How Hardline a DM are You?

[Herremann the Wise]

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?

While there is no patent on the term, I fear that perhaps I've been using it incorrectly. (Or is it that you spell it with a second "e" and myself with an "a" )?
Your delineation of story/challenge/beat is succinct - although I would not have interpreted adversarial DMing as beating the PCs, just "trying" to beat them. In the end, what I personally do is try to cater for the group's enjoyment.

In selecting opponents, you are normally trying to give them opponents that they can handle to varying degrees. You try to build up climaxes where the ultimate encounter in a scenario is very challenging - be it combat or roleplaying. In effect, I suppose, you are setting up your opponents for probable defeat at the hands of the PCs. You play those bad guys as best as you can though. In so doing, you are staying true to the NPCs. You certainly won't pull punches just to keep a PC alive. This is what I suppose I mean by hardball. Funnily enough, it most likely relates to the RP an G "Fudging" thread.

I think at the least, we are on the same wavelength in terms of good DMing. However, would you have an NPC who really hated a PC coup de grace them if they went down in combat or would you try not to place yourself in a position where this could happen? Effectively, do you try to keep the PCs alive by fudging or do you let the dice determine the result?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[megamania]

Guide or Director


I am looking to TELL a story more than anything.

 

[The Shaman]

1. Most definitely a referee - I do my best to design evocative, exciting adventures, but once we're game-on, it's all about the polyhedrons of Fate.

2. I give both a description of the effect and a quick overview of the mechanical effects, and I expect the players to do the same.

 

[diaglo]

i am a referee. always have been always will be.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I think at the least, we are on the same wavelength in terms of good DMing. However, would you have an NPC who really hated a PC coup de grace them if they went down in combat or would you try not to place yourself in a position where this could happen? Effectively, do you try to keep the PCs alive by fudging or do you let the dice determine the result?

in many cases I would fudge, usually through story choices (the villain hates him enough to let him suffer in captivity, etc). I think the DM has an overall story going (the fate of kingdom X, or whatever) but that each player also has a story to tell with their character (the redemption of my father's sword or whathaveyou). So I will do what I can not to end the PC's story prematurely.

On the other hand, if a player has his character do stupid, suicidal things, I will assume that he is telling the story of "The Minor Character Who Died Doing Stupid, Suicidal Things And Was Mourned By The Party" and help out with that. There are most definitly consequences for your actions in my games.

 

[Arc]

It's hard to classify my DMing as either style, really. I run brutal combats, play enemies intelligently, and generally make combats with the players as challenging as possible. If I build an NPC, he/she/it will be fully-optimized, because I expect the party to be. If I design a trap, there's no easy-way out, at least not without a lot of careful thought. If I run a complex plot, I expect the players to be thoroughly screwed, not just mechanically, but plot-wise as well. It's no fun for me (and the players) if it's a cakewalk.

On the other hand, I love cinema. If a player wants to do something that's just plain cool, I'll gladly bend or break the rules to make it happen. I'll consider mooks "dead" if they're dropped down to 1HP, because they're not adding much to the scene at that point. I'll make horribly unbalanced adjudications on the spot (with the caveat that they're one-time-only) when it makes the game more heroic and exciting. If I can't imagine whatever is happening in game occuring on a big screen with several million dollars in special effects, then I'll do my best to spice it up.

I suppose I'm more of a "guide", in that sense, because my goal is to make the game fun, not necessarily true to the rules.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

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.

Guide. All the way. I hear referee I think football. To me, and this is a playstyle choice, if I am going to have a GM that dies nothing but adjucate rules then I may as well be playing a computer RPG. I understand others feel differently, but that isn't what I roleplay for.

Question 2)
- 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).

C - both of the above - I would say "A bunch of beetles just crawled all over you, and you accidently swallowed one and you feel reaaly sick. You are nauesaed and only have a single move action."

Just as I would say " The orc swings swings his nasty looking scimitar at you, and it grazes you across the upper arm. You take 3 pts of damage"

The rules are the pysics by which the characters interact with the world. Not telling the players game info that thier characters would understand just seems wrong to me. I don't want the players to make mistakes due to misunderstanding of the rules, I want them to have good time, failing or winning by choice and preference.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Me? Neither, both, yes...

How I run depends on the knowledge/talent of the players I have. My recent group was/is primarily new players who do not know the rules well enough that alot of mechanics words get used during play. A previous group was rules savvy and into IC gaming style.. mechanics speak virtually disappeared.

Plot wise, the game is always open to whatever/whereever the group wants to go. Again, the extremes of my recent group whose motivation to explore was limited to the module I was using.. no outside plans/hooks of player invention at all. The previous group was entirely player invention plans/hooks.

My NPC's make tactical errors, but tend to be into intel/recon to discover weaknesses/strengths of opponents. This means the big encounters tend to challenge the group due to better tactics.. {and the XP awards are adjusted to reflect}

My rule, that I have used since 1st edition, is that reliance on the mechanics in a uniform and standardized way is insurance against petty player hatred. Its easy to get mad at a DM who suddenly enforces a rule you had never used before to the PC's detriment.. harder to get mad at one who uses the rules { house ruled as need be in advance}
That being said... my bad guys tend to have enough hit points to be able to die at the dramatically appropriate time, or occasionally get a minor circumstance bonus to be able to hit on thier last attack.. Purely referee'd games tend to not be heroic in nature..