Am I a bad DM? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I a bad DM? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
bobotheguy
01-27-08, 03:55 AM So i just got done with an online game I was DMing. There were two encounters. One against a Greater Flame Snake (Fiendish Folio pg 75) and a Pyroclastic Dragon (Draconomicon pg 183)

There were supposed to be 5 members of 15th lvl, but 2 didnt show, including the cleric.

During the fight with the snake, I played the monster as best I could, but because there were only 3 players, they were in a perilous situation amost the whole time.

Same thing with the Dragon.

My question, am I a bad DM is im reluctant to let my PC's Die?

During the fight with the snake, the sorceror (swift Blade) was swallowed whole. In order to escape he had to do 20 slash damage to the inside. the max he could do was 15. So I dropped the 20 to a 15 and he escaped (this was without him knowing)

Now, during the fight with the Dragon, I had 2 problems. See, Pyroclastic dragons have 2 breath weapons. one is a cone that is half fire and half negative energy. the other, is a save-or-die line of disentegrate. Not the spell, but just a save or die line. the fort DC? 28.

Both the archer and sorcerer (swift Blade) failed their fort saves. We had a little talk, and I told them it was save or die. but i caved and let them have damage based on the disentegrate spell.

In another instance, the fighter, a duskblade who channels Vampiric Touch through his Spiked Chain, thus giving him temp HP above his own, fell into the range of a full attack of the dragon. 1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, and a tail slap.

Both the wings Criticaled...

Thus, the dragon dealt 176 damage, and the fighter had 138, including his temps from Vampiric Touch. I then "forgot" that its STR mod was one lower than I entered into the dice command, so I redid it and he only took 147. making him at -9

I mean sure, at one end it was just bad luck on the rolls, and having what i feel is a broken monster, but on the other, i really wonder if Im a bad DM b/c Im reluctant to let my PC's Die.

In another campaign the guy who played the archer in this confronted me after I saved a PC and told me he didnt really like it all that much, made it less realistic and gave the other PCs a sense of security.

And before your chastize me for putting stronger monsters than they can handle, all my players are extremly advanced in character creation, and when I give them access to any D&D book, I expect to be ready for some stink cheese.

Sure, maybe if the cleric was there itd have been easier, but I still need to ask if this is a sign of a bad DM

Thanks,

Bobo
james_gaines
01-27-08, 04:03 AM I have a question:

During the flame snake encounter you said you fudged the rolls without the PC's knowledge. Did they win? And if they did, were they satisfied with it (that is, did they know something was up or did they have fun?)

Also, the dragon: How did it end? I presume they all died. I don't know about this one.

You don't sound like a bad DM, just that you had a bad session.
bobotheguy
01-27-08, 04:08 AM During the Snake encounter, they did not know of my fudge of the stats, and they were content they lived and got some cool treasure. In all, it was a random encounter.

The dragon, however, was centered around guarding the entrance to a cave the PCs needed to go into.

In the end, none of the PC's died, they slew the dragon and enjoyed a triple standard treasure

However, i think that towards the end of the encounter they just kinda wanted to get over with it. hell its early in the morning here.

The reason I asked if I was a bad DM was b/c although this was supposed to have been a TPK, no one died
Dragonsblood
01-27-08, 04:10 AM I don't let PCs disappear when the player is gone for this very reason. When 1 player doesn't show, his PC is controlled by one of the other players. When 2 players cancel, I postpone the game. This way I can plan encounters that are always appropriate for the PCs.
bobotheguy
01-27-08, 04:14 AM The main thing, was that the two guys blew off the session for something or another. One tried to lie to me and told me he had work, of which he works at a friggin driving range...

So i guess I continued the adventure to spite their not showing up, but I also toned down the encounters to be less tougher than if those 2 guys showed.

I couldnt have had someone play another missing PC, b/c no one had a copy of their character sheets
james_gaines
01-27-08, 04:19 AM Well, I guess it all depends on whether the characters would have been content with rerolling. If they were attached to their characters I'd say just log it in as a bad session and plan a new one. If they would have been fine with a glorious, dragon-filled death, then maybe you could've let them die. I'm guessing that they'd rather have one unrealistic encounter than having to reroll.

Edit: To make a bad decision in order to spite the characters was probably the only bad move you made, everything else was damage control.
bobotheguy
01-27-08, 04:26 AM Thanks a lot James, and Dragonsblood. Youve been a great help.

Next time, theyre going through the thieves guild Trap test, so I get to have fun trying to give CRs and ELs to traps... (although having 14 illusionary Beholders and one real Hive Mother and 2 spell turrents should be... interesting)
squidyak
01-27-08, 12:15 PM I think every dm's had sessions like that. I fudge rolls for players all the time, I just never let them know it. As for the crits, I'm assuming that you didn't actually "forget." I would have let him die, because that's the risk characters take. It's a life of danger they want, so it's what they get. I've seen characters get splattered by one lucky blow in a throw away side-trek before, and I'll see it again. I'll have monsters die before being out of hit points (and to be perfectly honest there have been many times that there weren't any hit points. They just fall down at the appropriately dramatic moment), but I don't fudge critical hits or fumbled saves. Sorry, there should still be danger.

But that's just my style. If you run differently it doesn't make you a bad DM. Did your players have fun? That's the only measure that really counts.
wizarddog
01-27-08, 02:24 PM The reason I asked if I was a bad DM was b/c although this was supposed to have been a TPK, no one died

I find this statement a little weird. Did you plan for this to be TPK, or did you believe that with 2 members missing, it would be a TPK?:confused:
Divokej
01-27-08, 02:34 PM I reccomend the next time a character would die, let it. I feel that the DM's job in a fight is to challenge the players and make it feel like there is a possibility of death. The possibility of death should be as small as, well, possible. But, if that small chance kills a character the character should die. Of course, I always have a way for the character that died to continue playing, if that is what the player wants to do. For instance, one of my characters is now an intelligent sword. She died and her god reincarnated her as a sword. (It's a good of protection, kind of ironic since the prophet died but now she's protected as a sword.)
Xiuhcoatl
01-27-08, 02:37 PM Honestly, having all party members survive against a Pyroclastic Dragon of near-equal CR is quite a feat. Having a few die against it is not surprising. With the breath weapon feats, it is nearly unstoppable...
Thaliost
01-27-08, 03:12 PM Every DM should've experienced this, and then they grow up with their PC's. So just let them die, and when they make new characters, let them know that some heroes sacrificed themselves to weaken the villain, and now the fate of the world is in their hands.
Lord_Varos
01-27-08, 03:54 PM We, here, can't tell you the answer to that question. There are very few situations where there is a clear "bad DM" without knowing what your group likes.

There is one question you have to ask yourself: Would they have been happier with a TPK? Or, "Would the party have felt better about the session on the whole if they had all died, or did they have more fun doing it this way?"

By the by, it's difficult to take your question, "Am I a bad DM?" too seriously when you tell us at the end of your post that we should not chastise you.
Dragonsblood
01-27-08, 04:19 PM The main thing, was that the two guys blew off the session for something or another. One tried to lie to me and told me he had work, of which he works at a friggin driving range...

So i guess I continued the adventure to spite their not showing up, but I also toned down the encounters to be less tougher than if those 2 guys showed.

I couldnt have had someone play another missing PC, b/c no one had a copy of their character sheets

Require everyone to give you a copy of their character sheet. I don't play online so I can't give you a link to an interactive version, but I'm sure they exist. If not, they should tell you what they change every level so you can keep hard copies. It's also a good way to deter cheating and check for mistakes (I tend to find tons of mistakes on my group's PCs).
I_roll_ones
01-27-08, 05:13 PM I'm not your players, but I think that unless they really object, this doesn't even come close. Of course, their opinion trumps mine, but I doubt this comes close for many people.

However, ask your PC's if they are okay if you fudge the dice for the NEXT encounter. Bad reaction, let them die. Good reaction, or they are VERY attached to their characters, go ahead. Also, how much RP are you doing? A death is hard to RP, and introducing a new character and thinking of a well developed one can be hard. If it's just hack and slash, that's not as much of an issue.

However, if they can't tell, don't bother telling them. If you adjust to suit them, then you should just be able to sweep this incident under the table. Through, in the future I would prepare encounters that can be reduced if less PC's show up. When you think about it, sending PC's against something they can't defeat is annoying, so a bit of fudging can be ignored.

And here is an online character sheet thingy:
http://www.roguepenguin.com/castellar/profiler/

Even does some of the calculations for you.
Mock26
01-27-08, 09:14 PM Given that 40% of the characters weren't there you were running 3 characters through an encounter that was in all likelihood to tough for them. I normally am of the belief that characters have to sink or swim (live or die) on their own, but I will fudge in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are primarily when I have made an encounter that is far too tough for them or far too easy for them, and when they are short handed. In the first two cases I am only fudging because somewhere along the line I made a mistake, so I am correcting it on the spot. I don't see anything wrong with that. In the third example I am fudging because the encounters are now unbalanced due to players being absent from the group. To me it is only fair that the encounters be adjusted to be of a more appropriate challenge to them. This is often easier to accomplish when there are multiple monsters. When it is a single monster, it can be a bit more challenging to adjust the encounter on the spot. Additionally, if you don't know the players and their characters all that well it can be difficult to properly prepare suitable encounters for them. In those examples I don't see anyting wrong with fudging the dice.

If, however, the dice are simply going against the players in a properly "balanced" encounter then I don't pull my punches. Nor will I pull my punches if the group gets in over their head because they are being stupid, stubborn, or whatever other reason (I once had a group of 5th-6th level characters who wanted to go hunt a dragon, a very old and ancient dragon who's name they found in a book. I tried to talk them out of it (in the game, of course, with lots of dire warnings, but they ignored it and they all died.).

If, however, you're just being soft on the players, I would say, "Don't." You are doing them a huge disservice by pulling punches in this manner. I also think that it detracts from the game. If the players can't handle their characters dying then they probably shouldn't be playing the game and why should their shortcomings affect you or others at the table?
bobotheguy
01-28-08, 01:54 AM Wizarddog: It wasnt intended to be a TPK, but if I didnt change the breath weapon to the spell disentegreate and fudge the things i fudged, it would have been. No doubt in my mind

Thaliost: somehow, fighting a random dragon in the elemental plane of fire doesnt scream glory and rememberance, but i do understand what it is you are saying.

Lord_Varos: I think that considering this was our first session of the campaign, having a TPK would have deterred people from returning for the next session haha and yes, forgive my oxymoron

Dragonsblood: Oh i did tell them that, and about an hour before the session i called the missing guys to let them know I was coming to get their character sheets (they live close enough) and that was when i learned of their absense

Thank you to everyone for your responses, theyve been helpful. The main thing was that i had this whole "bad DM" feeling right after the session. But having read through the posts, and using logic, the missing players and bad dice rolls were just factors that were beyond my control.

Bobo
qki
01-28-08, 04:33 AM i think that by "bad dm" you mean too soft.

In that case - there's nothing wrong in pulling the PCs butts out of the fire by faking some rolls (especially if they play well, but just can't seem to roll higher than 11, and the monsters are on a roll with criticals every other attack).

That is greatly different to having someone show up and literally save the party. Or by presenting them with an "auto-win" item that ends a dangerous encounter without any kind of interaction from the PCs.

What You should remember, is that things MAY be difficult (or easy) for the players, but they should be fair. And fair does not allways mean going by the book ("hey, i know you're level 15, but that goblin beat you fair and square")

The rules are there, just so you can let the dice decide (otherwise it would be entirely up to the DM if the party lives or dies, and that can meke the players feel they have no influence or control of their fate).
Cuindless
01-28-08, 04:54 AM First, let me say that by even asking this question you are a step above most DMs. Most DMs I've met have the mentality that they can't be wrong and so don't stop to question whether or not they're being a bad DM. I personally feel that I never ran a good game until I started asking myself after every session how I could have done it better.

Which leads me to my next point: The role of the DM.

The Dungeon Master has several roles. In one role, he acts as the universe. He serves as the rules arbiter, the referee, the storyteller and the supreme deity. In this role, the DMs job is to insure that the game world is consistent. If rules shift arbitrarily that's tantamount to the physics of the universe changing on a whim. It will probably drive the PCs mad.

In another role, he facilitates gameplay. Without the DM, the players could be telling stories to one another or playing chess or doing 1000 other things. The DM provides plot hooks, adventures, setting and ideas. He keeps everyone on track and tries to create an atmosphere that's conducive to gaming.

This leads to what I consider to be the ultimate role of the Dungeon Master: To make sure the players have fun. This can be tricky. Some DMs think that the players want a challenge, so they create an insanely difficult adventure and can't understand why their players whine when it's a TPK. Others think that their players want treasure and XP, so they create a monty haul campaign and can't understand why their players start yawning around 58th level (or 3 game sessions....).

So, to answer your post in a nutshell, none of us can answer the question you asked. Only your players can. Next game session, talk to them and ask how they felt about last game session. Was it fun? Did they enjoy themselves? Are any of them peeved about what happened? Why? Talk it out. If you think you might be a bad DM, then maybe the players have grievances they just didn't want to voice. If they all say there's no problem and you're a great DM, then carry on as you have.

And by the way: Good luck!
wonlee76
01-28-08, 11:46 AM Fudging and changing stats of monsters are not horrible sins to commit as a DM. It depends on how sneaky you are and whether the players are aware of your fudging.

Now generally, I only start fudging to avoid a TPK since its a bit of a hassle to "reboot" a campaign. I will not fudge just to save 1 PC from death otherwise I will have to save all PCs from death.
Another_Poet
01-28-08, 12:26 PM I don't think the problem is the fudging. I think the problem is only letting 3 characters go into battle.

If you have a 5-person party and only 3 players show up, you still have a 5 person party. You as a DM have many options:

1) You run the extra characters
2) Some players run two characters (this is what I do)
3) In an online game, just wait for the missing players to get around to posting or, better yet, have them send you their intended actions before they take off for a day or two.

But one thing you shouldn't do is have the extra characters disappear or walk around in a mindless daze. For OOC reasosn this is a bad idea (because it unbalances the game as you found out) and IC it is bad (because it makes no sense that these trusted companions disappear just before a great battle and then come back later like nothing happened).

So, are you a bad DM? No. Should you revise your policy on what happens when a player can't make it? HECK YES.

:)

ap
KruniacZio
01-28-08, 01:12 PM I DM AD&D like I DM Cyberpunk 2020. Players get used to character creation, really quickly.

I'm not saying we lose a PC every session, but there arent any fudges (unless im tired and make a mistake :P ).

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
bobotheguy 01-27-08, 03:55 AM	So i just got done with an online game I was DMing. There were two encounters. One against a Greater Flame Snake (Fiendish Folio pg 75) and a Pyroclastic Dragon (Draconomicon pg 183) There were supposed to be 5 members of 15th lvl, but 2 didnt show, including the cleric. During the fight with the snake, I played the monster as best I could, but because there were only 3 players, they were in a perilous situation amost the whole time. Same thing with the Dragon. My question, am I a bad DM is im reluctant to let my PC's Die? During the fight with the snake, the sorceror (swift Blade) was swallowed whole. In order to escape he had to do 20 slash damage to the inside. the max he could do was 15. So I dropped the 20 to a 15 and he escaped (this was without him knowing) Now, during the fight with the Dragon, I had 2 problems. See, Pyroclastic dragons have 2 breath weapons. one is a cone that is half fire and half negative energy. the other, is a save-or-die line of disentegrate. Not the spell, but just a save or die line. the fort DC? 28. Both the archer and sorcerer (swift Blade) failed their fort saves. We had a little talk, and I told them it was save or die. but i caved and let them have damage based on the disentegrate spell. In another instance, the fighter, a duskblade who channels Vampiric Touch through his Spiked Chain, thus giving him temp HP above his own, fell into the range of a full attack of the dragon. 1 bite, 2 claws, 2 wings, and a tail slap. Both the wings Criticaled... Thus, the dragon dealt 176 damage, and the fighter had 138, including his temps from Vampiric Touch. I then "forgot" that its STR mod was one lower than I entered into the dice command, so I redid it and he only took 147. making him at -9 I mean sure, at one end it was just bad luck on the rolls, and having what i feel is a broken monster, but on the other, i really wonder if Im a bad DM b/c Im reluctant to let my PC's Die. In another campaign the guy who played the archer in this confronted me after I saved a PC and told me he didnt really like it all that much, made it less realistic and gave the other PCs a sense of security. And before your chastize me for putting stronger monsters than they can handle, all my players are extremly advanced in character creation, and when I give them access to any D&D book, I expect to be ready for some stink cheese. Sure, maybe if the cleric was there itd have been easier, but I still need to ask if this is a sign of a bad DM Thanks, Bobo
james_gaines 01-27-08, 04:03 AM	I have a question: During the flame snake encounter you said you fudged the rolls without the PC's knowledge. Did they win? And if they did, were they satisfied with it (that is, did they know something was up or did they have fun?) Also, the dragon: How did it end? I presume they all died. I don't know about this one. You don't sound like a bad DM, just that you had a bad session.
bobotheguy 01-27-08, 04:08 AM	During the Snake encounter, they did not know of my fudge of the stats, and they were content they lived and got some cool treasure. In all, it was a random encounter. The dragon, however, was centered around guarding the entrance to a cave the PCs needed to go into. In the end, none of the PC's died, they slew the dragon and enjoyed a triple standard treasure However, i think that towards the end of the encounter they just kinda wanted to get over with it. hell its early in the morning here. The reason I asked if I was a bad DM was b/c although this was supposed to have been a TPK, no one died
Dragonsblood 01-27-08, 04:10 AM	I don't let PCs disappear when the player is gone for this very reason. When 1 player doesn't show, his PC is controlled by one of the other players. When 2 players cancel, I postpone the game. This way I can plan encounters that are always appropriate for the PCs.
bobotheguy 01-27-08, 04:14 AM	The main thing, was that the two guys blew off the session for something or another. One tried to lie to me and told me he had work, of which he works at a friggin driving range... So i guess I continued the adventure to spite their not showing up, but I also toned down the encounters to be less tougher than if those 2 guys showed. I couldnt have had someone play another missing PC, b/c no one had a copy of their character sheets
james_gaines 01-27-08, 04:19 AM	Well, I guess it all depends on whether the characters would have been content with rerolling. If they were attached to their characters I'd say just log it in as a bad session and plan a new one. If they would have been fine with a glorious, dragon-filled death, then maybe you could've let them die. I'm guessing that they'd rather have one unrealistic encounter than having to reroll. Edit: To make a bad decision in order to spite the characters was probably the only bad move you made, everything else was damage control.
bobotheguy 01-27-08, 04:26 AM	Thanks a lot James, and Dragonsblood. Youve been a great help. Next time, theyre going through the thieves guild Trap test, so I get to have fun trying to give CRs and ELs to traps... (although having 14 illusionary Beholders and one real Hive Mother and 2 spell turrents should be... interesting)
squidyak 01-27-08, 12:15 PM	I think every dm's had sessions like that. I fudge rolls for players all the time, I just never let them know it. As for the crits, I'm assuming that you didn't actually "forget." I would have let him die, because that's the risk characters take. It's a life of danger they want, so it's what they get. I've seen characters get splattered by one lucky blow in a throw away side-trek before, and I'll see it again. I'll have monsters die before being out of hit points (and to be perfectly honest there have been many times that there weren't any hit points. They just fall down at the appropriately dramatic moment), but I don't fudge critical hits or fumbled saves. Sorry, there should still be danger. But that's just my style. If you run differently it doesn't make you a bad DM. Did your players have fun? That's the only measure that really counts.
wizarddog 01-27-08, 02:24 PM	The reason I asked if I was a bad DM was b/c although this was supposed to have been a TPK, no one died I find this statement a little weird. Did you plan for this to be TPK, or did you believe that with 2 members missing, it would be a TPK?:confused:
Divokej 01-27-08, 02:34 PM	I reccomend the next time a character would die, let it. I feel that the DM's job in a fight is to challenge the players and make it feel like there is a possibility of death. The possibility of death should be as small as, well, possible. But, if that small chance kills a character the character should die. Of course, I always have a way for the character that died to continue playing, if that is what the player wants to do. For instance, one of my characters is now an intelligent sword. She died and her god reincarnated her as a sword. (It's a good of protection, kind of ironic since the prophet died but now she's protected as a sword.)
Xiuhcoatl 01-27-08, 02:37 PM	Honestly, having all party members survive against a Pyroclastic Dragon of near-equal CR is quite a feat. Having a few die against it is not surprising. With the breath weapon feats, it is nearly unstoppable...
Thaliost 01-27-08, 03:12 PM	Every DM should've experienced this, and then they grow up with their PC's. So just let them die, and when they make new characters, let them know that some heroes sacrificed themselves to weaken the villain, and now the fate of the world is in their hands.
Lord_Varos 01-27-08, 03:54 PM	We, here, can't tell you the answer to that question. There are very few situations where there is a clear "bad DM" without knowing what your group likes. There is one question you have to ask yourself: Would they have been happier with a TPK? Or, "Would the party have felt better about the session on the whole if they had all died, or did they have more fun doing it this way?" By the by, it's difficult to take your question, "Am I a bad DM?" too seriously when you tell us at the end of your post that we should not chastise you.
Dragonsblood 01-27-08, 04:19 PM	The main thing, was that the two guys blew off the session for something or another. One tried to lie to me and told me he had work, of which he works at a friggin driving range... So i guess I continued the adventure to spite their not showing up, but I also toned down the encounters to be less tougher than if those 2 guys showed. I couldnt have had someone play another missing PC, b/c no one had a copy of their character sheets Require everyone to give you a copy of their character sheet. I don't play online so I can't give you a link to an interactive version, but I'm sure they exist. If not, they should tell you what they change every level so you can keep hard copies. It's also a good way to deter cheating and check for mistakes (I tend to find tons of mistakes on my group's PCs).
I_roll_ones 01-27-08, 05:13 PM	I'm not your players, but I think that unless they really object, this doesn't even come close. Of course, their opinion trumps mine, but I doubt this comes close for many people. However, ask your PC's if they are okay if you fudge the dice for the NEXT encounter. Bad reaction, let them die. Good reaction, or they are VERY attached to their characters, go ahead. Also, how much RP are you doing? A death is hard to RP, and introducing a new character and thinking of a well developed one can be hard. If it's just hack and slash, that's not as much of an issue. However, if they can't tell, don't bother telling them. If you adjust to suit them, then you should just be able to sweep this incident under the table. Through, in the future I would prepare encounters that can be reduced if less PC's show up. When you think about it, sending PC's against something they can't defeat is annoying, so a bit of fudging can be ignored. And here is an online character sheet thingy: http://www.roguepenguin.com/castellar/profiler/ Even does some of the calculations for you.
Mock26 01-27-08, 09:14 PM	Given that 40% of the characters weren't there you were running 3 characters through an encounter that was in all likelihood to tough for them. I normally am of the belief that characters have to sink or swim (live or die) on their own, but I will fudge in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are primarily when I have made an encounter that is far too tough for them or far too easy for them, and when they are short handed. In the first two cases I am only fudging because somewhere along the line I made a mistake, so I am correcting it on the spot. I don't see anything wrong with that. In the third example I am fudging because the encounters are now unbalanced due to players being absent from the group. To me it is only fair that the encounters be adjusted to be of a more appropriate challenge to them. This is often easier to accomplish when there are multiple monsters. When it is a single monster, it can be a bit more challenging to adjust the encounter on the spot. Additionally, if you don't know the players and their characters all that well it can be difficult to properly prepare suitable encounters for them. In those examples I don't see anyting wrong with fudging the dice. If, however, the dice are simply going against the players in a properly "balanced" encounter then I don't pull my punches. Nor will I pull my punches if the group gets in over their head because they are being stupid, stubborn, or whatever other reason (I once had a group of 5th-6th level characters who wanted to go hunt a dragon, a very old and ancient dragon who's name they found in a book. I tried to talk them out of it (in the game, of course, with lots of dire warnings, but they ignored it and they all died.). If, however, you're just being soft on the players, I would say, "Don't." You are doing them a huge disservice by pulling punches in this manner. I also think that it detracts from the game. If the players can't handle their characters dying then they probably shouldn't be playing the game and why should their shortcomings affect you or others at the table?
bobotheguy 01-28-08, 01:54 AM	Wizarddog: It wasnt intended to be a TPK, but if I didnt change the breath weapon to the spell disentegreate and fudge the things i fudged, it would have been. No doubt in my mind Thaliost: somehow, fighting a random dragon in the elemental plane of fire doesnt scream glory and rememberance, but i do understand what it is you are saying. Lord_Varos: I think that considering this was our first session of the campaign, having a TPK would have deterred people from returning for the next session haha and yes, forgive my oxymoron Dragonsblood: Oh i did tell them that, and about an hour before the session i called the missing guys to let them know I was coming to get their character sheets (they live close enough) and that was when i learned of their absense Thank you to everyone for your responses, theyve been helpful. The main thing was that i had this whole "bad DM" feeling right after the session. But having read through the posts, and using logic, the missing players and bad dice rolls were just factors that were beyond my control. Bobo
qki 01-28-08, 04:33 AM	i think that by "bad dm" you mean too soft. In that case - there's nothing wrong in pulling the PCs butts out of the fire by faking some rolls (especially if they play well, but just can't seem to roll higher than 11, and the monsters are on a roll with criticals every other attack). That is greatly different to having someone show up and literally save the party. Or by presenting them with an "auto-win" item that ends a dangerous encounter without any kind of interaction from the PCs. What You should remember, is that things MAY be difficult (or easy) for the players, but they should be fair. And fair does not allways mean going by the book ("hey, i know you're level 15, but that goblin beat you fair and square") The rules are there, just so you can let the dice decide (otherwise it would be entirely up to the DM if the party lives or dies, and that can meke the players feel they have no influence or control of their fate).
Cuindless 01-28-08, 04:54 AM	First, let me say that by even asking this question you are a step above most DMs. Most DMs I've met have the mentality that they can't be wrong and so don't stop to question whether or not they're being a bad DM. I personally feel that I never ran a good game until I started asking myself after every session how I could have done it better. Which leads me to my next point: The role of the DM. The Dungeon Master has several roles. In one role, he acts as the universe. He serves as the rules arbiter, the referee, the storyteller and the supreme deity. In this role, the DMs job is to insure that the game world is consistent. If rules shift arbitrarily that's tantamount to the physics of the universe changing on a whim. It will probably drive the PCs mad. In another role, he facilitates gameplay. Without the DM, the players could be telling stories to one another or playing chess or doing 1000 other things. The DM provides plot hooks, adventures, setting and ideas. He keeps everyone on track and tries to create an atmosphere that's conducive to gaming. This leads to what I consider to be the ultimate role of the Dungeon Master: To make sure the players have fun. This can be tricky. Some DMs think that the players want a challenge, so they create an insanely difficult adventure and can't understand why their players whine when it's a TPK. Others think that their players want treasure and XP, so they create a monty haul campaign and can't understand why their players start yawning around 58th level (or 3 game sessions....). So, to answer your post in a nutshell, none of us can answer the question you asked. Only your players can. Next game session, talk to them and ask how they felt about last game session. Was it fun? Did they enjoy themselves? Are any of them peeved about what happened? Why? Talk it out. If you think you might be a bad DM, then maybe the players have grievances they just didn't want to voice. If they all say there's no problem and you're a great DM, then carry on as you have. And by the way: Good luck!
wonlee76 01-28-08, 11:46 AM	Fudging and changing stats of monsters are not horrible sins to commit as a DM. It depends on how sneaky you are and whether the players are aware of your fudging. Now generally, I only start fudging to avoid a TPK since its a bit of a hassle to "reboot" a campaign. I will not fudge just to save 1 PC from death otherwise I will have to save all PCs from death.
Another_Poet 01-28-08, 12:26 PM	I don't think the problem is the fudging. I think the problem is only letting 3 characters go into battle. If you have a 5-person party and only 3 players show up, you still have a 5 person party. You as a DM have many options: 1) You run the extra characters 2) Some players run two characters (this is what I do) 3) In an online game, just wait for the missing players to get around to posting or, better yet, have them send you their intended actions before they take off for a day or two. But one thing you shouldn't do is have the extra characters disappear or walk around in a mindless daze. For OOC reasosn this is a bad idea (because it unbalances the game as you found out) and IC it is bad (because it makes no sense that these trusted companions disappear just before a great battle and then come back later like nothing happened). So, are you a bad DM? No. Should you revise your policy on what happens when a player can't make it? HECK YES. :) ap
KruniacZio 01-28-08, 01:12 PM	I DM AD&D like I DM Cyberpunk 2020. Players get used to character creation, really quickly. I'm not saying we lose a PC every session, but there arent any fudges (unless im tired and make a mistake :P ).