I have 2 campaigns a week. One on Wednesdays that I DM in person and another on Sunday mornings that I play in. The one I DM is going fine with Tyranny of Dragons, all kinds of fun and bourbon. The Sunday game though is another story. The main group of players have been playing together and DMing for each other on and off for years. We finally went the paid DM route as we enjoy playing with each other and I don't want to prepare 2 games to DM a week along with a full work schedule and my love of naps. Our first paid DM TPK'd the group 3 times and finally left for "personal reasons." The second DM was a bit better, but completely ignored RAW in multiple situations finally resulting in a TPK. She would get borderline angry if you pointed out incorrect rulings which I think was a bit odd. We only have one session with our current DM and he is doing a great job so far, I just don't want us to fall into the same pitfalls as the others.
So here is the question..... Since we are paying and had a session 0s about using strict RAW in all these campaigns, are we the ********? None of us were mean or terse with bringing up the ruling issues, just let them know by a "I don't think that is the correct mechanic for that spell/action." In my Wednesday game when I mess up and mess up something I welcome a correction as I want the game to be played correctly and fairly. Most of the DMs I have played with in person feel the same way and welcome advice. Are paid online DMs less open to constructive criticism? Like they are being paid and are therefore professional? Or should we be able to dictate more how a game is paid as they are providing us with a service that we are paying for? Again, current DM seems to be just great and has welcomed input on our end, but just in case it turns as the others, how do you proceed?
Personally, I would be a bit miffed if I was paying a DM and they were ignoring RAW without previously discussing areas or rules that wouldn't apply. To me, part of paying for a DM is to pay for the expertise, which would include an in-depth understanding of RAW. Screwing that up would be like hiring a contractor who had no understanding of the local code requirements for the work and thus ignoring them. Results in half-baked work, often not up to par and creating issues in the future.
This is one reason I have been quite wary of getting involved in groups of unknown folks. Too much chance of everything going poorly. Hopefully you guys can sort it all out and get things going smoothly, but at the end of the day, this paid DM is technically YOUR EMPLOYEE and the expectation is to perform to YOUR standards. Failure to do so may result in termination of the position and, if severe enough, cancellation of any payments "due"
Just my opinion, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I dont' necessarily think you are the ******* here if you made it upfront in your contract (I'm assuming you have some form of agreement other than "we will pay you X to run games for us") that you expected a close adherence to RAW, or if you did so in a session 0 (although if the DM prepped prior to that you should have let them know sooner). I guess the other issue is whether the examples of your DM bending the rules were "story" based (ie an event happening that isn't covered by the rules, a "special" plot occurrence, or a homebrew version of a monster or item that defies the typical statblock description) or "mechanic" based (ie overriding a class ability or saying a spell doesn't work the way RAW says.). The former is the realm of the DM and there isn't anything wrong with that...the latter is a problem, especially if it wasn't addressed in a session 0 or otherwise established.
Either way, its better to be upfront with your expectations with your agreement/contract (and also better to have an agreement/contract) than to have to arbitrate this after you've started.
I agree, I think a contract would be a great idea.
However... if someone is going to get mad when you point out RAW to them... what are the odds the person will not also get mad when you point to the contract (which is your group's private RAW, in effect) and say "you are not doing what it says in your contract?" It's conceptually the same thing -- they'll probably also get mad at that.
Unfortunately, I think the only way you can find out if the DM is going to be any good is by trial-and-error.
I have never tried paid DMing but I have one friend who has gotten or tried to get into 3 groups now, paid, using Roll 20, a paid DM, and a group of other players also paying to be in the game. He has had 2 turn out to be duds and one good one (the DMs). The good one has an OK group with 2 problem players, and the 2 problem players dropped out so it seems like that one will work. But that's a 1/3 record, which is about what you seem to have had.
However, his comment to me was, a lot of the paid DMs are running for multiple groups -- like one of the bad ones is doing Rime for several groups, his being one of them. I think for these folks the DMing becomes "just a gig" and they may have a hard time individualizing for your group, in the way you are used to doing for each other as DMs who know their players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
"Two Duergar see you and coordinate their attacks so they get advantage at 150 feet with Javelins." That's not how advantage works and outside 30 feet is disadvantage and a max range of 120, so no on all levels.
A wall with arrow slits that is 5 feet thick so the mobs are 10 feet away. Ran past that arrow slit and get opportunity attacked when they do not have reach weapons. Same monsters run around to the other side and past an ally by an arrow slit that is not on a 5 foot thick wall and he is not allowed an opportunity attack. wtf
Flying 20 feet in the air a monster with no jump stats is able to jump straight up in the air 20 feet to attack from flat ground underneath. Completely negate the benefit of flight
Duergar Mind Master ability to cause a character to make an attack or move as a reaction on a failed INT save is extended to 5 rounds of combat, no other saves, and complete loss of control of their character (actions, reactions, movement, targeting of fellow party members).
Additional health added to monsters as well as ignoring movement ranges and number of attacks.
These are non-interpretive rules, complete disregard for absolute RAW. Just to shed light on just a small portion of the issues we had. I understand the gray areas, but stat blocks and ranges are not one of them haha.
I will have to disagree very strongly on Statblocks. Even if you are playing RAW, it is absolutely a DM's prerogative to change every single monster that he uses and, for example, give them more health or different abilities. As a player, using monster knowledge at that level is really strong metagaming.
After that, yes, there are clearly some problems on other rules, but I can see that it would be really difficult for some DMs to DM for your group.
If a group fights numerous groups of Duergar then another similar group pops up that is significantly more powerful and has more attacks it's not metagaming to know something is different. I would disagree on altering stat blocks is not going RAW. Adding more monsters or more powerful ones are one thing, altering what is written is going against RAW. It's a DM prerogative to craft the story and encounters based on the rules of the game, some being gray and some not. Stat blocks are pretty solidly written for the most part. Now if you want to make your own monster or NPC then more power to you, but a 200hp goblin with damage immunity and legendary resistances is not RAW (obviously an extreme alteration).
"Two Duergar see you and coordinate their attacks so they get advantage at 150 feet with Javelins." That's not how advantage works and outside 30 feet is disadvantage and a max range of 120, so no on all levels.
A wall with arrow slits that is 5 feet thick so the mobs are 10 feet away. Ran past that arrow slit and get opportunity attacked when they do not have reach weapons. Same monsters run around to the other side and past an ally by an arrow slit that is not on a 5 foot thick wall and he is not allowed an opportunity attack. wtf
Flying 20 feet in the air a monster with no jump stats is able to jump straight up in the air 20 feet to attack from flat ground underneath. Completely negate the benefit of flight
Duergar Mind Master ability to cause a character to make an attack or move as a reaction on a failed INT save is extended to 5 rounds of combat, no other saves, and complete loss of control of their character (actions, reactions, movement, targeting of fellow party members).
Additional health added to monsters as well as ignoring movement ranges and number of attacks.
These are non-interpretive rules, complete disregard for absolute RAW. Just to shed light on just a small portion of the issues we had. I understand the gray areas, but stat blocks and ranges are not one of them haha.
Statblocks are absolutely the realm of the DM to alter as they see fit, whether it comes to additional HP, abilities, multiattack, or otherwise. There is always a challenge with balance, and some changes can easily become unfair to the players (or at least seem that way). It's also important for there to be consistency in the application, so the rules don't just change when the DM wants them to. Any of the above bolded could feasibly be due to an alteration of a statblock, which is fine, but again, if they are just messing with the rules to let them do what they want, I can see your group becoming upset. The first solution is to talk to the DM and see if their intent was to introduce a group of modified Duergar that were stronger than the rest (via homebrew statblocks) or to just do whatever they wanted. Again, I'm not saying those rulings were fair or fun, just that they are (technically) ok in the right circumstances.
If you want your DMs to use only published creatures (no modding), then again, you should say so when you make your agreement.
The first two items are pretty odd though. Range, Reach, and OAs are pretty clear rules, and a lot of things would have to be changed to allow those particular rulings.
I don't know if it's custom, but it should be, but were either of these two DMs interviewed prior to playing with your group? It sounds like neither were a fit for what your group expects of a DM, and DMs just aren't a standardized product (nor are players). I don't think your group will be able to change this present DMs' ways. So I'm curious what the session 0 was like and or whether there was any vetting done before the first session.
I wasn't involved in the hiring but I've had experiences with a paid DM twice. The first was a surprise birthday present, where the DM was hired to produce a custom one shot which he did through interviewing my friends to get enough RL reference into the game as in-jokes and actually plot drivers (the game was a very thin allegory to a job I had recently left). Same DM was hired for a child's birthday party and delivered a great "D&D 101" session for children with no or next to know experience. It was more a prepackaged session but the party attendees didn't know. What I'm getting at is the hiring parties, so to speak, had a very good idea as to what they would be getting in the hiring process, and the sense I have is the DMs your group has hired was more a "black box" that turned out to be disappointing upon opening. I think getting a "free session" would be too much, but situational interview questions would be useful. If you're big on the "pro DM" scene, does the DM prospect align with Mercer, Colville, etc. How many games does the DM currently run? How does the DM handle ruling disputes? What part of the RAW do you ignore, modify or have layered over a more crunch system for nitty gritty realism or high fantasy power scale? Etc.
Again, you may have done vetting, but my advice would be to rethink or implement vetting that would get you confidence in your DM in the first place. It may take more time, but quality usually does.
I would _not_ go the contract route beyond whatever the DM may provide (i.e. content sensitivity areas, fee schedules, and things like that). How would a contract be enforced? Small claims court? Social Media scourging (and the blowback of that can of worms)? Do you want to bother with that? Contracts work both ways, so think about what your group could be opening itself up for if you decide to lose this DM outside of contractual terms. I wouldn't "contract" a paid DM any more than I'd contract a pizza order. In this context a contract strikes me as administrative busy work that would give you false confidence that there's some future formalized conflict resolution victory in the offing if you're unhappy. Contracts are for higher stakes and more material on the line than a hired DM session. Really, if you're at the point where you're thinking of a contract for a paid DM, you ought to just use the time and energy for one of you to DM yourself.
I would disagree on altering stat blocks is not going RAW. Adding more monsters or more powerful ones are one thing, altering what is written is going against RAW.
I'm gonna have to disagree here. The statblocks only provide data on the typical run-of-the-mill monsters. There isn't anything that says that the new set of Dvergar you are encountering can't be their "Republican Guards" elite fighters or something. The Dvergar statblock in the MM or other books are 'run of the mill' guys not necessarily the specific individuals you are fighting right now. Statblocks guide the DM. They are not "the last word" on how a given monster "must" be.
I assume you already acknowledge this to a degree. Most players, after all, acknowledge the right of a DM, while still considering it RAW, to make a "Dvergar King", a "named boss" or BBEG who has legendary abilities not listed in the RAW books. Does your group acknowledge this right of the DM, and still consider it RAW? If the DM is allowed to make a named Dvergar king, whose statblock is wildly better than the regular guys printed in the RAW books, then why wouldn't the DM be allowed to make "Dvergar Army Veterans" whose statblock is better than the default also?
Hopefully you guys can sort it all out and get things going smoothly, but at the end of the day, this paid DM is technically YOUR EMPLOYEE and the expectation is to perform to YOUR standards. Failure to do so may result in termination of the position and, if severe enough, cancellation of any payments "due"
This is strictly the wrong interpretation of the DM/PC dynamic regardless of whether money changes hands or not. A paid DM is not an employee of the players. If anything the DM is providing a service; the service being access to the DMs world. This is similar to any MMORPG subscription -- you pay the fee you get access. As many have already said RAW is at times deliberately left vague and can allow for multiple interpretations. At that point in time it's rule zero -- what the DM says goes. You don't have to like it, but unless it is a heinous violation of RAW or crossed a social boundary that makes people uncomfortable (i.e. **** themes) then you can file a complaint with the DMs customer service department at the end of the session. Rules lawyering then and there for everything will only break immersion and narrative flow.
Furthermore, paying for the DM does not entitle you to get your way in every argument, nor decide how the story unfolds just because you don't agree with it. That lies strictly within the DMs realm. If you dont like it stop subscribing, or better yet become the DM yourself.
Sorry OP, that wasn't directed at you. Just reading that comment about the DM/PC relationship made me a little more flustered than I'd like to admit.
I'm trying to think of analogies for a paid DM. Like If I paid someone to paint a room in my house. I could do it, but I'm choosing to spend money instead of time to have someone else do it for me. In that case, I'd say, well, I want it this color, but I'm not going to argue about their methods. If they get paint all over my floors or furniture, or it turns out a different color than I asked, I'm going to be mad. But if they use different tools than I would have, but it still turns out looking good, then, well, that's OK, and basically what I'm paying for.
I think, as others have suggested, you lay out some session 0 type ground rules (whether that's a written contract or not), but you need to allow them some freedom as well. They are going to do things differently from you, you need to accept that to a point. And there gets to be a grey area where its really confusing. I mean, you can say strict RAW, but then does that include Rule 0, which kid of overrides most other rules? And of course the whole premise of this edition is rulings, not rules, so I'm not sure how well strict RAW even works (your examples aside, which are really poor rulings. Except for the thing with the second group that is more powerful, that could easily happen)
And then also, you are paying them. They are basically your employee, or more precisely, freelance contractor, and they better deliver the product you agreed on, or you can just show them the door, but there's a level of creativity that comes with DM-ing, that means you might need to give them some license. So maybe a painter is a bad example, maybe more like an architect or home designer. You tell them what you want, and they work with it as a starting point, but their job is also to push you a little beyond what you say you want and show you some ideas that you might not have considered, but it could turn out you really like them. I think you'd need to give them a bit of leeway, but be willing to say when they've gone too far and need to pull it back. If they want to keep getting paid, they should listen to you.
I have to agree with Lyxen's concerns about paid DMing doing funny things to the player/DM relationship - I don't think it's something I would ever feel comfortable with doing, but trying to imagine a hypothetical universe where either I was being paid to DM, or I was paying a DM, there are a couple things in your scenario that spring to mind:
Concerns about statblocks - monsters having "too much" health, different abilites etc. is absolutely metagaming and I personally don't think it's appropriate to bring it up in session.
The rules calls (particularly the ones on OAs through arrowslits) do strike me as weird, but again I'm not sure that bringing it up in session is the best way to resolve it.
I think everyone needs to be wary about small business tyrant language like "this paid DM is technically YOUR EMPLOYEE" - everyone turning into Karens isn't going to help.
I can think of a few ground rules that I normally run games with that I think would be good to be agreed to by both parties when money is changing hands:
The DM has final say on rules IN SESSION.
After every session, the players have an opportunity to give feedback on what they liked or didn't like, and allow the DM to tweak their style for next session.
Use of an X-card (or similar system)
I'd probably also be wary about signing up either with or as a DM sight unseen - I think a one-shot to allow the players and DM to get a sense of each other's styles is a good idea, as ultimately some people have very different ideas about what makes a "good" D&D game.
Edit: Further thoughts on the player/DM relationship being like that of an employee or contractor - Let's nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand, unless you are doing things like paying health insurance, pensions, fulfilling other obligations under the relevant employment law the relationship is nothing like that of an employer to contractor/employee. The most that you can say is that you are purchasing a service, but in reality I suspect most relationships are far more informal than even that. Unless of course you want all the DMs to unionise :evil grin:
To clarify, my statement about them being an employee, (better referenced by another as a freelance contractor) meant there was an expectation of quality of service. Twisting a bunch of stats and abilities is going to raise questions, and changing them again, mid-process, and not allowing players the same option in the same situation.....that plays out as a DM who is playing a Me VS Them style, and I know of very few players who would willingly get into such a campaign.
Lots of un-discussed things on your session 0 can and will lead to conflict for sure. It sounds like your latest attempt is more back and forth to sort HOW it's going to run, mechanically, at least. That seems to be the crux of the issue, that rules and mechanics are not being used as RAW in cases, and/or there are basic actions that the monsters get to do and players aren't allowed, which is weird at best, )"cheat-y" in another term) If you're able to sort the mechanics of the game early, you should be able to work within whatever interpretation/application the DM goes with. Once you know how it runs, and stay within those boundaries, if the monsters do too, it should work out. Mind you, getting a good story, well presented may be another entire issue. I've experienced times where a DM isn't really good at getting his ideas out and that created a lot of uncomfortable exchanges.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
And then again, if you only want monsters from the book so that you can metagame your knowledge of them, it's absolutely fine but again, I can see why it would be very difficult to DM for you and your group.
That's not even remotely why. The game is, for the most part, balanced. There is nobody here on these boards that has as much time play testing and knowledge of the rules than the people who designed the game. Can things be better, of course, but I feel they have done a great job of designing a great game. If you alter those parameters then you have things like TPKs because you tuned up a monster well past what it should be for a certain party level. A DM can run a game any way they like, altering abilities, stat blocks, fudge rolls, or ignore any amount of RAW they like. This is why the session 0 is a big deal and if it is agreed upon that the game be played the way the designers intended that those agreements be honored. Obviously if you were contacted to be our DM and you said you play fast and loose with rules and stat blocks we would not hire you as your playstyle is not congruent with the way we want the game run RAW. Different strokes for different folks, but metagaming is not a reason for us to want things run RAW.
It's really frustrating as a player when you fight 20 versions of a monster then while knowing they can't reach you 10' away or they can't fly that they now just randomly can and blow a well thought out action you planned during the 5 minute wait between turns. Even with knowledge of immunities and resistances of monsters from playing and DMing up through tier 4 I always play as if my character does not know these things until encountered or my DM allows a skill check to see if the character would know.
I do find it interesting that some DMs alter stat blocks. I have made alternative versions of current monsters as elite versions and given them a visual differentiation to their normal counterparts or named NPC versions, but never just altered the basic one to have different abilities mid stream or just beef them up with abilities they normally would not have. Kind of curious as to why you would do that instead of just adding a couple more or going with a more powerful monster in the first place? Using balance tools like kobold fight club would be hard to use if the normal stat block wouldn't be honored.
If DMing was as mundane as slapping color on a wall (as Xalthus says) then there would be hundreds of would be DMs trolling the LFG group for players and not the other way around. The fact of the matter is DMing is hard and being a player is easy and not everyone has the ability or the imagination to DM. Someone paying for another person to DM is only to compensate the vast amount of time it takes to set up and run a functioning campaign. It does not, however, give you license to complain about every aspect and demand that it be tailored to your individual whims.
It's a service. The DM is not your employee and you cannot treat them as such. If, at the end of the day you dont like the service you can simply stop paying for it.
I do find it interesting that some DMs alter stat blocks.
It's not just DMs that alter stat blocks. Have you ever looked at or run one of the official WOTC adventures? They alter stat blocks in those adventures all the time. For example, the Yuan-Ti Priest exists only in Tomb of Annihilation and its stats are different from all the Yuan-Ti in the official books. Would you object to fighting a Yuan-Ti priest of the DM ran Tomb? No? Then why would you object if the DM made her own Yuan-Ti priest with different stats from typical Yuan-Ti in a homebrew adventure? WOTC alters stat blocks all the time. They set the precedent for making alt versions of monsters in an adventure, because they do it. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has Sahuagin high priests, blademasters, etc. - not found in bog standard monster books. Frostmaiden has Ice Trolls and Gnoll Vampires... And on, and on, and on. If it's OK for the publisher to do it, then it's OK for any DM to do it in their own adventure.
I'm sorry you have had these issues with your DM, and I don't necessarily agree with rulings like an AOO through an arrow slit. Or someone being able to jump up and attack a person 20' up. But I find the argument that a DM is not allowed to alter or modify standard statblocks perplexing and I have never heard anyone argue that before.
Your claim that somehow this makes encounter builders hard to use does not hold water -- as many have noted repeatedly on these forums, the CRs and encounter builders are useless under most circumstances. Was the DM giving you 6-8 encounters per day, for example? If not, then basing encounter difficulty on CR is meaningless -- it only works if you follow that assumption. If you do 3 battles a day, then deadly+ encounters will not kill you. If you do 20 a day, easy will crush you. There are so many variables that the most common advice given on this forum, and also by expert "internet DMs" like Matt Colville is -- ignore encounter builders. So the argument that making up monsters makes it impossible to know the CR and calculate challenge levels for the party just doesn't cut any ice.
I make up monsters or mod them all the time. I've never had an accidental TPK, nor even had a single character die. Battles have been fun and for the most part varied within a range of difficulty that my players have found realistic and enjoyable.
It seems to be that the monsters are (were) permitted to do things that the players were not, under similar situations. OOA if you're going to allow a monster (outside of a special feat that no player has) do something, then a player should, by rights, have the ability to do (or attempt to do) the same thing. Boosting stat blocks, I thought was common, as your party learned and refined their tactics, the monsters, (same ones-ish) had a little better AC and were a bit beefier. My players notice it as they progress (not a 15 to 18 AC jump or anything) that the 14 which hit the fellows at the entrance, didn't hit the guy in the room, although they appear quite similar.
I can't see myself ever giving a non-elite (and obviously so) basic enemy a special ability that no player could attain somehow. I also agree than once I start tweaking actual abilities, the creatures don't look quite the same, ie, their armor or clothing looks in better shape, their weapons are gleaming and such. Offering a hint that this is more than the average orc would be considerate (not required though)
On note of TPK, on the Christmas fun run I did for my group, I had to nerf the Bugbears because for some reason, on all Perception checks against the BB Stealth, the whole group rolled crap. Allowing the full regiment of damage from their sneak attacks was going to one shot both the casters. I mention this mainly because a DM sometimes wants a certain monster and has to adjust it's numbers and abilities to "balance" the encounter. For me, in this case, it meant nerfing my monsters. In another case, I boosted a swarm of Goblins to make the fight at least worth all the dice rolls. Make it fun, make it challenging but make it fair.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I do find it interesting that some DMs alter stat blocks. I have made alternative versions of current monsters as elite versions and given them a visual differentiation to their normal counterparts or named NPC versions, but never just altered the basic one to have different abilities mid stream or just beef them up with abilities they normally would not have. Kind of curious as to why you would do that instead of just adding a couple more or going with a more powerful monster in the first place? Using balance tools like kobold fight club would be hard to use if the normal stat block wouldn't be honored.
I know a DM who has a player who is a notorious metagamer - they frequently change around stat blocks of creatures with the same CR (so a goblin uses the kobold stat block, etc.) just because if they didn't, this player's character would mysteriously stop using their longsword the moment an ochre jelly appeared and start punching it...
Also, maybe thematically there aren't any creatures of the appropriate type at the CR you need for the encounter - that's something I've struggled with a few times, and had to reskin/mod some creatures to create a challenging encounter.
Kobold Fight Club is fine and all, but D&D can be an EXTREMELY swingy game - I've had players cakewalk what should have been a Deadly encounter, and nearly had a TPK while fighting a single spectral undead that should have been an Easy encounter. There's more to "balance" than what the algorithm says, and sometimes the DM needs to make adjustments on the fly to keep the session fun and engaging for everyone. That's part of being a DM, and players falling out with them mid-session because they think that kobolds don't work like that isn't helpful.
That said, it does sound like your previous DM was maybe taking some liberties with the rules, but the time to discuss that is after the session - ideally when everyone has cool heads.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I have 2 campaigns a week. One on Wednesdays that I DM in person and another on Sunday mornings that I play in. The one I DM is going fine with Tyranny of Dragons, all kinds of fun and bourbon. The Sunday game though is another story. The main group of players have been playing together and DMing for each other on and off for years. We finally went the paid DM route as we enjoy playing with each other and I don't want to prepare 2 games to DM a week along with a full work schedule and my love of naps. Our first paid DM TPK'd the group 3 times and finally left for "personal reasons." The second DM was a bit better, but completely ignored RAW in multiple situations finally resulting in a TPK. She would get borderline angry if you pointed out incorrect rulings which I think was a bit odd. We only have one session with our current DM and he is doing a great job so far, I just don't want us to fall into the same pitfalls as the others.
So here is the question..... Since we are paying and had a session 0s about using strict RAW in all these campaigns, are we the ********? None of us were mean or terse with bringing up the ruling issues, just let them know by a "I don't think that is the correct mechanic for that spell/action." In my Wednesday game when I mess up and mess up something I welcome a correction as I want the game to be played correctly and fairly. Most of the DMs I have played with in person feel the same way and welcome advice. Are paid online DMs less open to constructive criticism? Like they are being paid and are therefore professional? Or should we be able to dictate more how a game is paid as they are providing us with a service that we are paying for? Again, current DM seems to be just great and has welcomed input on our end, but just in case it turns as the others, how do you proceed?
Personally, I would be a bit miffed if I was paying a DM and they were ignoring RAW without previously discussing areas or rules that wouldn't apply. To me, part of paying for a DM is to pay for the expertise, which would include an in-depth understanding of RAW. Screwing that up would be like hiring a contractor who had no understanding of the local code requirements for the work and thus ignoring them. Results in half-baked work, often not up to par and creating issues in the future.
This is one reason I have been quite wary of getting involved in groups of unknown folks. Too much chance of everything going poorly. Hopefully you guys can sort it all out and get things going smoothly, but at the end of the day, this paid DM is technically YOUR EMPLOYEE and the expectation is to perform to YOUR standards. Failure to do so may result in termination of the position and, if severe enough, cancellation of any payments "due"
Just my opinion, though.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I dont' necessarily think you are the ******* here if you made it upfront in your contract (I'm assuming you have some form of agreement other than "we will pay you X to run games for us") that you expected a close adherence to RAW, or if you did so in a session 0 (although if the DM prepped prior to that you should have let them know sooner). I guess the other issue is whether the examples of your DM bending the rules were "story" based (ie an event happening that isn't covered by the rules, a "special" plot occurrence, or a homebrew version of a monster or item that defies the typical statblock description) or "mechanic" based (ie overriding a class ability or saying a spell doesn't work the way RAW says.). The former is the realm of the DM and there isn't anything wrong with that...the latter is a problem, especially if it wasn't addressed in a session 0 or otherwise established.
Either way, its better to be upfront with your expectations with your agreement/contract (and also better to have an agreement/contract) than to have to arbitrate this after you've started.
I agree, I think a contract would be a great idea.
However... if someone is going to get mad when you point out RAW to them... what are the odds the person will not also get mad when you point to the contract (which is your group's private RAW, in effect) and say "you are not doing what it says in your contract?" It's conceptually the same thing -- they'll probably also get mad at that.
Unfortunately, I think the only way you can find out if the DM is going to be any good is by trial-and-error.
I have never tried paid DMing but I have one friend who has gotten or tried to get into 3 groups now, paid, using Roll 20, a paid DM, and a group of other players also paying to be in the game. He has had 2 turn out to be duds and one good one (the DMs). The good one has an OK group with 2 problem players, and the 2 problem players dropped out so it seems like that one will work. But that's a 1/3 record, which is about what you seem to have had.
However, his comment to me was, a lot of the paid DMs are running for multiple groups -- like one of the bad ones is doing Rime for several groups, his being one of them. I think for these folks the DMing becomes "just a gig" and they may have a hard time individualizing for your group, in the way you are used to doing for each other as DMs who know their players.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
A couple of the RAW problems:
"Two Duergar see you and coordinate their attacks so they get advantage at 150 feet with Javelins." That's not how advantage works and outside 30 feet is disadvantage and a max range of 120, so no on all levels.
A wall with arrow slits that is 5 feet thick so the mobs are 10 feet away. Ran past that arrow slit and get opportunity attacked when they do not have reach weapons. Same monsters run around to the other side and past an ally by an arrow slit that is not on a 5 foot thick wall and he is not allowed an opportunity attack. wtf
Flying 20 feet in the air a monster with no jump stats is able to jump straight up in the air 20 feet to attack from flat ground underneath. Completely negate the benefit of flight
Duergar Mind Master ability to cause a character to make an attack or move as a reaction on a failed INT save is extended to 5 rounds of combat, no other saves, and complete loss of control of their character (actions, reactions, movement, targeting of fellow party members).
Additional health added to monsters as well as ignoring movement ranges and number of attacks.
These are non-interpretive rules, complete disregard for absolute RAW. Just to shed light on just a small portion of the issues we had. I understand the gray areas, but stat blocks and ranges are not one of them haha.
Those are some strange rulings....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
If a group fights numerous groups of Duergar then another similar group pops up that is significantly more powerful and has more attacks it's not metagaming to know something is different. I would disagree on altering stat blocks is not going RAW. Adding more monsters or more powerful ones are one thing, altering what is written is going against RAW. It's a DM prerogative to craft the story and encounters based on the rules of the game, some being gray and some not. Stat blocks are pretty solidly written for the most part. Now if you want to make your own monster or NPC then more power to you, but a 200hp goblin with damage immunity and legendary resistances is not RAW (obviously an extreme alteration).
Statblocks are absolutely the realm of the DM to alter as they see fit, whether it comes to additional HP, abilities, multiattack, or otherwise. There is always a challenge with balance, and some changes can easily become unfair to the players (or at least seem that way). It's also important for there to be consistency in the application, so the rules don't just change when the DM wants them to. Any of the above bolded could feasibly be due to an alteration of a statblock, which is fine, but again, if they are just messing with the rules to let them do what they want, I can see your group becoming upset. The first solution is to talk to the DM and see if their intent was to introduce a group of modified Duergar that were stronger than the rest (via homebrew statblocks) or to just do whatever they wanted. Again, I'm not saying those rulings were fair or fun, just that they are (technically) ok in the right circumstances.
If you want your DMs to use only published creatures (no modding), then again, you should say so when you make your agreement.
The first two items are pretty odd though. Range, Reach, and OAs are pretty clear rules, and a lot of things would have to be changed to allow those particular rulings.
I don't know if it's custom, but it should be, but were either of these two DMs interviewed prior to playing with your group? It sounds like neither were a fit for what your group expects of a DM, and DMs just aren't a standardized product (nor are players). I don't think your group will be able to change this present DMs' ways. So I'm curious what the session 0 was like and or whether there was any vetting done before the first session.
I wasn't involved in the hiring but I've had experiences with a paid DM twice. The first was a surprise birthday present, where the DM was hired to produce a custom one shot which he did through interviewing my friends to get enough RL reference into the game as in-jokes and actually plot drivers (the game was a very thin allegory to a job I had recently left). Same DM was hired for a child's birthday party and delivered a great "D&D 101" session for children with no or next to know experience. It was more a prepackaged session but the party attendees didn't know. What I'm getting at is the hiring parties, so to speak, had a very good idea as to what they would be getting in the hiring process, and the sense I have is the DMs your group has hired was more a "black box" that turned out to be disappointing upon opening. I think getting a "free session" would be too much, but situational interview questions would be useful. If you're big on the "pro DM" scene, does the DM prospect align with Mercer, Colville, etc. How many games does the DM currently run? How does the DM handle ruling disputes? What part of the RAW do you ignore, modify or have layered over a more crunch system for nitty gritty realism or high fantasy power scale? Etc.
Again, you may have done vetting, but my advice would be to rethink or implement vetting that would get you confidence in your DM in the first place. It may take more time, but quality usually does.
I would _not_ go the contract route beyond whatever the DM may provide (i.e. content sensitivity areas, fee schedules, and things like that). How would a contract be enforced? Small claims court? Social Media scourging (and the blowback of that can of worms)? Do you want to bother with that? Contracts work both ways, so think about what your group could be opening itself up for if you decide to lose this DM outside of contractual terms. I wouldn't "contract" a paid DM any more than I'd contract a pizza order. In this context a contract strikes me as administrative busy work that would give you false confidence that there's some future formalized conflict resolution victory in the offing if you're unhappy. Contracts are for higher stakes and more material on the line than a hired DM session. Really, if you're at the point where you're thinking of a contract for a paid DM, you ought to just use the time and energy for one of you to DM yourself.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm gonna have to disagree here. The statblocks only provide data on the typical run-of-the-mill monsters. There isn't anything that says that the new set of Dvergar you are encountering can't be their "Republican Guards" elite fighters or something. The Dvergar statblock in the MM or other books are 'run of the mill' guys not necessarily the specific individuals you are fighting right now. Statblocks guide the DM. They are not "the last word" on how a given monster "must" be.
I assume you already acknowledge this to a degree. Most players, after all, acknowledge the right of a DM, while still considering it RAW, to make a "Dvergar King", a "named boss" or BBEG who has legendary abilities not listed in the RAW books. Does your group acknowledge this right of the DM, and still consider it RAW? If the DM is allowed to make a named Dvergar king, whose statblock is wildly better than the regular guys printed in the RAW books, then why wouldn't the DM be allowed to make "Dvergar Army Veterans" whose statblock is better than the default also?
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
This is strictly the wrong interpretation of the DM/PC dynamic regardless of whether money changes hands or not. A paid DM is not an employee of the players. If anything the DM is providing a service; the service being access to the DMs world. This is similar to any MMORPG subscription -- you pay the fee you get access. As many have already said RAW is at times deliberately left vague and can allow for multiple interpretations. At that point in time it's rule zero -- what the DM says goes. You don't have to like it, but unless it is a heinous violation of RAW or crossed a social boundary that makes people uncomfortable (i.e. **** themes) then you can file a complaint with the DMs customer service department at the end of the session. Rules lawyering then and there for everything will only break immersion and narrative flow.
Furthermore, paying for the DM does not entitle you to get your way in every argument, nor decide how the story unfolds just because you don't agree with it. That lies strictly within the DMs realm. If you dont like it stop subscribing, or better yet become the DM yourself.
Sorry OP, that wasn't directed at you. Just reading that comment about the DM/PC relationship made me a little more flustered than I'd like to admit.
I'm trying to think of analogies for a paid DM. Like If I paid someone to paint a room in my house. I could do it, but I'm choosing to spend money instead of time to have someone else do it for me. In that case, I'd say, well, I want it this color, but I'm not going to argue about their methods. If they get paint all over my floors or furniture, or it turns out a different color than I asked, I'm going to be mad. But if they use different tools than I would have, but it still turns out looking good, then, well, that's OK, and basically what I'm paying for.
I think, as others have suggested, you lay out some session 0 type ground rules (whether that's a written contract or not), but you need to allow them some freedom as well. They are going to do things differently from you, you need to accept that to a point. And there gets to be a grey area where its really confusing. I mean, you can say strict RAW, but then does that include Rule 0, which kid of overrides most other rules? And of course the whole premise of this edition is rulings, not rules, so I'm not sure how well strict RAW even works (your examples aside, which are really poor rulings. Except for the thing with the second group that is more powerful, that could easily happen)
And then also, you are paying them. They are basically your employee, or more precisely, freelance contractor, and they better deliver the product you agreed on, or you can just show them the door, but there's a level of creativity that comes with DM-ing, that means you might need to give them some license. So maybe a painter is a bad example, maybe more like an architect or home designer. You tell them what you want, and they work with it as a starting point, but their job is also to push you a little beyond what you say you want and show you some ideas that you might not have considered, but it could turn out you really like them. I think you'd need to give them a bit of leeway, but be willing to say when they've gone too far and need to pull it back. If they want to keep getting paid, they should listen to you.
I have to agree with Lyxen's concerns about paid DMing doing funny things to the player/DM relationship - I don't think it's something I would ever feel comfortable with doing, but trying to imagine a hypothetical universe where either I was being paid to DM, or I was paying a DM, there are a couple things in your scenario that spring to mind:
I can think of a few ground rules that I normally run games with that I think would be good to be agreed to by both parties when money is changing hands:
I'd probably also be wary about signing up either with or as a DM sight unseen - I think a one-shot to allow the players and DM to get a sense of each other's styles is a good idea, as ultimately some people have very different ideas about what makes a "good" D&D game.
Edit: Further thoughts on the player/DM relationship being like that of an employee or contractor - Let's nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand, unless you are doing things like paying health insurance, pensions, fulfilling other obligations under the relevant employment law the relationship is nothing like that of an employer to contractor/employee. The most that you can say is that you are purchasing a service, but in reality I suspect most relationships are far more informal than even that. Unless of course you want all the DMs to unionise :evil grin:
By the post title, I thought you were talking about me. Well, that is a relief. Carry on.
To clarify, my statement about them being an employee, (better referenced by another as a freelance contractor) meant there was an expectation of quality of service. Twisting a bunch of stats and abilities is going to raise questions, and changing them again, mid-process, and not allowing players the same option in the same situation.....that plays out as a DM who is playing a Me VS Them style, and I know of very few players who would willingly get into such a campaign.
Lots of un-discussed things on your session 0 can and will lead to conflict for sure. It sounds like your latest attempt is more back and forth to sort HOW it's going to run, mechanically, at least. That seems to be the crux of the issue, that rules and mechanics are not being used as RAW in cases, and/or there are basic actions that the monsters get to do and players aren't allowed, which is weird at best, )"cheat-y" in another term) If you're able to sort the mechanics of the game early, you should be able to work within whatever interpretation/application the DM goes with. Once you know how it runs, and stay within those boundaries, if the monsters do too, it should work out. Mind you, getting a good story, well presented may be another entire issue. I've experienced times where a DM isn't really good at getting his ideas out and that created a lot of uncomfortable exchanges.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
That's not even remotely why. The game is, for the most part, balanced. There is nobody here on these boards that has as much time play testing and knowledge of the rules than the people who designed the game. Can things be better, of course, but I feel they have done a great job of designing a great game. If you alter those parameters then you have things like TPKs because you tuned up a monster well past what it should be for a certain party level. A DM can run a game any way they like, altering abilities, stat blocks, fudge rolls, or ignore any amount of RAW they like. This is why the session 0 is a big deal and if it is agreed upon that the game be played the way the designers intended that those agreements be honored. Obviously if you were contacted to be our DM and you said you play fast and loose with rules and stat blocks we would not hire you as your playstyle is not congruent with the way we want the game run RAW. Different strokes for different folks, but metagaming is not a reason for us to want things run RAW.
It's really frustrating as a player when you fight 20 versions of a monster then while knowing they can't reach you 10' away or they can't fly that they now just randomly can and blow a well thought out action you planned during the 5 minute wait between turns. Even with knowledge of immunities and resistances of monsters from playing and DMing up through tier 4 I always play as if my character does not know these things until encountered or my DM allows a skill check to see if the character would know.
I do find it interesting that some DMs alter stat blocks. I have made alternative versions of current monsters as elite versions and given them a visual differentiation to their normal counterparts or named NPC versions, but never just altered the basic one to have different abilities mid stream or just beef them up with abilities they normally would not have. Kind of curious as to why you would do that instead of just adding a couple more or going with a more powerful monster in the first place? Using balance tools like kobold fight club would be hard to use if the normal stat block wouldn't be honored.
^This exactly.
If DMing was as mundane as slapping color on a wall (as Xalthus says) then there would be hundreds of would be DMs trolling the LFG group for players and not the other way around. The fact of the matter is DMing is hard and being a player is easy and not everyone has the ability or the imagination to DM. Someone paying for another person to DM is only to compensate the vast amount of time it takes to set up and run a functioning campaign. It does not, however, give you license to complain about every aspect and demand that it be tailored to your individual whims.
It's a service. The DM is not your employee and you cannot treat them as such. If, at the end of the day you dont like the service you can simply stop paying for it.
It's not just DMs that alter stat blocks. Have you ever looked at or run one of the official WOTC adventures? They alter stat blocks in those adventures all the time. For example, the Yuan-Ti Priest exists only in Tomb of Annihilation and its stats are different from all the Yuan-Ti in the official books. Would you object to fighting a Yuan-Ti priest of the DM ran Tomb? No? Then why would you object if the DM made her own Yuan-Ti priest with different stats from typical Yuan-Ti in a homebrew adventure? WOTC alters stat blocks all the time. They set the precedent for making alt versions of monsters in an adventure, because they do it. Ghosts of Saltmarsh has Sahuagin high priests, blademasters, etc. - not found in bog standard monster books. Frostmaiden has Ice Trolls and Gnoll Vampires... And on, and on, and on. If it's OK for the publisher to do it, then it's OK for any DM to do it in their own adventure.
I'm sorry you have had these issues with your DM, and I don't necessarily agree with rulings like an AOO through an arrow slit. Or someone being able to jump up and attack a person 20' up. But I find the argument that a DM is not allowed to alter or modify standard statblocks perplexing and I have never heard anyone argue that before.
Your claim that somehow this makes encounter builders hard to use does not hold water -- as many have noted repeatedly on these forums, the CRs and encounter builders are useless under most circumstances. Was the DM giving you 6-8 encounters per day, for example? If not, then basing encounter difficulty on CR is meaningless -- it only works if you follow that assumption. If you do 3 battles a day, then deadly+ encounters will not kill you. If you do 20 a day, easy will crush you. There are so many variables that the most common advice given on this forum, and also by expert "internet DMs" like Matt Colville is -- ignore encounter builders. So the argument that making up monsters makes it impossible to know the CR and calculate challenge levels for the party just doesn't cut any ice.
I make up monsters or mod them all the time. I've never had an accidental TPK, nor even had a single character die. Battles have been fun and for the most part varied within a range of difficulty that my players have found realistic and enjoyable.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
It seems to be that the monsters are (were) permitted to do things that the players were not, under similar situations. OOA if you're going to allow a monster (outside of a special feat that no player has) do something, then a player should, by rights, have the ability to do (or attempt to do) the same thing. Boosting stat blocks, I thought was common, as your party learned and refined their tactics, the monsters, (same ones-ish) had a little better AC and were a bit beefier. My players notice it as they progress (not a 15 to 18 AC jump or anything) that the 14 which hit the fellows at the entrance, didn't hit the guy in the room, although they appear quite similar.
I can't see myself ever giving a non-elite (and obviously so) basic enemy a special ability that no player could attain somehow. I also agree than once I start tweaking actual abilities, the creatures don't look quite the same, ie, their armor or clothing looks in better shape, their weapons are gleaming and such. Offering a hint that this is more than the average orc would be considerate (not required though)
On note of TPK, on the Christmas fun run I did for my group, I had to nerf the Bugbears because for some reason, on all Perception checks against the BB Stealth, the whole group rolled crap. Allowing the full regiment of damage from their sneak attacks was going to one shot both the casters. I mention this mainly because a DM sometimes wants a certain monster and has to adjust it's numbers and abilities to "balance" the encounter. For me, in this case, it meant nerfing my monsters. In another case, I boosted a swarm of Goblins to make the fight at least worth all the dice rolls. Make it fun, make it challenging but make it fair.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I know a DM who has a player who is a notorious metagamer - they frequently change around stat blocks of creatures with the same CR (so a goblin uses the kobold stat block, etc.) just because if they didn't, this player's character would mysteriously stop using their longsword the moment an ochre jelly appeared and start punching it...
Also, maybe thematically there aren't any creatures of the appropriate type at the CR you need for the encounter - that's something I've struggled with a few times, and had to reskin/mod some creatures to create a challenging encounter.
Kobold Fight Club is fine and all, but D&D can be an EXTREMELY swingy game - I've had players cakewalk what should have been a Deadly encounter, and nearly had a TPK while fighting a single spectral undead that should have been an Easy encounter. There's more to "balance" than what the algorithm says, and sometimes the DM needs to make adjustments on the fly to keep the session fun and engaging for everyone. That's part of being a DM, and players falling out with them mid-session because they think that kobolds don't work like that isn't helpful.
That said, it does sound like your previous DM was maybe taking some liberties with the rules, but the time to discuss that is after the session - ideally when everyone has cool heads.