How Hardline a DM are You?

[Herremann the Wise]

How rigid are you when applying the rules of the game as well as "helping" the players out?

There are effectively two questions here, related but how I'm not exactly sure.
1) In terms of DMing, are you a referee or a guide?
2) Do you play hardball with the players when it comes to adjudication.

Question 1)
At one end of the spectrum you have what I suppose is best defined as the "referee" while at the other end, is the "guide". [I'm sure I've read this in an article somewhere, where though?] The referee treats their role purely as an adjudicator of the rules, describing what happens in response to actions taken within the game. A guide DM is more a storyteller, shifting things around behind the scenes to cater to their idea of the story as well as what they perceive their players will enjoy.

I have not done this as a poll partly due to the fact that I'm not that good at designing polls but also because I'm actually not too sure that there is that much of a spectrum here. If you try to have a foot in both camps, do you end up with too many inconsistencies?

Question 2)
The following example looks more at the hardline aspect of DMing (sharing partially the ethos of the above). How would you DM the following situation:
- the PC is nauseated (can only take a single move action, can't cast spells, attack or do anything requiring concentration) by a swarm that they share a space with at the start of their turn.

- Do you:
a) Tell the player that their PC feels really sick from the dozen beetles that just crawled into their open mouth) then ask them what they are doing.
b) Say to the Player that their PC is nauseated and all they can do for the round is a single move action.
c) Other - please explain (colorfully if you wish).

Example b) is fairly self explanatory but a) maybe needs a quick explanation.
In example a) you explain how their character feels and then you ask them what they want to do. They might say they wish to cast a burning hands (to which you tell them that they can't even begin the spell as they barf up lunch with sprinkled beetles). They might say they try to do something else like douse the swarm in oil (which again you explain they can't even find the oil jar in their pack because they are too busy being sick). If they manage to say they do the one thing they can (single move action) and move, you tell them they successfully move out of the swarm, barfing all the way.
In this way, you are playing hardball, you're not telling them their options, you are just reacting to their actions and if they use up or waste their options, then that is too bad.

In answering these two questions myself:
Referee or Guide?
- I would say I'm more a guide DM (although I know that sometimes I wish I was more a referee).
Hardball or Forgiving?
- I definitely prefer the hardball option a). For me it allows a little more opportunity for genuine and realistic mistakes. I suppose it also puts back the veneer that the 3rd edition ethos has stripped away (with players/rules lawyers conditioned into doing more DMing in a game than PCing).

Your thoughts?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[el-remmen]

Question 1: By your description I am a guide. I play the consequences to all actions to the hilt, but try to do it in a way that is still fun and involves the players. Often their reactions to these consequences take the game in a whole new direction I never expected, and that is when guiding is important - making sure things don't get completely off-track and derail the story altogether - unless of course, it seems the players want to.

Question 2: I use a lot of description, but then present the options in rules jargon to make sure the player understands. I like to keep in mind that while we try for as much immersion as possible - the player is not always going to be able to take in every aspect of his character's perceptions and environment, and it is my job as GM to remind him of some of that so he does not make a decision out of ignorance.

This reminds me of the old thread asking if you warn your players when an action they declare will draw an AoO, and I always do - again, the player is not really there and not really a seasoned warrior or whatever, it seems dumb to let him do something he might not do b/c of the player overlooked it or lack of familiarity with the rules.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

1). Referee. I think a DM can contribute enough to satisfy his novel-writing urges () even in a "sandbox" game, where the narrative emerges from the PCs' own goals and motivations. There's plenty of room to throw in your own plots and ideas in such a game.

2) C. A combination of both. I would describe the scene colourfully while also telling the player what their character can actually accomplish. I loathe playing with DMs who like to play guessing games; I'm not my character, so don't try half-arsed forcible immersion with me. I'm the player, I should know what my character's options are if it's at all reasonable (and feeling so nauseated you can't croak out the magic words or complete the mystic gestures is something I feel the character would know).

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Probably a guide, and definitly more "forgiving" by your example question. I would never have a player in a position where their character could only take certain actions then let them waste their round doing nothing. That strikes me as adverserial DMing, which is maybe another way of looking at your questions : Is the DM playing with the players or against them? I like to play with my players, though I am also setting the challenges they overcome.

 

[Crothian]

1) Storyteller, though I imigine its a bit of both. It is the Players story that we are telling but things do happen outside their view and that's my job.

2) I do A but add in what the players can do within the bounds of the rules. Its just easier to describe the scene narratively and mechancially.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

In this way, you are playing hardball, you're not telling them their options, you are just reacting to their actions and if they use up or waste their options, then that is too bad.

No, in this example, you're giving them too little information to make meaningful choices (then holding them accountable as if they should have known what you didn't tell them).

"You feel really sick" is not enough of a description to impart the crucial information: "Your character is suffering from the condition referenced in the rules as 'nauseated' (and thus is limited to only a single move action, etc.)."

So I guess I'm not "hardline" by your definition, which is what I would refer to as "hiding the ball."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, in this example, you're giving them too little information to make meaningful choices (then holding them accountable as if they should have known what you didn't tell them).

"You feel really sick" is not enough of a description to impart the crucial information: "Your character is suffering from the condition referenced in the rules as 'nauseated' (and thus is limited to only a single move action, etc.)."

So I guess I'm not "hardline" by your definition, which is what I would refer to as "hiding the ball."

I agree. I come to the game to have fun. Playing "guess what's in my head" with a DM that thinks that antics like this are clever is on the fun scale somewhere around putting lemon juice on a belt-sander injury.

 

[Yair]

Question 1)
At one end of the spectrum you have what I suppose is best defined as the "referee" while at the other end, is the "guide". [I'm sure I've read this in an article somewhere, where though?] The referee treats their role purely as an adjudicator of the rules, describing what happens in response to actions taken within the game. A guide DM is more a storyteller, shifting things around behind the scenes to cater to their idea of the story as well as what they perceive their players will enjoy.

Hmmm... both really, but in combat mostly referee. The guiding part comes in deciding on tactics, reinforcements, and odd bits and pieces, but otherwise not in combat.

Question 2)
The following example looks more at the hardline aspect of DMing (sharing partially the ethos of the above). How would you DM the following situation:
- the PC is nauseated (can only take a single move action, can't cast spells, attack or do anything requiring concentration) by a swarm that they share a space with at the start of their turn.

- Do you:
a) Tell the player that their PC feels really sick from the dozen beetles that just crawled into their open mouth) then ask them what they are doing.
b) Say to the Player that their PC is nauseated and all they can do for the round is a single move action.
c) Other - please explain (colorfully if you wish).

b. I usually say something like a, then tell the player he is nauseated, then ask for his actions.
I see no point in hiding the rules I play by from my players. They can do their own roleplaying, to the extent they want to, under these rules. I don't force them to roleplay blindfolded, without seeing the rules they play under.
Playing by the rules also means faster play, and I find D&D combat slow enough as it is. In this case, saying "no, you can't do that" a dozen times is also not quite enjoyable.

 

[Thanee]

1) More of a guide. I'm willing to bend the rules, if possible, to support PC actions, as long as it makes sense and is consistent, but when something is clearly not possible, it simply isn't going to happen. I often give advice to players, if I think something might benefit them and they are not thinking about it in the moment.

2) Both a) + b). So, basically b).

Bye
Thanee

 

[Kahuna Burger]

- I definitely prefer the hardball option a). For me it allows a little more opportunity for genuine and realistic mistakes.

Just out of curiosity, do you also have your npc foes make genuine and realistic mistakes? Do they charge through an AoO zone when they could have gone around, or waste their entire action when slowed? If not, you are adverserial (and cheating), not hardball.