Bad DMs/GMs

[Hussar]

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.

I think the question becomes, how important is that social contract?

We've been conditioned to think of the social contract as being very much a two way street, but, it wasn't always this way. In earlier D&D, for example, the DM was very much empowered to change rules at will and the players were strongly advised to simply trust their DM and roll with it.

Now, I'm not sure I'd personally want to go back to that, but, then again, it would be hard for me to come into an RPG without bringing in all my history and baggage as well. But, a new player simply doesn't have the background to be able to judge what is "good" or "bad" beyond whether or not the current play is fun.

If the players are having fun, and the DM is having fun, the social contract can go hang.

 

[Nagol]

I think the question becomes, how important is that social contract?

We've been conditioned to think of the social contract as being very much a two way street, but, it wasn't always this way. In earlier D&D, for example, the DM was very much empowered to change rules at will and the players were strongly advised to simply trust their DM and roll with it.

Now, I'm not sure I'd personally want to go back to that, but, then again, it would be hard for me to come into an RPG without bringing in all my history and baggage as well. But, a new player simply doesn't have the background to be able to judge what is "good" or "bad" beyond whether or not the current play is fun.

If the players are having fun, and the DM is having fun, the social contract can go hang.

Sure, sort of. If the players and GM are having fun, that's great so long as one is not having fun at the expense of the other.

I've run games where I cheated -- with the full and complete understanding of the players that I was to cheat to make it more fun for the group. Though usually for games like these, we'd pull out a more camp game like Teenagers from Outer Space or Tales from the Floating Vagabond.

I've had DMs try to do the same without that understanding and it was fun for a session or two -- until I caught on and stopped playing with them entirely.

See, the social contract is there so everyone understands what is and is not acceptable in group context. If someone acts against that contract he is signalling his preferences are more important than those of the group. Otherwise, treat the people you're spending time with with a modicum of respect and tell them what you'd prefer, why, and make a suggestion for change.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I'd buy most of that. I'm just not sure if I was a completely new gamer, straight out of the box, if I'd want the DM hitting me with this whole "social contract" thing when I'm already pretty overwhelmed by all the stuff that goes into RPG gaming.

Yes, social contract is very, very important. I totally get that and I do think it absolutely should be something that every group discusses openly. I'm just not sure if the conversation could wait a bit until the players have kinda settled into things first and maybe they'd have a better background with which to understand what's being presented.

I mean, if you ask anyone, "Hey, do you mind if I cheat during this game?" the answer's pretty much going to always be no. But, if you ask, "Hey, do you mind if, from time to time, I adjust rolls and whatnot to keep things moving along" it sounds a lot more reasonable, even if it is pretty much the same thing. Without any gaming experience, it's pretty hard for someone to be able to discriminate between those two options.

 

[Nagol]

Yeah, I'd buy most of that. I'm just not sure if I was a completely new gamer, straight out of the box, if I'd want the DM hitting me with this whole "social contract" thing when I'm already pretty overwhelmed by all the stuff that goes into RPG gaming.

Yes, social contract is very, very important. I totally get that and I do think it absolutely should be something that every group discusses openly. I'm just not sure if the conversation could wait a bit until the players have kinda settled into things first and maybe they'd have a better background with which to understand what's being presented.

I mean, if you ask anyone, "Hey, do you mind if I cheat during this game?" the answer's pretty much going to always be no. But, if you ask, "Hey, do you mind if, from time to time, I adjust rolls and whatnot to keep things moving along" it sounds a lot more reasonable, even if it is pretty much the same thing. Without any gaming experience, it's pretty hard for someone to be able to discriminate between those two options.

LOL, I think the answer will almost always be "Yes" rather than "No"!

The way I'd present it to a group of newbies is "The game as presented can be a bit harsh at times like <audience-appropriate media reference>. Do you want a more dramatic style play like <audience-appropriate media reference>? I can adjust if you like."

At least this way the group gets an inkling of the sort of changes you'll be making and their purpose.

 

[enrious]

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.

I quite agree with you completely, that's why I support a 3.x DM doing anything they want to make the game fun.

(DMG:18)
"...The DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes. As such, it's certainly within your rights to sway things one way or another to keep people happy or to keep things running smoothly..."

Rules are rules, after all.

 

[enrious]

LOL, I think the answer will almost always be "Yes" rather than "No"!

The way I'd present it to a group of newbies is "The game as presented can be a bit harsh at times like <audience-appropriate media reference>. Do you want a more dramatic style play like <audience-appropriate media reference>? I can adjust if you like."

At least this way the group gets an inkling of the sort of changes you'll be making and their purpose.

I tend to view alterations to the rules (such as house-rules) as something that should be discussed ahead of time and not sprung upon the players when an event happens.

On the otherhand, I'd probably not bother discussing GM style or the like with a new group - either they like the way I run things or they dont, and pigeonholing that style ahead of time does no one any good.

 

[Hussar]

LOL, I think the answer will almost always be "Yes" rather than "No"!

The way I'd present it to a group of newbies is "The game as presented can be a bit harsh at times like <audience-appropriate media reference>. Do you want a more dramatic style play like <audience-appropriate media reference>? I can adjust if you like."

At least this way the group gets an inkling of the sort of changes you'll be making and their purpose.

Fair enough. I think we're agreeing here. A newbie group simply doesn't have a frame of reference to be able to make a reasonable judgement.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Let me make sure I understand this: since new players don't know the rules, it's okay to run the game they agreed to play by rules which are not part of that game and of which they know nothing in advance?

In any case, I think the relative experience of the players is irrelevant; either you're treating them as equal participants in the game, or you're not.

 

[Elf Witch]

This entire social contract thing has me shaking my head. Some of you sound so rigid.

I believe my role as a DM is to guide the game, provide fun challenges, and be fair when I adjudicate the rules.

The rules are there to facilitate play not be a rigid force that can never be bent or changed. Rules should support the fun not get in the way.

Yes I gasp fudge. I do it when I see that the challenge I have made is to hard and I can read the frustration on my players faces I will on the fly adjust it. I will sometimes do it the other way as well. Though that has happened maybe once or twice.

And yes there are times I fudge the dice to save a PC. For example one of my players lost a PC in the middle of a dungeon crawl and since it took awhile to get her raised she played monsters. She was a good sport about it but I knew she was missing her PC. Well she got raised and in a random encounter shortly after she started rolling 1 and I was rolling crits. Anyone could see how unhappy she was and that she was not having fun. So I started "missing" her more often and when I hit I did "less" damage.


I have also fudged when the party has made a great plan and it goes bad because the dice start rolling bad for them and fantastic for me. I will pull a few punches.

I often make encounters up on the fly and just decide when the monster is dead or defeated. I change monster stats and abilities all the time to keep things fresh and to surprise my players.

As a player I don't want to play with a DM who rolls in the open and is so rigid they don't care that their players are miserable as long as they slavishly follow the rules.

 

[Hussar]

Honestly, I roll in the open because I find that it generates better experiences. I find that, for me at least, having the results be generated without my input makes the end result more interesting.

OTOH, on the occasions where I do "fudge", I tend to do so by having the bad guys make mistakes or perhaps choose less than tactically smart options. Maybe that one guy gets stuck in the mud for a couple of rounds instead of just going around in the first place. That sort of thing.