Playing 4E last week and my guy gets zapped with a petrifying gaze courtesy of a Medusa (Shroud of Zehir). I then proceded to fail my saves and was turned to stone while 20 feet up (I had been flying) and shattered. Before my turn where I failed my last throw, I had asked for an extra throw from another party member and our DM said it would count as a failed throw for petrifying purposes so I decided to not have him waste resources on me.
Today I found out that the PH2 specifically says that extra save throws don't count towards changing conditions, so I could have used that extra throw. Additionally, our DM stated that it was not just me that turned to stone, but ALL of my gear. This wouldn't matter too much except when starting a new character I'll be in prison, so I won't have any gear till we reach the end of the module, and my old gear can't go to help the rest of the party.
So my conundrum is this: What are the rules about gear when you get petrified? Additionally, what other ways are there to get unpetrified besides remove affliction since none of the party has it? I ask because I highly doubt that my DM will allow me the extra save I was denied, and even if he did it may not matter anyways if I fail it too.
If push comes to shove, I have a new character ready to run at our next session, but I don't really like the prospect of playing 4E without any equipment, especially since the monsters we face have defenses in the mid to high 30's (so I won't hit crap). Any solutions to this problem are appreciated.
Playing 4E last week and my guy gets zapped with a petrifying gaze courtesy of a Medusa (Shroud of Zehir). I then proceded to fail my saves and was turned to stone while 20 feet up (I had been flying) and shattered.
Stop here. Here's the definition of the Petrified condition:
While a creature is petrified, it is unconscious. In addition, it has resist 20 to all damage and doesn’t age.
So that's the first problem: your DM is ignoring a pretty clear rule, and moreover one which exists to prevent exactly this sort of situation. So you fall 20 feet, and take 2d10 damage--which probably wouldn't have killed you, if you hadn't been petrified, and can't even hurt you while you're turned to stone.
Before my turn where I failed my last throw, I had asked for an extra throw from another party member and our DM said it would count as a failed throw for petrifying purposes so I decided to not have him waste resources on me.
I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh about your DM, but... it does appear that there are lots of rules he or she doesn't know. This issue has been settled for a long time.
So my conundrum is this: What are the rules about gear when you get petrified?
As far as I know, there aren't any particular rules. It seems reasonable, though, to say that your gear is petrified along with you--and therefore gains the same resist 20 to all damage that you have.
Additionally, what other ways are there to get unpetrified besides remove affliction since none of the party has it? I ask because I highly doubt that my DM will allow me the extra save I was denied, and even if he did it may not matter anyways if I fail it too.
There's a level 10 consumable item called Oil of Flesh Returned, which someone can use on you to let you spend a surge and become un-petrified.
If push comes to shove, I have a new character ready to run at our next session, but I don't really like the prospect of playing 4E without any equipment, especially since the monsters we face have defenses in the mid to high 30's (so I won't hit crap). Any solutions to this problem are appreciated.
One more time... I don't want to slag unnecessarily on your DM, but a 4e PC with no equipment is in serious trouble. If your DM can't or won't find a way to help you out--inherent bonuses, compatible gear taken from some guards, or something--you need to pull him or her aside and have a (polite!) conversation where you discuss the fact that his/her decisions are making it essentially impossible for you to participate in the game until the party finishes the current adventure.
If push comes to shove, I have a new character ready to run at our next session, but I don't really like the prospect of playing 4E without any equipment, especially since the monsters we face have defenses in the mid to high 30's (so I won't hit crap). Any solutions to this problem are appreciated.
If your DM says that new characters come in without equipment, he's basically said, "If you die, you might as well wait out until the next campaign." It would be like making you start at level 1 each time.
mccowen already addressed most of your major issues, so I won't be redundant ... I will say, as a side note, that I wouldn't have petrification affect anything but the PCs actual body. It's not like your sword looked at the medusa.
I know that our DM is not an ideal one to deal with, especially from the rediculous tweaks that happen to the monsters we fight (think "tomb of horrors" style of DMing). However, the campaign is nearly at a close, and our group will be splitting into two since we have enough players for two different parties.
At this point, I suppose I'm sticking it out due to stubborness than anything else. I refuse to walk away, even with the way he runs things mostly because I enjoy using my characters in unique ways that catch him off guard. I just wish I could have my character back since it was the one thing I truely enjoyed about the campaign, and he was unfairly destroyed imo.
This particular DM has always hated to give characters items. at the start of this campaign all equipment was assigned, and we were only allowed to "request" one item in particualr. Also, there are next to no items ever awarded during the campaing. In roughly 15 sessions of 4-5 hours a piece, we've recieved about 10 items for the whole party, only two of which were actually worth equipping.
I know that our DM is not an ideal one to deal with, especially from the rediculous tweaks that happen to the monsters we fight (think "tomb of horrors" style of DMing). However, the campaign is nearly at a close, and our group will be splitting into two since we have enough players for two different parties.
At this point, I suppose I'm sticking it out due to stubborness than anything else. I refuse to walk away, even with the way he runs things mostly because I enjoy using my characters in unique ways that catch him off guard. I just wish I could have my character back since it was the one thing I truely enjoyed about the campaign, and he was unfairly destroyed imo.
I remember having this attitude about bad DMs. I got over it.
It looks like you're stuck with a new, naked character, then. If you party can't get a scroll of Remove Affliction, and can't buy an Oil of Flesh Returned, there's no saving your character. There's a reason petrification takes so long, and is so easily prevented.
I remember having this attitude about bad DMs. I got over it.
It looks like you're stuck with a new, naked character, then. If you party can't get a scroll of Remove Affliction, and can't buy an Oil of Flesh Returned, there's no saving your character. There's a reason petrification takes so long, and is so easily prevented.
We're in a dungeon, well into the shadowfell, with no otion to head back to town for supplies (we never came across a single town the whole module that wasn't destroyed or overrun with demons. So buying supplies is out. Also, I think he "shattered" my character specifically because he hated it, so no items that way either.
I fully expect that he'll end up banning morninglords from all future campaigns because of the stuff I've pulled. Close burst 5 radiant damage that make enemies vulnerable radiant 10, with another 10(20) radiant when the monsters start their turn kind of annoyed him, especially when I'd use my flight power to get into the best position to hit all the enemies :P
I remember having this attitude about bad DMs. I got over it.
It looks like you're stuck with a new, naked character, then. If you party can't get a scroll of Remove Affliction, and can't buy an Oil of Flesh Returned, there's no saving your character. There's a reason petrification takes so long, and is so easily prevented.
We're in a dungeon, well into the shadowfell, with no otion to head back to town for supplies (we never came across a single town the whole module that wasn't destroyed or overrun with demons. So buying supplies is out. Also, I think he "shattered" my character specifically because he hated it, so no items that way either.
I fully expect that he'll end up banning morninglords from all future campaigns because of the stuff I've pulled. Close burst 5 radiant damage that make enemies vulnerable radiant 10, with another 10(20) radiant when the monsters start their turn kind of annoyed him :P
I remember playing under DMs that disliked when the PCs got awesome. I also remember playing under DMs that would assassinate a character because he was inconvenient.
Dunno what to say, dude. You've basically described the situation as an intentional assassination by a DM that doesn't want your character in the game anymore, and isn't imaginative enough to let you have a new character that's worth a damn. It sounds to me like you're being singled out, unless, of course, he's this much of a D-bag to everyone.
I recommend you sit out the rest of the game, because the alternative is playing a useless, tag-along character.
I remember playing under DMs that disliked when the PCs got awesome. I also remember playing under DMs that would assassinate a character because he was inconvenient.
Dunno what to say, dude. You've basically described the situation as an intentional assassination by a DM that doesn't want your character in the game anymore, and isn't imaginative enough to let you have a new character that's worth a damn. It sounds to me like you're being singled out, unless, of course, he's this much of a D-bag to everyone.
I recommend you sit out the rest of the game, because the alternative is playing a useless, tag-along character.
You've essentially described the way our DM feels about characters. He hates anything remotely overpowered, and has therefore banned anything from dragon magazine, and anything to do with psionics (including monks).
Sadly, my character isn't the only one who is coming back naked. We had two other characters that were offed a month ago due to a impossible choice (hand over a world destroying dagger, or die) are coming back the same time as me. So three naked characters, that our DM expects to be equipped from the pool of party items till the end of the module, but all we have right now is enough for the people who are currentlyalive.
I'd hate to just sit out, and I think my druid will still be somewhat effective since he mostly does stuff that benifits the party without needing to hit, but the situation still stucks. Hopefully, armed with rules and logic I can figure out a way to bring my first character back. *sigh*
You've essentially described the way our DM feels about characters. He hates anything remotely overpowered, and has therefore banned anything from dragon magazine, and anything to do with psionics (including monks).
To be fair, even I ban Dragon Magazine content. Some of that stuff is just ridiculous.
You might suggest to your DM that he implement the Inherent Bonuses option from the Dark Sun setting. It will basically relieve him of the responsibility of handing out loot, while keeping the party up to par in attack and defense bonuses.
You've essentially described the way our DM feels about characters. He hates anything remotely overpowered, and has therefore banned anything from dragon magazine, and anything to do with psionics (including monks).
To be fair, even I ban Dragon Magazine content. Some of that stuff is just ridiculous.
You might suggest to your DM that he implement the Inherent Bonuses option from the Dark Sun setting. It will basically relieve him of the responsibility of handing out loot, while keeping the party up to par in attack and defense bonuses.
An excellent suggestion about DS. I agree that some dragon magazine stuff is ridiculous, but it seems heavy handed to just ban it outright. I've always felt that contravercial stuff shoulf be discussed, not unilaterally decided upon. Just my op.
It's worth noting, Inherent Bonuses is also in the DMG2. He seems like the type to say, "Well, this isn't Dark Sun." So just point him to the DMG2.
"Hey, you know how you like running a low-treasure campaign, and don't like the 'monty-hall' mentality of 4e? There's an app for that."
If you trust your DM, you assume that when things seem impossible, he has a sollution up his sleeve and you play on. If you don't trust your DM, you assume that you are just screwed and there is little motivation to continue.
Both DM's ive played with so far started out with the inclination that magic items were somehow cheating and thus were very sparing in their distribution and quick to announce anything worth having was "OP!" and gave the player an unfair advantage.
But players are SUPPOSED to have an unfair advantage. The odds are supposed to be in their favor. Plus, magic is just fun. Its freakin fun to have bizarre items that allow you to do crazy things. And its the possesion of these items that allow you to fight crazy monsters!
And any DM that claims an item is overpowered, yet allows a medusa to ,in essence, kill an otherwise healthy player because he missed a couple of saving throws is a little hypocritical.
I'm a DM that wishes magic items weren't so important. Thats not to say I dislike them but I like the idea that the Characters could pick up any weapon they are proficient with and do well. The magic stuff should be the icing on the cake. This has caused me to usually use inherent bonuses even if the players can still get magic items.
Back on topic I agree with whats been said about the DM. The DM sounds like he is having trouble coming to terms with the fact he is supposed to lose. I have fun taking a group/player down a peg if they get too arrogant or what not but in the end i'm not going to win.
The DM sounds like he is having trouble coming to terms with the fact he is supposed to lose.
MAN am I glad I'm not That Guy anymore. I used to be, back in the day, but I got over it. Now I find myself actively rooting for the players, although I do occasionally make suggestions that aren't in their best interests, but mostly just to screw with my new player (who thoroughly enjoys it).
If I might be so bold . . . if he's going to screw you over this badly, consult the other players privately away from the table and ask if it's possible to collect the pieces and cut and run since you are down a valuable party member . . . make it a point to now sidetrack and get their esteemed colleague and ally back. This is not quite the era of disposable characters anymore . . .
Although, if he is the sort to pretty much single out characters for being overpowered in his opinion and screw over the player . . . no matter what you attempt to do, it will fail. Circumstances will be changed to prevent it. Right now, if you go in with a new character, he likely will not permit the inherent bonus rule because it's "not fair to the other players".
(I'll be honest, I'd give the same reason. Of course I'd grant a stipend in gear too.)
Best course of action, and the most diplomatic one? Let it be known at the table you really feel kind of screwed over coming in with no equipment and ask if there is any way of being recovered and returned to life. (Remember, Raise Dead doesn't require the whole body. Likewise there are rituals to repair things.) Once you get input from your fellow gamers and the DM, make your decision . . . but make the decision which is best for your enjoyment of the game. Not the one which makes "a statement" . . . that can very easily alienate people.
and our group will be splitting into two since we have enough players for two different parties.
In addition to the "stuck in another edition" syndrome, overworked/overstressed DM is likely the more problematic issue.... Will said DM be running both groups or just one? If it is the latter you may want to use this opportunity to start organizing the 2nd group and cut the cord with DM#1 since you say the campaign is nearly over anyway. If said DM is planning to run both groups the situation will almost certainly worsen if DM being overworked is already a problem.
Somebody in group 2 should step up and take the reins - even rotating the responsibility amongst the group members should be preferable to one guy running both groups.
I fully expect that he'll end up banning morninglords from all future campaigns because of the stuff I've pulled. Close burst 5 radiant damage that make enemies vulnerable radiant 10, with another 10(20) radiant when the monsters start their turn kind of annoyed him, especially when I'd use my flight power to get into the best position to hit all the enemies :P
Ok I can see how he's being a bit of a tool killing your character like this, but frankly if you're going to bring a character like morninglord to the table that is pretty much designed to chew through encounters and tick off certain DMs then I guess your asking for it really. If you play hardball with him then he's going to do the same.
I'd still point out the actual rules regarding what happens when you're petrified and "shattering" simply won't happen and I agree with what's been said if you don't get on with this DM then when the group splits see if you can get away from him.
I hate DMs who hate their players.
If sitting down and having a proper discussion doesn't work, you can always play the DMs game.
He wants you to start off as three, naked characters who are going to have no options to power up.
So play three naked characters who have no options to power up. Spend the most amount of time you have doing what any reasonable naked character would do. try and find yourself some clothes. Course, being naked, if they aren't easy to get, you wont be getting them.
Your characters run into a monster/enemy. One pc screams and faints, the other runs into a wall and knocks himself out, the third pees himself. The monster gets them and they are all dead in under half an hour. Then you can do variations again, and again, and again, untill the DM gets the picture that if you don't get to play worthy characters, he wont be having fun either.
A) By "naked" you are meant to imply "without any magic items" not "without clothing" nor even "without any equipment"
b) Any eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, and stooping to somebody else's level because you don't like what they're doing removes your ability to criticize their behavior without being a hypocrit.
I don't see why, if the DM activly disagrees with his players, while ignoring properly written rules, for the sake of His own personal fun, why not turn it on him? This is how he wants the game to go ultimately, so why not cut to the chase. He wants your characters dead, let him have them dead. I am not saying to retaliate by rebelling, I am saying to retaliate by pandering to his ego.
Because if having a rational, intelligent discussion doesn't work, the best answer is to leave the game, because a person who will not listen to reason is not generally a person you will enjoy gaming with. Why retaliate at all when you can simply stop throwing good time after bad and just walk?
Sometimes just dropping the game isn't an option for people who don't have a large player base available.
It is always an option.
Sometimes just dropping the game isn't an option for people who don't have a large player base available.
It is always an option.
This.
Also, what you have to lose is: A) MORE time, not just a few hours, a few MORE hours on top of all the time you've already spent that's been wasted because the DM doesn't understand how the rules work. The PC lost a character he enjoyed because the DM decided to houserule something on the fly, without warning the players ahead of time, and without listening to reason afterward. B) your patience, temper, and potentially friends. If other players in the group understand the OPs gripe, but personally are enjoying the game, being a jerk just because the DM was could potentially cost him more friends.
And going full-blown schoolyard and claiming, "But he started it!" Isn't likely to help anything.
Okay, so you think that my advice is bad, that's fine, not everything is going to work for everyone, and if it did then there wouldn't be problems.I decided to post an alternative or an addition to what had already been posted, and if the OP finds it helpful then great, if he finds your advice helpful then great. If he finds them both helpful or unhelpful then that's a fantastic/a shame and maybe something else will help.
Your advice is not bad. What's bad is your assumption that this is a valid option, or even remotely a good idea. Anyway, it just says a lot about who you are as a gamer, and I won't get into that, since it's irrelevant to the thread.
Your advice is not bad. What's bad is your assumption that this is a valid option, or even remotely a good idea. Anyway, it just says a lot about who you are as a gamer, and I won't get into that, since it's irrelevant to the thread.
I don't think that's true. The OP asked for suggestions about what to do next (among other things), and Alankin posted a suggestion that would be actively destructive to the game. You did a good job of pointing this out politely, but in the face of resistance it bears repeating lest someone stumble on the thread and think Alankin is proposing something reasonable.
There are two operative principles to consider:
(i) Life is too short to game with morons. Even if the only options are to play in a game that frustrates you or not play at all, leaving the game is still the better option.
(ii) "You didn't do what I want, so now I'm going to wreck the game" is both foolish and immature. I've seen it from both sides of the screen, and (full disclosure!) even done it once as a player. So I'm speaking from direct experience when I say all that happens is that you multiply the number of angry people at the table.
He won't let me have the extra save roll I could have used since that game session is over and I didn't find the rule till a couple days later(I expect him to say the same thing about me being shattered). The new characters will be given basic weapons and armor (no neck/waist/etc slot items) after the party defeats the guards of the "jail." So we'd have roughly a +18 with feats to hit monsters that have defenses ranging from 30-40, which is still not ideal imo.
However, our bard just leveled and retrained to get "remove affliction." He also has "make whole" so he'll be able to fix me. The only problem at this point is that our DM has given us only 3 short rests and no extended rests for the last 5 battles, in fact we were attacked the fourth time specifically because we tried to take a short rest. So figuring out how to get the time to fix me is going to be an issue. Hopefully I can convince our cleric to use temple of solitude to give us all a rest, but of course it takes an hour to cast that too... sigh.
Oh well. If we figure out the time problem, I'll be back in fighting form
Thanks again for all the suggestions, even though he didn't go for any of them. Also, he won't be running both groups when we split. So I expect the next campaign will be more about fun and less about barely surviving normal encounters with little to no loot.
...in fact we were attacked the fourth time specifically because we tried to take a short rest.
Is he letting your encounter powers recharge if you don't take a short rest?
The only problem at this point is that our DM has given us only 3 short rests and no extended rests for the last 5 battles, in fact we were attacked the fourth time specifically because we tried to take a short rest.
.........
Here, you need this more than anyone else here.
He won't let me have the extra save roll I could have used since that game session is over and I didn't find the rule till a couple days later(I expect him to say the same thing about me being shattered).
Because it's the player's job to know and correctly adjudicate the rules...?
The new characters will be given basic weapons and armor (no neck/waist/etc slot items) after the party defeats the guards of the "jail." So we'd have roughly a +18 with feats to hit monsters that have defenses ranging from 30-40, which is still not ideal imo.
Yes, I'd say ranging from a 40% to 5% to hit is less than ideal.
The only problem at this point is that our DM has given us only 3 short rests and no extended rests for the last 5 battles, in fact we were attacked the fourth time specifically because we tried to take a short rest.
...yeah, I think Novacat called it.
he won't be running both groups when we split. So I expect the next campaign will be more about fun and less about barely surviving normal encounters with little to no loot.
I suspect the available slots in group 2 will fill up VERY fast, so make sure you get signed up with DM#2 now !!
...So I expect the next campaign will be more about fun and less about barely surviving normal encounters with little to no loot.
Nothing like nearly dying over and over ...for 17 gold and a mundane dagger that you have to split between 5 players. Hope things go better with the next group.
As for the resting thing, mmmm, I may have to play devil's advocate again (as much as this sounds like a sleazy way of causing problems). If you're in enemy territory then they are going to be looking for you unless you take time to hide. I would definitely have patrols searching for you if I was the DM, and I did have a situation like that take shape once. Burn that Temple of Solitude and defend that cleric with your lives, and use everything you possibly can to make this work out. At this point, the extended rest is not just to get YOU back in the fray but it's to get your party back in shape to either go deeper or fight your way out.
And I do echo the sentiment of "better to not play in this campaign than be beaten in the ego for hours on game night". But do you know what you can do to really get back at him though? Bear it. Smile. Turn it into something lighter, and not visible frustration. Get the party to go along and make fun of it while he's being . . . a scented feminine rinse. If he's doing this to get under your skin, then it will be much much more effective a return shot than anything else. Of course, if he doesn't take it well then you're burning that bridge . . .
Above all else? Learn. Watch how he does things, watch the game of the other DM if you can. Take some time and curl up with the Dungeon Master's Guide, some notebooks, and put together a short little mini-campaign. Offer to run it once you have it squared away, saying you want to try DMing since it looks like so much fun. (It goes without saying, don't be a Richard.) Promise that it will only go X sessions and this is just to take a break from a campaign which is "getting too deep". This is, of course, your last resort before simply disappearing and finding another establishment to play in . . . and to be honest, it's how I turned to DMing in the first place
(I got tired of games which were pretty badly organized and had more times not happening than playing due to the DM.)Beyond all this advice, there's nothing we can really do to help you; even if we were there in person it's rude to walk up to a DM leading a bad game and give him a smack with the Clue-By-Four. And if I was there in person I'd be sorely tempted to start a competing group . . . if I wasn't deep in a long-running campaign currently, of course.
Is he letting your encounter powers recharge if you don't take a short rest?
Dude obviously doesn't know the rules at all. Leave now while the leaving is good.
I mean, it takes 5 minutes just to do a proper corpse-looting!
...in fact we were attacked the fourth time specifically because we tried to take a short rest.
Is he letting your encounter powers recharge if you don't take a short rest?
Nope. We're playing a heavily modified module, and he claims the tower were' in only has like two places to rest without being attacked every couple minutes. As it stands the party is dangerously low on healing surges and dailys, with too many encounters being fought with nothing but at-wills, and too many resources being expended on "normal" battles.
In any event, if he doesn't give us an extended rest this next session and/or doesn't let our bard unpetrify me and my equipment, then I'm just going to thank everyone for their time, and leave. I've run out of patience with his style, and just am not having much fun.
Nope. We're playing a heavily modified module, and he claims the tower were' in only has like two places to rest without being attacked every couple minutes. As it stands the party is dangerously low on healing surges and dailys, with too many encounters being fought with nothing but at-wills, and too many resources being expended on "normal" battles.
This guy. This......this guy.... 
In any event, if he doesn't give us an extended rest this next session and/or doesn't let our bard unpetrify me and my equipment, then I'm just going to thank everyone for their time, and leave. I've run out of patience with his style, and just am not having much fun.
May I offer you one better? Contact the DM ahead of time, and ask him if he's planning on giving the party an extended rest, or letting your character get cured. If he doesn't give you the answer you want, clarify that the reason you're asking is that, if he's not going to plan a way for you to get your character back into the game, you don't really see a reason to come to the game and watch your friends have fun while you sit back and spin d10s all night. If he still doesn't give you the answer you want, just let ask him to please let you or another player who you talk to know when he's planning on allowing you to play again, and that in the mean time you're not going to waste your time watching others have fun.
Nope. We're playing a heavily modified module, and he claims the tower were' in only has like two places to rest without being attacked every couple minutes. As it stands the party is dangerously low on healing surges and dailys, with too many encounters being fought with nothing but at-wills, and too many resources being expended on "normal" battles.This guy. This......this guy....
In any event, if he doesn't give us an extended rest this next session and/or doesn't let our bard unpetrify me and my equipment, then I'm just going to thank everyone for their time, and leave. I've run out of patience with his style, and just am not having much fun.May I offer you one better? Contact the DM ahead of time, and ask him if he's planning on giving the party an extended rest, or letting your character get cured. If he doesn't give you the answer you want, clarify that the reason you're asking is that, if he's not going to plan a way for you to get your character back into the game, you don't really see a reason to come to the game and watch your friends have fun while you sit back and spin d10s all night. If he still doesn't give you the answer you want, just let ask him to please let you or another player who you talk to know when he's planning on allowing you to play again, and that in the mean time you're not going to waste your time watching others have fun.
You know, that's not a bad idea. My plan though, was to ask him that stuff in front of everyone where it would make it much more difficult to weasel out of saying yes. For the most part, the others just accept what he dishes out and it's only been me and another player that ever voices our concerns. So I also want to make sure that if I leave, everyone else knows why with out the DM being able to put a spin on the situation.
In any event, if he doesn't give us an extended rest this next session and/or doesn't let our bard unpetrify me and my equipment, then I'm just going to thank everyone for their time, and leave. I've run out of patience with his style, and just am not having much fun.
May I offer you one better? Contact the DM ahead of time, and ask him if he's planning on giving the party an extended rest, or letting your character get cured. If he doesn't give you the answer you want, clarify that the reason you're asking is that, if he's not going to plan a way for you to get your character back into the game, you don't really see a reason to come to the game and watch your friends have fun while you sit back and spin d10s all night. If he still doesn't give you the answer you want, just let ask him to please let you or another player who you talk to know when he's planning on allowing you to play again, and that in the mean time you're not going to waste your time watching others have fun.
You know, that's not a bad idea. My plan though, was to ask him that stuff in front of everyone where it would make it much more difficult to weasel out of saying yes. For the most part, the others just accept what he dishes out and it's only been me and another player that ever voices our concerns. So I also want to make sure that if I leave, everyone else knows why with out the DM being able to put a spin on the situation.
Well, that's not a terrible idea, either, as long as you don't mind potentially making a scene. It might be worth it, but I think if you do that, no matter the result, you won't be playing with that DM anymore. Potentially nobody will, but potentially the others will just think you're being selfish or something and just throw you under the bus.
Of course, you could just show up and sit around on your phone/lap top or with a book or something, and just sit there and entertain yourself, and when anybody says something to you just point out that you're there because you want to play, but you can't because your character is petrified and nobody is allowed to heal him, or whatever. Then go back to your book.
Of course, you could just show up and sit around on your phone/lap top or with a book or something, and just sit there and entertain yourself, and when anybody says something to you just point out that you're there because you want to play, but you can't because your character is petrified and nobody is allowed to heal him, or whatever. Then go back to your book.
I recommend that, just sit around and make sure its know that you want to be there.
Do you think the DM doesn't like you? Maybe he wants to get rid of you out of the group.
Of course, you could just show up and sit around on your phone/lap top or with a book or something, and just sit there and entertain yourself, and when anybody says something to you just point out that you're there because you want to play, but you can't because your character is petrified and nobody is allowed to heal him, or whatever. Then go back to your book.
I recommend that, just sit around and make sure its know that you want to be there.
Do you think the DM doesn't like you? Maybe he wants to get rid of you out of the group.
We get along just fine outside of D&D, it's just the way he is when DMing that causes conficts.
Nope. We're playing a heavily modified module, and he claims the tower were' in only has like two places to rest without being attacked every couple minutes. As it stands the party is dangerously low on healing surges and dailys, with too many encounters being fought with nothing but at-wills, and too many resources being expended on "normal" battles.This guy. This......this guy....
In any event, if he doesn't give us an extended rest this next session and/or doesn't let our bard unpetrify me and my equipment, then I'm just going to thank everyone for their time, and leave. I've run out of patience with his style, and just am not having much fun.May I offer you one better? Contact the DM ahead of time, and ask him if he's planning on giving the party an extended rest, or letting your character get cured. If he doesn't give you the answer you want, clarify that the reason you're asking is that, if he's not going to plan a way for you to get your character back into the game, you don't really see a reason to come to the game and watch your friends have fun while you sit back and spin d10s all night. If he still doesn't give you the answer you want, just let ask him to please let you or another player who you talk to know when he's planning on allowing you to play again, and that in the mean time you're not going to waste your time watching others have fun.
You know, that's not a bad idea. My plan though, was to ask him that stuff in front of everyone where it would make it much more difficult to weasel out of saying yes. For the most part, the others just accept what he dishes out and it's only been me and another player that ever voices our concerns. So I also want to make sure that if I leave, everyone else knows why with out the DM being able to put a spin on the situation.
It's not you he dislikes... it's the character and how you play it. You do stuff that he doesn't expect, and he doesn't have the experience DM'ing to truly deal with.
If he's unsure on a rule, he knows he has to make a decision about it then and there, or it will REALLY bog down the game. At least he has that part down. I'm not saying I agree with it overall, but I do understand certain things about his decisions on the issue.
He has, at least, considered a way of allowing it to be fixed (the extended rest with make whole and remove affliction), even if he hasn't provided an opportunity for it. He didn't know how you did what you did, and he didn't know how to stop it. So when the opportunity presented itself, he took advantage of it to take out what he saw as the problem out of the scenario. He WANTS you to start a new character, is my guess, but he's afraid that you'll become too powerful and try some crazy stuff if you do that makes it impossible for him to deal with what you do.
I think he's caught in what I call the Final Fantasy trap. Basically it is this... He has a specific story he wants to get across. He has a specific way he wants it to go. He plans around this, and has an idea of how all of it is "supposed to" go. Due to this, his DM'ing style becomes very rigid and inflexible. This is most common in DM's that have only been DM'ing for a couple of years. They get frustrated when anything ruins the plans they made, and the more disruptive a single character is, the more they push against allowing the players to be truly innovative.
There are only 2 ways out of this trap for your DM. Either he runs enough games that he finally realizes his error, as it was with me (though I was never as bad as this guy is), or someone points it out to him.
Solutions:
Have him read this article so people can see both your thoughts, and the thoughts of others on it, but do NOT turn it in to an issue in front of your whole gaming group. This will alienate him and make him feel like a social pariah, or piss him off. That won't help him get better at being a DM at all. If you are direct, but private with it, and bring up that the way he is running the game is hindering people having fun, then it's likely he'll come around (though it may take a week or two) and he'll look to be more about fun
Ask him to read the rules more thoroughly, especially the areas associated with combat and status effects... The errata out is there for a reason, so it would be useful too.
Also have him read the section of the DMG 2 about inherent bonuses... It gives the explanations of why its necessary to use it in low magic campaign settings.
If he understands that his rigidity is hampering both the chances of the party and the game succeeding, as well as degredation it causes the overall fun-factor of the game, then he should ease up a bit, either allowing you to reroll with the ability to actually fight back, or have your old character back.
If he truly thinks your old character was an actual game breaker for the campaign, then he can either alter the campaign some so it's not such a huge problem, or simply discuss it with you and you can agree that perhaps a different character would be better for the storyline.
It takes a while to get the hang of DM'ing. A good DM is much more important than strict adherence to the rules, but DM's aren't born that way, even if the first time they run a game is only after 20 years of playing. Be patient, honest, and direct, even if it means telling him that it's not likely you'll play in one of his campaigns again until he has more practice running games under his belt. A statement like that can go a long way to help him understand what truly makes a good game..... the Players and DM working together to create a story that is vibrant, unpredictable, and fun.
I truly enjoyed reading your opinion on the matter. The only minor things that I would say in response is:
1: He has nothing to do with our bard using abilities to fix me, in fact he doesn't even know I'm going to be trying to do that. Our bard and myself were the ones who came up with a possible solution to my problem after reading initial responses here.
2: He's been DMing for over 10 years and from his habits, just seem to be stuck in 2nd edition DM mode. He has stated many times that he hates 4th edition because of the materials covered, and has obviously decided many things are over powered without reading about them (he didn't even know psions don't have encounter powers when discussing why he banned them).
The worlds and stories he crafts are phenominal, but the battles and arbitrary retrictions he uses suck out all the joy those aspects bring to the game. I'd be more than happy to direct him to this thread, but I expect it would do nothing except cause bad blood and make me unwelcome in his home. As it stands, just about anything I do at this point may have the same effect anyways, so I might as well I suppose. Thank you.
As much as I enjoy games that aren't completely combat-centric, there is no way a game can be enjoyable without the combat. That said, it is possible, and in fact easy, to set up combats that test the players that have the "right amount" of magic items for their level. Tactics in combat are the strongest thing to look towards. In my game world, my players typically have trouble until they learn that each race in my game world fights with a different set of tactics from each other, but in a reliable way once you identify their tactics. Stuff like that can help the combat side by providing difficult encounters without feeling you're giving too much to the players by keeping their treasure gain "normal".
If his stories overall are compelling and interesting, then it's more a combat and mechanics issue. What he probably hates the most is the fact that the rules have changed so many times. 4e is VERY balanced compared to most RPG's, and I have no problem allowing all material from both sourcebooks and dragon magazine content in my games (as well as home-brewed races) without any issues in the balance department.
The joy of the game in as many aspects as possible is the goal. No he can't please every player all the time, but most players get a decent amount of their enjoyment from the combat. If that area is lacking because of the things you stated, it can make it enough to destroy a game, as it seems to be from your comments.
All this said, it is possible to get stuck in that Final Fantasy trap and just stay there... some people need a push in the right direction to get moving forward. That is true with alot of the DM'ing traps that are there... It takes a lot of time to get used to it, but you WILL run bad campaigns before you run great campaigns.
If you want a more diplomatic approach, then try to be patient, and allow someone who you know won't fall in to the same issues he has run a couple of one-shots so people can "refresh themselves" and take a break. Give him the chance to be a character instead of a DM. If he sees the other DM running successfully without worrying about the magic items, and while knowing the rules better than he does, he may try to step up that area, having come to the conclusion that he has that weakness on his own. A DM that understands the rules to 4e very clearly would be a necessity in this, but also someone who won't just be a rules lawyer about everything and looking up every rule to get it down just right.
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Either you guys should play the edition he likes, or someone who likes 4E needs to step up and DM it.
It's all but impossible to DM a game you hate and make it fun for everybody else. And even if one is capable of it, no one should ever ask it of that person; why should they be the only one not having fun?
On the other hand, if you're willing to play just to hang out with your friends and enjoy the DM's stories and world-building, just roll up expendable characters and expect to die. Let the TPKs happen. If they negatively impact your DM's story, then he will start preventing them on his own. If they do not, then the players aren't contributing to it anyway, and just enjoy the DM's storytelling time. When mechanical scenarios appear (combat), make them go as quickly as possible; the outcomes are rather irrelevant, after all.
Bring 2 extra character sheets to every session. Don't put any real effort in their construction.
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Yes, this. If first sentence is true, and DM does not actually like the game (and that's a big "if" that only the OP's DM can truly answer), then how has the group ended up playing 4E with him DM-ing?
For instance, does he like DM-ing in general, but feel pressured to run 4E because of player preferences for the system?
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Yes, this. If first sentence is true, and DM does not actually like the game (and that's a big "if" that only the OP's DM can truly answer), then how has the group ended up playing 4E with him DM-ing?
For instance, does he like DM-ing in general, but feel pressured to run 4E because of player preferences for the system?
To answer your question, yes, he does enjoy DMing. As far as playing 4E, I do believe that it because it's what everyone wants to play. Why he feels that psionics are over powered and won't allow any class that uses it (including monks), is beyond me. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that psionics was over powered in 3ED and just assumes that it is still the case. He gave an example of what he says was an over powered monk power when he banned the class:
Ring the Golden BellYou leap up and punch at the air, causing a shimmering bolt of force to arc across the battlefield. You follow the bolt, landing at its point of impact.
Daily Force, Implement, Psionic
Standard Action Close burst 1Effect: Before the attack, you jump 10 squares. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Target: Each creature in the burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 4d6 + Dexterity modifier force damage, and the target is dazed (save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target is dazed until the end of your next turn.
To me this is a mediocre daily that I would never take, yet somehow he says it's over powered. The insight I've gleaned from the responses in this thread lead me to believe that the main problem is that he is uncomfortable with the mechanics of combat in 4ED and feels the need to rework them into something that is more comfortable to him, which of course takes a lot of the fun away from the players.
That all being said, I suppose what I should take away from this thread is that I just shouldn't play 4ED with him as a DM. Whether I stop now or later is about the only thing I still need to decide. One of my friends has already decided to call it quits from that game, and at least one other is considering it.
Again, thank you all for you valuable input and I hope that I can use this experience to be a good DM when I have the chance to run a campaign.
PFirefly, that last post may have really helped me think of something: you say you think your DM is trying to rework 4e into something he's more comfortable with. Do you think that maybe his hatred of 4e isn't true hatred but more discomfort with a system he's unfamiliar with? If it's the latter, there's something I've seen a group try that may work out: co-DMs. Have the current DM continue with the story, but have a co-DM focus more on the mechanical side of things. Somebody who's more familiar with the rules for 4e. Fair warning: this solution requires a fair bit of cooperation among the co-DMs, so it won't work for everyone. But maybe your DM would be willing to give it a try (and take the weight of unfamiliar mechanics off him) - if it can be suggested in an inoffensive way.
This.... and a lot of it....
...I just really need to know did he let you get fixed and removed affliction! *eats popcorn*
...I just really need to know did he let you get fixed and removed affliction! *eats popcorn*
This. Inquiring minds want to know!
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones
). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and I refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones ). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.
Well, if the other guy won't learn from his mistakes, the next best thing is for you to learn from his mistakes.
So how much of a scene ended up being made of it?
Not big at all. I expressed my frustrations with him not allowing actions that should clearly have been allowed regardless of the fact that he wasn't told ahead of time. My friend expressed frustration at not being allowed a ritual he'd had since the start of the campaign. After that, I stuck around till the end of the session where it was decided that the group was splitting. Pretty mellow really, but I don't expect that he got anything out of this experience at all.
So how much of a scene ended up being made of it?
Not big at all. I expressed my frustrations with him not allowing actions that should clearly have been allowed regardless of the fact that he wasn't told ahead of time. My friend expressed frustration at not being allowed a ritual he'd had since the start of the campaign. After that, I stuck around till the end of the session where it was decided that the group was splitting. Pretty mellow really, but I don't expect that he got anything out of this experience at all.
Well, good gaming, I suppose.
Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones ). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.
What a donkey cavity. That DM is such an Il Duce he's drunk with the power he thinks he has. I do not doubt for a second he'll be calling you a whiny baby starting the first session you aren't playing.
Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones
These specific lines are why I would NEVER play with this DM, and in my opinion proves that he is fail... no offense... It makes me REALLY think that he was falling under my afore mentioned trap... the mindset that HE is telling the story and you guys are just riding along. He may be a GREAT storyteller, but that doesn't mean he's great at cooperative roleplaying.
Also, not allowing that problem to be resolved is sign that he wasn't prepared for you to come back, and didn't want you to in the first place... it didn't fit in to his plan. Neither did a simple ritual that is one of the first rituals most characters learn. Disallowing "Make Whole" because a character found a TRULY useful way to use it in the story because he didn't "pre-approve" it is rediculous. If he was that obssessive with things going the way he wanted, he should have made efforts to go over that bard's list of rituals.
Having said that, if he had gone over that list, what's the likelyhood that make whole, of all rituals, would have been banned? It seems like such an innocuous spell. I highly doubt he would have banned it. It's not his fault that the players were creative and thought of a way through his efforts... It's the point of the game. Players are supposed to be creative, and DM's moreso. The appropriate reaction would have been to allow it and adjust your story to fit, not force your story to happen. Spells that can be used to get around problems by using them in creative ways is why wizards (and other spellcasters) are supposed to be feared, not the intrinsic power of a single spell.
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
In any case, if you have questions about DMing, ask them. We'll answer them.
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Goodluck behind the screen!
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Man up and let him learn what he was doing wrong by doing it right.
This... This is what I was going to say. Let him in, let him see what you do, and how it can be better when you work together to create a story.
I kinda do have a thing for telling other DMs "You're doing it wrong, objectively" and it's fun saving another group from terrible DMing once in a while.
Goodluck behind the screen!
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Man up and let him learn what he was doing wrong by doing it right.
Pretty much how I feel too. I'd be happy to have him in the group with no hard feelings, I just won't play another game with him as DM. I don't hold grudges, but I'm not a masochist either.
P.S. Thanks wyzard
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
Thats why I play DnD, now if only I could encourage my players to challenge me more in this way.
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
Thats why I play DnD, now if only I could encourage my players to challenge me more in this way.
People consistantly playing like this are why I learned and became a better DM.
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I'd actually been considering that earlier today while going through the module again. Last week I asked my players to bring a wish list of gear that they'd like to find as they level up, but I don't know if they will. So I figure the best way around that is to have one of the factions in the middle tiers act as a trading post of sorts so they can buy and sell loot when they reach character lvl 9. Story wise it makes sense that there should be tons of lvl appropriate gear lying around from fallen heroes, so I'll just work that in.
I'm not sure what else I should/could work into the module to keep it from being a straight dungeon crawl though. The module says to allow players to form alliances with factions, but the alliances don't have any depth. So perhaps I'll work on that.
I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate as far as inviting this guy to your game ... I'm a cynical, petty, vindictive b****rd, and as such, I tend to expect that sort of behavior in other people. As such, I feel compelled to say that you should be careful that this guy isn't going to try to sabotage your game by being a problem player.
Dude obviously doesn't know the rules well enough to cause a real problem.
You....you really don't need to know the rules to cause a real problem at a game. Thinking you know the rules, in fact, is far worse.
I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate as far as inviting this guy to your game ... I'm a cynical, petty, vindictive b****rd, and as such, I tend to expect that sort of behavior in other people. As such, I feel compelled to say that you should be careful that this guy isn't going to try to sabotage your game by being a problem player.
Dude obviously doesn't know the rules well enough to cause a real problem.
You....you really don't need to know the rules to cause a real problem at a game. Thinking you know the rules, in fact, is far worse.
The worst "rules lawyer" types are the ones that think they know the rules from previous dm's and gaming experiences that insist that they know the rules all the time. So I agree with you on this Cohen.
The worst "rules lawyer" types are the ones that think they know the rules from previous dm's and gaming experiences that insist that they know the rules all the time. So I agree with you on this Cohen.
While that is true. They are also the easiest to shut down. Open the book to the rule in question; prove them wrong and move on.
The problem is they tend to end up being the most antagonistic. You open the book on them once (thus causing a slowdown of gameplay), and if they don't immediately shut down, it ends up escalating. After all, so what if you were right once, my last DM never used that rule anyway so I was just guessing how it worked and I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS I'M TAKING MY DICE AND GOING HOME! *table flip*
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I'd actually been considering that earlier today while going through the module again. Last week I asked my players to bring a wish list of gear that they'd like to find as they level up, but I don't know if they will. So I figure the best way around that is to have one of the factions in the middle tiers act as a trading post of sorts so they can buy and sell loot when they reach character lvl 9. Story wise it makes sense that there should be tons of lvl appropriate gear lying around from fallen heroes, so I'll just work that in.
I'm not sure what else I should/could work into the module to keep it from being a straight dungeon crawl though. The module says to allow players to form alliances with factions, but the alliances don't have any depth. So perhaps I'll work on that.
What I did was made the Foulspawn and their human worshippers into refugees. I altered it so that they weren't Foulspawn. Instead they were Githzerai Monks and Priests who had become trapped in the Pyramid long ago. They staked out the area closest to the Far Realm incursion to keep it from spreading further. The humans with them are hapless commoners who managed to get trapped in the Pyramid and escaped the Ettin. The Githzerai gathered them up and sheltered them. They carved masks of wood to cover their features so as not to scare the people they were trying to save.
My group came into that chamber ready for a fight, and were pleasantly surprised to find a non-hostile group in the Pyramid.
What I did was made the Foulspawn and their human worshippers into refugees. I altered it so that they weren't Foulspawn. Instead they were Githzerai Monks and Priests who had become trapped in the Pyramid long ago. They staked out the area closest to the Far Realm incursion to keep it from spreading further. The humans with them are hapless commoners who managed to get trapped in the Pyramid and escaped the Ettin. The Githzerai gathered them up and sheltered them. They carved masks of wood to cover their features so as not to scare the people they were trying to save.
My group came into that chamber ready for a fight, and were pleasantly surprised to find a non-hostile group in the Pyramid.
Which would have been quite plesent. Would have been nice if my GM had had a simalar idea.
In all honesty, I did it on the fly.
When they entered the chamber, they managed to do it quietly. The first people they saw were the humans, some of them sickly, but all of them pretty obviously minions. One of my players was very uncomfortable with the prospect of slaughtering a bunch of innocent peasants (which is the inevitable result if a fight breaks out with the Foulspawn in that encounter), and I could see a couple of the other players had their doubts (I play with people whom I would describe as "genuinely good.").
They succeeded with their Insight checks to figure out that the Foulspawn were not what they were pretending to be. The Warlord, Fighter and Sorcerer went to talk to the Foulspawn privately. At the same time, the Wizard and the Rogue were doing some scouting, looking for something sinister. While this was going on, it gave me time to make adjustments to the script in my head and I decided to change it from a combat encounter into a safe haven. When it came time for the "priests" to drop their masks, I picked the PC race with the most alien features (while still matching the description I gave earlier when one of them noticed strangely mottled flesh under the Foulspawn robes), the Githzerai, and ran with it.
And that is how the Foulspawn corrupters became Githzerai followers of the Path of Light.
At the end of the adventure, the players dashed back, rounded them all up helped them all escape the Pyramid. Afterwards, in the epilogue, the PCs helped the Githzerai and their followers set up a new temple to the Path of Light at the town of Winterhaven and I added to my cast of supporting characters.
Well Malak, I rather like your idea. In fact I may have them be the "trading post" since the party should be lvl 9 by the time they get to that area. Thanks for the great idea.
Be careful how you do this. If your group is in "shoot first, ask questions of the corpse" mode, the place needs to be an obvious safe haven. I was able to hide the identities of the community leaders for two reasons. Though my players were wary, expecting treachery right up to the reveal, they did not want to fight and risk the collateral damage. The other reason is that I use treachery sparingly. My players don't suspect every NPC of being a traitor because most of the NPCs they encounter do what they say they will do or act in accordance with previously established behavior (even quite a few of the villains). As a result, my players don't feel that it is better to kill suspicious NPCs because "they are just going to stab us in the back later."
If your players are not "kill on sight" people, then you can probably get away with a little subterfuge. At the very least, turn it into a skill challenge and make the PCs and NPCs have to earn each others' trust.
BTW, the best skill challenges are the ones the players don't know they are partaking in. Even I didn't realize that I had turned the encounter into a skill challenge until it was over. The players had made over a half dozen skill checks, only a couple failures, had some great roleplay and some creative use of utility powers.
I find the real trick to making unobtrusive skill challenges is to allow good roleplay to replace some of the dice rolling. If the roleplay would have served the same function as a successful skill check, then I chalk up a success and let the scene continue. And never, ever, talk about the mechanics of the skill challenge during the event. Don't mention anything about successes or failures. Don't present them a list of skills. Be flexible, present the problem, and let them describe how they overcome it. Sometimes I don't get the balance quite right, but there have been quite a few times where we have finished a non-combat scene where one of the players suddenly says, "Wait, was that a skill challenge?" At that point, I know I'm doing it right.
As far as skill challenges goes, I definitely seen that done before and I like the concept of using a "roleplay" skill check as opposed to always just using the dice.
It worked out well in the end.
Regarding your earlier problem, I'm betting the DM's real problem was that he didn't like the morninglord (which, let's be honest, is a game breakingly abusive combination), and rather then deal with it outside the game by telling you 'dude, morninglord is stupid, and is ruining the game, can you please build another character', he just started looking for reasons to kill you and leave you dead. He dealt with it badly, though as someone who has had people bring outright broken characters to the table, it's very easy to get caught in the "just kill that person's character and look at the next one with a fine tooth comb" mentality.
Regardless, it was probably for the best to leave his group and start your own. Still. Seriously, stay away from Pyramid of Shadows, it is baaaaad.
I truly enjoyed reading your opinion on the matter. The only minor things that I would say in response is:
1: He has nothing to do with our bard using abilities to fix me, in fact he doesn't even know I'm going to be trying to do that. Our bard and myself were the ones who came up with a possible solution to my problem after reading initial responses here.
2: He's been DMing for over 10 years and from his habits, just seem to be stuck in 2nd edition DM mode. He has stated many times that he hates 4th edition because of the materials covered, and has obviously decided many things are over powered without reading about them (he didn't even know psions don't have encounter powers when discussing why he banned them).
The worlds and stories he crafts are phenominal, but the battles and arbitrary retrictions he uses suck out all the joy those aspects bring to the game. I'd be more than happy to direct him to this thread, but I expect it would do nothing except cause bad blood and make me unwelcome in his home. As it stands, just about anything I do at this point may have the same effect anyways, so I might as well I suppose. Thank you.
As much as I enjoy games that aren't completely combat-centric, there is no way a game can be enjoyable without the combat. That said, it is possible, and in fact easy, to set up combats that test the players that have the "right amount" of magic items for their level. Tactics in combat are the strongest thing to look towards. In my game world, my players typically have trouble until they learn that each race in my game world fights with a different set of tactics from each other, but in a reliable way once you identify their tactics. Stuff like that can help the combat side by providing difficult encounters without feeling you're giving too much to the players by keeping their treasure gain "normal".
If his stories overall are compelling and interesting, then it's more a combat and mechanics issue. What he probably hates the most is the fact that the rules have changed so many times. 4e is VERY balanced compared to most RPG's, and I have no problem allowing all material from both sourcebooks and dragon magazine content in my games (as well as home-brewed races) without any issues in the balance department.
The joy of the game in as many aspects as possible is the goal. No he can't please every player all the time, but most players get a decent amount of their enjoyment from the combat. If that area is lacking because of the things you stated, it can make it enough to destroy a game, as it seems to be from your comments.
All this said, it is possible to get stuck in that Final Fantasy trap and just stay there... some people need a push in the right direction to get moving forward. That is true with alot of the DM'ing traps that are there... It takes a lot of time to get used to it, but you WILL run bad campaigns before you run great campaigns.
If you want a more diplomatic approach, then try to be patient, and allow someone who you know won't fall in to the same issues he has run a couple of one-shots so people can "refresh themselves" and take a break. Give him the chance to be a character instead of a DM. If he sees the other DM running successfully without worrying about the magic items, and while knowing the rules better than he does, he may try to step up that area, having come to the conclusion that he has that weakness on his own. A DM that understands the rules to 4e very clearly would be a necessity in this, but also someone who won't just be a rules lawyer about everything and looking up every rule to get it down just right.
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Either you guys should play the edition he likes, or someone who likes 4E needs to step up and DM it.
It's all but impossible to DM a game you hate and make it fun for everybody else. And even if one is capable of it, no one should ever ask it of that person; why should they be the only one not having fun?
On the other hand, if you're willing to play just to hang out with your friends and enjoy the DM's stories and world-building, just roll up expendable characters and expect to die. Let the TPKs happen. If they negatively impact your DM's story, then he will start preventing them on his own. If they do not, then the players aren't contributing to it anyway, and just enjoy the DM's storytelling time. When mechanical scenarios appear (combat), make them go as quickly as possible; the outcomes are rather irrelevant, after all.
Bring 2 extra character sheets to every session. Don't put any real effort in their construction.
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Yes, this. If first sentence is true, and DM does not actually like the game (and that's a big "if" that only the OP's DM can truly answer), then how has the group ended up playing 4E with him DM-ing?
For instance, does he like DM-ing in general, but feel pressured to run 4E because of player preferences for the system?
He hates 4E. So, he shouldn't be DMing it.
Yes, this. If first sentence is true, and DM does not actually like the game (and that's a big "if" that only the OP's DM can truly answer), then how has the group ended up playing 4E with him DM-ing?
For instance, does he like DM-ing in general, but feel pressured to run 4E because of player preferences for the system?
To answer your question, yes, he does enjoy DMing. As far as playing 4E, I do believe that it because it's what everyone wants to play. Why he feels that psionics are over powered and won't allow any class that uses it (including monks), is beyond me. I suspect that it has to do with the fact that psionics was over powered in 3ED and just assumes that it is still the case. He gave an example of what he says was an over powered monk power when he banned the class:
Ring the Golden BellYou leap up and punch at the air, causing a shimmering bolt of force to arc across the battlefield. You follow the bolt, landing at its point of impact.
Daily Force, Implement, Psionic
Standard Action Close burst 1Effect: Before the attack, you jump 10 squares. This movement doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.
Target: Each creature in the burst
Attack: Dexterity vs. Reflex
Hit: 4d6 + Dexterity modifier force damage, and the target is dazed (save ends).
Miss: Half damage, and the target is dazed until the end of your next turn.
To me this is a mediocre daily that I would never take, yet somehow he says it's over powered. The insight I've gleaned from the responses in this thread lead me to believe that the main problem is that he is uncomfortable with the mechanics of combat in 4ED and feels the need to rework them into something that is more comfortable to him, which of course takes a lot of the fun away from the players.
That all being said, I suppose what I should take away from this thread is that I just shouldn't play 4ED with him as a DM. Whether I stop now or later is about the only thing I still need to decide. One of my friends has already decided to call it quits from that game, and at least one other is considering it.
Again, thank you all for you valuable input and I hope that I can use this experience to be a good DM when I have the chance to run a campaign.
PFirefly, that last post may have really helped me think of something: you say you think your DM is trying to rework 4e into something he's more comfortable with. Do you think that maybe his hatred of 4e isn't true hatred but more discomfort with a system he's unfamiliar with? If it's the latter, there's something I've seen a group try that may work out: co-DMs. Have the current DM continue with the story, but have a co-DM focus more on the mechanical side of things. Somebody who's more familiar with the rules for 4e. Fair warning: this solution requires a fair bit of cooperation among the co-DMs, so it won't work for everyone. But maybe your DM would be willing to give it a try (and take the weight of unfamiliar mechanics off him) - if it can be suggested in an inoffensive way.
This.... and a lot of it....
...I just really need to know did he let you get fixed and removed affliction! *eats popcorn*
...I just really need to know did he let you get fixed and removed affliction! *eats popcorn*
This. Inquiring minds want to know!
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones
). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and I refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones ). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.
Well, if the other guy won't learn from his mistakes, the next best thing is for you to learn from his mistakes.
So how much of a scene ended up being made of it?
Not big at all. I expressed my frustrations with him not allowing actions that should clearly have been allowed regardless of the fact that he wasn't told ahead of time. My friend expressed frustration at not being allowed a ritual he'd had since the start of the campaign. After that, I stuck around till the end of the session where it was decided that the group was splitting. Pretty mellow really, but I don't expect that he got anything out of this experience at all.
So how much of a scene ended up being made of it?
Not big at all. I expressed my frustrations with him not allowing actions that should clearly have been allowed regardless of the fact that he wasn't told ahead of time. My friend expressed frustration at not being allowed a ritual he'd had since the start of the campaign. After that, I stuck around till the end of the session where it was decided that the group was splitting. Pretty mellow really, but I don't expect that he got anything out of this experience at all.
Well, good gaming, I suppose.
Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones ). Thanks again for all the suggestions in this thread, and I will be sure to encorporate them as I learn to run 4E so my players won't face the same frustrations.
What a donkey cavity. That DM is such an Il Duce he's drunk with the power he thinks he has. I do not doubt for a second he'll be calling you a whiny baby starting the first session you aren't playing.
Well, the situation has been resolved. He refused to let my character be fixed since I didn't let him know ahead of time that I was going to fix my guy, and he didn't allow our bard to use "make whole" because he said our bard's ritual list wasn't pre-approved even though he'd had that ritual since the start of the campaign.
Needless to say, I will not be playing 4E with him again. in fact I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group. I hope to be a good DM, and refuse to make the same mistakes as my previous DM (I'll make all new ones
These specific lines are why I would NEVER play with this DM, and in my opinion proves that he is fail... no offense... It makes me REALLY think that he was falling under my afore mentioned trap... the mindset that HE is telling the story and you guys are just riding along. He may be a GREAT storyteller, but that doesn't mean he's great at cooperative roleplaying.
Also, not allowing that problem to be resolved is sign that he wasn't prepared for you to come back, and didn't want you to in the first place... it didn't fit in to his plan. Neither did a simple ritual that is one of the first rituals most characters learn. Disallowing "Make Whole" because a character found a TRULY useful way to use it in the story because he didn't "pre-approve" it is rediculous. If he was that obssessive with things going the way he wanted, he should have made efforts to go over that bard's list of rituals.
Having said that, if he had gone over that list, what's the likelyhood that make whole, of all rituals, would have been banned? It seems like such an innocuous spell. I highly doubt he would have banned it. It's not his fault that the players were creative and thought of a way through his efforts... It's the point of the game. Players are supposed to be creative, and DM's moreso. The appropriate reaction would have been to allow it and adjust your story to fit, not force your story to happen. Spells that can be used to get around problems by using them in creative ways is why wizards (and other spellcasters) are supposed to be feared, not the intrinsic power of a single spell.
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
In any case, if you have questions about DMing, ask them. We'll answer them.
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Goodluck behind the screen!
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Man up and let him learn what he was doing wrong by doing it right.
This... This is what I was going to say. Let him in, let him see what you do, and how it can be better when you work together to create a story.
I kinda do have a thing for telling other DMs "You're doing it wrong, objectively" and it's fun saving another group from terrible DMing once in a while.
Goodluck behind the screen!
Here is kinda a crazy thought, lets say the dumbDM's group goes bottom up. He asks you if he can play? Do you let him in? If you do... do you take petty revenge(even just alittle) or the high road.
Man up and let him learn what he was doing wrong by doing it right.
Pretty much how I feel too. I'd be happy to have him in the group with no hard feelings, I just won't play another game with him as DM. I don't hold grudges, but I'm not a masochist either.
P.S. Thanks wyzard
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
Thats why I play DnD, now if only I could encourage my players to challenge me more in this way.
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I don't know how many times in the older editions people would use simple cantrips to completely bypass challenges. (Removing an enemy's armor, distracting guards with ghost sound to walk past them, etc.) Keeping the story moving both in spite of, and because of these things is what a great DM does.
Thats why I play DnD, now if only I could encourage my players to challenge me more in this way.
People consistantly playing like this are why I learned and became a better DM.
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I'd actually been considering that earlier today while going through the module again. Last week I asked my players to bring a wish list of gear that they'd like to find as they level up, but I don't know if they will. So I figure the best way around that is to have one of the factions in the middle tiers act as a trading post of sorts so they can buy and sell loot when they reach character lvl 9. Story wise it makes sense that there should be tons of lvl appropriate gear lying around from fallen heroes, so I'll just work that in.
I'm not sure what else I should/could work into the module to keep it from being a straight dungeon crawl though. The module says to allow players to form alliances with factions, but the alliances don't have any depth. So perhaps I'll work on that.
I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate as far as inviting this guy to your game ... I'm a cynical, petty, vindictive b****rd, and as such, I tend to expect that sort of behavior in other people. As such, I feel compelled to say that you should be careful that this guy isn't going to try to sabotage your game by being a problem player.
Dude obviously doesn't know the rules well enough to cause a real problem.
You....you really don't need to know the rules to cause a real problem at a game. Thinking you know the rules, in fact, is far worse.
I'm going to play a little Devil's Advocate as far as inviting this guy to your game ... I'm a cynical, petty, vindictive b****rd, and as such, I tend to expect that sort of behavior in other people. As such, I feel compelled to say that you should be careful that this guy isn't going to try to sabotage your game by being a problem player.
Dude obviously doesn't know the rules well enough to cause a real problem.
You....you really don't need to know the rules to cause a real problem at a game. Thinking you know the rules, in fact, is far worse.
The worst "rules lawyer" types are the ones that think they know the rules from previous dm's and gaming experiences that insist that they know the rules all the time. So I agree with you on this Cohen.
The worst "rules lawyer" types are the ones that think they know the rules from previous dm's and gaming experiences that insist that they know the rules all the time. So I agree with you on this Cohen.
While that is true. They are also the easiest to shut down. Open the book to the rule in question; prove them wrong and move on.
The problem is they tend to end up being the most antagonistic. You open the book on them once (thus causing a slowdown of gameplay), and if they don't immediately shut down, it ends up escalating. After all, so what if you were right once, my last DM never used that rule anyway so I was just guessing how it worked and I DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THIS I'M TAKING MY DICE AND GOING HOME! *table flip*
I will be DMing starting next week using the Pyramid of Shadows module to get used to running 4E, playing with the split group.
Pyramid Of Shadows is a module with problems, for the record - watch out for the "what do you mean, there is no place to spend our loot for THREE WHOLE LEVELS" and the "Most of the treasure is in the only optional Encounters" problems. Consider having at least one group in the pyramid be *friendly*, or at least willing to trade.
I'd actually been considering that earlier today while going through the module again. Last week I asked my players to bring a wish list of gear that they'd like to find as they level up, but I don't know if they will. So I figure the best way around that is to have one of the factions in the middle tiers act as a trading post of sorts so they can buy and sell loot when they reach character lvl 9. Story wise it makes sense that there should be tons of lvl appropriate gear lying around from fallen heroes, so I'll just work that in.
I'm not sure what else I should/could work into the module to keep it from being a straight dungeon crawl though. The module says to allow players to form alliances with factions, but the alliances don't have any depth. So perhaps I'll work on that.
What I did was made the Foulspawn and their human worshippers into refugees. I altered it so that they weren't Foulspawn. Instead they were Githzerai Monks and Priests who had become trapped in the Pyramid long ago. They staked out the area closest to the Far Realm incursion to keep it from spreading further. The humans with them are hapless commoners who managed to get trapped in the Pyramid and escaped the Ettin. The Githzerai gathered them up and sheltered them. They carved masks of wood to cover their features so as not to scare the people they were trying to save.
My group came into that chamber ready for a fight, and were pleasantly surprised to find a non-hostile group in the Pyramid.
What I did was made the Foulspawn and their human worshippers into refugees. I altered it so that they weren't Foulspawn. Instead they were Githzerai Monks and Priests who had become trapped in the Pyramid long ago. They staked out the area closest to the Far Realm incursion to keep it from spreading further. The humans with them are hapless commoners who managed to get trapped in the Pyramid and escaped the Ettin. The Githzerai gathered them up and sheltered them. They carved masks of wood to cover their features so as not to scare the people they were trying to save.
My group came into that chamber ready for a fight, and were pleasantly surprised to find a non-hostile group in the Pyramid.
Which would have been quite plesent. Would have been nice if my GM had had a simalar idea.
In all honesty, I did it on the fly.
When they entered the chamber, they managed to do it quietly. The first people they saw were the humans, some of them sickly, but all of them pretty obviously minions. One of my players was very uncomfortable with the prospect of slaughtering a bunch of innocent peasants (which is the inevitable result if a fight breaks out with the Foulspawn in that encounter), and I could see a couple of the other players had their doubts (I play with people whom I would describe as "genuinely good.").
They succeeded with their Insight checks to figure out that the Foulspawn were not what they were pretending to be. The Warlord, Fighter and Sorcerer went to talk to the Foulspawn privately. At the same time, the Wizard and the Rogue were doing some scouting, looking for something sinister. While this was going on, it gave me time to make adjustments to the script in my head and I decided to change it from a combat encounter into a safe haven. When it came time for the "priests" to drop their masks, I picked the PC race with the most alien features (while still matching the description I gave earlier when one of them noticed strangely mottled flesh under the Foulspawn robes), the Githzerai, and ran with it.
And that is how the Foulspawn corrupters became Githzerai followers of the Path of Light.
At the end of the adventure, the players dashed back, rounded them all up helped them all escape the Pyramid. Afterwards, in the epilogue, the PCs helped the Githzerai and their followers set up a new temple to the Path of Light at the town of Winterhaven and I added to my cast of supporting characters.
Well Malak, I rather like your idea. In fact I may have them be the "trading post" since the party should be lvl 9 by the time they get to that area. Thanks for the great idea.
Be careful how you do this. If your group is in "shoot first, ask questions of the corpse" mode, the place needs to be an obvious safe haven. I was able to hide the identities of the community leaders for two reasons. Though my players were wary, expecting treachery right up to the reveal, they did not want to fight and risk the collateral damage. The other reason is that I use treachery sparingly. My players don't suspect every NPC of being a traitor because most of the NPCs they encounter do what they say they will do or act in accordance with previously established behavior (even quite a few of the villains). As a result, my players don't feel that it is better to kill suspicious NPCs because "they are just going to stab us in the back later."
If your players are not "kill on sight" people, then you can probably get away with a little subterfuge. At the very least, turn it into a skill challenge and make the PCs and NPCs have to earn each others' trust.
BTW, the best skill challenges are the ones the players don't know they are partaking in. Even I didn't realize that I had turned the encounter into a skill challenge until it was over. The players had made over a half dozen skill checks, only a couple failures, had some great roleplay and some creative use of utility powers.
I find the real trick to making unobtrusive skill challenges is to allow good roleplay to replace some of the dice rolling. If the roleplay would have served the same function as a successful skill check, then I chalk up a success and let the scene continue. And never, ever, talk about the mechanics of the skill challenge during the event. Don't mention anything about successes or failures. Don't present them a list of skills. Be flexible, present the problem, and let them describe how they overcome it. Sometimes I don't get the balance quite right, but there have been quite a few times where we have finished a non-combat scene where one of the players suddenly says, "Wait, was that a skill challenge?" At that point, I know I'm doing it right.
As far as skill challenges goes, I definitely seen that done before and I like the concept of using a "roleplay" skill check as opposed to always just using the dice.
It worked out well in the end.
Regarding your earlier problem, I'm betting the DM's real problem was that he didn't like the morninglord (which, let's be honest, is a game breakingly abusive combination), and rather then deal with it outside the game by telling you 'dude, morninglord is stupid, and is ruining the game, can you please build another character', he just started looking for reasons to kill you and leave you dead. He dealt with it badly, though as someone who has had people bring outright broken characters to the table, it's very easy to get caught in the "just kill that person's character and look at the next one with a fine tooth comb" mentality.
Regardless, it was probably for the best to leave his group and start your own. Still. Seriously, stay away from Pyramid of Shadows, it is baaaaad.