DM vs. player conflict, what to do? [Archive] - Wizards Community

DM vs. player conflict, what to do? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Sareld
02-14-07, 01:29 PM Me and my party may have a problem on our hands, mainly because of our party composition, and we will be TPKed in short order if we dont do something about it. The problem itself is a combination our near total lack of fighting capabilities, and the DMs preference for 'smashy' encounters. We, the players that be, all like a sneaky and machiavellian approach to our problems, while the DM likes to present us problems that can only be solved by taking and dealing great amounts of damage. Before I go on, I should perhaps familiarize you with the party in question:

Atharlan: CG sun elf evoker 6/fire elemental savant 8. Ahtarlan enjoys the benefits of the celestial template, after he helped the son of a high priest of Correllon recover his long lost family moonblade. He is an excellent blaster, but keeps a wide array of utility spells handy too.

Lyssiah: CN moon elf sorceress 10/fatespinner 4. Lyssiah is the the character with the people skills (or in this case, spells) in the party. She has damage spells, but has chosen to boost her DCs of enchantment spells.. She relys on charms and suggestions to get by.

Elisar: CG sun elf cleric with some prestige class. Elisar the son of the high priest of Correllon. He is good in CC, and usually provides summoned creatures to take the worst hits. He is most generous with healing spells, and the owner of a +5 everbright defending longsword of speed. The sword has some magical abilities, and an ego that is hard even for Elisar to keep under control.

Nyphistra: TN moon elf rogue 3/wizard 6/arcane trickster 5. Nyphistra is the partys forward observer, and shes damn good at it. She is perhaps not optimized, but she is regarded to be the most useful character of the lot. She enjoys the shadow template from MotP 3.0, that she obtained when she used a ring of three wishes (one charge left) to ask for 'the ultimate stealth ability'. Her personality emulates Haily from OotS.

Elorell: TN moon elf rouge 3/wizard 6/dread pirate (3.0)3/arcane trickster 2. I am the player of this unoptimized mess. I manage to be useful though, and I am generally a great pirate captain, an ok fighter, and a decent backup caster (as if the party needed that..). I think of him as a bard type character. I furthermore own the partys stronghold, and serves as the party leader.

Now, the problem is that the DM likes to throw is into situations where there is no escape from CC, like glatator fights with no spells allowed, hordes of mindless critters with scent that cant be charmed, negotiated with or shaken off, no matter how well you hide or how far you run. The DM is annoyed with our 'cowardiance', which is the word he uses about our tendency to avoid head on confrontations, and generally tries to kill us and have us return with fighter characters. We like our party though, as we have some great roleplaying going, and because we like cunning plans better than smashing stuff. How do we handle this situation?
Matthew77
02-14-07, 02:23 PM You need to politely tell your DM this :

We, the players that be, all like a sneaky and machiavellian approach to our problems. We like our party though, as we have some great roleplaying going, and because we like cunning plans better than smashing stuff.

Tell him what you like about the campaign (great roleplaying) and what you don't like (feeling trapped into mindless combat).

Hopefully, the DM will be willing to modify the obstacles he presents to the party.
fatal error
02-14-07, 02:27 PM See what we got here is a failure to communicate.

Talk to the DM. DM talks to the Players. Players become combat machines, or the DM becomes an intrigue-running machine, or (get ready for it) you compromise and the DM gets to run a smashy encounter or two, while you guys get to be cowards on occasion as well.
DrakePD
02-14-07, 02:34 PM Yep, Talk to the DM.

Or better yet, move to Florida and I can run a game for you. I like "squishy" Players too :P
FntsyWlkr
02-14-07, 02:38 PM Recently I was offered an opportunity to DM. A player came up to me and said,
- we want to play these characters
- we want the campaign to be like this
- we want the setting to be like this
- we want it to go for this long
I love to DM, but I wasn't interested in this one. Isn't setting everything up almost the opposite version of railroading?Or ... "you have to play this character." When the players insist that the DM play a certian way they are railroading the DM.

But this instance seems a little different ... it seems as if the DM and the players have found themselves on two different side of playing style. Which mean, I believe, that both sides must find a common ground.

Maybe the DM plays a NPC in the troupe that is rough and tumble, maybe one of the players plays a front line fighter ... or maybe ... no compromise and scrap the whole thing?
kelvinaw273
02-14-07, 03:55 PM Well there are a couple of different ways of looking at this:

1) You have an unimaginative DM who prefers combat and cannot be bothered with more sophisticated campaigns.

2) Your DM has found and is exploiting your party weakness.

3) You brought this on yourselves by creating an unballanced party.

Now the best campaigns are always a compromise between what the DM wants to run and the players want to play in. In this case there seems very little common ground.
Sareld
02-14-07, 04:41 PM The guy brought this mess upon himself, by creating a houserule that forbids players to share any kind of information on what kind of characters they want to make before the characters is made. He told us that he wanted all of us to play what we liked best, without having to take the needs of the rest of the party into account. The intention was to create a diffrent style of play, where the party had distinct strengths and weaknesses, opposed to normal when we players plan our paries carefully in advance, and make sure that all of the four 'archetypes' is represented. And that is exactly what we goy; a party entirely without the fighter archetype, which just happened to be the archetype he liked best.

We have all agreed that those of us who dies is raised (because we all love our characters), but will exit play out of fear of dying again. The player of the 'dead' character will then proceed to make a combat druid. Personally I think its rubbish though, when the DM asks the players to shut up and play the hand they are dealt, that DM should be prepared to do the same thing.

I do not own a DMG, but is there any magic items that can summon HP buffers for the party? Like, wands of summon monster? And what would such a wand cost, if it were to summon monsters that were useful for characters of our level?
IceFractal
02-15-07, 12:44 AM Sure, a wand of summon monster could be just the ticket. The cost is (spell level) x (caster level) x 750 gp for a fully charged one. So a Wand of Summon Monster IV (the highest available) would cost 21,000 gp. On the higher end, an Iron Golem would synergize well with the fire savant.

It looks like your party would actually be fine in combat, with judicious use of summoned meat shields - just not melee combat. As for arena duels where magic isn't allowed? Don't enter them. The DM may think you should, but it makes about as much sense as a Barbarian entering a mage-duel.

Really, I guess you'll have to remind your DM that charging into melee isn't what spellcasters like you guys do, and come to some sort of accord.
Keiichi_m
02-15-07, 02:06 AM You party sounds like a party that use's their head and finds interesting ways around encounters instead of just smashing things.

your best solution would be to move to Edmonton, it's nice this time of year... cold but nice, and teach my players how to not just hit things.
FntsyWlkr
02-15-07, 01:45 PM The guy brought this mess upon himself, by creating a houserule that forbids players to share any kind of information on what kind of characters they want to make before the characters is made. He told us that he wanted all of us to play what we liked best, without having to take the needs of the rest of the party into account.

WHAO!
Yeesh! ...

See, I like this style of DMing BUT ... as a DM you have to play to the then generated group. Maybe every-now-and-then you put in an encounter based the weakness of the troupe ... but to exploit that every encounter? And then be upset with the players for uncovering a way around your encounters?

I may have to renig my previous response in light of recent evidence ...
LCD2YOU
02-15-07, 01:54 PM The only thing I have to say is it is just as much the DM's fault as the players. He is working to make their skills and powers pointless so why is he even allowing some of those PrCs? The party wants to play "this way" and don't like the DM's style.

Both are stubborn. The DM and players refuse to yield. Telling a DM what they need to do to appease your characters is just as bad as a railroading DM. This time the players and the DM want to railroad each other.

The DM may be putting you guys in a situation where you'll need to get some meat shields and mash it. It could be that until you guys bend a little he won't bend either.

Both sides MUST compromise.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sareld 02-14-07, 01:29 PM	Me and my party may have a problem on our hands, mainly because of our party composition, and we will be TPKed in short order if we dont do something about it. The problem itself is a combination our near total lack of fighting capabilities, and the DMs preference for 'smashy' encounters. We, the players that be, all like a sneaky and machiavellian approach to our problems, while the DM likes to present us problems that can only be solved by taking and dealing great amounts of damage. Before I go on, I should perhaps familiarize you with the party in question: Atharlan: CG sun elf evoker 6/fire elemental savant 8. Ahtarlan enjoys the benefits of the celestial template, after he helped the son of a high priest of Correllon recover his long lost family moonblade. He is an excellent blaster, but keeps a wide array of utility spells handy too. Lyssiah: CN moon elf sorceress 10/fatespinner 4. Lyssiah is the the character with the people skills (or in this case, spells) in the party. She has damage spells, but has chosen to boost her DCs of enchantment spells.. She relys on charms and suggestions to get by. Elisar: CG sun elf cleric with some prestige class. Elisar the son of the high priest of Correllon. He is good in CC, and usually provides summoned creatures to take the worst hits. He is most generous with healing spells, and the owner of a +5 everbright defending longsword of speed. The sword has some magical abilities, and an ego that is hard even for Elisar to keep under control. Nyphistra: TN moon elf rogue 3/wizard 6/arcane trickster 5. Nyphistra is the partys forward observer, and shes damn good at it. She is perhaps not optimized, but she is regarded to be the most useful character of the lot. She enjoys the shadow template from MotP 3.0, that she obtained when she used a ring of three wishes (one charge left) to ask for 'the ultimate stealth ability'. Her personality emulates Haily from OotS. Elorell: TN moon elf rouge 3/wizard 6/dread pirate (3.0)3/arcane trickster 2. I am the player of this unoptimized mess. I manage to be useful though, and I am generally a great pirate captain, an ok fighter, and a decent backup caster (as if the party needed that..). I think of him as a bard type character. I furthermore own the partys stronghold, and serves as the party leader. Now, the problem is that the DM likes to throw is into situations where there is no escape from CC, like glatator fights with no spells allowed, hordes of mindless critters with scent that cant be charmed, negotiated with or shaken off, no matter how well you hide or how far you run. The DM is annoyed with our 'cowardiance', which is the word he uses about our tendency to avoid head on confrontations, and generally tries to kill us and have us return with fighter characters. We like our party though, as we have some great roleplaying going, and because we like cunning plans better than smashing stuff. How do we handle this situation?
Matthew77 02-14-07, 02:23 PM	You need to politely tell your DM this : We, the players that be, all like a sneaky and machiavellian approach to our problems. We like our party though, as we have some great roleplaying going, and because we like cunning plans better than smashing stuff. Tell him what you like about the campaign (great roleplaying) and what you don't like (feeling trapped into mindless combat). Hopefully, the DM will be willing to modify the obstacles he presents to the party.
fatal error 02-14-07, 02:27 PM	See what we got here is a failure to communicate. Talk to the DM. DM talks to the Players. Players become combat machines, or the DM becomes an intrigue-running machine, or (get ready for it) you compromise and the DM gets to run a smashy encounter or two, while you guys get to be cowards on occasion as well.
DrakePD 02-14-07, 02:34 PM	Yep, Talk to the DM. Or better yet, move to Florida and I can run a game for you. I like "squishy" Players too :P
FntsyWlkr 02-14-07, 02:38 PM	Recently I was offered an opportunity to DM. A player came up to me and said, - we want to play these characters - we want the campaign to be like this - we want the setting to be like this - we want it to go for this long I love to DM, but I wasn't interested in this one. Isn't setting everything up almost the opposite version of railroading?Or ... "you have to play this character." When the players insist that the DM play a certian way they are railroading the DM. But this instance seems a little different ... it seems as if the DM and the players have found themselves on two different side of playing style. Which mean, I believe, that both sides must find a common ground. Maybe the DM plays a NPC in the troupe that is rough and tumble, maybe one of the players plays a front line fighter ... or maybe ... no compromise and scrap the whole thing?
kelvinaw273 02-14-07, 03:55 PM	Well there are a couple of different ways of looking at this: 1) You have an unimaginative DM who prefers combat and cannot be bothered with more sophisticated campaigns. 2) Your DM has found and is exploiting your party weakness. 3) You brought this on yourselves by creating an unballanced party. Now the best campaigns are always a compromise between what the DM wants to run and the players want to play in. In this case there seems very little common ground.
Sareld 02-14-07, 04:41 PM	The guy brought this mess upon himself, by creating a houserule that forbids players to share any kind of information on what kind of characters they want to make before the characters is made. He told us that he wanted all of us to play what we liked best, without having to take the needs of the rest of the party into account. The intention was to create a diffrent style of play, where the party had distinct strengths and weaknesses, opposed to normal when we players plan our paries carefully in advance, and make sure that all of the four 'archetypes' is represented. And that is exactly what we goy; a party entirely without the fighter archetype, which just happened to be the archetype he liked best. We have all agreed that those of us who dies is raised (because we all love our characters), but will exit play out of fear of dying again. The player of the 'dead' character will then proceed to make a combat druid. Personally I think its rubbish though, when the DM asks the players to shut up and play the hand they are dealt, that DM should be prepared to do the same thing. I do not own a DMG, but is there any magic items that can summon HP buffers for the party? Like, wands of summon monster? And what would such a wand cost, if it were to summon monsters that were useful for characters of our level?
IceFractal 02-15-07, 12:44 AM	Sure, a wand of summon monster could be just the ticket. The cost is (spell level) x (caster level) x 750 gp for a fully charged one. So a Wand of Summon Monster IV (the highest available) would cost 21,000 gp. On the higher end, an Iron Golem would synergize well with the fire savant. It looks like your party would actually be fine in combat, with judicious use of summoned meat shields - just not melee combat. As for arena duels where magic isn't allowed? Don't enter them. The DM may think you should, but it makes about as much sense as a Barbarian entering a mage-duel. Really, I guess you'll have to remind your DM that charging into melee isn't what spellcasters like you guys do, and come to some sort of accord.
Keiichi_m 02-15-07, 02:06 AM	You party sounds like a party that use's their head and finds interesting ways around encounters instead of just smashing things. your best solution would be to move to Edmonton, it's nice this time of year... cold but nice, and teach my players how to not just hit things.
FntsyWlkr 02-15-07, 01:45 PM	The guy brought this mess upon himself, by creating a houserule that forbids players to share any kind of information on what kind of characters they want to make before the characters is made. He told us that he wanted all of us to play what we liked best, without having to take the needs of the rest of the party into account. WHAO! Yeesh! ... See, I like this style of DMing BUT ... as a DM you have to play to the then generated group. Maybe every-now-and-then you put in an encounter based the weakness of the troupe ... but to exploit that every encounter? And then be upset with the players for uncovering a way around your encounters? I may have to renig my previous response in light of recent evidence ...
LCD2YOU 02-15-07, 01:54 PM	The only thing I have to say is it is just as much the DM's fault as the players. He is working to make their skills and powers pointless so why is he even allowing some of those PrCs? The party wants to play "this way" and don't like the DM's style. Both are stubborn. The DM and players refuse to yield. Telling a DM what they need to do to appease your characters is just as bad as a railroading DM. This time the players and the DM want to railroad each other. The DM may be putting you guys in a situation where you'll need to get some meat shields and mash it. It could be that until you guys bend a little he won't bend either. Both sides MUST compromise.