FORKED - Game Fundamentals - Player Trust, Your GM, and Cake

[ExploderWizard]

It's that none of the DMs had any sort of written list of their house rules. When I sat down at the table the expectation was simply "We are playing AD&D." Then we get into the first fight and the DM tells me that in his game each side rolls a d6 and the highest goes first. And I realize that taking my low weapon speed weapon was kind of useless in this game since it isn't faster than any other weapon(although, this eventually became the house rule of ALL our D&D games).


I didn't really have the concept of "house rules" back when I first started playing. We all played using the same rules. Sometimes the rules weren't clear and it was up to the DM to interpret them. Sometimes one DM would declare "I don't like that rule, it doesn't work that way in my game". But the concept that there would be different rules in different D&D games never even occurred to me.

Instead it was just frustrating that there wasn't enough rules, so we had to resort to DM interpretation more often than not. I don't blame the DMs, I don't blame the players, I blame the lack of rules which necessitated the DMs making rulings on a constant basis.

I liken the experience to playing a game of Monopoly but without the rules telling you what happens when you land on a property but the game saying that the banker gets to mediate any rules disputes. It might be fun sometimes, but other times the banker might decide that it makes the most sense that when you land on a property you always get to buy it from whoever has it. And it changes the game entirely. Which is fine, if it changes in a good way. But sometimes you get used to playing Monopoly one way and suddenly you have to learn to play it all over again with a completely different strategy.


This was a long time ago, but we were aged 15-24. The average being around 18 at the time. We were perhaps a little immature, but we were there to play a fun game. Sometimes our DM would give us a magic item for helping to carry in his gaming stuff or give us XP for buying him food. The game told us whatever the DM said went. So, if we could convince the DM to say something, we got it.

That's kind of my point. Some people were better at manipulating the DM than others. They got more benefits in game than everyone else.

The fact that in-game rewards and penalties hinged on the the willingness and ability to manipulate people would be enough to motivate me to seek entertainment elsewhere.

 

[Dausuul]

Perhaps a mentor ship program where experienced DMs can tutor newbies into the good ways of DMing? Good luck recruiting people for that venture.

Actually, this sounds like an excellent idea and one I could get on board with. To some degree I see it happening already; an experienced DM gets burned out or just wants to play for a while, hands over the reins to another player, then offers advice and guidance while the novice gets the hang of things. But there are a number of problems with that approach, not least of which is the old DM's conflict of interest (advocate for her character versus impartial advisor).

 

[Mallus]

I keep my players trust by following the rules as written as consistently as possible.

I keep my player's trust by trying not to be a prick. This often involves listening to them. I've found, on the whole, the rules themselves don't offer me much help in the 'not being a prick' department.

They know that 95% of what they do in the game will be decided by the rules and I'm not going to change it on them on the fly.

In the really good RPG campaigns I've played in, most of the most-good stuff occurred in a place outside of the rules, in a magic land of ad-hoc rulings, fiat, negotiation between DM and players, and pure, unadulterated 'Aw Hell, that's sounds cool, go for it!'.

Trust between the people at the table makes this possible. Formal rule systems, and the agreement to follow them more-or-less to the letter... not so much. The best part of these games is going outside the rules, making a game out of unfettered --partially fettered?-- imagination. If i wanted to play a great game where everyone follows the rules, I'd being playing chess.

YMMV (kinda looks like a Roman numeral, doesn't it?)

 

[fanboy2000]

I keep my player's trust by trying not to be a prick. This often involves listening to them. I've found, on the whole, the rules themselves don't offer me much help in the 'not being a prick' department.

First, I agree that you shouldn't be a prick. Second, I disagree with you. Following the rules can help a DM avoid being a prick. How? If a player, between games, reads something in the rules that they think is cool, then they should expect that that rule will be followed unless there was previously announced houserule. If, during the game session, the DM doesn't like what the player's doing and on the spot creates a contrary house rule, then the DM's being a prick by not following the rules.

In the really good RPG campaigns I've played in, most of the most-good stuff occurred in a place outside of the rules, in a magic land of ad-hoc rulings, fiat, negotiation between DM and players, and pure, unadulterated 'Aw Hell, that's sounds cool, go for it!'.

This has been my experience as well. That said, I'm curious about something. Lets say you're in a situation not covered by the rules. You, as a player, come-up with something cool and the DM allows it. It works! Cool! High-fives all-around. Now, sometime later, a similar situation comes up. Are you going to do that cool thing again?

 

[Mallus]

If, during the game session, the DM doesn't like what the player's doing and on the spot creates a contrary house rule, then the DM's being a prick by not following the rules.

Sure... but that doesn't address all the myriad ways a DM can be a prick while following the letter (if not exactly the spirit) of the rules. In that light, the rules might offer some help, but not much given the broader context.

You, as a player, come-up with something cool and the DM allows it. It works! Cool! High-fives all-around. Now, sometime later, a similar situation comes up. Are you going to do that cool thing again?

No... well, maybe once more, tops. First off, it ceases being a cool, creative trick if you do it all the time. It becomes routine, shtick. I'm more interested in trying wacky new solutions, not winning with old, canned ones.

Second, I'm a big believer in players being self-policing when it comes to game balance. I'm not out to make it harder for the DM/GM to run the game. If they let me use a game balance-defying stunt once, I'm not going to run their faces in it by trying to do it again and again.

The way I see it, it's a trade-off, a compromise. I like the freedom to try all manner of crazy, outside the rules, balance be damned actions. In return I promise not to get carried away, use them all the time, or demand I always be allowed their attempt.

 

[fanboy2000]

Sure...but that doesn't address all the myriad ways a DM can be a prick while following the letter (if not exactly the spirit) of the rules. In that light, the rules might offer some help, but not much given the broader context.

True, the number of ways a DM can be a prick while following the rules is somewhere between a lot and infinity, and I suspect the later. That doesn't seem to change the fact that a common complaint leveled against DMs is that they arbitrarily change the rules (i.e. nerfing) to thwart perceived unbalances, that are really just players trying to have fun.

I think a good way to start building trust is to agree, in advance, to follow a set of rules. It doesn't have to be the Rules as Written, but a set of rules so people know where to start. Without that starting point, players are often at a disadvantage.

No... well, maybe once more, tops. First off, it ceases being a cool, creative trick if you do it all the time. It becomes routine, shtick. I'm more interested in trying wacky new solutions, not winning with old, canned ones.

Where were you three years ago? I know some people who, you let them do it once and it's a houserule for the rest of the campaign.

Second, I'm a big believer in players being self-policing when it comes to game balance. I'm not out to make it harder for the DM/GM to run the game. If they let me use a game balance-defying stunt once, I'm not going to run their faces in it by trying to do it again and again.

I see what you're saying. As a DM though, I don't want people to police themselves too much. Mostly because I'm somewhat permissive, and I've seem players get upset because I let Player A do something, and Player B's been wanting to do that but has withheld because they were policing themselves. Oy vey!

 

[Dausuul]

The way I see it, it's a trade-off, a compromise. I like the freedom to try all manner of crazy, outside the rules, balance be damned actions. In return I promise not to get carried away, use them all the time, or demand I always be allowed their attempt.

This. The way I see it, if I keep reusing the same trick, the DM will just take it away (either adjusting the house rule so it's no longer abusively powerful, or implementing some kind of in-game counter), and there will be bad feelings all around. So why bother?

 

[Doug McCrae]

No... well, maybe once more, tops. First off, it ceases being a cool, creative trick if you do it all the time. It becomes routine, shtick. I'm more interested in trying wacky new solutions, not winning with old, canned ones.

Second, I'm a big believer in players being self-policing when it comes to game balance. I'm not out to make it harder for the DM/GM to run the game. If they let me use a game balance-defying stunt once, I'm not going to run their faces in it by trying to do it again and again.

The way I see it, it's a trade-off, a compromise. I like the freedom to try all manner of crazy, outside the rules, balance be damned actions. In return I promise not to get carried away, use them all the time, or demand I always be allowed their attempt.

Good approach, I agree with this very much.

And yet, consistency is regarded as a great virtue by a heckuva lot of rpgers. Gamists need it to make informed decisions. Simulationists need it to feel like they are living in a world that makes sense. Rules-fans, and I believe there are a great many of those in rpg-dom, it's the only explanation for the damn length of the things, love consistency.

And this is the polar opposite of consistency. But yeah, I'm all for it. Screw consistency.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think the biggest argument in favour of a balanced game is this:

It's pretty easy for someone who is incompetent (meaning not competent, and intended to be devoid of any badness) at an aspect of a game to emulate someone who is being a jerk.

This might be the DM who doesn't realise that Tiamat isn't a good match for their level 15 party, the powergamer who doesn't understand that instakilling every opponent is going to make the game less fun, or the roleplayer who insists on taking a laundry list of roleplaying-oriented character options to the detriment of their characters ability to progress through any of the adventures they're presented with.

And that's something that the rules can help with. So why should they not?

 

[pemerton]

First off, it ceases being a cool, creative trick if you do it all the time. It becomes routine, shtick. I'm more interested in trying wacky new solutions, not winning with old, canned ones.

Good approach, I agree with this very much.

And yet, consistency is regarded as a great virtue by a heckuva lot of rpgers. Gamists need it to make informed decisions. Simulationists need it to feel like they are living in a world that makes sense. Rules-fans, and I believe there are a great many of those in rpg-dom, it's the only explanation for the damn length of the things, love consistency.

And this is the polar opposite of consistency. But yeah, I'm all for it. Screw consistency.

I think I'm probably a rules fan.

On the repeatability issue, HeroQuest hardwires this into the rules - players can only use abilities to augment other abilities (a bit like a secondary check in a 4e skill challenge) if doing so would be fun at the table, and repetition is not fun. The rules also note, as an exception, the situation in which the constant repetition is itself a running gag.

This is a bit easier to do when the rules are based on narrative logic rather than ingame logic, with the ingame explanation to be worked out after the narrative logic has told you what is or is not permissible.