Thimble the Squit
First Post
The role of the DM (long essay)
I've discussed this quite a bit with my own DM, comparing our different styles of running games; his are more down and dirty while mine are more action-adventure -- but, basically, we agree on the function of the DM: to make a good game.
That sounds simplistic but there are very many considerations involved in this most fundamental mission statement.
The game is at its best when all the players and the DM are having fun playing it, purely and simply -- so what constitutes good fun? This varies for every group, based on personal taste. Some players prefer combat and high action to intrigue and roleplaying; others: vice versa. It is the DM's responsibility to adapt to her group's preference whilst not sacrificing her own.
It is the DM's responsibility to write a good story. The players provide the characters and motivation for a strong campaign but, ultimately, the DM provides the milieu, conflict, mystery and all the other things that complete the game.
The DM should be arbiter and adjudicator on all things regarding mechanics and campaign flavour. If an argument ensues over BAB, CR, AC, VIP, AWOL or whatever, the DM decides what goes. And this may annoy many ruleslawyers (it certainly irks me but it's still the truth): it does not matter whether or not her players may know the rules better than she does, she remains the final authority.
On the other hand, she should also be fair and impartial -- it does not make you a bad DM in deciding that rolling a natural 1 to hit (a fumbled weapon) provokes an Attack of Opportunity; it is unfair to apply that only to the PCs. It is not unfair to have someone's fighter fall to his death from a 100' cliff because he failed his Climb check by 5; it is bad DM-ing to grant another player's rogue a saving throw against the same eventuality, "[because] the rogue's more agile and he's a better climber". "One rule for one, the same rule for all" should be the DM's credo.
Sometimes this means that a ruling can have unforeseen consequences, can set an unfortunate precedent. Perhaps you have decided that archery is quite weak (maybe you've looked at the difference in damage between the elf and his friend the greataxe-wielding half-orc) and you've raised the threat rating for all missile weapons; by 9th-level, that archer, with the Improved Critical feat, a +3 bow and a quiver full +3 arrows, is making a pepperpot out of all his foes... The DM must be also a prescient and considerate authority.
Player choices, on the other hand, are not her responsibility; if a player makes a stupid choice, the DM has the right -- nay, is obliged -- to make his character suffer for it. She should not say, "You can't charge into melee with that troll, you're a wizard" as this is a player's choice (and the DM should not deny her players the option of choice), but she could ask her player, "Are you sure you want to attack that troll? You saw what it did to the dwarf."
It is a DM's duty to present appropriately challenging encounters and to provide adequate reward for her players' efforts. If the opposition is too weak, the game becomes monotonous -- hack, slash, hack, slash, next? -- but if the foes are too difficult to defeat, too many PCs die and the game suffers. Either resurrection and the like becomes too commonplace or the players have to keep rolling up new characters. The first slows the game down too much (as everyone's held back a level for dying) and powerful magic loses its mystery. The second option cheats the players (and the DM) of a sense of continuity and direction, slows the game (as they generate stats, etc) and forces the DM to artificially introduce these new PCs into her story (at the cost of verismilitude). Character death, in general, is only fun when it's heroic and only deserved (whether or not it's fun) if the players have been exceptionally stupid or reckless.
As for reward, in my experience, players prefer intangible things like recognition, respect and authority for their characters, even above a few gold pieces or a magic sword. (They especially dislike the opposites of these: lack of due respect and getting bossed around like pawns.) Accomplishments should not necessarily be rewarded only with material treasure but with things their characters would enjoy; promotion in your job is not just about the pay-rise.
On the other hand, wealth and magic is always desirable! Roleplaying games are built around the idea of challenge-reward; this is one of the reasons we play: it is an escapist ideal to be rewarded for the things we endure. The DM should reward her challenges appropriately and accordingly. Too much treasure unbalances the game (especially if it's all handed out to a single character and not to others), too little reduces the players' sense of achievement for their characters. As a little hint, from personal experience: more, weaker powered magical items are generally preferable to individual, powerful ones. I had a 4th-level paladin once with a +3 frost brand greatsword -- it was fabulous! I was chopping my way through everything I met. But it defined my character in a way that my personality, ability scores and class never could. If I was higher level, my own power would have been adequate to compensate.
Returning to the subject of player choice: it is a lazy DM who bases every plotline around threats to a character's family and friends, who builds every encounter around an ambush, who designs her campaigns never around the stick-and-carrot but always upon the cane-to-the-behind. These all deny a player choice, which limits his enjoyment and, ultimately, makes the game less fun. The kidnapped daughter trick is fine, in moderation, as is the bandit attack from the bushes (or its higher level counterpart: the wizard with the crystall ball, teleporting his cronies in to strike while the group are sleeping). Similarly, it's all well and good to base your game on a militia band under the command of a general or a group of Harpers sent on mission by Khelben Blackstaff but, somewhere along the line, those soldiers, those Harpers, are going to want to create missions on their own initiative. The DM should let them, otherwise, she is once more denying them the opportunity of choice. Whether they actually get to go on those missions is another matter; the DM has every right to interrupt her players' plans, to throw spanners in their works...
The DM has the responsibility to create a vivid environment within her game, to provoke her players' imaginations with well-rounded NPCs, engaging descriptions and intriguing stories. To quote the authors of the much under-rated Tales of Gargentihr, "You are a movie director with an unlimited special effects budget." You do your players a disservice by not exploiting your own imagination. A DM should be articulate and expressive, clear and authoritative, impartial and sensitive. Above all, she should have fun doing it.
This is just some of the many things that are needed in order to make a fun game but the most important of all is: the DM's duty is to create the game she would enjoy playing in. Not to do so prostitutes her talent and is denying her players the fullest pleasure in roleplaying: the shared fun of the game.
Enjoy your games, people.
I've discussed this quite a bit with my own DM, comparing our different styles of running games; his are more down and dirty while mine are more action-adventure -- but, basically, we agree on the function of the DM: to make a good game.
That sounds simplistic but there are very many considerations involved in this most fundamental mission statement.
The game is at its best when all the players and the DM are having fun playing it, purely and simply -- so what constitutes good fun? This varies for every group, based on personal taste. Some players prefer combat and high action to intrigue and roleplaying; others: vice versa. It is the DM's responsibility to adapt to her group's preference whilst not sacrificing her own.
It is the DM's responsibility to write a good story. The players provide the characters and motivation for a strong campaign but, ultimately, the DM provides the milieu, conflict, mystery and all the other things that complete the game.
The DM should be arbiter and adjudicator on all things regarding mechanics and campaign flavour. If an argument ensues over BAB, CR, AC, VIP, AWOL or whatever, the DM decides what goes. And this may annoy many ruleslawyers (it certainly irks me but it's still the truth): it does not matter whether or not her players may know the rules better than she does, she remains the final authority.
On the other hand, she should also be fair and impartial -- it does not make you a bad DM in deciding that rolling a natural 1 to hit (a fumbled weapon) provokes an Attack of Opportunity; it is unfair to apply that only to the PCs. It is not unfair to have someone's fighter fall to his death from a 100' cliff because he failed his Climb check by 5; it is bad DM-ing to grant another player's rogue a saving throw against the same eventuality, "[because] the rogue's more agile and he's a better climber". "One rule for one, the same rule for all" should be the DM's credo.
Sometimes this means that a ruling can have unforeseen consequences, can set an unfortunate precedent. Perhaps you have decided that archery is quite weak (maybe you've looked at the difference in damage between the elf and his friend the greataxe-wielding half-orc) and you've raised the threat rating for all missile weapons; by 9th-level, that archer, with the Improved Critical feat, a +3 bow and a quiver full +3 arrows, is making a pepperpot out of all his foes... The DM must be also a prescient and considerate authority.
Player choices, on the other hand, are not her responsibility; if a player makes a stupid choice, the DM has the right -- nay, is obliged -- to make his character suffer for it. She should not say, "You can't charge into melee with that troll, you're a wizard" as this is a player's choice (and the DM should not deny her players the option of choice), but she could ask her player, "Are you sure you want to attack that troll? You saw what it did to the dwarf."
It is a DM's duty to present appropriately challenging encounters and to provide adequate reward for her players' efforts. If the opposition is too weak, the game becomes monotonous -- hack, slash, hack, slash, next? -- but if the foes are too difficult to defeat, too many PCs die and the game suffers. Either resurrection and the like becomes too commonplace or the players have to keep rolling up new characters. The first slows the game down too much (as everyone's held back a level for dying) and powerful magic loses its mystery. The second option cheats the players (and the DM) of a sense of continuity and direction, slows the game (as they generate stats, etc) and forces the DM to artificially introduce these new PCs into her story (at the cost of verismilitude). Character death, in general, is only fun when it's heroic and only deserved (whether or not it's fun) if the players have been exceptionally stupid or reckless.
As for reward, in my experience, players prefer intangible things like recognition, respect and authority for their characters, even above a few gold pieces or a magic sword. (They especially dislike the opposites of these: lack of due respect and getting bossed around like pawns.) Accomplishments should not necessarily be rewarded only with material treasure but with things their characters would enjoy; promotion in your job is not just about the pay-rise.
On the other hand, wealth and magic is always desirable! Roleplaying games are built around the idea of challenge-reward; this is one of the reasons we play: it is an escapist ideal to be rewarded for the things we endure. The DM should reward her challenges appropriately and accordingly. Too much treasure unbalances the game (especially if it's all handed out to a single character and not to others), too little reduces the players' sense of achievement for their characters. As a little hint, from personal experience: more, weaker powered magical items are generally preferable to individual, powerful ones. I had a 4th-level paladin once with a +3 frost brand greatsword -- it was fabulous! I was chopping my way through everything I met. But it defined my character in a way that my personality, ability scores and class never could. If I was higher level, my own power would have been adequate to compensate.
Returning to the subject of player choice: it is a lazy DM who bases every plotline around threats to a character's family and friends, who builds every encounter around an ambush, who designs her campaigns never around the stick-and-carrot but always upon the cane-to-the-behind. These all deny a player choice, which limits his enjoyment and, ultimately, makes the game less fun. The kidnapped daughter trick is fine, in moderation, as is the bandit attack from the bushes (or its higher level counterpart: the wizard with the crystall ball, teleporting his cronies in to strike while the group are sleeping). Similarly, it's all well and good to base your game on a militia band under the command of a general or a group of Harpers sent on mission by Khelben Blackstaff but, somewhere along the line, those soldiers, those Harpers, are going to want to create missions on their own initiative. The DM should let them, otherwise, she is once more denying them the opportunity of choice. Whether they actually get to go on those missions is another matter; the DM has every right to interrupt her players' plans, to throw spanners in their works...
The DM has the responsibility to create a vivid environment within her game, to provoke her players' imaginations with well-rounded NPCs, engaging descriptions and intriguing stories. To quote the authors of the much under-rated Tales of Gargentihr, "You are a movie director with an unlimited special effects budget." You do your players a disservice by not exploiting your own imagination. A DM should be articulate and expressive, clear and authoritative, impartial and sensitive. Above all, she should have fun doing it.
This is just some of the many things that are needed in order to make a fun game but the most important of all is: the DM's duty is to create the game she would enjoy playing in. Not to do so prostitutes her talent and is denying her players the fullest pleasure in roleplaying: the shared fun of the game.
Enjoy your games, people.
