Bad DMs/GMs

[pemerton]

Once you accept that it is all illusionism

Why would I accept that?

 

[S'mon]

I picked up the absence of illusionism. I missed the hit point fudging, but am not 100% sure whether it's objectionable or not. Bullgrit could easily have decided instead that the monsters surrender, and this would produce an outcome similar to the hit point fudging. But not identical - the players would now have the surrendered foes to negotiate with - and maybe that's enough to show that the hit point fudging is objectionable.

A losing monster may - usually should, IMO - flee or surrender, at GM's judgement. A winning monster should not; that is bad fudging, akin to lowering hp totals.

 

[JamesonCourage]

And just to prove that I don't agree with The Shaman on everything - unless I missed something, you ([MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION]) didn't cheat - as in, you didn't actually disregard any dice actually rolled as part of action resolution.

Although I rolled a lot of dice for everything, I ignored the results and went with what I thought would be most dramatic and fun for the boys at that moment.

It looks like he did indeed disregard dice rolled as part of action resolution. Either that, or there's no such thing as action resolution when he needs to roll dice, and the dice are for show. As of that point, I'm not sure if I think The Shaman is far off when he says that Bullgrit is telling a story. An interactive story, yes, but he's definitely not following rules based on the dice according to his story, as far as I can tell.

 

[The Shaman]

And just to prove that I don't agree with The Shaman on everything - unless I missed something, you ([MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION]) didn't cheat - as in, you didn't actually disregard any dice actually rolled as part of action resolution.

Just for the record, I was merely quoting [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] there.

In running this session, I cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly. (Emphasis added - TS)

And while some games to provide mechanics for exactly the sort of narrative control you're describing, it's disingenuous and, in my opinion, more than a little dishonest, to introduce them ad hoc into a game which doesn't explicitly include them, particularly without the players' knowledge upfront.

Put another way, I don't want to be playing AD&D on our side of the screen while the referee is playing Dogs in the Vineyard on his side.

That seems like basic social contract stuff to me.

 

[Neonchameleon]

A losing monster may - usually should, IMO - flee or surrender, at GM's judgement. A winning monster should not; that is bad fudging, akin to lowering hp totals.

I've had a monster who was winning flee. Creature was hungry and the PCs bloodied it, so it decided to seek easier prey. Silly PCs wanted to chase the kraken out to sea, some of them in heavy armour.

 

[pemerton]

It looks like he did indeed disregard dice rolled as part of action resolution.

I got the impression that the dice that were ignored were dungeon-building dice rather than action resolution dice. Maybe [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] will clarify.

 

[pemerton]

Just for the record, I was merely quoting [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] there.it's disingenuous and, in my opinion, more than a little dishonest, to introduce them ad hoc into a game which doesn't explicitly include them, particularly without the players' knowledge upfront.

Put another way, I don't want to be playing AD&D on our side of the screen while the referee is playing Dogs in the Vineyard on his side.

That seems like basic social contract stuff to me.

But with new players, I'm not sure the social contract has such definite content that running the way Bullgrit described is contradicting any implicit or explicit understandings.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I got the impression that the dice that were ignored were dungeon-building dice rather than action resolution dice. Maybe [MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION] will clarify.

Well, Bullgrit said the following:

The only "honest" die rolls were in combat, where everyone rolled on the table out in front of everyone else. But I even adjusted monster hit points for drama and excitement.

This makes me think that he only didn't ignore rolls if they were in combat, but he was still manipulating the fight to end up dramatically interesting (so rolls mattered much less). However, I did get the impression he was ignoring more rolls, and shaping the session by fudging behind the screen (effectively making rolls pointless). Perhaps he will clarify, though.

 

[Kerranin]

But I was still being a DM. Yes?

And by my experience/style, I was being a bad DM. I would not want to play under a DM like I was being. (I can't stand a DM who heavily fudges everything.)

But by the results, I was being a good DM. I would love to have that much Player-side fun every time. (I would have to remain ignorant of what the DM was really doing.)

Basically, what you [general use, "you"] consider a Bad DM can be considered an Awesome DM to other Players. And vice versa. Some Players take railroading and fudging all in stride, and are happy with it. Some Players are rubbed raw by railroading and fudging, and would leave the game in frustration.

Bullgrit

You played to your audience, all the things you did were to make sure everyone had fun, that can never be a bad DM.

Well done!

 

[Nagol]

But with new players, I'm not sure the social contract has such definite content that running the way Bullgrit described is contradicting any implicit or explicit understandings.

Regardless of how new the players are, if you agree to play game X and then don't use the rules for game X, you're breaking the contract.

New players may not have the experience necessary to tell that you're being fraudulent, but a contract break is not dependent on detection.