Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[The Shaman]

Rules are there largely to minimize the effect context has on a situation. This is a problem if you use them to override every context, such as the players getting enthusiastic and creative and wanting to try stuff out of the box.

For me this is really important - I want the players to feel like they have the freedom to try whatever they want and the rules can be referenced or ginned up as needed to adjudicate the attempt.

This is not a problem if you use them to let the players know ahead of time what they need to roll if they're worn out from a long day's work and aren't as sharp as they were last week.

Simpler: it's about making informed choices.

A really skilled GM counts the ability to switch back and forth between "let's check the rulebook" and "I'll make a ruling": relying on only one or the other is just leaving possible solutions on the table.

This, which is how it's been since the very start.

 

[The Shaman]

The whole "Old School vs. New School" thing really muddies up the point I was making with this thread.

Perhaps citing a document titled Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (emphasis added) as something you think every referee should read was the first double-handful of silt to muddy those waters.

This thread isn't about what rules set you play. If you "get it", then you know its about getting back to how the game was usually played back in the old days when players didn't know what to roll to disable traps.

Which goes back to what I noted earlier - what you're describing as "how the game was usually played in the old days" is limited to pre-Supplement I OD&D, or basically gaming before the Thief class was introduced in 1975, and largely limited to traps, as even OD&D contained rules for 'roll-to-find.'

For the Primer, that makes sense; the Primer is a guide to playing an OD&D retroclone. As a declarative on 'non-modern' gaming, I think that's an extraordinarily narrow window.

Let's say that there was no Disable Device skill in d20 3.5. And, let's take the scenario that I made up as I wrote it above: You've just turned a corner and the DM has told you that you see a hair-fine filament stretched across the corridor. He asks you what are you going to.

Well, what are you going to do?

If you're playing 3e, you could start with what the Disable Device skill description says.

Other Ways To Beat A Trap
It’s possible to ruin many traps without making a Disable Device check.

Ranged Attack Traps
Once a trap’s location is known, the obvious way to ruin it is to smash the mechanism—assuming the mechanism can be accessed. Failing that, it’s possible to plug up the holes from which the projectiles emerge. Doing this prevents the trap from firing unless its ammunition does enough damage to break through the plugs.

Melee Attack Traps
These devices can be thwarted by smashing the mechanism or blocking the weapons, as noted above. Alternatively, if a character studies the trap as it triggers, he might be able to time his dodges just right to avoid damage. A character who is doing nothing but studying a trap when it first goes off gains a +4 dodge bonus against its attacks if it is triggered again within the next minute.

Pits
Disabling a pit trap generally ruins only the trapdoor, making it an uncovered pit. Filling in the pit or building a makeshift bridge across it is an application of manual labor, not the Disable Device skill. Characters could neutralize any spikes at the bottom of a pit by attacking them—they break just as daggers do. (Orange text is emphasis added by TS; source.)

Cutting or bypassing a tripwire doesn't call for a Disable Device check; in fact, many commonly-used traps don't require Disable Device checks.

You're not the first to make the argument that skills and the like - feats, powers, class abilities, and such - should not be a substitute for challenging the players' faculties as well as those of their characters, and on that we agree to some extent.

For me, however, the use of skills and class abilities doesn't take away from making the players think and plan and improvise.

 

[Mark Chance]

Yeah, actually what Piratecat appeared to be doing _is_ explicitly covered by the rules. His specific implementation of it is his own, but when the discussion already is about whether or not a GM is making the rules their own, it seems like a bit of a funny quibble. ....

Thanks. I'd forgotten about the Page 42. Mea culpa. That sort of built in improvisational flexibility is indeed cool.

 

[Water Bob]

The implication is that since we MUST trust the DM, that all DMs are equally good. All are trustworthy, and to benefit from their DMing, we must trust them.

Not nearly. Being the DM is a hard job. That's one of the reasons most people prefer playing.

A DM has to learn to be a good DM.

If you've got a bad DM, don't play with him.

What is the purpose of this trust? To what end does the DM put it, apart from the same ends as would be served by a satisfactory resolution within the rules?

The purpose of the trust is to not have an argument because his call is not listed in a book somewhere.

Allow your DM to make your world intriguing and exciting. He's not there to "win". He's there to help you live in a fantasy world.

If you just got hit with a massive blow and was knocked down to 2 hit points and your DM says to make a CON check vs. the a DC equal to the damage you just took, do it and don't bitch if you fail the throw and drop your weapon because of the force of the blow.

It's not a rule in the book. It's one your DM just made up. Accept the challenge and move on.

Good DMs will do similar stuff to the bad guys, too.

Using a specific rulebook and sitting behind the screen doesn't make you a trustworthy person. Generally speaking, you must *earn* trust. By the time you've earned it, what ruleset or style you're using is moot.

That's true. So, you're saying that you'd play with an untrustworthy DM if he followed the rules in the book?

I don't think I'd play with him at all.

 

[TheUltramark]

Trust is the number one thing to have at a table. Not trust the DM to know all the rules, or even to be fair, but trust the DM to, at the end of the day, make the adventure fun for everyone!
If you are playing and a DM you trust says, "No, you can't do that" you need to trust that there is a reason other than {I'm a crappy DM and I didn't see that coming} but rather there is a reason, it will become clear why you cannot do your thing, and we'll all have fun despite the fact you cant do your thing right now.
I've always said a good DM can run a perfectly entertaining game without dice, meaning he can determine if you hit the monster, the monster hits you, and how much damage gets done in his head, spinning the yarn such that the action you 'see in your head' is so vivid the idea of looking up some modifier seems ridiculous.


---There is the lob...now everybody tee off

 

[Raven Crowking]

A DM has to learn to be a good DM.

If you've got a bad DM, don't play with him.

Out of curiosity, how does the bad DM learn to be a good DM if no one plays with him?

I would say instead:

Take ownership of the games you play in; they are yours as much as they are anyone else's at the table. It is your job to make it fun, as much as it is anyone else's job at the table. Help you Game Master improve. Help the other players improve. Accept that you could improve as well, and let them help you.

If you are having enough fun that you want to keep playing, don't whine when things don't go your way....for whatever reason. If you are not having enough fun that you want to keep playing, don't whine....but don't keep playing, either.

Life is too short for bad games.​

YMMV.

RC

 

[pemerton]

I've read the Primer. I liked the Rule of the Ming Vase and used it in my 4e game (actual play account here).

Given that implmenting the Rule of the Ming Vase in my 4e game relied upon use of page 42, I don't agree with the OP's assertion (which I gather is also found in the Primer - other than the Ming Vase bit, my memory of it isn't that good) that dice-based action resolution mechanics get in the way of engaging or evocative gaming.

Most of the OP's examples of why free-form description and resolution is more evocative than dice-based resolution seem to involve searching for traps and similar features in a classic dungeon. I've not been that excited by this sort of dungeon play since about 1986, and so don't find the examples very persuasive.

TI'm saying that I think the game is 10 times more interesting when action is focussed on what the players DO as opposed to what they ROLL.

I assume that "what the players do" here really means "what their PCs do".

The idea that because a game has dice-based action resolution mechanics, it is more about what the players roll than what their PCs do, is one that I find pretty implausible. It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.

 

[Rel]

I assume that "what the players do" here really means "what their PCs do".

The idea that because a game has dice-based action resolution mechanics, it is more about what the players roll than what their PCs do, is one that I find pretty implausible. It seems pretty obvious to me that what the PCs do frames the context for dice rolls, and hence for the consequences of action resolution.

I am not attempting to speak for Water Bob here but I'll put forth something that I think he implies, which is that, description by the player should provide context for the roll of the dice.

To use an example that is not a feature of a classic dungeon crawl, how about Diplomacy. I've seen this handled all sorts of ways. I've seen GMs who simply let the players put forth their plea to whomever they are trying to diplomacize and base the NPC's reaction purely on that. I've seen GMs allow players to simply say, "I'm doing Diplomacy. I rolled a 23." and base the NPC's reaction purely on that. I've seen GMs (and I'm one of these) who listen to the urgings the players make on behalf of their PCs and then have them roll.

I'm not of the belief that a player needs to be a good orator in order to have his character persuade an NPC. But I like for them to at least make some effort at explaining the reasoning they are using with the NPC before they roll the dice because it lets me portray the NPC's reaction better (and, given what I know of the NPC's motivations, I may apply a bonus or penalty). And of course it gives them a reason to pay attention to the game world factors that might influence things.

I won't say that if a player says, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM says, "Roll Diplomacy." they're "doing it wrong". But I'll say that I think this is the kind of thing that some "old school" gamers contend has resulted in loss of flavor since the advent of Diplomacy as a PC skill vs. a player skill.

I'm not sure that contention is valid however because I bet there were plenty of GMs back in the day whose players said, "I want the King to give us some Men at Arms to aid in our quest." and the GM said, "Roll vs. Charisma."

 

[Thasmodious]

I am not attempting to speak for Water Bob here but I'll put forth something that I think he implies, which is that, description by the player should provide context for the roll of the dice.

I agree with the sentiment 100%, but I don't take that as waterbob's implication. I took his statements to say "rolling dice at all is a bad way to handle searches, traps, and, likely, diplomacy".

 

[NewJeffCT]

currying the DM's favor with careful use of cleavage

Hmm, I must have been doing something wrong my last campaign - neither of the two women tried to curry my favor with cleavage...



(I must spread XP around again before giving to Barastrondo again)