Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[NewJeffCT]

I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?

In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.

Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.

I agree. I have myself, plus six players in my group, so seven people. I would hate to cancel a game just because one of seven people cannot make it due to a child's illness - or even their child's babysitter being sick. We have one guy whose wife is an emergency room doctor - what if she gets called into the hospital at the last minute? Kind of hard to find a babysitter at the last minute many times, especially when he lives in a somewhat rural area.

And, in my group, I know I am not the most knowledgeable on the rules - I spend most of my limited free time designing/modifying the adventures and the encounters, creating NPCs, etc. So, while I may have the final say on rules, I will always check with the players that know the rules better than me to make sure I'm doing something correctly.

 

[Water Bob]

Eh, not really.

One advantage of printed rules is that they help to protect players from 'bad' GMs.

People keep saying that. If a GM is "bad", then he's not fun to play with, regardless if he runs the game by the rules or willy-nilly by the seat of his pants.

Why play with bad GMs?

I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?

Hmm... Let's see. From my experience, I find that 3-4 players makes the optimal group. I've played with more (Ran a short campaign with 11 once), and I've done 1 and 2 person campaigns before (fit the James Bond RPG well). 3-4 I find optimal.

Right now, my group is in that sweet spot: One player I've known since 1st grade. The second, I've known since 4th. And, the 3rd is someone I know through another passion of mine, Poker. I've known him for 7 years, but never knew he gamed. I don't advertise that I game. And, in conversation about fantasy novels, we discovered that we both played.

Now, he's joining my game.

As far as spending time with them outside of the game, I do it all the time. We see movies together, share a lot of interests. With the new player poker buddie, We've got a large tournament happening this Sunday.

I'm not sure why you asked that.

In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.

Well, who wouldn't put family first over a game? I wouldn't even put it second.

The point of the "show-up" rule is that I want to avoid what I've seen in other people's games where so-and-so just can't make it for such-n-such reason.

If you were taking a class for whatever at the local college on Tuesday nights, you'd make it. If you had Driver's Ed because you got a ticket, you'd be there. If you were trying to get your concealed handgun license, you'd make every effort to get to the class.

I want that level of commitment to my game.

Every once in a while, yes, someone has an emergency and can't make it. But, it is a REAL emergency.

I've seen other people's games where so-and-so can't make it for blah-blah BS reason. In my game, I spend a lot of time (time that is scarce because I am busy, too) preparing the game. I do it because I enjoy and am committed to the game. A player just needs to show up.

If a player doesn't show up for some silly reason--maybe he went to the movies with his wife instead--then he is disrespecting me and the time I put into the game; He doesn't have the same level of commitment as the rest of us (and we only want to play with those who commit to the game as we do); and he's disrespecting the other players who did make the game a priority.

Thus, we just don't game with people who won't give us that kind of commitment.

But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play.

I'm sure it sounds like I'm a hard-ass as a DM. I am firm. But, I'm also fair, and I listen to my players. My goal is for all of us to have fun. If someone doesn't like a ruling, they can calmly say what they think is wrong with it and suggest a different way to go. If they make their case (in my estimation), I change the ruling in their favor.

I do it all the time.

But, if I don't agree, I am the Rulebook. What I say goes. It's part of the contract you make when you play in my game.

You do realize that most adults have other things going on in their lives, right?

Seeing as how we're all in our 40's, with professional and domestic responsibilities, yeah, I pretty much get that.

Do you get upset if someone has to cancel because their kid is sick or is playing their first ball game and the parent puts more importance on their child than on your game? What about when someone is gone on a business trip? What if someone has dinner with the in-laws and can't make it?

Simple. Just don't commit to the game when those things are happening. We don't have a set date. At the end of the game session, we usually look at the next time we can play. Sometimes it's next week. Sometimes it's next month. Every once in a while, it's six weeks down the road.

The end of the year with Christmas and such is usually rough for scheduling.

But, if you schedule, make sure you can be there. If you commit and then something big comes up so that you can't make it, let us know so that we can all reschedule our lives to accomodate yours.

Once we get a date, we expect everyone to be there.

I find the whole "I am the Rulebook!!" statement you keep making to be pretty funny.

Obviously you didn't read the document linked in the OP. Those aren't my original words. When I say that, I'm not trying to act like "I am the Law" Judge Dread. I'm referring to a point made in the document.

 

[Fifth Element]

Simple. Just don't commit to the game when those things are happening. We don't have a set date. At the end of the game session, we usually look at the next time we can play. Sometimes it's next week. Sometimes it's next month. Every once in a while, it's six weeks down the road.

Oaky, I totally did not get that from what you posted. It seemed you were saying "We play Tuesdays at 7 PM, if you can't commit to that, don't bother!"

But you're actually far less scheduled than most groups, I suspect. In terms of a regular schedule at least.

 

[Water Bob]

Oaky, I totally did not get that from what you posted. It seemed you were saying "We play Tuesdays at 7 PM, if you can't commit to that, don't bother!"

There's a lot of instances in this very thread where people read something that wasn't there. It often happens, sending the thread in tangents, putting people at cross-purposes.

But you're actually far less scheduled than most groups, I suspect. In terms of a regular schedule at least.

We average about twice a month. That's 24 games a year. A session is typically 6-8 hours.

That's about all our "real lives" can handle. And, since I'm running a sandbox game, it gives me time to make up stuff in-between games.

Sure, it's not a regimented "every first and third Saturday", but that's the best we can do even if we didn't have the "every shows up" rule.

 

[Mark CMG]

4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.

We're discussing when someone is actively looking since players don't "roll" for Passive Perception, IIRC.

 

[Fifth Element]

We're discussing when someone is actively looking since players don't "roll" for Passive Perception, IIRC.

Sorry, you referred to things that would be "automatically" seen or known, which I interepreted to mean things that need no special effort to detect. Passive Perception is used when a character is "in the area", so to speak, but making no special effort to search.

 

[Mark CMG]

Sorry, you referred to things that would be "automatically" seen or known, which I interepreted to mean things that need no special effort to detect. Passive Perception is used when a character is "in the area", so to speak, but making no special effort to search.

No problem. This (tangental) discussion was about things being, in effect, automatically known because the players were asked to roll for something when they shouldn't be automatically known, rather than the other way around.

 

[Water Bob]

4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.

Written rules helping the DM be a better DM.

This is some real thread drift, but...

I don't know if I agree that the rule helps DMs be better at their jobs, but I will say that this is the second thing about 4E that I've heard that I like.

The first thing I heard about 4E (never read it, myself) that I liked was how spell duration is handled by rolling a check each round to see if the spell effects are defeated. Yeah, it's another dice throw, but it's faster, I think, than keeping up with bookkeeping on the number of rounds a spell may effect something.

In my Conan game (based on 3.5), I don't automatically roll Spot checks. Players have to initiate them. I view the Spot check as the character "focusing" on an area. If the player doesn't ask specifically for the roll or otherwise say something that earns the check, then I don't bother with it.

I want to hear something like:

DM: "This path you've been following narrows as it rises towards the Kezankian Mountains. You can tell that you're at a higher altitidude than you were yesterday. The plain is now broken with hills, some of them quite close to the trail. You're in Zamorian foothill country now."

Player: "Those hills are good ambush points. As we ride, I'm going to keep particular attention on any terrain close to the trail that could hide a man."

If I hear that, the PC has earned a Spot check if I do have an ambush waiting for him. I'll either roll the Spot behind my screen or let the player roll it, depending on the circumstances, then I'll play off the results.

Now, I'll also considered that the player has made his character "near sighted", keeping his focus on the ambush points close to the trail, so I may use that to modify something he may have seen in the distance--like the sun glinting off something metallic at the top of the peak in front of him.

If players don't ask for Spot checks, then I usually just make a decision to tell them about something or not--I decide if they could usually see it. If so, I tell them what they see without any dice rolls.

DM: "As you throw your head back and drink from your waterskin, you catch a quick shining spark up in the high land. It's there once, twice, gone. It was the sun shining on something metallic or reflective."

I will also give players a hint sometimes, too, through my description.

DM: "After another hour's ride you look up and are astonished at how close it is you've gotten to the peak in front of you. Your sight has been so focussed on the few feet in front of your horse that you've got a slight headache."

Or, if the player never asked for the Spot check originally, and I do have an ambush set up, I might say:

DM: "The trail starts to narrow and the incline has definitely increased. You're so close to rocks and boulders now that you can touch them next to the trail as your horse trots past. The trail is about to lead you into a small canyon, of sorts, where the trail has higher ground on each side. You're traveling on an old mountain stream bed."

That's enough about higher ground that a good player should pick up on it and start asking questions.

 

[Rel]

Hey, Water Bob, do me a favor and please don't use red (or orange) text for emphasis in your posts. We try and keep that as a moderator thing to get people's attention when we need it. Thanks.

 

[Water Bob]

Hey, Water Bob, do me a favor and please don't use red (or orange) text for emphasis in your posts. We try and keep that as a moderator thing to get people's attention when we need it. Thanks.

Undersood. Sorry about that.