Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aenghus" data-source="post: 6201511" data-attributes="member: 2656">For me DM force is making unilateral rulings to modify, bypass or ignore the rules the game is playing by. I think it's an essential tool in most or all RPGs involving a referee, a powerful tool, but one that's easy to abuse. DM force can be used to patch faulty rules, to force the game to match the DM's internal vision of it closer than the rules themselves allow, or to rein in unruly players. Of course the rules may not be faulty, the DM may just be misinterpreting them, so the use of DM force to correct them may be unnecessary or counterproductive (I've seen this happen). I much prefer making rulings before they are needed if possible. As a player, adversarial rulings made on the fly that make my action meaningless or actively detrimental, and not being allowed to undo that action, really really annoys me.Players don't have access to the DM's internal vision without a lot of open discussion, which oftend doesn't occur especially in older style games, and may disagree with it strongly in part or as a whole. The further the DM's internal vision deviates from the standard setting the more chances of the game going awry unless there is some player discussion of what everyone wants from the game and whether compromise is possible.Unruly players may just want something from the game they currently aren't getting, something that clear communication can help with. (or they may be wrong for that game). DM force risks taking from a player exactly what they want from the game, such as making their own informed and effective decisions.Rightly or wrongly, I generally associate DM force most with highly adversarial wargame-style games, where the players struggle to win agains the DM, and victory needs to be "earned", whatever that means. The first casualty of such a game style can be clear communication. I was in such a game once, and we the players found out that the best way to succeed in a significant task was not to tell the DM what our ultimate goal was, but sneak up on it discrete step by step until it was a fait accompli. This was because any large-scale task we told the DM about instantly became a lot more difficult, because we had to "earn" our victories.I vastly prefer collaboration and clear communication in all directions to the above nowadays. Setting success and failure stakes acceptable to all parties really aids communication and sidesteps the old-style DM instinct to be wary of the players tricking their way to victory.Typically fighters need a lot less rulings than spellcasters as they have a lot less options open to them and a lot less wiggle room and subjectivity withing those options. In a game with highly adversarial and negative rulings, fighters may perform much better as they depend on rulings less.</blockquote>

Verification