Bad DMs/GMs

[Nagol]

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.

When I use the term, it refers to what the group has agreed to do at the table and what the group expectations are with regard to each other's roles. This covers everything from announcing a missed session, what other activities are expected at the table, how the players will behave towards each other, expectations of how the PCs will behave with each other and how each role (generally DM/player, but I've seen others) is expected to behave.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a similar understanding, I believe. Part of that social contract from Bullgrit's initial post was they were going to play D&D and he acted in a manner self-described as cheating.

If Bullgrit thinks he was cheating, he was probably breaking the implicit social contract (i.e. an expectation of fair play) at the table or at least the contract he insists on as a player as he points out in earlier posts.

My position is it is wrong to do it and hide the fact from the group. It is not wrong to play that way so long as the group has agreed to accept that behaviour.

 

[Elf Witch]

When I use the term, it refers to what the group has agreed to do at the table and what the group expectations are with regard to each other's roles. This covers everything from announcing a missed session, what other activities are expected at the table, how the players will behave towards each other, expectations of how the PCs will behave with each other and how each role (generally DM/player, but I've seen others) is expected to behave.

[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has a similar understanding, I believe. Part of that social contract from Bullgrit's initial post was they were going to play D&D and he acted in a manner self-described as cheating.

If Bullgrit thinks he was cheating, he was probably breaking the implicit social contract (i.e. an expectation of fair play) at the table or at least the contract he insists on as a player as he points out in earlier posts.

My position is it is wrong to do it and hide the fact from the group. It is not wrong to play that way so long as the group has agreed to accept that behaviour.

I really don't remember who said what that gave me that impression it was late when I read it. To be honest I don't really want to go back and read it again.


I do remember Bullgrit and my thought was he was being hard on himself when he called it cheating. Just because you like it one way when you play does not mean you have to do it that way when you DM. You can tailor it to your players.

One thing that does get to me is when people use the word cheating to describe a DM fudging or changing things on the fly. The only time a DM is really is cheating in my opinion is when the fudge is to deliberately kill a PC. I am sure there may be other times but I can't think of one right now.

 

[Nagol]

I really don't remember who said what that gave me that impression it was late when I read it. To be honest I don't really want to go back and read it again.


I do remember Bullgrit and my thought was he was being hard on himself when he called it cheating. Just because you like it one way when you play does not mean you have to do it that way when you DM. You can tailor it to your players.

One thing that does get to me is when people use the word cheating to describe a DM fudging or changing things on the fly. The only time a DM is really is cheating in my opinion is when the fudge is to deliberately kill a PC. I am sure there may be other times but I can't think of one right now.

I use a simpler measure. A group member is cheating when he uses a technique or resource the group did not agree was acceptable.

I would be cheating if I fudge because my group finds it unacceptable just as I would be cheating if I told them to prepare characters for a futuristic space opera campaign and immediately threw them through a one-way portal into a magical feudal society.

I am not cheating when use material from game resources outside the purview of the players nor when I present conversions of their characters from D&D to CHAMPIONS or Teenagers from Outer Space for a planar adventure.

Other tables will draw the lines in other places and that's the important bit for me. The group can't make an informed decision on acceptability if the techniques used are kept secret or are denied when detected.

 

[The Shaman]

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.

In other words, these are the terms of your social contract, and they are not open to debate.

Which is perfectly fine and, in my opinion, how it should be.

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.

Trust doesn't enter into it; a player in a roll-in-the-open game still must trust the referee, just not for dice results.

 

[Elf Witch]

I use a simpler measure. A group member is cheating when he uses a technique or resource the group did not agree was acceptable.

I would be cheating if I fudge because my group finds it unacceptable just as I would be cheating if I told them to prepare characters for a futuristic space opera campaign and immediately threw them through a one-way portal into a magical feudal society.

I am not cheating when use material from game resources outside the purview of the players nor when I present conversions of their characters from D&D to CHAMPIONS or Teenagers from Outer Space for a planar adventure.

Other tables will draw the lines in other places and that's the important bit for me. The group can't make an informed decision on acceptability if the techniques used are kept secret or are denied when detected.

I agree that first part is cheating. I don't think it is cheating if the DM fudges because they have screwed up the encounter and are now fixing it. You can usually see as the encounter goes on that you have messed up. I am not talking about the luck of the dice here. If your group is fine in letting bad luck cause a TPK that is one thing. But it is another thing all together when that TPK is going to happen because the DM's encounter is not in the ability of the party to handle. And no I am not talking about encounters that are meant for the party to run away from.

I had this happen in a game that I was a player in and it really sucked that everyone died because the DM screwed up the challenge he even admitted he had done it. But he was rolling out in the open that was the last time he rolled in the open. He did not believe in fudging dice to save PCs and rolling behind the screen did not stop that but it gave him the ability if he every messed up again to fix it.

Personally I would rather have a DM fix it behind the screen then stop the action and do a reset.

It is not cheating to use bait and switch it is wrong but it is not cheating at least how I define cheating.

The thing is I believe in open communication between players and DMs and it is a two way street. It is wrong for the DM to hold things back about rules from the players. Just like I think it is wrong for a player to say yes I am fine with this style campaign and then not go along with the campaign.

 

[Elf Witch]

In other words, these are the terms of your social contract, and they are not open to debate.

Which is perfectly fine and, in my opinion, how it should be.Trust doesn't enter into it; a player in a roll-in-the-open game still must trust the referee, just not for dice results.

Actually I am always open to hearing ideas.

I have read here on EnWorld that one reason people want the DM to roll in the open is that they don't trust them not to fudge. I don't understand that if you can't trust your DM to honor what you have agreed to then why play with them.

It is a two way street I trust my players I don't have to see their rolls. I accept it when they say they rolled X amount for hit die or stats. And most of the time with my reading glasses on I can't see their dice anyway.

 

[The Shaman]

Actually I am always open to hearing ideas.

But if that idea is roll in the open and let the results stand, you "won't play."

Or was that just hyperbole?

I have read here on EnWorld that one reason people want the DM to roll in the open is that they don't trust them not to fudge.

A referee can screw with the players six-ways-from-Sunday without ever hiding or changing a die roll. Every campaign involves trust.

 

[Hussar]

Actually I am always open to hearing ideas.

I have read here on EnWorld that one reason people want the DM to roll in the open is that they don't trust them not to fudge. I don't understand that if you can't trust your DM to honor what you have agreed to then why play with them.

It is a two way street I trust my players I don't have to see their rolls. I accept it when they say they rolled X amount for hit die or stats. And most of the time with my reading glasses on I can't see their dice anyway.

It's not so much of a trust issue really though. It's that people don't want fudging in their game. If everyone at the table agrees that dice must fall where they lie, and that no roll will ever be changed, then why not roll in the open?

It's simply a playstyle difference not really a trust issue.

 

[pemerton]

Part of that social contract from Bullgrit's initial post was they were going to play D&D and he acted in a manner self-described as cheating.

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.

A group member is cheating when he uses a technique or resource the group did not agree was acceptable.

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.

Maybe I missed something in Bullgrit's post, but where is the evidence he did something that the group did not agree was acceptable?

It's not enough to say that everyone agreed to play D&D, and hence any departure from the rules of D&D is a breach of the social contract. On the assumption that the new players don't actually know what the rules of D&D are, then those rules don't form part of the social contract, and aren't something that they have agreed to. Nor are they something that they have dissented from. Presumably they have no view.

I would imagine that what new players do understand themselves to have agreed to is the the game will involve them playing protagonists in a fantasy world of violent conflict. And Bullgrit seems to have delivered this - subject to more clarification on the fudging (which seems to me to have involved scenario design elements rather than action resolution elements), I don't see any deprotagonisation.

I mean, what evidence is there that by making up details of encounters or dungeon layout on the fly - in effect, by creating the scenario ex tempore in response to the choices of the players - Bullgrit was doing something which the players did not regard as acceptable?

 

[Nagol]

Maybe I missed something in Bullgrit's post, but where is the evidence he did something that the group did not agree was acceptable?

It's not enough to say that everyone agreed to play D&D, and hence any departure from the rules of D&D is a breach of the social contract. On the assumption that the new players don't actually know what the rules of D&D are, then those rules don't form part of the social contract, and aren't something that they have agreed to. Nor are they something that they have dissented from. Presumably they have no view.

I would imagine that what new players do understand themselves to have agreed to is the the game will involve them playing protagonists in a fantasy world of violent conflict. And Bullgrit seems to have delivered this - subject to more clarification on the fudging (which seems to me to have involved scenario design elements rather than action resolution elements), I don't see any deprotagonisation.

I mean, what evidence is there that by making up details of encounters or dungeon layout on the fly - in effect, by creating the scenario ex tempore in response to the choices of the players - Bullgrit was doing something which the players did not regard as acceptable?

It not a small variance from the game rules or arbitrary placement of risk and reward that would cause a break in the contract. Really, the best person to determine of a contract was broken is Bullgrit -- after all he negotiated it.

I've highlighted the relevant material in his quote below.

1) Bullgrit offered to run a game of D&D.

2) He ran a game where he deliberately misused or ignored most the rules. Even the "honest" section where the rules were used was manipulated by him.

3) The participants were completely ignorant of his tricks.

4) He felt like a fraud and a cheat.

It's hard for the group to offer an opinion on acceptability if the instigator keeps the tactics secret. Since the group was not privy to the manipulation, we cannot take their enjoyment of the game as approval for the style. Maybe the group would not care, but Bullgrit's self-confessed feelings certainly show he did. At the very least he broke an implicit pact with himself. Very likely he broke one with the group as well. It may be behaviour the group does not care about or would overlook for the experience of an awesome game, but we cannot know and the group was never given the opportunity to share it's view.

I don't care he ran the game the way he did; I care he ran the game the way he did in an underhanded and secret manner that prevented the other participants from understanding what they were experiencing was not the game they would experience from fair rules-based play. The secrecy around the manipulation and disregard for the rule set pretty much negates the group's ability to consent to the style of play.

I have what I think is an interesting anecdote about learning and getting better over time as a DM.

I recently ran a one-shot adventure for my son and his friends.
Boys Delve into the Dungeon Total Bullgrit

In running this session, I cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly. This goes completely against everything I have ever held sacred about running a game of D&D.

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. Every monster encounter, (wandering or in a room), I placed in the moment. Every treasure, I placed in the moment. I let them find secret doors and treasure if they simply looked.

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.

Essentially, I broke every rule I have ever played by as a DM. I ran the game, behind the scenes, in a way that I would HATE as a Player.

But the boys, (and dads), being completely ignorant of my tricks, had an absolutely wonderful and fun game session. They all LOVED the game. It was the best gaming experience I have presided over in at least a decade. It was among the best gaming experiences I have probably ever had. No one was unhappy or disappointed at the end or even for a second throughout the session. The excitement in the room was intoxicating.

But as a DM, I felt dirty. I cheated, faked, and was completely dishonest in how I ran the game.Imagine having the best "romantic" performance of your life, but you got there by convincing your partner that you were a wealthy freelance brain surgeon with the CIA.

How can this be explained? I did everything "inappropriately," (according to all my experience), but the result was a fantastic game session. I've had many game sessions where I stuck to my core beliefs of a status quo style -- what I feel as a DM and a Player, through many years of gaming, is the best style -- that just completely bombed. But as soon as I do one game session where I break all my personal style rules, I get a great session.

Bullgrit