How I like to be 'DMd'

[Rassilon]

Hello all,

For some reason I was thinking about how I like to be DMd - ie how I like my DM to manage the adventure / my character / me, I a realised that I prefer to be DMd with some Formality (!), but not necessarily with a firm hand.

For Example: Not so long ago we were doing the Gythyanki invasion from Dungeon. In the series there is a room where someone was guarding an item. If you attacked the item you drew an attack of opportunity from that person. Now there is no real way to handle this in the core rules, and albeit it was late, and we were tired, and when my character unexpectedly drew a AOO for having a swing at the item it was a real problem for me.

I argued, for (only) a few minutes, and the game stopped as the DM and I debated, and it was when I said to him "Just say I'M THE DM, and THAT IS THE RULE" and he finally did, that we moved on.

You see, I'm perfectly happy for the DM to moderate how the rules work, even on the fly, to make the adventure mimic more the style of play that the DM is going for : BUT - I want precedents set, I want a new formal structure that can be relied on to replace the RAW formal structure.

But I don't want a strict DM ! My character is a perfectly legal nightmare house of cards of classes and prestige classes, Swashbuckler, Diviner, Rogue, a few prestige classes (4 I think). Many DMs would not be happy with this - but I want the freedom to try insane combinations to synergise power and coolness - but I am happy for the DM to say (as he has) that a particular spell (etc) produces such an effect that it unbalances his game, even if published in the PHB, that the spell does not exist.

Of course, I also DM my players in much the way I want to be DMd (this hardly requires an insight bonus to realise).

How do you prefer to be DM'd ?

Is it the same or different to your preferred style of DMing ?

Rassilon.

 

[Corsair]

I like my current DM greatly. He prefers to follow written rules, but isn't afraid to make his own rulings. Sometimes it takes longer than I would like. Like you, I'd much rather a DM say "This is how we're doing it right now, we'll discuss it later".

 

[Man-thing]

I absolutely hated the last session I was a player in.

I prefer:

1) Games in which characters can dies.
2) Appropriately selected challenges.
3) Risk of failure to be a real possibility.
4) No GMPCs that are more powerful than the party.
5) No magic items that outwiegh the value of the character.
6) A DM that will make the "because I'm the DM" call

 

[shaylon]

Everyone that has DM'd me since I have been playing 3.x has been good or great. Even the RPGA event DM's I have had have been pretty cool, and fair.

My home game started with a DM that had a fun style. We wound up on a TPK and there was a little too much death IMO but it was a good story and I enjoyed it.

Current DM just started, we have had 3 sessions or so, and the story has been really interesting! We have been given so many options, both with our characters and what to do with them. I am really enjoying it.

-Shay

 

[Mercule]

Consistent, firm, fair, and tough.

Consistent: Use the RAW, or tell me in advance that a house-rule exists. I often plan 2-3 rounds in advance, in normal combat. Sometimes, I put my character in danger based on the success of a course of action. If I've done this and it works well, it's good tactics, not a broken rule. If you house-rule it on the spot, not only have you discouraged tactics and planning, but you've screwed my character right now. Even if it's a broken rule, I was operating under a (reasonable) assumption that the RAW is applicable.

Firm: If something isn't in the RAW, or you feel the need to adjust the RAW, just say so. "I'm the DM, and this is how it works," is fine.

Fair: Covered a bit above, but make sure your rulings are not just weakening the PCs or a subset of them for no good reason. Similarly, play monsters/NPCs according to the brains and knowledge they possess -- giant cockroaches are not master tacticians, but wolves will flank/trip/etc.

Tough: This requires all of the above to be in effect, first, but I really want to feel challenged mentally and like my advancement/successes were actual victories. Done unfairly, tough = bad DM. Done fairly, tough = amazing DM.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

In our style of gaming (I'm the DM 99 percent of the time), the rules are a shadow cast by the action. If its cool, and cinematic, we go with it, and rules be damned. When a really good combat is flowing, we sometimes forget to roll dice.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

Flexibility: My area boasts ample opportunity for gaming. If you say "Core-only," I say, "goodbye." The only reason I would choose to play D&D is to have fun with the options d20 has made available (or to play Spelljammer, obviously). if those options aren't available, I could be playing SilCore or HERO or Spycraft or True20 - and I will.
I don't mind setting-specific restrictions on character concept - but if I'm playing in a OA-style campaign and feel my ultra-honorable, pure-hearted samurai constantly torn between obedience and justice is better represented by a paladin (or a paladin/warmain/kensai with Blood and Fists martial arts feats), I want to be able to use the latter mechanics and call him a samurai.

Ruthlessness: My philosophy on RPG combat can be summed up simply: If you're perfect and lucky, you'll survive. I GM this way, and I like to be GMed this way. I hate being softballed.

Plotting: I want a compelling, intricate and backstabbing storyline to back up my compelling, intricate and backstabbing combats. Dungeon crawls (and most "adventuring" in the D&D sense) do nothing for me. I prefer games where political clout and a well-placed word are as deadly as pitched battle.

 

[Quasqueton]

I argued, for (only) a few minutes, and the game stopped as the DM and I debated, and it was when I said to him "Just say I'M THE DM, and THAT IS THE RULE" and he finally did, that we moved on.

I have a Player who used this with me. If he (and you) would accept this to end an argument/debate, why can't you just assume this from the beginning and avoid the argument/debate (at least till after the game)?

Instead of acquiescing early, you argue and then force the DM to drop the "I am a tyrant" guantlet to give up. That is not fair to the DM.

Quasqueton

 

[Mercule]

I have a Player who used this with me. If he (and you) would accept this to end an argument/debate, why can't you just assume this from the beginning and avoid the argument/debate (at least till after the game)?

Instead of acquiescing early, you argue and then force the DM to drop the "I am a tyrant" guantlet to give up. That is not fair to the DM.

I can't answer for them, but IME, there are DMs who whedle and balk at making a firm ruling on things. Some will even argue an interpretation of the RAW that is blatantly wrong. Still others have issues that they throw out as a thought and may be open to suggestions from the players.

The "I'm DM" card works for those cases for different reasons. The first, you get an official, clearly stated ruling (see my point, above, about screwing with assumptions and planning). The second, you get them to shut up about justifying it and just make it the table rule. The third, it is clear that the DM isn't soliciting opinions on this particular issue.

 

[philreed]

Man-thing, please e-mail me at roninartspresident@yahoo.com to claim your prize.