Reading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

I don't think that I can give an informed opinion on this, because I haven't been a Player in over 15 years. Due to a combination of Real Life getting in the way and a disinterest in DnD 5E (whose Organized Play still sucks all the air out of the room), I've been just the Forever GM. I don't lack for Players, so I guess that I'm pretty good or at least good enough.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 08:34:11 PMI completely disagree on this. If it's on a player's character sheet, the GM must know what it is and what it does; how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly. Remembering to apply it is still on the player though; that why PC should start at level one, so players have time to learn everything their characters can do.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 10:13:55 PMI'm not suggesting modifying the scenario, but knowing if an encounter is going to be challenging and drawn out or a quick curbstomp is important for planing and pacing. I don't need to prep the next three encounters if this one ought to take the rest of the session, but I do need to be ready to run more if this one is expected to at most be a speedbump. Designing the scenario is a different question, but that is tied into system conceits.

Quote from: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMThe End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet.

To be fair to Wisithir, he isn't advocating that the combat not be allowed to take place. In theory, he's saying that knowing about the bolt could still lead to the lich's speedy death, but the GM is better prepared for what to do next.

However, I still disagree with Wisithir, and I agree with Eirikrautha and Brad. Psychologically, knowing about the bolt will generally lead to the DM thinking of a way to nullify it.

A lot of GMs instinctively try to shoot down player ideas that will short-circuit the action, because they feel they will run out of material and be stuck. I think the better way to approach this is to put less prep into any single plot, and prep more potential adventures. To learn to improvise, you have to prep less and deal with unexpected curveballs. If they avoid or short-circuit some material, just go on to other material.


Towards the end of my last D&D campaign, I had prepped the PCs dealing with a rival. I had expected them to return to their base to talk with their patron, and the rival had secretly beseiged their home base and patron. But I forgot that they had access to the "Sending" spell that was in the cleric list, which allowed long-distance communication, since they had never used it before. So they found out about their rival's plan and completely outmaneuvered him, instead going over his head to the emperor.

Quote from: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMReading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

I'm really laughing at the "THIS IS A LICH" moment. And you know what? Kudos for accidently setting that up for your players. This was a cool story and it seemed more natural than some of the adapted movie tropes spiel we see most of the times on our games.

Quote from: Brad on January 03, 2025, 12:08:29 PMReading some of the replies, I remember a very specific incident that typifies why you shouldn't assume anything about player skill or PC abilities and just run stuff like it's a Real World. So pretty long-running Labyrinth Lord game with a kitchen sink of all sorts of house rules, custom classes, whatever. Sometimes (a lot of times) I would roll random treasure just because it's fun to see what weird crap the players get. They're like 3-4th level, one of the items in a black dragon hoard is a bolt of lich slaying. They successfully kill the dragon (rather easily I might add due to some clever play) but get almost TPK'd by its baby who took offense to the murder of the mother. Fast forward about 4 or 5 months of weekly play, they're around 7-8th level now. They travel to an area controlled by an evil overlord because, you know, they're greedy bastards and want to murder him and take his stuff but claim they're helping the peasants. Anyway, I had set this dude up to be a reoccurring villain and made him a pretty powerful lich because I like lame D&D tropes. After a few weeks of play, killing the lich's minions and making a ruckus, he invites them to his castle to have a conversation. I figured the lich would probably be interested in hiring them since they had been so effective at messing with his domain, and if that failed he'd enslave them or just kill them. In any event, there wasn't much the PCs could really DO to the lich and I liked the idea of legitimate parlay and was going to play it that way. Anyway, they are led up to a foyer and are waiting to be led into a sort of conference room to talk. I play the lich like he's a Bond supervillain and he makes them sweat out in the foyer for a good while. They're led into the room which is rather small and has a large table in the center filled with food, the lich sitting on the opposite side of the room from them; I'm envisioning Vader meeting Han Solo in Empire here, and in my brain I am thinking, this is gonna be cool. Well, the lich is cordial and stands, and suggests they take a seat and have dinner before discussing business. One of the players within two seconds says, "This is a lich," which results in the hunter PC pulling out his crossbow. We roll initiative, they win, the hunter shoots the lich with the bolt. The End. Literally 20 seconds into the encounter, the main bad guy is dead. I had totally forgotten about that bolt, so I checked my notes and lamented my lack of foresight as a DM but gave the PCs the W because they totally earned it. It's possible that the lich could have cast protection from missiles or had some sort of amulet or a million other things, but why? A DM who fully considered everything the players could do would not have allowed that combat to take place, I'd bet. Instead the lich had honest intentions and paid the price and the DM (me) saw a couple weeks of planning thrown out the window in an instant.

So anyway, that's why we play RPGs instead of writing stories.

This may have been a total accident on your part, but is 100% perfect DM'ing.  Thank you for sharing

Wouldn't the average GM have the average competence level, by definition? If not, what is "average" referring to here?

I have played with many bad GMs, but tried to avoid think of myself as a good one. Sure, some people think I am bad as well.

But, objectively, I thinks it very hard to know. First, we have to establish a scale, or some kind of measure, and that sole thing is challenging.

Quote from: Wisithir on January 02, 2025, 08:34:11 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 02, 2025, 08:09:38 PMSecond, put the onus of the rules on your players.  If they have some special ability or rule-breaking power, they need to know that.  You don't.  If they forget, it's their problem.  They have only one character to run; you have an entire world.  So don't worry about what the players can do.  That's their job.

I completely disagree on this. If it's on a player's character sheet, the GM must know what it is and what it does; how its use can effect the scenario and be prepared accordingly. Remembering to apply it is still on the player though; that why PC should start at level one, so players have time to learn everything their characters can do.

Wrong. As a GM, I have way too many things to keep track of during the game session. That's my responsibility. They players have a responsibility to know what's on their character sheet. It's an incredible waste of time for me to have to look up something they were too lazy to do on their own time before the game started. Plus, it helps them to learn the game more if they can look it up on their own.

Yeah. The players should know their characters.

But storygamer mentality has pushed that the DM should handle all that dirty "gamist" stuff and not break the players precious "muh immershun!"

It's SO easy to suck at being a good GM though.

I mean unless you as a player had a good GM, you're probably gonna suck running games at first. Then if your group is satisfied with you, you'll probably never get better. And why should you? The players aren't complaining. You're fine, until you start running games for strangers with different gaming tastes. Then you end up being labelled the Bad Guy Person.

That's why I go easy on bad GMs. I offer encouragement and point them in the direction of GM "do-better" materials. But IME "average" dominates the hobby. We can't all be Matt Mercer.

QuoteRelated are the power-trippers; the ones who delight in throwing crap at the PCs to undermine them and make sure everything they attempt ends in ruin due to things they couldn't even see coming.

A good GM can at least hide their delight. Many cannot and come across as childish.

I used to kinda not believe bad GMs were a thing. Like, they were Bigfoot or something. Myth mostly.

But then I saw that Adam Koebel rpg session livestream where his NPC graped a female player's PC.