D&D General Fighting Law and Order

[bloodtide]

Personally, I don't think the DM should be a fan* of the characters and at the same time don't think the DM should be a fan of their opponents either. The DM instead should be neutral, as should any referee.

* - where "fan" means active cheering supporter of, as would be a fan of a sports team or an entertainer.

When I see a DM being a "fan" of the Players, I see most DM alter the game reality in the players favor. The DM wants the players to have easy no effort fun, the DM wants the players to feel cool with no effort, and wants the players to "win the game".

This is exactly what this group is made for: they just stumble, bumble, trip and laugh their way around doing nothing. And that is where the DM Fan, what I call the Buddy DM, steps in to make everything right.

OK, this is a hugely important piece of information here: the players - or one of them, anyway - shot first.

This is another key piece of info: there was a scripted escape already in place.

I'm starting to think the players - intentionally or otherwise - kinda messed up on this, and made a bed for themselves they'd later have to lay in. Fair enough. Run with it. But run with it at least somewhat logically, an umbrella under which teleporting in jumped-up alt-clones of the PCs to smack them down very much does not fall.

Right, I only have the DMs notes on this part of the adventure. I don't even have the adventure. But notes are never complete. And I don't know the players at all.

I'm sure if their DM was running it, he would have "plot armored" the plot so the players would not mess it up. I know the DM would have stopped the warlock player with a "Wait, Bob, you don't want to kill the helper guard guy. He is going to lead you guys out of the jail, yuck yuck". And then Player Bob would say "Oh, ok, thanks Buddy DM. My warlock does NOT kill the guard guy...yuck yuck yuck". I'm sure this sort of thing would happen every couple of minutes during their game.

And it's not like the DMs notes had 'side notes' saying 'don't forget to make sure the crazy, murderhobo players don't kill the guard guy'.

And I'm not a Buddy DM.

 

[Oofta]

I was not speaking of any specific DM. I was speaking of the argument--made repeatedly in this thread and elsewhere--that the DM always has, and should have, "absolute" and "unilateral" power. Those words have been used repeatedly and very intentionally, and when asked if people really do mean "absolute" and "unilateral," several folks (IIRC including you) have explicitly said yes, that is exactly what they mean. For the DM's power to be "absolute" and "unilateral," the players have three options: learn to like anything which might bother them, be silent about their concerns, or drop the nuclear option and leave the table. Those are the only player responses when the DM's power is "absolute" and "unilateral."

Why does the DM need "absolute" and "unilateral" power? Why is it the only acceptable state of affairs is one that DEMANDS players put up, shut up, or nuke from orbit?


Then you must have completely misread what I said, because I have made clear, in this thread and others, that I don't run games for evil PCs.

Would be incredibly weird to be condescending to MYSELF.


No. I'm saying that FOR GOD'S SAKE, there must be SOMETHING we can do that is better than "players must put up, shut up, or drop a nuke from orbit" with regard to this stuff!

There must be something else we can do to address actually realistic, rather than farcical, questionable player requests or (mis)behaviors that doesn't give absolute, perfect, 100%, unlimited and unconstrained support to DM questionable requests or (mis)behaviors, such that the only player responses are meek submission, festering silence, or explosive separation.

Again with the "absolute" and "unilateral" in scare quotes. Yes, I think the DM is by default the arbiter of the rules and owner of world information. Why? Because it's worked well for me for going on half a century now. It's what I prefer as a DM and player. I don't see any reason to change it no matter how scary you make it sound.

Could it change? Sure. It would also likely morph into I would enjoy less. Your personal preference isn't the truth handed down from on high. But I just don't get the hyperbole here. EVEN WHEN YOU CAPITALIZE I see nothing wrong with the DM having the final say, even if I disagree. If someone misbehaves I'll talk to them. If that doesn't solve the issue we'll boot them. There is no "meek submission", no "festering silence". I've had exactly one person decide to no longer play in my game because they wanted to play an evil PC. We talked about it at the end of the campaign, wished him luck like reasonable adults.

No matter how much you want to conflate DM authority with this unconstrained support, explosive separations or any other foul behavior on part of the DM there just is no correlation. If someone has an issue with my ruling during the game we'll discuss it briefly but I'll make a call and we'll discuss it further after the game is over. Just because the DM makes the final call, it doesn't mean we can treat each other with respect.

 

[Mort]

When I see a DM being a "fan" of the Players, I see most DM alter the game reality in the players favor. The DM wants the players to have easy no effort fun, the DM wants the players to feel cool with no effort, and wants the players to "win the game".

This is exactly what this group is made for: they just stumble, bumble, trip and laugh their way around doing nothing. And that is where the DM Fan, what I call the Buddy DM, steps in to make everything right.

That's not what "being a fan of the characters..." means at all. Being a fan of the characters means ensuring that there is plenty of interesting stuff for the characters to do, that outcomes whether success or failure are interesting. That the PCs feel like protagonists (not necessarily heroes btw) and not the sidekicks in the story. That their actions have meaning in at least some way (rather than them just wandering around not actually affecting the state of anything at all). That sort of thing.

 

[Oofta]

That's not what "being a fan of the characters..." means at all. Being a fan of the characters means ensuring that there is plenty of interesting stuff for the characters to do, that outcomes whether success or failure are interesting. That the PCs feel like protagonists (not necessarily heroes btw) and not the sidekicks in the story. That their actions have meaning in at least some way (rather than them just wandering around not actually affecting the state of anything at all). That sort of thing.

One of the issues I have with DW is the language used. It's not plain English and words are seemingly redefined in a way that people who don't know the "true" meaning of the word being used. It makes it hard to have a conversation. It's everything from "moves" being used instead of "what does your character do". Or take the use of "fronts". As opposed to "backs"? I assume there's some reason the verbiage is used but it's pretty head scratching and a barrier to conversation when people insist on using it on a forum not dedicated to games that use the terminology.

 

[Faolyn]

I see what you're saying and recognize the difference between player and character, but my take on it is that what happens in character stays in character - you can play the biggest jerkface of a character the world has ever known but that doesn't have to reflect on you-as-its-player provided you-as-player aren't a jerk when out of character.

Except there's a big difference between playing a jerkface and being someone who is actually disruptive.

In a D&D game I'm in, I'm playing a chaotic neutral rogue. She sometimes does very... stupid things at time. The bad guy is escaping, I run off after them (he escaped). I blew up a hovel (rolled a 1 to check for traps on the lockbox we found, without proficiency in Investigation or a positive Int modifier--she's a swashbuckler, not a thief--and if she weren't a tiefling she would have died from the fire damage) and when the neighbors came to investigate, I blamed the wizards in the nearby tower of mages for carelessness, encouraged the poverty-stricken people of the community to overthrow these bastards that don't care who gets caught up in their magical experimentation (nat 20 on a Persuasion check, with a ginormous Charisma and skill bonus), and started a district-wide riot. We were looking for a magical ruby, I saw a glittery red thing at the bottom of a well, and dove right in--and immediately started taking cold and poison damage, because I hadn't tested the (poisonous, freezing) water or bothered to wait to try a different method; nearly died from that as well. In a massive combat against some slavers, despite having some amazing stealth rolls, I decided to sneak around and release the slaves before sneak-attacking the slavers because my character decided that would be the more logical thing to do. I willingly told the creepy ghost-fey thing my true name (and nearly died from that as well). When the party's cleric chastises me for my recklessness, I apologize and try to behave, at least until my character gets another whim in her head.

But what I don't do are things to hurt the other PCs. I don't do "lolrandom" junk to be annoying. I don't try to deliberately mess up adventure--I even double-check with the DM that I'm not going too far (I'm not; they love how I'm willing to bite the more out-there plot hooks). And I don't engage in activities that break the table's rules or deliberately ignore anyone's lines or veils, such as, y'know, burtally murdering everyone who looks at me funny. In other words, my character may be a bit of a jerk, but I am not disruptive to the game. I try to make sure my chaos moves the game along, or at least doesn't hinder it.

And likewise, if the table's rules are "don't be evil" (for whatever definition of evil that table uses), then having your character engage in evil actions is disruptive to the game.

And quite frankly, if someone is being deliberately disruptive to the game or to the players, then they aren't that wonderful in real life. They're people who don't mind ruining other peoples' fun.

 

[Mort]

One of the issues I have with DW is the language used. It's not plain English and words are seemingly redefined in a way that people who don't know the "true" meaning of the word being used. It makes it hard to have a conversation. It's everything from "moves" being used instead of "what does your character do". Or take the use of "fronts". As opposed to "backs"? I assume there's some reason the verbiage is used but it's pretty head scratching and a barrier to conversation when people insist on using it on a forum not dedicated to games that use the terminology.

Yeah, it's one reason the Forge always irritated me. Jargon CAN be used beneficially but there it always seemed like it was used as an exclusionary tool.

 

[FrozenNorth]

i think your post accidentally shifted from "how would rules have helped the situation described by OP" to "what would a good DMG look like" right around here, and i'm not entirely sure that's the worst thing that could've happened to it.

Definitely seems like you are one of those radicals that thinks that the primary purpose of the DMG should be to teach new DMs how to run a game.

 

[Faolyn]

Based on observations, whenever a DM says 'No Evil PCs' they mean one of three things:

1) I don't actually have any consideration toward morality and actually just mean 'disruptive', following a woefully lacking social shorthand that will eventually lead to my game being disrupted by non-evil disruptions like lawful stupid and making sure no one gets to play more nuanced 'evil' that wouldn't be disruptive.

2) I do have a consideration about morality and assume everyone follows my morality, which will end up disrupting the game when I discover otherwise and can't handle it. There's also a good chance some of my 'good' can easily be read as nuanced evil.

3) I aggressively have a consideration toward morality and know that not everyone follows my morality. I will therefore use the word 'evil' as a cudgel against those people until they at least ct that way I expect them to in game. This will probably end up disrupting my game because my 'good' is almost certainly disruptive.

Or, you know, you could ask @Oofta directly instead of making assumptions.

Because there's also

4) There are things I disallow at my table, such as rape, murdering children, torture. Those things aren't fun for me or the other players. If you do one of those things, you won't be welcome to game with us.

 

[Oofta]

Or, you know, you could ask @Oofta directly instead of making assumptions.

Because there's also

4) There are things I disallow at my table, such as rape, murdering children, torture. Those things aren't fun for me or the other players. If you do one of those things, you won't be welcome to game with us.

You're quoting someone who blocked me so don't expect them to follow up on your suggestion anytime soon.

 

[Composer99]

But on the flip side, if the players legitimately think they can kill who they want with impunity…that subtracts from the immersion of a believable world. In a believable world actions do have consequences, and if the PCs need to learn that lesson so be it.

Here I should point out that (a) this requires the table writ large valuing immersion in a world they reckon to be believable as an end of their gameplay, and even if they do, (b) in the real world (which I hope qualifies as "believable"), actions that might be or are usually reckoned as evil often have no meaningful "consequences", or at least nothing resembling "bad things happening to the perpetrators".

Unless you're LARPing, there's a huge difference between behavior at the table and behavior in the fiction.

One has limits via social norms, laws of the land, personal preferences/tastes, and so on.

The other largely does not.

There is, in fact, no such thing as "behaviour in the fiction" at all. All that is, is players or DMs announcing what fictional characters are doing in the fiction and the rest of the table accepting that as true within the fiction.

As long as the results of those announcements - whatever they may be - contribute to creating an enjoyable gameplay experience by the lights of the participants at any given table, well and good.

If someone announces a going-on in the fiction that disrupts the enjoyable gameplay experience for the players at the table, then there is a problem.

For instance, supposing I'm running a game and have a player who is deathly afraid of snakes, to the point where the mere mention of them causes severe anxiety in that player. Knowing of the phobia and then announcing in the fiction that an NPC has, say, a pet snake that they keep curled around their arm would be an uncivil and discourteous behaviour, and could not be justified by appeal to a supposed separation of fiction and reality.