The fault of a bad DM.

[Aberzanzorax]

I've seen it many times in a variety of threads.

People are debating the flaws and merits of a system/game/specific adventure/etc./etc./etc...

...and someone inevitably claims that the system/game/specific adventure/etc./etc./etc. is not flawed. It is merely the "fault of a bad DM".

The most recent thread I've seen this in is http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277054-why-flight-considered-game-breaker.html



Now, while a fantastic DM can just about rewrite any game, change rules, and make water into wine, I contend that a flawed tool is a flawed tool, regardless of how well a skilled artisan can make do with it.



It's to the point (for me) that this approaches "godwin-ing"* a thread. Sure a bad DM can ruin great stuff. Sure a good DM can make the terrible great. But, in such discussions, let's hold off on blaming the DM and maintain discussion on the real issue.


Agree? Disagree?

HAVE A NAME FOR THIS PHENOMENON?

 

[Rechan]

Is a Good GM the norm? I would think that GMing skill is distributed more evenly. You have Bad DMs and Good DMs at the ends of the spectrum, and then a wide area of "Decent".

It should work under someone with Decent DMing skills. And if it breaks down under an average DM, then it's a flaw. Otherwise it's like selling a "Do-It-Yourself" kit, expecting only exceptional skilled users to use the kit.

 

[billd91]

Unfortunately, it's hard to completely reject the influence of the DM in a role playing game. He's the filter through which everything from the rules to the player's decisions flows.

I'll generally agree that saying "Well, the DM can change that rule" is a cop out. But because the game is as complex as it is with so many styles of play, player strategies to unfold, and so many options, it's quite possible that a rule that works great under some circumstances breaks down under others without it being an indictment of the design ability of the game designers. One remedy may be to change the rule, another might be to set the expectations of the players at the table, another may be to change an aspect of the style of play.

A tool may be flawed for certain purposes, perfect for others, suitable for yet more. Does this mean the tool shouldn't have been made that way? Should a tool really be required to be universal to be considered not flawed? I don't think so. I don't think most gamers think so either otherwise we wouldn't have seen the most commonly available RPG tool, D&D, put through so many varied uses over the years. I know I've seen people pop up with questions, get advised to try a different game, and yet stick to D&D because it's the tool they have and know best.

 

[Rechan]

But I agree that it's a Godwin.

Because it typically goes something like this:

Poster 1: I have this problem. In situation X, Y happens and I don't know what to do with it.
Poster 16: Anyone who just can't handle Y is a bad DM.

Poster 16 is calling Poster 1 a Bad DM, going by nothing but poster 1's inability to handle one problem. It's fairly insulting.

We all have our strengths and our weaknesses, and expecting everyone to be an exceptional DM isn't very reasonable. Since we all can't be great.

 

[Crothian]

However, people need to be aware that not all fault will lie with a game. Sometimes DMs are bad and they mess up and post to EN World about how the game is broken and after a few posts or pages of posts learn they made a mistake.

I do things like this at work a lot. When someone presents a problem to me I first have to diagnosis if its a real problem or user error. There is nothing wrong with people making mistakes and it is just something we all have to live with.

 

[Rechan]

Unfortunately, it's hard to completely reject the influence of the DM in a role playing game. He's the filter through which everything from the rules to the player's decisions flows.

I'll generally agree that saying "Well, the DM can change that rule" is a cop out. But because the game is as complex as it is with so many styles of play, player strategies to unfold, and so many options, it's quite possible that a rule that works great under some circumstances breaks down under others without it being an indictment of the design ability of the game designers. One remedy may be to change the rule, another might be to set the expectations of the players at the table, another may be to change an aspect of the style of play.

And if the problem pops up for enough people, I think it is indeed a cop out to expect just the DM to take care of it.

Let's take for example something more concrete: Scry/buff/teleport.

Used individually they're ok. They fill certain necessities. But used together, they are breaking that style of play. And if enough groups put 2 and 2 together, then you have a lot of groups breaking play style.

Should the DM be expected to put his foot down, or should something be expected to be done with the rules?

The impression I get around here is that the DM is expected to address the problem, generally by going through a long, lengthy process of countermeasures to counter the PCs tactics, so that every single threat is hidden behind layer after layer of protections just so the players can't break the game. And if the DM doesn't do this, or does this and is frustrated by it, well then he's just a bad DM.

 

[Doug McCrae]

HAVE A NAME FOR THIS PHENOMENON?

You're describing something pretty similar to the Oberoni Fallacy.

Oberoni Fallacy (noun): The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.

WotC boards Dictionary of Terminology

 

[Doug McCrae]

Another one I find weird is when people say "Any GM worth his salt would do X" or "All good GMs are Y". My experience is that all good GMs are different, with different strengths and weaknesses. I've played with some GMs who created superb characters, concepts and stories but were very vulnerable to power gamers. I've played with an amazing high prep GM and very good 'amost no' prep GMs.

 

[Morrus]

But..but... a cooperative game which people get together to have an evening of fun with isn't a test. It's a bunch of people choosing to spend some time together in a particular way. If the guy who happens to have the "DM" role has particular strengths and/or weaknesses - so be it. Who's to criticise him for it? Just roll with it, adjust accordingly, and make sure you're having fun.

In the context of the "flight" thread - the DM isn't performing on The X Factor in front of Simon Cowell. He's just having fun with his friends; if his particular characteristics mean that not having flight would be more fun for all involved, then just don't have flight. Why does it have to be a big deal?

Those who value their worth by their GMing ability - well, let's just say I feel sorry for them. It's just a game.

 

[Umbran]

Agree? Disagree?

I don't think it is fair to classify all "bad DM" claims as godwin-like before considering their individual merit.

Sometimes, tools are flawed, yes. But sometimes, DMs are flawed too. It can be difficult to disentangle the two.

HAVE A NAME FOR THIS PHENOMENON?

No. We have more than enough jargon, thanks.