife. He doesn’t think a dm narrates. Other times I have in game passed messages to characters about how I planned on doing a heist for a job. I passed a note to a fellow player in game and asked if they were interested in making some extra money. The Dm insisted on knowing what the note said - even before the player had a chance to think about the proposition. The Dm also has made a necklace cursed after the Druid wore it without checking if it was cursed first. The Dm confided in me saying “Because he wore it Willy nilly it’s cursed now and will slowly turn him into a sload and he’ll loose his character”.
With that information in mind - is the perspective different?
As many of us have said, the fact that he's asking for the information isn't a bad thing, it can be quite helpful at times.
However, this information does let us know that the way he's using the information is faulty. The DM should be impartial and fair, whether he's acting as an NPC, Monster, adjudicating actions, or giving out items. To use this information as a way to lord over your decisions is simply improper. This is something that should be addressed by the players to the DM, explain what you've explained to us. Opening the lines of communication is the biggest step, just don't expect the DM to change over night, and expect them to be defensive, it takes time to change bad habits. If all else fails, you may need a new DM or a new game all together.
It doesn't change whether or not a DM needs to know what's going on in the world.
If accurate, it does change whether or not you should be playing with a DM who takes that approach. If I was playing with a DM who had adopted a "me vs. the Players", and "reality is going to change to punish Players who don't play the way I would", I'd walk.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
So, there are two issues:
If you give me some time to think about what will happen (because interactions are often complicated), then the game might flow more smoothly. If you do not, then be ready for me to say "Okay, hold on...I have to figure out what happens here". It's often the case, for example, that you don't know everything about the world. You are going to plan some crazy action--polevaulting the mote when the guards' backs are turned, etc etc. If you don't tell me, then I can't say to you "As you contemplate that, you seem to notice the telltale glint of a wall of force halfway across the moat." If you just wait until your turn and go, you are committed. AND then I have to figure out with no warning what happened, which may mean there's a pause in the action.
This is entirely separate from the notion above about the DM having to know things.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
I can see why a DM might resort to something like this (simply because improv can be very difficult, particularly if the PCs have a crazy idea) but IMO the DM should at least hear the idea out first before making a call
I love it when my players surprise me and do something clever and unexpected. Occasionally they will surprise me and do something extremely boneheaded and unexpected.
I do not have the monsters change their plans just because I know what the players are up to. The monsters don't know what I know. Some DMs take an adversarial stance and use every scrap of knowledge they have against the layers, some even do things like changing the game in response to player actions. "Oh, you didn't check that necklace for curses before you put it on? Well, now it's cursed."Unfair cheating in my book if the necklace had not been decided to be cursed before the player decided to put it on.
If the DM is asking to be told in advance so they have time to think of a counter, that is not a good DM. Wanting to be told in advance so the DM has a moment longer to figure out what happens is fine.
Agreed. I will say that it's okay to sometimes spontaneously decide these things. But it has to do with motivation.
If you originally planned that the necklace wasn't cursed, but then something happened in the encounter that leads to them getting the necklace that makes you think it would be cool that the necklace is cursed, then by all means change your mind and make it cursed. :) You don't have to make all of your DM decisions before the session. And cursed items aren't 'punishments', they can be cool plot points or even treated like flaws.
For example, if the bad guy has the necklace, and during combat, your rolls are terrible and all sorts of unfortunate things happen to the bad guy just by dumb luck, enough so that the players are noticing "Man, this guy can't manage to do anything, he was super tough last time we fought him", and this shiny necklace they've seen him wearing is new...it's fine for the DM to suddenly and secretly decide that the necklace is why the rolls are bad :) This would be fine, because your motivation isn't to be mean, or punish anyone.
But if your motivation is "I'll teach him!", then you're just being a jerk.
Looking for new subclasses, spells, magic items, feats, and races? Opinions welcome :)
Well the plan from what I’ve learned is to teach him a lesson. The necklace will turn him into a sload or something like that and he’ll lose his character once the transformation is complete
I don't see a problem with the teaching a lesson aspect. Actions in D&D have consequences and you can't drive that home unless there are consequences. However, doing something just to teach the lesson, without bringing in some story element and to the extent of losing a character seems a bit vindictive. It could easily be changed into something that becomes a quest for the party to try to overcome as their friend slowly becomes a sload physically and then mentally. It has some story behind it and can give depth to the characters, particularly the one that spent time as a sload and therefore obtained some peculiar tastes that he had before. The lesson could then be given by the NPC at the end: "That's part of the danger of adventuring, you never know what kind of loot you'll run up against! Next time be sure to do what you can to ensure that your new found gear isn't cursed or something." Then the party can ask how it is that they do that so they know what is expected of them.
I'd talk to the DM and see if it's something he might have ruled on a bit harshly and regretted it after. I had a player, as a level 1 character, run into a cave and pull who knows how many enemies into battle (he knew at least 3 goblins and 3 wolves, in addition to at least 1 hobgoblin and 2 other goblins the party was engaged with already). Two of the goblins with the wolves had left and one had since come back and the player was still saying, "Don't kill the wolves, I want one for a pet." He didn't know that the goblins had reported to forces that had decided to prepare for the players to come into an ambush instead of bringing at least another seven goblins plus the one that didn't come back, along with at least a hobgoblin, a bugbear, and another wolf, which amounted to about somewhere between half and 2/3 of the sort dungeon but was expected to be hit in 3 separate encounters. I was a little perturbed with him, particularly since his bard friend had just healed him back into conciousness. So I had Maglubiyet strike him dead. I realized a little later that I was a tad overzealous in my lesson dealing, so I changed it to knocked him stable but unconscious. (To my defense, I asked him if he wanted to yell out Leroy Jenkins and then had the party watch the video for reference and he still went in to the cave and pulled the others into combat.)
As for knowing what the party is planning, I agree that some things are easier to adjudicate if you have some time to look up the rules, but it shouldn't change your response as a DM much. If one of your monsters happens to have a spellcaster that has a water spell available to try to flood out or drown the druid, then great. That's a natural response that the creature would try to do to end the spell. Don't create a spellcaster on the fly with every water spell available to do it though.
The role of the DM is not to teach the Players a lesson. At best, the DM is there to show the Players how the world reacts in a realistic and plausible manner.
If it is the case that a) The necklace wasn't cursed until the Player annoyed the DM by not playing the way the DM thinks the Player should play their character and now b) the DM is essentially killing that Player's character to make a point, then the DM is an ******* with whom you probably shouldn't be playing.
I can see the DM using that sort of ( still underhanded ) tactic to introduce an adventure hook: "Oh no, you've been cursed, luckily the curse can be broken if you ... <insert adventure here>", but essentially one-shot killing a Character because you don't like something the Player did, is bullshit.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Agreed - but teaching the Player a lesson along the lines of "This is how the world works, and now you have to suffer the consequences" is one thing. I've done that. A Party got in a lethal throw down in a crowded bar, in the center of town, in the middle of the day, on the same city square that held the local guard keep. They were subdued, arrested, tried, got to argue their case before the court, make skill rolls to try to persuade the tribunal that what they did was justified ( and did really well on that actually ), and ended up in prison for a few months, paid a fine, and we went on adventuring.
That's completely different than "you as a Player did something I personally find annoying. DIE!" - which is what this is kind of sounding like. That might not be the case here - we're only hearing one perspective. But if it is, I'd counsel to not play with that DM.
My DM Philosophy, as summed up by other people: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rN5w4-azTq3Kbn0Yvk9nfqQhwQ1R5by1/view
Disclaimer: This signature is a badge of membership in the Forum Loudmouth Club. We are all friends. We are not attacking each other. We are engaging in spirited, friendly debate with one another. We may get snarky, but these are not attacks. Thank you for not reporting us.
Agreed. I'm hoping that the DM had a case of bad judgment like I had in the example I outlined from my previous experience and decides to change it from just killing off a character to a plot hook that can further the story that the group is telling (hopefully without the PC just dying because his player pissed the DM off) or completely forgetting about the curse if it hasn't been addressed in session or to others in the group. And as you said, we've only heard one side of it.