D&D General How Do I Help Mentor a GM Making Rookie Mistakes?

[Zardnaar]

Yes but your reply seems to echo the OP with the assumption that the GM is the one changing the rules rather than allowing for the scenario we where the player not knowing those rules for the specific poker variant they were explicitly invited to play. I commented about your metaphor extension because you included a bunch of example rule changes without allowing for the player simply not knowing the rules to the poker variant they were invited to.

The GM does have the right to change the rules. They also have the right to enforce the rules of the specific game they offered to run with a reasonable expectation of not being blamed for changing them when those rules don't match a different game players are more familiar with.

DM kinda has that right but arbitrary inconsistent rules changes are annoying.

Session 0 or based of PC actions are fine not whenever it suits the DMs mood.

 

[tetrasodium]

DM kinda has that right but arbitrary inconsistent rules changes are annoying.

Session 0 or based of PC actions are fine not whenever it suits the DMs mood.

Yes "arbitrary inconsistent rules" are annoying. But the critical detail I is that players being unfamiliar with printed rules of the particular variant being played does not empower players to claim that the GM is making arbitrary inconsistent rule changes by forcing the gm to allow players to pick & choose which published variant rules they want to force instead of the one being played or speak up to make clear the actual rule.

Simply put is the fact that both can happen and the presence of one does not automatically ensure the presence or absence of the other. The original poker metaphor extension did not allow that the GM was in bright or the players were capable of simply not knowing the actual rules before crying foul and ascribing calvinball to the GM actually using the rules as written as they seemed to be at least attempting to do.

This is an issue I've seen personally where players agree to join a levelup5e game then cry foul about MY rules changes after I have to point out areas where the levelup5e rules differ from or extend the base dnd5e ruleset. On more than one occasion that led to players wanting to negotiate some variant in the name of simplicity adapting to the new system or whatever only to immediately ignore both the original rule as written and the one they themselves negotiated and later deny ever having done anything of the sort.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

This is an issue I've seen personally where players agree to join a levelup5e game then cry foul about MY rules changes after I have to point out areas where the levelup5e rules differ from or extend the base dnd5e ruleset. On more than one occasion that led to players wanting to negotiate some variant in the name of simplicity adapting to the new system or whatever only to immediately ignore both the original rule as written and the one they themselves negotiated and later deny ever having done anything of the sort.

Why are these people joining a levelup5e game when they don't actually want to play levelup5e?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Why are these people joining a levelup5e game when they don't actually want to play levelup5e?

Its a person running LevelUp who apparently wants something different, I'd guess because its as close to what they want as they could get people to play.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Its a person running LevelUp who apparently wants something different, I'd guess because its as close to what they want as they could get people to play.

That's why I play Level Up, so I sympathize.

 

[tetrasodium]

Why are these people joining a levelup5e game when they don't actually want to play levelup5e?

Entitlement? I mentioned my experience with the group in question because the accusations I got for simply enforcing the rules of the game I offered to run when they differed from a game I didn't offer to run were eerily similar to some of the examples in this thread in ways that made it relevant to the bad extended anslogy.

Beyond entitlement?... There is a large segment of ttrpg players that started in the last decade... For better or worse that started them with an undeniably skewed view of acceptable mindset towards the meat computer providing the service of epic story teller event coordinator & life coach at the table for their enjoyment. This thread provides a pretty good example of that where all of the examples very much look like standard levelup5e rules as written. The 44 rules drama when the internet piled on a seemingly abused GM's' response to reaching their last straw with a group they had it with is another good case where the GM was automatically guilty until proven innocent & toxic player behavior entirely ignored a year or so back.

I tried pretty hard to find it but someone made a post a (long) while back with a great analogy about party planning as a service vrs party host & how that kind of shift encourages a tptally different set of expectations from the service provider. Think it was back around the "dm crisis" thing but my googlefu was lacking. It's not uncommon for players to leverage that shield in an effort to overtlyl subvert the game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's why I play Level Up, so I sympathize.

Yup. But at some point if you say you're running X, but house rule it too extensively, I think I'd argue you're being deceptive, even if not deliberately. At some point the proper description is "home brew with a basis in LevelUp (or whatever)".

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yup. But at some point if you say you're running X, but house rule it too extensively, I think I'd argue you're being deceptive, even if not deliberately. At some point the proper description is "home brew with a basis in LevelUp (or whatever)".

That is in fact the description I use.

 

[Zardnaar]

That is in fact the description I use.

All I woukd want to know is households up front.

Not whenever I feel the need.
One player I inherited their DM nerfed sneak attack. Basically said it wouldn't work as it was overpowered lol.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Look, we're talking about a teenage girl who stepped up to Dungeon Master for the very first time, running a game for a bunch of adults, trying to get her feet under her as she learns this process and skill. And because it's her first time, she is probably trying to replicate the types of successful games she has played in previously that she enjoyed, and thus might be introducing house rules thinking that they would help guide the game towards what she thinks is a better experience overall for everyone. Is it "bad form" from experienced players perspectives to throw in house rules during play? Sure, fine. But come on... in this particular case cut the girl some slack. Let her learn the job on the job before smacking her hand and yelling 'No!' Understand that she's learning as she goes and support her in her attempts at becoming competent.

Or if you as an adult can't handle that... then don't play in her game and go run your own game instead. Then you can see things run in exactly the manner you think Dungeons & Dragons should be run.