Bad DMs/GMs

[pemerton]

I think you're taking hyperbole too seriously.

Bullgrit says that he "cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly" and was "completely dishonest". But I don't see any "dishonesty" other than the handwaving, making up of stuff and re-mapping. Combat dies rolls - the overwhelmingly salient means of action resolution in D&D - were rolled upfront.

As I read it, the "dishonesty" or "cheating" that Bullgrit is referring to is the adjustment of the scenario, on the fly, to suit the perceived dramatic needs of the game. In many RPGs, this isn't "cheating" but a standard part of the GM's repertoire. Given that there is no reason to think the participants had any expectations as to how D&D may or may not resemble those other RPGs, I don't see the breach of contract.

It would be different if everyone had agreed to play Gygaxian or Pulsiferian, exploration heavy, AD&D. But I don't see any evidence of that. And when a newbie signs up for a game of D&D, I don't believe that they are therefore, by default, signing up for a game in the Gygaxian or Puslierian style.

 

[Nagol]

I think you're taking hyperbole too seriously.

Bullgrit says that he "cheated, faked, hand-waved, made up stuff, and even re-mapped the dungeon on the fly" and was "completely dishonest". But I don't see any "dishonesty" other than the handwaving, making up of stuff and re-mapping. Combat dies rolls - the overwhelmingly salient means of action resolution in D&D - were rolled upfront.

As I read it, the "dishonesty" or "cheating" that Bullgrit is referring to is the adjustment of the scenario, on the fly, to suit the perceived dramatic needs of the game. In many RPGs, this isn't "cheating" but a standard part of the GM's repertoire. Given that there is no reason to think the participants had any expectations as to how D&D may or may not resemble those other RPGs, I don't see the breach of contract.

It would be different if everyone had agreed to play Gygaxian or Pulsiferian, exploration heavy, AD&D. But I don't see any evidence of that. And when a newbie signs up for a game of D&D, I don't believe that they are therefore, by default, signing up for a game in the Gygaxian or Puslierian style.

The dice rolled in combat are of minimal importance if the underlying mechanics like hit points exist only at the whim of the referee.

All other action resolution systems, like detecting secrets, skill use, etc. were adjudicated by whim.

But all that is secondary.

The players may or may not have any expectations about how the game is played. The play provided did not match the default play of the game as expressed by the rules. If they did have any expectations -- say one read a book in advance or had a friend who played for example, those expectations were misled. The DM did not make it known to the group that the skill selections were meaningless. He did not make it known to the group that all actions were going to be resolved using a dramatic lens as opposed to the rules ostensibly in use. In fact, Bullgrit took great pains to "roll a lot of dice for everything", but then ignored their input. A fraud, pretty much by definition, doesn't have the acceptance of the victims.

If I offer you X and provide you with Y, you may like Y and may in fact prefer my substitution over the original offer. It is fradulent of me to make the offer of X and then give you Y while telling you it's X.

This behaviour hurts newbies more than those experienced as this becomes their point of reference for gaming experience. And it is based on a lie. Those dice I just rolled? Ignored. The hit you just made on the monster? Killed it because I thought it would be dramatically satisfying. The ingenious plan you can up with? Worked regardless of character talent. That treasure you found? There because I thought you wanted it.

All of the above if fine in a game so long as the participants understand that is how the game works. It is wrong in a game where the default understanding works differently without some agreement to the changes. New players either have no understanding or have a basic understanding as presented in the rule set. Further, without that understanding, individuals inside the group may respond with different levels of caution. Natural risk-takers would have been rewarded and anyone who remained cautious in that party because they had different expectations lost out on the opportunity to cut loose.

Certainly, Bullgrit has expressed a level of guilt over his behaviour. He thinks everyone had a great time, but he feels dirty as if he was entertaining them under false pretenses.

Again, it is possible that the group may have not cared, but Bullgrit never gave them a chance to have a say.

I'm not saying he should have exhaustively identified every variation he was going to use to a group without the background to understand the implications, either. Saying something along the lines of "Since you're new to this and this is going to be only a single session, it's going to be a lot more dramatic and action-filled than typical. OK?" probably would be enough to alert them that what they are experiencing is somewhat abnormal and give them some say if they want something else from the experience or further clarification.

 

[billd91]

Certainly, Bullgrit has expressed a level of guilt over his behaviour. He thinks everyone had a great time, but he feels dirty as if he was entertaining them under false pretenses.

Again, it is possible that the group may have not cared, but Bullgrit never gave them a chance to have a say.

I'm not saying he should have exhaustively identified every variation he was going to use to a group without the background to understand the implications, either. Saying something along the lines of "Since you're new to this and this is going to be only a single session, it's going to be a lot more dramatic and action-filled than typical. OK?" probably would be enough to alert them that what they are experiencing is somewhat abnormal and give them some say if they want something else from the experience or further clarification.

I dunno. Bullgrit's posts sounded a little more exaggerated and tongue in cheek rather than really angsty and filled with guilt.

I don't think you've really got to include the caveat that there will be differences with the published rules unless the players are genuinely interested in the nitty-gritty of the rules. There are plenty of players out there who don't really care much about them. They just want to sit at the table and play - deciding what they want their PCs to do and content to be guided through any application of rules to implement their choices. For those sorts of players, informing them of changes or not informing them won't really matter.
Some players may be more concerned, at which point you do delve into rules a bit more before play starts. But whichever approach you take, it's more a question of knowing your audience. For a bunch of new players that you want to impress with the excitement the game can elicit, I think less is more when it comes to rule information.

 

[Elf Witch]

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

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

I most likely would not because I don't enjoy a game where you die because the DM screwed up, or it is just a stupid random encounter and you are rolling badly and the DM is rolling great. It is so much fun to die on a meaningless encounter and now you get to sit for hours at the table because there is no way to get your character raised or bring in a new one.

I don't play hack and slash I actually put a lot of thought in my character and while there have been times I have chosen to sacrifice my character for the party or in a big encounter I have died, dying a lot is not fun for me.

The other players put a lot of thought in their characters as well and want a lot of role playing so they just don't have the mind set hey you look trust worthy join us. So if a character dies and does not get resurrected then the DM works with everyone to bring in a new character. It is not something done on the fly.


Now I might consider playing in a roll in the open if there are things in place to help prevent death like action points or healing surges. Also I need to know that the DM is willing to fix it if he is the one who screwed up the encounter.

We also use the screen to hide certain rolls like spot checks, find traps, sense motive. In our games the DM rolls these not the players. We have found it adds to the game not to know if the reason you didn't spot a trap was because there is not one or you only rolled a 1.

 

[Elf Witch]

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.

When people say I don't want my DM to roll behind the screen because I don't want him to fudge that is a trust issue. Because you don't trust him not to fudge.

There are lot of reasons a DM uses a screen besides fudging he may use it for the info on it or to hide his notes or hide certain rolls that have nothing to do with combat.

If your agreement is to let all rolls stand then it shouldn't matter where the DM rolls.

Look each group has to decide for their own group and if the DM and players want to roll in the open that is fine. What I have taken from a lot of posts I have read on this over the years is the attitude that if you roll behind a screen it is because you are fudging. That is what bugs me that and the attitude that some how letting the dice fall as they will is the correct way to play DnD and if you don't you are not really playing DnD the way it was meant to be played.

 

[Elf Witch]

This behaviour hurts newbies more than those experienced as this becomes their point of reference for gaming experience. And it is based on a lie. Those dice I just rolled? Ignored. The hit you just made on the monster? Killed it because I thought it would be dramatically satisfying. The ingenious plan you can up with? Worked regardless of character talent. That treasure you found? There because I thought you wanted it.

I am going to call bull on this. With that kind of logic you should never have house rules in a game with newbies because then they might expected all games to be run like that.

I have had newbies come to my table who tried the game before and hated it because it was not fun because their experience had been one of frustration. They couldn't accomplish anything because they didn't have the skills the the DM thought they needed. Five minutes into combat they died and then got to sit and watch others play.

With newbies I think it is more important to make those first sessions fun for them.

 

[ValhallaGH]

I most likely would not because I don't enjoy a game where you die because the DM screwed up,

So, you only play with the Perfect Dungeon Master, who flawlessly remembers all details, always gets the math correct, and tracks hit points for all of the player characters and all of the non-player characters with an eye towards character development.

... Does he have any openings at one of his tables? I'd really enjoy playing in a fantasy game at some point.


In my experience, all DMs screw up. ALL OF THEM. I've seen characters randomly killed while the DM was hiding behind a screen, and I've seen DMs cheat while rolling in the open (mysterious, undeclared circumstance bonuses that mean the monster actually hits! or misses!), and none of it matters as long as everyone is having fun.
I've handed villains to my players, after their characters died, and watched them turn a couple dozen minions into a legendary killing machine that took down the party in the most celebrated and storied Party Wipe I've heard of - the Lord High Marshal Douchery VonDouchbag (Warrior 2) ensured that the glorious tale of his rise to power was spread far and wide.

In short, every DM ever does something that would "most likely" cause you to never game with them. Yet dozens of others game with (most of) these DMs regularly, and you are a regular at someone's table. This indicates that you may want to revisit your Game Master criteria and once again consider your positions.
I hope you keep having fun.

 

[billd91]

So, you only play with the Perfect Dungeon Master, who flawlessly remembers all details, always gets the math correct, and tracks hit points for all of the player characters and all of the non-player characters with an eye towards character development.

She isn't implying anything like having an actually perfect DM, so it's probably time people got off the impulse to dog pile with what appear to be deliberate and snarky misinterpretations. She made it clear that she wasn't interested in a style of play that inhibits a DM from correcting a TPK-leading mistake he may have made. She feels that rolling with a screen and freedom to fudge as necessary support that.

 

[Elf Witch]

So, you only play with the Perfect Dungeon Master, who flawlessly remembers all details, always gets the math correct, and tracks hit points for all of the player characters and all of the non-player characters with an eye towards character development.

... Does he have any openings at one of his tables? I'd really enjoy playing in a fantasy game at some point.


In my experience, all DMs screw up. ALL OF THEM. I've seen characters randomly killed while the DM was hiding behind a screen, and I've seen DMs cheat while rolling in the open (mysterious, undeclared circumstance bonuses that mean the monster actually hits! or misses!), and none of it matters as long as everyone is having fun.
I've handed villains to my players, after their characters died, and watched them turn a couple dozen minions into a legendary killing machine that took down the party in the most celebrated and storied Party Wipe I've heard of - the Lord High Marshal Douchery VonDouchbag (Warrior 2) ensured that the glorious tale of his rise to power was spread far and wide.

In short, every DM ever does something that would "most likely" cause you to never game with them. Yet dozens of others game with (most of) these DMs regularly, and you are a regular at someone's table. This indicates that you may want to revisit your Game Master criteria and once again consider your positions.
I hope you keep having fun.

First of all where did I ever say that I expect DMs to be perfect.?

I said that my experience in playing where the DM didn't roll behind he screen was a disaster. The DM overpowered the encounter and in less then four rounds most of the party was either dead or dying. He admitted he made a mistake. But the game was over most of didn't relish the idea of just doing a reset and since death was permanent in that game there was no way to bring the characters back to life.

That DM now always rolls behind a screen and he is not one to fudge just to save a character in normal circumstances. He makes it clear that he does not give players plot immunity and that if the dice say you die you die unless it was his mistake.

I have said that I as a DM have made mistakes and one of the reasons I use a screen is so I can fix them without doing something cheesy like have the bad guys retreat for no reason. I also have a variety of players and some don't really enjoy a game with a lot of death it is not fun for them so sometimes I pull my punches on them. I have had players who don't want me to pull my punches and let them die if the dice says so. So again I roll behind a screen to be able to do both.

I find your entire post to be really insulting.

I play with a lot of DMs and if you read my earlier posts I have said that I don't think there are a lot of bad DMs that most of the time it is a conflict in play styles.

Nor have I said here that anyone who chooses not to use a screen is a bad DM. I have said that I prefer not to play in those style games. I am sure they are fine DMs and if their players are happy that is all that matters.

In the over 40 years I have been playing I have played with a lot of DMs and I can count on one hand those I would consider to be bad DMs.

 

[ValhallaGH]

Never mind.