Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6202180" data-attributes="member: 42582">For what it's worth, here's my take:Originally Posted by DMG p. 6 When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you're in charge. That doesn't mean you can tell people what to do outside the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you're the final arbiter of rules within the game. Good players will always recognize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook. Good DMs know not to change or overturn a published rule without a good, logical justification so the players don't rebel[.] Originally Posted by DMG p. 13 Player-DM Trust: Players should trust the DM. Trust can be gained over time by consistent use of the rules, by not taking sides (that is, not favoring one player at another's expense), and by making it clear that you're not vindictive towards the players or the PCs. ... If this degree of trust can be achieved, you will be much more free to add or change things in your game without worrying about the players protesting or scrutinizing every decision.I read this as primarily about (1) credibility testing, especially in circumstances where task resolution is key becaue there are no non-combat conflict resolution rules, and (2) adjudicating some of the simulationist aspects of outcomes, especially when these interfact oddly with fictional positioning (eg the famous "stick head in bucket of what to restor self to 0 hp" trick).I know from experience that this sort of stuff comes into play running vanilla narrativist Rolemaster.Originally Posted by DMG p. 13 Good DM Management: A DM who carefully watches all portions of the game so that nothing gets out of his or her control helps keep the game balanced. No one character should become significantly greater than the others. If this does happen, the others should have an opportunity to catch up in short order. ... When temporary imbalances do occur, it's easier to fix them by altering challenges than by altering anything about the PCs and their powers or equipment.This I read as saying that the solution to PC growth/reward imbalances (in a system that has no inherent way of managing these systematically, as 4e does) is to tackle it via scene-framing.When I was running narrativist RM I tended not to do this - items are less important in RM than D&D, and we dealt with PC imbalances via errata/revisions.This is probably the aspect of 2nd ed-ish GMing that, as a GM, I like the least. When I think about framing for a given PC I want to do that in terms of fiction, not in terms of correcting for imbalance.Originally Posted by DMG p. 18 Determining Outcomes You're the final arbiter of everything that happens in the game. Period. Originally Posted by DMG p. 18 DM Cheating and Player Perceptions ... Do you cheat? The answer: the DM really can't cheat. You're the umpire, and what you say goes.If this stuff is in the 3E DMG, then when I read it I just passed over it as legacy rules text that no one really intends to be taken seriously by all groups. I just assume it's in there to keep those who like it happy.I think  [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] is unusually literal in his interpretation and application of these passages. (I mean,  [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] has been round the D&D block a few times, and look how shockd he was when he finally worked out what sort of game Ahnehnois is advocating as the standard.)</blockquote>

Verification