The other day I read a rant from a DM about players and now I need a rant
The DM stated that the players need to stop min maxing and suck it up when they roll low and fail on a DC.
The DM went on to say that the players were stroppy and lost control of their tempers and ruined the game for new players. (Adventurers League).
So after playing in a separate game with this same dm as a player here is what I felt.
Pissed off mostly.
The DM discribed how my character felt, discribed my 20 int wizard acting like a barbarian on a failed intelligence history check on a tooth saying "I try to bite it and realise it doesn't taste nice" when I rolled a 13 on the check.
In combat didn't like the fact that I cast a spell on 4 enemies a faerie fire. Decided everyone would attack the wizard for 2 rounds. (Almost died thank the gods for shield spell) even subverted the Barbarian and took an attack of opportunity to get to me.
Now in all honesty by this point I was visibly unhappy and spoke to the DM after.to try figure it out, to be told that's just the game rules suck it up.
Now if said DM had allowed me to discribe my characters feelings and discribed my failed check as well you don't know much about this spend some more time with it to learn more. Or you spend most the day researching and come up short that would all be sweet.
So what I'm getting at is people ***** and moan about players min maxing and getting upset but DM's also need to review how they make players feel in character. If players want to portray a super strength dude they will max strength and most likely get upset when said character fails a check and is told Thier character can't do a push up.
What's your guys thoughts on this.
Also I DM and try to avoid this style so any other tips I'll steal just a friendly warning 👍
Without context about what you failed a History check on, I can't say how appropriate that statement is. In general a failure should still be behavior that fits the character.
Deciding to focus fire the wizard is a totally legitimate tactical decision, though if you lived it might have been a poor decision.
Using control spells on the barbarian is also a totally legitimate tactical decision.
I don't know which thread you're referencing, so not sure the context of the complaining.
The DM discribed how my character felt, discribed my 20 int wizard acting like a barbarian on a failed intelligence history check on a tooth saying "I try to bite it and realise it doesn't taste nice" when I rolled a 13 on the check.
The DM should never describe how your character feels, in terms of your character's internal feelings. That's up to you. (I am not counting what you feel with, say, your fingers when you run your hands along the wall, then yes, the DM tells you what you "feel" with your hands). As a DM, I would never say to a player something like, "You are worried about this," or "afraid of that" -- it's up to the player. (Again, unless there is some exceptional circumstance, like, the Fear spell, then yeah.)
A failed history check is a failed check, I don't care if you have a 40 INT, because I can't say about the DC. But if you had just said you were trying to learn about the tooth, and the DM decided your way of learning about it was to bite it, then again, no. The DM should not be doing that. His job is to tell you what you (did not) learn... not to tell you what your own character's actions are. (Again, barring some kind of Mind Control.)
Min-maxing comes from a place of insecurity. The player feels the need to max things out because he or she thinks it's the only way to either survive, or match up with the rest of the party. Players who trust their DM usually don't feel the need to do this -- although some people are just insecure. And, I know one guy who just likes to be super incredibly efficient and not waste anything in terms of character building. He's also that way about everything else in life though -- he takes his hobbies seriously and tries to be perfect at them. I'm no psychiatrist but I suspect that whole suite of behaviors comes from a place of insecurity as well.
The DM telling you how your character feels is a bad sign but, like Pantagruel said, the focus fire might have been fair. If a wizard does wizard things in front of smart enough enemies in my campaign, the only player more likely to get primaried is the cleric.
Typically as a GM, I do not do it... unless it is a very smart set of enemies or they have a smart leader or something. Like, run of the mill goblins or skeletons aren't going to do it. But the Necromancer will absolutely order his skeletons to do it.
However, focus fire runs a really high risk of killing people, and can easily lead to a TPK if the party is not ready for it. So I wouldn't do it against new players even so.
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.
However, focus fire runs a really high risk of killing people, and can easily lead to a TPK if the party is not ready for it. So I wouldn't do it against new players even so.
Focus fire has a high risk of dropping targets to 0 hp. Unless you continue attacking them once they're down (or drop a damaging zone), it's not terribly likely to kill. Part of the tactics of the game, to the degree they exist, is in making it hard for enemies to focus fire.
It's hard to know in this situation. Did the other players in the game seem like they were having fun?
As others have said, if the enemies are intelligent, focus firing the healer or caster putting a control spell out is sound tactics. Depending on initiative order, did the rest of the party try to assist you during this?
With regards to the failed check, you failed the check, the DM added some flair, and you disagreed with the flair. There are plenty of instances in lore where witch or wizard bit something (and then often spit it out) to determine its nature. That's not necessarily acting like a barbarian. Asking everyone to describe how they failed a check takes time away from the table at large, the DM may have just been trying to move the game along.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but perhaps we need more context than what was provided.
Also I DM and try to avoid this style so any other tips I'll steal just a friendly warning
Perhaps you were expecting a style similar to yours, and this DM did things differently. That's always a risk at a new table that rotates. While I have never run an AL game, it seems by definition that the DM won't know as much about all the characters and players backstorys, so they have to do things more factory style, instead of customized.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
The other day I read a rant from a DM about players and now I need a rant
The DM stated that the players need to stop min maxing and suck it up when they roll low and fail on a DC.
The DM went on to say that the players were stroppy and lost control of their tempers and ruined the game for new players. (Adventurers League).
So after playing in a separate game with this same dm as a player here is what I felt.
Pissed off mostly.
The DM discribed how my character felt, discribed my 20 int wizard acting like a barbarian on a failed intelligence history check on a tooth saying "I try to bite it and realise it doesn't taste nice" when I rolled a 13 on the check.
In combat didn't like the fact that I cast a spell on 4 enemies a faerie fire. Decided everyone would attack the wizard for 2 rounds. (Almost died thank the gods for shield spell) even subverted the Barbarian and took an attack of opportunity to get to me.
Now in all honesty by this point I was visibly unhappy and spoke to the DM after.to try figure it out, to be told that's just the game rules suck it up.
Now if said DM had allowed me to discribe my characters feelings and discribed my failed check as well you don't know much about this spend some more time with it to learn more. Or you spend most the day researching and come up short that would all be sweet.
So what I'm getting at is people ***** and moan about players min maxing and getting upset but DM's also need to review how they make players feel in character. If players want to portray a super strength dude they will max strength and most likely get upset when said character fails a check and is told Thier character can't do a push up.
What's your guys thoughts on this.
Also I DM and try to avoid this style so any other tips I'll steal just a friendly warning 👍
Yeah, that sounds bad on many levels. Sorry you had to deal with it.
Wizard (Gandalf) of the Tolkien Club
Well, looking at your examples:
I don't know which thread you're referencing, so not sure the context of the complaining.
The DM should never describe how your character feels, in terms of your character's internal feelings. That's up to you. (I am not counting what you feel with, say, your fingers when you run your hands along the wall, then yes, the DM tells you what you "feel" with your hands). As a DM, I would never say to a player something like, "You are worried about this," or "afraid of that" -- it's up to the player. (Again, unless there is some exceptional circumstance, like, the Fear spell, then yeah.)
A failed history check is a failed check, I don't care if you have a 40 INT, because I can't say about the DC. But if you had just said you were trying to learn about the tooth, and the DM decided your way of learning about it was to bite it, then again, no. The DM should not be doing that. His job is to tell you what you (did not) learn... not to tell you what your own character's actions are. (Again, barring some kind of Mind Control.)
Min-maxing comes from a place of insecurity. The player feels the need to max things out because he or she thinks it's the only way to either survive, or match up with the rest of the party. Players who trust their DM usually don't feel the need to do this -- although some people are just insecure. And, I know one guy who just likes to be super incredibly efficient and not waste anything in terms of character building. He's also that way about everything else in life though -- he takes his hobbies seriously and tries to be perfect at them. I'm no psychiatrist but I suspect that whole suite of behaviors comes from a place of insecurity as well.
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.
Tough to say without knowing the whole story.
The DM telling you how your character feels is a bad sign but, like Pantagruel said, the focus fire might have been fair. If a wizard does wizard things in front of smart enough enemies in my campaign, the only player more likely to get primaried is the cleric.
IME it often comes from viewing the mechanical part of the game as a tactical wargame that you can be good at.
I agree and I have no problem with focus fire.
Typically as a GM, I do not do it... unless it is a very smart set of enemies or they have a smart leader or something. Like, run of the mill goblins or skeletons aren't going to do it. But the Necromancer will absolutely order his skeletons to do it.
However, focus fire runs a really high risk of killing people, and can easily lead to a TPK if the party is not ready for it. So I wouldn't do it against new players even so.
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.
Focus fire has a high risk of dropping targets to 0 hp. Unless you continue attacking them once they're down (or drop a damaging zone), it's not terribly likely to kill. Part of the tactics of the game, to the degree they exist, is in making it hard for enemies to focus fire.
It's hard to know in this situation. Did the other players in the game seem like they were having fun?
As others have said, if the enemies are intelligent, focus firing the healer or caster putting a control spell out is sound tactics. Depending on initiative order, did the rest of the party try to assist you during this?
With regards to the failed check, you failed the check, the DM added some flair, and you disagreed with the flair. There are plenty of instances in lore where witch or wizard bit something (and then often spit it out) to determine its nature. That's not necessarily acting like a barbarian. Asking everyone to describe how they failed a check takes time away from the table at large, the DM may have just been trying to move the game along.
Not trying to be a jerk here, but perhaps we need more context than what was provided.
Perhaps you were expecting a style similar to yours, and this DM did things differently. That's always a risk at a new table that rotates. While I have never run an AL game, it seems by definition that the DM won't know as much about all the characters and players backstorys, so they have to do things more factory style, instead of customized.
"An' things ha' come to a pretty pass, ye ken, if people are going to leave stuff like that aroound where innocent people could accidentally smash the door doon and lever the bars aside and take the big chain off'f the cupboard and pick the lock and drink it!"
Yeah that makes sense ... I should say I played in a campaign with this DM and even 5 sessions in plays the same.
Each to Thier own I suppose