Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[RedTonic]

I agree that reflection (by which I don't mean navel-gazing) is an important part of improvement. I would be surprised if anyone here who has GMed thinks they're extracting the maximum possible fun juice from gaming, period, or there wouldn't be so much energy devoted to playing with new rulesets, tinkering with old ones, RBDM roundtables, discussion about campaign and adventure structure, etc.

I personally learn best by the "see an example, do it yourself, teach it to someone else" method, and I view most endeavors as ongoing education. I think that's probably the natural result of being a student for almost my entire life by this point.

I appreciate players who have patience with me and are willing to discuss decisions with me outside of the actual session (I really don't like having my "flow" disrupted with lengthy rules discussions). I really like it when my players will offer me plot hooks, tell me what they're enjoying, tell me what they could live without, and what they think could be better (and how). I find that getting that type of feedback is pretty difficult, but I don't know if that's an overall issue for DMs or if it's just specific to me/my group.

I also have a lot of respect for DMs who accept and solicit this type of interaction from players. I've seen some truly cool things come of it.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

Guys...it seems a lot of folks are getting hung up on the snake thing as an "either/or" thing. Now, I don't play (and have never played) 4e, so I'm not sure how all the new kids are doing it, but back in my day (re: 30+ years ago), the DM was there to *adjudicate* situations. If he was lucky, it was a simple yes/no decisions. Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...and in that case, it's not a yes/no decision. As a DM I was forced to think about the situation, then using my experience and expertise in the rules system come up with a likelihood of success.

So, with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that". It was the DM's job to look at what the players were trying to have their characters do, then look at how they perposed to do it, and then filter that through the available rules in order to come up with a chance of success or a, sall I say, "compromise". The trick was to be neutral, fair and consistant. In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal.

For all those DM younglings out there...that's called "adjudicating".

Anyway, that's my 2¢ worth of wisdom blather.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Raven Crowking]

This seems to me to beg the question. Knocking a snake prone doesn't clash with the fiction - it just requires a little more work for everyone at the table to work out exactly what the content of the fiction is.

Of course, that depends upon what the fiction is, and it seems a bit difficult for some folks to realize that others might be participating in a different fiction than the one they prefer. Others find that "little" more work to be disruptive of immersion. And, if immersion is one of your goals, better that the GM rules and the game moves on.

I'm not sure which side of the debate this comment is meant to support, but I want to reiterate - in 4e, using a power is, in part, spending a Fate Point. It is shifting narrative control from GM to player. That is part of the game rules.

That contention seems in conflict with the bit you quoted about the DM being allowed to change the outcome of die rolls and interpret the rules. Indeed, it seems to be in conflict with any passage in the RAW which states that the DM can disallow a power if he feels it doesn't make sense.

Back when, when the complaint was that 4e removed quite a bit of DM power to run a game, these sections were pointed out vehemently by some of the same people wanting to minimize their impact now.

Sorry, it may be a "Fate Point" at your table; it is not so at all tables. And, if a DM chooses not to treat powers as "Fate Points", that does not making her a bad DM!

This really shows many styles exist - as long as the players and the DM are happy - that's what really counts.

Exactly!



RC

 

[TheUltramark]

Any player badass enough to punch a snake in front of me gets a free pass for something, thats for sure.

I'm suprised you wouldnt take evidence of your own eyes for prrof it could be done though. Stubborn to the point of ignoring reality isn't the trait imo.

again - for the eleventeenth million time...a punch knocks the snake prone.

at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt. If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike. If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.

 

[The Shaman]

Alas, players (well, at least in my day) were a crafty bunch, and would find the most unusual ways to use a rope, a grappling hook, a block of cheese and a 7' ladder to open a stuck door...

Our group used the cheese to grease the rope before running it through the rungs of the ladder.

Unfortunately the smell of melted cheese attracted a wandering monster who promptly turned us into nachos.

After that my characters started carrying a bottle of EVOO instead.

So, with regards to knocking a snake prone, the DM's job wasn't just to veto player ideas "just because the rules don't cover it" or becaus the "rules don't say that". It was the DM's job to look at what the players were trying to have their characters do, then look at how they perposed to do it, and then filter that through the available rules in order to come up with a chance of success or a, sall I say, "compromise". The trick was to be neutral, fair and consistant. In the case of the snake/prone thing, perhaps I'd let the PC 'knock the snake around' in such a way that it becomes somewhat disoriented, granting the 'prone' adjustments, but also rule that the snake doesn't have to take time to 'stand up' from a prone position, so as soon as the characters attack is over, the snake is back to normal.

For all those DM younglings out there...that's called "adjudicating".

Could someone please spread an XP for me?

The best thing about that ruling is that it's one which can be applied consistently to similar instances in the future.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Not only no, but HELL NO. The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.

The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out. I certainly do or I wouldn't do it. (Also DMing 4th is a lot less work than previous editions).

But seriously I get the most out when everybody is engaged and having fun. Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.

 

[Fifth Element]

5th - You can pull up nature channel videos, cite zoological papers, even do an actual demonstration, I will NEVER say it is possible for a punch to knock a snake prone.

Are you actually saying that even if someone were to prove to you that a snake can be knocked prone in real life with a punch, you would still not allow it at your table? Or are you being less literal than you seem?

 

[Fifth Element]

at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt. If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike. If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.

Okay - so as long as the player is careful in what he says, then you have no problem with it? The mechanics don't change, but the player, before making the attack roll, describes it as an attempt to flip the snake violently over. It's alright for a snake to be prone then?

Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the mechanics of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.

 

[Fifth Element]

But seriously I get the most out when everybody is engaged and having fun. Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.

Agreed. DMing is a responsibility that you take on voluntarily. If you are more concerned with your own fun, you probably shouldn't be DMing.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out. I certainly do or I wouldn't do it. (Also DMing 4th is a lot less work than previous editions).

Then I guess you're not making "sacrifices that make it less fun" for you? You seem to be agreeing with The Shaman here, but I am not 100% certain?


RC