After taking a look at this thread, I began to think there must be obvious conflict as to how people see what being a DM really entails. I'd like to see what you guys think would be the fitting solution. I'd also like input on what you assume as proper player behavior and proper DM behavior..Eh I'd just like some honest input since I'm thinking about running a game for the first time in awhile.
Role A DM Should Play
Henry
Autoexreginated
Definitely conflict in this view between different gamers, but rarely I find between different gaming groups. Because of the social nature in which gaming groups are formed, most gaming groups have this role of DM/player firmly established, and only comes to the fore when players are joining established groups.
For me, it's a question of "final authority." Originally, DM's were called "referees," and I still see DM'ing in this light today. For expediency of play and fun, the DM's word needs to be final authority, which does not discount disagreement - it only discounts protracted disagreement during a session. Players may try to use rulebooks to argue points in their favor, but in the end, it hurts the fun and enjoyment of all other players concerned, INCLUDING the DM.
Outside of the session, the DM needs to be able to firmly set rulings and precedents for his campaign, if he is to design a coherent setting that he enjoys as much as the players do. The DM is not an iron-fisted dictator, whose position is set for life; every player has an equal opportunity to DM, and set their own rules and precedents. Those who take a turn at DM'ing I believe better appreciate the preparation, foresight, and management skills that being an effective DM needs, and are better able to help the Dm during the game.
For me, it's a question of "final authority." Originally, DM's were called "referees," and I still see DM'ing in this light today. For expediency of play and fun, the DM's word needs to be final authority, which does not discount disagreement - it only discounts protracted disagreement during a session. Players may try to use rulebooks to argue points in their favor, but in the end, it hurts the fun and enjoyment of all other players concerned, INCLUDING the DM.
Outside of the session, the DM needs to be able to firmly set rulings and precedents for his campaign, if he is to design a coherent setting that he enjoys as much as the players do. The DM is not an iron-fisted dictator, whose position is set for life; every player has an equal opportunity to DM, and set their own rules and precedents. Those who take a turn at DM'ing I believe better appreciate the preparation, foresight, and management skills that being an effective DM needs, and are better able to help the Dm during the game.
ForceUser
Explorer
Re: Re: Role A DM Should Play
I think a DM needs to be both stern and accommodating. You've got to know when it's okay to let the players run with an idea, and when you need to put your foot down for the sake of continuity, fairness, or versimilitude.
[edit: spelling]
Yep. Other DMs make the best players because they understand how much work it is and are generally more willing to accept another DM's rulings at the table, and more likely to discuss said rulings rationally after the session.Henry said:
I think a DM needs to be both stern and accommodating. You've got to know when it's okay to let the players run with an idea, and when you need to put your foot down for the sake of continuity, fairness, or versimilitude.
[edit: spelling]
Last edited:
Angcuru
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Role A DM Should Play
Unless that Idea is to run around Faerun using the names of 70's/80's rock stars and random jumblements of modern day swear words as aliases. That's just plain silly and would interfere with my running of the game and cut away my portion of the fun. Therefore, the character can not run around in red leather pants, doing the Thriller dance and calling himself Axle Jackson, which it would eventually boil down to.
D&D is a book. The players are the main characters who dictate their own actions, and the DM is everyone else. If Legolas had randomly walked up to people and said 'HI! My name is *insert expletive*, how are you!?', would the book have been as good as it is? No. I take the same approach to my games.
ForceUser said:
Unless that Idea is to run around Faerun using the names of 70's/80's rock stars and random jumblements of modern day swear words as aliases. That's just plain silly and would interfere with my running of the game and cut away my portion of the fun. Therefore, the character can not run around in red leather pants, doing the Thriller dance and calling himself Axle Jackson, which it would eventually boil down to.
D&D is a book. The players are the main characters who dictate their own actions, and the DM is everyone else. If Legolas had randomly walked up to people and said 'HI! My name is *insert expletive*, how are you!?', would the book have been as good as it is? No. I take the same approach to my games.
ergeheilalt
First Post
I run a game with 2 other DMs, we each take turns and have established house rules by discusing it amoungst ourselves. As DMs we run the gamut, I prefer to run a game with subtle influences from books and stories lines I like, another DM runs canned adventures, while the other DM enjoys taking characteristics and changing them arround (like having an Elf-Gnome war).
The game table is very open (we do it online and have eachother on all sorts of text-messengers), so there is always new ideas being pitched and such. During the game the DM has the final word. On evenings when we have extra time after the game, we as DMs all talk and try and figure out if there are any issues that need to be addressed. This topic can be determining the correct uses of Keen or which jump bonuses stack - even which 3rd party products to allow into the game.
I've come to this oppinions. During times of crisis (ie: game) the DM has all the war power. After the game it becomes slightly more democratic and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Without the war powers, there could be a filibuster during the game, which are not fun. It may be sloppy, it may seem down right tyranical; but it keeps the gaming going. Keeping the story going and the mechanics out of the way is important IMC.
Erge
The game table is very open (we do it online and have eachother on all sorts of text-messengers), so there is always new ideas being pitched and such. During the game the DM has the final word. On evenings when we have extra time after the game, we as DMs all talk and try and figure out if there are any issues that need to be addressed. This topic can be determining the correct uses of Keen or which jump bonuses stack - even which 3rd party products to allow into the game.
I've come to this oppinions. During times of crisis (ie: game) the DM has all the war power. After the game it becomes slightly more democratic and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Without the war powers, there could be a filibuster during the game, which are not fun. It may be sloppy, it may seem down right tyranical; but it keeps the gaming going. Keeping the story going and the mechanics out of the way is important IMC.
Erge
Emiricol
Registered User
Maybe I have this viewpoint because I nearly always DM, but IMHO the player really [expletive] the pooch. He blew the mood for the whole session and irritated the DM into becoming beligerent. I think the DM likewise blew it, probably more so, with that stupid "no YOUR PC wouldn't do that" defense. I think the DM seriously, seriously overstepped his bounds.
The solution that would have avoided much of that problem would have been for the DM to tell the player that he can not use names like that, and that he must work with the DM to come up with several aliases that fit the world and the campaign's mood.
The player *probably* would not have balked at that, and if he did, I'd tell him his options were to either work with me, or leave the group, but that we'd all much rather have him stay, if he could work within the campaign's guidelines.
The solution that would have avoided much of that problem would have been for the DM to tell the player that he can not use names like that, and that he must work with the DM to come up with several aliases that fit the world and the campaign's mood.
The player *probably* would not have balked at that, and if he did, I'd tell him his options were to either work with me, or leave the group, but that we'd all much rather have him stay, if he could work within the campaign's guidelines.
I'd rather not get into the previous specifics, that being the reasoning behind this new thread. I'd really like some good discussion, but I have seen too many cases of intra-game arguments on message boards and would rather let the parties solve it at the table.
Edit:Spelling
Edit:Spelling
Last edited:
I see a D&D session as an interactive storyline with three agents acting dynamically:
1. The DM, whose job it is to flesh out the setting and supporting characters, to offer appropriate challenges for the players, and to infuse all of these with enjoyment (meaning that she or he has to get something out of it, therefore needing some control over tone, details, and type of story) and fun (meanning that he or she has to accommodate the players' desires for the type of story they wish to be involved in).
2. The players, whose job it is to have fun developing their fictional personas within the framework of the DM's overall world. Ideally, they stretch the DM to accommodate them within a larger understanding of the possible options within the DM's world.
3. The dice, which represent the true element of randomness and unpredictability that force both of the previous groups to be flexible in their approach. The dice don't accommodate anyone, but tend not to get upset when they don't get their way.
I think that a DM should accommodate the wishes of the players as a group so long as it remains fun for her or him. For example: I prefer adventures that are long on NPC interaction and intrigue, while most of my players would rather not have to think so hard about the game. They tolerate a certain amount of complexity in the plot so long as I give them a sufficient diet of tactical challenges in the form of unusual situations and combats.
It's not about who gets his or her way, but about everyone being considerate and working together to create fun.
1. The DM, whose job it is to flesh out the setting and supporting characters, to offer appropriate challenges for the players, and to infuse all of these with enjoyment (meaning that she or he has to get something out of it, therefore needing some control over tone, details, and type of story) and fun (meanning that he or she has to accommodate the players' desires for the type of story they wish to be involved in).
2. The players, whose job it is to have fun developing their fictional personas within the framework of the DM's overall world. Ideally, they stretch the DM to accommodate them within a larger understanding of the possible options within the DM's world.
3. The dice, which represent the true element of randomness and unpredictability that force both of the previous groups to be flexible in their approach. The dice don't accommodate anyone, but tend not to get upset when they don't get their way.
I think that a DM should accommodate the wishes of the players as a group so long as it remains fun for her or him. For example: I prefer adventures that are long on NPC interaction and intrigue, while most of my players would rather not have to think so hard about the game. They tolerate a certain amount of complexity in the plot so long as I give them a sufficient diet of tactical challenges in the form of unusual situations and combats.
It's not about who gets his or her way, but about everyone being considerate and working together to create fun.
Similar Threads
