Bad DMs/GMs

[Elf Witch]

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.

To each his own.


The last time I played with a DM who rolled in the open a game that we were enjoying came to a crashing end and no one not even the DM had a good time and we all agreed that it would have been better if he had not been rolling in the open.

 

[billd91]

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.

It's OK even if they aren't new players. That doesn't mean they aren't fully participating in their respective roles within the game.

 

[Hussar]

To each his own.


The last time I played with a DM who rolled in the open a game that we were enjoying came to a crashing end and no one not even the DM had a good time and we all agreed that it would have been better if he had not been rolling in the open.

Fair enough and I totally get that. OTOH, I LOVE that sort of thing. The dice gods have decided that today is a good day to die? Fantastic. Now, let's figure out where to go from here.

OTOH, I tend to use mechanics which mitigate random effects - Action Points, Bennies, whatever. That sort of thing.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

Whose fun? Do you understand that your idea of fun and my idea of fun may not be the same?

If part of my fun comes from letting the dice fall where they may and you decide that your perogative to fudge the results trumps that, then do you think it's unreasonable of me to want to make an informed choice about whether I want to play in your game or not?

 

[The Shaman]

It's OK even if they aren't new players. That doesn't mean they aren't fully participating in their respective roles within the game.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Elf Witch]

Whose fun? Do you understand that your idea of fun and my idea of fun may not be the same?

If part of my fun comes from letting the dice fall where they may and you decide that your perogative to fudge the results trumps that, then do you think it's unreasonable of me to want to make an informed choice about whether I want to play in your game or not?

First of all I did not say my dming trumps what you want as a player. But the other way is also true.

It comes down to style of play and if you don't like how I DM then you are free not to play at my table. I won't play at a table where the DM just lets the die fall where they may.

My group likes long running campaigns and a lot of character development and a revolving door of PCs due to death is not our idea of a good time. I have things in my game like fate points and other things that help keep the death count down.

If I have a player who tells me that he doesn't ever want me to fudge the dice on him then I don't. But I have players who don't want to die all the time for them death is not fun so yes sometimes I fudge for them.

Since I roll behind a screen no one knows if they got lucky or I fudged. It comes down to trusting me and if you can't trust me as DM then I don't want to play with you.

 

[Nagol]

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

<snip>

First of all I did not say my dming trumps what you want as a player. But the other way is also true.

It comes down to style of play and if you don't like how I DM then you are free not to play at my table. I won't play at a table where the DM just lets the die fall where they may.

My group likes long running campaigns and a lot of character development and a revolving door of PCs due to death is not our idea of a good time. I have things in my game like fate points and other things that help keep the death count down.

If I have a player who tells me that he doesn't ever want me to fudge the dice on him then I don't. But I have players who don't want to die all the time for them death is not fun so yes sometimes I fudge for them.

Since I roll behind a screen no one knows if they got lucky or I fudged. It comes down to trusting me and if you can't trust me as DM then I don't want to play with you.

See, that's the social contract you want and you sure sound rigid about it.

 

[Elf Witch]

See, that's the social contract you want and you sure sound rigid about it.

That is just so much bull. If you can't trust your DM then why on earth would you play with them? How could that possibly be fun for either party involved. It is not being rigid at all.

I am a very flexible DM I work with my players to make sure they have fun. As I said before I use the rules as guidelines not hard fast can never be broken you must play this way or else rules.

I had a player come up with this fantastic character the only issue was the rules would not allow it. he wanted to play a character whose mother had made a pact with a demon while pregnant and because of that he had the power of a warlock. To control the evil in him he followed the path of the monk.


Basically he wanted to multiclass as a monk/warlock which is technically against the rules. Warlocks have to be chaotic, monks lawful. We talked about it and I waived the rules for it and even allowed him to use his eldritch blast with his unarmed attack.

As a DM you want your players to have fun so that is my goal that my players walk away from the table feeling like they had a good time.


As a player I am usually willing to try any system, house rules are fine, have no issue if the DM wants to ban certain things from his game. My only rule is that I don't want to play with a DM who rolls in the open even if he does not fudge behind the screen. My reason for that is very simple. Sometimes DMs screw up and overpower an encounter to the point that it is almost impossible not get a TPK or an almost TPK. I don't want my character to die because of a DM mistake. If he is rolling behind the screen he can fix by fudging and giving the party a chance.

 

[Nagol]

Read the parts I bolded again.

you know what you want and won't play with anyone who wants something different. It's a fine attitude -- it's the same attitude I have -- the one you called rigid; we just want different things.

 

[Elf Witch]

Read the parts I bolded again.

you know what you want and won't play with anyone who wants something different. It's a fine attitude -- it's the same attitude I have -- the one you called rigid; we just want different things.

That is not what I was calling rigid. Some of what I was reading was coming across as this is the only way to play and if you don't use the rules you are breaking the social contract.