FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Heh, at some point I just think to myself "why don't I dm?" So that's what I do half the time, & then the other half I enjoy another perspective.Lela said:
How I like to be 'DMd'
- Thread starter Rassilon
- Start date
Quasqueton said:
Sorry for taking a while to get back to this, Quasqueton your response in particular highlights something that I think is happening 'under' the "I AM THE DM" process.
For those interested in the short version, I pretty much agree with Mercule in Post 9.
Now the long version:
I don't consider the call "I am the DM" to be tyranical as such, but rather just one of the many tools that the DM has at his disposal for dispute resolution and adventure facilitation. Of course, if it has to be used on a player ALL THE TIME then that is either a bad DM or a bad player - but I do not consider myself a bad player, and my DM is excellent (though granted we are both human and sometimes make mistakes). I am talking about it being used when, and only when, necessary as part of an otherwise excellently funtioning co-operative of people who are playing an RPG.
So I argue the point, rather than just accept every ruling or interpretion that I think is flawed or wrong (luckily there are very few of these in my group). As Mercule hinted at above, sometimes a <counter> argument can produce:
a) "You know, you're right! That is a 'bad' ruling. I change it." When necessary both I as a DM and my DM concede the point.
b) An explanation, where previously none was, and I (as the player) understand that I am making a 'bad' assertion, and I say to the DM "aaahh! I see now ! You're so clever, let's play on!".
or c) "I AM THE DM - [dalek voice] OBEY OBEY OBEY"
Items (a) and (b) are exactly why we do question rulings - everyone learns, the game is improved, we learn more of each others world assumptions, etc.
Item (c) is, it seems to me, telling me one of two things, both based on trust:
c / i) "There is a reason, a good reason, but it will complicate / slow the game / ruin the suspense if I take the time now to account for your every concern. Trust Me ! I'm not out to get you, and I am in charge ! This is worth just letting go, we can talk about it after the seesion if you really want to."
and c / ii) "There ISN'T a reason, but who ever thought that you would argue about this ? This is a WOTC prepackaged adventure / I was on crack when I wrote this / I am on crack now - but please stop making a problem of something I can't handle in a satisfactory manner and just be quiet!"
(c / i) is based on trust very clearly, but I think (c / ii) is as well - but it is a call to the "player" as someone playing a game, i.e. metagame, rather than (c / i) which appeals in character more (because it effectively says that "no incongruence is apparent to your character, even though it is to you as a player").
And (c / ii) isn't all bad, I've used it in both the situations above - sometimes humourously ! It doesn't have to be adversarial. I do think that overuse of (c / ii) and for that matter (c / i) where things ought to be explained indicates a problem. What is overuse ?
I think that 'overuse' is a relative amount that is different based on the particular group - with the caveat that if one is unsure if "I AM THE DM" is to frequent, then it is being overused.
.
.
. WOW this got longer than I expected. I hope this explains a little better my position. Of course, this is my experience, with my group, the DM of which I have been playing with (DM and PC) for 10 years, so we know each other reasonably well. Other peoples' experience of "I AM THE DM" could be very different (and the use of it has changed in my group over the last ~13 years anyway).
Rassilon
Arrgh! Mark!
First Post
How do I like to be DM'd?
Quick, interesting, deadly combat.
A truly interesting and engaging storyline that characters fit into.
The ability to explore.
The quick decision of the DM over useless player argument for the short term. The long term taking the players objections into consideration.
Quick, interesting, deadly combat.
A truly interesting and engaging storyline that characters fit into.
The ability to explore.
The quick decision of the DM over useless player argument for the short term. The long term taking the players objections into consideration.
just__al
First Post
I prefer...
1) DMs with a firm grasp of the rules.
2) DMs who know the difference between occasionally presenting challenges that hose the players and DMs with a golf bag full of nerf bats.
3) DMs that can balance an encounter and don't throw the party in over their heads and then fudge roll after roll as the party gets further into the hole.
4) DMs that can throw something way over the partys head at them and clearly convey if they don't run, get sneaky or lucky it's dying time.
5) DMs that don't put the PC they always wanted to play into the group as a NPC, or if they do, don't have it outshine the PCs
6) DMs that don't run campaigns that are just one random encounter after another.
7) Getting house rules up front. I'd even like certain house rules presented to the group for a vote.
I (when I DM)
1) Have a firm grasp of the rules, but will gladly hit the index or a spell description or whatever if we need clarification. This often happens during bull-rushes or grapples
2) I try real hard to balance hosed/neutral/shining for my players
3) I've gotten much better than this. In fact, I know err towards easy and occasionally add HP or HD to an opponent if drama will be served.
4) PCs are stupid so try as I might, they don't always get the point. I mean really, who goes into an enclosed area with 22 stirges who seem to be DEFENDING their nests.
5) In the highly unlikely event a tag-along is higher level than the PCs, the person has a skill that the party doesn't have and won't be sticking around. For example, they went out and found an exiled noble and his diplomacy skills were off the charts but it only came into play once before they got him to safety when he stopped a battle with a rushed diplomacy check and then with further oratory actually got the orcs to escort the party out of their territory. (I was as surprised as the party, but the dice don't lie)
6
) My campaigns are long on plot, sometimes to the point of quazi-railroading, so the occasional random encounter is a good thing and definately not over used.
7) When I house rule, I let the party know at campaign's start or before the first session it's in use (and I rarely add house rules mid-stride). If it's trivial, we'll vote. For example I wanted to make dodge +1 always if you weren't flat-footed or denied your dex bonus. We voted on it, with the understanding I might decide to go back to RAW, and the party liked it. Turns out I didn't. So now, if you don't declare your dodge you are dodging the last creature you attacked. Should it die, and you don't declare a new dodgee then I pick based on what I think is most logical (no arguements, you should have declared)
1) DMs with a firm grasp of the rules.
2) DMs who know the difference between occasionally presenting challenges that hose the players and DMs with a golf bag full of nerf bats.
3) DMs that can balance an encounter and don't throw the party in over their heads and then fudge roll after roll as the party gets further into the hole.
4) DMs that can throw something way over the partys head at them and clearly convey if they don't run, get sneaky or lucky it's dying time.
5) DMs that don't put the PC they always wanted to play into the group as a NPC, or if they do, don't have it outshine the PCs
6) DMs that don't run campaigns that are just one random encounter after another.
7) Getting house rules up front. I'd even like certain house rules presented to the group for a vote.
I (when I DM)
1) Have a firm grasp of the rules, but will gladly hit the index or a spell description or whatever if we need clarification. This often happens during bull-rushes or grapples
2) I try real hard to balance hosed/neutral/shining for my players
3) I've gotten much better than this. In fact, I know err towards easy and occasionally add HP or HD to an opponent if drama will be served.
4) PCs are stupid so try as I might, they don't always get the point. I mean really, who goes into an enclosed area with 22 stirges who seem to be DEFENDING their nests.
5) In the highly unlikely event a tag-along is higher level than the PCs, the person has a skill that the party doesn't have and won't be sticking around. For example, they went out and found an exiled noble and his diplomacy skills were off the charts but it only came into play once before they got him to safety when he stopped a battle with a rushed diplomacy check and then with further oratory actually got the orcs to escort the party out of their territory. (I was as surprised as the party, but the dice don't lie)
6
) My campaigns are long on plot, sometimes to the point of quazi-railroading, so the occasional random encounter is a good thing and definately not over used.
7) When I house rule, I let the party know at campaign's start or before the first session it's in use (and I rarely add house rules mid-stride). If it's trivial, we'll vote. For example I wanted to make dodge +1 always if you weren't flat-footed or denied your dex bonus. We voted on it, with the understanding I might decide to go back to RAW, and the party liked it. Turns out I didn't. So now, if you don't declare your dodge you are dodging the last creature you attacked. Should it die, and you don't declare a new dodgee then I pick based on what I think is most logical (no arguements, you should have declared)
Quasqueton
First Post
First off: please take my name out of the thread title. Thanks.
I agree with your (a) and (b) points. And I have no problem with being on either side of such discussions. But your opening post suggests that when you didn't get (b) and couldn't convince the DM of (a), the only way for the DM to end the argument/debate/discussion was using (c). It's like you couldn't stop yourself from arguing, and you needed the DM to stop you. But you were aware of what you were doing enough to tell the DM what he needed to do to stop you. Kind of weird, that. Why couldn't you just stop yourself before forcing (c)?
In my situation, the Player wanted to use a magic item (requiring a standard action to activate) as a free action, because otherwise it "doesn't make sense" to him. We got into an argument, mid battle, about it. He eventually said, "Just say you're the DM, and that's it." Well hell, I was the DM at the beginning of the argument [and I was enforcing RAW].
My problem with it is that the folks I play with are my friends (they were "just" my Players first), and having to fall back on "I'm the DM" to end arguments is sort of like saying, "It's my ball" or "It's my house" or "They're my toys". Kind of an unfriendly way of resolving play disputes.
As an anecdote from the other side: I was a Player in a game when our 2nd-level party entered a "temple chamber" in the dungeon. The priest on the other side of the room opened the festivities with a cause fear spell on my character (at the head of the group). The priest was about 50 feet away.
Since I am usually a DM, I'm pretty knowledgable of the spells. I said, "His range can get me from there?" That would have made him at least 10th level, though I did not mention that.
The DM said something to the effect of "just go with it" or "trust me". (Don't remember his exact words.)
I said, "OK" and rolled my save, failed, and ran away.
After the game I asked about that situation. The priest was only 4th level, and the module said his opening action would be a cause fear spell on the first coming in the door. Unfortunately, when the DM drew the chamber on the battlemat, he mistakenly drew it too long (from alter to front door). He hadn't realized it till I mentioned the range. And that one act (casting the first spell) was the only thing affected by the mistake.
Quasqueton
I agree with your (a) and (b) points. And I have no problem with being on either side of such discussions. But your opening post suggests that when you didn't get (b) and couldn't convince the DM of (a), the only way for the DM to end the argument/debate/discussion was using (c). It's like you couldn't stop yourself from arguing, and you needed the DM to stop you. But you were aware of what you were doing enough to tell the DM what he needed to do to stop you. Kind of weird, that. Why couldn't you just stop yourself before forcing (c)?
In my situation, the Player wanted to use a magic item (requiring a standard action to activate) as a free action, because otherwise it "doesn't make sense" to him. We got into an argument, mid battle, about it. He eventually said, "Just say you're the DM, and that's it." Well hell, I was the DM at the beginning of the argument [and I was enforcing RAW].
My problem with it is that the folks I play with are my friends (they were "just" my Players first), and having to fall back on "I'm the DM" to end arguments is sort of like saying, "It's my ball" or "It's my house" or "They're my toys". Kind of an unfriendly way of resolving play disputes.
As an anecdote from the other side: I was a Player in a game when our 2nd-level party entered a "temple chamber" in the dungeon. The priest on the other side of the room opened the festivities with a cause fear spell on my character (at the head of the group). The priest was about 50 feet away.
Since I am usually a DM, I'm pretty knowledgable of the spells. I said, "His range can get me from there?" That would have made him at least 10th level, though I did not mention that.
The DM said something to the effect of "just go with it" or "trust me". (Don't remember his exact words.)
I said, "OK" and rolled my save, failed, and ran away.
After the game I asked about that situation. The priest was only 4th level, and the module said his opening action would be a cause fear spell on the first coming in the door. Unfortunately, when the DM drew the chamber on the battlemat, he mistakenly drew it too long (from alter to front door). He hadn't realized it till I mentioned the range. And that one act (casting the first spell) was the only thing affected by the mistake.
Quasqueton
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
His position seems to have been that he wanted you to 'lose the debate' by having to resort to using DM fiat.Quasqueton said:
Man in the Funny Hat
Hero
But not being flippant/casual about making the "because I'm the DM" call. Yes, there's a time when the DM should just say "end of discussion" and move on, but unless the DM makes that a fairly infrequent occasion then you can end up with players who know they CANNOT rely on "Rules" to make decisions for their characters.Man-thing said:
And I haven't had too much difficulty with over-valuable magic items since 3E fixed reliable equipment-value guidelines. Only once did I give out a magic item that although it was well within the treasure range that was easily acceptible for the PC's as a group it was so valuable (and only of real use to ONE of the PC's) that the PC who wound up carrying/using it was extremely imbalanced in power/equipment-value for some time. I simply never made that mistake again but I could see it being a consistent problem for some DM's.
Black Omega
First Post
It's often a matter of group expectations. I have no trouble at all saying 'No, because I said so.' during the game. Later on after the game or during the week we can work out long term rules. But in the short term, arguing rules just hurts the game way too much. Now if I can just break myself of being too rigid at times and not realizing it.
Generally, I like a good storyline, good characters and a chance to RP. Combat is good but not required and I tend to lose interest if all that happens week after week is combat. I'm know the rules pretty well, but don't mind the GM being more flexible if it's helping the story.
Generally, I like a good storyline, good characters and a chance to RP. Combat is good but not required and I tend to lose interest if all that happens week after week is combat. I'm know the rules pretty well, but don't mind the GM being more flexible if it's helping the story.
Similar Threads
