In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Hussar]

Contrast with this thread - Rules Experts & Casual Players Mix Question - where everyone (including me) is saying that it's a fine and good thing that GMs should make temporary rulings when the rules are in doubt.

I can understand being annoyed when a ruling, or in this case what seems to be a rules misunderstanding, leads to PC death. But otoh the GM must be allowed the authority to make rulings at the table. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant, really, questioning the GM slows the game down.

The problem is, IME, temporary rulings are almost never in favour of the PC's and almost universally arbitrarily increase difficulty out of some sense that things in RPG's have to be "earned".

I can't remember the last time a DM made an ad hoc ruling that was easier than the written rules. But I can certainly remember many, many rulings which made things more difficult for the players.

I agree that sometimes it's best just to make a ruling, but, when combined with poor DMing skills, it's a recipe for disaster. I have a sneaking feeling that in the other thread, people who are responding are basing their responses on the assumption that their DM is good, after all, according to this poll, most people do have pretty positive experiences with DM's.

 

[Rel]

The problem is, IME, temporary rulings are almost never in favour of the PC's and almost universally arbitrarily increase difficulty out of some sense that things in RPG's have to be "earned".

I can't remember the last time a DM made an ad hoc ruling that was easier than the written rules. But I can certainly remember many, many rulings which made things more difficult for the players.

That is pretty much the opposite of my experience, at least in recent years.

Again, I'm coming at this from the perspective of most new GMs that I game with being at GenCon or Game Days. But there you frequently have situations arise where the GM must make some kind of spot ruling. I suspect it is more frequent than regular campaign games due to the fact that some or all of your players may be only a little familiar with (or are first time players of) the game in question. So they tend to suggest stuff that is either not explicitly handled by the rules or approach it in a way that is different from how the rules normally handle it.

I'm a firm believer in the "say yes" approach to GMing in those situations. And so are the majority of the GMs that I've gamed with in that environment. The only real question they end up having to ask themselves is, "Will letting the player do this make the game more fun and awesome?" Usually the answer is yes. And it's pretty liberating because you're not worried about setting some precedent where they will want to do the same thing next session, because there is no next session.

 

[BryonD]

The DM just turned to me and stared at me with a look that said "Don't quote the rules to me", although he said nothing at all.

I'm taking the words you apply to a look as accurate here, but that seems very reasonable under the circumstances.....

That is really pretty funny.


"Don't quote the rules at me", in general, should be a part of good DMing. *BUT*, "don't quote the rules at me", when used correctly, applies to not letting the rules trump common sense as dictated by the actual circumstances in play. This DM is using a really bad misunderstanding of the rules, but in his mind, he is using "the rules". So he is using the rules to trump anything remotely approaching common sense.

Don't quote rules = Common sense wins is very good
Don't quote rules = don't fix my mistakes is very bad
Don't quote rules = don't fix my mistakes, even when they abuse common sense is just so far beyond bad that all you can do is laugh, learn, and move on.

 

[Hussar]

BryonD - my only issue with what you said, and I agree with you mostly, is that "common sense" is far from common, IME. Take a recent example:

I was playing a 4e game and my rogue had an at will power (I forget the name) that allows him to jump as if he had a running start, even from standing still. In other words, he calculates a jump check as d20+skill in feet. The character had a +11 skill check.

We come across a 10 foot pit. I declare that I sail over the pit with ease, demonstrating my grace (the character is short, fat and a total slob - I liked the image this presented ). The DM tells me that I have to roll.

"Oh, is there something in my way or something?" I ask.
"No," is the reply. "But a skill check of 1 always fails."
"Umm, no it isn't actually. That's never actually been true in any edition of D&D."
"Well, there has to be a chance of failure, so, you have to roll."

I jump over the pit, then because of events in the game, I wind up having to jump back and forth a few times. And, of course, I roll a 1 and fall into the pit.

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say that DM's often arbitrarily jack up difficulty. This ruling doesn't even make common sense. If someone can jump X feet, he can, barring some extraneous circumstances, always jump X feet. Heck, there isn't even a DC in this case. The only thing the roll tells you is how many feet you jump. It's not a check in the sense of pass fail at all.

But, nope, thud, down I go.

I have to admit, based on my experience, I'd much, much rather DM's let rules trump common sense than the other way around.

 

[BryonD]

BryonD - my only issue with what you said, and I agree with you mostly, is that "common sense" is far from common, IME. Take a recent example:

I don't see much point is engaging what amounts to word play on two different uses of "common".

Frankly, your specific example may fly in the face of RAW, but it is a moderately common houserule. It certainly doesn't force the conclusion of bad DMing.


On the making things harder tangent --

I'm not at all certain that the house rules I have seen make things harder by any overwhelming fraction. But, at the same time, overcoming challenges are a key source of the fun, so I'd suspect I tend to like houserules that make things harder more than the opposite. So I may be overcounting "helpful" houserules in my quick mental estimate because I'm more likely to recall them as standing out.

Maybe.

I'm not really sure if that would hold up to a serious analysis by me because, in the end I personally find that analysis pointless. Whether a rule makes things easier OR harder is ultimately irrelevant to the goal of having rules that make things "better". And, to me, better almost always comes down to smooth, effective rules are the best simulation possible.

Even if a rule in question is unquestionably bad, fixating on bad DMs (which I readily acknowledge) does not speak to their frequency.

 

[S'mon]

The problem is, IME, temporary rulings are almost never in favour of the PC's and almost universally arbitrarily increase difficulty out of some sense that things in RPG's have to be "earned".

If in doubt I always err in favour of the PCs.

 

[MortonStromgal]

I can't remember the last time a DM made an ad hoc ruling that was easier than the written rules.

I do that all the time. Whats your skill level? close enough you succeed, don't bother rolling.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The DM tells me that I have to roll.

"Oh, is there something in my way or something?" I ask.
"No," is the reply. "But a skill check of 1 always fails."
"Umm, no it isn't actually. That's never actually been true in any edition of D&D."
"Well, there has to be a chance of failure, so, you have to roll."

I jump over the pit, then because of events in the game, I wind up having to jump back and forth a few times. And, of course, I roll a 1 and fall into the pit.

I have the opposite problem: I have to constantly keep reminding my players that a 1 isn't an automatic failure on skill checks.

In general, though, I bless Feng Shui for teaching me the importance of the Rule of Cool: If it's cool, find a way to make it happen.

 

[aboyd]

I declare that I sail over the pit with ease, demonstrating my grace (the character is short, fat and a total slob - I liked the image this presented ). The DM tells me that I have to roll.

"Oh, is there something in my way or something?" I ask.
"No," is the reply. "But a skill check of 1 always fails."
"Umm, no it isn't actually. That's never actually been true in any edition of D&D."
"Well, there has to be a chance of failure, so, you have to roll."

It sounds like you want to DM. I don't think being a player is your strength.

 

[Doug McCrae]

A 1 is always a fail when I run too, though at least I know it's a houserule. I agree that always-fail on a 1, and always-succeed on a 20, can become problematic when a large number of rolls are made, though I don't really have a solution to this at present.

I do allow automatic success, particularly with knowledge skills and easy tasks, but generally I dislike taking 10 when it comes to the major challenges of the adventure, it's not dramatic enough for my taste.

I think I probably would require a roll to jump the 10-foot pit, and even multiple rolls for numerous attempts, with a 1 being a failure. It seems, to me, an activity with a strong element of risk. I'm not saying I'm necessarily right about that but that's how I'd probably run it.