Compared to the rest of you, I think I qualify more as a dabbler than a serious role player by your definitions. I played a lot in my youth, and in fits and starts for a few moths at a time here and there more recently. There's plans afoot to start up an AD&D 1E game next month. We'll see if it comes to pass.
Anyway, when I did play RPG's, I was almost always the DM/GM. I had the deepest knowledge of the rules, and was the only one willing to put in the work necessary. I thoroughly enjoyed being a DM/GM. But, as with every party in every campaign ever run I suppose, there were problems. In my most long-lived and successful D&D campaign, the main problems were personality differences and game balance, one stemming from the other.
Specifically, we had a group of 4 players, with two characters each. Two of the players were hard core role players, one was a munchkin, and one was just an idiot. The munchkin rolled up a ranger just because they get 2d8 hp at 1st level, and his second character is a cleric, created specifically to keep the ranger healthy. I had a house rule that allowed rangers to move silently through foliage, and hide in it, using thieves' tables for moving silently and hiding in shadows, with the same penalties for wearing metal armor as found in the Unearthed Arcana. While rolling for the magical component of a treasure hoard in one of their early adventures, the item that came up was a Sword +5 Defender. I thought this would be perfect for the ranger, since it would allow him to put the "plus-es" into his AC and wear lesser armor while still being protected, and still enjoy all the benefits of his class.
Of course, the first thing he does is go out and buy a suit of plate mail. This dude became a walking tank. The plus-es went into his AC exactly one time in a two year campaign. This used to annoy the role players - and me - in equal measure. One of the role players was a half elven ranger, who lost the random dice roll for the sword, and often took off his metal armor to take advantage of the house rule. He would have put that item to so much better use. And the Tank would cleave through all opposition in short order, often leaving little for the rest of the party to do in many combat situations. Anything that would have been a challenge for him would have made mincemeat out of the rest of the party. I used to go out of my way to dream up things to counter him. Too bad we never finished that underground campaign. It was populated with a healthy community of rust monsters and disenchanters. And I purposely had a village full of people that worshiped the cleric's deity get slaughtered by their enemies just before the party arrived, and when the cleric failed to perform burial rituals in accordance with their religion, I stripped him of his powers until he made amends, which sent him off on a solo side campaign, leaving the rest of the party for most of a session. I made a lot of mistakes as a DM, but none I regret so much as giving him that damn sword.
So my question for the DM/GM's out there is: was this me trying to restore/maintain game balance, or me being vindictive because this guy and his tactics upset so many of my carefully laid plans? In my defense, I think this stuff started to infringe on the other players' good time. After a while, even the role players started to cower behind him, and came to rely on his massive combat abilities as the solution to every problem, doing little themselves. Sometimes out of a sense of laziness, and sometimes out of a sense of the inevitable; Bob's just gonna kill everything in 3 rounds anyway, so why bother? So I'd like to think I was doing the Lord's work. What do you think?
Anyway, when I did play RPG's, I was almost always the DM/GM. I had the deepest knowledge of the rules, and was the only one willing to put in the work necessary. I thoroughly enjoyed being a DM/GM. But, as with every party in every campaign ever run I suppose, there were problems. In my most long-lived and successful D&D campaign, the main problems were personality differences and game balance, one stemming from the other.
Specifically, we had a group of 4 players, with two characters each. Two of the players were hard core role players, one was a munchkin, and one was just an idiot. The munchkin rolled up a ranger just because they get 2d8 hp at 1st level, and his second character is a cleric, created specifically to keep the ranger healthy. I had a house rule that allowed rangers to move silently through foliage, and hide in it, using thieves' tables for moving silently and hiding in shadows, with the same penalties for wearing metal armor as found in the Unearthed Arcana. While rolling for the magical component of a treasure hoard in one of their early adventures, the item that came up was a Sword +5 Defender. I thought this would be perfect for the ranger, since it would allow him to put the "plus-es" into his AC and wear lesser armor while still being protected, and still enjoy all the benefits of his class.
Of course, the first thing he does is go out and buy a suit of plate mail. This dude became a walking tank. The plus-es went into his AC exactly one time in a two year campaign. This used to annoy the role players - and me - in equal measure. One of the role players was a half elven ranger, who lost the random dice roll for the sword, and often took off his metal armor to take advantage of the house rule. He would have put that item to so much better use. And the Tank would cleave through all opposition in short order, often leaving little for the rest of the party to do in many combat situations. Anything that would have been a challenge for him would have made mincemeat out of the rest of the party. I used to go out of my way to dream up things to counter him. Too bad we never finished that underground campaign. It was populated with a healthy community of rust monsters and disenchanters. And I purposely had a village full of people that worshiped the cleric's deity get slaughtered by their enemies just before the party arrived, and when the cleric failed to perform burial rituals in accordance with their religion, I stripped him of his powers until he made amends, which sent him off on a solo side campaign, leaving the rest of the party for most of a session. I made a lot of mistakes as a DM, but none I regret so much as giving him that damn sword.
So my question for the DM/GM's out there is: was this me trying to restore/maintain game balance, or me being vindictive because this guy and his tactics upset so many of my carefully laid plans? In my defense, I think this stuff started to infringe on the other players' good time. After a while, even the role players started to cower behind him, and came to rely on his massive combat abilities as the solution to every problem, doing little themselves. Sometimes out of a sense of laziness, and sometimes out of a sense of the inevitable; Bob's just gonna kill everything in 3 rounds anyway, so why bother? So I'd like to think I was doing the Lord's work. What do you think?
The DM/GM as Human Being: Balance vs. Vindictiveness
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire