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

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My experience is the opposite of that, experienced GMs seem to make the worst players because they're too opinionated and like to be in charge.

I used to resemble that remark. I got better.

 

[Fifth Element]

My experience is the opposite of that, experienced GMs seem to make the worst players because they're too opinionated and like to be in charge.

I've found the opposite. One of the players in a group I'm DMing now was exclusively a DM for about 25 years before I came along. Often when I make a ruling some of the players will grumble or what have you, but never him. He takes what I give him and goes with it. I think it's because that's how he would like players to react when he's DMing.

 

[Fifth Element]

I used to resemble that remark. I got better.

You still resemble a newt, though.

 

[amysrevenge]

too opinionated and like to be in charge.

Have you been secretly videotaping me?

 

[Nifft]

Another option would be that only people with a special Licensee would be allowed to run games. This would ensure some level of quality control. The problems are that it would require a organization to test and issue lincesees as well as enforce the rules. The majority of people would not welcome such strict control over who can or cannot DM.

Let's test this idea out with parent licenses first.

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

Hmm, you really think it's that hard? Isn't that pretty much what we do here? I see us exchanging techniques, discussing how our ideas worked (and didn't), and generally sharing experiences.

Then again, maybe you are right about how to make good DMs...

All I said is that it's the only surefire way that I know about.

IMHO, to get a good DM, you need someone to be doing it for the right reasons. Basically, you want someone to run the game he wishes he could play, so he's always looking to create the fun stuff he wishes he could play through.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

See, your story here, rather than convincing me that DMs can't be trusted, convinces me that, as a player, you can't be trusted. I'm not sure that's what you were going for...

Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I'm curious what about my story made me seem untrustworthy as a player?

 

[Nifft]

Necromancy? Fine, I'll take advantage of it too...

My experience is the opposite of that, experienced GMs seem to make the worst players because they're too opinionated and like to be in charge.

In my experience, there are some people who are too opinionated and like to be in charge too much. They make bad players and bad DMs.

Perhaps they advertise themselves as experienced DMs because they are experienced, and yet they keep looking for new groups...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

For such a large group rotating so many different games I can see the confusion that a rules light system could bring to the situation. To me this issue is less about trust and more about information overload brought about by too many DMs running games concurrently. If each individual DM remained consistent and fair within his/her own multiverse then I don't see how trust was lost.

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).

If the expectations of the player base included having all the games running with the same rules in play and the DM's had all agreed to this decision then I could certainly see a breach of trust. If the expectation was there and never properly communicated then the DM's are not at fault.

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.

The whole deal with the bet and the magic item indicates a rather immature playing group. Did all this craziness go on with an adult group?

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.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Instead it was just frustrating that there wasn't enough rules, so we had to resort to DM interpretation more often than not.

Yeah, that's always been the problem with D&D, not enough rules.

PS I am being sarcastic.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'll certainly agree that more codification of rules hasn't been proven to cause greater player entitlement. But I do feel that entitlement issues are worse today than they used to be. I just suspect there's something else at work rather than codification of the rules. For one thing, I'd be inclined to spend more effort looking for a cause in the content of the rules rather than the degree to which they are detailed.

Well, the thing is that both have increased. There are more rules and the content of them is different.

The thing is, I'm not sure I'd count some of the "rules" from 1e or 2e as actual rules. Most of the time they were vague recommendations to the DM who then got to make the decision. Things like "people with more strength jump further" and "people with higher intelligence figure out problems better" but without any rules on exactly how much further or how much better.

In more recent editions, the rules say "Roll a die, add your skill modifier, if you get 15 you can do X, if you get 20 you can do Y". This can be good for some things. Bad for others.