What is the #1 most important thing to remember about DMing?

[ExploderWizard]

that is good!! :d

 

[wayne62682]

At the risk of being shot at dawn: You are not God (anymore). The game you're playing has rules for a reason, written by people a lot smarter than you. You should think long and hard before changing them on a whim, and should understand the consequences of changing any core rules; any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described".

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are not God[/B] (anymore).

If you ever considered yourself so then you were doing it wrong.

The game you're playing has rules for a reason, written by people a lot smarter than you.

Thinking like this is what could keep your game from being all that it can be.

No one sitting in an office designing games knows what is more fun for my or any other particular group.

 

[tenkar]

Always wear clean underwear (for those times the TPK don't go so well)

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Thinking like this is what could keep your game from being all that it can be.

No one sitting in an office designing games knows what is more fun for my or any other particular group.

And it would, if that was all that he said. However, the quote that you pulled out ignores the extra context. Someone who's designed a given game has likely spent a fair bit of time and effort doing so and quite likely has some fairly decent reasons for doing whatever it was that they did.

I've seen far too many people complain about games because they've made changes without considering why the rule was the way in the first place.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And it would, if that was all that he said. However, the quote that you pulled out ignores the extra context. Someone who's designed a given game has likely spent a fair bit of time and effort doing so and quite likely has some fairly decent reasons for doing whatever it was that they did.

Probably. The assertion was that they were also a lot smarter than I am. That's incorrect. I'm sure some of them might be more intelligent than I am, but I'm also sure some of them aren't.

Also, within the context of the contested quote, the poster said the following: "any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described"."

I strongly disagree with this. I agree with the poster in that rules should be considered before being changed. I strongly disagree that preference should not be a strong enough reason to change something. It might unbalance the game mechanically, sure. If it enhances the enjoyment of the game for everyone at the table, however, why is it something that should be avoided?

I've seen far too many people complain about games because they've made changes without considering why the rule was the way in the first place.

Yeah, and that's something that does need to be considered. Many people have problems with the game becoming unbalanced. Towards that end, I think making changes at your table to fit your group is perfectly acceptable, even if things are a lot more unbalanced because of such changes.

If you don't like unbalancing changes, don't make them. If you're okay with them as long as you enjoy the game more, make them. As always, play what you like

 

[Aus_Snow]

House rule to suit.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, and that's something that does need to be considered. Many people have problems with the game becoming unbalanced. Towards that end, I think making changes at your table to fit your group is perfectly acceptable, even if things are a lot more unbalanced because of such changes.

If you don't like unbalancing changes, don't make them. If you're okay with them as long as you enjoy the game more, make them. As always, play what you like

Totally agree with the caveat that you don't think come on an Internet Forum and start bitching about how the game is broken.

And, the real question in my mind is, more fun for who? The table as a whole? The DM? A simple majority? Is it okay to make a change that one guy hates so long as the rest of the table is groovy? That's something for every group to decide.

Personally, I lean towards consensus. If 5 like the idea and 1 hates it, doesn't really matter who the 1 is, we don't do it. My fun is not worth someone else's enjoyment of the game.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The game you're playing has rules for a reason, written by people a lot smarter than you. You should think long and hard before changing them on a whim, and should understand the consequences of changing any core rules; any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described".

And it would, if that was all that he said. However, the quote that you pulled out ignores the extra context. Someone who's designed a given game has likely spent a fair bit of time and effort doing so and quite likely has some fairly decent reasons for doing whatever it was that they did.

I've played far too many games to simply buy that anymore.

Game design is hard work, but there is no guarantee whatsoever that the people who wrote Game X are "smarter than you" (let alone "a lot").

The other part is true, though -- any game that uses "knife edge" balance (as opposed to "broad-based" balance, and including all WotC-D&D games) requires a bit of thought before tinkering with the core concepts. Indeed, I would go so far as to say "More thought than some of those smarter than you game designers put in some of the time."

For instance, I would argue that many of the problems with 3e (that I have, anyway) came from ill-considered changes to the TSR-D&D model. Likewise, the problems I have with 4e come from (what to my mind are) ill-considered changes to the previous WotC-D&D models.

That the 4e model wouldn't solve the 15-minute adventuring day problem, for example, was discussed on EnWorld by myself and others based on the designer blogs. It was obvious (to me) that the designers had mis-identified the source of the problem. There were others (Mutrum_Ridiculy in particular) who demonstrated that the 4e design strategies could work, depending upon how they were implemented.

So, do I accept that game designers are talented? Sure. Some of them are very talented. Do I accept that they are smarter than me, or that they know better what I want in a game? Not remotely. And that isn't ego, either, because I don't accept that they are necessarily smarter than anyone else, either.

But that does lead to an important maxim: If you want to tinker with the rules, broad-based balance games are more likely to suit your purpose than knife-edge balance ones. But, as people like LostSoul and the Jester demonstrate amply, you can tinker with knife-edged games, too, giving them a much wider base to balance on.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

And it would, if that was all that he said. However, the quote that you pulled out ignores the extra context. Someone who's designed a given game has likely spent a fair bit of time and effort doing so and quite likely has some fairly decent reasons for doing whatever it was that they did.

I think these differences represent a shift in the perception of game designers. The tone of the products produced in early era TSR was one of equality. Game designers wrote material for fellow gamers. The tone of the 1E DMG was very much IMHO that of one DM providing useful advice to another. The fact that some DMs decided that it was holy scripture and would go into a fit should its contents not be followed to the letter is not the fault of the work nor the author.

The strong message conveyed with this tone of equality was that although the written products provided valuable content, the spark that makes the game most fun must come from the participants. The designers were smart enough to know that the audience who would enjoy the product would be fairly bright and creative.

The attitude of ' the designers know whats more fun for me than I do' is one I simply don't understand.

I've seen far too many people complain about games because they've made changes without considering why the rule was the way in the first place.

That has been happening forever.