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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, that other quote did confirm what I expressed exactly, didn't it?

[...]

As far as I can tell, if you change a rule, then "I dislike X" is hand in hand with "I prefer Y." Which was what I was trying to point out. Simply getting rid of a rule can be justified as "I dislike X." However, if you're going to change the rule, then "I prefer Y" is pretty much ingrained into the reasoning just as much as "I dislike X" is.

Which is why I was saying that it's basically impossible to find "I dislike X" as the sole reasoning when changing a rule.

Actually, I'd argue that insisting that "I dislike X" and "I prefer Y" are separate enough to count as different "valid reasons" is completely missing the point to the point of pedantry.

 

[Krensky]

I always stop to think about things before making a moderate or large change. It's not that I think that the designers are smarter or better then me. Rather, I think they typically have a better grasp of why that particular rule or system is the way it is then I do.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Actually, I'd argue that insisting that "I dislike X" and "I prefer Y" are separate enough to count as different "valid reasons" is completely missing the point to the point of pedantry.

Actually, in my first post (the one you originally replied to), I made no mention of semantics. I lumped those two reasons together. I'll quote myself (and add some emphasis):

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 lumped "I dislike X" and "I like Y more" into one category: preference. I did not separate them. When you replied to this, you said "Sounds to me like you've found a better reason than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described.""

In reality, I had lumped "I dislike X" and "I like Y more" into one category. It was your quote, above, that initially separated the two (as I don't see how my comment about enjoyment is any different from preference). When you did, I replied by saying that if you really want to separate them, then the initial quote that I responded to had little meaning (which is why I hadn't done so myself).

I've tried not to argue semantics on this. I also feel that this discussion has become pretty unproductive. I'm open to changing it, but as still feel like everything I've said stands against what you've written. I'm sure you feel likewise. On that note, I think I'll bow out of this before it turns into an argument, rather than a discussion. The last word on the matter is yours.

Sorry if this derailed the thread too much. Lots of good tips here, for all sorts of GMs. My suggestion: pick and choose the suggestions found here that you like, and ignore the rest. Play what you like

 

[wayne62682]

My problem is I've met way too many DMs who had their own views of how the rules "should" work and would houserule things left and right for no good reason, and half the time they ignored any consequences of NOT following the books. Magic items in 4e (well, pre-Essentials since I think they changed it now) for instance, or on the spot saying that Power X doesn't work against Creature Y for no reason other than their own lack of imagination as to HOW it actually works against Creature Y, so instead of come up with a reason to explain it's "That's stupid and unrealistic, it doesn't work that way in MY game"

Anyways, enough of the derailment due to my post And apologies if I actually offended anyone

 

[Raven Crowking]

So...why should they listen to this rule then?

I know you thought that you were being funny here, but the answer ought to be obvious: They should listen to this rule only if they find it useful.


RC

 

[Dannager]

My problem is I've met way too many DMs who had their own views of how the rules "should" work and would houserule things left and right for no good reason, and half the time they ignored any consequences of NOT following the books. Magic items in 4e (well, pre-Essentials since I think they changed it now) for instance, or on the spot saying that Power X doesn't work against Creature Y for no reason other than their own lack of imagination as to HOW it actually works against Creature Y, so instead of come up with a reason to explain it's "That's stupid and unrealistic, it doesn't work that way in MY game"

I've met too many DMs who exactly as you describe above: "That's dumb/I don't like it, I'm changing it," and then become frustrated when their knee-jerk houserule proves totally broken/disruptive/worthless. Well, yeah, if you don't stop to consider a rule before you implement it, you'll run into problems! That ought to go without saying! This isn't Calvinball.

 

[jdrakeh]

Remember that you're playing a game. Everybody is there to have fun. If you're putting anything ahead of that that, you can pretty much be guaranteed that your game will fail.

 

[Horatio]

Enjoy it.
(Because bored GM is a game's ultimate bane)

 

[Hussar]

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.



That has been happening forever.

Wait, what? Earlier games where I was told if I don't follow the letter of the rules I'm not playing the game the way it's intended? Those games? Where you had the creator of the game, not once, but repeatedly stating that changing rules, and not playing the official game was wrong?

That book?

 

[Hussar]

/Begin Derailment

It's funny how we're not supposed to take game designers at their word because they don't know how their game might work at a specific table.

But, bring up the idea that an author doesn't hold final say on how a work is "supposed" to be interpretted and watch what happens.

/end derailment.