DM Empowerment vs. Player Entitlement - Is this really that prevalent?

[SensoryThought]

I agree that pcs should be given an accurate assessment of the potential consequences of their actions, and the chance to reevaluate if things work differently than they think.

I've had issues where players don't understand what 4e status effects mean - immobilized, slowed, dazed - and that enemies can still act.

 

[dkyle]

DM: "Well, that's your problem. Your character doesn't have the rulebook in front of him. He doesn't know how the rules work, so neither should you. You make your decisions based on what makes sense IN CHARACTER. Your character should know that firing a crossbow down a corridor filled with 5 of your allies is a bad idea and there should be a huge chance of hitting your friends. Your character made the decision to fire knowing that was the case, so roll to hit and there will be a 1 in 6 chance of hitting all the targets in the hallway."

Ouch. I can't stand this kind of rules-gotcha-ism when the there's an actual rule in play. But when it's not even a rule? Yeah, I definitely wouldn't go back. Might not even want to finish the night...

The line of logic of the DM is absurd. The rules are a description of how the world works. If the rules say you can't accidentally hit your allies, then that's how the world works, and a combatant in that world would know that. The decision was made under the assumptions of that world.

 

[billd91]

Ouch. I can't stand this kind of rules-gotcha-ism when the there's an actual rule in play. But when it's not even a rule? Yeah, I definitely wouldn't go back. Might not even want to finish the night...

The line of logic of the DM is absurd. The rules are a description of how the world works. If the rules say you can't accidentally hit your allies, then that's how the world works, and a combatant in that world would know that. The decision was made under the assumptions of that world.

I think that DM should have given him a chance to take back his declared action, but otherwise I think there's nothing wrong with the DM's logic. It depends on whether or not you assume the rules define how the world works or they're a tool to help adjudicate actions and NOT how the world has to work. I'm of the latter opinion. But because the decision was made under a faulty assumption that hadn't be previously corrected, I'd have let him decide on a different course of action.

Plus, page 24 of the 3.5 DMG definitely calls out hitting allies providing cover as a variant. It adds a complication, but I think it's a valuable one.

 

[BobTheNob]

The problem I have with the idea of "DM is Boss" is the presumption that the DM is always right. After all, if the DM always has final say, then, no matter what, he or she gets to define what is right.

Now that interesting. When we started 4e, we started as more mature gamers. We have been at it a while and have an understanding of what works. With that in mind, we had a couple of get togethers to get organised before play even started. During one of these, I spoke to my players and said the following

"I am going to do my best to create an entertaining and fair experience for everyone, but Im not always going to get it right, and Im certainly not going to make decisions you agree with every time. With this in mind I ask the following of you as players. If I do something you disagree with, tell me and I will consider what you have to say. If however I am un-swayed by what I have to say, then you have to accept my decision and agree to take the discussion off-line"
(It was something like that, but that was the ethos of authority I clung to as a DM)

Bascially, DM's ARENT going to get it right every time. There human with alot more to track than the players do. Right or wrong, if they are constantly second guessed during play time then there is no game.

I agree with the players right to raise concerns during playtime, but there has to be a point where the buck stops with the DM, and its up to the player to understand this as well. As much as we pressure DM's to be good and not say "Because I said so" there is the other side which is for players to be good and understand that sometimes they need to accept the DM's decision and move on.

This is why I have the stipulation for players to approach me outside of play. Quite often they did and expressed that they didnt like my decisions, but this I use for helping me mould my method for the next session, not to get bogged down in the current.

I guess this is why Im not to fond of the original post. Yes, it sux when a DM sais "cause I said so", but its a two way street and players can be bad "game citizens" as readily as a DM can.

 

[Hassassin]

I think that DM should have given him a chance to take back his declared action, but otherwise I think there's nothing wrong with the DM's logic.

Our standard method to answer "should the character have known what would happen" is a DC 10 Wisdom check. Failure indicates the situation required you to act on reflex and you did something (potentially) stupid.

 

[El Mahdi]

I don't doubt that both DM or Player Entitlement exists. I've seen the occasional threads here at ENWorld written by upset DM's and Players about this very thing...so I'm certain it's happened to at least a few.

But, I doubt it's very prevalent. Although I would be considered a very small sample, I have never encountered it in any groups I've played in or run. 100% Anecdotal, and 100% my non-expert opinion, but I sincerely doubt it's very prevalent at all.

 

[pemerton]

DM: "Well, that's your problem. Your character doesn't have the rulebook in front of him. He doesn't know how the rules work, so neither should you. You make your decisions based on what makes sense IN CHARACTER. Your character should know that firing a crossbow down a corridor filled with 5 of your allies is a bad idea and there should be a huge chance of hitting your friends. Your character made the decision to fire knowing that was the case, so roll to hit and there will be a 1 in 6 chance of hitting all the targets in the hallway."

Me: "*sigh* Ok. I rolled a 1, perfect, I miss everyone with that roll."

DM: "Actually, you fail so badly that you automatically miss who you are aiming at and instead automatically hit one of your friends...and it is considered a crit."

<snip>

Followed by about an hour of roleplaying as the rest of the PCs discuss what to do with the assassin who tried to kill them from behind with a crossbow, with most of the group in favor of killing me on the spot.

I try to argue out of character that I didn't mean to do that, everyone at the table knew that, so maybe their characters should forgive me and we should move on. They told me that although THEY knew that, their characters didn't and needed to be roleplayed correctly.

It's obvious that the GM here was being a bad GM. But I think the players were being bad players, too. What did they think they were contributing to the game?

 

[Hussar]

There was a time when I had all of the rules memorized, then they changed the rules, then they changed the rules again, then they... I got tired of memorizing new rules. D&D next might better be really good or it's going to be the second set of rules I don't learn.

So Hussar, How long did it take you to relearn all of the rules you don't look up any more?

How long did it take you to get good at DMing when you first started?

Simpler is better as far as I can tell. I still can't remember all of the maneuvers available to a 3e or pathfinder character during combat. There was a time when all I needed to know was how many attacks a round a creature got and what it's special attacks and defenses were.

In 1e my grappling rules looked very similar to pathfinders cmb and cmd rules. Of course it took a couple of years to work out the kinks

Well, I don't know. I know that my 4e DMG hasn't been out of its slip cover in about a year of constant play though. We've had to tap the DDI once in a while (maybe once a session) to look up some power that we weren't sure how it worked because the player of the PC wasn't there for that session and his character was being run by someone else.

Other than that, no, we almost never look up rules. Because the rules, by and large, are almost always intuitive.

3e, IMO, has the issue (and I think Pathfinder does as well) that it has a bajillion little side rules that are buried all over the place. Majoru O's example highlights that pretty perfectly.

It's not a case of memorizing all the rules. It's a case of having intuitive rules that pretty much always work the same.

Forex, we were fighting an insubstantial creature in the last session of our Darksun game. Now, I played a lot of 3e, so, when my Warlock busted out a force attack, I asked if it did full damage, because, in 3e, it would (yet another exception rule). In 4e, it doesn't. Insubstantial=half damage to everything. End of story. Insubstantial might get suppressed on some creatures if you hit it with the right attack, but, that's in the monster description and not buried in the DMG.

So, I really do believe that intuitive, solid rules=smoother games.

 

[billd91]

Other than that, no, we almost never look up rules. Because the rules, by and large, are almost always intuitive.

That's the trick, isn't it? What's intuitive? For me, shooting a crossbow bolt past 5 guys should be very hard to do. Those 5 guys should be offering some substantial cover and may get hit. That seems an intuitive result.

On the other hand, simplifying away all of that can lead to an intuitive mechanic that simply doesn't sweat the issue.

So which is better? Which is right? Which is more intuitive? Intuitive doesn't always mean simple in concept and not always the simplest to use.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think that DM should have given him a chance to take back his declared action, but otherwise I think there's nothing wrong with the DM's logic. It depends on whether or not you assume the rules define how the world works or they're a tool to help adjudicate actions and NOT how the world has to work. I'm of the latter opinion. But because the decision was made under a faulty assumption that hadn't be previously corrected, I'd have let him decide on a different course of action.

That's exactly the problem. The DM in question hadn't actually read the rule book, he felt the rules were just a bunch of guidelines for simulating "reality" anyways, so if he didn't remember a rule, he'd just use the one that made the most sense from a "reality" point of view. And, I've discovered from experience that each persons view of how "reality" works is HEAVILY different from one another.

Which is surprising considering we all live in reality. The problem is that many people don't have direct experience with many of the situations that come up in a D&D game. We've never actually used a sword in combat. We've never actually watched a building burn down from a small fire to consuming the whole building. We've never fired a crossbow in a hallway filled with people. So, often we rely on guesses at best. And at worst, we use movies we've seen as the basis for our decisions. Most of which have no basis in reality at all.

This results in really weird definitions of "reality". Like a fireball spell causing a house to burn down entirely and kill everyone inside in two 2e rounds(because a small portion of the AOE hit the wall). Then burn down an entire city 20 minutes later.

That's the problem with making a rule system more based on DM adjudication. It specifically encourages these "guesses" which cause a disconnect between player and DM. I prefer a game system where 90% of what will come up in a game already has a rule to minimize the times when the DM needs to make a call. Since not every DM makes good calls. Also, I would like the rule book to say "Rule 0 means you have the right to make up new rules, but only if you inform your players in advance that you have put them into the game. It allows you to make decisions in the 10% of the time these rules don't cover what you need. But it is not ok to change the rules in the middle of the game. Play with the rules as written until the end of the session if a dispute comes up then change the rule for next session."

The problem is that people take the idea that "I'm the DM, anything I say goes" to mean that they can do whatever they want.

Plus, page 24 of the 3.5 DMG definitely calls out hitting allies providing cover as a variant. It adds a complication, but I think it's a valuable one.

Yeah, but that optional rule only allowed you to hit an ally if you missed by 4 or less. It still made only a small chance of hitting them.