Dear JB:
When discussing rolling stats and how I wanted the characters to use the point buy system suggested on the D&D Next website. Players really didn't like this by some mumbling under their breaths. In fact, one said if he didn't have a character "with at least two 18 stats" he would suicide the character and re-roll. Implying he would do this until he got the stats he wanted. I communicated with the whole group that I wanted everyone to have fun but this type of power gaming is very difficult to run and make encounters fun and challenging but not turn into a total party kill. They still want nothing to do with it.This whole situation has turned DM'ing off for me. I've been a DM since I was 16 (50 now). DM'd more than actually played. Idk. Guess I'll just play role-playing video games instead of tabletop D&D.(Edit) I should add that the suicide character situation came about when discussing alternate stat rolling ideas. The group wanted to roll 4d6 reroll the 1 and 2, keep 3 highest dice. They didn't want to be Heroes, they want to be Demi-Gods in my opinion.
(Edit 2) In person gaming. These are people I've gamed with for years. Just getting tired of the power gaming. Would rather have story telling adventures.
Power Gamers Ruining D&D For Me
Dear PGRD:
I am so, so sorry. So sorry that you started DMing 34 years ago. If you learned your chops in 1991, you were learning from 2nd edition AD&D and that was one broken-ass game system when it came to explaining what the Dungeons & Dragons game is all about. TSR did you wrong, fella, and unfortunately, you've got some "un-learning" to do.
I mean, clearly you do, because what you're describing here is far from functional play. If you've been playing "in person" with these guys "for years," and they've come to the conclusion that they need high stats in order to have viable characters, these are based on expectations they've learned sitting at your table, and is typical of the schizophrenic nature of 2E that keeps one in the "game side" of the game, while all the while trying to make adventures sound like grand epic narratives (generally with railroad tactics).
And now you've decided to lean hard into 5E's narrative ascendant bullshit and the players still want to blow shit up, or want to make sure their skill use is effective enough, or their sword-swingers are pumping out enough damage, or WHATEVER the reason is they feel they need great fistfuls of "18s" to play the game you're creating? First off, let's talk YOU:
WHAT DO YOU CARE WHAT THEIR STATS ARE?
Why does it matter? I mean, why does it matter At All? Since getting back into AD&D, I've seen my son roll not one but TWO characters with "18/00" strength (and one, I believe, had an 18 constitution to boot). Doesn't matter: both DIED before they reached 2nd level. Having "18s" in your abilities doesn't mean jack or shit in D&D land. You can have all the 18s in the world and still get taken down by a passel of kobolds or have the life force drained out of you by a wight or vampire. Minor bumps in effectiveness are no proof against poor or stupid play.
Are you worried that one player is going to "upstage" the other players? Again, ACTION and BEHAVIOR over the long run will count more for whether or not players are respectful or resentful of their peers. And part of the DM's job (sorry to have to tell you) is MEDIATING the SOCIAL DYNAMIC between the players. You point out to the table what one player's character contributes to the party (that's your job, if no one else at the table has the balls/leadership to do so). The big honking fighter with all the muscles can't pick a lock, or heal an injured party member, or fire off a sleep spell. All the characters are designed to have their place in the adventure. And even characters that have duplicate abilities, build in redundancy, extending the resources of the party, allowing for "deeper delves" (i.e. longer sessions) that contribute to EVERY PARTY MEMBER'S SURVIVAL.
No player should resent the guy who has a couple 18s just because they're highest stat is 16 or 17. Their reaction should be: Oh...that's going to be the guy who kicks in the doors, OR that's the guy who does all the negotiations, OR whatever. We are establishing a TEAM here, and each party member is a part of that team, bringing (and utilizing) their specific strengths.
So what else are you whining about? "They want to be demigods, not heroes." Again: boo-hoo. This is D&D. If you're playing 5E, then players are already closer to demigods than heroes in older editions, but it DOESN"T MATTER because the game has been SCALED to the power level of these powered up characters. If it doesn't scale CORRECTLY (and maybe it doesn't, I'm not a veteran 5E DM, so my experience with that edition is minimal), then again I will say: I'm so sorry. Play AD&D (first edition) instead.
The FIRST priority of a Dungeon Master is to the game they are playing. Regardless of the edition being played. The rules must have integrity. The rules must be respected. Without rules, there is no game, and you are just sitting around a table shooting the breeze.
Does 5E allow players to roll characters with multiple 18 dice scores? Than one must assume the designers have taken such a potentiality into account with the game's design and it is FINE AND DANDY if such occurs. Who are YOU to gainsay the designers? Just let it go.
The SECOND priority if a Dungeon Master is to the world they are building. Here is where you, as an experienced DM should be focusing the bulk of your attention. It seems to me that you haven't yet grasped this concept, in part (BUT ONLY "IN PART") because of your focus on "telling stories."
The fact of the matter is that you haven't yet learned or grasped an essential part of Dungeon Mastering. Which, given that you have 34 years of experience with the DM's role, might sound like a substantial put down from Yours Truly. DON'T FEEL BAD. 34 years into MY career as a Dungeon Master, I DIDN'T GET IT EITHER. I know this, because I can read my blog posts from 2016 and see it with my own eyes! It's only towards the end of 2017 that I started to get a true inkling of what the hell I was supposed to be doing...and it really didn't crystalize till a year or two after that.
The issues with 2E...and 3E and 4E and 5E and, heck, even 1E!...only serve to confuse the matter for would-be Dungeon Masters. It's not your fault. Hell, it's not the fault of ANY of us who want to be Dungeon Masters yet can't quite grasp it. BECAUSE THE DESIGNERS THEMSELVES HAD A HARD TIME DISTINGUISHING, LET ALONE EXPLAINING, WHAT THE GAME IS AND HOW AND WHY IT FUNCTIONS AS THE GREATEST GAME OF ALL TIME. Instead (and unfortunately) for the most part they were blinded by dollar signs when they found they could sell this "thing" like hotcakes, and they tweaked their designs to MAXIMIZE PROFITS. Every company that has controlled the D&D brand has (eventually) fallen down this rabbit hole. Taking the time and effort to actually train Dungeon Masters just isn't a company priority; raising the corporate bottom line IS.
So, PGRD, since my own book on how to be a Dungeon Master isn't yet ready for publication, you're just going to have to take my word on this (for now): FOCUS ON YOUR WORLD BUILDING. Use the rules; build the world. Remember what the game is about: adventurers seeking fortune and glory in a dangerous world. Give them the dangerous world with the potential fortune and glory. And then let them go in it and see what unfolds. You won't care at all what their stats are.
NOW, you did say this:
"...this type of power gaming is very difficult to run and make encounters fun and challenging but not turn into a total party kill..."
Which I can interpret a couple different ways:
A) "I don't like doing the work required of a Dungeon Master," OR
B) "I can do the work required to challenge the 'power gamer' but the lazy ass players who aren't willing to up their game are all going to get wrecked."
If it's the former, then it may be that you need to take a break from DMing for a while. Maybe you should play in someone else's (5E) game where the DM is willing to be a dancing monkey to facilitate players sitting around doing their posturing/play-acting and engaging in collaborative "story telling." Let some other rube do the heavy lifting that WotC (and the expectations set by scripted live-stream games) places on its Dungeon Masters. Be a player for a while...make your tiefling artificer with "daddy issues" and piddle around for a few sessions. Relax and recupe, man.
However, if it's the latter interpretation, then I'm sorry but you have to stop molly-coddling your players. These are people you've been playing with for YEARS...it's time for them to get their shit together. Make adventures that the power gamer can cake walk (for very little profit), and more challenging/profitable adventures that will benefit your hardcore players and rough-up the "tourists."
That's how D&D works.
Now I know some people claim that they can make D&D work in other ways, and if they can: great. More power to them. Play the way you want if it works. I know my approach works: that's why I keep trying to hype it to people (here and elsewhere).
*sigh*
Run the game the way it's written. Build your world: the world YOU want to create/build. And then invite the players in (players are the THIRD priority, after all). Forget all about the "story telling." That's not why we're here, man. You want to write a story? Fine. Go write it.
Sincerely,
JB
In his defense, I've run some 5E and it is really, really stat-dependent. Encounters are also supposed to be designed across an "xp budget," and the design seems to assume the group is using the 'standard spread' that 5E offers you in lieu of rolling, since one of the core tenets of 5E is that you must never, ever be disappointed in your character. (That's another can of worms for another time.) If this long-suffering DM is using the game as-written, characters with high stats get kind of breaky with the xp budget system for encounters.
ReplyDeleteLet's also not forget that even our hallowed AD&D1 had a passel of "alternate" systems for rolling up characters, some of which were, to be frank, batshit insane.
Completely with you on 2e narrative, though. In my long-defunct blog, you might recall my series on Ravenloft modules from the mid-90's and how atrocious they were.
Honestly, I think that DM just needs to find a new group. (Easier said than done, I'll concede.) Just because. you've been doing something for a long time doesn't mean it's *good* to keep doing it.
I try to steer away from giving folks advice to "find a new group" when it comes to Dungeon Mastering. If you're a player in a game where the DM's style isn't your bag then, sure, go ahead and leave. But if you're the DM? You're going to BE the DM wherever you go.
DeleteBetter, I think, to examine your self, your style, your expectations, and the method in which you communicate those expectations. Then you can attract the players you want (and the players who don't like it or are unwilling to adapt will leave).
RE: 5E's issues with stats and XP budgets, etc.
There's a simple solution here: don't play 5E. But if you're going to play with 5E, you've got to abide by the rules of the game. If that makes the game "hard"...tough. You chose to run 5E. You chose the hard path. Deal with it.
(the guy's been playing since 1991; he should already understand this)
Needing two 18s for your character to be viable is a ridiculous take, even in 5e. It's certainly possible a high average of scores is needed, but 4d6 reroll 1 and 2s would lead to a ridiculously high average score, IMO, and at that stage you might as well just let people pick their scores. Certainly D&D's power level has crept very high, but "my character needs to be one in ten million" is a bit much. Also, if their attitude toward other aspects of the game is similar, they certainly don't seem to want to be challenged in the slightest.
ReplyDeleteI'd also definitely question whether it's his fault players think they need high stats. People get all kinds of stupid ideas, and it's perfectly possible they don't need high stats but just think they do. Or that their tactics are entirely brute force and five seconds of thought would let them not need high stats, but they can't be bothered to apply that. While these are arguably his fault in some ways, it's not necessarily from his actual design of encounters and the world.
I think you're being far too hard on the questioner - he certainly needs to think about what kind of game he wants to run, but the idea that he's been doing a bad job for 34 years seems to be reasoning a bit far ahead of the evidence. Nor do I think that 'all the other players need to join in at the level of the power gamer who thinks you need all 18s to have a viable character' is good advice. If the other players are content to do something else, then the problem is the one player, not everyone else.
I do think that you are quite right that creating a world and not caring about the player stats etc is one solution here. The other is likely running a lot of pre-made content and letting other people do a lot of the design heavy lifting re challenging encounters.
I have always been surprised that there are so few collaborative score allocation methods in D&D - i.e. everyone shares the rolls but assigns them as they want; or everyone has an 18, a 17, a 15, and the other scores split a certain number; or what have you. That may also be a partial solution here.
I think you're also assuming a lot about his experience. 34 years of weekly gaming is very different than 34 years of monthly or every-few-months gaming. Nor does every DM or player put a pile of thought into what is, essentially, a silly game. I mean this is a game where a core character class is called the Fighter. It's not exactly a life or death matter. lol
Let me be clear: I'm not saying the writer is an incompetent Dungeon Master. I'm not saying *I* was an incompetent Dungeon Master in my first 34 years of play. Quite the contrary: I was highly competent and running all manner of games, and had many people pleading with me to run games for them. From my YOUTH, I'm talking about.
DeleteBut that doesn't mean I "got it." Here's the truth: I was rarely satisfied with my gaming experiences...certainly not over the long haul. People would not-quite-beg me to continue running and I would flake or fold or disappear. "Too busy." Other priorities. Etc. But the truth is I didn't want to run for them anymore. Because the game wasn't SATISFYING to me.
It took me 34 years to finally understand (or, rather, BEGIN to understand) that the problem wasn't the players, or the system, or the setting, or my style and expectations of play. The problem was my APPROACH to the game. Once I changed THAT, once I shifted my perspective/paradigm, everything fell into place.
NOW I rarely game just because I really AM busy (family stuff mostly)...but I still game, hungrily, and LOVE IT. More than I ever have. I've embraced my vocation as a DM. It's been...what...five or six years since the last time I felt anything like "dissatisfaction."
Life or death? Man, this IS my life we're talking about. I've got this one that I'm living. I'm going to be 52 in November. How many more years will I get to play this delightful, mesmerizing, incredible game? Do I want to spend my free time doing so? Hell yes I do! As much as I can! Before I die! Yes...it IS a matter of life or death. We all make choices about how we spend our days before shuffling off the ol' mortal coil. How do YOU want to spend YOUR time? Playing crappy D&D?
I'm too old for that.
; )
I don't know about that. Some people are forever DMs, but I don't think this person specified. I think I've probably mentioned this a million times, but I actually just plain don't like to be a player. If I'm not GMing, I'm just not that interested. I hope this person can take a break and maybe enjoy being a player.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I scrubbed my hands of 5E. The silly part is that xp budgets are supposed to make the game easy to run, but I just felt like I had handcuffs on the entire time. I'd consider running Into the Unknown, but I think that's as close as I'll ever get to going back.
I mean, he DID say he'd been a DM since the age of 16. Doesn't that seem to imply...?
DeleteBut, whatever. Yeah, maybe he can take a break from the captain's chair and still enjoy himself. Somehow, I doubt it...his letter sounds a little too much like me (or like you) for that.
I'm not familiar with "Into the Unknown;" is that a 5E adventure?
Into the Unknown is a game based on 5E, but stripped down to the absolute barest essentials. It's in five little white books and basically tries to "whiteboxify" the modern system of 5E with the play style and power level of Ye Aulde Game
DeleteHuh. Interesting.
DeleteInto the Unknown is one of the BX/5e crossbreeds people have written - one of the earlier fully-worked-out ones, from 2019. I think it's not quite what I'm looking for but had a good reputation, particularly in the DM Advice section around bringing OSRishness and sandboxy hexcrawls to new players.
ReplyDeleteFrom some quick skimming, it's 4 classes (optional race-as-class), and only one choice for each: fighters are choosing a fighting style, the others are choosing what 5e would call a subclass. So Life Cleric vs Forest Druid are subclasses of Priest, there are no other divine casters, and all the difference between them fits on a single A5 page.
Create Food & Water is a 4th-level spell, there is no Goodberry, logistics aren't trivialised - but there are damaging cantrips. Looks like standard 5e combat & death? Slower healing than 5e by-the-book but faster than 5e gritty options. Etc, etc.
Good to know.
Delete