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

[athos]

I can kind of see your friend "Billy's" point. I have had GMs that were too lazy to learn the game they were running, so they made stuff up as they went, when you pointed out to them that there were rules for grappling or whatever the case was, they got mad and would say they are "role-playing" not "roll-playing", or that the rules made no sense, so they were doing it THEIR way. This kind of changing a game on the fly gets really old quick. I have also had GMs add monsters and change traps and things on the fly when the party blew through them too quickly. This also gets old quick, shouldn't you reward the party for doing well, not try and heap on extra crap to them?

I guess it depends on your view of GMing, I think good GMing is being a referee instead of the "bad-guy". By that, I mean the GM should arbitrate what happens between the NPCs/monsters and the party. The GM should NOT be the NPCs/monsters and make it a competition between the GM (who has all the power) and the PCs (who are at the whim of the GM); even an idiot GM can win that fight.

I would invite your friend to watch the game for a session or two and decide if the GM is someone he trusts to be neutral, or if the GM is biased against the players; then he can skip the game and stick to the games he is comfortable with or join in if it looks fun to him. I know when I GM, I like to see my players' characters develop and improve and do well. I think if Billy sees that a lot of GMs are like this, he will be comfortable playing RPGs and not just board games.

 

[howandwhy99]

In no way is the GM of a roleplaying game a player. And after the game begins the referee behind the screen should never, under any circumstance, "arbitrarily make things up as they go along."

This is why D&D is a game and not a storytelling venture. As any game, it actually enables players to engage strategically within the boundaries of the game. In fact, game play is practically antithetical to a person engaged in making things up.

I'm not saying there haven't been confused GMs and even designers who think roleplaying is improvisation or RPGs are small works or even games with no rules whatsoever. But the RPG hobby is based on games which enable and promote actual game play from its players, most prominently D&D.

 

[Sunseeker]

I agree that "arbitrarily" changing the rules is bad. There should be some reason, even if it's a simple reason, that requires the rules to be fudged, broken, or changed.

I don't think that "spitballing" is the same as arbitrarily changing the rules. Thinking on the fly is a prerequisite of DMing, the rules do not cover every potential situation, and IMO don't need to. They should just provide general guidelines as to how most situations should be handled.

Personally, I'd just talk to the guy, and if he joined my game, try very very hard to restrain myself from "winging it" or making things up on the fly. I would also attempt to play an edition that leaves very little room for either rules-lawyering(which the DM can be equally guilty of) or an edition that leaves a lot of room for hand-waiving. Frankly, I'd recommend "core only" 4e or Pathfinder.

Here are some particular responses to your vignettes:

- "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.

I would say: if this is 4e, tough cookies. If it were 3.5, obviously they can perform certain skills, even if untrained. This applies to 4e as well.

- "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.

I would argue that in this situation, the rules MUST be made up. And in fact, some people already have made up rules. Handwaiving at the table is not the same as developing a functional rule set to cover situations which the normal rules don't. I would also expect that such rules would be made in advance and ideally be tested beforehand.
-Your potential player had an objection to "arbitrarily changing the rules". I don't think that's the same as developing new rules, or modifying bad rules with good reason or necessity.

- "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...

Kill him with something big and mean. Your incredibly powerful player has attracted the attention of some demon-god who thinks your player's awesomeness outshines said demon's own. So he sets out to destroy him.

- "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."

You're probably both right. I doubt ruined temples cost anything if they're in some jungle. Holding off the locals on the other hand, might be a much higher price. I'd say there's a reasonable extent to which you could go to come up with a price, but beyond that point it's not worth the effort. If your cleric wants a ruined temple, I'd tell him to go find one, and then drop a ruined temple in some forsaken swamp populated by the damned. Now the temple is free! Plus: lots of clerical plot hooks!

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?

I think you're reading too much into it. Creating or altering the rules for a logical and reasonable reason should be acceptable even to the most "don't change the rules!" sort of guy. I really think that his problem lies with changing the rules for no reason at all.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

<snippage>

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?

I think my short answer is: "Depends on what kinds of things we're talking about."

I think players generally have a right to have an creative agenda for the fun they expect to have, and stable rules gives them a platform upon which to express that agenda. If the stuff the GM is making up is interfering with that, then I can certainly see how that's problematic. Particularly in story-oriented games, where I think the creativity is more central to players' participation, having a stable set of rules is very important.

Many of the examples you give are, to my eyes, examples of poor game/adventure design. The GM shouldn't be in that position in the first place. If a game finds itself in that position regularly because players keep dragging it out of its normal mode of play, then I would suggest a switch to a more amenable system.

 

[Umbran]

In no way is the GM of a roleplaying game a player. And after the game begins the referee behind the screen should never, under any circumstance, "arbitrarily make things up as they go along."

Oh, goodness, here some the absolute statements again.

'Cause, if everyone's having fun, you're still doing it wrong.

 

[howandwhy99]

Oh, goodness, here some the absolute statements again.

'Cause, if everyone's having fun, you're still doing it wrong.

Game play isn't synonymous with fun. Nor is creativity or storytelling. You can enjoy doing any of those things, but it doesn't necessarily have to be so.

Don't become a true believer. All games are not necessarily: My story vs. Your story & "Rules" to resolve whose get added to the "shared" fiction story. That's the Forge's narrative-only philosophy and not relevant to games. At best, the theory results in a narrow span of game design called storygames.

 

[Leatherhead]

After looking up the definition of "arbitrarily", I have determined that the entire purpose of having a GM is so that they can make arbitrary rulings on the game.

 

[Dungeoneer]

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.

Yes, I am sure bad game experiences can leave a sour taste in someone's mouth when it comes to 'DM fiat'. And I think trust is a huge part of the player-DM relationship.

I like to think that my players learn to trust me pretty quickly: I don't punish them for doing things I didn't want them to do (without fair warning, anyway!); I generally allow any legal character; I try to reward creativity and initiative.

But in this specific case, Billy hasn't played in my game before. As far as I know he hasn't played any TRPGs at all before, so I if he's had a bad game experience it must have been with some other type of game.

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.

Just to clarify, I generally stick pretty closely to the rules-as-written. If I am going to introduce some new mechanic, I explain it to the players. My improvisation is more likely to come within the context of the adventure or the monsters or whatever.

As an example, my players recently became obsessed with finding trapped doors in a dungeon that, as it turned out, didn't have any trapped doors. But they were spending so much time looking for traps that I thought I should, um, 'reward' their expectations! So I put a trap on the next door. The tank barged into it in typical fashion, got a mild dose of lightning damage, everyone had a laugh, and we moved on. I honestly think if there had not been a trapped door they would have felt cheated.

Technically that was an arbitrary change. It was, of course, completely invisible to the players. That's the kind of 'arbitrariness' I prefer. I'm not going to suddenly change the to-hit roll rule so that you miss on a tie rather than hitting on a tie, for example.

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.

That's very interesting that you had a player with the same background who had similar reservations. Did they eventually come around?

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.

...

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

One of my dilemmas here is how much to push for Billy to join the game. Like I said, it SEEMS like something he would really enjoy, given his background. But if his hang up with 'arbitrary rule changes' is serious, I don't want to force him to play something he won't enjoy.

I also want to make sure that I don't have bad habits as a GM which are in fact rubbing my players the wrong way.

 

[Dungeoneer]

In no way is the GM of a roleplaying game a player. And after the game begins the referee behind the screen should never, under any circumstance, "arbitrarily make things up as they go along."

I don't agree. 'Referee' is only one of the roles a GM has. They are also the storyteller, the players' opponent, the role-playing facilitator, the schedule coordinator and much more!

This is why D&D is a game and not a storytelling venture. As any game, it actually enables players to engage strategically within the boundaries of the game. In fact, game play is practically antithetical to a person engaged in making things up.

Again, I strongly disagree. D&D is a board game welded to a cooperative storytelling experience. It's not one or the other, it's both. Some groups lean in one direction, others lean in the other, but traditionally D&D incorporates both aspects.

This is because strategic gameplay is in now way antithetical to storytelling. Both can happen, either in different parts of the game or even simultaneously.

I'm not saying there haven't been confused GMs and even designers who think roleplaying is improvisation or RPGs are small works or even games with no rules whatsoever. But the RPG hobby is based on games which enable and promote actual game play from its players, most prominently D&D.

So anyone who disagrees with your viewpoint is 'confused'? This is exceptionally arrogant. I'm almost impressed.

But not convinced.

 

[WayneLigon]

In no way is the GM of a roleplaying game a player.

The hell he isn't. I get to play dozens of people per session, if you include monsters. NPCs are the GM's player-bits, if you will.

In fact, game play is practically antithetical to a person engaged in making things up.

Oh please, that's half the game. Every time you react to someone's weird off the wall plan, you're making stuff up. Or if you change things simply because of something one of the players says, such as 'Man, I hope there aren't any spiders in those creepy rafters up there....' Well, there weren't until that was said! Now I've made things a lot more fun by playing on one character's dread of large vermin instead of there just being a room you merely pass through.