D&D 5E How do you feel about PC abilities being nerfed by the DM?

[Hussar]

It feels odd that DM ability is a bell curve centered on ok, but you keep jerky ones...

That's the point though. There are TONS of reasons to play with jerky DM's - it's not like you know they're jerky beforehand. And, geography in the past played a huge role. If that's the only DM in town, well, you have two choices, step up and run games or play with the jerky DM. And, that's ignoring personal issues where that jerky DM is actually a friend and then it becomes even more complicated.

I polled En World many years ago about people's experiences with DM's. Obviously unscientific and all that, but, the results did graph almost as a perfect bell - about 1/4 reported having bad DM experiences, about 1/2 were okay and about 1/4 were great.

But, if that number holds true, that means in your group of 5 players, one of them or possibly two (presuming they're not all new) has had bad experiences with previous DM's which will obviously color their perception of the game.

One of the bigger mistakes I see a lot of DM's here talk about is this automatic presumption of trust. Trust your DM is the mantra when it's really not warranted. You need to prove to your players that they can trust you. One should not automatically assume that your players are going to trust what you're saying just because you're sitting in the DM's chair.

 

[Hussar]

/edit - whoops, double post.

 

[Cadence]

I polled En World many years ago about people's experiences with DM's. Obviously unscientific and all that, but, the results did graph almost as a perfect bell - about 1/4 reported having bad DM experiences, about 1/2 were okay and about 1/4 were great.

But, if that number holds true, that means in your group of 5 players, one of them or possibly two (presuming they're not all new) has had bad experiences with previous DM's which will obviously color their perception of the game.

Was that 25% with "all of their experiences with DMs were bad", or "they had at least one bad DM experience"? (Same for "great").

25% having had a bad experience is sad. 25% having had only bad experiences would be tragic!

--

Anyway, if you plaster those percents on a 3d6 (almost bell curve), that's calling everything 8 or lower bad, 9-12 okay, and 13+ great. Which doesn't feel that bell curvy

 

[Hussar]

Was that 25% with "all of their experiences with DMs were bad", or "they had at least one bad DM experience"? (Same for "great").

25% having had a bad experience is sad. 25% having had only bad experiences would be tragic!

--

Anyway, if you plaster those percents on a 3d6 (almost bell curve), that's calling everything 8 or lower bad, 9-12 okay, and 13+ great. Which doesn't feel that bell curvy

I really hate math nerds.

It was a really long time ago. IIRC, it was something along the lines of - have your DM experiences been generally bad, neutral or good? Something like that. I should see if I can dig up the link.

Heh, my memory is bad. Here's the thread:

In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

I'm always very interested in the different experiences that gamers have. I find it very eye opening that we all have such very varied experiences and I think it shines light on why people hold the opinions that they do. I honestly think that a lot of the points of view that people hold have...

www.enworld.org

But, I did remember the results pretty well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's the point though. There are TONS of reasons to play with jerky DM's - it's not like you know they're jerky beforehand. And, geography in the past played a huge role. If that's the only DM in town, well, you have two choices, step up and run games or play with the jerky DM. And, that's ignoring personal issues where that jerky DM is actually a friend and then it becomes even more complicated.

I polled En World many years ago about people's experiences with DM's. Obviously unscientific and all that, but, the results did graph almost as a perfect bell - about 1/4 reported having bad DM experiences, about 1/2 were okay and about 1/4 were great.

But, if that number holds true, that means in your group of 5 players, one of them or possibly two (presuming they're not all new) has had bad experiences with previous DM's which will obviously color their perception of the game.

One of the bigger mistakes I see a lot of DM's here talk about is this automatic presumption of trust. Trust your DM is the mantra when it's really not warranted. You need to prove to your players that they can trust you. One should not automatically assume that your players are going to trust what you're saying just because you're sitting in the DM's chair.

My point is that players are on the same bell curve as DMs, so if the community has decided to not give DMs the benefit of the doubt (as a number of threads are making clear to me), they should mistrust the players too. Let's go whole-hog with the environment of mistrust, and let the players into the fun.

 

[Mort]

My point is that players are on the same bell curve as DMs, so if the community has decided to not give DMs the benefit of the doubt (as a number of threads are making clear to me), they should mistrust the players too. Let's go whole-hog with the environment of mistrust, and let the players into the fun.

It's not a question benefit of doubt, it's a question of not tolerating ridiculous behavior just because the person doing it has the DM mantle.

 

[Hussar]

My point is that players are on the same bell curve as DMs, so if the community has decided to not give DMs the benefit of the doubt (as a number of threads are making clear to me), they should mistrust the players too. Let's go whole-hog with the environment of mistrust, and let the players into the fun.

Oh, I agree. There are easily as many bad players out there.

But, there is a difference. One bad player at a table is a fairly easily resolved problem. There's the door. One bad DM is far less easy to resolve.

My point is always that trust is earned. Sure, give the benefit of the doubt, but, this notion that all DM's must automatically be trusted simply because they are DM's is a very pervasive one. The whole "Well, I do the most work, so, players should respect my authority and automatically accept any limitations I place upon the game" is a pretty common attitude. You see it as a rebuttle in many threads talking about character creation and limiting options.

It may very well be true. The DM has done all this work developing this setting and the players should get behind it if they want to play in this setting. But, again, we run into the question, which is unanswerable because we're not there, is this limitation because it's a great idea or because the DM is just trying to force personal preferences and abusing his authority?

My players recently made these exact comments: "I do enjoy figuring out thematically sound reasons to include options that don’t initially make sense, though. It’s a fun thought exercise." and "I take it as a challenge to try to make narrative sense out of something that somebody says shouldn't make sense." This is in response to my comment about limiting wizards in an upcoming campaign. So, there is definitely a trend in players to push against the DM making statements about what is playable or not in a given setting.

They are absolutely not malicious about this and I adore my players. They are fantastic. But, I know, before I even open my mouth, that if I try to limit anything, I'm going to have a real uphill battle.

 

[Immoralkickass]

Sometimes that decision is "Eldritch Blast is over-used and everyone is getting annoyed with it, please pick a different Invocation" and that's fair.

No its not. "D&D is over-played and everyone is getting annoyed with it, please pick a different game."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Oh, I agree. There are easily as many bad players out there.

But, there is a difference. One bad player at a table is a fairly easily resolved problem. There's the door. One bad DM is far less easy to resolve.

My point is always that trust is earned. Sure, give the benefit of the doubt, but, this notion that all DM's must automatically be trusted simply because they are DM's is a very pervasive one. The whole "Well, I do the most work, so, players should respect my authority and automatically accept any limitations I place upon the game" is a pretty common attitude. You see it as a rebuttle in many threads talking about character creation and limiting options.

It may very well be true. The DM has done all this work developing this setting and the players should get behind it if they want to play in this setting. But, again, we run into the question, which is unanswerable because we're not there, is this limitation because it's a great idea or because the DM is just trying to force personal preferences and abusing his authority?

My players recently made these exact comments: "I do enjoy figuring out thematically sound reasons to include options that don’t initially make sense, though. It’s a fun thought exercise." and "I take it as a challenge to try to make narrative sense out of something that somebody says shouldn't make sense." This is in response to my comment about limiting wizards in an upcoming campaign. So, there is definitely a trend in players to push against the DM making statements about what is playable or not in a given setting.

They are absolutely not malicious about this and I adore my players. They are fantastic. But, I know, before I even open my mouth, that if I try to limit anything, I'm going to have a real uphill battle.

Fair enough. I'm just getting tired of the assumption being "The DM is just trying to force personal preferences and abuse their authority", because that's my impression of a lot of what I'm hearing. Limits are not inherently bad.

 

[James Gasik]

These DM's exist, and some of us have had to deal with them. A lot. A lot of my DMing habits, like rolling openly, were developed in response to DM's who lost my trust. Being able to trust one's DM is vital, IMO, so I try to be as transparent as possible.

Though apparently I need to be especially so when deciding to exclude Bugbear Paladins from my games. : )