Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="demonpunk" data-source="post: 2739248" data-attributes="member: 17985">blahOn Question AI 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 BI 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.</blockquote>

Verification