Should a GM be allowed to arbitrarily make things up as they go along?

[Dungeoneer]

So, I have this friend, let's call him 'Billy'. Billy has been coming to a semi-regular board game night that I and some other people put together. We play a lot of geeky, rules-heavy stuff like Zombicide and Munchkin. Billy really likes these games.

In addition, Billy is also a big fan of fantasy novels, collecting every thing to do with a certain popular, multi-volume series of massive fantasy tomes. And Billy likes CRPGs and MMOs that are fantasy flavored, including those based on D&D rulesets.

A couple months ago the boardgame group decided they wanted to play D&D. Of course I invited Billy. I felt that logically his love of rules intensive games and fantasy worlds would make him a natural fit.

ME "Hey man, you ever played D&D?"

BILLY: "No."

ME: "Well we're going to play a short game soon. I think it would be right up your alley. You in?"

BILLY "No, I don't like the idea that the GM that can arbitrarily change the rules of the game."

ME: *shocked silence*

This objection had never, ever occurred to me. I think of the GM (in my group of friends, often myself) as a benevolent presence trying to provide a fun and challenging game for the players. I had never considered that someone might view a GM as someone who was (potentially) changing the rules on a whim, interfering with the players, and generally playing god with the sacred rules of the game.

Having realized that there was at least one person in the world who felt this way about 'GM fiat', I started noticing a similar perspective on various messageboards. Here are some of the complaints I've observed that seem to share the same concern about arbitrary GMing:

- "This monster/NPC doesn't have any non-combat abilities listed. How am I supposed to use him out of combat?!?"
Me: I assume the NPC has whatever abilities needed to play its part in the story.
Anti-Arbitrary GMing person: It's not fair to just make up abilities for NPCs because that could lead to cheating or overpowered NPCs.

- "The core rulebook has no rules for underwater adventures. What am I supposed to do when my players encounter the dread Fishlocks next session??"
Me: Extrapolate some simple rules based on the existing rule set, tell the players the rules, and away we go.
Anti-Arbitrary: This would be a clear case of making up rules.

- "My min/maxing player has found a weird loophole in the rules that allows him to do quadruple damage. How can I stop him from ruining my game?"
Me: That 'loophole' is stupid. Don't let him use it.
Anti-Arbitrary: It's technically in the rules and I don't want to arbitrarily change the rules, so...

- "The party's dwarven cleric wants to buy a ruined temple. How much should it cost?"
Me: I'll spitball a cost that is just high enough to make things interesting for the dwarf cleric.
Anti-Arbitrary: There is a specific correct cost for everything in the world. If the cleric can afford to buy ten ruined temples, you have to let him. If ruined temples turn out to cost a billion gold, too bad for him."

I've always been taught that a good DM is creative, flexible, willing to make things up on the fly and re-calibrate the game for the maximum fun of the players. But it seems there are players for whom 're-calibrating' for fun will actually make things un-fun. Or am I reading too much into this? Is my friend just a lone lunatic clinging tightly to the illusion of control?

And if there ARE a lot of people who find the idea of the arbitrary GM distasteful, may I ask why?

 

[Crothian]

I think a lot of it has to do with the players previous gaming experience. Everything you list that a good DM does and it works to make the game better and more enjoyable for all are the same things that a bad DM can try to do and not have it work. It comes down a lot of times to trust and I can understand not trusting in the ability of a DM I don't know. I've played with too many people that could not for whatever reason run a good game. They have bad instincts or don't know the game well enough to make changes on the fly that work. Other DMs of course do it with ease and it works so well that the players never even release all the spontaneous work the DM is doing.

 

[Dioltach]

As a DM I follow the rules wherever possible, simply because there's a form of contract between players and DM: the players react to what the DM puts before them, but they need to be able to trust that their actions will have the expected result. There needs to be a framework within which the action takes place.

That said, it should be possible for the DM to spring surprises on the players and the PCs. That's part of the fun. But it should be constructive, not arbitrary. And once used, new rules should be applied consistently. And of course, anything that doesn't work for the players should be discussed and if necessary modified or rejected outright.

 

[Morrus]

Depends on the game, the players, the GM style, and what they're used to.

There's only one rule, really: is everyone enjoying it? Then yes, you're playing it correctly.

Some GMs simply work better when they're winging it. Others work better if they write it all down first. As long as everybody is on the same page, then yes, GMs should most certainly be allowed to do that.

I guess Billy's missing out if he's not even willing to at least try it. I don't think your main problem is the game!

 

[Swedish Chef]

From my point of view as a GM and a player, the GM should have some freedom to change things "arbitrarily". There are, of course, caveats to that.

Your own examples show just how a GM may have to make things up arbitrarily. Giving NPCs necessary skills that aren't listed? May be necessary to move the story along. If the NPC is listed in the module as a Baker, but doesn't list the Profession:Baker as a skill, it would be pretty pointless to have him running a bakery. So deciding he has a skill that is relevant to, but doesn't break, the story line is what the GM is there for.

Player wants to do something that isn't covered at all by the rules? Well, the reason the player wants to do it is because they think it will be cool/awesome/in character/whatever and the GM, being there to help create the story with the players, will have to come up with some ruling to allow the action to occur but balancing it with some sort of potential for failure. If you automatically want your character to succeed at everything, regardless of how it affects the story or other players, then perhaps playing a video game with all cheats on would be better suited.

The same goes for a player finding a "loophole" and trying to exploit it. This one is a little less "arbitrary". In my experience, it is better to discuss this as a group and see what the group consensus is. If everyone thinks the loophole is good, then it stands. If they don't agree, then hammering out a compromise is usually the best solution.

Being a GM can be very difficult. Balancing the line of rules referee with story teller is not easy. If one has only ever played and never sat on the other side of the screen, their view point can be very skewed. Particularly if they have had really bad experiences in the past with GMs that were unable to balance the roles properly and tended more toward one side or the other.

 

[Umbran]

And if there ARE a lot of people who find the idea of the arbitrary GM distasteful, may I ask why?

Well, I cannot speak for most, but I can speak to one case I knew of such a player.

He, too, came from the boardgame and videogame space before ever playing an RPG. Now, note that in boardgames and videogames, what the basic dynamics are: competition, win and loss against a fixed challenge. In such a situation, fairness and constancy of rules is paramount.

Such a player may find it difficult to get out of the old mental habit - it is a game, and therefore a competition, with a winner and a loser.

 

[Blackbrrd]

For me there is an optimum point of the GM making up things as they go. Too little and it feels like a video game. Too much and don't feel like I can actually make a difference. It's also important that if the GM makes up a lot of things as he goes, the players can do the same.

I just DM-ed my first DnD session in about two years on saturday, and I kinda winged about half the session, fiddled a lot with the mechanics when it comes to to-hit/defenses, but also let my players use out-of-the-box actions to resolve fights or encounters.

I basically didn't say "no" if a player said his character was doing something. If for any reason it could be plausible, I let the player roll the dice. After seing the roll, I kinda calculated backwards from that what actually happened. I had some general DC's thought out in advance. 10 for easy, 15 for hard. In addition, I would adjust this with up to +-10 according to what the player was trying to do, and why he (or I) thought it would be possible.

I know that the ad-hoc adjustments I made here was something that just wouldn't fly with many players (including myself in some situations), but this was a small group, just 4 players and me as a DM and I think everybody was into to: "everything flies" mindset.

For a good role playing session, relying mostly on the dice to decide the outcome of a diplomacy/intimidate/bluff check is something I find quite detrimental to the game. I just loved how one of my players made his character name-drop at precisely the right moment to bluff his way out of problems. It's not something I would forgo just because he rolled badly on that bluff check. (Now, I wouldn't have let him off the hook either, instead, I would have expanded on the difficulty of getting out without a fight).

 

[Ahnehnois]

If someone is looking at D&D to be a more advanced, more complex boardgame, they are indeed going to be disappointed. It's simply a question of setting appropriate expectations.

D&D has more in common with children playing house or an improv theater class than it does with miniatures wargaming or other strategy games. The term "rules" is misleading from the start; they're more like a common language for the DM to communicate the stuff that he is making up to the players, and some implied guidelines on how he should do that, not a set of static boundaries that establishes a venue for competition.

Knowing that, a potential player can decide whether it's the sort of thing they would be able to get into.

 

[Halivar]

Rule Zero is like the One Ring: in most hands its power is a terrible curse, ruining everything it touches and destroying its owner. But not me. I would totally use it only for good.

j/k I rely on the trust of my players, because if I abuse my arbitrary make-up powers they start planning a game to replace mine.

 

[Piston Honda]

Yes.

I’m primarily a storyteller-type player and GM, and I prefer to refer to books for what to do as little as possible. I won’t deal with rules debates mid-game unless there are serious consequences because I hate ruining the flow of the game. I’ll stick with the rules as best as possible, but making the game fun comes before anything, else there’s video games.

It’s also impossible to plan for anything the PCs might try, I’ve played with GMs who have had one correct solution to a given encounter, and if you don’t see his intentions, it just got tedious, and it was time to return to the bar. I’d rather let them come up with a plan, roll some dice, if it’s an obvious failure, clearly I’m not betraying any trust by saying it doesn’t work, if their rolls are amazing, it succeeds, if average, use discretion. I find that far less frustrating for the players, they are happy when their plans work. Just don’t blink, my players always thought I was incredibly well-prepared and that they were amazing for figuring out the solution and succeeding. That’s the fun part for me.

Combat situations, call it as it goes, if you want an epic battle, make it last, by letting the villain survive a little longer than his HP allows (just use a pencil, scratch out some numbers, write some new numbers, it doesn’t really matter what they are). Don’t get steamrolled unless they truly have the rolls, then again, they get to feel amazing for trouncing that mid-boss/minion/etc. Of course, don’t kill their character if they should have already won, but don’t let them know that. Draw it out so they feel threatened and they’ll feel like they earned it more, but not too long.

Everything has a specific correct cost? A character is good friends with the seller, or does an incredible job at bartering, the seller owes him a favor, the seller just wants to get rid of the ruined temple because he feels its haunted, but doesn’t necessarily want to take a huge loss (plot hook!); conversely, the seller despises a character, stubborn about selling something, so on. The correct cost is what the seller says it is for that person.

I don’t find the arbitrary GM distasteful. It’s what I find fun personally. At the end of the day, that’s what RPGs are for, fun for everyone at the table, including the GM. People that need everything to the book are not going to have fun at my table, and I may or may not enjoy theirs.