DMs do you trust your PCs?

[Kai Lord]

The days of playing in groups where the possibility of one character outshining another are long gone for me, as is the inclination to do anything to lessen the enthusiasm of either of the two players I run solo campaigns for. When either of them DM for me (which, again, are strictly solo adventures) their philosophy is the same.

I can always up the ante as a DM, so I let players play whatever they think they will enjoy.

 

[Buttercup]

I have limited classes and races, but not because I don't trust my players. It has to do with the flavor of my campaign world. (And also the fact that I hate elves.)

But to answer the original question, yes. I trust my players. They're more interested in the story we're telling together than in twisting the rules.

 

[Dagger75]

I to allow almost anything in my game. If they read it somewhere and ask me about it, I will probably let them use it. Since my players only read the PHB its pretty easy. The druid got his hands on Master of the Wilds (dang miasma spell) and I let him use it.

BUT everything the players do I do back to them. For some reason for the last year or so we had an unwritten Harm limitation treaty. I didn't cast harm on the players and they didn't use harm on my monsters, well I broke the treaty so now I have to deal with harm.

 

[Crothian]

BUT everything the players do I do back to them. For some reason for the last year or so we had an unwritten Harm limitation treaty. I didn't cast harm on the players and they didn't use harm on my monsters, well I broke the treaty so now I have
to deal with harm.

That's funny. I've never heard of anyone having a Cold War with their players.

 

[Darkness]

Usually, I can trust my players; the only problem in D&D that can occur is one of alignment (e.g., one LE or NE character, one CN character, one CG character, and one LG character ). But then, D&D isn't my most commonly played system by a long shot.

That said...

The only time when things get problematic is when my resident freak/near-munchkin and I aren't "on the same page" regarding what a certain game is to be like - especially when playing a point-based RPG (like GURPS, which I kind of "opened" by removing the limit of points in disadvantages a character can take).

'cause in that case, he often creates characters with disadvantages that are so extreme that allowing him to play the character for even the five minutes it would take him to self-destruct would be more than enough to severely threaten the other players' more sensible characters' continued well-being.

The solution to this problem, of course, is discussing the problem with him directly and honestly. Sometimes, he just needs a few more points to make the character workable (in which case I just give him - along with everyone else - some additional points to help him make the character unproblematic, but not necessarily enough points for everything he wants); sometimes, he just went overboard with the character concept (which usually means that he created a character that has mental and/or social disadvantages that, in combination, are so problematic that none of the other PCs can work with him at all).

Heh. I guess that main problem that I have with this player is that I tend towards less "cinematic" games, while he's so used to wise-cracking, butt-kicking, movie-quoting games in which the PC party works together for the sole reason that they are, well, the PC party, and NPCs have so little "personality" that they can't react in ways that weren't intended by the GM when the PCs get "creative" (and the GM can't come up with even remotely "realistic" consequences even if the players, say, use small nukes to get rid of their opposition), that he often reflexively creates characters that are just incompatible with my (and my other players') outlook.

Heh. But it's not like I'm always dead-set on introspective campaigns that die when exposed to too much movie-quoting and mindless mayhem; I recently bought both GURPS Cliffhangers (which is all about pulp adventure in the vein of Indiana Jones or whatever) and the Feng Shui RPG (which is all about simulating Hong Kong action movies) - with which he should have an easier time creating characters that he likes and that are actually usable within the parameters of the game...
That's assuming, of course, that he doesn't create any of the following (or similarly problematic) GURPS Cliffhangers characters: mad - with a capital 'M' - scientist, unscrupulous archeologist or "adventurer" who kills everyone who gets in his way and works for the highest bidder even if that is a dictator or leader of an evil cult, etc.

 

[DM with a vengence]

I trust my players to roll characters, not to play them.

It's not that their cheating munchkins, but that they won't work together (like attacking each other in battles). They also tend to think violence is the solution to every problem, even to the extent of killing small children and old ladies.

The worst cheating I've had to deal with is a 5th level PC trying to cast Power Word:Kill or Wail of the Banshee, and that's pretty obvious.

 

[Piratecat]

Implicitly.

 

[Crothian]

Implicitly.

That one word speaks mouthfuls. I'd like to say I was that way with the group I have. I just feel that there are somethings that I have to limit for sake of the party. It's not that I think they would go overboard if I let them, but that if they did the game would suffer. I really don't limit that much aside from alignment. One of the things I try to do (time permitting) is have the characters work on why they are a group. I also like them to come up with backgrounds together so they can if they choose intertwist their backgrounds.

 

[maddman75]

It depends on the player. Some you can open the book and they play a perfectly normal character. Others want to do every munchy thing they can dream up.

 

[Falcon]

Implicitly.

As Piratecat said. I game with friends and people I do other things with besides gaming, and sometimes I am the DM, sometimes the player. If I have to worry about my players "abusing" or "misusing" anything, then I am not going to have much fun as a DM.

I have had players get really excited about a concept that seemed up front to be min-maxed or whatever, but I am perhaps lucky enough to game with people who really try to develop a character and base the stats on the extension of that PC's personality. It has never turned out to be a problem for us.