It Is Easy To Kill The Party

I would like to see how players competing against each other worked in game, but I don’t think it does. How does that competition improve cooperation inside the party? Again I would like for someone to show me how well that works. Perhaps the worlds that people play in are not that dangerous, and so players ‘up the ante’ by competing with themselves? I don’t know. On the other hand I have spoken against competition in D&D before, where players compete against the DM or vice versa. Competing in this greater arena seems like total folly. It suggests to me that the people at the table are young, or acting young.

My context for game is that of adults playing the game, so forgive me if you actually are young and I am sounding critical. Adults shouldn’t use the game to ‘recapture their youths,’ at least not in a long-term, healthy game. The first and best example of this aberrant behavior is the immature DM making the game harder because he or she is upset at what the players are doing. I am not just talking about anger here.

The DM made this ulta-cool adventure, with neat NPCs, fascinating traps and unique bad guys, the lead-up to which being a great story in itself. However, the players don’t want to pursue the leads or engage with the story. This week they would rather do something easy and spontaneous. The DM doesn’t necessarily get angry at this, but is damn-well going to make whatever the players want to do really hard and dangerous. This is what I am talking about. The DM here is not able to step back but has to ramp it up, because the players just are not playing right. They are not doing what the DM wants them to do, and so, they will pay.

Perhaps, alternatively, the DM feels that the players just are not smart enough in a given situation and so deserve to be punished. Now think about that. The DM has taken time to craft something he or she thinks is really clever. The players miss some aspect of the DM’s cleverness. Therefore, the characters deserve whatever negative fate they get. Let’s say in this instance that half of the party is lost. Who here wants to hear the DM go on about how dumb the players were? Who here wants their DM to emphasize the player’s shortcomings, because their thinking didn’t match up to the DM’s? Don’t do that crap.

If the party is low leveled, and an area near their location on the map is full of giant dinosaurs, then the proper thing for the DM to do is to make the dinosaur area sound as dangerous as it surely is. The players would deserve to lose their characters if they decided to fight these massive beasts, all good. But note the difference in thinking. The danger of the situation is made clear by the DM. There is nothing for the players to figure out except the obvious. If the DM was angry at the way his or her players have chosen to play then there is still NO reason to hold back these danger signs. That would be the same as attacking the low-leveled party on the road with an ancient Red Dragon. There is no good place for it in a healthy game.

Now perhaps your game isn’t so healthy. Perhaps your players are playing poorly. I am not talking about bad rolls or even players being disconnected from what’s happening at the table. I am talking about players who have lost the reason to care anymore. I am talking about jaded players, and players who in all honesty would rather be doing something else. These situations are much better handled outside of the game. Talk to players as a group or individually. If someone is going through a hard time then that should be understood, at least by the DM. If there are personality issues between players then that should be handled publically. The game isn’t just for the game. In role-playing, more than in any other kind of game, relationships matter. Arbitrary actions or acts out of frustration or anger need to receive a mature response.

David Prowse: RIP

Here is a picture of him in one of hig greatest masked roles: Doctor Who "The Time Monster" (1972).

Dumb Them Down

As a DM, I have done it. You have done it. Published Adventure Modules employ it. And it is awful. By whatever means your party, the one that you DM, has discovered a powerful undead creature residing at the top of a tower. The party has several dangerous encounters before meeting this foe. Perhaps they are heavily damaged. Perhaps their spells are used up. Nevertheless, you know that a Lich awaits them. What do you as the Dungeon Master do?

What I have seen in published content are some of the most pathetic spell lists for a magic-using big bad. What sense is it to give Monster Summoning IV, Continual Light and Dispel Magic as the Lich's main offensive spells? Well, you don't want to kill the party right? Or even when reasonably dangerous spells are available to the monster, you will NERF the list. "Aha! I will slay you all with my most powerful Flame Arrow!"

A Lich is an extreme example. But still, if the party is 1st - 3rd level, then you must not diminish the 10th level MU that they want to kill. Several of the spells a 10th level caster would often seek to have would slay the entire party of low-leveled fools. You need to be fair with that caster. By example, the caster wants to stay alive and is likely smart enough to know that people are going to come kill him or her for the evil that they are doing. The caster is likely to seek dangerous spells to employ. For the love of the game, be fair to your villain.

Think too how boring your game will be if you weaken your monsters. Who would ever like a Star Wars movie where Darth Vader is about to give the killing blow with his Light Saber, only to have the weapon fizzle out at the last second, giving the hero time to save the day. That would suck. And if you as DM are creating content designed to weaken your baddies, your game will suck. And if you do it regularly, your players may get only more and more aggressive, as they implore you for an actual risky fight. And that is only if they don't quit your game, which seems more likely.

This is more of a rant. It does show my frustration with this kind of play. It's better to be smarter with your baddies, so that the fights will be appropriate, instead of throwing an ancient Red Dragon at the party, which has no Breath Weapon, wings or spells.

The Fundamental

Because you won't find this article in the forward of every rule sourcebook out there, I re-post its brilliance here: You really need to read that.

It Amazes Me

I continue to be amazed how much company-made D&D materials are not geared toward adults. There is a wide variety of Hasbro games that are made for an adult audience; so it's possible for the company that fundamentally owns D&D to gear aspects of it toward adults. Even Wizards of the Coast have games that are more mature, if not as much as its parent company. It would be nice if they took us, the original fans of the game seriously. Their attitude seems to reflect that of our modern age, where new Star Wars and Star Trek productions disrespect the original product that we loved so much. This trend ignores customers who actually have disposable income.

I am blessed that I don't need them. I am blessed to have people who encouraged me to think for myself. I am blessed to find inspiration in a great many things not produced for D&D. I wish the production value was not found in helping me relive my childhood. I wish the game was not associated with immature things, as if I were deficient because I still play D&D in my fifties. I wish... But in the end, I will not get angry over it.

Who Makes the Rule?

I don't like this video at all. I am a baseball fan, and this video is pretty terrible. That said, it does bring up an interesting point, or at least a subject to discuss for D&D. What is a good way to make rules when an issue comes up in game? The player(s) wants a ruling to go one way (represented by the hitter in the video), and the DM (represented by the pitcher) wants it another. The pitcher could also represent another player at the table and not the DM. What is the best way to solve those issues? The umpire in the video seems to go back and forth, and takes several minutes but has no real power to make rules. The MLB, whatever their process is, made a decision following the game. What's interesting is what input was listened to and respected during the actual game.

A player or myself might notice something about a spell or an item that begs questions. How does something work with respect to a particular situation? Does a full strength Cube of Force allow for sufficient oxygen? You get the idea. Around my table, we discuss it as a group. Players who have opinions attempt to relay their opinions. The DM does as well. The best argument tends to win, and a rule is made. This process does not necessarily take context into account, and is admittedly informal. But what it is not is the DM getting his or her way all the time.

Okay, you are a long-time DM. Your players are brand new. I would hope that the players would have more than a little respect for decisions the DM makes. Surely the DM has come across problems before and ruled with some wisdom. That assumption is unwarranted, perhaps, but we can see situations where the new players shouldn't be deciding. On the other hand, as I think aloud, a new DM running with experienced players should not be quick to judge against them.

I am not discussing DM authority here. That needs to be in place, just as an umpire still has some authority in baseball. The process for making rules at the table should be open. As much time as needed should be made. Perhaps a situation allows for greater contemplation. Maybe everyone around the table could go home at the end of the session and think about the decision during the week. Openness is the theme, that and respect.

I am also not talking about problem players who might use argument to ruin a session. If you are not mature enough to abide by a rule, then perhaps you need to grow up a bit before you play with me. I have unpopular "stun" rules in my game, but my players have accepted the fact.

So, don't be an autocrat. While your players certainly have a lot of desires for their characters, and would, perhaps, choose an easy path for character advancement, their input can also be very fair and thoughtful. We can not assume that good players are always competing with the DM for their own advantage. Listen to your players. Do it today.

Not enough to sway you? Well then there is this better written piece.

Marlaya's Bio - Brief (Spoilers for Conversion)

I put a video together that gives a brief bio of my book's main character. My book is Conversion, by the way, a Dark, Sword & Sorcery novel with lots of sex and violence. I used Squirlz morphing software to make the video, which was fun. This video is subtle, perhaps too subtle but it is my first real attempt.

Here's the Link to the video. There are spoilers.

Not All The Time

Recently my players spent an hour preparing for a situation that never happened. They were on a cog, sailing on the Great Sea, in my world. As they were in a "sea lane" they expected to intercept another ship teaming with Duergar slaves and their Drow captain. They new this other ship was about a day behind them at worst. So, knowing the size and make of the other ship, the players planned out the encounter as best as they could.

Let me say, as a DM, that it does my heart good to see my players cooperate to this degree. Each of them stated what they planned to do and how they would do it. The devil in the details is what took them the hour. How to get there as a cohesive team? Who would face the captain and what "buffs" would they need? What spells would work best in the confined space? Why not just blow up the other ship? Oh, because they wanted it to transport slaves. It was a pleasure to see them work this all out.

They did overlook a detail presented earlier, however. In passing, they heard that the other Drow ships would be making another stop. This would have them take a coastal track instead of traveling the sea lane. I could have re-stated this detail, to save them the time, but I feel it is more important to adhere to the reality of the situation. It is important to not micro-manage the players in this way. I have stated before that my players are adults.

You might be saying that I should have either intervened. to save my players the disappointment of not being able to use their preparation, or that I should have given them their desired fight. If you think that, then I think you are wrong. Remember that I am not there to provide them everything they want. I am not there to provide them a fun time. We are all there because the game is fun and because we are good people doing a fun thing. We are dealing with the successes, failures, celebrations and disappointments that the game causes. It is important to give the world, and the monsters, their due.

The Player Competes

I find that I make in-game things harder for players who choose to compete. I am not so much talking about players who compete against other players, as a playing style, but those players who compete against the DM. Let me be clear, I am not discussing character versus character, or player versus player, those disastrous attitudes will play themselves out. But when a player competes against the DM, then that is the wrong way to play, and vice versa. To use what you know about an actual person to gain a benefit in this game is not appropriate.
This is confusing so let me give an example. One of my failings as DM is that I do not memorize things very well. I do not have the majority of the Players Handbook memorized. So when a character uses a spell that I am not familiar with, I count on them to use the spell as it is written and/or intended. Additionally, if there is a vague or confusing aspect to a spell* the player should bring it up at the time of use. Then we can discuss it openly, and get a clearer understanding of the effects, the very details of the spell.
Sounds good right? Well, in this example, imagine a player using only the aspects of a spell that he or she likes. The spell the character casts will kill all the monsters, but the player leaves out the fact that the monsters get a saving throw. A DM would ask if there is a save, but let’s say that the player says that there is no save. A DM that trusts his player will be fine with that. They can all celebrate together that all the monsters were defeated. What a great use of that awesome spell! You can see the problem here. The player will repeatedly get the advantage of using the spell.
This problem is magnified tenfold when the missing aspect of the spell is then used by that same player. A monster uses the powerful spell against the characters, and the trusted player notifies the DM that there is a saving throw. How should a DM respond to this? Should the DM who recognizes the inconsistency say nothing? Perhaps the DM doesn’t want to upset his players or confront people about their, shall we say, convenient play. Or should the DM risk the anger and the upset and point directly at the heart of the matter?
Returning to my original point, this is a clear example of a player competing with the DM. The player may know full well the limitations of his or her DM, and may take advantage. The problems and inconsistencies always arise however, so it is better to not compete. It may not look like competition, but it sure seems to hold the same qualities. If I can better my situation because I know how a person will react, especially if that person could be seen as an adversary, then how is it not competing?
Moreover, D&D is hardly a good game for people to compete in. If D&D is being played well, then the in-game action is more than enough competition. The forces of evil coming down the mountain to slay the characters should be a desperate fight. Characters fighting each other only make the evil forces literally more victorious. The DM should not go easy on the player characters because they choose to fight each other.


* A failure of 1st Edition D&D is that aspects of many spells are detailed in both the Players Handbook and the Dungeon Masters Guide. Thus, a player could go by the understanding in the one book but not even know about the spell details in the other book. I think the original intent was to have the DM surprise the player with an unexpected result. It allows for “gotcha” moments, which are philosophically terrible. They encourage competition between the players and the DM.