Hi there!

I'm preparing to take over DM duties in our D&D group. We're playing the Age of Worms modules and the PCs are currently 11th level. The campaign has been great fun so far, even though I've been occasionally annoyed at the lack of challenge. Our PCs are heavily optimized and the parting DM's corresponding monster buffs haven't been up to snuff at times.

As a result, he sometimes fought us tooth and nail over rules interpretations and employed aggressive tactics, so as to eke out an advantage for his outclassed monsters whenever possible.

I'd like to change this. I plan to dramatically power-up the opposition across the board (by EL +4), all the while trying to avoid some pitfalls of overly antagonistic – or perhaps I should say: overly antagonizing – DMing.

(If out-and-out DM-as-antagonist play floats your boat, more power to you. It's just not what I'm looking for. We make all rolls in the open and DMs don't fudge a damn thing, so it's rough enough for our tastes.)

So here is a list of things I plan to avoid. Maybe some of you can relate some stories and pet annoyances of your own.

(I should note that I have been guilty of these things myself, far more so in fact than our last DM.)

1) Don't design an encounter to neutralize a specific PC or his signature abilities (e.g. maxed-out armor class, tripping specialist etc.). Just power-up the whole encounter. If there is a serious balancing problem, talk about it.

Example: A PC is a summoner and his creatures are powerless against protection from good, so every monster carries a potion of protection from good. (This never happened, but I've always feared for my uber-summoner.)

2) Don't single out a specific PC for save-or-die spells, massed attacks etc. (even if it makes tactical sense). Just power up the whole encounter and then spread the pain or randomly select targets.

Example: 6 shadows all go for the party cleric (low touch AC) to instantly drain him. (I did this a few years ago and the player was justly pissed off.)

3) Don't ambush the PCs (okay, at least no more than once every couple of sessions). It's not fun for many players and can outright suck (e.g. when a PC goes down without ever getting to act).

Example: A demon teleports into the middle of the party. His aura takes out both casters. (This happened three or four sessions ago. I'd at least farm out some monsters afterwards.)

4) Don't beat up on downed PCs (even if it makes tactical sense). Just leave them alone. Comebacks are cool.

Example: A PC is at -4 hp and will surely receive a heal spell on the next round. Leave him be. (I had a monstrous guard attack a downed PC when its side could no longer win the fight, arguing that it knew the party would go on to fight its master. It was a sound tactical decision and - ta-daa! - believable in-game, but. Just. No. Fun.)


Regards,

Hal

Hal,

Here's a trick that I learned in my last D&D campaign that worked really well.  Link non-combat skill checks into your combat scenes when you can.  For example...

The party was tracking a young black dragon after it had attacked a caravan.  The Ranger rolled his Tracking skill. (Actually his Wilderness Survival...but whatever.)  Not finding the dragon would be boring and not fun.  Fudging the roll would be boring and not fun.  So I just said, "Hey, if you succeed in the roll you get to set up the particulars of the battlefield and gain surprise..  If you fail, I set it up and the dragon gets surprised."  They did have to keep the battlefield in the swamp terrain type.

I also did this on social rolls, allowing bonuses in the subsequent combat scenes where it was appropriate and made some sort of sense.  It made those non-combat skills more interesting and important and eliminated the whole "Failure = Nothing Happens" thing.

Not sure if that's helpful at all but it worked for me.

Here are my suggestions for GMing d20 combat challenges (gamism/sim?).

Make the opponents always a lower level than the party. 
Increase the challenge with interesting location elements.
Play the opponents smart. (but don't let them use "out of game knowledge").
Generally opponents are on their home turf, so find creative ways for them to exploit the environment.

By using a lower level challenge you can step up to the table and bring your gaming chops.
If you just tac on extra challenge levels or templates you really aren't "bringing more game."


 

Hi Hal,

As a result, he sometimes fought us tooth and nail over rules interpretations and employed aggressive tactics, so as to eke out an advantage for his outclassed monsters whenever possible.

Thanks for the replies, guys!

Andrew -- that's an excellent piece of advice. Combat is at the core of our game and using otherwise useless character skills to provide the party with tangible benefits on the battlefield is a great idea.

Rustin -- "play the opponents smart" is pretty much the exact opposite of what I'm aiming to do. Don't get me wrong - I will neither have monsters act stupid to spare the PCs (i.e. monsters with an Int above 5 will go for a summoner, not his summoned creatures, feeblemind will be targeted at an albeit randomly determined arcane caster etc. etc.) nor pull my punches (i.e. I won't fudge).

However, I see my role as arbitrating the proceedings rather than matching wits with the players once the combat has started. I'll prepare as hard a scenario as I dare beforehand, but once the dice start rolling, I try to detach myself emotionally so as not to get my role as a referee mixed up with the role of antagonist.

Would all that eking out of advantages matter if its possible to come to a conclusion like this [i.e. lose graciously]? Take your 'don't neutralise key PC abilities' - suppose he neutralises the trip masters trip, but the players still wins AND the GM admits defeat and congratulates him. Seriously, was neutralising a power really any sort of an issue here? No, it's a complete non issue.

Perhaps the key issue whether the GM is willing to, at some point, admit defeat?

Though I will say that a game system which only introduces new challenges (new monsters, new feats to apply) only if one side consistantly loses over and over again (ie, the GM has to lose consistantly for players to level) is pretty fucked up when taken in vanilla form.

Hal-

You said: I see my role as arbitrating the proceedings rather than matching wits with the players once the combat has started. I'll prepare as hard a scenario as I dare beforehand, but once the dice start rolling, I try to detach myself emotionally

Very interesting style of play.  I'm curious in exploring this mental shift you use to play d20 because it runs opposite to my preferred approach to the game.  I still want this discussion to focus on your actual play experience though, so I'll try not to drift into the hypothetical.

I'm curious if this emotional detachment is fun for you?
Or rather, it seems as though you prefer the roll of arbiter rather than participant.  Do you feel that the d20 rules support you in that choice?  Can you think of any rule changes that would help you arbitrate and reduce your temptation to actually game the system?

I'm curious if you could describe your ultimate goal in arbitration of the game. 
How would we identify an ideal case of arbitration (if you have an actual play example that would be great).  Would the players be aware that you were, not necessarily fudging dice rolls, but taking care not to use neutralizing effects, not kill a downed person etc...

Does your arbitration help immerse the players in the imagined world? Does it help them show off their gaming chops? Does it help them tell their story?

He hates that and often feels the monster (and by extension, he himself) does not get the respect it deserves. and becomes very irritable as a result. If a PC goes down or the players get visibly serious about winning (i.e., the jokes stop flying, character sheets are scoured for long-forgotten potions and everybody coordinates actions), he's happy.

Congratulating players (and DMs, too, for getting things just right, i.e. nearly wiping out the party) is certainly good advice.

But you're right that a competitive game where one side is doomed to perpetually lose is fucked up. That's why I'd rather not compete with the players as a DM, leastways not while I'm in the middle of adjucating their characters' actions.
...
I see my role as arbitrating the proceedings rather than matching wits with the players once the combat has started. I'll prepare as hard a scenario as I dare beforehand, but once the dice start rolling, I try to detach myself emotionally

Hey everybody.

Situations to avoid. hmmm.......

First of all, DON'T get detached. If your getting detached, you are not feeling the flow of the game, and then it will just be numbers and nothing else. Secondly detachment, also hinder your creativity.

Now i do not know about your campaign, but what rustin said, about playing the monsters intelligently is actually a very good idea. Now let me define that a bit more.

The GM tactically wonders what monsters would do most damage to his party, and then he plays it BAD

The GM puts together a puzzle thinking what kind of monsters would this encounter be like, and then he utilizes the monsters abilities to its fullest.

An example.

Our heroes of 17'th level was beaten to a pulp by a small platoon of woodland orcs ( 1 hit die creature ), what the hell happened, you can ask? Well the little fellas was in hiding, and at the right amount of time, they loosened a large tree trunk. The tree trunk came crashing down on the path in a sweeping motion, knocking the hero, and his mighty steed off the cliff. our hero took a rather small amount of damage but was annoyed. He tried to walk the steep muddy slope, and was covered in little small crossbow bolts form the woodland orcs. This gave him quite a lot of hits, as he did not have any ability to dodge, and was actually a sitting duck.  when the orcs had shot their load of crossbow bolts, they where getting scared, for the darn hero, wasnt dead yet. So while the hero tried to scale the wall ( having a hard time about it ) they cut the tree trunk down from its hanging rope, and rolled the trunk down the slope. this ofcause hit the hero's helmet and he was once again face down in the mud, quite beaten and battered.

Now there was nothing in those woodland orcs, besides the fact that they where wayside robbers, and damn good at it.

So to conclude.

1. find out why the encounter is there? ( i hate random encounters )
2. Discover if there are additional factors for the encounter( has spells been used on the creatures, do they have magical items and whatnot?
3. how would these monsters attack or defend? are they a trained group?

What you are doing when you are not playing a creature smart ( using in game knowledge ) is that you are turning the gore and tusk of the DND feel into a bunch of numbers for them to conquer.

In your examples im finding a somewhat strange things.

Example: A PC is a summoner and his creatures are powerless against protection from good, so every monster carries a potion of protection from good. (This never happened, but I've always feared for my uber-summoner.)

This would only happen if a foe had watched you for a good amount of time, and had taken his time to learn your every move, and every weakness, in that case it would be a good idea to have such an encounter as a key to show you some info about your foe. If not this is simply the usage of OOC knowledge and is horrible.

Example: 6 shadows all go for the party cleric (low touch AC) to instantly drain him. (I did this a few years ago and the player was justly pissed off.)

Well why did the shadows go for the party cleric? was it because the shadows had a undying grudge against clerics or where they just intended to take away the partys healer? first GOOD second BAD

Example: A demon teleports into the middle of the party. His aura takes out both casters. (This happened three or four sessions ago. I'd at least farm out some monsters afterwards.)

Im reckoning you had some prewarning that this demon was about to enter? or at least you had an idea that a demon could attack you? a Demon with his intelligence would do this, and should do it. Could it be that the group was ill prepared for the battle, and hence you judged it as unjustly?

4) Don't beat up on downed PCs (even if it makes tactical sense). Just leave them alone. Comebacks are cool.
No it does not make tactical sense at all. If you are in a combat, and you attack somebody, when that person goes down, that means one less creature to worry about. Any fighter worth his salt would hack up the next without worrying if the thing he had just knocked on was at -4 hp. If its the last downed PC it would make sense, to go around making sure they are dead ( unless ofcause you want the killer to be scared, and just runs away )

So my best advice would be to run the game first and foremost as fantasy, make the fantasy as living as possible, and when you have created a believable setting, add some combat.

One of my proteges started up as GM, and he played the first session as a dream session, where he discovered what the party was actually capable of, fighting them tooth for nail in close encounters, utilizing every little possibility that the creatures had. when all of us where dead, we where told that we awoke bathed in sweat, it had just been a dream. You could use that idea as well, to find out where and how to challenge the players.

Well, it's boring if shadows go straight for the cleric, but not if the shades of evildoers, summoned by some truly nasty dude, go straight for his most hated enemy- Cleric McCleric, noted do-gooder. Then Nasty Von Evilstein drops an illusion of himself in to gloat, but lets everyone live.

In other words, clever attacks from a clever character with a personal goal which the players will want to fight against, so that the situation is escalating rather than the GM is getting bitchier. See what I mean?

As for tactical sense, it makes sense to put down the most immediate threat to yourself and then move on, unless you are insane, driven by mindless hunger for flesh, or very, VERY smart and confident. In other words, in a fight, anything other than self-preservation requires "special motivation", and preferably a story element. It's one thing to have stuff seemingly randomly attack a central character-ability-combo, another entirely to tell the players they've gotten a reputation and someone is trying to kill character Fighty McFight because "he's the dangerous one".

Let them in on the reasons for oddities. Tell them someone is gunning for a particular character and is known for using certain methods. That makes it a tactical and personal challenge rather than a "cow from space" (Blackjack's Shadowrun, "Guide to Bitter Gamemastering") In other words, give them an idea (and reasons) a certain challenge, or group of challenges is coming.

In my group, I believe Frank the GM's role is to provide two things:
1. A setting in which I can portray Farknobble Shtoop, Internationally Famous Playboy (aka Gnome Bard), in his personal
    quest to gain experiences he can spin into thrilling tales, and spread the role of percussion in music.
2. A series of opportunities for me to risk Shtoops's life and limb in the pursuit of reward (treasure, fame, et al)

Should he tailor the encounters to either be resistant to our party's strengths, or to take advantage of our party's weaknesses?  I believe no, not as a matter of course. I believe doing either (on a frequent basis) inevitable leads to a situation where the DM is looking for acclaim ("Boy, those monsters really kicked our ass.  Good Job, Frank.") from people whose overriding emotional reaction is to deny that acclaim ("I just got my ass kicked.  There's no way I'm going to THANK the man who did it!").  I believe that leads to DM burnout.

However, YMMV.  THe primary trend in homebrew D20 rules and online advice I've seen have been to make the game more realistic, grittier, and more unforgiving of the wrong spell cast or memorized that morning.  I recognize that I'm in the minority of players with my DnD habits, so the DnD game I play may seem unforgivably weak to you,  like drinking cocoa instead of coffee.

Hey, Hal.

What level characters are these guys going to be playing?  It's a pertinent question for what you are asking.  Let me give some examples.

1.) The characters are all 1st - 4th level or so.  You are absolutely correct that siccing some baddies on them and then playing balls to the walls to kill them will sap the life right out of the game.  At this level there's way too much luck involved in surviving.  The DM has to be careful because it is very easy to misjudge an encounter and kill off the entire party and them not really have had a chance.  That's not challenging and its not fun.  It's like me playing chess with a Grandmaster.  It's not fun for either of us.

2.) The characters are all 5th - 12th level.  Keep to the Challenge Ratings on the creatures.  Personally, I like to have much fewer encounters with fewer creatures and make sure all my CR's are EL+2 and EL +3 for the big nasty guy at the end.  At this level the characters aren't going to keel over at the slightest hit and they have a good range of options at their disposal.  GM's can play to win as long as they've got the CR of the encounter within the ballpark.  In fact, the game runs best if the GM actually plays to win at that point.  Each combat encounter is like a chess match with evenly matched opponents.  It's a lot of fun for both sides.  **Note: You will have some character death playing this way but it'll rarely be from sheer stupid luck, which is okay by me.  Not sure how you feel about it.

3.) Characters are 12+ levels.  At this level, I literally don't worry about CR's anymore.  I find cool stuff to throw at them and then just let the players figure out how to get through the encounter.  The characters here have so much magic and special abilities at their disposal that even if they can't beat the opponent, they can damn sure get away alive.  So, I find neat stuff and then play it as nasty as I can.  It's fun.  The players will amaze you with what kinds of crap they can come up with.

I posted all this because you had expressed concern about not "playing to win".  I think the only time you'll have to worry about that is #1 above.  The higher level they are the more the DM can cast aside caution and really try to hammer the players... and it still be really, really fun.  Personally, I don't particularly like DMing #1.  Nowadays if I play I like to start at #2.  If you can do that with this group, I think it'll be more fun.  I don't really know your group though.

I'd like to focus on the thread's topic a bit more. There's been some good advice - specifically, granting tactical benefits for non-combat skills (Andrew), making good use of locations (Rustin) and not sweating the specifics of the monsters' abilities at the higher levels* (Andrew). However, I'd like to focus on DM behaviour which spoils the fun. Interesting monsters, a well-balanced encounter, a cool location etc. mean squat if the DM is acting like a dick (or is perceived to be).

*Which, to answer Andrew's question, is where we're at. The characters will be level 13 when I take over, but I'm aiming for encounters no lower than EL 17 on account of the highly optimized characters (making use of extra books such as "Magic of Eberron"), action points (from Eberron), a fifth character (due to the number of players), and the "high-powered campaign" option being used (i.e., 32-point-buy for the abilities).

*-*-*

Fred -- if I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that you can't 'force' someone to respect you by applying more pressure. I second that and would add that unfun, but effective tactics (i.e. more pressure) exacerbate the problem.

Christian and Sam -- I think you are making similar points and I disagree with both of you.

Well why did the shadows go for the party cleric? was it because the shadows had a undying grudge against clerics or where they just intended to take away the partys healer? first GOOD second BAD

I'm sorry to announce that I have to drop out of the discussion. Real Life is rearing its head.

In closing, I'd like to summarize my position.

I've realized that, in the past, I was sometimes so eager to 'win' against my players that I made tactical decisions which ruined some of my players' fun. I've changed my attitude to running combats some time ago, but am only now reflecting upon that. I, personally, have a hard time being a good referee when I'm emotionally invested in 'winning' with 'my' monsters. Changing my role from "contender" to "entertainer/referee" has worked for me and I'm employing techniques such as randomly selecting targets to help me play this new role. I'm sure there are other ways to handle this.

You helped me understand my own process better, so thanks.

I apologize again for drawing you into this thread and then dropping out. Feel free to offer closing comments of your own and, of course, to pursue this matter in new threads.

Regards,

Hal

Hey Hal.

I think it all comes down to style of play ( perhaps even the collective creative agenda ??).

In my own game, i would think nothing of it if shadows went for the party cleric, because it would fit with the story, it would be real with my idea of how shadows would work. So for my campaign that would work, and present all our players with a game that fit their ideas of the world, and would lend credibility to the setting.

That is not to say,that what you are doing are better or worse, just different from my own game. In where your game it would be a red herring to have the shadows attack the cleric, due to the fact that this would upset your game, in our game it would be very strange, if the shadows did not attack in such a way, that the PLAYERS knew the shadows would attack.

SO if im judging this correct, we are enjoying a vastly different game although we do share a likeliness in Techniques. so putting on my glasses the other way, i will try to offer you some advice not on the basis of how things work in my own game, but how i perceive things to be in your game. Im out on a limb here, as i dont have intimate knowledge of your game, and your intentions and incentives for playing.

Advice i think of.
1. Give monsters some sort of magical help ( so that it lowers their AC, or enables their resistance and so on) this way you could give the same monsters some more leverage.

2. Attempt to take really low level encounters( with no special ability) and go all out on the characters, keeping every die roll in the open.

3. Check the character sheets for some specific items, items that gives an advantage against this and that, and then try to present encounters where the characters can use that specific item.

4. Create that dream session, where you use every scrap of your knowledge of your players characters, and use EACH and EVERY special attack in the book, to kill them off. when the battle is over, wake em up, and send them onwards in the adventure.

Whev, i think ive been reading to much forge RPG Theory this weekend already, getting high on the stuff ;)

I wasn't actually talking about rationalizing brutally effective but whiffy tactics as a cover. I was talking about when or if certain types of attack would be appropriate- not attempting to achieve "GM Victory". ...Just to clarify....

Hi Hal,

I'm sure you can hold off for a couple of weeks and then post, you'll likely only be on the second page.

On topic, being a entertainer/referee has...worked...for me as well. I developed lists, sometimes written, alot of the time in my head, just like yours at in the original post. And the lists got longer and longer - which surely means I was getting on top of things and becoming a better entertainer, if the list I knew was getting longer, right? I could pride myself on how much I knew even!

And it got longer after each session, because - well, if your going to kick a soccer ball into some goals and the goalie tries to stop it, that's an opponent. But what if some person who isn't an opponent runs onto the field and tries to block the ball from going in - that's just annoying - that's just antagonistic! So each session I tried to figure out how I'd run onto the field and 'blocked the ball' so to speak in various circumstances and in using various monsters and opponents.

And that's all I need to say, really.

But I will point out that the technical issues are considerable, in terms of being a referee and opponent. However, at its core its about the difference between inventing resources and only using those resources present. Have a look at wargamers, from what actual play I've seen they mutually set up the terrain in a completely cooperational mode - and then they go and try to absolutely murder each others armies! The two stages - inventing resources (terrain) and using only those resources that exist as an opponent, are both neatly seperated YET part of the same game.

Likewise in D&D, making an orc *pop* into existance isn't anything to be proud of, but once invented and in existance, manouvering him by stock standard rules across the floor to charge into and flank a PC without being decapitated first IS something to be proud of! However, D&D includes the grander strategic element, its not about single fights in issolation from each other. This fucks up the 'invent the orc into existance' and 'then use what resources exist as an opponent' divide. Because although in individual fights you invent resources and then only use what resources there are, from the strategic view, you keep just inventing resources throughout the game (as opposed to players working only with pre existing resources) and thus your doing nothing you can be proud of.

That actually slits the throat of gamism if played in vanilla form, which although many people just stop thinking about gamism "Oh, D&D does that really well...that's all there is to say", really this throat slitting is quite appealing to people who are interested in killing off gamist play in favour of another agenda (not that slitting one agendas throat helps foster another, but that's another topic entirely).

Gamism is not a simple area in terms of design. And the lists of 'antagonistic' behavour can become quite long because of it.