I am a long time DM, who has finally been able to play some. I have noticed this trend with the Dms I have been playing under recently.
Gotchas.
Where they "got" us for overlooking something or succeed when someone goes down in an encounter.
We spent 3 sessions researching and then searching for a rare mushroom that was needed in a ritual to break another ritual. We finally find the mushrooms and then realized we never specifically asked how much was needed the Dm's response "You never asked how many was needed, so use your best judgement"[smile, giggle, smirk]. This was the last straw for me, there had been other issues leading up to this, I went off loudly and thoroughly on him.
Sounds like D&D isn't the game for you.
That's interesting. When I started a campaign with players that hadn't tried 4e yet, I was very open about the game - warning the players about certain abilities the monsters had, mentioning that the zombie had vulnerability to radiant damage, often mentioning how many hit points a creature had left, etc.
The players (politely) told me that they liked a bit more mystery in their games. I was *too* open for them. They actually asked me to be more withholding of information. So, I'm adapting my DMing style to better suit their tastes.
I guess it takes all kinds.
Sounds like D&D isn't the game for you.
I don't think a DM with questionable concepts of fairness is a suitable cause to make such a statement.
Had that occured in my game, I would have assumed that merely because the players didn't think of it, that doesn't mean their characters didn't, and I would have told them.
I would think that the person who sent them after the mushroom would have told them -- I mean, he'd want the ritual to actually be successful, right?
I would think that the person who sent them after the mushroom would have told them -- I mean, he'd want the ritual to actually be successful, right?
I agree with this.
Our characters are not us. There are very few times that I would consider this, and even still I would probably have them make an INT or WIS check to determine whether they remembered whatever it was they were trying to remember.
Our characters are professional adventurers. Even at level 1 they are exceptional compared to commoners. If they weren't, it wouldn't be such a lucrative profession.
The same DM who finds themselves happy on "outsmarting" the party, may be insecure and weak in other aspects of their life.
Of course as in all things, a balance needs to be struck. The following would be disheartening to any DM who'd worked on the backstory:
DM: You have defeated the enemy, and now have access to the temple treasure room.
Players: We do the thing.
DM: You do what, exactly?
Players: You know, the thing that old whatsit asked us to do? We do that, then we go back. How much XP do we get?
. . . of course in reality such a DM should get wise that the players just aren't buying in to the story or world, and either find a new group, or find ways of putting fun into the parts the players are into.
It's fairly common in new DMs. Same as railroading. Something that a DM grows out of as they develop a decent style and structure to their games and learn from players and other DMs.
I DM a lot so I notice it a lot quicker than other players will/do which can be frustrating, it's hard to play a game that I find enough "depth" in to truly enjoy.
My response wasn't so much insensitivity to snarky GM's, but that a player would 'go off completely' on someone running a game.
If you aren't enjoying it, say as much. Set a standard for what level of information / preparation is assumed and what should be explicit.
If a player can't be bothered to ask how much of something is needed and can't be bothered to use his best judgement, I can't be bothered to allow him to stay in my game.
You seem to have missed the point of the thread, Will. I hope not on purpose.
Now, moving on to the OP:
Actions like this are usually the mark of an inexperienced DM. I've played under GMs who try to 'fool' their players in such manner, and while it really doesn't add anything to the game, it can be worked around.
Whatever the case, if you find it detracting from the game, your best bet is to sit your DM down and explain that a GM trying to "outwit" players like that does nothing good for the game, and that if it continues, he may find his players attention and attendance wavering. Whether he's out to "beat" you or honestly hasn't realized that he's killing the fun, you get a good result.
If he's power-tripping, threatening his ability to lord his power over people will get him in-line quickly enough.
If he's simply inexperienced, you've just helped him become a better DM.
Win-win.
I enjoy outsmarting my players, but not screwing an adventure (or possibly a campaign) in the process. So your DM is willing waste 3 gaming nights in order to pull the wool over your eyes? That doesn't seem very productive to me.
What I would have done;
DM: OK roll a Nature (or whichever check is required)
Player: I rolled an 18
DM: You know you need the Red Rock Mushroom for the ritual but your not sure how much you need or where to find it
Player: OK I'll make a History check to see if I know of anyone else finding one. I got a 26
DM: Sir Gorstan found some at Mt. Killpalyers a few years ago. But your still not sure how many you need.
There's no need to kill an adventure because you think your clever. I would have the mushrooms guarded and hind that information from the players.
My response wasn't so much insensitivity to snarky GM's, but that a player would 'go off completely' on someone running a game.
I have no problem going off on a DM.
If you aren't enjoying it, say as much. Set a standard for what level of information / preparation is assumed and what should be explicit.
I did say as much, I spent many a nights at a local watering hole talking about the game, Dming, expectations, etc. saying as much has no bearing on the thread.
If a player can't be bothered to ask how much of something is needed and can't be bothered to use his best judgement, I can't be bothered to allow him to stay in my game.
So the burden of making the game work is on the players? Thankfully I am not in your group.
My response wasn't so much insensitivity to snarky GM's, but that a player would 'go off completely' on someone running a game.
If you aren't enjoying it, say as much. Set a standard for what level of information / preparation is assumed and what should be explicit.
If a player can't be bothered to ask how much of something is needed and can't be bothered to use his best judgement, I can't be bothered to allow him to stay in my game.
Would someone mind please putting up that picture of captain picard doing a face-palm.
I think there is a difference between asking your players to pay attention to the plot, and forcing them to remember every detail. I assume there's time between each session, and well, people aren't going to remember each itty bitty fact of a campaign, and they will forget to do normal things. Who can expect every player to have the memory of a steel trap when people are busy during the week with jobs, errands, families and school.
That, and people aren't perfect. Every DM screwed up an encounter or misquoted a rule. Does this mean that the players should get anrgy? No! And nor should the DMs expect the players to be able to fully flesh out and reason as a PC. Sometimes, the OoC/IC seperation makes things confusing, it happens. Normal people don't forget where they put children they are escorting, but players do, and will.
But if the DM mistook being annoying, or expecting super human memory, or choosing to interpet player actions in hilarious ways for challenge, I wouldn't be interested in the games either.
I see this as a case of shared guilt. The PCs should have asked how much of the musshrooms they needed, the DM should have told them if they did not ask. When it came time to load up the mushrooms the DM should have just told them. Lastly the OP should not have "gone off completly" on the DM.
It is a game, something done for enjoyment, thus I see no reason to get angry enough that you "go off", rather than just walk away in order to take some time to cool off.
You know, this whole problem could be avoided if you just load up on as many 'shrooms as you can carry without too much encumberance. Besides, if you have to go on a quest to get 'em, the mushrooms must be worth something, right?
Would someone mind please putting up that picture of captain picard doing a face-palm.
Thy bidding be done--Solidarity.
I think people are missing the point about the thread. It is about the:
Gotchas.
It's not about me going off on the Dm or who's to blame or how we play or what dice we used or any other siphostry that could be gleaned. It's when someone purposely hides information from the group because we didn't specifically ask the right/proper questions.
It made no logical sense that the NPC cleric wouldn't have said how much was needed for the ritual.
I think people are missing the point about the thread. It is about the:
Gotchas.
It's not about me going off on the Dm or who's to blame or how we play or what dice we used or any other siphostry that could be gleaned. It's when someone purposely hides information from the group because we didn't specifically ask the right/proper questions.
It made no logical sense that the NPC cleric wouldn't have said how much was needed for the ritual.
For the record, while I generally agree with your point of view (and the particular situation you described is just ridiculous), there are situations where hiding information from the players can be fun. Once, a long time ago, I played a character in a quest where our group was trying to figure out what had happened to the towns children. There was a character in the quest who turned out to be the one responsible for their disappearance. One child, the child of the mayor, was said to have been wearing a red ribbon when she disappeared. The main villain, for a time, was hidden in plain site (as one of the key NPCs in the town). The DM specifically told us that the character had a ribbon tying back his pony tail, but he never mentioned the color. None of us asked. Of course, there was an alternate (longer) way to successfully save the children. We did end up saving them. But because we never asked, we were never given the option of taking the shortcut route through this particular mystery. In this instance, I think the DM did a bang up job via the "withholding information" tactic. It was a very fun game.
I think people are missing the point about the thread. It is about the:
Gotchas.
It's not about me going off on the Dm or who's to blame or how we play or what dice we used or any other siphostry that could be gleaned. It's when someone purposely hides information from the group because we didn't specifically ask the right/proper questions.
It made no logical sense that the NPC cleric wouldn't have said how much was needed for the ritual.
For the record, while I generally agree with your point of view (and the particular situation you described is just ridiculous), there are situations where hiding information from the players can be fun.
Exactly. You should withhold information if you think it will make the game more fun (and be ready to change that decision if you look across the table and realize that you were wrong), not because you want to screw the players with a point and 'ha-ha!' moment.
The fact that the DM was so smug about it is what gets me. Grade A **** really. (They edited out another word for donkey? Really? The one beginning with J?)
If I were DMing, I would have just said "Well he didn't actually SAY how much he needed, but you figure he won't be mad for bringing too much back." Hinting they could just bring back 50 pounds of it and if they need 3 ounces, well then they have extra.
A DM should never be proud of fooling his players. It is easy to come up with something that the players didnt think of if you decide to. "Well the answer was in the shed." "There was a shed?" "Yes. Behind the house." "You didn't say there was a shed." "You didnt ASK if there was a shed."
...Of course, there was an alternate (longer) way to successfully save the children.... It was a very fun game.
Quoted the necessary details.
Your DM provided al alternative. It wasn't "Gotcha! Now you're screwed. Hahahaha!"
There are clears signs of a bad DM, one who doesn't know the fundamental purpose of a DM (to make the game fun):
-Competing with or trying to "win" against the players.
-Constantly looking for or retroactively fitting things to screw over the players
-Asking the players to solve or resolve something they physically/mentally can't but their characters could easily.
These are just three signs. There are many more but these three pertain to the "gotchas". As I see it, punishing the players for not having the brilliant minds their ability scores say they should have is just looking for an excuse to frustrate the players.
I'll use an example I read on an old dungeon article: There was a secret door in a room. The DM decided that the way to open this door was by turning a lamp (or something). The players spent a literal hour's time searching the room, trying all sorts of things, looking for the "one true solution" that the DM had placed. This could have been resolved with a few Search checks, but no, the players essentially wasted their time trying to figure out how their DM thinks rather than continue with anything fun.
I recall one DM who would invariably plan his encounters and story in such a way that we desperately needed something he knew we didn't have.
No rogue or other trapfinder? The goal of the quest was in a trap-filled tower.
No ranger or other tracker? The people we need to find went 'that general direction' three days ago.
This is one of the reasons I like 4e. Anybody can at least TRY stuff like this.
To Cyber Dave, I have to question this situation: What ELSE did people use to tie back their hair in those days? I guess string if really poor? But I imagine that trying to hurt/intimidate/light on fire/question someone because they are wearing a ribbon isn't really going to fly with the local guard. Not to mention, it's probably a good deal of the town unless the local custom is to have short hair.
And uh, did the Mayor never meet this guy? If the Mayor never reacted, others may have assumed the ribbon wasn't distinctive to pick out, nor the right ribbon.
If I were DMing, I would have just said "Well he didn't actually SAY how much he needed, but you figure he won't be mad for bringing too much back." Hinting they could just bring back 50 pounds of it and if they need 3 ounces, well then they have extra.
This. Then when the players go back, have the NPC look a bit surprised and mutter about how he only needed one, but he'll certainly be happy to have extras. Then make the next quest for the PCs figuring out how to get rid of the rest of the mushrooms he can't use. It'll be funny, memorable, and they'll get some gold out of the deal: and next time, they'll ask.
The other thing the DM should consider is what the NPC is thinking too. The DM might want to "Gotcha" the characters, but would the NPC REALLY be willing to let them run off without critical information? I'm imagining the PCs saying, "Red Mushrooms, got it!" and getting ready to run off, and the NPC running after them yelling, ""Wait! Don't you want to know how much I need?" or something similar.
I recall one DM who would invariably plan his encounters and story in such a way that we desperately needed something he knew we didn't have.
No rogue or other trapfinder? The goal of the quest was in a trap-filled tower.
No ranger or other tracker? The people we need to find went 'that general direction' three days ago.
This is one of the reasons I like 4e. Anybody can at least TRY stuff like this.
I like to make the most obvious way to accomplish a goal something that the party is particularly poor at, although I will stop short of making it impossible. Just really difficult. I always hint at other methods, though. My philosophy is that there should always be at least three ways of accomplishing something that the DM has thought of, and you should assume that the players will come up with at least one more that you haven't considered. If there is one and only one way of accomplishing something, that's a good plot device for a novel, not an RPG.
I was accused, I believe unfairly, of using a gotcha situation. I put the players in a room with some giant ants, and I put a switch on the other end of the room. My design for the encounter was that the soldier ants would be continuously replenished by minions until the players either killed the queen or threw the switch and went through the door.
After the TPK, the players complained that this wasn't fair because I never told them exactly what the switch was for. That seems to cross unreasonably into hand-holding territory. Nobody even requested to make a thievery check to find out, or asked me directly. In addition, they could have easily taken out the queen if the damn strikers hadn't spent all their time on minions, but the players argued that it made more sense tactically to take out the minions than to kill the queen. This even after several rounds of the minions being replaced after dropping.
I hate gotcha scenarios too, but, I'm sorry, at a certain point it's not my job to tell you how to play the game.
As stated by some it is about balance. You try to outsmart your players and give a challenge. If they don't want a challenge than run a Dungeon Delve or go play against a computer with predictable patterns. When it comes to outsmarting the players and their characters I feel that the DM and the NPC's should drop hints. When the player characters don't catch the hints then the DM has free reign to do as he pleases to let the BBEG and his troops take advantage of it.
When it comes to collecting some mushrooms and you don't know the exact amount. Well such useless details can be worked around. The DM should just make sure the players collect the right amount and be done.
Supposedly DM's need to tailor the adventure to the players. I agree to this in the aspect of adjusting the story to fit the type of players you have...not to fit the exact classes present. If my group has no rogue and a pre-written module uses traps...tough luck. Luckily the traps usually allow arcana checks etc to disable them as well. But if the group isn't able to do it...tough luck.
I like to make the most obvious way to accomplish a goal something that the party is particularly poor at, although I will stop short of making it impossible. Just really difficult. I always hint at other methods, though. My philosophy is that there should always be at least three ways of accomplishing something that the DM has thought of, and you should assume that the players will come up with at least one more that you haven't considered. If there is one and only one way of accomplishing something, that's a good plot device for a novel, not an RPG.
Why make it really difficult? Why make the most obivous way the way that the party has little chance of succeeding at?
I was accused, I believe unfairly, of using a gotcha situation. I put the players in a room with some giant ants, and I put a switch on the other end of the room. My design for the encounter was that the soldier ants would be continuously replenished by minions until the players either killed the queen or threw the switch and went through the door.
After the TPK, the players complained that this wasn't fair because I never told them exactly what the switch was for. That seems to cross unreasonably into hand-holding territory. Nobody even requested to make a thievery check to find out, or asked me directly. In addition, they could have easily taken out the queen if the damn strikers hadn't spent all their time on minions, but the players argued that it made more sense tactically to take out the minions than to kill the queen. This even after several rounds of the minions being replaced after dropping.
I hate gotcha scenarios too, but, I'm sorry, at a certain point it's not my job to tell you how to play the game.
Yes I see why the players were angry, this is one of those situations where there is only one outcome and only the Dm knows what it is, and it just happens to be very vague
Why would a thievery check have given them all the information neccessary?
All thos free attacks by the minions while the group tries to kill the Queen, who was what at least an elite but more likely a solo? Funny that you say "If there is one and only one way of accomplishing something, that's a good plot device for a novel, not an RPG" then give an example where there is one and only one way to overcome an encounter.
To me this is a classic example of Gotcha Dming.
As stated by some it is about balance. You try to outsmart your players and give a challenge. If they don't want a challenge than run a Dungeon Delve or go play against a computer with predictable patterns. When it comes to outsmarting the players and their characters I feel that the DM and the NPC's should drop hints. When the player characters don't catch the hints then the DM has free reign to do as he pleases to let the BBEG and his troops take advantage of it.
When it comes to collecting some mushrooms and you don't know the exact amount. Well such useless details can be worked around. The DM should just make sure the players collect the right amount and be done.
Supposedly DM's need to tailor the adventure to the players. I agree to this in the aspect of adjusting the story to fit the type of players you have...not to fit the exact classes present. If my group has no rogue and a pre-written module uses traps...tough luck. Luckily the traps usually allow arcana checks etc to disable them as well. But if the group isn't able to do it...tough luck.
So your saying the players should wait to make characters to know what or if you will be using a module then go buy the module beforehand just to make sure that they can have their bases covered?
I've never understood this reasoning.
Why make it really difficult? Why make the most obivous way the way that the party has little chance of succeeding at?
Because if I make the most obvious root the easiest one, why would anybody bother to look for alternative options? Imagine if the easiest way to blow up the Death Star was to just walk up to it and push a big red button labeled "self-destruct." Nobody would bother smuggling out the schematics, studying them, and flying a near-suicidal mission to hit a target the size of a womp rat, and the ending of the movie would be pretty boring. Clearly, the most obvious way of destroying the death star (pressing the self-destruct button - and you know it had one because these things always do) was also the hardest. Making the most obvious way to accomplish something also the easiest is a recipe for an uninspiring game.
Yes I see why the players were angry, this is one of those situations where there is only one outcome and only the Dm knows what it is, and it just happens to be very vague
Why would a thievery check have given them all the information neccessary?All thos free attacks by the minions while the group tries to kill the Queen, who was what at least an elite but more likely a solo? Funny that you say "If there is one and only one way of accomplishing something, that's a good plot device for a novel, not an RPG" then give an example where there is one and only one way to overcome an encounter.
Actually, there were three ways of overcoming the obstacle:
1. Kill the queen - hardly an unintutive concept in a nest of ants.
2. Throw the switch and walk through the door at the other end of the room.
3. Collapse the mouths of the tunnels that the minions were replenishing from. The players would still have to kill any ants in the room, but at least they could not replenish themselves.
Upon entering the room, I told both players with PCs trained in nature to make a check. They both rolled low, so I told them that they could use a minor action later to study the tunnels in more detail and learn what the missed out on. Had they bother to do so, I would have told them how to collapse the tunnels.
Every time a soldier was killed, the queen would let out a hideous screech, and only then would a minion appear. The queen was clearly calling the minions, and they were clearly arriving from the tunnels. They always appeared on the same squares, which I had previously identified as anthills. I even stopped rolling to recharge the queen's special abilities, because I could see exactly where this was going.
I reminded the players TWICE during the encounter about the door, the switch, and the nature check they had not bothered to retry, once immediately prior to the ranger's turn. When a DM keeps pointing something out to you like that, it's not Chekhov's gun. It's Chekhov's hand grenade with the pin already pulled.
Thievery is the skill that governs all mechanical abilities in 4e, for some stupid reason, so if somebody really wanted to know what the switch did, I would have asked them to make a check. Barring that, since the switch was right next to the door, they could have just flipped it and seen what happened. But nobody even asked about the switch. They were too busy fighting the same damn minions over and over again, and getting slaughtered by the queen, who they weren't even bothering to attack, restrain, or even move out of the way.
To me this is a classic example of Gotcha Dming.
You don't want to just hand players information that their characters would not reasonably know, or walk them through the solution to problems step by step. There were two avenues for knowledge that these players totally failed to pursue, even though I did everything I could to suggest that they might be fruitful. I held back with the monsters, deliberately attacking the PCs with the most HP left rather than dropping characters, and at no point was the current encounter budget more than 2 levels below the PC's (although cumulatively it was much higher).
I really don't feel like I was unfair. I am not normally a DM who tries for TPKs, but when the warlord used his turn to charge a minion instead of heal his dying allies, I decided that these characters were just too dumb to live.
All 3 of your options involves the players killing everything in the room or maybe in option 2 killing nearly everything.
Seems to me you have fallen into a trap of your own making.
You don't want to just hand players information that their characters would not reasonably know, or walk them through the solution to problems step by step. There were two avenues for knowledge that these players totally failed to pursue, even though I did everything I could to suggest that they might be fruitful. I held back with the monsters, deliberately attacking the PCs with the most HP left rather than dropping characters, and at no point was the current encounter budget more than 2 levels below the PC's (although cumulatively it was much higher).
I really don't feel like I was unfair. I am not normally a DM who tries for TPKs, but when the warlord used his turn to charge a minion instead of heal his dying allies, I decided that these characters were just too dumb to live.
I don't know what you are trying to get from your players. It sounds like you are wanting them to see what you see in the game and are punishing them for not seeing the game as you do.
So did the characters learn their lesson...er players?
Seriously, how can the players know what to do if you change 'the rules' on them.
"Because if I make the most obvious root the easiest one, why would anybody bother to look for alternative options? Imagine if the easiest way to blow up the Death Star was to just walk up to it and push a big red button labeled "self-destruct." Nobody would bother smuggling out the schematics, studying them, and flying a near-suicidal mission to hit a target the size of a womp rat, and the ending of the movie would be pretty boring. Clearly, the most obvious way of destroying the death star (pressing the self-destruct button - and you know it had one because these things always do) was also the hardest. Making the most obvious way to accomplish something also the easiest is a recipe for an uninspiring game."
Yet you still want them to just "Throw the switch and walk through the door at the other end of the room." ?
"I reminded the players TWICE during the encounter about the door, the switch, and the nature check they had not bothered to retry, once immediately prior to the ranger's turn. When a DM keeps pointing something out to you like that, it's not Chekhov's gun. It's Chekhov's hand grenade with the pin already pulled." ? Why would the players, if you adhere to 'Making the most obvious way to accomplish something also the easiest is a recipe for an uninspiring game.'
All 3 of your options involves the players killing everything in the room or maybe in option 2 killing nearly everything.
How bout ranged attacks to kill the queen?
How bout listening to the DM and taking the minor action to roll knowledge nature?
All 3 of your options involves the players killing everything in the room or maybe in option 2 killing nearly everything.
Because gods forbid a combat-centric game have killing? There is "Killing the Queen" - which would shut down the hive. Killing one room of ants, and the remnant go dormant until a new Queen hatches. Considering these are freakin' ants we're talking about, status quo is maintained. There is "Throwing the Switch" - which does something unverified, but will let the characters go through the room unharmed. And there is "Collapse the Tunnels" - which prevents the rest of the hive from reaching the party; the queen can be killed or left alone, as she likely wouldn't be able to (or willing to) chase the party. Only one of those three options involves the explicit death of everything, and one leaves them the option. One is an unknown.
Seems to me like you're either not thinking things through, or you're being overly aggressive in your defense of what you think is "right."
All 3 of your options involves the players killing everything in the room or maybe in option 2 killing nearly everything.
Seems to me you have fallen into a trap of your own making.
Option 2 involved walking through the room, opening the door, and closing it behind you.
Of course, this being DnD, most likely they would kill some of the monsters, but I'm not sure why that's a bad thing.
I don't know what you are trying to get from your players. It sounds like you are wanting them to see what you see in the game and are punishing them for not seeing the game as you do.
I'm not trying to get anything from them. I laid out a scenario: you must pass through a room infested by ants in order to get to your goal. I gave three options: fight, make some skill checks and make the fight easier, or avoid the fight. It's a pretty typical DnD scenario.
So did the characters learn their lesson...er players?
I don't know. I haven't played with them since. I really had no desire to. I think the feeling was mutual.
Seriously, how can the players know what to do if you change 'the rules' on them.
I didn't change any rules on them. On what point was I inconsistent?
Yet you still want them to just "Throw the switch and walk through the door at the other end of the room." ?
I don't want them to do anything specific. There were options, and they didn't take any of them. Instead, they just banged their heads against the wall. The scene was pretty typical: the heroes must accomplish some task before they are overcome by a swarm of lesser enemies. In this story, the heroes just kept whacking away pointlessly at the lesser enemies, without ever considering their other options. The players, however, were very aware of the other options. Because I told them about them. Repeatedly.
Oh man, I hate getting pedantic GMs like the one the original poster has. It truly boggles my mind why some DMs actually think that stuff like this is fun. Look, I pay attention to a campaign when I'm in it, and I don't like games where you can coast by with things like "Oh yeah, I get the things for the guy and go to the place" that's just players being lazy and not paying attention. Expecting someone to remember little things like how much you need. Would the ritual guy be that thick? Wouldn't he say "Be sure to get 50 Greenbloom Mushrooms or the ritual won't work!" Oh well, I'm being too serious about it.
As stated by some it is about balance. You try to outsmart your players and give a challenge. If they don't want a challenge than run a Dungeon Delve or go play against a computer with predictable patterns. When it comes to outsmarting the players and their characters I feel that the DM and the NPC's should drop hints. When the player characters don't catch the hints then the DM has free reign to do as he pleases to let the BBEG and his troops take advantage of it.
When it comes to collecting some mushrooms and you don't know the exact amount. Well such useless details can be worked around. The DM should just make sure the players collect the right amount and be done.
Supposedly DM's need to tailor the adventure to the players. I agree to this in the aspect of adjusting the story to fit the type of players you have...not to fit the exact classes present. If my group has no rogue and a pre-written module uses traps...tough luck. Luckily the traps usually allow arcana checks etc to disable them as well. But if the group isn't able to do it...tough luck.
So your saying the players should wait to make characters to know what or if you will be using a module then go buy the module beforehand just to make sure that they can have their bases covered?I've never understood this reasoning.
Hell no. The players just make their characters and will have to deal with the issues when they appear. If they buy and read the module beforehand and I notice it they're out of the game. There are enough players in my area to replace. As for covering basis... There are a few classes which are the base in all games. A healer and a thief are such bases. If people can't get such basics of the game down or willingly not choose such roles in a group...than those people better be very resourceful using other means to get past a trap or something.
Now I do hint beforehand when some specific skill becomes more important then usual during a module. And if they don't have that in their group then the above applies once more.
I'm not holding my player's hands like a bunch of babies. If they want no challenge or challenges they can beat blindfolded...then go play against a computer or with a DM that pampers his group.
Oh man, I hate getting pedantic GMs like the one the original poster has. It truly boggles my mind why some DMs actually think that stuff like this is fun. Look, I pay attention to a campaign when I'm in it, and I don't like games where you can coast by with things like "Oh yeah, I get the things for the guy and go to the place" that's just players being lazy and not paying attention. Expecting someone to remember little things like how much you need. Would the ritual guy be that thick? Wouldn't he say "Be sure to get 50 Greenbloom Mushrooms or the ritual won't work!" Oh well, I'm being too serious about it.
That was what I said. Why wouldn't the cleric ,who needed the mushrooms, not say,"hey fellas make sure you bring me at least 5 mushrooms"
I don't want them to do anything specific. There were options, and they didn't take any of them. Instead, they just banged their heads against the wall. The scene was pretty typical: the heroes must accomplish some task before they are overcome by a swarm of lesser enemies. In this story, the heroes just kept whacking away pointlessly at the lesser enemies, without ever considering their other options. The players, however, were very aware of the other options. Because I told them about them. Repeatedly.
Perhaps. But with what you have been saying, things like 'the easiest way should be the hardest' it makes me think that they didn't take your suggestions all that seriously because they knew if it was 'that easy' there would be something unforseen. You had 3 ways that you thought of, but when the players tried a fourth, you made sure it didn't work.
I had a DM once who after setting up a room and going through a big speach about what was inside, had us do a puzzle with the furnishings. After almost an hour of us wracking our brains about it he finally gave up in disgust and showed us the answer. What he didn't realize was the answer was right in front of him and we all sat at different angles to what he saw.
Hell no. The players just make their characters and will have to deal with the issues when they appear. If they buy and read the module beforehand and I notice it they're out of the game. There are enough players in my area to replace. As for covering basis... There are a few classes which are the base in all games. A healer and a thief are such bases. If people can't get such basics of the game down or willingly not choose such roles in a group...than those people better be very resourceful using other means to get past a trap or something.
Now I do hint beforehand when some specific skill becomes more important then usual during a module. And if they don't have that in their group then the above applies once more.
I'm not holding my player's hands like a bunch of babies. If they want no challenge or challenges they can beat blindfolded...then go play against a computer or with a DM that pampers his group.
You wont hold their hand, but they better have 2 specific classes in the group or they are playing wrong? Why?
Where is your imagination as a DM, wait you use modules thats answers that question. My way or the highway, guess it works for you, but I got tired of fighter, thief, cleric, wizard groups twenty years ago.
Who was casting the ritual? Was it a PC, cause he'd obviously know. If it was an NPC you might not. That really is something you should ask. I would have asked everyone in the party to make an intelligence check (DC 12 in 3e). If anyone succeeded they would have thought to ask earlier. If everyone failed I would make the same check for the NPC. If he fails, well that just sucks. But in life people forget to ask simple questions all the time. Your characters are people and they make mistakes too. Grab as many mushrooms as you can carry and move on.
As for the ant situation, the players were just plain stupid. Do you have any ideas how many ants are in an ant colony? Giant ants would of course have less but there are certainly more than the pcs can handle unless they're far more powerful than the ants. They should have looked for other options. The lever is a giant "look at me" sign and collapsing the tunnels is just common sense. Killing the queen is also something that should have come to someone's mind. It's not the DMs fault if the players don't think.
I had a similar situation about 5 years ago. I had a party of 4th and 5th level characters being led through Chult by local guides. I went out of my way to mention a cave as they were passing by. They then stumbled accross what I described as a 30' tall bipedal lizard with big teeth. The guides split and ran back towards the cave. Some of the party members followed suit. The party wizard (who had no spells, part of the story) decided it would be a better idea to stand his ground and pull out a normal dagger. He then stated that he readies an attack to stab it if it attacks. I asked the standard DM question of "Are you sure?" and he said yes. I think we all can guess how that worked out. Another player decides to run past the cave everyone else fled to and back towards a large contingent of followers (the party was leading a caravan to Halruaa and were stuck in Chult when their ship sank). As the monster entered the camp everyone of couse fled. This player also decided to stand his ground and "give everyone else a chance to escape." You know, the everyone else he led the monster to. He also died horribly, along with a major NPC that tried to save his dumb butt. A couple players, the second victim in particular thought it was unfair. One of the reasons was that I didn't didn't explicitly say it was a T-Rex. These guys are from Waterdeep, they don't know what a T-Rex is. And a T-Rex is scary enough but another 30' tall reptile with teeth isn't? They also had a problem with my not straight up telling them to hide in the cave. What the hell, I am not responsible for party dumb!
You wont hold their hand, but they better have 2 specific classes in the group or they are playing wrong? Why?
Where is your imagination as a DM, wait you use modules thats answers that question. My way or the highway, guess it works for you, but I got tired of fighter, thief, cleric, wizard groups twenty years ago.
Running modules has nothing to do with lack of imagination. You'd look smarter by not making stupid assumptions ;)
And yes a group better be able to perform a healing and a thieving ability. This doesn't mean that there should be a cleric and rogue per se. There are other classes that get decent healing and thievery skills to use.
I go for realism as well. And in life things aren't always the way you want them to be because it would be more easy. Get creative and find a solution around it. Deal with it instead of crying about it.
You could always game with me. See if my DM said something to the effect of "you don't know how many you need." I'd find a way to bring em all :D.
OP: "Gotchas" sounds about right
I play in a small group, and we have a couple of players who show up to every game with Optimized/Max-Min characters, regardless of how their builds fit with the rest of the party. It's all about how "bad" they think they are and "nobody can out-do me" thinking. They don't want to complement the party but outshine it.
One of these players is one of our DM's. As a DM, all of his encounters are similiar to his character builds, maxed and as difficult as possible. Eventhough the DMG states that the role of the DM is to facilitate the game and story, his behavior is very much "it's me against you". He does this both as DM and as Player. If questioned, his response is that he's playing the NPC's and Monsters to the fullest of their abilites. He doesn't adjust to the needs or condition of the situatin. We've had sessions where we've spent considerable time figuring something trivial out only to be told that we didn't specifically ask the right question in the right way. We've had characters die for silly reasons. He seems to enjoy watching us struggle more than he enjoys the game. It appears that what's driving him is not the game but the enjoyment of making things difficult on others.
I've been DM on a few sessions with small games. I don't volunteer to DM anymore because of how difficult this player is. As a DM, if the party does something very creative or intelligent, I'll probably support and reward the effort and make adjustments accordingly. This guy intentionally maxes out the encounters so that only one solution approached in the right way will work. There is no room for problem solving skills. We have to think like he does to "win" the encounter.
Dealing with this type of thing just isn't fun, so I can sympathize with the OP and others who've experienced this.
Likewise, sometimes players don't pay attention either. Then sometimes they do. One of our players is into Pathfinder and has adopted the "chronicle your adventure" approach and can deliver very good story summaries at the start of each session to remind everyone of previous events. That has been helpful and a bit entertaining.
We're headed for a group conversation on this, but we don't know how to approach it. We like this guy and don't want to run him off. We would like him to tone it down to be more in line with the majority of players. Melding playing styles can be difficult.
Perhaps. But with what you have been saying, things like 'the easiest way should be the hardest' it makes me think that they didn't take your suggestions all that seriously because they knew if it was 'that easy' there would be something unforseen. You had 3 ways that you thought of, but when the players tried a fourth, you made sure it didn't work.
I said the most obvious way should be the hardest. And of course there will be something unforeseen. There will always be something unforeseen. But the most obvious way of dealing with a group of monsters is generally charging into the room and hitting them until they are dead, therefore it will generally be the most difficult, especially when you are invading their space.
Now, I did say I generally stop short of making any route impossible, and in this case there was one and only one impossible route: killing the minions one by one while they respawn infinitely while ignoring the queen. This is also probably the most idiotic possible tactic. To be clear:
The players knew that the minions were being summoned by the queen.
They knew that there was a mechanical switch in the room.
They knew that there was information to be gleaned by inspecting the tunnels.
They did not try to kill the queen.
They did not try to throw the switch, or even consider it.
They did not investigate the tunnels.
And afterwards, they accused me of "gotcha" DMing, and the argument was basically, "You didn't tell us outright that we could just throw the switch and open the door." Well, no, because there is no reason that you would know that. But you knew there was a switch, and you knew there was a door, and you have a host of tools available to you to figure out what might happen if you threw the switch. This option was clearly available. You simply chose not to pursue it, nor did you pursue the many other clearly indicated options at your disposal.
Just because I said that the players might come up with a fourth possible approach doesn't mean that every approach should be equally viable. If you're in a Star Wars game, and Luke Skywalker says, "Let's just charge the death star in the Millenium Falcon and shoot at it randomly until it blows up," then he is going to fail. This risk of failure absolutely must be present, or else why even bother rolling the dice?
The DM in the mushroom situation was playing Gotcha DM because he made no indication that the players might have to go to special lengths to gather such a minute piece of information that nobody had any reason to assume was not readily available. It was really a particularly egregious form of metagaming, in a way, since while the players didn't really know (or care) how many mushrooms they needed, the characters most definitely would have. I presented the characters with all of the information that they would reasonably have: that something about the tunnels tugged at their memories of past nature studies, that there was unexamined machinery in the room, that the queen was clearly summoning more minions the longer the battle continued. The options are pretty damn clear: kill the queen to stop the summoning, cut off her ability to summon more minions, or end the battle as quickly as possible by escaping. The worst possible tactic when you are badly outnumbered? Ignore the leaders and hack away at the grunts forever. If the players had come up with some other clever way of stopping the summons, I would have rolled with it. Killing every ant in the hive one by one is not a plan at all. It's suicide.
Honestly, this is a group of 5 level 4 characters who were killed by one level 5 elite and a bunch of level 1 minions. It took half an hour, during which it only grew more obvious that their chosen strategy was not working. Do not weep for them.
(To sympathize: I had a similar experience to the mushroom problem with a DM who gave a player the ability to see the secret threads of fate, so that he could watch people moving along these threads as they went about their day (picture something like the tendrils of time in Donnie Darko). After one character died, we protested that we really should have seen that coming, what with the ability to see fate and all. He explained that, sure, while our characters would have immediately recognized that six threads went into the room but only five went out, we as players never asked exactly how many threads went out. This, to me, is like saying, "You see a big white room," and then when the players enter they get mowed down by a gorilla in a clown suit with a machine gun. "Well, you didn't ask if there was a gorilla with a machine gun in the room." That's gotcha DMing.)
I had a DM once who after setting up a room and going through a big speach about what was inside, had us do a puzzle with the furnishings. After almost an hour of us wracking our brains about it he finally gave up in disgust and showed us the answer. What he didn't realize was the answer was right in front of him and we all sat at different angles to what he saw.
Such is a common pitfall of puzzles. However, anytime you are dealing with a visual puzzle, one of the very first things you should always do is look at it from as many angles as possible. I mean, I learned that from Highlights. Can't find the hidden picture? Always, always try turning the magazine upside down.
But it's rather difficult to judge the complexity of puzzles when you already know the answer, of course. That's why it is important to provide the players with avenues for getting more hints. Like, say, skill checks or prominently placed buttons.
I've had one experience somewhere between gotcha and railroad DMing. While this game had some of the most frustrating points I've ever played it also had a few of my favorite ever.
All of our characters were at a bar watching a magician on stage. We got called up along with some others and he "made us disappear." Right into a dungeon. Our party (plus two NPCs) must now solve a puzzle based on "elements."
We got through the first two okay but we reached a room with a ball that shot lightning when we walked beyond a line on the ground. We tried everything: spider-climb, flying, throwing stuff, and even hiding behind a chest while I pushed it across the threshold. NOTHING WORKED. He then pretty much told us to go back. Apparently one of the previous rooms had a "earth" amulet in it that grounded us and made us undetectable to the lightning orb.
Spider-climbing along the walls and flying totally should have worked...
Anywho, I was extremely frustrated at the end that and we emerged from the dungeon (into a broom closet in the bar) the other player asked where the magician had sent us. He replied with, " I didn't send you anywhere!" I immedietly threw an axe at his head killing him in the middle of the bar.
EDIT:
nowiwantmydmg was playing with me on that one. He's right, I made it out worse than it was. Other than that one point the game was really fun. Pretty wacky and funny too.
I've had one experience somewhere between gotcha and railroad DMing. While this game had some of the most frustratin points I've ever played it also had a few of my favorite ever.
All of our characters were at a bar watching a magician on stage. We got called up along with some others and he "made us disappear." Right into a dungeon. Our party (plus two NPCs) must now solve a puzzle based on "elements."
We got through the first two okay but we reached a room with a ball that shot lightning when we walked beyond a line on the ground. We tried everything: spider-climb, flying, throwing stuff, and even hiding behind a chest while I pushed it across the threshold. NOTHING WORKED. He then pretty much told us to go back. Apparently one of the previous rooms had a "earth" amulet in it that grounded us and made us undetectable to the lightning orb.
Spider-climbing along the walls and flying totally should have worked...
Anywho, I was extremely frustrated at the end that and we emerged from the dungeon (into a broom closet in the bar) the other player asked where the magician had sent us. He replied with, " I didn't send you anywhere!" I immedietly threw an axe at his head killing him in the middle of the bar.
I remember playing in that one.
It wasn't as bad as you make out except for the railroading, definitely something he needs to improve on. To be fair he hasn't really DM'ed that much.
Start by talking to your dm outside of game time. A few years ago (3-4) I was dming for some very experienced players on one night, and playing with mostly the same people on a different night, and combat encounters /skill checks were no longer challenging or fun.
We figured out that "puzzles" trying to figure who to trust, who was playing both sides, finding motivations, and other more story related challenges were more fun than hacking/slashing. We had to use a lot of rare or homebrew monsters to hinder metagaming since most of knew at least one monster manual cover to cover. (I ended up using alot of humanoid npcs with player classes/prestige classes in 3.5).
Your dm might not realize he is being frustrating. I've also had people that I love having play in my games, but dislike playing in theirs, just because of their dm style, so if you talk to your dm and he refuses to accomadate you, you may need to look for a new dm, there are some people who still think dnd is competitive game rather than a cooperative one.
The DM in the OP sounds from the description as though he's playing "gotcha," but it could also be a "gotcha" gotcha, meaning that it doesn't matter how many mushrooms you use since that's not the point of the quest as much as killing the monsters, but he wants to up the tension level a bit.
I mean, what's he going to do? If the party uses their "best judgment" and there actually was a right answer that they get wrong, is he going to bring his own game to a screeching halt? Well, maybe, but that's a somewhat different class of mistake. Ideally, no matter how much ingredient the party decided to use would lead to an interesting result. If it were my game, I'd definitely make sure there was a moment after completing the ritual during which nothing appeared to happen.
Anyway, the number was obviously three. The answer's always three.
My sympathy for the OP has been somewhat damaged by his later words regarding the ant colony scenario.
Just because your players get a buzz out of thinking of their own way out of a solution doesn't mean that every time they say something, it has to work. That's as bad as loading the dice rolls.
Let's say I create a BBEG. Low hitpoints, AC. Can only be harmed by silver. Silver ornamental weapons are on the walls. Rumours have spoken of this. A tome discovered has alluded to this. THEY SHOULD KNOW THIS. If need be, the monster shies away from the silver. (Why's he got silver there? Maybe he's bound to this place... or indeed, one of the silver artefacts itself! Why not?)
"I CAST MAGIC MISSILE!!!!!" Sure, but it won't work. Nor will that iron sword of yours, fighter-boy.
Why not? Because that's how it is. You cannot just mindlessly kill your way through a good and well-thought-out adventure. Some bits, sure, but just because your players want to do something doesn't mean it'll work. Give them options, by all means, but don't get the idea that players have a right to tell the DM how they can beat his challenge. It's like old-school Arcererak (sp?). If you didn't attack him, he couldn't hurt you unless you touched him. Hit him with the wrong stuff, and sure 'nuf, he'd have you.
If I say the room has one door, it's got one door, no matter how much you want it to have a trapdoor as well. Deal with it, and start messing with the gargoyle heads on the walls! 
I believe the canonical example is as follows:
"You didn't say the room had no floor!"
"You didn't ask!"
Clearly to me, the DM in question has a bad case of DM vs. Players, perhaps combined with Simulation-Style gaming.
He wants it to be a contest of his Knowledge and planning, vs. the players, inasmuch as "You didn't ask" etc.
My solution would be to approach him out of game, and let him know in no uncertain terms, people playing the game are pissed off at this mickey mouse "nyah nyah" 6 year old crap b.s., and it's his job as a fair, impartial DM to write good adventures that are do-able with skill, tactics, and a little luck;
To challenge the players and thus the characters, not piss them off / frustrate them.