TOPIC: What to do about bad DMs?

Cranston wrote: Second, the biggest problem I see with some DM's is that they make the room into a competition between the DM and party. The training clearly emphasizes that the DM is an arbitrator not a participant. Looking for the character with the worst AC or worst saving throw is competitive. Role playing with the NPC or attacking the player that hit the hardest works well and very few players will complain about that.

I agree that the DM shouldn't be a competitor/antagonist and should instead be an arbitrator.

And for the average DM in the main adventure, your options are limited because of guidelines and consistency.

However, when designing the True Grind adventure my focus is on making it fun yet challenging.

In Dave Radtke's words:

dbradical wrote: When I used to DM, the monster stats would (and could) slide depending on the party. If they were heavy hitters, I would mentally figure the point where they blew the monster away (per module stats), then slide the stats to make the combat interesting and last a little bit, the party would still win, just not in 30 seconds. Most groups appreciated that, but obviously a few would have issues. My goal was never to kill anyone, just try and make things come to the wire. I would oftern give back hp taken away as a result of my playing with the numbers to make the room fun.

Well, the Grind monster stats don't actually change, but usually the monsters have a variety of different attacks. Against weaker parties, I might use weaker attacks or suboptimal tactics. While against stronger parties, I will use stronger attacks (which were always available) and superior tactics.

I view the role of the DM as primarily one of customer service - trying to make sure the players have a fun time (regardless of whether or not they died).

I would like to think that most of the time I succeed in ensuring my players have fun. But I readily admit that there times when I have failed.

And there are times when the expectations or philosophies of a player are so drastically different that they're probably going to be unhappy with Grind regardless of what I do (though I still try to make it fun for them). Try as you might, you can't make everyone happy! (Or make everyone like you).

Incognito wrote:

Kaledor wrote: We have the same issue... fighter critically hits... wizard standing there looking through scrolls. DM targets the Wizard (lowest AC) did that three times in a row.

Same dungeon same DM... wizard slides a critical hit, paladin says guarding wizard. DM targets next lowest AC. New players asked "So what is the point of a paladin guarding lower AC when he calls out wizard, you just change targets." Interesting question.

Since we had two wizards DM asked which one are you guarding. He said which one are you attacking. Everyone just busted out laughing! DM picked the Barbarian. hehehe

Incognito wrote: Well, fortunately, that doesn't sound like it was your Grind run, since my notes show you Sunday 10:30 AM run as having only a single Wizard!

Eh, even if the Fighter is critically hitting sometimes he is still too heavily armored for the monster to hurt. So instead of useless pawing at the Fighter (however much the monster wants to get him), he has to settle for a more accessible target.

No you ran a great room, attacked the character that did the most damage and varied the combat a lot... Both you and Raven.

Just saying monster wants the pain to stop would try to kill the thing causing the pain.

Incognito wrote: Say you are a hungry lion, eager to eat some tasty elephant. There are two baby elephants and one big protective mommy elephant. The mommy elephant can only protect one baby elephant at a time. So do you go after the one that is being protected? NO! You go after the undefended one!

I'm saying the same lion that is getting its head crushed would attack the thing that is hurting it. Not something in the back ground that is standing there. Animal instinct would be attack the thing hurting it.

[quote="Incognito" post=232845So that is how I perceive it in terms of monster/game logic.

But of me wonders - do players who min/max such glass cannons really expect to NOT get attacked? When you go into the monster den with a build with such glaring vulnerabilities, what do you think is going to happen?

Bear in mind my goal is not to "punish" min/maxers per se, though I do want to reward creativity, encourage diversity, and prevent exploits.[/quote]

Who's min/maxing? We used the best tokens we had. We fully expect to get attacked and certainly aren't upset about it, as you imply. I disagree that the vulnerability was 'glaring'. Only to a monster perusing a party card could it be called glaring.

Your reference to 'punishing' players is revealing. Your statements that you study potential builds and token powers before building grind also tells me that you see grind as a different experience - a direct competition between you and the party. Maybe that's how you feel you have to approach it to provide a challenge.

Fine. That's not ours.

Cranston wrote: If you are paying $52 to get 3 treasure pulls, you would be better off just buying a token pack. I you pay the money to have fun, relax about the treasure pull and have fun.

I feel you're boiling this down to a simple black/white matter, when it's more a shade of grey on the spectrum.

If the treasure pulls aren't part of the fun in the experience for many people, why are they used as the 'carrot' within the game? The very nature of how they are handed out (bought and as a reward at the end of a run) is indicative that both the people running the game and those playing clearly feel (in aggregate) that treasure tokens are indeed an important part of the experience.

Also, why does it have to be an either or? People seem quite capable of having fun on the journey AND desiring to partake in the 'gambling' aspect of the draw. The 'cracking a Magic booster pack' allure of maybe getting something powerful or rare. Let's not kid ourselves, that seems to be a strong part of the business model (sales of tokens and their use as a reward).

And that's not a bad thing.

But when a group full of newer players struggles to get just a single token, and one hears of experienced players walking out with 5, 10, or 15+ purely for walking through, I don't think it's an unreasonable concern that those newer players might feel a bit dejected, especially when the loss wasn't due to time but struggling with execution, or use of trial and error and a few more errors than the system (apparently this year) allowed.

There's a bunch of factors present, and I'm certainly not proclaiming my view as the only legit one, merely noting that even groups who have fun can have concerns or considerations worth addressing or at least hearing out.

Fighting the monsters was fun (especially the Salamander), solving the puzzles was fun. Getting loot is, at least to some of us, also fun. Fighting monsters and solving puzzles but losing out on the loot because of a few things some might feel isn't entirely in their control isn't necessarily the pinnacle of fun, and I've spent a number of hours reading and responding here in an effort to articulate that view.

Whether or not its seen as valuable information is for others (TD and community members alike) to decide. :-P

joshua baessler wrote: I too have an issue with how DMs meta-game their targets. Some are excusable - the Undead Bovine went after my Cleric because duh. But I've been in multiple dungeons where the DM goes down his or her list and says things like "Okay, let's see who has the lowest AC or HP..." I'm sorry, but the monster shouldn't know that. Okay, maybe a monster could see by looking that a wizard was standing there in his or her robes and therefore shouldn't have high AC. But I've been in groups where my Rogue got targeted because the wizard(s) had higher AC than me (my gear used to suck, leave me alone ).

Well, to be fair, players shouldn't be able to see how hard it is to hit a monster either (such as what sections are a "20" and what is a miss)!

Saves are especially a pet peeve of mine because nothing should indicate to the monster that I have a low Will save until he or she lands the first spell against me versus that save. Yet I've been targeted specifically for that before too. Uncool.

Reflex saves is fairly obvious. Is the target nimble and spry? Or slow and clumsy?

Fortitude is less obvious but stout and healthy looking creatures tend to have a higher Fortitude than old, frail creatures.

Will saves are related to intellect. Spellcasters and leaders tend to have high Will saves. Big, dumb meatshields taking orders are likely to have low will saves. Also, in this year's Grind, the Aboleth had 3 full rooms of subtle telepathic probing in order to figure out who had the weakest will....

Disbeeleaf wrote: I will note that as a druid with the dragon scale set and the ROSEC (together 20 resistance to fire), I tried to taunt the salamander into attacking me and the DM would have none of that. I didn't consider that adversarial so no big deal, but an explanation of why she was ignoring me as I taunted her with motions immediately in her face and insults would have been nice.

Maybe the Salamander was disciplined enough to ignore the taunts?

Or maybe it was worldly enough to recognize Dragonscale armor?

On the issue of treasure pulls, it is annoying to miss a pull because you didn't solve the puzzle to the satisfaction of the designers even though you survived the room. This I think is a perspective issue. If someone is paying $52 to run a dungeon, and they are going to leave sad or angry for missing a treasure pull or two, is it such a big deal to let room survivors have the treasure pulls? I don't think so. The value of having players happy at completion far exceeds the cost of one or two treasure pulls. Keep perspective.

I agree with you. I would see it as a "matter of principle."

I recall Druegar asking what the source was and I told him "you aren't quite sure" and suggesting that he experiment (which he didn't).

I too asked what the source of the mystery save was.


My only issue with mystery saves is that if I have a token that responds to a failed save type its helpful to know the type so it can apply. AKA ignore the effects of a failed fort save.

Not my first rodeo, so I figured out what was going on.

As to the lamia wisdom drain that is where my DnD knowledge hinders me as player because I knew there was no way in TD to fix it...LOL, good that there ended up being a way after all.

It only came up once in my combats, running 3 shifts, but the paladin must declare at the start and cannot change his guard during combat. So it essentially prevented one hit in the water weird room I ran, and none in the mind flayer (intelligent creature never attacked the cleric that was being guarded, healing not mattering nearly as much with 20 damage)

jedibcg wrote: I do feel on my Grind this year I was meta gamed. One of the monster's (I don't remember which) knocked the wisdom out of the cleric. Okay he saw him cast 2 healing spells. A couple turns later the monster did the same to me as the druid. I am pretty sure (but not positive) I had not yet cast a double heal. I think Eric (and Raven) do wonderful job DMing and would never put the either of you in a bad DM category.

That said I was not happy about losing the access to a tokens worth thousands of dollars before even got to use them.

In past Grind years, there have been sticky Mimics or hungry Rust Monsters to provide a challenge.

This year there were a variety of STAT penalties instead:

- The Spider had a poisonous bite that could reduce Dexterity. (It prevented Henwy from using his Legendary Bow). However it was clearly labeled as poison and could be cured as such.

- The Roper could sap Strength with its tentacles. (No ability drain in TD, so I settled for Remove Curse as a solution)

- The Lamia could drain Wisdow with its touch (with was a touch attack, meaning AC was less effective against it). The Lamia actually had specific design instructions to target the Cleric and Druid. And it essentially created a "puzzle," where the Cleric/Druid could remove the effect (with Remove Curse) if they were creative enough to try.

- The Kuo-toa had a Bestow Curse spell which could reduce any attribute. Though this rarely worked (most players saved). And this could be removed by Remove Curse.

So the Lamia was intended as a "creative challenge" for the Clerics and Druids out there, but there were definitely solutions available.

valetutto wrote: I recall Druegar asking what the source was and I told him "you aren't quite sure" and suggesting that he experiment (which he didn't).

I too asked what the source of the mystery save was.

My only issue with mystery saves is that if I have a token that responds to a failed save type its helpful to know the type so it can apply. AKA ignore the effects of a failed fort save.

Well, normally I do tell the player what TYPE of save it is (though not always exactly what spell or what effect).

And if you think a token might be relevant, it never hurts to ask (at least in Grind).

Not my first rodeo, so I figured out what was going on.

As to the lamia wisdom drain that is where my DnD knowledge hinders me as player because I knew there was no way in TD to fix it...LOL, good that there ended up being a way after all.

Well, in Grind there usually are at least some solutions to most of the challenges. Though sometimes it might involve corner-case tokens.

Kind of like the 2011 Aboleth which secreted mucus that could be dispelled with Faerie Water. (I didn't bother with the mucus this year b/c the underwater stuff was complicated enough).

There were ways around the Aboleth's Dominate ability, which some parties had trouble with - you could just concentrate on the Aboleth and kill it quickly, you could use Mind Blank scrolls, you could try boosting Will saves (Bard's Song of Heroism, Druid's Resistance, one player drank a Monk's Mead potion). It was definitely NOT a Charm effect, though if I had to do it again, I would allow Charm bonuses to provide half their effect, and for Charm removal effects to allow an additional saving throw instead.

In Grind, creative solutions are encouraged. When the Son of Smoak went flying into the air, one Dwarven Fighter decided to attack with a Grappling Hook (hit for 1 damage), used a turn to climb rope and then was riding on top of the dragon.

The main solution to the Reverse Gravity spell was Feather Fall (and players had several rounds to prepare). But one player asked about the Charm of Wealful Wind, which was so cornercase yet creative enough, that I allowed it to save her.

Incognito wrote: I recall Druegar asking what the source was and I told him "you aren't quite sure" and suggesting that he experiment (which he didn't).

Your recollection is inaccurate. But this is not germane to this thread.

Incognito wrote: it essentially created a "puzzle," where the Cleric/Druid could remove the effect (with Remove Curse) if they were creative enough to try.

This assumes the player has a means to remove a curse. I don't see Remove Curse on this card. Do you?
[img size=224,341] truedungeon.com/media/k2/galleries/70/Cleric_5_front.jpg [/img]
Censer of Sacrifice : last printed in 2009
Fey Bread : last printed in 2009
Potion Moon Veil : last printed in 2013
Scroll Remove Curse : last printed in 2008

Perhaps I should stay out of this but:
Scroll Remove Curse (UC)

I purposefully bought a bunch of old scrolls and potions knowing that we were attempting Epic Grind this year.

Requiring a scroll that's been out of print for 7 years might be a stretch for non-Epic difficulty though.

Just a food for thought comment on Grind. I was in TJ's group. The barbarian got one slide through the entire combat. Frozen by the Flayer, swallowed by the worm, when the MF died, and couldn't even get in the water (he tried 5 times by my count, but kept being told he was on shore) and died. There could easily be good reasons for all, but you mentioned it being fun. Being a punching bag without being able to hit back, is not much fun. All I recommend is to spread some of the attacks to other players. Maybe just have only one creature attack any one character at a time. At least let everyone have some attacks. I hesitate to comment, because I know that Eric, and Raven and Brad put a lot of work and effort into Grind and you do a great job putting it all together! There is a lot going on, and it has to be a nightmare to keep track of.