Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mercule" data-source="post: 7700520" data-attributes="member: 5100"><p>Having played since BECMI and 1E, I'll give my thoughts (mostly as an AD&D GM). Assume everything is IME and IMO.</p><p></p><p>As the referee and rules arbiter, the DM needs to be comfortable with the rules being used at the table. In AD&D, this generally played out as the DM deciding which Dragon articles, rules supplements, and third-party products (Judges' Guild, etc.) to include. Most of the time, the DM would be the one buying all the stuff beyond the PHB, anyway. If you bought the other stuff, it was either because you fell in love with, say, the Alchemist class in a certain expansion or you wanted to DM.</p><p></p><p>Even for core "modules" like weapon speed factors or weapon vs. AC, the DM would decide whether to apply them or not. Most of the tweaks to core rules easily put into a couple of tables that could be shown to players, as needed -- I had a custom classes allowed and max level by race table, for example. These decisions were made, generally, to evoke a particular "feel" at the table or to address play issues (like rules lawyers and egregious min-maxers).</p><p></p><p>To an extent, this was even encouraged by the 1E rule books. The math behind the to-hit values was hidden in tables that were only available to the DM (well, they were in the DMG). The DMG was full of variant rules and secret effects, like potion miscibility and side-effects for various spells. Artifacts were listed with actual blanks for their powers so that the DM could fill these in as he chose. The DM was considered the ultimate authority and the only window to the game the players had. A good DM was one who was able to manage the rules in a way that challenged the <u>players</u> in a fun and engaging way.</p><p></p><p>As an example, I had very mixed thoughts about 2E AD&D. I absolutely despised (and still do) the addition of TWF to the Ranger class, but loved the rules for Priests and the ability for Thieves to tweak their skill advancement. The game I ran was basically 1E that borrowed copiously from 2E as a supplement. The TWF Ranger remained banned all the way through the end of 2E (and, actually, even the 3E Ranger was banned -- the 3.5 Ranger was allowed, but TWF was not an option). There was absolutely zero argument -- or even consideration of argument -- about this. It was my table and that was the game I was running.</p><p></p><p>That doesn't mean there were no arguments about the game. Over 35ish years of being a GM, I've made a few really weird calls. It happens. Also, sometimes players see what's supposed to be an in-character plot hook about why things work different than expected as an out-of-character rules change. The point is that the arguments were rarely about whether I was following RAW. More often they were about what the rules should be at the table, with me being the final authority. The printed rules were either the base framework (core books) or resources to bolt on (and maybe tweak), as the DM chose.</p><p></p><p>Just a note on what that "final authority" looked like: I was rarely the only DM available. Usually, there were 2-4 other folks who were somewhere on the spectrum from "willing to DM" to "eager/prefer to DM". At any time my entire group could have decided I wasn't the DM anymore. For the 35 years I've gamed, I've been GM 70+% of the time -- even when I really, really didn't want to -- because I was able to entertain my players at least as well as others available, despite having a fairly strong opinion on the authority of the GM. I actually think that "final authority" is necessary to a coherent, fun game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercule, post: 7700520, member: 5100"] Having played since BECMI and 1E, I'll give my thoughts (mostly as an AD&D GM). Assume everything is IME and IMO. As the referee and rules arbiter, the DM needs to be comfortable with the rules being used at the table. In AD&D, this generally played out as the DM deciding which Dragon articles, rules supplements, and third-party products (Judges' Guild, etc.) to include. Most of the time, the DM would be the one buying all the stuff beyond the PHB, anyway. If you bought the other stuff, it was either because you fell in love with, say, the Alchemist class in a certain expansion or you wanted to DM. Even for core "modules" like weapon speed factors or weapon vs. AC, the DM would decide whether to apply them or not. Most of the tweaks to core rules easily put into a couple of tables that could be shown to players, as needed -- I had a custom classes allowed and max level by race table, for example. These decisions were made, generally, to evoke a particular "feel" at the table or to address play issues (like rules lawyers and egregious min-maxers). To an extent, this was even encouraged by the 1E rule books. The math behind the to-hit values was hidden in tables that were only available to the DM (well, they were in the DMG). The DMG was full of variant rules and secret effects, like potion miscibility and side-effects for various spells. Artifacts were listed with actual blanks for their powers so that the DM could fill these in as he chose. The DM was considered the ultimate authority and the only window to the game the players had. A good DM was one who was able to manage the rules in a way that challenged the [U]players[/U] in a fun and engaging way. As an example, I had very mixed thoughts about 2E AD&D. I absolutely despised (and still do) the addition of TWF to the Ranger class, but loved the rules for Priests and the ability for Thieves to tweak their skill advancement. The game I ran was basically 1E that borrowed copiously from 2E as a supplement. The TWF Ranger remained banned all the way through the end of 2E (and, actually, even the 3E Ranger was banned -- the 3.5 Ranger was allowed, but TWF was not an option). There was absolutely zero argument -- or even consideration of argument -- about this. It was my table and that was the game I was running. That doesn't mean there were no arguments about the game. Over 35ish years of being a GM, I've made a few really weird calls. It happens. Also, sometimes players see what's supposed to be an in-character plot hook about why things work different than expected as an out-of-character rules change. The point is that the arguments were rarely about whether I was following RAW. More often they were about what the rules should be at the table, with me being the final authority. The printed rules were either the base framework (core books) or resources to bolt on (and maybe tweak), as the DM chose. Just a note on what that "final authority" looked like: I was rarely the only DM available. Usually, there were 2-4 other folks who were somewhere on the spectrum from "willing to DM" to "eager/prefer to DM". At any time my entire group could have decided I wasn't the DM anymore. For the 35 years I've gamed, I've been GM 70+% of the time -- even when I really, really didn't want to -- because I was able to entertain my players at least as well as others available, despite having a fairly strong opinion on the authority of the GM. I actually think that "final authority" is necessary to a coherent, fun game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui
Top