3e, DMs, and Inferred Player Power

[Jackelope King]

Nope...you said that for every good DM, 6 bad DMs exist. Then you only provide 2 examples of bad DMs. Honestly, if you hated those guys, then you should have either quit the groups or offered to run the game yourself. I called BS on your statement and not your experience. 2 bad DMs do not equal a half dozen. You're statement is flawed in that respect.

Would you like me to list the other seven DMs I've played under and then explain to you why only one of them really knew what he was doing? And I would've happily walked out on these guys right away, but in most cases, they had the only game in town at the time. I was fed the line for three years that I couldn't be the DM because I couldn't afford to by the DMG, so I didn't even bother aside from a few on-offs until 3E came out and I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful.

Also, thise thread started with the idea that a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes." I have seen this countless times and seems to be the prevailing attitude with design staff as well.

And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player. Only counting real life experiences just since 3.5 came out, I've probably met about 20 people who have only started playing the game with 3E, and in the games I've played with them, I've never once seen this sort of behavior. I've seen players call their DMs on bad rulings, but even that is really only amplified by the mouthpiece of message boards like these, and I think calling a DM on bad rulings after the session is a good thing, since it encourages the DM to improve his/her arbitration abilities and encourages all the players to gain a firmer grasp on how the game plays.

I recognize that coming from a background with lots of good DMs gives you a different view on things. If you've never had a DM whose solution is to point to his hat that says "DM = God" and then repeat that he said you lost your actions for the round so you lost them, then you probably wouldn't understand why the concept of DM Fiat drove players away from the game. Again, I'm glad you never went through this and you've had many more great DMs than bad ones. But lots of folks aren't so lucky. Just because the DMs you've had have usually been able to toe the line between excellent adjudication and horrible DM Fiat doesn't mean that all of them can.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the goal of a ruleset should be to minimize the disconnect in the shared interface between the members of the group so that the scene the GM describes translates easily and believably to the players, allowing the players to easily assess the situation and make realistic assumptions about the situation to minimize the burden on the DM of adjudicating rules. Ideally, a ruleset should handle as much of that mechanical legwork as possible, minimizing DM judgement calls wherever possible, because these judgement calls are invariably the heart of most disputes at the gaming table. A good DM will, nine times out of ten, have sound judgement and make an excellent call that makes the game better for everyone.

But not every group has a good DM.

 

[Belen]

And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player. Only counting real life experiences just since 3.5 came out, I've probably met about 20 people who have only started playing the game with 3E, and in the games I've played with them, I've never once seen this sort of behavior.

Well, I can say that I have easily met 10 times that many players in my role as a delegate for Wizards of the Coast. This player problem does exist and is tied to the marketing of the game.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the goal of a ruleset should be to minimize the disconnect in the shared interface between the members of the group so that the scene the GM describes translates easily and believably to the players, allowing the players to easily assess the situation and make realistic assumptions about the situation to minimize the burden on the DM of adjudicating rules. Ideally, a ruleset should handle as much of that mechanical legwork as possible, minimizing DM judgement calls wherever possible, because these judgement calls are invariably the heart of most disputes at the gaming table. A good DM will, nine times out of ten, have sound judgement and make an excellent call that makes the game better for everyone.

I agree with much of this statement. However, 3e may have cut down on "common sense" judgement calls, but it has replaced it with an overloaded rules bloat and fueled the problem by "taking the DM out of the equation as much as possible." The large number of conditional mods have had the effect of increasing the disconnect by bringing the mechanics to the forefront. Although this may require a separate thread to really discuss.

The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Re: climbing. I climb fairly regularly. I can walk up to the bottem of a cliff, scan it.. and judge a basic 'ya, I can do that' or 'that looks too difficult for me'...and I admit I am not that good. A 5.7 stresses me, a 5.8 I have yet to beat.
I look for slimy spots, crumbling rock. I know the difference between types of rocks as it applies to climbing quality. I don't know all the pitfalls, nor do I know the rating of the climb... but I know that I should be able to climb your standard medevial brick wall with relative ease.

I would expect the following discourse:

GM: {description of area}
Me: Okay, I want to climb the Brick wall on the right in order to {goal}
GM: Sure.. as you approach the wall you notice that the combination of crumbling stone, vines, and recent rain will make this more difficult.. about at the limit of your ablities.
Me: Eh.. well, since we are in a hurry and need to get over this fast, Mage.. do a burning Hands on this wall to get rid of those vines and dry it up..!
Mage: {arcane invocation} Burn!!!
Me: I would want to spend a minute searching for the best route, but can't waste the time. here I go! {roll roll roll} got a 27 {IC voice} scamble, pant, puff...{pause}
GM: you fall off, the wall suddenly turned slick beneath your fingers..
Me: {IC voice} Aaarrggh.. thud. Thats weird... the wall is keeping me from climbing it..Mage.. you still got that Fly spell?


As opposed to:

GM: {desciption of area}
Me: Okay, I want to climb the Brick wall on the right in order to {goal}
GM: Roll your skill check
Me: {roll roll roll} got a 27! {IC voice} scamble, pant, puff...{pause}
GM: Missed the DC, you fall off..
Me: WTF over? Its a brick wall! I beat the DC by 12!!!

Players don't need to know exact DC's. They need to know that something tangible IC has affected thier ability to accomplish the skill.
As DM, I try give estimates of chances based on the characters skills. In a group, I even go so far as 'this would be to difficult for Vellum to pull of, but Gort has a good chance at it'

A DM stating DC's in play, in my opinion, is asking for meta-gaming from the players.

My favorite player falls into one of two categories:
A> knows the rules and understands the flow of the game is more important that a rules debate
B> Doesn't know the rules and relies on the DM.

Type B is harder to run as you have to explain why thier character, with no points in balance, really should not try the high-wire act over a stream of molten lava.

My most hated player/DM type falls into one category:
C> Beleives they know the rules, or a better rule than the one in the book..when in fact they dont comprehend the rule at all.

These type of players/DM's are the ones that end up in rules debates whenever a ruling is made that inconvienances thier character..and oddly enough never when the ruling is in thier characters favor.

3E provides more rules to players to weild... and whether that player is a Type A or a Type C will depend on how this impacts your game.

Rules are a tool.. more tools are only bad when the tool box falls off the roof when you are walking underneath

{edit}

The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.

Heartily agree... and would put forth that 3E *can* be this system.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Would you like me to list the other seven DMs I've played under and then explain to you why only one of them really knew what he was doing? And I would've happily walked out on these guys right away, but in most cases, they had the only game in town at the time.

So you had seven other bad DMs, for a total of nine, one after the other, all of whom had "the only game in town at the time" and you didn't have the cash to pick up a DMG. Is that about right?

EDIT: Sorry, only 8 bad DMs and one good one. My bad.

I don't know how you feel about Star Trek, but there's a scene in Generations where Data has just has his emotion chip installed and goes down to Ten Forward (a bar).

I paraphrase:

Geordi: "Data, what is it?"
Data: "This drink. I believe it has provoked an emotional response."
Geordi: "What kind?"
Data: "I am not sure."
Guinan: "Well, it looks to me like you hate it."
Data: "Yes! I hate this! I find it totally repulsive!"
Guinan: "More?"
Data: "Please."​

I wonder how many of those nine DMs said to their friends, "I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful." After all, no matter how repulsive you found those experiences, you kept going back, didn't you?

Kinda like deciding that a TV show sucks, but you keep tuning in week after week. Yeah, we all know it happens. But it also makes us wonder if it sucks as badly as you say.

For example, I use a house rule (announced well before hand) that says, if you don't speak up when it's your initiative (because you're involved in a side conversation, for instance) you lose your action. Heck, if you've been busy doing something else so that you hesitate overlong, you lose your action. I am willing to concede that the heroes react faster than the players do within that six-second-per-round framework, but if it clear that you're just now scoping out the situation on the third round on, I won't make everyone else wait for you.

But then, as I am sure anyone can tell you, I am absolutely the worst DM there is.

And I call BS on this, because in my experience on different message boards and in playing with different groups at college, I've never met a single such player.

There are plenty of examples of the a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes." mentality right here on EnWorld. If you like, myself and perhaps some others on this thread, could begin quoting specific posts. However, I doubt that's really necessary, is it?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Two More Judegment Calls

When I was in high school, Lo these many years ago, my friend Keith decided to run White Plume Mountain. One of the encounters takes place in a room with a perilous way across a chasm from which hot mud (or was it lava?) bursts at (ir)regular intervals. My idea was to simply go around the burst area by climbing the walls. Keith said no. He wasn't used to DMing and there was no provision for that sort of tactic in the module.

Did it make him a bad DM? In my eyes, no. I spent about 30 seconds trying to convince him to allow it, then got on with it another way. He was doing his best to make sure everyone was having as much fun as possible, and he wasn't comfortable with making judgement calls yet. That makes him a new DM, not yet a great DM, but also not a bad DM.

Nor was I such a poor player as to suggest that either (a) because of common sense or (b) because of the Climb Walls check on my character sheet that he should change his mind once he'd ruled. Would I have liked another ruling? Yes. Did the rules support another ruling? Yes. Would arguing about it help the game, or help him to grow into his role as DM? No.

And, later, he did become a much better DM.


Last night, I ran a game. I had a PC try to use Disable Device to unlock a door by disabling the lock. I ruled that this would not be the case because Open Locks was a "trained only" skill. The player insisted that opening the lock (a barred double door) would be as simple as putting a wedge between the doors and lifting the bar. I told him that, while it might seem obvious to him, the skill system described what was obvious to his character.

Needless to say, the player wasn't completely happy with this ruling. Does that make me a bad DM?

EDIT: Should have mentioned that the player accepted the ruling nonetheless. He also tried to succeed with the action even after knowing my ruling. It turned out to be entertaining for us all. More importantly, the player didn't whine about not succeeding. We have some good players at my table.​

Should I have said, "Hey, there should always be a chance?"

You can easily predict my answer!


RC

 

[Jackelope King]

Well, I can say that I have easily met 10 times that many players in my role as a delegate for Wizards of the Coast. This player problem does exist and is tied to the marketing of the game.

I think the only way we could really clarify this would be to get some hard data at this point, since it looks like otherwise the only option is oposing experiences until we're blue in the face.

I agree with much of this statement. However, 3e may have cut down on "common sense" judgement calls, but it has replaced it with an overloaded rules bloat and fueled the problem by "taking the DM out of the equation as much as possible." The large number of conditional mods have had the effect of increasing the disconnect by bringing the mechanics to the forefront. Although this may require a separate thread to really discuss.

I tend to disagree with this in my experience. A seperate thread for it would probably be most appropriate. And of course, I also don't think 3E is necessarily the ideal system. It is working towards such a system, but certainly isn't there itself.

The best system, would seem, to be a strong rules set and a strong DM.

Strong ruleset, but good DM, not a strong DM. A strong DM implies that players are comparitively weak and their perspective unimportant.

So you had seven other bad DMs, for a total of nine, one after the other, all of whom had "the only game in town at the time" and you didn't have the cash to pick up a DMG. Is that about right?

EDIT: Sorry, only 8 bad DMs and one good one. My bad.

Believe it or not, this was over the stretch of 2-3 years, not all at once. These experiences were largely month-long endeavors every weekend at the comic book store. They might've lasted longer, but they usually ended in either a TPK because the DM got frustrated with the players or a good number of the players walked out on the DM. The only ongoing campaign I was in was with one DM who we played with because he was a friend. And to be perfectly fair, I did lead the last three of those exoduses (exodusi?). I didn't feel comfortable doing so at first because, like I said, it was walking away from the only game in town. We usually went for dry-stretches of some three months looking for other people who were willing to run games at the store and trying to organize a time to get together at the comic book shop. For us, walking away from one of these games would be like walking away from a Hawaiian vacation gone awry... we'd worked so hard to get the game together in the first place that we didn't think we should give up on the game so easily.

I don't know how you feel about Star Trek...

Well, my roommate last year considered it a fine way to torture me by putting on TNG DVDs, so...

I wonder how many of those nine DMs said to their friends, "I organized a group from scratch, which has proven very successful." After all, no matter how repulsive you found those experiences, you kept going back, didn't you?

Kinda like deciding that a TV show sucks, but you keep tuning in week after week. Yeah, we all know it happens. But it also makes us wonder if it sucks as badly as you say.

It's not like I had much of an alternative. Had I sat in one group while two more were in the area I could've tried, yeah, I'd agree with you. But as I said, I didn't have the luxury.

For example, I use a house rule (announced well before hand) that says, if you don't speak up when it's your initiative (because you're involved in a side conversation, for instance) you lose your action. Heck, if you've been busy doing something else so that you hesitate overlong, you lose your action. I am willing to concede that the heroes react faster than the players do within that six-second-per-round framework, but if it clear that you're just now scoping out the situation on the third round on, I won't make everyone else wait for you.

And I said I wouldn't have any problem with such a rule. I would have a problem if the DM decided to impliment the rule on me out of the blue after we'd been playing a slower approach to combat, however.

There are plenty of examples of the a DM can say "no" to a player and not violate any sort of unwritten rule. 3e players tend to expect that the answer to anything is "yes." mentality right here on EnWorld. If you like, myself and perhaps some others on this thread, could begin quoting specific posts. However, I doubt that's really necessary, is it?

I think that in this thread in particular, people have said that they don't think the answer should always be, "Yes," or, "Alright, you do it." It should usually be, "Alright, let's see what the dice say," unless it's totally off the wall (i.e. clearly doesn't fit with the group's play style). Players should, in general, be given the opportunity to try an action. A DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise." You seem to suggest that this mentality leads to players thinking they can ignore the DM or trump the DM with the rules in the book, but in most cases the only time such an argument comes up is when the DM clearly and arbitrarily ignores the rules with little or no justification. There's a difference between a player thinking, "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me," and a player thinking, "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

In short, I think a better name for this topic would be "3E and DM Accountability". A consistent ruleset makes a DM accountable to the players for his rulings. Such a thing only exists when a player can compare the DMs ruling to a consistent ruleset.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that in this thread in particular, people have said that they don't think the answer should always be, "Yes," or, "Alright, you do it." It should usually be, "Alright, let's see what the dice say," unless it's totally off the wall (i.e. clearly doesn't fit with the group's play style). Players should, in general, be given the opportunity to try an action. A DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise." You seem to suggest that this mentality leads to players thinking they can ignore the DM or trump the DM with the rules in the book, but in most cases the only time such an argument comes up is when the DM clearly and arbitrarily ignores the rules with little or no justification. There's a difference between a player thinking, "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me," and a player thinking, "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

First off, let me commisserate with you on a run of truly bad luck. Unfortunate that you couldn't just (say) get your own DMG, or go read a book or something. I haven't been in a situation where I was forced to torture myself weekly in the name of friendship. (Daily, in the name of relationship, yes, but not in the D&D sense .)

I agree that the DM shouldn't live by the rule, "No unless I say otherwise" about PC actions. About PC racial choices, class choices, feat choices, etc., especially when culled from non-Core books, though....."No unless I say otherwise" is the only sane policy. Every campaign should have an approved "Yes" list, even if only part of the core RAW. No DM is ever required to allow anything off that "Yes" list without careful review and consideration beforehand.

I think, actually, that you and I would probably agree on that. This is no different than the DM introducing a complicated houserule mid-play. Bad form, you know, simply not done.

(Note, however, that I said "complicated." I think it's perfectly fair to introduce a house rule mid-play, especially if it's simple and the PCs are allowed to decide their actions with the house rule taken into account. Note that I do not mean a house rule designed to nerf a PC's ability, or to force the PCs to follow the DM's plan. I mean a house rule designed to quickly handle a problem that comes up in play, is easy to understand, and moves the game forward.

EDIT: I have even had players suggest quick, usable house rules to deal with an unusual situation; if they seemed reasonable, we used them.)

Oddly enough, I have encountered "I'll just do X and to heck with the DM if he thinks he can stop me." Very short lived. I could, indeed, stop the player.

The problem is actually somewhere in "I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

First off, let's imagine that X is taking a level in a specific prestige class. At the end of one session, the PCs gain enough XP to level. The PC in question decides to take a level in a prestige class from Sandstorm, which the DM does not have, and has not approved. He doesn't mention it right away. Halfway through the session, however, he does something that gives the DM pause and suddenly the DM learns that the PC has taken the prestige class.

Suddenly the entire group has to stop while either (a) the PC adjusts his character or (b) the DM reviews the prestige class. Of course, the DM can just keep going blind, and house rule anything that seems like it needs to be house ruled as it comes up. "You have what ability? No. It doesn't function. Should have talked to me first."

"I'll just do X...."

Now the PC is arguing. He should be able to do this thing. It's part of his class. How dare the DM introduce a rule mid-game that nerfs his ability. "...and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why...."

The DM says that he hasn't had the opportunity to examine the prestige class, doesn't own the book it comes from, and hasn't approved it. The player points out that it is a WotC book, and that he meets all the prerequisites. He spent good money on the book, it's balanced because it's from WotC, and it's not so hard to look up the rules mid-play. "....even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

No one would make this mistake in my game twice.

Now, imagine instead that X is trying to climb a wall. You have a good Strength and lots of ranks in the skill. It seems to be a normal wall. Wondering why you can't at least try to climb it seems to be sensible.

"I'll just do X, and if the DM says I can't, I'll ask why even though I have all the abilities I'd need to do it."

In one situation, an unreasonable expectation. In another situation, a perfectly reasonable expectation.

Now, there might be an in-game reason why your character can't make the attempt. The wall might have some form of repulsion effect that you are being affected by. That might be a clue that the wall is important, and that you should be trying to dispel the effect.

Or it could just be that the DM is a dink.

Now, DMs are (as you have indicated) a bit harder to find as players. As a result, they deserve a small amount of additional lenience. But, if this was the kind of call the DM continually made, and there was no other game in town...

....I would still politely leave the group.

There are too many good books for me to waste my time playing in bad games.

3.X makes DMs no more or less accountable than they ever were. Accountability doesn't come from a ruleset. Accountability is now, as it always was, a vote with the door.


RC


P.S.: Player accountability is the same. A vote with the door. In this case, however, final accountability is the DM showing the player where it is.

 

[LostSoul]

Last night, I ran a game. I had a PC try to use Disable Device to unlock a door by disabling the lock. I ruled that this would not be the case because Open Locks was a "trained only" skill.

You told your character that he had to use Open Locks on a door without a lock? Or am I just missing it?

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Jackelope King.... you had a group of people looking for a game..and refer to that as a 'dry spell'?

Honestly, if I had the desire to, I would have to work really hard at finding any sympathy for your prediciment.

Eh.. I have had a game looking for people... *that* is a dry spell. The only thing stopping your group from gaming was a lack of someones desire to run the show... and if the group would regularly frustrate DM's.. I can appreciate why that lack of desire is evident.

A strong DM implies that players are comparitively weak and their perspective unimportant.

Implies to who?
To me it implies a DM who is confident in his/her rulings and is willing to step on mid-combat rules debates with a sledgehammer in order to keep the game going.
One who is capable of admitting their lack of knowledge and accepting input from the players.

Appearances based on your posts look very like antagonistic attitude towards DM/player relationships. Players and DM's need not be 'compared' and rules should not be about 'DM Accountablity'
They should be cooperative in thier seperate roles of character actor and world creator.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I doubt we would find many posters on this board who are actually competative with their DMs. Any style can look competative on the outside looking in. I see DMs overruling the established rules of the game as more competative than DMs and Players both following the rules that they've agreed to beforehand, but that doesn't mean that it is true. You can see Players pointing out the rules to DMs as competative because you do not believe that is the provence of the Player, but that doesnt' make it true either.

I would be very surprised if anyone posting in this thread has actually antagonized their Players or DM. Argued, sure. Complained about, yeah. But, I doubt anyone actually sees D&D as any kind of competition between the DM and Players.

So, while people may throw around words like antagonizing, I think what they really mean is "not my style."