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

[SteveC]

This kind of a conversation is such a basic thing that I suspect that the core issue is that not everyone is really talking about the same thing, or using even a remotely similar definition of arbitrary.

Of course the GM makes arbitrary decisions: from the basics "what rules system are we using?" or "what module am I running?" to more tactical ones like how and where monsters are placed, or how NPCs react to what characters say to the esoteric questions players have about the game or what they can do.

Everything that is in an RPG session in a traditional RPG like D&D is there by the GM's will. There are other games, like Fate, where the players have agency themselves to place things in the campaign, but if we're talking meat and potatoes D&D, it's the GM (err, the DM, I mean...)

Now many GMs like to establish the way the game situation starts, and then play to that as strictly as possible without changing things that are written. I think of these folks as Deist GMs but I think most people would call them strict sandboxers or something similar. I think that's what's being discussed here as non-arbitrary.

But the thing is, even the strict sandbox GMs are still entirely arbitrary in that they at their game's "cosmic watchmaker" (oh, there I am with that Deist analogy again ).

So with that said, even though every GM is arbitrary, some are far more arbitrary than others, which is where we get into arguments about railroading or providing the illusion of choice, which are very meaningful discussions in their own right. And all of that is just my entirely arbitrary opinion, of course .

 

[howandwhy99]

There does seem to be some discrepancy among responders. That's normal as people play lots of different kinds of games. D&D is a traditional game, a game that tries to do what games actually are about. IOW, it's a game about recognizing patterns in a field of play in order to achieve certain predetermined objectives. It's a strategy game. Other games don't necessarily include all the elements of a full game, but a lot do. Think of games like: sports, feats of strength or athleticism, trivia, puzzles, feats of memory, and so on. Then there are things called games which aren't actual games at all. Stuff like painting a picture, singing, talking to your friends (unstructured, of course), taking a nature hike, or even telling stories. Game rules aren't necessary for any of those things, but they could be put into a game and improved according its design.

What RPGs began as were games and many still play them that way. That is, strategically to achieve objectives. But there are storygames too where a game is played, either competitively or cooperatively, in order to create a story secondary to the game play. Or an artwork. Or design a building. Create a business plan. Or any number of unrelated ideas.

I believe the problem for Billy is, he recognizes that in order to engage in pattern recognition in D&D or any other RPG the person running the game cannot make up anything after the game has begun. To play a fair, balanced game the rules need to be consistent throughout. A GM is just like if someone were running a boardgame for you and your friends at a convention. They are not there to create rules for you, they run the game while you play. You might learn the rules from that person as you go along, but your ability at the game is improved by actually trying to play the game well when playing it. I think Billy just inherently understands these things as the OP has said, he has played lots of games, but not had much experience with RPGs or storygames.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Responding to the OP, I absolutely do understand your friend "Billy"'s concerns/objections and I think that "Billy" puts it very well when he says "I don't like the idea that the GM that can arbitrarily change the rules of the game".

I have highlighted what I consider the key points, there. If I was being picky I might add "during play" to the end of the sentence. Many folks responding seem to have taken this to mean "the GM should not make anything up"; I strongly disagree with this interpretation.

<snip>

The reason - at least, one major reason - for this is that rules are the shared model of the world's "physics". They stand in for the characters' implicit understanding of how the world works - what they expect to happen based on living and growing up in the world since birth - in the minds of the players. To change that without a darned good reason in mid game is about as destructive a thing to the equilibrium of play as I can imagine a thing to be.

I agree entirely that the GM should not be altering rules that the players expect to hold true during actual game play. Of course, I never do that. Nor do most GMs I've met.

But Billy wouldn't know that because HE'S NEVER PLAYED THE GAME.

I suppose the up-shot of all this is that it would probably be worthwhile to talk to Billy and see what his expectations of a TRPG actually are. Maybe he does think that the GM is going to change the rules on a whim. Maybe he thinks he doesn't even get to know what the rules are. If so I think I might be able to allay his concerns. All my players have access to the rulebooks and we follow the rules in them, with exceptions clearly stated up front.

Billy likes CRPGs. In a CRPG the game's physics and combat system are pretty much set in stone for the entire game. The player can expect that casting Fireball is not suddenly going to start working differently. But the player doesn't know what to exepct as far as plot twists, enemies, areas, and other game content. I think TRPGs work pretty much the same way, at least at my table. The players can expect the rules not to change, but they have no idea what to expect as far as what they will be facing next. Content-wise, the GM can pretty much do as they please.

At any rate, I think in any discussion about this topic a distinction between rules and content is helpful.

 

[Nellisir]

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

After reading this thread for a few pages, I wonder if Billy is thinking of D&D as an adversarial game, where the GM opposes the player. Or he might just have a fear that the GM will "move the goalposts". I suspect it's not about the nitpicking of what monster goes where in the dungeon as whether or not his fireball is effective.

 

[Sunseeker]

After reading this thread for a few pages, I wonder if Billy is thinking of D&D as an adversarial game, where the GM opposes the player. Or he might just have a fear that the GM will "move the goalposts". I suspect it's not about the nitpicking of what monster goes where in the dungeon as whether or not his fireball is effective.

Which as always seems like a good reason to sit down and talk with this potential player. It's easy to be wary of something you've never tried when you've heard a lot of bad stories. Heck, if one were to browse this forum on the right day, we could certainly get a very bad impression of D&D.

 

[Bedrockgames]

After reading this thread for a few pages, I wonder if Billy is thinking of D&D as an adversarial game, where the GM opposes the player. Or he might just have a fear that the GM will "move the goalposts". I suspect it's not about the nitpicking of what monster goes where in the dungeon as whether or not his fireball is effective.

It sounds like concerns he acquired by hearing things online. It was the idea of a game where the gm that can change the rules that bothered him. It may be a reference to rule zero, to rulings not rules, or just to the more open nature of table top rpgs over computer rpgs. I am also not sure if he was speaking about D&D specifically, or speaking generally of rpgs (for example he may have meant he wanted to play an rpg where the GM has more limitations. My advice is he should at least try D&D with the understanding that there is tremendous variety from table to table. To the OP is say, ask him more questions about his concerns. See if they are unfounded, maybe he just heard things online that don't apply to your campaign.

 

[Akillion]

I would suggest asking him to just "give it a go". Tell him that you will stick as much as to the rules as possible and will discuss with the group any rulings you have to make. If after 3-4 weeks he still doesn't like it, well maybe it's not for him.

 

[Asmor]

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

You're asking on a website dedicated to D&D and other RPGs if they dislike GMs?

That's like going to a car enthusiast forum and asking why people dislike manual transmissions.

Anyways, kind of tangential to your question, but I am vehemently against fudging dice rolls. I will never do it, and I won't play with a GM who does. I'm fine with making anything else up, including altering target numbers before the dice are actually rolled, but the minute they are, the rolled result is sacrosanct. No exceptions.

 

[Derren]

You're asking on a website dedicated to D&D and other RPGs if they dislike GMs?

Disliking arbitrary decisions doesn't mean you dislike GMs.
Many people simply want the GM to stay fair, in good or ill, and let the story unfold on its own (sandbox/simulation gameplay) instead of having the GM impose his idea of a "good story" which is what usually happens in the end when he makes arbitrary decisions.

 

[am181d]

Disliking arbitrary decisions doesn't mean you dislike GMs.
Many people simply want the GM to stay fair, in good or ill, and let the story unfold on its own (sandbox/simulation gameplay) instead of having the GM impose his idea of a "good story" which is what usually happens in the end when he makes arbitrary decisions.

Just want to point out that folks mean "on whim" and not "arbitrary." By definition, if the GM has a REASON to do something (good or bad) that thing is not arbitrary.