Has the DM fallen from grace?

[ForeverSlayer]

As I look back through the different editions I am seeing the job of the DM starting to change and actually decrease. I remember when the DM used to be the judge that each player trusted to run and judge the game to the best of his/her ability. Now I am seeing the DM turn into more of the driver of the game. Pretty much the game is changing it to where the DM just tells the story and controls the monsters.

I have heard lots of player's talking about how they don't trust their DM and it's like the game is being made to where the DM really doesn't have to make too many decisions and just focus on controlling the monsters.

I remember when DM and player trust was very important, but now I am not seeing that. I know there are plenty of groups where the player's fully trust their DM's, I know we do, but I just see the game now become more about the player's than the DM.

 

[delericho]

A lot of it is down to a loss of trust - there genuinely were a lot of DMs out there who abused the power that the system gave them, to the detriment of the group as a whole. By moving a lot of that power to the player's side, WotC have gone some way towards 'protecting' the players from those bad DMs.

Another factor is that much of the mystique associated with the DM is gone. The days when the rules were mostly found in the DMG are long gone (and rightly so). As the players get a greater understanding of the nuts and bolts of the game (and especially as the game engine becomes more formalised, so there's less need for extensive house rules), there has inevitably been something of a shift.

And, bluntly, some of it was a deliberate ploy by WotC to sell books. They realised early on that there were many more players than DMs, so that was the bigger market. But if the DM had carte blanche to disallow anything from the game, this would discourage purchases. So, they did a certain amount of work inculcating an attitude that the DM should let the player bring in the latest supplement, that the player should be able to expect to play a Shardmind, and that the DM would make it work. The ultimate manifestation of this, of course, is "everything is core".

Ultimately, though, it only goes so far. The DM is still necessary, unless you're just going to run pre-gen adventures in a truly robotic manner. The DM still has the mandate to create the setting and the adventures, and to throw absurdly over-powered encounters at the PCs if that is his wont. Ultimately, there still has to be trust between the players and the DM, or the group has real problems.

 

[FireLance]

Well yeah, it's natural selection. If you didn't have at least a halfway decent DM, you wouldn't even be here today. You would have quit the game in frustration halfway through the campaign.

That, plus I think that there's been a general decrease in trust of authority figures all around. Everyone wants checks and balances to prevent abuse of authority these days, and gaming is no different.

The good news is, nobody but the gaming group can actually enforce limits on the DM's authority. If the DM has earned enough trust from the players, then they should be willing to let him run the game however he wants.

But, you know, the DM actually has to earn that trust and respect first. Kids these days, expecting everybody to do what they say just because they've got some fancy title. I remember in my day *grumble grumble* ...

 

[NMcCoy]

Almost invariably, through all the systems and campaigns that I've played, the DMs that had the most trust from the players were the ones that gave the most narrative authority to the players. The game /is/ about the players, or at least the PCs. The best campaign I ever played in (with the DM I trusted the most) built the plot around the PCs backstories and the narrative directions the players wanted to take with them. The worst one was one where the PCs were basically extras in the grand plot the DM had prepared in advance. A good DM facilitates the players creating an awesome story, rather than telling a story to them.

This goes for mediation of rules as well: "My jumping isn't much good - can I try a wall-run to make it over the pit instead?"
"Absolutely! You'll fall in if you fail, of course - hard Acrobatics DC." gets a lot more trust from the players than "What? No, the rules say you have to use Athletics for jumping."

 

[Mengu]

There are three aspects to trusting the DM.

First, as far as the story and direction goes, I find that two way trust drives the story the best. As player I trust the DM has some direction in mind, and I do try to figure out and follow that direction. As DM I trust the players, in that they are not there to screw the game, they are doing the best they can with the material I'm presenting. I think there is a general lack of trust in both directions for most games. Sadly, some of that mistrust is deservedly so.

Second, as far as rules arbitration goes, trusting the DM only goes so far as their experience. I trust the most rules savvy person at the table, whether that's the DM or a player is immaterial. Occasionally, DM's are the least experienced in the rules department. Many of course acknowledge this and trust their rules guru. But blindly insistent "because I say so" DM's aren't doing themselves any favors.

Third, As far as encounter design goes, the players have to trust the DM is not out to kill them. This intention is usually there. But a lack of system mastery can lead to some very poor and unfun encounter design. I consider myself an experienced DM, and I have most certainly made mistakes in encounter design, even recently. It's a tough job, and when there are players at the table, who can see the poor design, it becomes hard for those players to trust the DM or enjoy the encounter.

The third factor I think is the one that's most often discussed, and complained about. Facing a pair of level+5 soldiers with permanent concealment, that you have to get through to reach the artillery that move-attack-moves in and out of LoS can be frustrating. Monsters that push+daze+prone at-will or insubstantial monsters that weaken are again going to be a drag to fight. The way a DM designs encounters I think has the largest impact on the trust level of the group, at least it seems so in internet discussions. It's a fragile and difficult balance. The DM needs to challenge the players, but not frustrate them. The players probably need a slightly more flexible attitude toward their predicament. Being pushed, dazed, and prone is not too bad, when you are a dwarf with resilient focus and superior will, so, you get over it. Insubstantial weakening monsters can be dealt with if you can exploit their vulnerability, and shake off weaken with an item or utility, and use your interrupts to make them miss.

In general, most DM's could use a bit more education in system mastery, and most players could use a bit of an attitude adjustment to deal with their challenges.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I think it depends on the group and the DM. I think my players generally trust me to run a fair game - I've been frustrated by poor dice rolling many a time. I've been quite exasperated several times when my supposedly tough bad guy rolls a 2, 4 or 6 on one of his big attack powers and then ends up getting hit by a crit and dropped in round 2...

I think they generally trust me to be fair to them in game in terms of encounters as well - while I give them tough encounters, they're the "Bruce Willis/Die Hard" encounters where they get beaten up, bloodied and smashed around, but they manage to eke out a victory in the end (I was quite good at that in 3.5E - still working on it in 4E). I'm not going to send a pit fiend at them now while they're at level 7. (That said, I did warn them recently via a cakewalk encounter at level 6 to show them how much they had grown in power since level 1. I said that I could do the opposite in the future...however, if I ran a level 15+ encounter at them when they were level 8, I would likely give them an "out" somehow so it would not be a TPK.)

However, I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and was mostly a DM, except for a period between 1998-2003 or so. I've always been more of a story driver than a judge as a DM, anyhow. So, it hasn't really been a big change for me.

 

[OnlineDM]

I'm pretty sure my players trust me when I'm in the DM chair. For my long-running campaign I have veto power over choices the players make (powers, equipment) and they've been fine with that because I rarely exercise that power, and only in cases where they've agreed that their choices were overpowered.

And I haven't had any issues of distrusting any of the DMs I play with. If they make a ruling, I've almost always found it to be fair and sensible, and things roll merrily along.

 

[D'karr]

Pretty much the game is changing it to where the DM just tells the story and controls the monsters.

If only that were true we'd be out of a job.

DMing continues to be the reason why the game thrives. No DMs, no game.

IME the pendulum has swung back towards providing the DM good tools to do his job, more efficiently, more fun, and with more panache.

Can't agree with your premise. I think DMs are being elevated, by better tools.

 

[malraux]

The skill of being a game designer/rules creator does not nessisarily overlap with the skills of running a game or telling a good story. The reason a lot of DMs were not trusted is that they were not good rules designers. Separating the two is a really good thing, IMO.

 

[NewJeffCT]

If only that were true we'd be out of a job.

DMing continues to be the reason why the game thrives. No DMs, no game.

IME the pendulum has swung back towards providing the DM good tools to do his job, more efficiently, more fun, and with more panache.

Can't agree with your premise. I think DMs are being elevated, by better tools.

good point - I think making monsters easier to run in 4E has allowed me, as DM, to work more on the story in-game, creating better NPC personalities, etc. In my previous campaign, I spent so much time building encounters that I had no spare time to give the NPCs a personality and do more than loosely string the encounters together.