Bad DMs/GMs

[Nagol]

I am going to call bull on this. With that kind of logic you should never have house rules in a game with newbies because then they might expected all games to be run like that.

I have had newbies come to my table who tried the game before and hated it because it was not fun because their experience had been one of frustration. They couldn't accomplish anything because they didn't have the skills the the DM thought they needed. Five minutes into combat they died and then got to sit and watch others play.

With newbies I think it is more important to make those first sessions fun for them.

Ahem. I deliberately called out that there is no need to run through minutae in the same frakking post.

I'm not saying he should have exhaustively identified every variation he was going to use to a group without the background to understand the implications, either. Saying something along the lines of "Since you're new to this and this is going to be only a single session, it's going to be a lot more dramatic and action-filled than typical. OK?" probably would be enough to alert them that what they are experiencing is somewhat abnormal and give them some say if they want something else from the experience or further clarification.

If large structural elements are being changed, the group should be informed that what they're playing is outside the normal course for the game so as to make an informed decision to play and so as to make an informed impression around what was played after the fact. At a one-off game, a new player should be confronted with items that substantially and materially affect game play overall so he can be informed choices as to sensible alternatives in the game world.

At a continuing campaign, all players regardless of past experience should be presented with a list of house rules so they can understand where variances will occur. Does this mean new players and experienced players will face exactly the same hurdles and level of difficulty in the game world? That depends on the social contract at the table.

 

[Elf Witch]

Ahem. I deliberately called out that there is no need to run through minutae in the same frakking post.





If large structural elements are being changed, the group should be informed that what they're playing is outside the normal course for the game so as to make an informed decision to play and so as to make an informed impression around what was played after the fact. At a one-off game, a new player should be confronted with items that substantially and materially affect game play overall so he can be informed choices as to sensible alternatives in the game world.

At a continuing campaign, all players regardless of past experience should be presented with a list of house rules so they can understand where variances will occur. Does this mean new players and experienced players will face exactly the same hurdles and level of difficulty in the game world? That depends on the social contract at the table.

Yes you should explain that with experienced players it is part of the communication between player and DM on what style of game is going to be run.

And yes newbies should know that this is a house rule as opposed to RAW rule.

But does a newbie really need to have explained to him that you on the fly behind the screen did not actually give your npc hit points you just judged when it would be cool for the pc to kill them or you really rolled max damage and killed their pc in one blow but said you only rolled X amount.

 

[The Shaman]

The dice rolled in combat are of minimal importance if the underlying mechanics like hit points exist only at the whim of the referee.

All other action resolution systems, like detecting secrets, skill use, etc. were adjudicated by whim.

But all that is secondary.

The players may or may not have any expectations about how the game is played. The play provided did not match the default play of the game as expressed by the rules. If they did have any expectations -- say one read a book in advance or had a friend who played for example, those expectations were misled. The DM did not make it known to the group that the skill selections were meaningless. He did not make it known to the group that all actions were going to be resolved using a dramatic lens as opposed to the rules ostensibly in use. In fact, Bullgrit took great pains to "roll a lot of dice for everything", but then ignored their input. A fraud, pretty much by definition, doesn't have the acceptance of the victims.

If I offer you X and provide you with Y, you may like Y and may in fact prefer my substitution over the original offer. It is fradulent of me to make the offer of X and then give you Y while telling you it's X.

This behaviour hurts newbies more than those experienced as this becomes their point of reference for gaming experience. And it is based on a lie. Those dice I just rolled? Ignored. The hit you just made on the monster? Killed it because I thought it would be dramatically satisfying. The ingenious plan you can up with? Worked regardless of character talent. That treasure you found? There because I thought you wanted it.

All of the above if fine in a game so long as the participants understand that is how the game works. It is wrong in a game where the default understanding works differently without some agreement to the changes.

Worth repeating.

 

[Nagol]

Yes you should explain that with experienced players it is part of the communication between player and DM on what style of game is going to be run.

And yes newbies should know that this is a house rule as opposed to RAW rule.

But does a newbie really need to have explained to him that you on the fly behind the screen did not actually give your npc hit points you just judged when it would be cool for the pc to kill them or you really rolled max damage and killed their pc in one blow but said you only rolled X amount.

Yes, for a few reasons -- especially because of the out-of-combat rather than the in-combat changes.

1) If they have an AWESOME time and decide to join a different group, they will immediately find their first experience does not match the play of the second group. Without an understanding of the parameters, they are as likely as not to conclude that the second DM sucks compared to the first.

2) There is a subset of players that like their in-game accomplishments came because they are just that awesome at playing. Giving that group of players auto-win buttons undermines their enjoyment and they feel cheated if they figure it out. (I'm one of these).

3) It builds common expectations around what is possible and what is likely inside the game. In an dramatic game, the PC may be able to jump 25 feet to clear the chasm as the behir charges close behind him. A player may not expect that such a feat is even possible and won't try the stunt. In fact, if the player has any inkling about the default assumptions, he may play much more cautiously than his compatriots because he doesn't understand the normal failure chances have been waived. The cautious character is effectively being punished for the player having expectations.

3) If they talk to someone else who has played the game under the default expectations, there will be a disconnect. Neither will nuderstand why their experiences are so different.

 

[The Shaman]

I most likely would not because I don't enjoy a game where you die because the DM screwed up . . .

And I don't enjoy a game where my character dies because the referee decided it was 'dramatically appropriate' to the 'story.'

. . . or it is just a stupid random encounter . . .

I can't speak to anyone else's campaigns, but in my games there are no "stupid random encounters." Random encounters are the expression of the living setting, and should be treated as such by the players and their characters.

. . . and you are rolling badly and the DM is rolling great.

It's a game. Luck happens.

It is so much fun to die on a meaningless encounter and now you get to sit for hours at the table because there is no way to get your character raised or bring in a new one.

That's crappy game management by the referee.

I don't play hack and slash I actually put a lot of thought in my character . . .

Letting the dice fall where they may doesn't make a game "hack and slash," nor does it preclude putting thought into your character.

. . . and while there have been times I have chosen to sacrifice my character for the party or in a big encounter I have died, dying a lot is not fun for me.

The fact that characters in roll-in-the-open games don't necessarily die "a lot" suggests that this is a player problem, not a rules problem.

Players whose characters die "a lot" in games without fudging, in my experience, may be poor tactical and strategic thinkers, or they may have a poor grasp of the game-genre.

The other players put a lot of thought in their characters as well and want a lot of role playing . . .

I "want a lot of role playing," too, and I don't need my character protected from the dice to do it, or get it from the players in the games I run.

This whole, "But we're SERIOUS roleplayers!" thing is incredibly tiresome.

. . . so they just don't have the mind set hey you look trust worthy join us. So if a character dies and does not get resurrected then the DM works with everyone to bring in a new character. It is not something done on the fly.

Bringing in a character on the fly doesn't need to involve 'insta-trust.'

Now I might consider playing in a roll in the open if there are things in place to help prevent death like action points or healing surges.

I've got no problem with this.

Also I need to know that the DM is willing to fix it if he is the one who screwed up the encounter.

I tend to design encounters such that there is an advantage to capturing the adventurers rather than killing them - ransom and slavery tend to be big in my game-worlds - or, in the case of predators, killing one character leads to trying to drag away a meal rather than killing the rest of the party.

Then again, I couldn't really give a red piss if encounters are balanced or not; if the adventurers are in over their heads, then they need to run like death was nipping at their heels, 'cause it probably is.

We also use the screen to hide certain rolls like spot checks, find traps, sense motive. In our games the DM rolls these not the players. We have found it adds to the game not to know if the reason you didn't spot a trap was because there is not one or you only rolled a 1.

I can completely understand this, but there are also other ways to maintain the 'fog of war' so that rolling behind a screen isn't necessary.

 

[The Shaman]

Maybe I missed something in Bullgrit's post, but where is the evidence he did something that the group did not agree was acceptable?

The group was never given the opportunity to agree or disagree - that's the issue.

Ignorance may be bliss, but playing on someone's ignorance is sketchy. I don't believe the ends justify the means.

It's not enough to say that everyone agreed to play D&D, and hence any departure from the rules of D&D is a breach of the social contract.

I think if the players wanted to play D&D, then they reasonably expected to play D&D, not whatever [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] decided was appropriate in the moment.

On the assumption that the new players don't actually know what the rules of D&D are, then those rules don't form part of the social contract, and aren't something that they have agreed to.

Wow, pem, I couldn't agree even a scintilla less with that.

Nor are they something that they have dissented from. Presumably they have no view.

They have no view because they were not told that the game they were playing was quite different from the game they thought they were playing, the game they were told they were playing.

We must simply agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

Players whose characters die "a lot" in games without fudging, in my experience, may be poor tactical and strategic thinkers, or they may have a poor grasp of the game-genre.

I've seen a couple of other reasons for common death in addition to the ones above.
Players that don't care if they die or not; they love the stories they get when they improbably win.
Players that have different expectations as to the DM's role ("The DM would never throw a lich at us at this level! It must be an illusion or trick!" or "The DM won't kill us here! We're so close to the final confrontation!")


With regard to non-fudging and character death, I just wrapped my 7 year D&D campaign that went from 1st to 19th level.

Of the six players:
1 player had a single character and did not die once.
1 player had a single character and suffered a single death.
1 player had 2 characters and suffered a single death.
1 player had 2.5 characters (first replacement didn't work out after the first session of its play and was promptly retired so I'm counting it as a half) and suffered 3 deaths.
1 player had 4 characters and suffered 3 deaths.
1 player had 6 characters and suffered 6 deaths.

 

[Elf Witch]

And I don't enjoy a game where my character dies because the referee decided it was 'dramatically appropriate' to the 'story.'

I can't speak to anyone else's campaigns, but in my games there are no "stupid random encounters." Random encounters are the expression of the living setting, and should be treated as such by the players and their characters.It's a game. Luck happens.That's crappy game management by the referee.

Letting the dice fall where they may doesn't make a game "hack and slash," nor does it preclude putting thought into your character.The fact that characters in roll-in-the-open games don't necessarily die "a lot" suggests that this is a player problem, not a rules problem.

Players whose characters die "a lot" in games without fudging, in my experience, may be poor tactical and strategic thinkers, or they may have a poor grasp of the game-genre.

I "want a lot of role playing," too, and I don't need my character protected from the dice to do it, or get it from the players in the games I run.

This whole, "But we're SERIOUS roleplayers!" thing is incredibly tiresome.Bringing in a character on the fly doesn't need to involve 'insta-trust.'I've got no problem with this.I tend to design encounters such that there is an advantage to capturing the adventurers rather than killing them - ransom and slavery tend to be big in my game-worlds - or, in the case of predators, killing one character leads to trying to drag away a meal rather than killing the rest of the party.

Then again, I couldn't really give a red piss if encounters are balanced or not; if the adventurers are in over their heads, then they need to run like death was nipping at their heels, 'cause it probably is.I can completely understand this, but there are also other ways to maintain the 'fog of war' so that rolling behind a screen isn't necessary.

First of all I never said that fudging to kill a character is right. I would never do that as a DM. Well here is a clarification I once as part of the story killed the PCs in a massive earthquake that destroyed their city. But they woke up on their god's plane of existence and were recruited for a war between the god and his enemy. They didn't lose a level or XP or really suffer any penalty.

I don't save a PC for story reasons (unless it is to stop a TPK) or to railroad a plot. But as I have said before I have fudged when I made a mistake or when I can see that having their PC killed is not going to be fun for the player like the one who had just had it raised. My players have told me they don't want to play in a game where a TPK can happen.

I have played in a lot of games with random encounters where the DM just rolls them on a table. I lost my first PC to a random encounter ten minutes after I started my first game. The DM rolled on a table and the first level party got strafed by a red dragon. I still don't think that was a fun encounter and is why I would never use a table.

If it is part of the plot then it is not a random encounter.

I never said that letting the dice fall where they may is always a hack and slash campaign but I have mainly encountered it with games that are more beer and pretzels and less story. A TPK in my experience can end a story campaign very fast especially if there is no way to raise any of the party. So since I want a heavy story campaign I try and avoid TPKs. But I am sure there are people who play story games without screens and people who play hack and slash with screens. One thing I never assume is that my way is the only way to play.

Some players make bad decisions and get there PCs killed but I have seen players make all the right decisions and still have their PCs die because of the dice. The player I mentioned who had her character die and then be raised to die again if I hadn't fudged didn't do anything strategically bad. The first time she got hit by a fireball and failed her save and took massive damage followed by being critted by a raging barbarian. And then no one could get to her to stabilize her and she could not make the roll to stabilize herself. The second time she almost died was because of failing a save for for being paralyzed by undead then being hit by spell. When I rolled the damage for the spell I realized it would kill her outright and I could see how unhappy she was so I did less damage and brought her to 1 hit point instead.

I am not sure what you are trying to say with the serious roleplayer line. Yes my group are what you would call serious role players I guess because we like story continuity and things to happen for a reason as part of a plot. When a new PC comes in we want more than you look trustworthy join us.That does not mean we expect to have plot immunity and never die or have bad things happen to our characters.

I run an organic world and my players know that there are things that are to powerful for them. So they know that there are things that sometimes they need to run from. That is not the same things as an encounter that you build for them to actually fight and then find out that it is to much of a challenge for them. When I DM I use verbal clues to help them know this. I also answer questions on knowledge rolls so they have some idea about what they are facing. I made huge mistake in a published encounter I ran once that had a lot of undead in it and the party didn't have a cleric. I should have adjusted it for that. And by the time I realized what was going on they couldn't run. So I fudged some things on the fly I brought down how many hit points the undead had and I saved the one PC.

 

[pemerton]

The dice rolled in combat are of minimal importance if the underlying mechanics like hit points exist only at the whim of the referee.

But that's not what Bullgrit said.

There was some discussion of this upthread, including the relationship between tweaking hit points and deciding that an NPC flees or surrenders. These sorts of decisions don't make the dice rolled of minimal importance.

Also, for all we know, by changing hit points for "drama and excitement" Bullgrit meant that, when the PCs were winning a combat and delivered a hit that left a monster standing with 1 hp, Bullgrit treated the hit as a kill instead. This is not an uncommon practice - although it's not one I used - and it doesn't render the dice rolled in combat "of minimal impotance".

If I offer you X and provide you with Y, you may like Y and may in fact prefer my substitution over the original offer. It is fradulent of me to make the offer of X and then give you Y while telling you it's X.

But an offer to GM a game of D&D is obviously not equivalent to an offer to run a game of Gygaxian/Pulsiferian D&D.

I mean, the most common versions of D&D currently played, as far as I can tell, are Pathfinder and 4e. Many Pathfinder players play adventure paths, which is not Gygaxian/Pulsiferian play. I think that many 4e players also play the game in a non-Gygaxian fashion. Indeed, in light of the DMG and DMG 2 for 4e, I think the default style for 4e is, if anything, closer to how Bullgrit ran his game than to the Gygaxian/Pulsiferian version.

And "playing D&D" has never meant, by default, playing Gygaxian/Pulsiferian D&D. The game has been played in myriad styles ever since its publication.

If they have an AWESOME time and decide to join a different group, they will immediately find their first experience does not match the play of the second group. Without an understanding of the parameters, they are as likely as not to conclude that the second DM sucks compared to the first.

And what would be wrong with that?

There is a subset of players that like their in-game accomplishments came because they are just that awesome at playing. Giving that group of players auto-win buttons undermines their enjoyment and they feel cheated if they figure it out. (I'm one of these).

And equally there are players who have ZERO interest in Gygaxian/Pulsiferian play. I am one of those. Maybe Bullgrit's players were also among those.

Just because people agree to play D&D, does not mean that they have agreed to play Gygaxian D&D.

In an dramatic game, the PC may be able to jump 25 feet to clear the chasm as the behir charges close behind him. A player may not expect that such a feat is even possible and won't try the stunt. In fact, if the player has any inkling about the default assumptions, he may play much more cautiously than his compatriots because he doesn't understand the normal failure chances have been waived. The cautious character is effectively being punished for the player having expectations.

And vice versa for the dramatic player in a Gygaxian game. In the absence of any actual evidence that any of Bullgrit's actual players were "punished" in this way, what excatly is the problem?

If they talk to someone else who has played the game under the default expectations, there will be a disconnect. Neither will nuderstand why their experiences are so different.

Well, that happens every day on this messageboard. I've been told, for example, that because I run a game influenced by th GMing style of games like BW and HQ, and (in general approach if not particular tone) by Forge contributers like Vinent Baker and Paul Czege, that I'm not playing a "real" RPG, or that I'm storytelling rather than gaming, or that I'm running a railroad (which is a characerisation of my game that I regard as absurd).

I'm not obliged to run my game according to Gygaxian precepts just so that others, who aren't familiar with a broader range of RPG styles, can understand my experience, or my players' experiences. One of my players, who has only ever played in my game, has expressed surprise when I've told him that some posters on ENworld think it is inappropriat for players to have the narrative authority to specify features of the gameworld that pertain to their PCs. But he's never suggested that I've done him a disservice by giving him a play experience that differs from some hypothesised ENworld "default".

I think all of the above applies, mutatis mutandis, to Bullgrit and Bullgrit's players.

 

[kitsune9]

I know I've ranted this in other threads, so here's my list of "bad DM". Before I get into the list is that it's really more about personal taste than true attributes of what makes for a bad DM. There are many players who actually quite enjoy the play styles that would make me want to go to prison for capital murder. Ultimately, if your players are having fun at your games, then whatever you're doing makes you a "good DM".

1. Lack of preparation. I don't like DM's who make up adventures from pulling them out of their butt. Too many situations of where the game gets bogged down to negotiating for customizing armor, exploring a dungeon with no monsters, DM doesn't want to run combats, and adventures have no plot and everything about the campaign is completely random or nonsensical.

2. "Fast and loose". DM doesn't want to play the RAW game because he's wants to do things fast and loose which means he's been too lazy to sit down and read the rulebook to learn how to play the game. DM's like this make erratic judgment calls, every decision the player wants to make is not confidently judged by the mechanics because he has to run it by the DM first to see if the action is allowable at the moment before determining if a die will be needed for success. My example for this was at a con game where the admitted he skimmed the rules (i.e. he didn't read a word). When a combat broke out, he said the monsters were going first (there was no suprise, he just said they were). He called out segments (we were playing 3.0), and he didn't allow a player's sneak attack, flanking, no AoO's, and multiple attacks.

3. Kewl Homebrew Rulz. Every DM flirts with some form of homebrew rules. I like to create some very campaign specific ones myself to add to the tone and flavor of the game, but they are very very few and mostly minor. But I won't rewrite Pathfinder. I played in two different games where one DM essentially rewrote how combat works in D&D and claimed that these rules "should be in the next edition". He even called his ruleset "Rules That Don't Suck!" They did. Another DM was a lady who basically created her own fantasy rpg; however, the rules were a confusing mishmash of poorly written English and incomplete concepts. What was sad about that game was this lady was represented all three points here. Yuck.