How Hardline a DM are You?

[howandwhy99]

Hardball Referee... Though I'm not a jerk about limiting actions.
("no take backs. You said you stumbled over to grab your sword. The swarm moved with you. And NO, you moved away from the pool")

I don't DM very much, but I prefer to describe the situation as clearly as I can and then let the players ask questions. If they say they do something particularly dire, I will hint at the possible consequences. We play for fun, not to be bureaucrats.

 

[demonpunk]

blah

On Question A

I saw this referee vs. guide DM thing in Dungeon #118, in a Dungeoncraft article by Monte Cook. One of his points was that you should pick one style and go with it, because mixing the two can confuse the players. Referee style is roll in the open, don't fudge rolls for either side, and don't help the PCs out of difficult situations. Guide style is fudge rolls when dramatically necessary, alter events to suit your overall story, etc.

Both styles are equally valid, I think, and both have their drawbacks. Referee DMs can seem to tough on the players, and their campaigns can go nowhere if the PCs don't have a hook to follow. Guide DMs can be "novelists" who railroad their players. These flaws are bad DMing, not a bad style.

I prefer Referee style, but I've learned that you still need some good plot hooks and character based stories to drive a campaign. But I roll in the open during combat, I don't help the PCs or the big villains (it happens all the time that a big villain gets killed too easily, and I want to stop it, but I don't because it would be unfair to the PCs).

On Question B

I tend to just give mechanical descriptions, but I'm trying to add more narrative descriptions. You still need to give a good hint at the mechanical limitations, or its just not fun for the players.

On the other hand, combat is crazy and real people don't always make the best decisions in combat. The occasional blunder is okay if the player understands the risks and just makes a bad decision. This is the "no takebacks" rule, which I think is pretty appropriate for combat.

 

[schporto]

1) More of a referee. But like Yair said I guide with the tactics and plans. My dice roll true. I don't remember fudging any dice rolls. (I have fudged what a DC is based on my feelings of the situation, but not the roll.)
2) I'd say I do both. If it something that they are under the effects of then they get to know the 'situation'. So in the situation you listed with the swarm, I'd try to use such a nice description (I'm working on this part), and then finish with the "this means you are nauseated." But the last game I merely described the effects of damage reduction.
-cpd

 

[Odhanan]

Both styles are equally valid, I think, and both have their drawbacks. Referee DMs can seem to tough on the players, and their campaigns can go nowhere if the PCs don't have a hook to follow. Guide DMs can be "novelists" who railroad their players. These flaws are bad DMing, not a bad style.

I entirely agree with this. I am a Guide DM myself. Indeed, the danger here is to save the PCs as soon as they are in danger. You may look like you are holding their hand to do anything in-game and/or railroad everything. Worse, you can come to think that the game is "yours" much like a novel would, and use the PCs as viewers, secondary protagonists. It is all avoidable for a Guide DM who's aware of these dangers.

The solution here is interactivity in the large sense of the word. To realize that you are running the game with the players, that they bring their own input in the game and it should matter, including when it comes to bad choices and failure/death for their characters.

I like to make the choices of the PCs matter, but these choices matter for good or ill. The rules are always there, and I never just "come up" with something that contradicts the rules directly - that would play against the believability of the game. I make NPCs, factions, monsters react to the PCs' actions. That's my part.

 

[Gold Roger]

1) In terms of DMing, are you a referee or a guide?

Ok, this is a big one, but I'd prefer to explain it on my own thoughs.
When I start a campaign I have two criteria to it.
One is the basic genre. If I can I choose players I prefer to choose those that either prefer the given style or that have no problem adapting, if not I try to adjust to the players preferences. If the players are an eclectic mix of preferences, ok, well have only one criteria in such a campaign.
Criteria number two is what it's all about for me, what I call "amazing schuzpa". That can be anything like great dialogues, big story twists, surprising revelations, tense fights or great stunts, you get the idea. It's the reason we play an if in a session no "amazing schutzpaa" happens I'm a sad little nerd.
Now I prefer if the "amazing schuzpaa" comes from the players/PC's. That's also what the flavor is for. If all players know it's a heroic game they can go out on their own and say "Let's safe stuff! Big time!". It's the same with other genres "Let's kill thing and take their stuff" in a dungeon crawl/powergame campaign or "Let's seduce stuff, steal from them and curse at them witfully" in swashbuckling adventure etc.
But even with a clearly defined genre players all to often just stand around going "huh" or do messed up stuff that just ends in confusion or chaos. Because of this you have to "feed" the players with hooks and NPC's that have their well laid out plans and sometimes you just have to spontanously throw out some "amazing schutzpaa" at them to get them back on track.
Let me give an example. I've so far played three sessions in a post-apokalyptik d20 game that's DM'ed in a complete referee style. And at time's I'm geting frustrated by a lack of "amazing schutzpaa", because the other players are so damn clueless about how to drive the story. We once spend over 3/4 of a long session only with getting lost in the wild and the three other building machines and brewing poison we didn't really need just because they didn't know what else they should do. I really wished our DM would do anything to draw us into, heck, even railroad us into some adventure. I went scouting alone in postapokalypttik world all the time. But nothing story significant happened at all.
So, to answer your question, I prefer to play the referee, but sometimes you just have to guide the PC's to keep things exiting. That's not to say I don't like downtime, I love it and think it's elemental to good charakter developement, I just don't want it to be 80% of my gaming time. I think a D&D session is a flame, it may burn bigger or smaller at times, but it's the DM's task to keep the fire burning and from geting out of hand.

2) Do you play hardball with the players when it comes to adjudication.

By your definition? Not at all. Many people here said they explain the happenings and then give in game terms. I do the opposite.
For example in your given case I'd say: "Your nauseated. From all those bugs crawling about you, trying to crawl into your mouth and stuff, your going sick as hell."
Actually for a total hardballer by your definition I'd be somewhat a nightmare player.
When he says:
"Your PC feels really sick from the dozen beetles that just crawled into his open mouth, what does he do?"
My first reaction would be:"So I'm sickened?"
"No"
"Ah, so I'm nauseated, righto. I move out of the swarm "or when playing a stupid/easily frightened PC" I beat aroun my hands and roll on the ground, so I effectly do nothing."
You see, I like where I'm at.
Only exceptions are thing where I'd think a discription would be extremely anti-athmospheric like the exact number of DR or "Ok guys, he's got 50 HP left after that one.
However you could call me a hardball DM in that I can be very unforgiving when I think somebody should have learned the rules by now (AoO's) or have better judgement. Most PC's I've killed died because of stuff like that. First level artificer runs into horrid rats, next turn rats go into flanking position, end of artificer. Monk drinking healing potion while threatened, end of monk.So most of the time I'm a no taking back guy, though I soften up time and again.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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.

Hi Kahuna Burger,

The key to taking this route or approach is communication. This means not only the words you speak but the actions and body language that you convey. When done well, the players become completely submersed in what you are describing. When done poorly, it is as Peter Gibbons said, hiding the ball rather than playing hardball. A game of "guess what's in the DM's head" would be terrible to play in. It all comes down to the skill of the DM to communicate as well as the players to roleplay their characters.

Rather than thinking "I've just taken 5hp of damage and am now nauseated", they're thinking about the burning streaks of acid across their skin from the beetles inside their armor as well as the dozen or so acid beetles that they are trying to vomit loose from their mouth. Would you try to cast a spell under these conditions? Would you try and get out of the swarm? It all depends on the character and for example if they had experienced a swarm before. If the player understands what's going on, then they will roleplay their character appropriately. Whether this is sub-optimal or not is neither here nor there. Some players though are conditioned to always try to do the most "optimal" thing. It is this that slows the game down and wastes time, not the DM's description.

In terms of opponents making genuine and realistic mistakes, it all depends. Different opponents have different motivations and it is this that I try to get across when I DM. For example, a hungry wolf will charge in to try and take a chunk out of a PC, tripping them up in the process. A wolf defending it's territory might hang back growling readying an action to attack. If the mage then blasts the wolf with magic or fire, the wolf will most likely run away. As such, I try to roleplay the enemies as best as I can. This is not about deliberately "making mistakes" but conveying motivations. If in the heat of battle it is appropriate for an enemy to make a non-optimal decision then cool, that's what happens. My players generally find though that my main antagonists tend to "not" make mistakes. My players are exceptionally good themselves though so heh... it balances out nicely and everyone enjoys themselves.

As for your implication of adversarial DMing, what is adversarial DMing? Is it more the DM not wanting to "lose"? Is it the DM "cheating" so that they don't lose? Is it the DM deliberately making things difficult for the players through lack of communication? These are more elements of poor DMing rather than "adversarial" DMing.

I conceive of adversarial DMing as more roleplaying your NPCs and enemies through their abilities and motivations. This generally means that yes, you are opposing the PCs and "trying" to defeat them. If this roleplaying means reflecting hatred (coup de gracing a downed PC at risk of giving away an AoO) then so be it. The players will understand that if one of their group goes down, protect them as best as you can or they will certainly be dead. To be honest, if I had an enemy like this and I did not roleplay them this way, then I would feel I had done my players a disservice. A dangerous opponent is not just someone who has big plusses or flashy magic. An opponent who really wants you dead and will do anything and everything possible to accomplish it should be far more frightening for the players. As long as the players are under no false illusions of how the game will be played, then I see no issue at all in this style of gameplay. It is not for everyone, but neither is it an invalid approach.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Emirikol]

I have three rules:
1. We use action points
2. No matter how much damage you take, you'll never go lower than -9 on an attack and you're initiative will automatically be moved to last. If you're going to die, it's either due to the fact that you're out of AP's or your fellow player characters LET YOU DIE.
3. Intelligent creatures who just plain hate your guts will 'coup' your soul.

jh

 

[Kahuna Burger]

As for your implication of adversarial DMing, what is adversarial DMing? Is it more the DM not wanting to "lose"? Is it the DM "cheating" so that they don't lose? Is it the DM deliberately making things difficult for the players through lack of communication? These are more elements of poor DMing rather than "adversarial" DMing.

I conceive of adversarial DMing as more roleplaying your NPCs and enemies through their abilities and motivations.

Adverserial DMing is playing to beat the characters. I.e. you have an adverserial relationship with them. In my experience, some (but not most or all) dms who claim to be referees can actually be adverseries. It can be in combat, by cracking down on "metagaming" by the players while using metagame knowlege freely themselves, or in the overall campaign when they constantly feel the need to hobble a character who is getting "too effective" or "knock the characters down a few pegs" when they actually try to do something other than follow the plot hooks and fight the foes. Or it can just be an overall attitude that you slowly recognize in your DM, in spite of them playing 'by the book' in combat.

Some players seem to enjoy adverserial DMs, so I'm not going to just call it "bad". Its just the part of the spectrum out past "referee" and very far away from guide.

Heh, now I've got that bit from the 80's D&D cartoon stuck in my head. "I am Dungeon Master, your guide in the realm of Dungeons and Dragons...." Some DMs wanna be Dungeon Master, some wanna be Venger and some just wanna be the director.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Kahuna Burger,

I still think what you seem to be describing is poor DMing rather than Adversarial DMing. To be changing the results to suit the bad guys is nothing more than being an "anti-guide" so to speak. To crackdown on metagaming and then to metagame through your NPCs is nothing short of cheating. If I was to do that, my players would pick up on it in two seconds and snap me a new one. When the players trust you, the last thing you want to do is anything to abuse that trust.

As I said before, an Adversarial DM is one who roleplays the PCs enemies, opponents and acquaintences as best as they possibly can. This normally means you will be opposing the PCs and trying to defeat them. You stay true to the world you have created and those who inhabit it. Am I wrong in defining it this way? (Should I be using different terminology?) The way how you use it implies numerous negative connotations more in line with poor DMing skills.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Kahuna Burger]

Kahuna Burger,

I still think what you seem to be describing is poor DMing rather than Adversarial DMing. To be changing the results to suit the bad guys is nothing more than being an "anti-guide" so to speak. To crackdown on metagaming and then to metagame through your NPCs is nothing short of cheating. If I was to do that, my players would pick up on it in two seconds and snap me a new one. When the players trust you, the last thing you want to do is anything to abuse that trust.

As I said before, an Adversarial DM is one who roleplays the PCs enemies, opponents and acquaintences as best as they possibly can. This normally means you will be opposing the PCs and trying to defeat them. You stay true to the world you have created and those who inhabit it. Am I wrong in defining it this way? (Should I be using different terminology?) The way how you use it implies numerous negative connotations more in line with poor DMing skills.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

*shrug* again, I have seen DMs with this style with full games, and while the actual cheating methods are over the top, maintaining an adversarial relationship with your players is something I see in many seemingly expereinced DMs on this board.

Obviously as I failed to patent the term "adverserial DMing", you may use it with whatever definition you choose. However, your definition doesn't make a lot of sense to me. First because roleplaying npcs (friends or foes) well is simply a good DM, and second because you as DM choose those foes, their capabilities and personalities. Saying that you are just "roleplaying them as best you can" seems to me to be ducking the question of whether you are trying to set up a story for your players (guide) challenge them (referree) or 'beat them' (adverserial). What is the purpose of the npc in the first place?