DM'ing Style

[Bagpuss]

Volefisk said in another thread:
Just don't let your players know that you've second guessed yourself, or reconsidered throwing overwhelming force against them. Don't let them think this is a bail out, or they'll never again treat your foes with the gravity and respect they deserve. You are the DM... you should (appear to) be infalliable.

If you want to see the whole thread then it's the one about a character dying.

How many folks agree that the DM needs to appear infalliable and keep all his tricks hidden, not be willing to admit a mistake.

I find that idea silly since RPG's are about co-operation, in my opinion that includes the DM co-operating with the players. So its foolish to keep all the smoke and mirrors.

Perhaps it because most of the people I play with also DM from time to time and we swap ideas and talk about what we liked in one game and what we didn't like.

 

[Gospog]

I think that while RPGing is largely a cooperative experience, sometimes you need to show the players that "you mean business".

This, if done well, and not overdone, aids in the players' suspension of disbelief.

Obviously, this is an ideal, and is a bad idea when taken to extremes.

In my own GMing, however, I suffer from a lack of this. My players often feel that I am "looking out for them", and I feel that there is a point where this detracts from the game.

 

[Black Omega]

Well, as a GM I know I'm not infallible. I don't even bother to pretend otherwise. But I do see my role as challenging the players rather than as working with them. I craft a storyline, put the challenges in their way and they actions shape the direction the story takes. So I can see how tyhe cooperative element creeps in. But I never think of myself as cooperating with them. Rather I think "Now what's a really tough situation put them in. Bwahahaha!"

 

[LostSoul]

In my own GMing, however, I suffer from a lack of this. My players often feel that I am "looking out for them", and I feel that there is a point where this detracts from the game.

That's not always a bad thing. If the players feel like you're "looking out for them", they begin to trust you and the decisions you make. They will be much more likely to follow your "story path" and pick up on the hooks you give them.

 

[Gospog]

Lost Soul,

Yes, that is the silver lining, and up till now, it's worked out nicely. Now, however, my players begin to grow jaded, and I think they are getting bored.

We're switching to a new game for a while (Star Wars!) but I wonder if it isn't time to "shake things up" a little when we return to D&D.

 

[jollyninja]

i specialise in making pc's run. rarely do they stride with confidence into the middle of any camp of goblins and begin hacking. they know that i will not bat an eyelash at killing them if they try crap like that. they know that my style is to make them run now and agian and that sometimes all you can do is hide and think a prayer to your god while the menace (hopefully) leaves. i do not arbitrarily kill pc's. that is what hirelings and followers are for. if it kills your cohort in less then two rounds without getting hurt to badly, chances are unless your leadership score sucks, it will kill you as well. with that said, standing on a hill shouting at the dragon that flies overhead in my campaigns results in quick and brutal death every single time.

every once in awhile a good dm will dish out the ultimate punishment for stupidity (or lack of forethought if you prefer). or random chance will intervene and the player will roll a one, narrowly missing the pathetic dc you have assigned something he needs to do to live to see another day. when that day comes, while i take no joy from it, it was his own roll that killed him not anything that i did.

 

[Umbran]

Infallible? No, you don't need to appear infallible.

What the DM needs more is the respect of the players. Being infallible doesn't help if you're an imbecile in other ways

It helps if you don't make big errors often. Better, though, to admit them when they do happen, and deal with them in a fair and reasonable manner.

 

[Songwind]

Been in that position

I had a group (and in particular, one player) become convinced that I wouldn't throw anything at them that they couldn't handle.

The only way to teach them otherwise was to finally do so, and let them suffer a bit.

 

[Dark Dragon]

every once in awhile a good dm will dish out the ultimate punishment for stupidity (or lack of forethought if you prefer). or random chance will intervene and the player will roll a one, narrowly missing the pathetic dc you have assigned something he needs to do to live to see another day. when that day comes, while i take no joy from it, it was his own roll that killed him not anything that i did.

Right, that's nearly how I'm handling it. Sometimes stupid things happen (even a DM won't be protected... ) But if the players begin relying on the DM's mercy, the next stupid action will have some consequences..mostly death of some PCs. Overconfidence and arrogance is a matter of, hmmmm, punishment (hmm, a hard word...anyway...), too. The PCs should never forget: There's always someone more powerful to kick their a**

 

[Al]

The DM is meant to be neutral. Yes, he has to drive the plotline along and make broad swipes to avoid a TPK, but he should not try to nanny his players. Some player death is inevitable- these are adventurers, not accountants. Part of the point of adventuring is the thrill of the danger. If the characters get wind of the nanny-DM scenario, they can either exploit it for all its worth, taking needless risks; or at the very least some of the element of danger (and hence fun) is taken out of the game. Admittedly, some characters get unlucky, but in the long-run they ought to be cautious. My campaign is just coming to its conclusion now, having run from 1st to 20th level. Some players are now on their fourth character, one has kept his from the beginning. The difference is not the luck, but the level of caution.