D&D General DM's: How transparent are you with game mechanics "in world?"

[Maxperson]

But how do you get those potions of Tiger Blood? Aren't they Rare?

Nah! The Tiger King is in prison. I know right where to go.

 

[Helldritch]

Isn't it almost always about winning after the first few pages?

Yes, and no...

I firmly believed in the standard array. Yet, in a post, Maxperson shared with US his asymetrical rolling method of 2x 5d6, 2x 4d6 and 2x 3d6. His explanation on why and how he and his group came to this method was, enlightening and made me reconsider standard array enough to talk about it with some of my players. We might use that in our next campaign.

So after a few pages, it might be because you might find a nice gem of inspiration in all the argumentation we see.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Changing our perspective on what it means to be a DM. Stop calling them "Masters", stop treating them like they are smarter, wiser, more creative and all the rest than the players. Acknowledge that the game involves multiple parties, and multiple voices, and all of them should be heard and considered.

No one is treating DMs as "smarter, wiser, more creative". That is nonsense. Although, I would say that the DM should at least get credit for stepping up and putting in the time to run the game. Don't conflate that commitment with being "smarter, wiser, more creative" though.

Your posts all seem to share a theme of dreading the abusive DM and somehow wanting to blame the game for it. I truly am sorry you've had bad luck with these kinds of DMs but it is certainly not the game's fault.

In 5e, the designers deliberately moved away from creating rules to curb abuses on both the DM and players side. Mainly, doing so simplifies game play for the vast majority of tables where people are gathered together for good faith play. Secondly, there is no perfect rule set that can curb abuses. Jerk DMs and players will always find a way. The solution lies not with the rules but with the social contract. Don't play with jerks. Maybe that's an oversimplification but it really can be that simple. No gaming is better than bad gaming -- a mantra I've seen on these forums before.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

So after a few pages, it might be because you might find a nice gem of inspiration in all the argumentation we see.

100% this.
My main reason for being here is to glean insight to improve play at our table and then share things that work for us in an effort to pay it forward.

 

[Lanefan]

Why do you need to draw a strict line between a Mind Flayer and an NPC.

The line is between species that are PC-playable and species that are not. If a species is PC-playable then it naturally follows that any member of that species has the potential to become a PC; and because any member of that species has that potential they all need to be "designed" the same in the setting, without regard to whether that potential is ever followed through on or not.

I agree, that's not good. However, it has happened to me, and a bit of talk with the DM usually smoothed that over. We even had that one DM in Runequest who had to ensure that nothing bad happened to his girlfriend, otherwise the campaign would come to an end. He discussed that openly with us, and it was really not a problem, we gamed happily for many years and we actually played around the concept of fate and luck (Important Runes in Runequest). And of course, the girlfriend was in on the "secret" and played along nicely. Lots of extremely good memories, actually.

The power trip is a bit more delicate, but if it's a long campaign, just talk to the DM. Happened to me once, had discussions amongst the players, then with the DM, problem solved, no need for a horror story.

And honestly, even if you lose one evening to someone running a really poor game, what of it ? Just don't do it again.

One night is no problem. But we do multi-year campaigns, and this was to be one (and became one, though half of us left not long in).

That girlfriend example you gave - I'd walk out on that game right quick (or, far more likely, get voted out; as it'd be a her-or-me choice). Even if done well, as it seems to have been here, it's still non-negotiably unacceptable in my eyes.

And then again, how much was his responsibility and how much the players' for behaving that way with him ? If it caused a problem for them, why did they behave that way ? Actually, in this case, the victim was the DM, not the players. Because I've seen too many cases of people pressured into being the DM because the alphas of the group just wanted to play their own power trip. So where is the horror story there, exactly ?

I'm not denying the DM was the victim. What I'm saying is that players are always going to push the envelope even just that little bit and if the DM can't or won't push back then DMing probably isn't their thing.

[skipping the balance discussion as that could very easily be its own thread - again... ]

I'll stop you right here. Again, why ? What if some elves worship a different power ? Or made a pact with a different power ? Or found a different magic item ? Or simply have different skills and abilities and interests, in a magical world where power abound.

Exactly like on earth, some humans become karate champions and other couch potatoes. Should we all have karate power as part of our species?

Nothing wrong with any of that provided the PC Elves have the potential to do it too. The thing is, if those potentials exist then for game-based reasons they need to be written into the racial write-up for Elves so players know what their options are.

Same with real-world people - we don't all end up with karate power but we pretty much all have the potential for it.

We have very different concepts about design here, one of my (engineering) principles is that over-design is bad, costs too much time and effort and is usually unnecessary. Just design what you need when you need it, it will also avoid burnout.

There's a few problems with the design-on-the-fly method in a game context:

--- if something character-based is designed two years into the campaign to suit a player's concept, other players would have a fully valid complaint that this same option wasn't available sooner, when they rolled up their characters. Having all the options in place before the campaign begins takes care of this.
--- when designing on the fly, rather than all at once ahead of time, it's far more difficult to avoid conflicts - every new thing has to be vetted to ensure it meshes with what's already in place.
--- changing things on the fly risks invalidating play from before the change was made, or making something that was once possible in the setting impossible. I personally detest this sort of thing; if a DM wants to make big changes like this she should start a new campaign in a new setting where things work differently. (I'm in this boat right now: I've some rather sweeping rule changes I'd like to make - or try out - in my game but to do so I'd need to start a new campaign/setting; yet my current campaign has years of potential left in it which I don't want to waste)

 

[Helldritch]

@Lanefan , wow. That is a long campaign and congratulations for that. Personnaly I prefer shorter campaigns along the year or year and a half. This allows us to try new rules and new options. Our goal is the same though. We do not want people to create new characters with options that were not available to the original characters.

 

[Chaosmancer]

It's utterly impossible to avoid abuse. Abuse will always be possible and with bad DMs that abuse will happen no matter what you do.

Okay, but is it utterly impossible to give DMs ultimate authority to abuse? They may abuse no matter what, but abusing limited authority is necessarily less harmful than abusing ultimate and unlimited authority.

Again, because obviously I must repeat myself ad nausem, I'm not saying that changing things will remove all abuse ever and make everyone perfect. What I am saying is that the current system combined with this cultural climate of idolizing and lionizing the DM invites more abuse than I think is warranted, and there seems to be no reason not to change things to limit abuse.

Because no DM who isn't a bad one will ever do it, so it's an irrelevant thing. It's just like the hammer being used to bash someone's head in. Only murderers and attempted murderers will ever do it, so we don't need to redesign the hammer to account for it. So long as there's a consequence like players leaving the game, we don't need to worry about bad DMs and their abuse of good tools.

"Only bad people will abuse it" is a terrible design principle. You can't redesign a hammer to allow it to perform its function without including ways to bash people's heads in. Hammers are too simple. But you can redesign table saws to cut wood and metal, but not flesh. You can also redesign DnD to allow for DMs to continue doing their jobs, but without giving them the authority to use weighted dice if they feel like it.

And the only recourse player's have, the only tool in their arsenal, is leaving the game and looking for a DM who isn't abusing their powers. Perhaps we can redesign the game to give the players more options. But I think the worst thing is to just shrug and say that we can do nothing to improve. We can always improve.

This is a nothing burger. Again, ONLY bad DMs will abuse it and they will abuse the players no matter what you do, so we don't need to consider any changes.

Oh good God! The word master is far less of a nothing burger than the authority is.

The rules give absolute authority. If no rules are changed, the DM still has absolute authority.

Correct. They completely ignored the bad DM, because it's a nothing burger.

I disagree. It isn't "nothing" it is something. Just saying "only bad people do bad things, so we need to change nothing" is ignoring the problem, sticking your fingers in your ears, and singing loudly.

Again, shockingly, no other gaming community I am aware of has this level of problem with DM abuse, where people will tell me that the rules perfectly allow the DM to use weighted dice or anything else they feel like, and if the players don't like it they should just leave. Part of it are these "rules" being too broadly interpretted it, and part of it is this culture where we place all of the expectations of good behavior on the players.

It's called gameplay and learning the rules. If he's simply making mistakes and not on a power trip(being a bad DM), then when people talk to him about what they like and don't like, he will listen.

But according to your philosophy, he can't be making mistakes. Everything he does is by the rules, and 100% right. No matter what.

Sure, maybe he will listen, but he might feel he did nothing wrong. And then come to these forums and be told constantly that he did nothing wrong, that it was the players who are complaining and whining that are wrong. And that leads to an increased likelihood of DM Power Trips and arrogance, because nothing causes arrogance more consistently than the belief that you can do no wrong.

They are very rare. That's only 14 out of 10,000 people. I think you have a very skewed idea of what rare is.

No, I just have a different view on what true rarity is. If I can nearly guarantee that every person will meet 10 people with Down's in their life, then meeting a person with Down's isn't that rare. It is uncommon, but since they are so consistently around, it isn't rare. Most people will likely go their entire lives without meeting someone who is Amish. That is rare.

Since most people playing DnD have had at least one Bad DM, I don't consider them to be as rare as you think,.

He told you what he had encountered. To express doubt that he knows what he is talking about is exactly what you complained to me for doing to you.

Did he tell me? Or did I misremember? I didn't go sifting through conversations, so I hedged on my memory being potentially poor. Or him saying "rarely" instead of "never". I wasn't expressing doubt at him experiencing what he experienced, I was expressing doubt over if I was correct in claiming what he experienced. Which I suppose was a mistake. I should have just declared myself an expert on his experiences and that my memory is flawless.

This is what you do best. Twist my words. Here's my quote and you can tell me where I claimed you called him a liar.

Oh, I'm sorry, you only claimed that I "implied" he was a liar. While Lyxen just blatantly started accusing me of calling him a liar.

Now that that is settled and your honor is restored for only claiming that I called someone a liar when all I did was not claim I knew their life perfectly, how about we focus on the thing you do best, deflecting from my point. Because you still haven't addressed my actual words and the actual thing I said in this post.

2) I'm glad you've discussed with people, but since you quit at least one game, it seems my gut that you might have had a "Bad DM" once in multiple decades of play wasn't too far off. I'm glad that you ended up feeling like the DM wasn't abusing their power over the game and you two just had different aesthetic tastes, but it also shows it was a good thing I didn't make a sweeping statement about your expeirences... oh wait, "that I called you a liar". Which I didn't.

See, because you are claiming I assumed they were a bad DM. But, yet again, you are wrong. See, for example, when you look at the bolded you will see this line " I'm glad that you ended up feeling like the DM wasn't abusing their power over the game and you two just had different aesthetic tastes" which is me acknowledging that Lyxen feels the person was not a bad DM. I also didn't say that my gut reaction was right, but that it "wasn't too far off." It was off, he didn't have a Bad DM, but he did have a game that he left due to irreconcilable differences leading to an unfun experience. Something I would have guessed from his previous posts he had never experienced. I would have been wrong, which is why I "called him a liar" AKA didn't assume I knew every detail of his gaming career, and hedged that I was likely wrong in my sweeping assumption.

All of which you followed up, by claiming I assumed it was a bad DM... which I explicitly did not. So, again, if you can't be bothered to read my posts, then don't respond. I don't feel like wasting time repeating what I actually said while you engage with your strawmen.

 

[jasper]

New names for Dungeon Master
Dungeon Guru
Rules Guru
Game producer
Game director
The B**** who we led play the monsters
Dungeon Dude
Dude
The wimp we bully when the game does not go our way.
Person to be Wedgie
They who should not be obeyed.
The Person we really need.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, and no...

I firmly believed in the standard array. Yet, in a post, Maxperson shared with US his asymetrical rolling method of 2x 5d6, 2x 4d6 and 2x 3d6. His explanation on why and how he and his group came to this method was, enlightening and made me reconsider standard array enough to talk about it with some of my players. We might use that in our next campaign.

So after a few pages, it might be because you might find a nice gem of inspiration in all the argumentation we see.

Which is why I said almost always.

Occasionally there's interesting stuff.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay, but is it utterly impossible to give DMs ultimate authority to abuse? They may abuse no matter what, but abusing limited authority is necessarily less harmful than abusing ultimate and unlimited authority.

No it's not. Those kinds of DMs will break the rules and change things anyway. The abuses will be about the same with the same result. Lost players.

Again, because obviously I must repeat myself ad nausem, I'm not saying that changing things will remove all abuse ever and make everyone perfect. What I am saying is that the current system combined with this cultural climate of idolizing and lionizing the DM invites more abuse than I think is warranted, and there seems to be no reason not to change things to limit abuse.

Except that it doesn't. The number of abusers doesn't change, because the vast majority of us aren't douches and aren't going to abuse the game regardless, and the few that are will do it regardless of any limitations.

"Only bad people will abuse it" is a terrible design principle. You can't redesign a hammer to allow it to perform its function without including ways to bash people's heads in. Hammers are too simple.

You can't redesign RPGs for that, either.

But you can redesign table saws to cut wood and metal, but not flesh. You can also redesign DnD to allow for DMs to continue doing their jobs, but without giving them the authority to use weighted dice if they feel like it.

Bad DMs will still use weighted dice(modifying that saw so it cuts flesh anyway). Non-bad DMs would never have used weighted dice in the first place, so you're attempting to fix a problem that isn't fixable, nor even really much of a problem. Just leave the game and have fun with someone else.

And the only recourse player's have, the only tool in their arsenal, is leaving the game and looking for a DM who isn't abusing their powers. Perhaps we can redesign the game to give the players more options. But I think the worst thing is to just shrug and say that we can do nothing to improve. We can always improve.

Nope. It's impossible to redesign the game in that manner. Even if you put into the rules that the players can outvote the DM, a bad DM will just ignore that rule and push on. The only real recourse for a bad DM is leaving the game and getting another DM.

Again, shockingly, no other gaming community I am aware of has this level of problem with DM abuse, where people will tell me that the rules perfectly allow the DM to use weighted dice or anything else they feel like, and if the players don't like it they should just leave. Part of it are these "rules" being too broadly interpretted it, and part of it is this culture where we place all of the expectations of good behavior on the players.

I've had bad GM experiences with both Vampire the Masquerade and Exalted. This is not a D&D specific thing and I sincerely doubt it happens in any lower percentage of games with other game systems. You just hear less about it, because far fewer people play those systems.

But according to your philosophy, he can't be making mistakes. Everything he does is by the rules, and 100% right. No matter what.

Utterly wrong, but understanding me(and others from what I can see) isn't your strong suit.

Sure, maybe he will listen, but he might feel he did nothing wrong. And then come to these forums and be told constantly that he did nothing wrong, that it was the players who are complaining and whining that are wrong. And that leads to an increased likelihood of DM Power Trips and arrogance, because nothing causes arrogance more consistently than the belief that you can do no wrong.

Maybe you're new here, but I've been present on this site for years and you will be told(in some manner) that you did something wrong with just about any position you take.

No, I just have a different view on what true rarity is. If I can nearly guarantee that every person will meet 10 people with Down's in their life, then meeting a person with Down's isn't that rare. It is uncommon, but since they are so consistently around, it isn't rare. Most people will likely go their entire lives without meeting someone who is Amish. That is rare.

Since most people playing DnD have had at least one Bad DM, I don't consider them to be as rare as you think,.

No. It's rare regardless of your opinion. All rare means is that it doesn't occur very often. You seem to want it to mean unique or almost never found. It doesn't mean that.

Oh, I'm sorry, you only claimed that I "implied" he was a liar. While Lyxen just blatantly started accusing me of calling him a liar.

Wrong again! I never said that you implied that he was a liar. I said straight out that you did what I did, which was accuse him of being mistaken. That's it.

He has accused you of saying he was a liar. I don't agree with that. You just called him mistaken about things he experienced with his life and you did not.