• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Nagol

Unimportant
So in the event I have an upcoming difficult battle for a party, and one player has to leave in an emergency just beforehand, and everyone wants to keep going, I should simply keep it as is and slaughter them like animals?

I run it straight, yes. Player may leave, but PC remains and is run either as an NPC or player group effort.

Not totally sure how the player's creative solution would work? Don't make a judgment call, dig through rulebooks, everybody loves when their game is stopped and nothing is happening. That guy should have known the correct answer to the module to start with.

If I want a game with a static world where the path ahead is set in stone, I have an XBox.

Where is the world is static stated ? It evolves along a set path until/unless the PCs intervene.

Where was a set path stated? It's up to the PCs to carve their own path using the established situations.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
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.

You apparnelty fail to see the issue - I do not accept your authority to proscribe. You don't own the definition of "playing a game". Nor do you get to say for anyone else what a GM should always, or never, do.

At your own table, fine - accept or reject what you will. But your statement was blanket and absolute, for all folks everywhere.

Don't become a true believer.

With respect, *you* were the one making absolute statements like dogma. Nor was I the one claiming others were "confused" for not believing a particular thing.

Doesn't seem to me that I am the one who is a true believer in One True Way.
 

Piston Honda

First Post
I run it straight, yes. Player may leave, but PC remains and is run either as an NPC or player group effort.



Where is the world is static stated ? It evolves along a [HI]set path[/HI] until/unless the PCs intervene.

[HI]Where was a set path stated?[/HI] It's up to the PCs to carve their own path using the established situations.

;)

The set in stone is the everything is absolute, nothing can be sullied or adjusted once the game has officially begun, calling it on the fly is absolutely despicable-types.

If the players are interested in carving a path outside the established options presented? Sorry, but, I tend to have players that come up with ideas of what they wanted to do that I certainly didn't take time to plan out and aren't handled in the core books. I'm not going to call a break every time they do it so I can dig out precisely what to do. I made judgment calls on the spot, if it truly would have hurt their characters then I'd look it up. Complaints: 0. People enjoyed themselves, they did cool stuff and felt awesome about what they achieved without me having to have micromanaged all the details of precise marching orders in advance or creating unnecessary breaks to look up rules or information that I never expected to be asked about.

At the end of the day, it's a game that we play to have fun after a long week/two weeks, whatever period of time. Me and my players enjoyed ourselves and that's what matters to me, just as you and your players hopefully enjoy yourselves and if that's true it's more important than my opinion.
 

Janx

Hero
:cool: yeah, yeah, yeah. You know I mean game rewards. And assuming the beholder is in charge of the others I imagine it's placed itself in the middle. It depends on the tactics the specific creatures know and use. And yes, many people homebrew modules to use in their games.

You imagined that the beholder placed itself in the middle? Who authorized you to decide that? it's not in the rules!

I'm nitpicking. I'm sure your way of GMing is fine.

What I was calling you out on was the extreme statement you made that a GM shouldn't arbitrarily decide anything.

Because taken literally and absolutely, it is false. I have 1E D&D books, I have 2e D&D books. I have 3E D&D books. While 1E covered a lot more details than the others, it doesn't cover everything. At some point, the GM must make a decision (hopefully based on rational consideration) that is not covered by the rules or written adventure (and written adventure does not have the same authority as the rules)

Personally, I like systemetizing things, but I also accept that I'm not going to literally generate everything with random tables and rule books. And sometimes, whether I like to or not, I need to make a decision on my own.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍⚧️
Needless to say, it is not necessary for a referee to improvise when running a game. D&D is uniquely designed with 100s of pages of rules to cover almost every possibly imagined act and yet still covers when a player tries to do something the rules don't by incorporating those actions into the rules too. I've said before the game is a reality puzzle, a kind of dynamic situational puzzle where the code / rules for the players to game are set up prior to play. This is to put the players in a gameable place where they can improve at the game. Think of how every other game enables player improvement within it and how addictive that is (e.g. MtG or Pokemon).

At this point, I really have to wonder if we're using the same vocabulary. I can't see it as possible for an RPG to not involve some kind of improvisation without an extremely tightly defined script that the GM follows to the letter. That pretty much tells me that you and I have radically different definitions for improvisation in the course of a role playing game session.
 

pming

Legend
Hiya.

Hmm...isn't that pretty much the description of what a GM's "job" is? The GM is constantly "making stuff up". He's supposed to. If he didn't, you'd be playing a very linear computer game or maybe a choose-your-own-adventure. If the GM, for example, rolls a random encounter while the PC's are traveling through a mountain pass. The tables and rolls indicate "Dragon, Red". The GM sees the PC's are all level 2 and 3. What does a DM do? Well, he "arbitrarily" decides that the Red Dragon is sleeping higher up on a big ledge. This keeps the encounter 'true to the dice', but also gives the PC's a chance to survive it...avoidance, probably.

Now, talking rule-specifics; if a GM decides that some particular bonus is only +1 this time when it's been +2 the last half-dozen times, and there are no other factors....that is arbitrary, which is fine, but it's also inconsistant, which is -not- fine.

From what I read, it seems the problem is that the player(s) that complain about a GM "making it up" doesn't understand the role of the GM. They are probably thinking of them as someone who, obviously, "does whatever they want". They dont' see the rules of an RPG as "guidelines for running..." as opposed to "rules for playing...". This is a player ignorance thing. If the player truely doesn't want a GM to add/make-up/change something in the game, the easiest way to show the player how a game is expected to run would be to run it exactly as he is expecting it. Hmmm... Ok, for example: the player wants his PC to buy a beer at the tavern. The description of the tavern has NO PRICES listed. According to the player's percieved "preference" of the GM not "arbitrarily make things up", the GM should just say "No". Why? If he just decided to use the price of an Ale as the price of a Beer. The GM is "making something up that isn't in the rules". If the player then says "Ok, fine, an ale then". The GM should say "No". Why? There is no mention of it in the description of the inn. It says "food and drink". That's awefully vague...so the "safe" bet would be to say no to everything. But that makes no sense... Well, it seems that the Player and the GM are now in a bit of a quandry, no?

Anyway, the player is ignorant of what a GM is supposed to do is what it boils down to.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

Janx

Hero
From what I read, it seems the problem is that the player(s) that complain about a GM "making it up" doesn't understand the role of the GM. They are probably thinking of them as someone who, obviously, "does whatever they want". They dont' see the rules of an RPG as "guidelines for running..." as opposed to "rules for playing...". This is a player ignorance thing. If the player truely doesn't want a GM to add/make-up/change something in the game, the easiest way to show the player how a game is expected to run would be to run it exactly as he is expecting it. Hmmm... Ok, for example: the player wants his PC to buy a beer at the tavern. The description of the tavern has NO PRICES listed. According to the player's percieved "preference" of the GM not "arbitrarily make things up", the GM should just say "No". Why? If he just decided to use the price of an Ale as the price of a Beer. The GM is "making something up that isn't in the rules". If the player then says "Ok, fine, an ale then". The GM should say "No". Why? There is no mention of it in the description of the inn. It says "food and drink". That's awefully vague...so the "safe" bet would be to say no to everything. But that makes no sense... Well, it seems that the Player and the GM are now in a bit of a quandry, no?

Anyway, the player is ignorant of what a GM is supposed to do is what it boils down to.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

I agree. Getting to the meat of the OT, the new guy seems to have a pre-concieved notion of what table-top RPGing is.

He's not wrong that there's "making stuff up" or that some levels of "making stuff up" may be distasteful to him. But he's also missing an opportunity to enjoy something that really is in the zone of his interests (fantasy adventure).

It might turn out that the actual game's level of "making stuff up" isn't that bad.

Or it might turn out that this particular player suffers from a condition that may make any level of "making stuff up" be anathema to him. I'm talking stuff like Aspergers.

I just interviewed a guy with Aspergers for a job. I don't fully understand the condition, but I get that a person could be wired in ways that can make them prefer or insist on peculiar things.

I'm inclined to think that the OP gave it a shot, and if the guy ain't interested because of some strongly declared reason, don't push it.
 

JamesonCourage

Adventurer
And if there ARE a lot of people who find the idea of the arbitrary GM distasteful, may I ask why?
I wrote this about the subject in the "Running a Game" chapter of my RPG:
Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.

As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon, or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to. For example, if I had in mind a character who is this huge brute that hits people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through a house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe. These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.

For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule. Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.

As a player, the rules are there for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, a maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, if it is a set mechanical maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of reliable rules.

As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Rules help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.

When a GM begins to use his granted power to overrule a player, I personally do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment. And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. Players are expecting consistency in the rules, and the more decisions they can make without direct GM input, the more in control of their own characters they feel.
 

howandwhy99

Adventurer
You apparnelty fail to see the issue - I do not accept your authority to proscribe. You don't own the definition of "playing a game". Nor do you get to say for anyone else what a GM should always, or never, do.
SNIP
Okay, I think there is a proscribed way by others in the community for GM to inevitably act by fiat, improvise, but I'm not here to suggest the particular version of playing shouldn't be available for some games. I'm saying that isn't necessary to run a game. Certainly some games require what they call GMs to act arbitrarily.

You imagined that the beholder placed itself in the middle? Who authorized you to decide that? it's not in the rules!

I'm nitpicking. I'm sure your way of GMing is fine.

What I was calling you out on was the extreme statement you made that a GM shouldn't arbitrarily decide anything.

Because taken literally and absolutely, it is false. I have 1E D&D books, I have 2e D&D books. I have 3E D&D books. While 1E covered a lot more details than the others, it doesn't cover everything. At some point, the GM must make a decision (hopefully based on rational consideration) that is not covered by the rules or written adventure (and written adventure does not have the same authority as the rules)

Personally, I like systemetizing things, but I also accept that I'm not going to literally generate everything with random tables and rule books. And sometimes, whether I like to or not, I need to make a decision on my own.
All those games need fleshing out to fill in missing details, especially about NPC behavior. But just like combat covers many situation, what NPCs do and say and know can be mapped. I am not making "literally and absolutely" false statements and just like in a situational puzzle the person running that game doesn't make up anything after play begins either. And those games cover everything tried by a player, while being far less in size due to the situation being static.

At this point, I really have to wonder if we're using the same vocabulary. I can't see it as possible for an RPG to not involve some kind of improvisation without an extremely tightly defined script that the GM follows to the letter. That pretty much tells me that you and I have radically different definitions for improvisation in the course of a role playing game session.
A tight simulation game small in rules and large in scope can cover huge amounts of possible actions. The script isn't for the players to find and follow, but for the DM to apply results to their attempted actions based on the rules for the world. And the crazy amount of variety in D&D is because those rules can cover so much ground. This actually promotes game play because now gaming can take place. Setting goals, making strategies, tracking their own experiences, and so on by the players actually matters in the game. The scope keeps growing to potentially enormous scale, but this fosters growth from the players rather than futility like if one tried to game an improv'd game.
 
Last edited:


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top