TOPIC: What to do about bad DMs?

Milambus (Jake) wrote: 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.

Might be a good target for the reprint thread though

Druegar wrote:

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.

Lets assume he was remembering me, because I had an experience that went pretty much that way. Also it would be funny for us to be confused for one another

Incognito wrote:

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).

I don't for a second think our philosophy is so 'drastically different.' Quit overdramatizing. You can't believe that we went to the trouble of buying grind tickets with the intent of being unhappy, do you? Yes, it's obvious you try to make it fun for those who enjoy the unexpected challenge. Keep trying, stop worrying about people liking you.

Just advertise grind properly. It's a direct competitive challenge versus a situation populated by monsters who are fully integrated and react in ways you may not expect. One thing you can expect - the monsters (and by extension the DM) will do everything he/she can to kill you.

'Hello. My name is incognito. You killed my father. Prepare to die!'

TJRat wrote: Randomness makes sense at the start of a melee, as does targeting those characters that stand out (taunting or damaging).

I would argue that large, physically imposing character or lightly armored or undefended characters would certainly stand out.

No where in our plans or my discussion has there been any attempt to 'metagame' by reducing AC. The cloak will only function by surprise - if you choose to run the encounter to prove a point about builds, then you're missing the point of the game.

It is not about "proving a point about builds."

True Grind is designed to be fun yet challenging.

When coming up with the monster stats and the abilities, I definitely have to be cognizant about what tokens exist. In order to create an appropriately scaled adventure, the existing token base is an independent variable that influences the monster stats which are a dependent variable.

TJRat wrote: I agree with the idea that monsters (if the encounter is set up as such) should cooperate similar to how players do. But then the DM should disclose monster vulnerabilities to the party, or the monsters should have to spend a few rounds to learn party vulnerabilities; even footing for two groups meeting perhaps for the first time.

Well, the monsters have encountered prior groups of humanoids who have stumbled into their cavern!

And some of these monsters have showed up in prior Grinds, so some players may recall patterns of monster behavior.

Monster vulnerabilities can be determined by Bardic Lore (which most Bards didn't bother to do).

And because all of the monsters are bona fide D&D monsters, those with some knowledge of D&D monster lore do have some general knowledge of monster abilities, attacks, and vulnerabilities.

Turns out that was the case, doesn't it? While the baddie was pounding on the lifeless corpse of our barbarian, the five characters who were actually damaging it underwater killed it. Still wonder why the barbarian wasn't allowed to melee attack because he wasn't able to deal with water, yet he was bashed to death in melee....

The Barbarian was a land-dweller unfamiliar with water combat.

The water monsters were in their natural habitat and with natural weapons conducive to underwater combat.

TJRat wrote: 'Obvious' is relative. You're saying your monster chose a barbarian, lying dead two combats over, as a threat? Rippling muscles I'll buy, but 'loincloth?' Nonsense. He was wearing a full set of armor.

Also, seems like your theoretical monster is judging these books by their covers. Big doesn't mean slow, and lots of armor doesn't mean best protected.

TJRat wrote: I can only agree. However, there were no loincloths involved. If we delve into the tactical situation and try to sort out the mindset of the monster, we'd get lost in details. Suffice it to say that our barb was lying dead two combat boards over. He was wearing armor.

True Dungeon (and even pen and paper or computer games) end up being an abstraction.

Unlike the hypothetical monster, I don't actually get to see whether your armor is coming from a suit of armor, your agile dexterity, or magical forcefields. Perhaps your Barbarian armor is patchwork. Maybe it is made of supple material, softer than hard metal.

All I get is AC, which is an abstraction of how well defended your character is and how well defended they appear to the monster.

Despite efforts to explain the monster's actions in a convoluted and unending spiral of 'perhaps' statements, Incognito chose to focus the monster's attention on one character. This runs counter to our experience in regular runs and hit us hard. Throw in the pace of grind and the chaos inherent in the setup, and you may see how this didn't end well for us.

I am sorry that you were taken unaware by the Grind monster behavior which differed from the monster behavior in regular runs.

I have always tried to be transparent in noting that Grind monsters are smarter than the average TD monster.

As I have always made clear that some archetypes are perceived to be as larger threats and are more likely to be attacked in Grind - noisy Bards doing bardsong, glass cannons (particularly Barbarians, Monks, and Rangers), fragile Wizards unleashing torrents of arcane energy, etc.

True Grind IS intended to be more challenging than a typical True Dungeon run.

TJRat wrote: 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.

Of course I study potential builds and token powers.

Part of it is so I can establish a baseline (based on hypothetical token builds) to determine appropriate monster stats.

Part of it is to include easter eggs and to allow obscure and cornercase tokens to actually be useful.

And part of it is to ensure that the adventure is challenging (yet still beatable).

My personal philosophy (in life and in TD) is that a challenging victory (or even a noble defeat) is far more satisfying than an easy win.

But I do recognize that some people prefer other things, such as easily stomping the opposition or one turn killing the monsters. The challenge level of Grind is not designed for this psychographic group (except maybe Normal level).

In the past there have been TD veterans who did not like Grind because they felt that with their tokens, they "deserved to win." Within the DDA, I know that Bridget and Jason are not fond of Grind. And while the late JimC did play Grind, he was unhappy when his character (with an overpowered Artifact) was not able to single-handedly win the adventure. Back in WYC 2014, his Grind group ended up losing (ran out of time), mainly because of a lack of teamwork.

TJRat, I am saddened that you and your friends did not have a good time at Grind this year. While I readily admit there are things that can be improved for next year, I also get the feeling that we may have differing philosophies on the nature of "fun" and "challenging." I do hope that you give Grind another try in the future, but I understand if you do not.

TJRat wrote:

Incognito wrote:

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).

I don't for a second think our philosophy is so 'drastically different.' Quit overdramatizing. You can't believe that we went to the trouble of buying grind tickets with the intent of being unhappy, do you? Yes, it's obvious you try to make it fun for those who enjoy the unexpected challenge. Keep trying, stop worrying about people liking you.

Just advertise grind properly. It's a direct competitive challenge versus a situation populated by monsters who are fully integrated and react in ways you may not expect. One thing you can expect - the monsters (and by extension the DM) will do everything he/she can to kill you.

'Hello. My name is incognito. You killed my father. Prepare to die!'

Hello. My name is incongnito. I got you to kill your father. Prepare to die!

Agree with many of the complaints in the thread and just adding one more voice to these suggestions:

1. Make sure parties do not lose treasure after 1 mistake, even on NM.
2. Let parties know after the 1st mistake that they are in danger of losing the treasure so they know to be more careful ("the lava shakes the treasure dangerously, you worry that more attempts like that will cause it to fall!")
3. Mass damage to the entire party is scary enough from puzzles and spider sacs, try to help them avoid doing it to themselves ("you could cast that spell at all the bugs, but be aware that you will likely catch the party too, do you still want to attempt it?")
4. Avoid making puzzles that require lengthy DM checks of the solution. Also avoid ambiguous colors.

-Scot

Milambus (Jake) wrote: I purposefully bought a bunch of old scrolls and potions knowing that we were attempting Epic Grind this year.

Nice job with your preparation!

You deserve a gold star!

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

Well, it was intended to be an annoyance (losing spells, less effective healing) as opposed to a "you don't have this old token so you DIE!"

If anything, I would argue that it was designed pretty well - the STAT penalties affected the tokenholics far more than the newer players. Newbies would simply get a minor penalty and only those of UR+ level would deal with not being able to use one or two specific tokens. And those tokenholics are the ones far more likely to have old, out of print uncommons and rares.

Druegar wrote: 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

Well, both Grind and the normal dungeon had Carrion Crawlers who used paralysis. Which can be cured by:

tokendb.com/token/potion-rue-extract/

printed in 2010.

tokendb.com/token/scroll-remove-paralysis/

printed in 2007.

Cranston wrote: 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.

Thanks for the elaboration Tom.

Sorry, I didn't know what was going on, on the other side. The Mind Flayer was on the other side and it sounds like the "trying to get in the water but being on the shore" was something on the other side as well (I don't recall that at all).

However, those swallowed by the Purple Worm could still attack (from within) so that should not have affected his opportunities to slide.

It is sounding like he was getting hit a lot (and "hindered") on one side and then when he switched to the other side, he was getting hit as well (because in the chaos of combat, there currently isn't a good mechanism to combat states to the other DM). It is definitely something I can look into for the future!

TJRat wrote: I don't for a second think our philosophy is so 'drastically different.' Quit overdramatizing. You can't believe that we went to the trouble of buying grind tickets with the intent of being unhappy, do you? Yes, it's obvious you try to make it fun for those who enjoy the unexpected challenge. Keep trying, stop worrying about people liking you.

Just advertise grind properly. It's a direct competitive challenge versus a situation populated by monsters who are fully integrated and react in ways you may not expect. One thing you can expect - the monsters (and by extension the DM) will do everything he/she can to kill you.

'Hello. My name is incognito. You killed my father. Prepare to die!'

Thanks!

You know, maybe you can help me rewrite the description this year (for either the event or the different difficulty levels)!

Monster vulnerabilities can be determined by Bardic Lore (which most Bards didn't bother to do).

And because all of the monsters are bona fide D&D monsters, those with some knowledge of D&D monster lore do have some general knowledge of monster abilities, attacks, and vulnerabilities

This is a blessing and a curse for me. As the bard I'm supposed to learn this via the lore or know it out right. Well I happen to know most of this out right. Where I fail horribly as a bard is telling MY PARTY about it all. LOL I do forget that they don't have the monster manuals mostly memorized.


I thought that the "attacking the stats" was a clever challenge. Once I've used in the past as a DM for table top.
...now if I see any fire-shielded or magic immune dire striges I'm calling shenanigans.

Being "picked on" or "focused on" I think is part of the fun and challenge. It means you built your character well enough to be perceived as a threat. The trick I find is how you can counter the threat you generate. I personally have several solutions, but bards are handy like that.

Incognito wrote: My personal philosophy (in life and in TD) is that a challenging victory (or even a noble defeat) is far more satisfying than an easy win.

But I do recognize that some people prefer other things, such as easily stomping the opposition or one turn killing the monsters. The challenge level of Grind is not designed for this psychographic group (except maybe Normal level).

In the past there have been TD veterans who did not like Grind because they felt that with their tokens, they "deserved to win." Within the DDA, I know that Bridget and Jason are not fond of Grind. And while the late JimC did play Grind, he was unhappy when his character (with an overpowered Artifact) was not able to single-handedly win the adventure. Back in WYC 2014, his Grind group ended up losing (ran out of time), mainly because of a lack of teamwork.

TJRat, I am saddened that you and your friends did not have a good time at Grind this year. While I readily admit there are things that can be improved for next year, I also get the feeling that we may have differing philosophies on the nature of "fun" and "challenging." I do hope that you give Grind another try in the future, but I understand if you do not.

No, our philosophies aren't that different. Having competed in national level competitions since I was 13, I expect I'm more inured to challenge than many. I believe that you may get less flak if you advertise the different nature of grind.

I personally had a good time, even after you nerfed all my abilities without explanation. I just couldn't get my footing between healing party members and rolling no less than eight saving throws for you. Things fell apart for me after that when the adventure seemed to dissolve around us.

I completely missed it was a curse I had 3 or 4 remove curses.