GMing: "getting Even" vs "getting it right"

[swrushing]

I am surprised by the notion that some have that, as a GM, its better to "get even" in game with a player who uses a rule the way you don't like rather than fixing the rule. For some, it seems preferable to have the Gm let the rule stay as is, let the player use it legally, but then later in the session or the game "get him back" for it by turning his success around on him or making a future scene go against him.

This stems from... on this other board i posted a house rule thingy where i want to limit in my game the use of plot points. The wrinkle i am outlawing is using them to be much much better for a brief time at something your character doesn't know, like a grunt suddenly becoming a miracle engineer for a few moments or a pilot answering the surgeon's medical questions for him, accomplished by spending plot points, blah blah.

We can get into more detail on the rule, if you need it.

but the key is the responses were almost to a man "instead of changin the rule here is how to make him pay for doing it..."

Some excerpts, taken out of context of course...

"and in the next fire fight he and/or the rest of the group would get stomped "

"let loose the wrath of the GM"

"There is nothing the player can do that the GM cannot turn against him."

So... if there is a use of a rule which is, in your eyes for your game, out of whack and easily fixed, why would it be better to let the rule stand and simply punish players who use it by deliberately shafting their characters in a kind of passive/aggressive payback?

 

[Odhanan]

I think a specific example would be helpful, swrushing.

As a DM I make rulings on the spot, and players are welcome to share their constructive criticism after the game. If a rule is an obstacle to the fun of the game for the table I DM, I change it. It means that houserules for different game tables I DM may vary. The goal is to get a smooth game for everyone to enjoy, so I try to answer to the specificities of each and everyone present to the game. It's tough sometimes, but it's definitely a critical skill for a DM, IMO.

 

[swrushing]

I think a specific example would be helpful, swrushing.

Ok let me give several.

In my recent stargate game, players could spend plot points for +5 to a roll before a roll was made. plot points were rare, usualy 1 per session awarded and often the heroes had 2-3 tops, 5 at the very most.

on occasion, maybe 4-5 times in the course of the campaign, one player would decide to dump 3-4 plot points for a +20 to a skill check. Each time it was for a skill he had little knowledge in. The pilot for instance deciding to weigh in on analyzing the piece of ancient technology or trying to figure out how to decrypt/decipher the goa'uld database.

Now, there were PC characters with these skills at "high balue" like the scientist with +19 to the skill for ancient devices or the master linguist.

In each case, the character plot pointing in was more or less stealing the thunder, usually just not waiting for that other character to get to the place.

So, the house rule i put in there at the player's suggestion was to cap the bonus to "no more than your skill rank". So if you only had +3 skill at ancient tech, you could plot point to a +6.

he seemed fine with the idea and it was his suggestion.

Now, for the serenity game i am about to begin, i am talking about a similar cap, limiting you to no more than the skill you have as bonus dice from plot points.

Two scenes come to mind from the show...

In the pilot, they need the wounded engineer down in the engine room for an emergency manuever. Jayne hauls kaylee down and she directs them as to how to do things. If i leave the plot point rule open ended, instead Jayne the bruiser grunt can just say "leave her in sickbay" and do it hisself by spending a bunch of plot points to for the emernegncy maneuver give himself better engineering skill than she has.

Not as good a scene IMO and more over it kinda makes the scene from the show look silly. if the grunt can do it, why haul the bleeding engineer out of sick bay?

Another scene with ship about to crash and the best pilot at the helm... but it might be better to yank him out of the pilot chair and let the captain or the prostitute fly the "crash landing" if they have more plot points cuz they can get better rolls.

Having seen it happen already, i am going to limit the degree of bonus from plot points to more or less double you normal skill. this will let exceptional people do extraodrdinary things in their field of focus, let average people do good things, and let unskilled people rise just barely adequate when needed. it will prevent the grunt from dialing up amazing skill levels in stuff he doesn't know didly about.

None of my players will object t the rule, they have seen it before and were fine with it in stargate.

but, some Gms seem to think its better to let the rule stand and to slap around those who use it.

that seems very adversarial style of gming to me.
why not fix the problem as opposed to kicking those who trip over it in hopes they wont trip again?

 

[Odhanan]

but, some Gms seem to think its better to let the rule stand and to slap around those who use it.

that seems very adversarial style of gming to me.
why not fix the problem as opposed to kicking those who trip over it in hopes they wont trip again?

I'm totally with you. Better to make the system fit the players than the reverse!

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm totally with you.

Me, too. Anybody has it within their capacity to browbeat their players for using broken rules as written. A truly exceptional few take it upon themselves to fix these rules and get on with the game. Or, at the very least, this has been my experience over the past ten years.

 

[Vraille Darkfang]

Usually I do it that way.

Fix it for my players....

But, every once in a while you get a rules-lawyer, munchkin, power gamer wanna-be that INSISTS a rule should wokr this way & will whine about it & delay the game. (Or sometimes its just a new player that can't yet imagine playing a game and modifying the rules). Like when in a video game you discover a bug. It shouldn't work that way, but it does & you use it to your advantage. Sort of like RAW only CAW (Code As Written).

Then, its time to show them that any bug they can use, I can use. And since I have a (potentially) infinite nubmer of foes I can throw at them versus the 1 (maybe 2) players that are trying to use the rule/loophole/etc, I quickly show them that the DM ALWAYS has a bigger gun, he just chooses not to use it unless you really tick him off.

 

[gizmo33]

So... if there is a use of a rule which is, in your eyes for your game, out of whack and easily fixed, why would it be better to let the rule stand and simply punish players who use it by deliberately shafting their characters in a kind of passive/aggressive payback?

If you were a DM who was afraid of confrontation, would you rather:

a. confront the player in a real life situation, and change the rule
b. confront the player's character in the game as the DM, where all the cards are stacked in your favor

I think people who are adverse to confrontation would rather just punish characters with their powers as the DM, thereby avoiding the social skills and resolve that would otherwise be required to change the rule and deal with the reactions of real-life people.

And I'm not saying that someone who doesn't want to deal with this is somehow socially inept, because it's a very difficult situation. But it IS about social skills and resolve (at about a DC 30). I've been DMing for centuries and I still loathe having to go to some player and tell them that their favorite spell or rule is going to be modified. The alternative, though, IMO comprimises the integrity of the campaign world and your neutrality as a DM.

 

[Odhanan]

I think people who are adverse to confrontation would rather just punish characters with their powers as the DM

This is plain bad DMing. If I am unable to discuss with my players, I might just as well give up on being a DM.

 

[jdrakeh]

This is plain bad DMing. If I am unable to discuss with my players, I might just as well give up on being a DM.

Yeah. If somebody goes out of their way to avoid mediating disputes with other players and instead opts to rape the characters of those other players with fiat during actual play to 'make a point', then they're not a very good GM. They certainly aren't a GM that I'd play under more than once.

 

[painandgreed]

If I make a house rule, it usually starts at the begining of the next game session and is written into a list of house rules. Typically, I don't change the RAW and instead let the players police themselves knowing that any rule exploit they can use, the NPCs can use against them. If they don't abuse it and only do so in dire situations, I'll usually let it slide. If they use it a lot, then the NPCs will start also using the same or similar exploits against the PCs.