TheRPGSite

Hello to everyone at the RPGsite, this is my first post, so please forgive any clumsiness and naivety. I'd like to ask you all if GM sadism is a sign of immaturity? Or does it have an acceptable place within a game or in certain genres?

If by GM sadism, you are referring to the "killer GM" style then mostly yes. It is a phase that we played through as kids and quickly left behind because it provides little fun for the group.

I think an adversarial GM can be a good thing (they're being a good opponent, challenging the players' abilities).  But a sadistic GM is just a child.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643166I think an adversarial GM can be a good thing (they're being a good opponent, challenging the players' abilities).  But a sadistic GM is just a child.

Yup, this.

When I'm playing, I don't want a hand-holding GM any more than I want one setting out *just* to kill my PC.

Yes. Sadistic GMs are immature, they don't understand that the role of the GM is to provide challenges for the PCs, not set them up to fail.

P.S. Welcome to the forum, and good question for your first post :).

wait...

Sadistical GMs DO have their place...
... in Paranoia.

I'd like to give you details but it seems you do not have clearance for that information, citizen.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643167Yup, this.

When I'm playing, I don't want a hand-holding GM any more than I want one setting out *just* to kill my PC.

That's why so many people misunderstand S1 and disregard it as "Gygax being a dick, agaaaaain :rolleyes: " - S1 is aimed at really highly experienced players, not simply "high level characters".

You could take some folks who've never played D&D before, give them 20th level characters, and put them through S1 and have a total party kill in the first (real) hallway.

On the other hand you could take a quartet of 9th level characters played by experienced players and cakewalk the whole module.

Assuming the DM is being evenhanded through the whole thing.

In fact, S1 is as much a challenge for good DM acumen as it is for good play acumen.  A good DM will read it front to back and make sure that each challenge in the module functions exactly as described, no more or less lethal than written (where applicable), with hints given as written, and keep a good poker-face during the whole thing.  A bad DM will either nerf the whole dungeon or go full-bore sadistic and turn it into a murderhouse, deliberately lying/changing room descriptions and make the players play "Guess what I'm thinking." instead of "Figure out these puzzles."

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643174That's why so many people misunderstand S1 and disregard it as "Gygax being a dick, agaaaaain :rolleyes: " - S1 is aimed at really highly experienced players, not simply "high level characters".

You could take some folks who've never played D&D before, give them 20th level characters, and put them through S1 and have a total party kill in the first (real) hallway.

On the other hand you could take a quartet of 9th level characters played by experienced players and cakewalk the whole module.

Assuming the DM is being evenhanded through the whole thing.

In fact, S1 is as much a challenge for good DM acumen as it is for good play acumen.  A good DM will read it front to back and make sure that each challenge in the module functions exactly as described, no more or less lethal than written (where applicable), with hints given as written, and keep a good poker-face during the whole thing.  A bad DM will either nerf the whole dungeon or go full-bore sadistic and turn it into a murderhouse, deliberately lying/changing room descriptions and make the players play "Guess what I'm thinking." instead of "Figure out these puzzles."

Sadly, the entire concept of player skill is under siege these days. Modern game theory would have us believe that all challenges should be solvable by pushing the right button on the character sheet.

Having a character's survival depend on how well the player can actually think in a given situation is largely absent from mechnics heavy systems.

Quote from: Riordan;643173wait...

Sadistical GMs DO have their place...
... in Paranoia.

I'd like to give you details but it seems you do not have clearance for that information, citizen.

MUTANT COMMUNIST TRAITOR! You used your mutant commie powers to read my mind!

Sometimes its fun.

For about 20 years I have had a killer kobold maze with 20 rooms.
Each member of the party gets 30,000 xp to build a character they can buy up to five magic items at the XP cost in the DMG (1e) and the rest spent on levels.
The question is how far will they get before they die. Some of the rooms repeat from previous sessions, eg the entrance is always a 4 foot by 4 foot burrow with random murder holes, and parties develop tried tactics (like don't waste xp on magic weapons, they are goblins you can kill em with a stick and some angry words) so it's like playing a favourite level of an old FPS.

For a one off session its really enjoyable, everyone knows what to expect.

There are DM rules of course. All the traps must be buildable by  a nest of kobolds with no magic. Kobolds are no dwarves so perfect sliding stone blocks and so on are beyond them. But they are cunning little buggers so they can certainly dig pits, build false floors, boil pitch, roll large boulders up steep slopes, train giant scorpians and do some crafty stuff with perspective, and of course as they are all 3 feet tall they have no need of 10 wide corridors you can swing a battle axe in.
Likewise the PCs can't hire 100 mooks, PCs only, and they have to go through each room, so destroying the whole place with a horn of blasting is out.

Sometimes the party get to room 5.....

Quote from: Exploderwizard;643181Sadly, the entire concept of player skill is under siege these days. Modern game theory would have us believe that all challenges should be solvable by pushing the right button on the character sheet.

Having a character's survival depend on how well the player can actually think in a given situation is largely absent from mechnics heavy systems.

for me in most games its the balance between player skill and character skill, but in a Killer DM games character play gets put to one side.

Quote from: jibbajibba;643187Sometimes its fun.

For about 20 years I have had a killer kobold maze with 20 rooms.
Each member of the party gets 30,000 xp to build a character they can buy up to five magic items at the XP cost in the DMG (1e) and the rest spent on levels.
The question is how far will they get before they die. Some of the rooms repeat from previous sessions, eg the entrance is always a 4 foot by 4 foot burrow with random murder holes, and parties develop tried tactics (like don't waste xp on magic weapons, they are goblins you can kill em with a stick and some angry words) so it's like playing a favourite level of an old FPS.

For a one off session its really enjoyable, everyone knows what to expect.

There are DM rules of course. All the traps must be buildable by  a nest of kobolds with no magic. Kobolds are no dwarves so perfect sliding stone blocks and so on are beyond them. But they are cunning little buggers so they can certainly dig pits, build false floors, boil pitch, roll large boulders up steep slopes, train giant scorpians and do some crafty stuff with perspective, and of course as they are all 3 feet tall they have no need of 10 wide corridors you can swing a battle axe in.
Likewise the PCs can't hire 100 mooks, PCs only, and they have to go through each room, so destroying the whole place with a horn of blasting is out.

Sometimes the party get to room 5.....

Please say this is something you have shared online.......

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643174That's why so many people misunderstand S1 and disregard it as "Gygax being a dick, agaaaaain :rolleyes: " - S1 is aimed at really highly experienced players, not simply "high level characters".
"

I have a friend (admittedly a pretty eccentric guy) who goes apoplectic with foaming rage whenever S1 is mentioned. To him, it's proof that Gary was a genuinely bad person with evil in his heart who probably did other awful things we don't know about yet. This neurosis seems to be a combination of his taking things in RPGs way too personally and being such a product of the 3.x generation that he can't wrap his head around "Player skill" meaning anything other than "Constructing a good feat chain". It's sad, really.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;643193Please say this is something you have shared online.......

no sorry, I have refered it a few times on this forum but never in detail.

And the latest incarnation played about 3 years ago I left in the UK.

however rather like a well worn pair of shoes, I could slip back into it easily enough.

The best feeling , the very best, is when an experienced player that has seen it all before, a 20 year man bred to the game since boyhood, moves that chest in the middle of the room (the one that is sooo obviously a trap that it can't be a trap and must be hinding the secret passage down to the next room and the 2 other exits must therefore obviously be traps) hears that sliding, noise as the trap triggers and the ceiling block comes crashing down on his head. Turns out a dozen kobolds 2 pulleys and some sturdy rope can lift a pretty fucking heavy chunk of rock .

Or maybe its when the human barbarian gets stuck in the 6 inch wide doorway and as the party try to pull him through the player says in that dejected voice, there are six kobolds behind me with spears aren't there ....

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;643194I have a friend (admittedly a pretty eccentric guy) who goes apoplectic with foaming rage whenever S1 is mentioned. To him, it's proof that Gary was a genuinely bad person with evil in his heart who probably did other awful things we don't know about yet. This neurosis seems to be a combination of his taking things in RPGs way too personally and being such a product of the 3.x generation that he can't wrap his head around "Player skill" meaning anything other than "Constructing a good feat chain". It's sad, really.

Ah.  Yeah, I've encountered that too hence my qualification for that kind of player.

I think it speaks volumes that the 3rd ed. reboot of Tomb of Horrors features former deathtraps that now have "make a Fort save or suffer n damage" (I'm thinking of the ramp that leads into the fire pit where if you fall in, you die, end of story.)

I should pick it up one day and take a very good look at it to see what they changed.  Back in the early 2000s my FLGS had a copy of the boxed edition, and I missed out on my chance to own a pristine copy of the monochrome cover 1e module :P

Quote from: Riordan;643173wait...

Sadistical GMs DO have their place...
... in Paranoia.

I'd like to give you details but it seems you do not have clearance for that information, citizen.

Point taken! :(

Quote from: Exploderwizard;643181Sadly, the entire concept of player skill is under siege these days. Modern game theory would have us believe that all challenges should be solvable by pushing the right button on the character sheet.

Having a character's survival depend on how well the player can actually think in a given situation is largely absent from mechnics heavy systems.

I'd argue that the push for more tasks resolvable through character skill, rather than player skill, is a reaction to the excessive focus on player skill in earlier editions (talking only about D&D here, not sure how this has played out in other systems through the years).

Obviously both are necessary. If player skill is all that matters, then the character sheet may as well be blank. If character skill is all that matters, then why is the player even there?

I've become a fan of the idea of focusing on character skill as a base, then having player skill modify it. Much as combat focuses primarily on character skill, but rewards player skill (tactics and such giving flanking bonuses, etc), all aspects of the game should function similarly - social interaction should be technically resolvable solely through die rolls, but give bonuses (or even potential penalties) for actual RP. If the party encounters a puzzle, use their character's abilities to temper the sort of puzzle you present to the players to represent it (party of all low-Int barbarians, crazy-hard puzzle; party of all high-Int mages, stupid-easy puzzle, etc).

You need both player skill and character skill to have a functional game, so - rather than try to figure out which end of the spectrum you prefer - why not figure out a way to meld the two into a more enjoyable experience that takes into account the fact that both are required?

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643166I think an adversarial GM can be a good thing (they're being a good opponent, challenging the players' abilities).  But a sadistic GM is just a child.

What is acceptable in being adversarial, and when does it become more "killer GM" in your opinion?

Quote from: Malygris;643213What is acceptable in being adversarial, and when does it become more "killer GM" in your opinion?

What's your own opinion on the matter? (if any)

Quote from: Benoist;643214What's your own opinion on the matter? (if any)

I'm not in competition with my players, as some GMs appear to be. Any adversaries are there to provide heartpounding nail biting action, and a chance for my players to show off their characters. So I find particularly sadistic GMs to be immature, unless they are GMing something like Paranoia. But I won't excuse really stupid behaviour by a player character. If a PC wants to take on ten thousand Orcs with a rusty spoon, then he is asking for a swift demise. But I won't gloat over the demise, as I've seen some GMs do.

Quote from: Malygris;643213What is acceptable in being adversarial, and when does it become more "killer GM" in your opinion?

For example, an adversarial GM will take a random encounter or event at face value.  They may have an adult Red Dragon overfly the party on their way through the wilderness, land, and demand treasure and possibly a couple of horses to dine on.  Whatever age bracket or hit die amount that dragon has as shown by the dice is what it has.

A Killer GM would under the same circumstances have four of them, all huge and ancient and hell bent on wiping out the party to the last living creature, the end.  One is using his vast intelligence to push a sphere of annihilation along and uses it in combat.  Another stays out of any range of anything, casts protection from normal missiles and anti-magic shell and breathes for 88 hit points of damage against everything - and because this is a "special" kind of H.A.R.D., no save for half.  You lose, the end.

To put it in another genre...

The Adversarial GM in, say, Twilight:2000 would have a party and a Soviet motor rifle column cross paths.  OK, it's 1d10x1d10 enemy troops.  There's n vehicles possible, dice for those.  There's x numbers of veterans, x numbers of experienced, x numbers of novice types.  There's z number of "special" weapons (mortars, heavy guns, anti-tank launchers).

A killer GM would run them up against an all-Elite level tank company with T90s, all fully loaded with AP rounds and Stabber anti-tank missiles, every enemy tank equipped with reactive armor, and the whole tank company has an elite infantry screen to prevent the party getting in and getting a satchel charge or swarming one of the tanks.

Cyberpunk:2020 (this is kind of tough as the whole premise of that game seems to be manufactured on the Betrayal Scenario - your boss IS going to screw you regardless) - Adversarial: party goes through a tough situation, fighting gangers, corporate police, enemy hackers but gets the foozle and makes it out through another gauntlet and carries the day.  Killer: every level of defense is maxed out and they seem to know exactly what the party's decker has in his program slots and are protecting against that accordingly.  Defense is all Alpha cyborg replacements in powered armor, etc. etc.

Does that help?

Quote from: Malygris;643219I'm not in competition with my players, as some GMs appear to be. Any adversaries are there to provide heartpounding nail biting action, and a chance for my players to show off their characters. So I find particularly sadistic GMs to be immature, unless they are GMing something like Paranoia. But I won't excuse really stupid behaviour by a player character. If a PC wants to take on ten thousand Orcs with a rusty spoon, then he is asking for a swift demise. But I won't gloat over the demise, as I've seen some GMs do.

I'm a little different in that I do feel that I'm in "competition" with my players in that I'll play the opposite side as if the opposite side is trying to win as hard as the characters are.  However I'm not hell bent on beating the players so I can "win".  Winning, for me, is having challenged the players (and in turn the characters) - I get satisfaction out of seeing them succeed...and entertainment out of seeing them fumble, too!  If a TPK happens I'm not going to say "...it was all a dream!"  But I'm not going to gloat and end-zone dance on them either.  If they win the day in whatever adventure I'm happy for them because we all had fun*.


...

*=fuck you, raggi.

I catch your drift. A measured tough response is adversarial. An all out maximum kill policy is killer GM. The former is good GMing, the latter unequivocally bad, unless everyone in the game is playing for laughs.

I haven't encountered GM sadism since the early days of my gaming. And that was really only when my older brother was DMing. He made a frequent habit of setting up ambushes for our party that routinely resulted in TPKs. And he enjoyed it, maliciously. The bastard! :)  

Personally, I'm not really that fond of adversary as ascribed to a GM, because the term feels rather loaded (depending on which definition of the term you use). To me, it just implies competition between GM and players, and in a competition the GM has the resources to always win. I prefer impartiality and neutrality - a GM who presents challenges as they are defined, or randomly generated, and lets the dice fall where they may.

Quote from: Malygris;643224I catch your drift. A measured tough response is adversarial. An all out maximum kill policy is killer GM. The former is good GMing, the latter unequivocally bad, unless everyone in the game is playing for laughs.

I'd make a caveat here. Sometimes the PC's opponents will respond with a maximum kill policy depending on the scenario. It is kind of an IQ Test, since the Players should not have engaged those opponents in the first place unless they can be fairly sure to have a fighting chance. Like you should know in D&D that at first level that you will not be able to take an ancient black dragon in its lair, so just avoid that encounter untill you get to a high enough level.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643223However[/i] I'm not hell bent on beating the players so I can "win".

Then, in my opinion, you aren't in competition with your players.

Quote from: Malygris;643224I catch your drift. A measured tough response is adversarial. An all out maximum kill policy is killer GM. The former is good GMing, the latter unequivocally bad, unless everyone in the game is playing for laughs.

I thik you are bieng too black and white.
Not al Killer DMs cheat the system.
In my Kobold Gauntlet I am a killer DM. The burrows make no real sense as a place for kobolds to live, the time and effort to create the traps are non-sensical in a real setting where a bunch of kobolds live in a burrow. The thing is a deliberate death trap.
However, the rules are the rules. If they used wandering monsters, which they don't as they would set of the traps and ruin everything... they would occur as predicted by the dice.
I don't think a Killer DM would have 4 elder dragons and a sphere of anhiliation. I think a Killer DM might roll for the dragons , determine if any use magic then give them spells at random and then use all of that to kill the party.
As a DM is you want to kill the party you can do so at whim if you set yourself no limits. Doing that is no fun. "when you lift the cup from the alter you get hit by a lightning bolt from Zeus - you are dead" that is no fun anyone can do that.
If you can kill a group of 4 10th level PCs with a 0 level human girl with no special powers fuding no dice rolls then you deserve the title Killer DM.

Oh if I kill a PC in a Kobold Gauntlet I gloat hugely, the cries of Rimmer, Rimmer, Rimmer echo round the room. TPKs are like a fine wine they need to be savoured.

Quote from: Malygris;643149I'd like to ask you all if GM sadism is a sign of immaturity? Or does it have an acceptable place within a game or in certain genres?

In an RPG of the regular variety, a GM who triumphs in defeating the party, no matter how he got there, is missing the point of the game. He can always defeat the party if he really, really wants to. He can simply make their opponents unavoidable and undefeatable. "Victory" to be had so trivially is what the Germans would euphemistically call "self-satisfaction".

But among LARPers, I have known the moniker "Evil" be used as a compliment. Evil Gaz, or whatever his name was, is/was called Evil because he was supposedly a fiendish GM. And I see it no differently for tabletop, save only that lethality must of necessity be lower in games where you depend on a small, tight-knit group of players and CharGen can take an age.

Why does a GM delight in being fiendish? Is he sadistic? Does he take the players to be masochistic? For my own part, I think that's a misuse of language. Sure, I love the thrill of fear for my character when I'm LARPing, and there's scope for that in tabletop too. But it's not masochism. Sure, it's an adrenaline rush. But it's not pain.

Pain would be my character failing horribly. And I don't like that. But the threat has to seem real, for maximum excitement.

Now I'm rambling, but I still have that cold that's left me feeling disoriented. And yes, I can whinge about that with the best of them.

So where am I going with this? Well, I don't trust a player's assessment that the GM is a "killer GM" or "sadistic". Because although occasionally as a player I've seen behaviour from GMs that I regarded as unreasonable, I think, at the end of the day, there's pretty much always been some kind of justification for it. Whereas the amount of unreasonable whinging I've seen from players, including times when I've whinged myself only to realise later I was wrong, is far more substantial. Times when I've had players bitch at me like you wouldn't believe, thinking someone else in the party had an advantage over their character or whatever, and then when the campaign's over and they see each other's character sheets, they all have to agree it was within the bounds of fairness as far as the system and reasonable human capacities allow.

So if you think you've got a sadist for a GM, a killer GM if you will, my gut response is to think that your GM has a munchkin for a player, a whinger who should man up and face the game. I'm not making this criticism without being able to level it at some of my own past behaviour and it's obviously something I strive to avoid. And I'm not saying there's no way I could be wrong. Obviously, the universe has plenty of capacity for douchebags, and some of them end up as GMs. But far, far more likely, given the typical set-up of GM and players, is that it's largely down to misinterpretation on the player's part, or different judgements as to how difficult an encounter's going to be, or the like.

For instance I've got a particular player who regards me in a particularly fiendish light and in the last short-to-medium campaign I ran with that player in, there was one PC knocked unconscious ONCE [in a perfectly avoidable fight with plenty of danger signs in a controlled environment], and not a single player ever captured, killed, possessed or otherwise rendered incapable of participating in play for any great length of time. And at all times the PCs pretty much held the cards, except perhaps at the very, very end, and even then they triumphed (well, one of them did...).

Quote from: jeff37923;643239I'd make a caveat here. Sometimes the PC's opponents will respond with a maximum kill policy depending on the scenario. It is kind of an IQ Test, since the Players should not have engaged those opponents in the first place unless they can be fairly sure to have a fighting chance. Like you should know in D&D that at first level that you will not be able to take an ancient black dragon in its lair, so just avoid that encounter untill you get to a high enough level.

The "attacking ten thousand orcs with a rusty spoon" analogy could be applied here. Though I'm not a big fan of putting uber opponents near low level characters unless there is some damned good reason for doing so, since the outcome of a fight with such opponents is usually outright slaughter.

Quote from: jeff37923;643239I'd make a caveat here. Sometimes the PC's opponents will respond with a maximum kill policy depending on the scenario. It is kind of an IQ Test, since the Players should not have engaged those opponents in the first place unless they can be fairly sure to have a fighting chance. Like you should know in D&D that at first level that you will not be able to take an ancient black dragon in its lair, so just avoid that encounter untill you get to a high enough level.

There's a lot of truth to this. Although, a killer GM will arm his baddies with numbers and weapons and tactics and intellect beyond their in-setting capabilities, while an adversarial GM will stop short of that.

Adversarial GMs may have an entire orc tribe rolled up and be prepared to have every orc fight to the death...but a killer GM will decide that the orcs are numberless until the PCs run or die.

I'm the GM. I don't need to compete against the players, because I can stack the deck however I like. But it's not a dick move if it fits the enemy's capabilities. In my Necessary Evil game, the PCs had been brutally efficient...until they were aided by a V'Sori (the alien baddies of the setting) traitor, and one of the PCs decided to execute the traitor...who was in charge of a communications outpost.

This led to the V'Sori who investigated the outpost discovering the identity of the PC that did the killing, they tracked him down, and they eventually set an ambush with a human black ops squad that was trained to take down supers...and had their base trapped to explode when they retreated back to it in a rush after losing one of their team members in said ambush. That was being adversarial. If I were a dick, I could have had dropped the whole V'Sori army on them, but all that would have been was a pointless grind as the V'Sori eventually wore them down and killed them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;643242I thik you are bieng too black and white.
Not al Killer DMs cheat the system.

I think you misunderstand me. I never wrote anything about cheating the system. Your Kobold Gauntlet looks like a barrel of laughs, not DM sadism in the sense we're writing about.;)

The role of the GM isn't adversarial, even when the GM causes problems for the party it's still in cooperation with the group, even if those problems cause deaths. If a GM is deliberately pulling a Kobayashi Maru scenario, they've stopped being a GM and started being a dick.

Quote from: Riordan;643173wait...

Sadistical GMs DO have their place...
... in Paranoia.

I'd like to give you details but it seems you do not have clearance for that information, citizen.

Hang on, I'm wearing a green t-shirt on a Friday. Shit. [Vaporised]

Quote from: The Traveller;643252The role of the GM isn't adversarial, even when the GM causes problems for the party it's still in cooperation with the group, even if those problems cause deaths. If a GM is deliberately pulling a Kobayashi Maru scenario, they've stopped being a GM and started being a dick.

THANK YOU.  Kobayashi Maru - "I don't want there to be the possibility of failure, I wanna watch you fail, and am going to create the means for that to happen regardless"

THAT in a nutshell is the killer GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;643252If a GM is deliberately pulling a Kobayashi Maru scenario, they've stopped being a GM and started being a dick.

I don't even think it has to be an all out Kobayashi Maru style scenario for a GM to be described as "sadistic". Sometimes I've seen GMs that were cruel in lording it over the players, and gloated at the severe beatings or situations handed out to players, like they were getting off on it. Omnifray makes a good point in his rambling post- that sometimes sadism is in the eye of the player. But not always.

The other thing I've never been able to get my head around is the opposite problem, that of players deliberately trying to defeat the GM. Haha we broke [name]'s game. That's also pathetic IMO.

Quote from: Malygris;643255I don't even think it has to be an all out Kobayashi Maru style scenario for a GM to be described as "sadistic". Sometimes I've seen GMs that were cruel in lording it over the players, and gloated at the severe beatings or situations handed out to players, like they were getting off on it. Omnifray makes a good point in his rambling post- that sometimes sadism is in the eye of the player. But not always.

Quote from: catty_big;643256The other thing I've never been able to get my head around is the opposite problem, that of players deliberately trying to defeat the GM. Haha we broke [name]'s game. That's also pathetic IMO.

Both symptoms of a pure lack of education, the GM is part of the group as much as any player. If people don't understand that the game will suffer.

Quote from: The Traveller;643252If a GM is deliberately pulling a Kobayashi Maru scenario, they've stopped being a GM and started being a dick.

Intent matters, though. If the GM is running an adventure in which the party needs to be subdued/captured/imprisoned in a given encounter, some will ensure that it happens no matter what the PCs do - and this not with ill intent, but to make the adventure (as it's written) happen.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643263Intent matters, though. If the GM is running an adventure in which the party needs to be subdued/captured/imprisoned in a given encounter, some will ensure that it happens no matter what the PCs do - and this not with ill intent, but to make the adventure (as it's written) happen.

Exactly so, these would be bad things done for good reasons. The GM is on the players' side in having fun, and sometimes that means throwing challenges at them. It would hardly be much fun if everything went swimmingly all the time, may as well be sitting around having a conversation.

Quote from: catty_big;643256The other thing I've never been able to get my head around is the opposite problem, that of players deliberately trying to defeat the GM. Haha we broke [name]'s game. That's also pathetic IMO.

But leo, how often have you actually seen that happen? (In hundreds of games, I'm not sure I've even seen anyone really try to actually "break" the game, i.e. screw up its fundamentals. They might have refused to jump at railroading bait once in a very long while but if that's really a problem, you should have made it more tempting.)

Granted, I did once have a player who statted a Soul's Calling character up with virtually every skill going just to see if it would annoy me but... she covered it in her backstory, so it was cool! And she commented afterwards they didn't seem to throw the game off course.

That's why they're cheap, dear, that's why they're cheap...

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643174That's why so many people misunderstand S1 and disregard it as "Gygax being a dick, agaaaaain :rolleyes: " - S1 is aimed at really highly experienced players, not simply "high level characters".

You could take some folks who've never played D&D before, give them 20th level characters, and put them through S1 and have a total party kill in the first (real) hallway.

On the other hand you could take a quartet of 9th level characters played by experienced players and cakewalk the whole module.

Assuming the DM is being evenhanded through the whole thing.

In fact, S1 is as much a challenge for good DM acumen as it is for good play acumen.  A good DM will read it front to back and make sure that each challenge in the module functions exactly as described, no more or less lethal than written (where applicable), with hints given as written, and keep a good poker-face during the whole thing.  A bad DM will either nerf the whole dungeon or go full-bore sadistic and turn it into a murderhouse, deliberately lying/changing room descriptions and make the players play "Guess what I'm thinking." instead of "Figure out these puzzles."

Gary put that sort of thinking in the intro to S1 itself.  If a party is not used to a puzzle type of dungeon and still expect a "normal" dungeon even after explaining S1's premise, then don't even bother with S1.

Quote from: Malygris;643149Hello to everyone at the RPGsite, this is my first post, so please forgive any clumsiness and naivety. I'd like to ask you all if GM sadism is a sign of immaturity? Or does it have an acceptable place within a game or in certain genres?

Well, I don't expect my GM to cause me pain, but I do expect them to cause my character pain.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;643181Sadly, the entire concept of player skill is under siege these days. Modern game theory would have us believe that all challenges should be solvable by pushing the right button on the character sheet.

And knowing the right button is a skill.

Modern games just don't engage the skillset YOU enjoy.

Quote from: jibbajibba;643187There are DM rules of course.

How often this seems to be forgotten.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643212If player skill is all that matters, then the character sheet may as well be blank.

That's like saying that skilled Chess players don't need the pieces, which while technically true, they still have the model in their heads.

Quote from: jeff37923;643239It is kind of an IQ Test, since the Players should not have engaged those opponents in the first place unless they can be fairly sure to have a fighting chance. Like you should know in D&D that at first level that you will not be able to take an ancient black dragon in its lair, so just avoid that encounter untill you get to a high enough level.

Yeah, but that's an extreme example. Of course no 1st level player is going to engage a fucking dragon, but what about an Owlbear? Or Aboleth? Or Beholder?

Not taking these doomed actions has more to do with experience and less to do with IQ.

Quote from: Omnifray;643243He can always defeat the party if he really, really wants to. He can simply make their opponents unavoidable and undefeatable. "Victory" to be had so trivially is what the Germans would euphemistically call "self-satisfaction".

And that's why the good killer GMs use RULES. It's no fun if you can defeat your players without constraints. But how many RPGs actually provide rules which can be used this way?

Quote from: The Traveller;643252If a GM is deliberately pulling a Kobayashi Maru scenario, they've stopped being a GM and started being a dick.

I've played in a lot of Call of Cthulhu scenarios like this, and it depends on what the lose condition is. Also, Kirk won.

Quote from: The Traveller;643268Exactly so, these would be bad things done for good reasons. The GM is on the players' side in having fun, and sometimes that means throwing challenges at them. It would hardly be much fun if everything went swimmingly all the time, may as well be sitting around having a conversation.

Yeah; I think the key here is challenging the players as opposed to "the only way for me (the GM) to have fun is if I crush them at every turn - TPK or bust".

I'd regard "players must be captured for the rest of the adventure to work" is very railroady (A3 I'm lookin at youuuuuuu), but that's not necessarily sadism.

Quote from: Omnifray;643270But leo, how often have you actually seen that happen? (In hundreds of games, I'm not sure I've even seen anyone really try to actually "break" the game, i.e. screw up its fundamentals. They might have refused to jump at railroading bait once in a very long while but if that's really a problem, you should have made it more tempting.)

Granted, I did once have a player who statted a Soul's Calling character up with virtually every skill going just to see if it would annoy me but... she covered it in her backstory, so it was cool! And she commented afterwards they didn't seem to throw the game off course.

That's why they're cheap, dear, that's why they're cheap...

I've seen players make characters that would deliberately screw with either the setting or the group dynamics...and when one of my friends went off to college, apparently every game his college group played resulted in either a player jacking with the fundamentals of the game at every opportunity, or the GM slaughtering the PCs at every opportunity.

They all apparently got off on it, though, so more power to them, I guess.

Define sadism. I've seen it described as actual sadism, as playing a more difficult game, or in having enemies behave intelligently at all.

Only the first definition is actually valid.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643272That's like saying that skilled Chess players don't need the pieces, which while technically true, they still have the model in their heads.

I was specifically taking the two sides - player skill and character skill - and taking them to their extremes, to explain why I argue for an approach that attempts to fuse the two rather than deal with them separately.

I don't think anyone would actually argue that the character sheet should be irrelevant in a game, even if they focus significantly more on player skill than character skill.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643273Yeah; I think the key here is challenging the players as opposed to "the only way for me (the GM) to have fun is if I crush them at every turn - TPK or bust".

I'd regard "players must be captured for the rest of the adventure to work" is very railroady (A3 I'm lookin at youuuuuuu), but that's not necessarily sadism.

True, having the right attitude (not us versus them) going into a game is 80% of being a good GM I'd say.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643272And knowing the right button is a skill.

Modern games just don't engage the skillset YOU enjoy.

Certainly. A skill which gets plenty of use playing video games. Tabletop games are another animal by which one gets to use other skills.

Quote from: The Traveller;643287True, having the right attitude (not us versus them) going into a game is 80% of being a good GM I'd say.

Define us vs them. Are you using the actual definition, or a different one?

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643332Define us vs them. Are you using the actual definition, or a different one?

Here's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=629911&postcount=330) some expansion on my thoughts about the role of the GM.

Quote from: The Traveller;643335Here's (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=629911&postcount=330) some expansion on my thoughts about the role of the GM.

Sounds kind of like the second type, but it's hard to tell.

There are people that have seriously claimed that if you encounter a tiger in a forest that is sadistic DMing. The term mostly comes up when opponents do anything other than lay down and allow themselves to be killed, which is why I ask.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643282I was specifically taking the two sides - player skill and character skill - and taking them to their extremes, to explain why I argue for an approach that attempts to fuse the two rather than deal with them separately.

I don't think anyone would actually argue that the character sheet should be irrelevant in a game, even if they focus significantly more on player skill than character skill.

Sorry, it's just that the middle is so often excluded here I react reflexively at this point :)

Speaking of which.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;643296Certainly. A skill which gets plenty of use playing video games.

Only in the same way knowing which dice to roll is in RPGs.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643337There are people that have seriously claimed that if you encounter a tiger in a forest that is sadistic DMing. The term mostly comes up when opponents do anything other than lay down and allow themselves to be killed, which is why I ask.

Oh no, if the GM isn't in some circumstances trying to mess the group up, the GM isn't doing their jobs. I mean imagine if Frodo and Sam managed to walk to Mt Doom without any difficulties, what a tedious tale that would be. Challenges have to be real or they are worthless, as in shared narrative games. The GM needs to keep in mind that everyone has the same goal though, to have fun, and arbitrarily killing the group isn't fun for the group.

I actually know a gm that is meglomaniacal, condecending, and sadistic.
His games are still fun because he is fair, and does a great job on the setting.

So the players tolerate his bad aspects because the payoff is a great game.

This gm is a great guy when not gming.

So it is possible for a gm to pull off good campaign despite all of that.

we have known him for many years; its possible a new player might not cut him as much slack I suppose.

Quote from: The Traveller;643341Oh no, if the GM isn't in some circumstances trying to mess the group up, the GM isn't doing their jobs. I mean imagine if Frodo and Sam managed to walk to Mt Doom without any difficulties, what a tedious tale that would be. Challenges have to be real or they are worthless, as in shared narrative games. The GM needs to keep in mind that everyone has the same goal though, to have fun, and arbitrarily killing the group isn't fun for the group.

Indeed. I was just making sure we were talking about the correct definition here. My own games are full of encounters that will inflict horrible death upon the unprepared because the opponents therein are built and played intelligently. When most people talk about sadistic DMs, they'd include me in that definition.

I'm not out to get my players, but those enemies sure are out to get their characters!

Anyone that thinks there shouldn't be any danger involved has no business adventuring.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643348Anyone that thinks there shouldn't be any danger involved has no business adventuring.

That should be writ large in gold lettering on every GM and player guide.

When I'm playing monsters I completely detach my self from the table and let myself be immersed in the character of the foes. A cunning beastman chieftain of some renown with that kind of animal cunning you see in Jaws movies or that bear from The Edge, terrifying in its own way despite the lack of sophistication. Or a nimrod bandit who gets played in a somewhat keystone cops manner. When I play supergenius enemies I even give them a small amount of almost clairvoyant knowledge of what the group is doing, to help represent their extreme intelligence. Not everything but enough to make the group step very carefully.

At no point do I think to myself, is this too dangerous, but neither do I magick 500 orcs into being out of badness, the odds get weighed almost subconsciously. I want the players to have fun first and foremost, that's my agenda as GM, which doesn't mean Monty Haul or pushover games.

Quote from: The Traveller;643355That should be writ large in gold lettering on every GM and player guide.

If it were, I'd have had far fewer headaches over the years. People complaining extremely suboptimal enemy tactics were too lethal and wanting it even easier, foolishness like that.

QuoteAt no point do I think to myself, is this too dangerous, but neither do I magick 500 orcs into being out of badness, the odds get weighed almost subconsciously. I want the players to have fun first and foremost, that's my agenda as GM, which doesn't mean Monty Haul or pushover games.

I've gotten to the point where I don't even attempt balancing encounters. I won't do obvious stuff like throw a hostile Great Wyrm at a low level party, but I can say "Here's the encounters, go beat them." and then rest assured a good group can. Often in an unexpected yet hilarious way. No need to build solutions in - good groups will find them.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643357No need to build solutions in - good groups will find them.

Yes, good groups rise to the challenge, and in my experience bad groups can be made into good groups once they understand the things we're talking about here.

Often it's just a matter of explaining to them that they need to be quick on their feet and cautious in those places where you really shouldn't go. It's a premise acceptance situation - in Paranoia you accept you'll get killed every five minutes, in adventure games, accept that there is real risk which can be minimised by making the right moves. Like don't go tackling frost giants without a few barrels of oil.

Quote from: The Traveller;643359Yes, good groups rise to the challenge, and in my experience bad groups can be made into good groups once they understand the things we're talking about here.

Often it's just a matter of explaining to them that they need to be quick on their feet and cautious in those places where you really shouldn't go. It's a premise acceptance situation - in Paranoia you accept you'll get killed every five minutes, in adventure games, accept that there is real risk which can be minimised by making the right moves. Like don't go tackling frost giants without a few barrels of oil.

I have no idea how oil (even flaming oil) would help against Frost Giants at all but yeah, I get the idea. And you do - but most people don't. Most people would react to encountering an Ice Devil in an icy region being influenced by an evil ice plane as unfair.

Quote from: The Traveller;643258Both symptoms of a pure lack of education, the GM is part of the group as much as any player. If people don't understand that the game will suffer.

Yes, it's not just the indie crowd who think of the GM as another player, albeit with an agenda different from the rest of the players. Understand that and you'll have more of an insight into GMing.  

Quote from: Omnifray;643270But leo, how often have you actually seen that happen? (In hundreds of games, I'm not sure I've even seen anyone really try to actually "break" the game, i.e. screw up its fundamentals. They might have refused to jump at railroading bait once in a very long while but if that's really a problem, you should have made it more tempting.)

Well, it's never happened to me as a GM, and tbh the evidence for it happening is largely anecdotal, but I suppose you're right, it's probably more a case of not wanting to be railroaded. Nevertheless, the correct response to being excessively railroaded (some players, including me, don't really mind being railroaded if the story is enjoyable, and as long as the rails aren't amateurishly obvious) is to either accept it, or collar the GM in a break, or at the end of the session, and have a word with them about it.

Dan_Hellsing used to get a lot of stick for- by his own admission- excessively railroading players in the past, so there's something of a running gag in our group where we groan theatrically about it's being obvious that he wants us to take the cliff road, or the path leading to the Caves of Death or whatever.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643276I've seen players make characters that would deliberately screw with either the setting or the group dynamics.

This is kind of what I had in mind, a player deliberately rolling up a character or taking the story in a direction that is at odds with the setting, but I'm sure such behaviour is rare, and usually results from a personal beef that that player has with the GM.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643272And that's why the good killer GMs use RULES. It's no fun if you can defeat your players without constraints. But how many RPGs actually provide rules which can be used this way?

Anon Adderlan posting about SYSTEM MATTERS again? Check.

Anon Adderlan posting about a "good" way of playing an RPG when it's really just a matter of his subjective preference? Check.

Must be that time of the month again for Anon Adderlan.

What if a game were advertised as systemless Cthulhu, death being, if not defined as certain, advertised as almost certain? If players can play such a game and enjoy it, you are shot out of the water.

Oh look, he's actually airborne!!

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643276They all apparently got off on it, though, so more power to them, I guess.

Well yes and this is the fundamental thing. Before you start asking yourself whether sadistic GMs are desirable or necessarily immature, or even what a sadistic GM is, you have to start by knowing why the question matters. And it matters because you're trying to get at whether the game is enjoyed by the players. If everyone has signed up for systemless Cthulhu death, or system-pregnant Cthulhu death, or a real possibility of systemless or system-pregnant Cthulhu death being inevitable (but the players don't yet know even out-of-character whether that's actually going to turn out to be the case)... then that's what the players have signed up for.

Sure, if you got them to spend 4 hours genning up characters then 2 weeks discussing backstory over e-mail before the game, then made it inevitable that their characters would necessarily be gunned down after half an hour, that would be pretty douchey if they had no clue that was even on the cards. But if they actually enjoyed the CharGen and the backstory and were happy to take a gamble on TPK inevitability in the first half hour, whose place is it to sit in judgement on that?

Quote from: catty_big;643382Yes, it’s not just the indie crowd who think of the GM as another player, albeit with an agenda different from the rest of the players. Understand that and you’ll have more of an insight into GMing.

I think you just twisted the Traveller's words a bit there. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's specifically saying that the GM isn't a player, although obviously is part of the group. Whether this is so, and whether it might matter, may be worthy of lengthy debate. IMHO, you risk seriously confusing the issue by taking his words "part of the group" and acting as if he said "a player". See link (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=629911&postcount=330) that he's inordinately proud of.

Quote from: catty_big;643382we groan theatrically about it’s being obvious that he wants us to take the cliff road, or the path leading to the Caves of Death or whatever.

Any game of mine you play in Leo, I'm going to make sure there's a big cliff road signposted to the Caves of Death. And if you go in those caves, you better not be expecting to come out alive!!!

Quote from: catty_big;643382This is kind of what I had in mind, a player deliberately rolling up a character or taking the story in a direction that is at odds with the setting, but I’m sure such behaviour is rare, and usually results from a personal beef that that player has with the GM.

Usually long before that stage one participant or other will find some excuse not to take part at all.

Quote from: Omnifray;643388I think you just twisted the Traveller's words a bit there. He'll correct me if I'm wrong but I think he's specifically saying that the GM isn't a player, although obviously is part of the group. Whether this is so, and whether it might matter, may be worthy of lengthy debate. IMHO, you risk seriously confusing the issue by taking his words "part of the group" and acting as if he said "a player". See link (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=629911&postcount=330) that he's inordinately proud of.

Rightfully and justifiably proud of you mean! :D /proudfeet

You're right though, that's not what I said, the GM is part of the group but not just another player. The agenda in broad terms is the same as that of the players, to have and promote a lot of fun, but the responsibilities and powers are very different. The lengthy and often quite heated debate is contained in that linked thread.

Liking CoC games is a good sign of a sadistic DM (or masochistic player).

*trollface*

Killing PCs in CoC is like stealing candy from a baby. Now, making players to choose between near - sure loss of a character or not learning The Mystery (TM) - now  that's where the fun's at.

I am unashamedly a sadistic GM. Whilst I am not a killer GM, I will TPK a party if they do something really stupid. Neither am I an adversarial GM, since for me the win is when all my players finish the game with broad smiles and call me a complete bastard.

No. I am a sadistic GM because I place my players under high levels of stress in-game - extrapolating consequences of their actions, presenting them with tough moral decisions and never letting up the Machiavellian pressure.

I do not consider myself immature because of my GMing style, and indeed if I was, I wouldn't be able to conceive, let alone pull off some of the emotional, mental and moral torture I put them through... I even ran the conclusion to a Culture Sci-Fi scenario in my sauna once, to represent mounting radiation damage their ship avatars were suffering - if you left the sauna you died.

Its a fine line to tread, but I take the fact that my players always come back for more (and look forwards to it) to be a seal of approval.

Quote from: Malygris;643149Hello to everyone at the RPGsite, this is my first post, so please forgive any clumsiness and naivety. I'd like to ask you all if GM sadism is a sign of immaturity? Or does it have an acceptable place within a game or in certain genres?

It has a time and place.  I had been running a year long ADnD campaign.  The party partially failed a mission wherein the fighter became possessed by a demon.  Instead of getting an exorcism, the whole party decided to roll with it and all switched to evil alignments.

For six months of gaming every Sunday 10-12 hours a session, they cut a brutal and gory path across the Flanneass seeking the Theoparts.  Burning villages, sacrificing children, mutilation, every week nastier than the last.  I became disgusted at the game.

A session ended where the were deep inside a Scarlet Brotherhood fortress searching for clues.  For the next session, I put together a massive army of hundreds to send at the 10th-ish level party.

Started the next game telling the players I was disgusted by their PCs, flashed them a look at the army list, and told them I was going to kill them all in punishment.  Eight hours of combat later, the fighter had a handful of hp, all magic items and potions and protection scrolls used up, was the last to fall against the relentless horde.  Hundreds of dead enemies littered the fortress.  

It was glorious and a dickish DM move.  TPK of a long campaign on purpose.

Some 16 years later, the players still say that's the best game ever and take pride in how hard they fought.  Our games have never been as debaucherous since.

Quote from: catty_big;643382This is kind of what I had in mind, a player deliberately rolling up a character or taking the story in a direction that is at odds with the setting, but I'm sure such behaviour is rare, and usually results from a personal beef that that player has with the GM.

The experiences I saw was usually more someone wanting to game, not liking the game everyone else was playing, and so they were passive aggressively screwing the game up with their character.

If there's a gigantic door in my dungeon with a picture of cthulhu on it and the players open it and there's a cthulhu behind it... ...well it's not as if there wasn't a giant warning sign.

Quote from: Planet Algol;643442If there's a gigantic door in my dungeon with a picture of cthulhu on it and the players open it and there's a cthulhu behind it... ...well it's not as if there wasn't a giant warning sign.

It is quite a good note - often, when a party'd be faced wit ha challenge far beyond  their skills, in most cases (and with decent dms), there will be a rather clear warning sign of "Proceed At Your Own Risks". Ranging from piles of bones from a dark cave, through the odd sounds and folk legends, to simple warnings in  taverns that nobody who ever entered Dungeon of McDoom ever returned.

Of course, if you just assume that it is GM doing their needless tidbit narration bit that you need to hear before combat ensues again, well....learning curve.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643433The experiences I saw was usually more someone wanting to game, not liking the game everyone else was playing, and so they were passive aggressively screwing the game up with their character.

Even worse. Surely the GM should at some point say 'Dude, look, this isn't working', and give them some face-saving formula to enable them to leave the table if they're that unhappy with the game?

Quote from: The Traveller;643390Rightfully and justifiably proud of you mean! :D /proudfeet

You're right though, that's not what I said, the GM is part of the group but not just another player. The agenda in broad terms is the same as that of the players, to have and promote a lot of fun, but the responsibilities and powers are very different. The lengthy and often quite heated debate is contained in that linked thread.

Ok, I didn't explain myself well. What I meant was that these GMs (the immature dickwads that folks have been talking about here) think they're somehow separated from the players, and don't realise they're actually part of the group, and not on some higher plane than the other players. When I said 'another player' I meant 'part of the group'; I was actually agreeing with you :).

Quote from: catty_big;643447What I meant was that these GMs (the immature dickwads that folks have been talking about here) think they're somehow separated from the players, and don't realise they're actually part of the group, and not on some higher plane than the other players.

Yes.

Quote from: catty_big;643445Even worse. Surely the GM should at some point say 'Dude, look, this isn't working', and give them some face-saving formula to enable them to leave the table if they're that unhappy with the game?

I agree. Only saw this is a player, myself...because as a GM, I won't let one person ruin everyone else's fun.

Quote from: Omnifray;643388Any game of mine you play in Leo, I'm going to make sure there's a big cliff road signposted to the Caves of Death. And if you go in those caves, you better not be expecting to come out alive!!!

Gah, you sadist!

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643469I agree. Only saw this is a player, myself...because as a GM, I won't let one person ruin everyone else's fun.

Yeah, I think it's always more difficult to correct this or any kind of behaviour at the table if you're a player, because you feel in some sense it's not 'your game', therefore it's not your place to do so. In a thread on another forum a couple of posters were adamant that it's everyone's responsibility to both bring the awesome and police behaviour, not just the GM or the players. Still, I find it difficult to criticise other players' behaviour.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643272Yeah, but that's an extreme example. Of course no 1st level player is going to engage a fucking dragon, but what about an Owlbear? Or Aboleth? Or Beholder?

Not taking these doomed actions has more to do with experience and less to do with IQ.

Nope, I actually had a TPK as the result of a group of 1st level Players chasing after a very deadly black dragon in a swampy area of the game map. I spent most of a session showing them through its actions that it was not going to be a pushover and was too much for the group. They still went after it and got themselves killed.

Quote from: jeff37923;643494Nope, I actually had a TPK as the result of a group of 1st level Players chasing after a very deadly black dragon in a swampy area of the game map. I spent most of a session showing them through its actions that it was not going to be a pushover and was too much for the group. They still went after it and got themselves killed.

...

OK, I stand corrected.

Out of curiosity though, was this a group who had never played before?

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;643501...

OK, I stand corrected.

Out of curiosity though, was this a group who had never played before?

It was a mix of experienced and inexperienced Players in Basic D&D. However, after spending six hours showing them that the black dragon's lair was underwater, that it took out a tribe of lizard-men all by itself, that it was capable of casting spells, that it was definitely large and old, even an inexperienced Player should have gotten a clue that it was a bad idea.

Sometimes Players get ate up with stupid and while it is the DM's job to provide interesting and fun challenges for the group, the DM should never feel that they have to save the group from itself if that group is Hell-bent on doing something dumb.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;643469I agree. Only saw this is a player, myself...because as a GM, I won't let one person ruin everyone else's fun.

as a Gm if the player is bieng a dick I just enforce the rules, all of them.
Its been a long time since I had to do it but ....

They roll a PC and describe them like arnie or whatever, so I make them roll on the DMG  hieght and weight table now they are 5'8" and weigh close to 200lbs.
They don't wear a helmet... so 1 in 6 attacks is aimed at their unarmoured AC 10 head. They were a helmet so their listen and obervation rolls are reduced etc etc ...
Usually they quietly leave.

I have only had to do it a handful of times.

I am glad to see that my first question here has generated a lot of debate and differing views. It makes for interesting, and entertaining reading. :)

Quote from: jeff37923;643504It was a mix of experienced and inexperienced Players in Basic D&D. However, after spending six hours showing them that the black dragon's lair was underwater, that it took out a tribe of lizard-men all by itself, that it was capable of casting spells, that it was definitely large and old, even an inexperienced Player should have gotten a clue that it was a bad idea.

Sometimes Players get ate up with stupid and while it is the DM's job to provide interesting and fun challenges for the group, the DM should never feel that they have to save the group from itself if that group is Hell-bent on doing something dumb.

I blame newer video game design for some of this.  Back 10+ years ago, it wasn't unusual to find a very dangerous area nestled in among lower level places.  The point wasn't to spoonfeed you, but that you learned very early on that you had to avoid certain areas, to run from the baddies, until you were powerful enough to take them on.  You weren't supposed to take on the Shadowlords in Ultima V until you found out their origin and how to defeat them.  Until then, you had to hightail it out of any town they showed up in.

Nowadays, you don't get that sort of hard earned respect; you get the "if the GM threw it out there, it must be able to be overcome" attitude.  I had to explain to my son out of game that no, the gang that he refused to give protection money to and who subsequently burned his character's house down was too powerful for him to take on.... Yet.

Quote from: flyerfan1991;643523I blame newer video game design for some of this.  Back 10+ years ago, it wasn't unusual to find a very dangerous area nestled in among lower level places.  The point wasn't to spoonfeed you, but that you learned very early on that you had to avoid certain areas, to run from the baddies, until you were powerful enough to take them on.  You weren't supposed to take on the Shadowlords in Ultima V until you found out their origin and how to defeat them.  Until then, you had to hightail it out of any town they showed up in.

Nowadays, you don't get that sort of hard earned respect; you get the "if the GM threw it out there, it must be able to be overcome" attitude.  I had to explain to my son out of game that no, the gang that he refused to give protection money to and who subsequently burned his character's house down was too powerful for him to take on.... Yet.

Heh.

"Aw shucks, that dragon killed us lads. Let's reload. Why are you looking at me like  that?"

Quote from: flyerfan1991;643523I blame newer video game design for some of this.  Back 10+ years ago, it wasn't unusual to find a very dangerous area nestled in among lower level places.  The point wasn't to spoonfeed you, but that you learned very early on that you had to avoid certain areas, to run from the baddies, until you were powerful enough to take them on.  You weren't supposed to take on the Shadowlords in Ultima V until you found out their origin and how to defeat them.  Until then, you had to hightail it out of any town they showed up in.

It's true. If a newer game does put high level areas close to low level ones it's called bad design. Even if NPCs say not to go there if you speak with them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;643519as a Gm if the player is bieng a dick I just enforce the rules, all of them.
Its been a long time since I had to do it but ....

They roll a PC and describe them like arnie or whatever, so I make them roll on the DMG  hieght and weight table now they are 5'8" and weigh close to 200lbs.
They don't wear a helmet... so 1 in 6 attacks is aimed at their unarmoured AC 10 head. They were a helmet so their listen and obervation rolls are reduced etc etc ...
Usually they quietly leave.

I have only had to do it a handful of times.

Maybe you're just not describing your reasoning very clearly, but in this particular example, you're the one who comes across as a dick, not the player.

One, exactly what faux-pass did that poor player commit with describing his character like Arnie? Do you have a secret hate-on for Schwarzenegger ever since he raped you sister? Do you belong to a religion which teaches that long hair on a male, even in the description of a fictional character, is anathema? Or are you specifically running a campaign focusing on the adventures crippled morons, making a physically formidable PC inappropriate? What did he DO wrong? In your example, the guy didn't do anything demonstrably dickish.

If his horrendous dickwad crime was that he described his character as a lot more physically developed as his scores indicate, than why don't you just say "No way, not with a Strength of 13. You could look like Sean Bean or Gabriel Byrne, but not Schwarzie." As a DM, you're supposed to clear up issues primarily by simply communicating not by going "RRRRRR YOU TOUCHED BY BERSERK BUTTON I'LL DRIVE YOU AWAY FROM MY GAME".

Two, whatever the player's extremely vaguely defined sin was, your "solution" to it is horrible. If there's a misunderstanding because you're not on the same page, you should get on the same page. If he's deliberately being disrupting, you should politely but firmly not invite him back. But your self-described panacea is to throw the rulebook at him, hitting him with every single hindersome rule that you're not applying to any of the other players. Which is double standards. And you're even being passive-agressive about it. Instead of coming out and saying "Yo, I'm not cool with what you do in the game because Reasons A, B, and C, so please change it", you just go "Yeah, sure, you're doing everything fine, keep truckin' (oh, and here's another screw you! ruling)" and punish him without explanation until you drive him away. In your example, you address the (completely undescribed) problem in the worst possible way a DM could.

Again, that's just based on what you have actually written in your example. Maybe you just failed to mention a few highly relevant points that would shed an entirely different light on the whole fictional situation. But as it stands right now, it only presents you as a dick, not your fictional player.

Quote from: Malygris;643520I am glad to see that my first question here has generated a lot of debate and differing views. It makes for interesting, and entertaining reading. :)

Yeah, it was a good one- keep it up dude :).

Quote from: Premier;643550Maybe you're just not describing your reasoning very clearly, but in this particular example, you're the one who comes across as a dick, not the player.

One, exactly what faux-pass did that poor player commit with describing his character like Arnie? Do you have a secret hate-on for Schwarzenegger ever since he raped you sister? Do you belong to a religion which teaches that long hair on a male, even in the description of a fictional character, is anathema? Or are you specifically running a campaign focusing on the adventures crippled morons, making a physically formidable PC inappropriate? What did he DO wrong? In your example, the guy didn't do anything demonstrably dickish.

If his horrendous dickwad crime was that he described his character as a lot more physically developed as his scores indicate, than why don't you just say "No way, not with a Strength of 13. You could look like Sean Bean or Gabriel Byrne, but not Schwarzie." As a DM, you're supposed to clear up issues primarily by simply communicating not by going "RRRRRR YOU TOUCHED BY BERSERK BUTTON I'LL DRIVE YOU AWAY FROM MY GAME".

Two, whatever the player's extremely vaguely defined sin was, your "solution" to it is horrible. If there's a misunderstanding because you're not on the same page, you should get on the same page. If he's deliberately being disrupting, you should politely but firmly not invite him back. But your self-described panacea is to throw the rulebook at him, hitting him with every single hindersome rule that you're not applying to any of the other players. Which is double standards. And you're even being passive-agressive about it. Instead of coming out and saying "Yo, I'm not cool with what you do in the game because Reasons A, B, and C, so please change it", you just go "Yeah, sure, you're doing everything fine, keep truckin' (oh, and here's another screw you! ruling)" and punish him without explanation until you drive him away. In your example, you address the (completely undescribed) problem in the worst possible way a DM could.

Again, that's just based on what you have actually written in your example. Maybe you just failed to mention a few highly relevant points that would shed an entirely different light on the whole fictional situation. But as it stands right now, it only presents you as a dick, not your fictional player.

A little .. the description of arnie like PC is not symptomatic .
I mean that the player was a dick from the get go and no ammount of talking him down seems to affect it so then rather than man up and say dude this isn't going to work I act like a Dick so fair point :)

Like I said its has been a long time .... so yeah as I was typing it I was kind of agreeing with you :)

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643544It's true. If a newer game does put high level areas close to low level ones it's called bad design. Even if NPCs say not to go there if you speak with them.

Eh... WoW had the undead starting area right next to WPL, which was at the time I think level 50 - 55. Heck, there was a dungeon in the same zone for high 20's, low 30's, with mobs around it in that same level range IIRC.

Now there was a pretty obvious choke point to WPL, so newbies mostly didn't make the mistake of going through there and getting slaughtered by bears. But that doesn't change the fact that it was there. Meanwhile the dungeon was not nearly as closed off, I think there might even have been some quests and such that took people close to it.

So this kind of thing still does happen.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643554Eh... WoW had the undead starting area right next to WPL, which was at the time I think level 50 - 55. Heck, there was a dungeon in the same zone for high 20's, low 30's, with mobs around it in that same level range IIRC.

Now there was a pretty obvious choke point to WPL, so newbies mostly didn't make the mistake of going through there and getting slaughtered by bears. But that doesn't change the fact that it was there. Meanwhile the dungeon was not nearly as closed off, I think there might even have been some quests and such that took people close to it.

So this kind of thing still does happen.

That's my point. It does still happen, but a lot of people complain about it. They don't understand just because an area is close to you doesn't mean you should go there. And so if a newer game allows you to go into an area you can't handle yet it's the game's fault when you go there and die. Even though in most games death isn't even a big deal.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643557That's my point. It does still happen, but a lot of people complain about it.

I'm not particularly sure I heard much complaints about that in my stint in WoW, and that was a good six or seven years.

I know they changed it in one of the recent expansions, but that was more for flow and options than anything - pretty much everybody but the undead had two zones they could travel to after the introductory stuff, while they only had one.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643561I'm not particularly sure I heard much complaints about that in my stint in WoW, and that was a good six or seven years.

I know they changed it in one of the recent expansions, but that was more for flow and options than anything - pretty much everybody but the undead had two zones they could travel to after the introductory stuff, while they only had one.

Really? MMO players bitch about everything. Though six or seven years ago the whole follow the glowing arrow through the game thing wasn't as prominent.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643564Really? MMO players bitch about everything. Though six or seven years ago the whole follow the glowing arrow through the game thing wasn't as prominent.

I was also not a Hordie, so no real reason for me to hear bitching about their problems.

But anyway, look at a more modern game like Skyrim. I just started playing that this week, and... hot damn, there are places you do not want to go just starting out. Going exploring in that game is quite entertaining, but there are places that you get into or even just vaguely near and something will tear your ass a new one if you're not ready for it. Hell, I'm like thirty-ish hours in, and there are still places that will kick my ass with minimal effort.

I don't (and didn't, back when it was still new) hear anybody complaining about Skyrim doing this sort of thing.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643571I was also not a Hordie, so no real reason for me to hear bitching about their problems.

But anyway, look at a more modern game like Skyrim. I just started playing that this week, and... hot damn, there are places you do not want to go just starting out. Going exploring in that game is quite entertaining, but there are places that you get into or even just vaguely near and something will tear your ass a new one if you're not ready for it. Hell, I'm like thirty-ish hours in, and there are still places that will kick my ass with minimal effort.

I don't (and didn't, back when it was still new) hear anybody complaining about Skyrim doing this sort of thing.

This is also odd, because the same people that prefer casual/easy type games don't complain about that.

Mostly it's people getting mad they went into the graveyard straight away. You know which one.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643572This is also odd, because the same people that prefer casual/easy type games don't complain about that.

So that would seem to imply that "hardcore" players are more likely to complain about unbalanced encounters...

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If you look at 4e, and the sorts of players that bought into it, they complained about unbalanced encounters while also being extremely munchkin-y.

Meanwhile more casual players, or players less inclined to fetishize mechanics (an almost necessary precursor to becoming overly concerned with game balance), are less concerned about unbalanced encounters because they are less concerned with the concept of balance on a higher level.

QuoteMostly it's people getting mad they went into the graveyard straight away. You know which one.

I, um... no?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643575So that would seem to imply that "hardcore" players are more likely to complain about unbalanced encounters...

That actually makes a lot of sense to me. If you look at 4e, and the sorts of players that bought into it, they complained about unbalanced encounters while also being extremely munchkin-y.

Meanwhile more casual players, or players less inclined to fetishize mechanics (an almost necessary precursor to becoming overly concerned with game balance), are less concerned about unbalanced encounters because they are less concerned with the concept of balance on a higher level.

No, that wasn't what I was saying.

The hardcore players will either not walk into the graveyard first, or walk into it, die, and realize they're not supposed to go there yet. They might even go in and handle it anyways, but not on their first playthrough.

The casual sorts will go in there, die, and blame the game for not telling them... yet if a casual game does the exact same thing you don't hear anyone calling Skyrim too hardcore.

QuoteI, um... no?

Nevermind that example then.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643571I was also not a Hordie, so no real reason for me to hear bitching about their problems.

But anyway, look at a more modern game like Skyrim. I just started playing that this week, and... hot damn, there are places you do not want to go just starting out. Going exploring in that game is quite entertaining, but there are places that you get into or even just vaguely near and something will tear your ass a new one if you're not ready for it. Hell, I'm like thirty-ish hours in, and there are still places that will kick my ass with minimal effort.

I don't (and didn't, back when it was still new) hear anybody complaining about Skyrim doing this sort of thing.

I started Hordeside back in Wrath, and discovered the hard way that going from The Ghostlands to Eastern Plaguelands was not a good idea.  I didn't mind, and my guildies had a good laugh over it, but you'd be surprised at the amount of bitching that went on in the forums over it.  I'd not be surprised that the complaints were part of the reason why in Cataclysm they remade the Plaguelands to upper-30s/lower-40s, and would make flight points appear automatically when you reached the correct level for it.  (Although the counter bitching about "spoon feeding" players led to removing the auto discovery in the latest patch.)

I remember the time I made it to the Badlands for the first time on a PvP server, dashing all the way from Arathi through Wetlands and Loch Modan, and was thrilled to make it to the end.  Likewise, that first mad dash through the Western and Eastern Plaguelands to reach Light's Hope Chapel is one of my biggest WoW memories.  

If you're supposed to win and the deck is stacked in your favor, then the challenge isn't going to be necessarily memorable.

Quote from: Charlie Sheen;643578The casual sorts will go in there, die, and blame the game for not telling them... yet if a casual game does the exact same thing you don't hear anyone calling Skyrim too hardcore.

I... seem utterly unable to follow what you're getting at here.

Apparently I really need to get some sleep soon.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;643580I... seem utterly unable to follow what you're getting at here.

Apparently I really need to get some sleep soon.

I'm saying the same people that complain about a hardcore game being hardcore won't complain about a casual game being hardcore. Even though that actually would be objectionable, since you're not getting what you expected.

And so the same people that get mad they die from high level skeletons in one game do not get mad they die from high level whatevers in another game. Even though the situations are identical - you went into an area beyond your ability to handle, and the enemies didn't suddenly get easier for it.

I don't get the point of any real GM-sadism; what does it matter if you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies"?

Of course, meaningless accusations of a GM being "sadistic" just because the PCs run through a hard patch is another story...

The bad design in WoW is that it is completely inexplicable how identical monsters vary so wildly in strength.  There's no potential justification for how the zombies on either side of the bulwark vary by like 40 levels.

The game isn't designed in any rational way.  It's all a theme park and you can battle the same scourge from 1-85 and it's basically the same monster (or even in the case of the revamped dungeons the same encounters) at variable strength.

That's why putting that stuff there is bad design, even in PnP games.  Of course most PnP games won't have you fighting the same skeletons at first and max level, but it would still be a dumb idea to put inexplicably powerful monsters or NPCs in places where they should have free reign, but then use some kind of contrived plot constraint to explain why this doesn't happen.

Which MMOs are terrible offenders but it happens a lot in tabletop games as well.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;644560That's why putting that stuff there is bad design, even in PnP games.  Of course most PnP games won't have you fighting the same skeletons at first and max level, but it would still be a dumb idea to put inexplicably powerful monsters or NPCs in places where they should have free reign, but then use some kind of contrived plot constraint to explain why this doesn't happen.

I'd argue it depends on the contrivance.

I know that the West Marches guy did this sometimes, but also talked about how he kept the more difficult monsters confined to a given space - things like wraiths only hanging out near their barrows, so the difficulty rating of the hex didn't take the wraiths into account. A dungeon in an early area might have some crazy-sealed door that the super-nasty things were behind, and they couldn't pass the door... etc etc.

Quote from: RPGPundit;644521I don't get the point of any real GM-sadism; what does it matter if you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies"?

Of course, meaningless accusations of a GM being "sadistic" just because the PCs run through a hard patch is another story...

I fully agree with this.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;643166I think an adversarial GM can be a good thing (they're being a good opponent, challenging the players' abilities).  But a sadistic GM is just a child.

Maybe, but even if this is the case your only options in this case are to walk away or be accommodating.

Quote from: RPGPundit;644521I don't get the point of any real GM-sadism; what does it matter if you can just say "rocks fall, everyone dies"?

Of course, meaningless accusations of a GM being "sadistic" just because the PCs run through a hard patch is another story...

I think sadistic gm's are about power, torture, and 'rats in a maze'.

If they kill the rats, the fun is over.

So 'rocks fall' is only used if they get pissed off when the rats escape the maze.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;644560The bad design in WoW is that it is completely inexplicable how identical monsters vary so wildly in strength.  There's no potential justification for how the zombies on either side of the bulwark vary by like 40 levels.

The game isn't designed in any rational way.  It's all a theme park and you can battle the same scourge from 1-85 and it's basically the same monster (or even in the case of the revamped dungeons the same encounters) at variable strength.

That's why putting that stuff there is bad design, even in PnP games.  Of course most PnP games won't have you fighting the same skeletons at first and max level, but it would still be a dumb idea to put inexplicably powerful monsters or NPCs in places where they should have free reign, but then use some kind of contrived plot constraint to explain why this doesn't happen.

Which MMOs are terrible offenders but it happens a lot in tabletop games as well.

4E dnd suffers from this in so far as it has low level and high level versions of many creatures. To me, its not unlike the zero level and high level people in 1E. Huge disparities bother me on some level.

In 1E a pack of gargoyles would ravage an entire civilization that lacked magic weapons and spells :)

Quote from: Bill;644669I think sadistic gm's are about power, torture, and 'rats in a maze'.

If they kill the rats, the fun is over.

So 'rocks fall' is only used if they get pissed off when the rats escape the maze.

Yeah, I guess I can see that; but you'd think people would think of more interesting and fun places to express those desires than in a D&D game.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;645135Yeah, I guess I can see that; but you'd think people would think of more interesting and fun places to express those desires than in a D&D game.

RPGPundit

Not to be overly cynical about human nature, but I think they do it there because they can.

Most people have no real power, if not get abused by the powerful.

So, a GM has power of a sort that can be abused.

Quote from: Bill;645181Not to be overly cynical about human nature, but I think they do it there because they can.

Most people have no real power, if not get abused by the powerful.

So, a GM has power of a sort that can be abused.

What Bill said - the GM has power, will enjoy using it, will believe (as people with power always do in regards to people without power) they know best and the only accountability is for players to talk away.

GMs are likely going to be sadist because they are people and people enjoy hurting one another when and where they can, and they always like it even more if the people around them come back for more and say thank you.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;645532GMs are likely going to be sadist because they are people and people enjoy hurting one another when and where they can

You must be a blast at parties.

Quote from: The Traveller;645536You must be a blast at parties.

Yeah that's what I thought. That's some way to look at the world I guess...

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;645532What Bill said - the GM has power, will enjoy using it, will believe (as people with power always do in regards to people without power) they know best and the only accountability is for players to talk away.

GMs are likely going to be sadist because they are people and people enjoy hurting one another when and where they can, and they always like it even more if the people around them come back for more and say thank you.

That might be true, but only for GMs who think of themselves as having power. A good GM knows that he doesn't actually have any power. He has a lot of responsibility.

It's the same as in the real world. The guy who wants a promotion because he wants power over his coworkers is going to be a dick. The guy who accepts the responsibility of his new position might actually be good at his job, and a good boss.

Brian

Quote from: BillionSix;645631That might be true, but only for GMs who think of themselves as having power. A good GM knows that he doesn't actually have any power. He has a lot of responsibility.

It's the same as in the real world. The guy who wants a promotion because he wants power over his coworkers is going to be a dick. The guy who accepts the responsibility of his new position might actually be good at his job, and a good boss.

Brian

In most cases, sadistic gm equals bad gm.

Not always, but mostly.

I actually know one gm that is sadistic but good.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;645532What Bill said - the GM has power, will enjoy using it, will believe (as people with power always do in regards to people without power) they know best and the only accountability is for players to talk away.

GMs are likely going to be sadist because they are people and people enjoy hurting one another when and where they can, and they always like it even more if the people around them come back for more and say thank you.

There is a difference between enjoying a position of power, and being a sadist; I think most GMs LIKE being in charge of their games but very very few feel that the best way to derive pleasure out of this is by ruining the experience for their players.  In fact, only idiots think that.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;646272There is a difference between enjoying a position of power, and being a sadist; I think most GMs LIKE being in charge of their games but very very few feel that the best way to derive pleasure out of this is by ruining the experience for their players.  In fact, only idiots think that.

RPGPundit

Yes, being a gm does not make one a sadist.

People that are already sadists can become gm's.

Some poeple can't handle power though, even small amounts of it go to their head.

I feel like cracking a light S&M joke, but I can't come up with anything better than "Gag your willing partner, not your unwilling players".

I think we, for the most part, agree that the main problem here is, and was, the misconception that a challenging/Viking hat GM may equal in some eyes sadist.

Quote from: Bill;646360Yes, being a gm does not make one a sadist.

That wasn't the full extent of what I said. What I said was: Enjoying power doesn't make you a sadist. You can like to be in charge without there being any necessary implication that you will abuse your charge; and I think there are far more people out there who like to be in charge but don't abuse their power than those who do.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Malygris;643149Hello to everyone at the RPGsite, this is my first post, so please forgive any clumsiness and naivety. I'd like to ask you all if GM sadism is a sign of immaturity? Or does it have an acceptable place within a game or in certain genres?

A certain amount of glee at the doom of characters is of the essence of the game Paranoia. Players, of course, partake of the same!

Quote from: RPGPundit;646830That wasn't the full extent of what I said. What I said was: Enjoying power doesn't make you a sadist. You can like to be in charge without there being any necessary implication that you will abuse your charge; and I think there are far more people out there who like to be in charge but don't abuse their power than those who do.

RPGPundit

Glass half full?

I sure hope that is the case.