Well in this case it hasn't been. It feels more so like our characters are weak and that the outcome of these battles are not in our hands. I mentioned that sometimes it would be nice to run into something where our might would drive the enemies away or where we weren't all on the cusp of oblivion and he was pretty snarky about it. Any thoughts?
Tell him to look through the DMG and note the points where it talks about the fact that the players are supposed to win, and not struggle to beat their opponents. The DM is expected to 'lose' in D&D, and he's supposed to make sure the players have fun beating him.
Ask to try a session or two where you just do some practice fights, simulations of real-game events, in order to identify a "good balance". This might help see where the tipping point lies, and give you at least a general idea of where the TPK zone is and where it isn't.
Also, point out that a tooth-and-nail knock-down-drag-out fight is fun, once in a while. But if they're happening all the time, then it just gets stale, like the old Thomas Covenant novels. There's only so much **** you can wade through before you get tired of the stench. Some fights don't actually have to be structured to be uber-challenging, some do. Some might not even turn out to be fights at all, and instead could become skill tests (for intimidate, etc.).
T
But....I think he is failing to keep the game "Fun"
Tough fights are great, but if every fight is a humiliating loss, the Heroes feel like weaklings.
That is not fun, and he needs to realize that.
If he got snarky (and remains snarky, and keeps slaughtering you) the only option is to not play.
I tend to throw a murderously difficuly battle into a game now and then, but you can't make every fight unwinnable and expect your players to have fun.
Your DM is stuck in the Gygaxian method of play where the DM is the enemy, rather than a referee or a narrator.
Tell him to look through the DMG and note the points where it talks about the fact that the players are supposed to win, and not struggle to beat their opponents. The DM is expected to 'lose' in D&D, and he's supposed to make sure the players have fun beating him.
i don't see why he can't be both. i think that a DM should give enough monsters to make winning a very slim chance, then try to win with them. if he goes into the encounter knowing that he's supposed to lose, the PCs will pick up on that and the fights won't be as interesting.
Your DM is stuck in the Gygaxian method of play where the DM is the enemy, rather than a referee or a narrator.
Tell him to look through the DMG and note the points where it talks about the fact that the players are supposed to win, and not struggle to beat their opponents. The DM is expected to 'lose' in D&D, and he's supposed to make sure the players have fun beating him.i don't see why he can't be both. i think that a DM should give enough monsters to make winning a very slim chance, then try to win with them. if he goes into the encounter knowing that he's supposed to lose, the PCs will pick up on that and the fights won't be as interesting.
Encounters are supposed to be a possible challenge. What you describe, and what the OP describes, is not.
The fights the DM is throwing at them aren't challenging - they're unwinnable. The players, barring some very bad luck with the dice, should never, at all, at any time, have to rely on the DM's assistance in order to be able to win. Ever. If they do things right, they should be able to win on their own.
And frankly, if a TPK happens, the DM has lost. What you are missing is that the DM's objective isn't to beat the players, but rather to ensure that everyone has fun. Challenge is needed for the sake of fun combat, but that doesn't mean you make encounters impossible. You certainly shouldn't play creatures based off of DM knowledge, only the knowledge and intelligence they possess.
Most encounters in most games are around "standard" (or the closest equivalent given a high-powered group). The rough formula is that 10 "standard" encounters would give your group a level up using the default rules, but since that's horribly dull it will be somewhat different as some encounters are harder and some easier. Something like at least 5 "standard" or "standard +1" encounters, 1 "standard -1," and a couple of "standard +2 or 3" and a single "standard +4".
Fights that are 50/50 should be quite rare, particularly for the points you mentioned, that it makes you guys seem like weaklings little better than the dumb monsters you face.
Is your DM using a published adventure? He may need to retool it, because published adventures are not automatically suitable for your group of players (and frequently have unbalanced encounters as fairly objective "facts").
The best way to handle it is to speak with some of your fellow players perhaps, but mostly your main effort should be to tell the DM exactly what you have started with here.
"Hard" fights lose all meaning when "all" fights are exactly the same. Variety keeps a game interesting.
It's no fun at all to watch a DM beat up on a party of characters and then bail them out at the last minute every time you play. Being completely overmatched makes the act of fighting less fun, and being saved from the consequences of losing the fight takes away the threat of death, which he was claiming to be what was supposed to make it fun. Sit him down and talk to him about it.
Your DM is stuck in the Gygaxian method of play where the DM is the enemy, rather than a referee or a narrator.
Tell him to look through the DMG and note the points where it talks about the fact that the players are supposed to win, and not struggle to beat their opponents. The DM is expected to 'lose' in D&D, and he's supposed to make sure the players have fun beating him.i don't see why he can't be both. i think that a DM should give enough monsters to make winning a very slim chance, then try to win with them. if he goes into the encounter knowing that he's supposed to lose, the PCs will pick up on that and the fights won't be as interesting.
Encounters are supposed to be a possible challenge. What you describe, and what the OP describes, is not.
The fights the DM is throwing at them aren't challenging - they're unwinnable. The players, barring some very bad luck with the dice, should never, at all, at any time, have to rely on the DM's assistance in order to be able to win. Ever. If they do things right, they should be able to win on their own.
And frankly, if a TPK happens, the DM has lost. What you are missing is that the DM's objective isn't to beat the players, but rather to ensure that everyone has fun. Challenge is needed for the sake of fun combat, but that doesn't mean you make encounters impossible. You certainly shouldn't play creatures based off of DM knowledge, only the knowledge and intelligence they possess.
what i'm describing isn't the same as what the OP is. i agree that the OP's DM isn't doing a good job, but i also disagree with the idea that the party should never have the chance to lose a fight. if they will always win so long as they're not being stupid, there's no danger, and hence no fun. the DM shouldn't be consistently fudging rolls just to keep them alive, but there should be a real sense of urgency, and i just don't think that that can happen without a real, if slim, chance of defeat.
Your DM is stuck in the Gygaxian method of play where the DM is the enemy, rather than a referee or a narrator.
Tell him to look through the DMG and note the points where it talks about the fact that the players are supposed to win, and not struggle to beat their opponents. The DM is expected to 'lose' in D&D, and he's supposed to make sure the players have fun beating him.
i don't see why he can't be both. i think that a DM should give enough monsters to make winning a very slim chance, then try to win with them. if he goes into the encounter knowing that he's supposed to lose, the PCs will pick up on that and the fights won't be as interesting.
Encounters are supposed to be a possible challenge. What you describe, and what the OP describes, is not.
The fights the DM is throwing at them aren't challenging - they're unwinnable. The players, barring some very bad luck with the dice, should never, at all, at any time, have to rely on the DM's assistance in order to be able to win. Ever. If they do things right, they should be able to win on their own.
And frankly, if a TPK happens, the DM has lost. What you are missing is that the DM's objective isn't to beat the players, but rather to ensure that everyone has fun. Challenge is needed for the sake of fun combat, but that doesn't mean you make encounters impossible. You certainly shouldn't play creatures based off of DM knowledge, only the knowledge and intelligence they possess.
what i'm describing isn't the same as what the OP is. i agree that the OP's DM isn't doing a good job, but i also disagree with the idea that the party should never have the chance to lose a fight. if they will always win so long as they're not being stupid, there's no danger, and hence no fun. the DM shouldn't be consistently fudging rolls just to keep them alive, but there should be a real sense of urgency, and i just don't think that that can happen without a real, if slim, chance of defeat.
Oh, you need a chance of defeat. Reward, in this case fun, requires risk, IE, that of failure. That doesn't mean the DM should actively try to achieve a TPK - because any DM can get that any time he wants. A challenging fight is winnable, but if you screw up, completely losable. The balance shouldn't be so delicate, though, as to completely ruin the party on the value of a couple of rolls going against them.
Oh, you need a chance of defeat. Reward, in this case fun, requires risk, IE, that of failure. That doesn't mean the DM should actively try to achieve a TPK - because any DM can get that any time he wants. A challenging fight is winnable, but if you screw up, completely losable. The balance shouldn't be so delicate, though, as to completely ruin the party on the value of a couple of rolls going against them.
that's why i said a slim chance. i'm only saying that the DM shouldn't give out pushover encounters. what i specifically disagreed with in the first post i quoted was where ungulateman said the players shouldn't have to struggle to win. the fun's in the struggle, in my opinion.
Oh, you need a chance of defeat. Reward, in this case fun, requires risk, IE, that of failure. That doesn't mean the DM should actively try to achieve a TPK - because any DM can get that any time he wants. A challenging fight is winnable, but if you screw up, completely losable. The balance shouldn't be so delicate, though, as to completely ruin the party on the value of a couple of rolls going against them.that's why i said a slim chance. i'm only saying that the DM shouldn't give out pushover encounters. what i specifically disagreed with in the first post i quoted was where ungulateman said the players shouldn't have to struggle to win. the fun's in the struggle, in my opinion.
A DM with enough monsters to make the chance of victory very slim who is trying to win will win.
The DM can always win. It's not even interesting; the DM can always come up with more cirtters, make critters badder, and/or exploit PC weaknesses.
As Kouk already said, it's variety make sthe game interesting. There should be a mix of encounters.
The tough ones are exciting becuase they test the heroes and push them - kind of a 'that which does not kill me makes me stronger' thing. A friend of mine says that the best encounters are the ones where you think 'we're gonna die' and you pull it off anyway. If there's no big risk of losing, this doesn't happen, and you miss out on some good stuff.
On the other hand, D&D is to a great extent about playing heroes, and fantasy heroes should demonstrate awesomeness sometimes. There's nothing wrong with ripping through a bunch of bad guys and feeling on top of the world - it's part of the fantasy-adventure package. A campaign where the heroes always feel on the verge of defeat and death, where they're always the weak side in every encounter, is as much a monotone (and ultimately boring) campaign as one where the opposition never poses a real threat.
The DM can always have the bad guys win if s/he wants to; it's equally easy to make the bad guys a bunch of mooks. To really access the potential of the game, each encounter should be something of a surprise in finding out just how tough it will be, what abilities and tactics will be needed. To balance that kind of variance is par tof really good DMing.
The fights the DM is throwing at them aren't challenging - they're unwinnable. The players, barring some very bad luck with the dice, should never, at all, at any time, have to rely on the DM's assistance in order to be able to win. Ever. If they do things right, they should be able to win on their own.
If the players do everything right and roll averagely, then yes, they should win. If they fail to do either or both of that, they should lose. Notice that losing does not equate dying. In a situation where the dice fail but the story does not warrant deaths', it is the DMs responsibility to provide exits for the players, but also the players responsibility to actually use them.
A DM should be impartial when designing an encounter, striving to achive statistical balance. (read: to create an encounter that is winnable assuming everyone rolls the average on every roll.) Once the encounter begins however, the DM should be partial to his monsters in every call he makes within the constraints of the rules. For rules calls, he should remain impartial.
In a perfect enviroment, both players and DM play their side to their fullest and the dice decide the outcome, with all rolls slightly adjusted in or against the players favor depending on encounter difficulty. (An even level encounter should give the players around 60% odds, every encounterlevel above that should reduce this number by about 5% and vice versa.)
Notice that the rules as written already favor players due to the existance of daily powers, item dailies and second wind. Monsters generally have none of those and NPCs shouldn't either.
A lot of players fail to grasp their own lack of performance and instead blame the DM. I am DM'ing 99% of the time and my party has on several seperate occasions, managed to turn statistical wins into plain loses simply by underperforming. (I.E. limiting themselves to at-wills, ignoring their interupts/reactions , not using elven accuracy, not using consumables or dailies, "saving" encounter powers, failying to use crowd control, moving out of each others range etc.)
Based on that, my suggestion is to ask your DM how he designs encounters, what monsters he throws at you relative to your level and wether or not he plays their weaknesses as well as their strengths. (Vulnerabilities for instance) Depending on that answer, evaluate your own performance, ask yourselves if your group could synergize better than they already do and if all that fails, confront him about not having fun directly.
There are always two sides to these things. Let us here the DM’s side of things before rushing to judgment.
First, we need to get the facts straight. We haven’t been playing for months. We have had a campaign for a couple of months; we have only gotten together for 4 sessions. There are four of us, three players playing two characters each and one DM. None of us has ever played 4th edition, two of the players have never played a P&P RPG ever and I haven’t played let alone been DM in over 10 years and that was mostly Shadowrun, Vampire and TMNT RPG.
Also, you guys are level 2. I’m sorry that your “might” isn’t exactly pushing back the enemies at this point.
I understand right now that these encounters are challenging. I’m sorry I couldn’t strike that balance in 4 game sessions. It is unfortunate you make me sound as some callous and vindictive overlord. I didn’t realize this is how I treated my best friend since High School and his wife.
"I need to bail you guys out of this one." This was said once. This was said after Kevin missed several rolls. But I never once bailed you guys out. Only once has an NPC intervened and it set me up for the next part of the story. So don’t act like I was lording this over your heads. I saved Amy from dying to a bloodied Brute that she rushed up to fight head on as a shaman. Yes I fudged the roll but this was one of the first games we played.
No big bad has ever sat on the sidelines or ran if not intended to. The necromancer was almost never meant to fight unless you directly made it close enough to interrupt the sacrifice. Once Amy’s characters move closer he attacked them and ran to the portal to split the party. Completely intentional. You guys never went straight for him. He had “henchmen” of sorts to keep you occupied while he performed a ritual. If I ever said anyone was "sitting it out" it was because it doesn't make sense for you to tell you why they aren't attacking you. For instance, Irontooth stood and watch him underlings fight for him while he stood on a glyph that imbued him with power. Why would he move from there? Why would I tell you?
The encounters run long, we know that. We are all still learning. There is not room at Kevin's for me to just leave the game tiles or maps up for the week so until I was able to find the best way to record where everyone was the encounters were longer than they should have been. Trying to fit everything into one session is a bad idea but I had to work out the kinks.
"Isn't it exciting to be in fights where your it's a matter of life and death?" this I stand by 100%. You aren't having a friendly skirmish here, these goblins, orcs, thieves are trying to murder you. How is it not a matter of life and death? Why would I spend a few hours after work writing up a completely homemade campaign with customized cities, NPC's, and maps, ask you guys to write up back stories so I could write you guys into the campaign and give you a more personal and emotional experience just to kill you and lord it over you? Really? Maybe I borrow too much from second acts, but I love when heroes like say Goku gets beat down but gets back up and defeats the bad guy. I'm sorry that at level 2 you think you guys should be capable of wiping out everyone you see. I have added in minions for you guys, that wasn't enough?
You have neglected any mistakes on your part, maybe you made some bad rolls at key moments, and maybe you rushed into something without enough planning. You guys have skills, you could use them. How many times has Amy ran into a situation before thinking it out? That is my fault?
I tried, I tried to get a good balance so that at the end of the fight you guys are standing, the enemy is on the ground and you walk away, bloodied, beaten on, but I am not trying to punish anyone, make anyone feel weak. I want my NPC's to feel like a challenge. Maybe I’m not there but 4 game sessions is a bit harsh to judge someone on as a first time DM to 4th edition don't you think? You just hit level 2, I had one session to redesign the encounter to the level change, you guys stopped the sacrifice and saved the mage. Yes the necromancer got away, but you are supposed to pursue him. That was the point. If you had happened to kill him ahead of time you never know what would have happened. You guys roll the dice and make the choices, even the most well laid out plans have faults in them.
Fact is I am not some Overlord behind the screen laughing manically as you guys get knocked down. I am just trying to tell a story, keep the game play challenging so no one gets bored and trying to involve your characters into this larger world that I thought you might find interesting.
If you didn’t have fun why did you play until 3 am every time? Why did you bring it up here instead of e-mailing me or talking it out as a group with everyone? Maybe talking to use when it isn’t 3 am after a night of drinking and gaming? I’m sorry I failed to make it fun for you. For my part I enjoyed it and was learning a lot. I guess I just didn’t learn fast enough.
I saved Amy from dying to a bloodied Brute that she rushed up to fight head on as a shaman. Yes I fudged the roll but this was one of the first games we played.
"You remember when you killed that hill giant?"
"I rolled a 20 - double damage!"
"You rolled a 19, Mark. I fudged it. That giant would have killed you, man. But I admired your spark. You wanted it so badly, so I helped, because I wanted to, and I help people when I want to, and right now you're roasting in the hot belly of a platinum dragon, so why don't you ask yourself where your priorities lie?"
Just reminded me of that.
In summary, I sympathize with the struggles this DM is going through, and his players should have patience while he works the kinks out of his system, but on the other hand, it's understandable that your players would feel frustrated, especially if the encounters are really, really hard. The constant stress brought on by almost losing (repeatedly) sucks the fun from the game and is definitely way worse than the boredom that comes from a campaign that is too easy. I think it can be a really good thing for the story of a campaign if a character dies in an intense, climactic battle with a bbeg, but nearly dying every time you come across some goblin raiders just cheapens the experience. Obviously that wasn't what you were going for, but it's important to understand what this experience means for your players going forward.
In summary, I sympathize with the struggles this DM is going through, and his players should have patience while he works the kinks out of his system
This, this, and this. New DMs (and DMs returning from long absence) always, ALWAYS suck, and their players need to be understanding, patient, and supportive.
Any information I relayed to them was not me saying "Man you guys suck so bad I had to bail you out." It was "I really made this harder than I thought and had to adjust it as I go." Part of being green. These aren't new friends or gaming buddies these are close friends I have had for years. One is my best friend since 9th grade. They know my personality and I am always very frank. This was between the two of us discussing how difficult the game has been. I said I was working on it.
This is also Durm's feelings, the other two players have never expressed anything to me about frustration or lack of fun.
"You can't let your players know when your fudging and when you're not, even if they figure that you will do it sometimes."
Any information I relayed to them was not me saying "Man you guys suck so bad I had to bail you out." It was "I really made this harder than I thought and had to adjust it as I go." Part of being green. These aren't new friends or gaming buddies these are close friends I have had for years. One is my best friend since 9th grade. They know my personality and I am always very frank. This was between the two of us discussing how difficult the game has been. I said I was working on it.
This is also Durm's feelings, the other two players have never expressed anything to me about frustration or lack of fun.
That's fair. If these people are close friends of yours then I have no doubt that this will all get worked out for the best. Just try not to be too offended by his comments. Maybe it's not always best to air dirty laundry in public, but we are all anonymous strangers so if I were you I wouldn't hold it against him (not that you will).
I didn't mean to imply that you were gloating or anything like that. I think even if you're just trying to commiserate about the flaws in the campaign, it's better to leave it for a few sessions until you've got that one real bad encounter well behind you. Once you know the campaign is on solid ground then you can say "man, I really messed up and made those encounters way too hard" and have a good laugh about it. If you do it immediately after the fact it could still inadvertently cause hard feelings. It could easily be misinterpreted as "hey you did really bad, but I'll through you a bone and pretend like it was my fault." Again, not saying that's what you did, just that after a stressful session people are liable to think all sorts of crazy things.
There are always two sides to these things. Let us here the DM’s side of things before rushing to judgment.
Don't take it personally. These are the player's forums. If he had posted the exact same post in the DM's forums the responses would have been very different. Both sides of the fence are somehow partial to their own.
In all fairness, Durm sounded more like he felt insignificant and powerless than making you out to be the bad guy in my opinion.
I went through the exact same struggles you did several times, basically whenever I either returned to a system or started a new one. The secrecy that comes with DM'ing along with the pletora of work that is writing adventures etc. often makes us seem more harsh and cruel than we actually are. To us, the solution is always obvious, we made it up after all. To players, it is a different story. When players fail to have fun, it is their natural instict to look across the screen. I know I do as a player and I hate myself everytime I catch myself doing it.
Anyway, it seems to me you guys should sit down and talk things through. Once that is done, if you need help with your DMing or just want a few pointers, feel free to post in the DM Forums or drop me a PM. The great thing about Roleplaying in the digital age is that we DMs are no longer as alone as we used to be.
I have given them opportunities to make a significant change in the story and the world around them. They made choices which lead down different paths, some more challenging than others. They choose to stay and help defend the city. A noble act but with it comes some hardship.
Yes, I know I need to keep tweaking the combat. I don’t want them to all be knocked down over and over but I do want it to stay challenging. So far I have been building encounters that should have been split into separate encounters. I know this and have been working on addressing it in our last session by splitting it into 3 encounters. I know it has been tough but they made it through it. Every time they beat down a baddy they cheered and high fived. That doesn’t sound like people not enjoying their hard work and effort.
Feeling powerless? Who wouldn’t, mounting orc invasions, necromancers and thieves flooding into a major port. Dark magics building safe haven in a once peaceful city. Times are tough. And I am not saying that every fight has been completely fair, there has been a deal of adjusting but at level 2 fighting against these odds, it is supposed to be tough. One day they would look back and smile, remembering how they made it through tough times. One day they would get their chance to strike though waves of lower level monsters and minions but that day didn’t come in the first 4 sessions.
Their skills far exceed their enemies. Most of their enemies barely have an encounter power at this stage save a boss no action points either. Maybe their hp or damage output need adjusting but in all honesty some of these encounters are going to have them on their toes. Some are going to be a back and forth brawl, some are going to be them crushing through minions some they are going to find a way to use a skill to get out of combat all together.
Also, I am writing this for 3 people and myself. Just because Durm is not enjoying it does not mean the other 2 players and myself aren’t. Do we change everything for one person or should that person wait and see how things play out? I hate to harp on it but 4 sessions in isn’t even a drop in the bucket to 30. How does he know the next encounter isn’t going to give him a chance to shine?
I have given them opportunities to make a significant change in the story and the world around them. They made choices which lead down different paths, some more challenging than others. They choose to stay and help defend the city. A noble act but with it comes some hardship.
No offense, but this is your and the classic mistake. Choices like saving major cities, participating in large wars and the like are not choices a level 1 party should be presented with.
At first level the party should be saving a village at the most, maybe even a single farmstead. Face monsters low in the pecking order and generally win without much efford because they need to feel like heroes before the world needs them. This is not a mechanical thing, its a psychological one. If the players feel like heroes first, they will face any hardship with that mindset. If they are thrown in events over their head, they will be frustrated for a while.
Many DMs, especially new ones but also veterans, fall into that trap of starting the big campaign story right away. Frankly, its the reason why I generally never start my campaigns with anything lower than 2nd level. Unless you as a DM feel like basically going easy mode on your party, first level isn't much fun for anyone in my experience.
P.S. Your campaign does sound interesting though.
The PC's "might" won't put fear into a dragon, say, but there are things in the world that do need to be scared of them. Certain types of enemies (IE, Solos) aside, a level-equivalent monster should be intimidated by the party. A level equivalent encounter shouldn't be terribly difficult. L and L+1 probably represent a standard fight, one which, frankly, doesn't pose them much of a threat if they're on their game. L+2 demands more care. Past that is where your knock down, drag out, RARE fights should lie. Those pose a very, very real threat to the characters and require the very best out of them. They're special, they're fun, they're intense. If they're rare. Otherwise, they get boring, and routine, and in makes it feel like the PC's have no business adventuring given that whenever they're presented with a fight, they just barely survive, by the skin of their teeth. Overloading these takes the excitement that they're supposed to provide away. Notice that in any video game you ever play, boss fights are significant, partly because they're different from everything else - they work not just because it's a knock down, drag out challenge where failure is a very, very real possibility, but because they are not in any way routine. They're special.
But the most important piece of advice is that this is not the venue for you guys to talk out your game issues. Bring it up around the table, with everyone around. Constructive criticism is an invaluable resource when, as you seem to be, you're trying to improve. Otherwise, you're not working with all the information you should be. Might be a good idea to ask people what they thought, what their favorite part of the night's session was, etc.
In that case it isn't the actual fights, but the constant worrying or stress. Some people like to keep some stress but I think there is a difference in the origin.
One version of being stressed is, "The town is depending on us to get this done, so we have to risk our lives to save the day, and we might fail."
As opposed to the other version of "Why the heck is the town depending on us to get this done?!?! This is crazy, and rationally speaking we should run away now but feel like we can't!"
But yeah it's easy to displace all negative emotions on the DM. And it can be hard for males to get angry at female gamers no matter how much trouble they cause.
As a technique of letting the players know when it's their own fault, I tend to say things like, "Seeing you charge headlong into the room..." "As you disrupt what the wizard was trying to do, he turns to you angrily..." "By some bad luck on Randal's part..."
The PCs were all 1st level when this happened. All that had occured before they reached 2nd level. Yah. Some level of restraint needs to be had to keep that sort of thing from happening.
I should be more specific on what is going on. The captain of the guard, a man they had been doing jobs for to help out the goblin and orcs in the surrounding area was killed by the leader of the local thieves’ guild. They each feel responsible for this and stayed on to help out and find out more about the corruption within the city after the captains death.
They have some information about the evil seeping its way to the city and they are now looking for information on a wizard outside of the city who can help them. They are not involved in a war, at this point it is all behind the scenes. No all out war in the streets, this is finding clues and helping people along the way.
The fact is they did very well on the last encounter despite the odds. They saved one of the mages who can help them locate this wizard. The only tough part I recall was Kevin rolling an astonishing amount of 1’s with his fighter.
So they aren’t exactly saving a city single handedly, they are finding out information and seeking allies which will take them from the city and set them on the adventure.
The city is already over run, they can’t stop that. At this point they had the choice to abandon the city and move on or to find a way to help out. They choose to help. It comes with reward but a more challenging set of encounters.
It seems to me the trust between player and DM has been shaken in at least one case of your group because you opted for story driven difficulty over trusted encounter design. Allow me to elaborate.
Normaly, players assume that the DM builds encounters according to the rules, encounters that they can win statistically speaking. They also expect the level of difficulty of a single encounter to represent the encounters importance in the story. Sometimes however, adventure design demands consequences that break this formular, because a normal level of difficulty would break the immersion of the story and feel artificial in the context of the choices the players made. This seems to be the case in your campaign. The problem is, that when these two concepts colide, players often feel that the game world is too tough and that their actions and presence makes little difference. (Ironically so, because usually it is their actions that brought about the increased difficulty in the first place.)
There are many ways to solve this problem, none of which I would like to post in the player forum because it would essentially break the fun for your party when they read this. Read: we really should be having this discussion in the DM forums. Personally, I have asked my group to stay out of the DM forums for their own good. They all have agreed and given me a safe haven to post ideas, concepts and questions regarding my campaigns, rules calls etc. without my players spoiling their fun. I suggest you do the same. (Frankly, the Forum should say DMs only anyway. :p )
However, I would like to say, that the whole issue here is psychological. Your party has survived and it seems to me you are not fudging your rolls left and right, so your encounters seem beatable. However, at least one of your players feels insignificant and outgunned on a constant basis. You said before while things are tough, you are certain that some day the party will look back on this and be proud of their acomplishment. I can relate to that, however, ask yourself how far that day is away. Your group has managed only four sessions in several month. Based on that, how far is that day of success away in real time and do you really want to wait this long until your players feel self confident about their adventuring?
As great as thinking back on old war stories is and as awesome it feels to beat very tough challenges, if it takes more than maybe six to eight weeks in real time it quickly feels like a status quo as opposed to the exceptional events it is. If the status quo is not fun, then something is wrong because at the end of the day, this is our passtime. Plowing through constant hardships is fun as long as there is a light at the end of the tunnel. When that light feels month' or even years away, it isn't as fun anymore.
I have only ever run into one gm like this and needless to say people stopped playing his games.
So, i can sympathise with the OP.
After reading I have got the feeling he is new to DMing.
I am assuming your playing 4th and if that is the case your DM should follow the encounter builder in the DM's guide. The keep the encounters tough, but beatable, you put the right amount monsters for the power of your party
If you didn’t have fun why did you play until 3 am every time? Why did you bring it up here instead of e-mailing me or talking it out as a group with everyone? Maybe talking to use when it isn’t 3 am after a night of drinking and gaming? I’m sorry I failed to make it fun for you. For my part I enjoyed it and was learning a lot. I guess I just didn’t learn fast enough.
Don't make this personal. He came here asking other players for help, not to vilify you. Until you posted, no one here knew who you were. It's not "tattling" to query other players for advice in the same situation. The typical response in these forums is "talk to your table about it right away" as you'll see in the first few posts.
No one wants to tell a good friend that they aren't having a great time in the campaign they've lovingly crafted from scratch. Maybe he was afraid you'd be horribly offended at the idea that "ridiculously challenging" isn't fun for him? Given your responses in this thread, I could believe that.
There are four of us, three players playing two characters each and one DM. None of us has ever played 4th edition
I find it funny noone has pointed this out. This seems like a HUGE problem to me. I'm a veteran 4e'er and playing 2 character felt more like work than fun to me. Your players are new to 4e and need to focus on their own characters. I would end this immediately and get rid of these clearly excessive characters.
At the very least, boil those extra characters down to companion characters with 1 at-will/enc/daily and the party can only use 1 of them at any point in time...similar to how RPG's let you trade/swap out characters when you are in town.
There are four of us, three players playing two characters each and one DM. None of us has ever played 4th edition
I find it funny noone has pointed this out. This seems like a HUGE problem to me. I'm a veteran 4e'er and playing 2 character felt more like work than fun to me. Your players are new to 4e and need to focus on their own characters. I would end this immediately and get rid of these clearly excessive characters.
At the very least, boil those extra characters down to companion characters with 1 at-will/enc/daily and the party can only use 1 of them at any point in time...similar to how RPG's let you trade/swap out characters when you are in town.
this, or something close to it. the group i've always played with has general attendance issues (not bad enough to keep the game from going on, but there was usually someone missing) and i generally played an extra character. i never enjoy it. when i'm playing 2 characters, i'm too busy managing to have any fun with RP or complicated ideas. i'd say to just play with the 3 characters and be careful about your enemy placement. remember that fun is paramount, and if it's a little unrealistic for them to be sending just 3-5 enemies at the party at a time, that's ok.
and most importantly, remember that an old friendship is more important than D&D (with apologies to D&D). if your game is causing friction and you can't fix it, perhaps you should stop playing. find something else to do with your time. try Settlers of Catan or Zombies. hell, try Killer Bunnies. but i can't see any reason to let a game (even a very fun one) get between good friends.
No, we have been friends far too long to end it or effect/affect it over any game. Mostly it hits my pride. I write fiction and I love story telling but that doesn't necessarily work with game mechanics. I am still learning. We only played 4 times. The math, the calculations on my part need more work. What can 6 level 2 characters in 4th edition take, what levels, should I adjust the hp, damage, abilities… It just takes me more time to figure it out than maybe it takes other people. Doesn’t mean I can’t do it in time. I can write an engaging story but the mechanical portions will take time.
We have plenty of other games. We are pretty big gamers. Xbox, PS3, PC. Durm and I have played plenty of games together. Thing is I love P&P games and have wanted to play them again for a long time. I have spent maybe, probably too much on D&D 4th in minis, books tiles to just let it go for something else.
They are actually doing a great job with 2 characters each. Amy and Durm do a great job of RPing their own characters. It is possible the rounds and encounters last too long before we can finish it in one session. We wanted to cover each type. We did have more people but these three are the only people that would commit each week.
The problem is me. I have made the encounters too difficult. I didn’t calculate the statistics as well as I should have. Added in enemies using the monster manual and not adjusted the statistics as I should/could have. I wanted an ogre, I gave them an ogre. I thought I they could handle it at level 2 with 6 people, and they did finish the encounter, and finished it the way I wanted it to end but they did spend more time down than I thought they would.
In the end it comes down to me not spending enough time adjusting the monsters to the players. I spent hours writing the story, the bad guys, as plot but not enough calculating their chance to actually hit an enemy. What it came down to was I didn’t want them to feel they walked though it and felt I didn’t try to challenge them. I over estimated how much damage they could take.
None of this is about me wanting to make my friends suffer. And sure, of course I took it personally, I messed up, I thought my story telling abilities would be enough for everyone but durm defiantly needs the math too add up too. While say Amy can ignore it and just enjoy the story Durm needs things to calculate and I get that. I should have taken more time to figure stats.
Yes I take it personally. It is hard not to. It defiantly doesn’t end any friendships but it certainly makes me think about how I prepare games. At least my math is the problem over my story. Seems like everyone likes the arch, it is the combat being a grind that is the problem.
Low levels are kind of a grind anyway, because there are so few powers and thus options available. Being new to the system doesn't help much either. You can spruce encounters up with highly effective terrain elements that the characters can notice, or just shorten fights with the reduced HP of monsters.
After about level 3 or 4, gradually the HP can go back up, and eventually you may find you need to increase the monsters' HP so they last more than a round or two.
Getting copies of everyone's sheets will help a lot.
The math, the calculations on my part need more work. What can 6 level 2 characters in 4th edition take, what levels, should I adjust the hp, damage, abilities… It just takes me more time to figure it out than maybe it takes other people. Doesn’t mean I can’t do it in time. I can write an engaging story but the mechanical portions will take time.
Have you read the DM Guide? All of this is already done for you. Encounter level and xp budgets. Dont go more than 4 levels above your party. Hell the MM even have encounters suggestions listed.
Everything in 4e is built around a 5 man party, drop all the extra characters. Its not fun, its work.
The math, the calculations on my part need more work. What can 6 level 2 characters in 4th edition take, what levels, should I adjust the hp, damage, abilities… It just takes me more time to figure it out than maybe it takes other people. Doesn’t mean I can’t do it in time. I can write an engaging story but the mechanical portions will take time.
Have you read the DM Guide? All of this is already done for you. Encounter level and xp budgets. Dont go more than 4 levels above your party. Hell the MM even have encounters suggestions listed.
Everything in 4e is built around a 5 man party, drop all the extra characters. Its not fun, its work.
1: It is possible to mess things up while being within the encounter budget. Keeping a list of things like character's attack bonuses, defenses, and health will go a long way to helping with that.
2: It is possible to scale the game to more players if people want. There's nothing at all wrong with this. In fact, maybe someone with a little more experience in that area could come along with some tips.
T
I played in a 4E group where the party would routinely complain about how easy the DM was taking it on us and how she was running the game like a girl....UNTIL...we started rolling badly and nearly got TPKed. THEN it was how she was a killer DM and how it must be "that time of the month."
Considering all of the work done by DMs and how all we had to do then was show up.....seemed pretty petty and childish.
Something I ofen reflect on now that I run my own game is the poise she had, and how I can maintain it.
The fights the DM is throwing at them aren't challenging - they're unwinnable. The players, barring some very bad luck with the dice, should never, at all, at any time, have to rely on the DM's assistance in order to be able to win. Ever. If they do things right, they should be able to win on their own.
If the players do everything right and roll averagely, then yes, they should win. If they fail to do either or both of that, they should lose. Notice that losing does not equate dying. In a situation where the dice fail but the story does not warrant deaths', it is the DMs responsibility to provide exits for the players, but also the players responsibility to actually use them.
A DM should be impartial when designing an encounter, striving to achive statistical balance. (read: to create an encounter that is winnable assuming everyone rolls the average on every roll.) Once the encounter begins however, the DM should be partial to his monsters in every call he makes within the constraints of the rules. For rules calls, he should remain impartial.
In a perfect enviroment, both players and DM play their side to their fullest and the dice decide the outcome, with all rolls slightly adjusted in or against the players favor depending on encounter difficulty. (An even level encounter should give the players around 60% odds, every encounterlevel above that should reduce this number by about 5% and vice versa.)
Notice that the rules as written already favor players due to the existance of daily powers, item dailies and second wind. Monsters generally have none of those and NPCs shouldn't either.
A lot of players fail to grasp their own lack of performance and instead blame the DM. I am DM'ing 99% of the time and my party has on several seperate occasions, managed to turn statistical wins into plain loses simply by underperforming. (I.E. limiting themselves to at-wills, ignoring their interupts/reactions , not using elven accuracy, not using consumables or dailies, "saving" encounter powers, failying to use crowd control, moving out of each others range etc.)
Based on that, my suggestion is to ask your DM how he designs encounters, what monsters he throws at you relative to your level and wether or not he plays their weaknesses as well as their strengths. (Vulnerabilities for instance) Depending on that answer, evaluate your own performance, ask yourselves if your group could synergize better than they already do and if all that fails, confront him about not having fun directly.
Your DM is stuck in the Gygaxian method of play where the DM is the enemy, rather than a referee or a narrator.
So not this.
No offense, ungulateman, but what you described is, in my opinion, a misrepresenation of a Gygaxian DM. While it is true that back in the days of Gygax it might have seemed like the DM was the enemy (and that was certainly true for some DMs) that was just not the case. D&D was a much, much different game than it is today. The game was supposed to be extremely brutal and deadly. It was closer to wargaming and instant death was common (in part influenced by mythology where even the most powerful hero in the world could die from a single arrow). This was not a bad thing, just a different thing. If you walked out of a dungeon with half of your group alive you counted your blessings. And the rules reflected this high level of deadliness by being rigged in favor of the monsters. And when a DM did the job he was supposed to do it often seemed like it he was out to kill the group, but in reality he was just doing his job.
============================================
Durm, how old is the DM and how much experience does he have as the DM? It sounds to me like he is more likely just inexperienced in planning encounters and is slow to learn how much power the group does and does not have.
It's also why they didn't name characters till they got to level 5-6. You where just a race/class/lvl. Backstories and character development where very new ideas.
Quick update here. Obsolete Model and I have chatted and our group is playing again this week. To answer your question Mock our group is 4 people and we're all around 30ish. OM and myself have some experience playing DnD but none of us have played 4e and I haven't played any DnD since high school. Some of the trouble I was having was just the shock at how different our game has been from what I was used to. To elaborate, in High school I would travel to visit my friend Jami for a week or two and during those weeks we would run single pc games when we couldn't find enough for a group. Well, sessions with one low level character usually had to revolve around roleplaying and storytelling more so than heavy combat because a string of bad rolls by me or good rolls by the DM and that character would be toast. Now take that experience, add 5 other characters and a room with 8 bandits and the battle has people falling unconscious often and it's a real shock. I'd start to worry that my characters weren't going to make through the first month of playing. Which leads to my other problem: I get attached to my characters. For one of the characters I play I have a backstory that's 23 pages worth of type and counting. So the prospect of none of that story ever playing out because he ends up dying at the hands of a pack of orcs is unnerving. So that about sums it up: New players, new DM, new version of DnD coupled with different expectations and results led to some frustration.
Quick update here. Obsolete Model and I have chatted and our group is playing again this week. To answer your question Mock our group is 4 people and we're all around 30ish. OM and myself have some experience playing DnD but none of us have played 4e and I haven't played any DnD since high school. Some of the trouble I was having was just the shock at how different our game has been from what I was used to. To elaborate, in High school I would travel to visit my friend Jami for a week or two and during those weeks we would run single pc games when we couldn't find enough for a group. Well, sessions with one low level character usually had to revolve around roleplaying and storytelling more so than heavy combat because a string of bad rolls by me or good rolls by the DM and that character would be toast. Now take that experience, add 5 other characters and a room with 8 bandits and the battle has people falling unconscious often and it's a real shock. I'd start to worry that my characters weren't going to make through the first month of playing. Which leads to my other problem: I get attached to my characters. For one of the characters I play I have a backstory that's 23 pages worth of type and counting. So the prospect of none of that story ever playing out because he ends up dying at the hands of a pack of orcs is unnerving. So that about sums it up: New players, new DM, new version of DnD coupled with different expectations and results led to some frustration.
Have you thought about just doing a bunch of one-shot adventures with different characters each time? This will give the DM a chance to learn how to balance his encounters and since they are one offs you will not get too attached to the characters. This is just my opinion but I would much rather do that until the DM gets more comfortable with the rules and planning/running encounters than to be a number of games into a campaign where things are constantly going horribly wrong.
Just go out and buy Keep on the Shadowfell. It's about the best way to get started with 4e that I can think of. It's challanging enough, it's interesting and it's relatively simple for new players. In fact, now that I think about it. It's available for free on the D&D website.
Usually after a session, we have dinner/lunch/whathaveyou and discuss the session. Last Wednesday is our first session for our new campaign, and afterwards we ate pancakes to discuss it. I had both positive (plot is really great, everyone had fun, everything ran smoothly) and negative (mostly that the encounters feel a little too easy). In my defense, we have a new player and I want to go a bit easy so that she learns the ropes, so I also said that. That being said, I promised I'll make encounters better next game. We all had fun, and we ate delicious pancakes. The End.
Just talk. It does wonders.
This thread is almost as good as the Facebook divorce...
Link?
Just go out and buy Keep on the Shadowfell. It's about the best way to get started with 4e that I can think of. It's challanging enough, it's interesting and it's relatively simple for new players. In fact, now that I think about it. It's available for free on the D&D website.
Actually, yeah. +1.
I agree with this heartily because this adventure contains a particular encounter that generates a lot of TPKs. Just be aware of that going in, and agree in advance to play any TPK encounters two or three times from the point of "roll initiative". This is a great way to get exposure to some good fights, and build Player experience, not just PC.
Once you're accustomed to how this low-level encounter thing works, you'll slowly ratchet up the difficulty and both your group and the DM will have some time to adjust and experiment.
Best of luck -
T
Only if Durm sleeps with my girlfriend and posts about it here.
I took more time to look at the group’s potential damage and defense compared to the enemies I plan on making them fight. I adjusted hp/defensive stats/attack power more carefully with the last two encounters that played out on Friday. The pacing went well. We were able to get in 2 encounters and the “boss fight” before the end of the night. I added more flavor text this go around having a more interesting and thought out baddy for them to fight. Gave them more traps to contend with rather than inundate them with enemies as well as more chances to use their surroundings to give them a chance to surprise the enemies and interact with the environment.
Roleplaying took a larger role this time around and will only become more so as the combat mechanics become second nature to everyone.
You have to remember, the first few encounters and levels were for use to get a feel for the rules and powers. Now that everyone is getting more comfortable with their roles we can add in much more flavor text, roleplay and skill challenges into the game.
I will probably never take directly from any of the pre made adventures. It isn’t likely. I do own many of the supplemental books and adventures but I mostly use them to build my own encounter. For me a lot of my enjoyment of the game is in the writing and planning. Taking the adventure from a book takes away a large part of why I DM. I use the materials to help shape the world and the adventures but I won’t follow them play by play. I chose to create my own world based on taking ideas from many different fantasy settings that I enjoy. While I stick to the game rules for combat purposes I like to travel in my creativity. Custom maps and cities are the norm for my campaigns.