How I like to be 'DMd'

[the Jester]

I'm pretty darn adaptable as a player, but there are a few things I can point to as important to me in a dm.

1. Don't coddle us! Kill us when it's appropriate. I've lost 3 pcs in 4 games in omrob's campaign before (through a combination of dumb luck and roleplaying a low-wisdom pc appropriately and sheer player stupidity), and my next pc is the oldest surviving member of the party now about 14 level later. Obviously I didn't give up.

2. Be consistent. Sure, we all forget rulings we made 2.75 years back that have never come up since; I know I do. But try to be consistent, and when the inconsistencies are pointed out to you, fix 'em one way or another.

3. Treat all (non-problem) players equally. Sure, some characters might 'bring it upon themselves'- I know some of my characters have- but the players deserve roughly equal time and fair treatment.

4. Don't hog the spotlight! Yes, YOU- the dm- should NOT hog the spotlight. It's no fun for my 3rd-level pc to watch the mighty npcs take care of things. Give me an appropriate 3rd-level job that's beneath Elminster's notice.

5. Maintain a consistent world. Truly, this is tough, but a good dm really shines, imho and ime, through a world stuffed with versimillitude like you'd stuff garlic in a green olive. Or something.

6. Give me choices. Don't force me down a path; let me choose that path. Persuade me, trick me, bribe or blackmail me, but don't just announce I'm following the road anyway if I trick, persuade, bribe or blackmail my way out of it. In other words, don't railroad me.

Interestingly, I think of all of these points, the most important to me is a willingness to kill off my characters. Without a sense of risk, I get no sense of reward from the game.

 

[Runesong42]

For all my years of playing, I have had only a few different DM's. I guess my only major gripe is that I feel that DM's should have something pre-planned for days I want to accomplish stuff, and the ability to create on the fly for the days I want to role-play.

Trust me, it sucks when you want your character to advance and the DM decides it's going to be a RP day... or when the DM railroads you through a long and boring (to the DM) adventure to get it over with.

 

[Mark CMG]

As a DM, I sometimes run into the situation where a player tries to quote a rule to me which might be perfectly valid given his character knowledge, but given what his character doesn't know is inappropriate.

Beyond the fact that the interuption disrupts the flow of the game and the pace of that particular encounter, taking the time to explain that the character doesn't have all of the information not only cues the group into a fact they shouldn't have but also leads to a meta solution, by which I mean the players then turn from what they were doing as characters and begin to search for what their characters don't even know they do not have.

It's a bad situation when a DM isn't equipped to handle a game but it's even worse, IMO, when a DM who is equipped is dictated to by a player who simply doesn't trust a competent DM.

Just some food for thought for DMs and players alike.

 

[Quasqueton]

Done. No offence was intended, and if caused, I apologise.

Nope, no offense taken at all. My name can be a lightning rod around here, and I didn't want it to attract . . . problems. Didn't want myself to turn into the topic of the thread discussion.

Quasqueton

 

[Lela]

His position seems to have been that he wanted you to 'lose the debate' by having to resort to using DM fiat.

It's the type of manipulation tactic I use when it's appropriate (though never at game). It makes the other person look stupid and/or incompetent. Which is sometimes necessary.

As a DM, I sometimes run into the situation where a player tries to quote a rule to me which might be perfectly valid given his character knowledge, but given what his character doesn't know is inappropriate.

Beyond the fact that the interuption disrupts the flow of the game and the pace of that particular encounter, taking the time to explain that the character doesn't have all of the information not only cues the group into a fact they shouldn't have but also leads to a meta solution, by which I mean the players then turn from what they were doing as characters and begin to search for what their characters don't even know they do not have.

I think it's a good thing when players question you about rules. But when you tell a player to trust you *wink, wink* and they start looking through their books trying to figure out what's going on that's a problem. I handle it by calling them on it, in front of the other players, in a simple way. Tell them that if their character doesn't know, there's no reason for them to know. Remind them that some things are built for suspense and that "Ah HA!" moment.

If they keep looking at that point then you've got a player who doesn't respect you as a DM. That's a whole different issue.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think it's a good thing when players question you about rules. But when you tell a player to trust you *wink, wink* and they start looking through their books trying to figure out what's going on that's a problem. I handle it by calling them on it, in front of the other players, in a simple way. Tell them that if their character doesn't know, there's no reason for them to know. Remind them that some things are built for suspense and that "Ah HA!" moment.

Problem is, once the moment is ruined and gone, it's ruined and gone for more than just that one player.

If they keep looking at that point then you've got a player who doesn't respect you as a DM. That's a whole different issue.

Yup, that's a different issue.

 

[Lela]

Problem is, once the moment is ruined and gone, it's ruined and gone for more than just that one player.

This is something you shouldn't have to do often. Once, maybe twice, but after that they should stop digging around.

The assumption that a competent DM won't make mistakes that might severely affect either side of an encounter is arrogant. The player should question--even if only to draw your attention to the fact that their might be a problem. The DM thens considers what they say and, if he needs to maintain a feel, he gives them the nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

But don't tell them not to question you. You're not an infallible deity; just the Game Operations Director.

 

[RisnDevil]

~I like a DM who knows the rules, but also has common sense. (Not to bring up old wounds on these boards, but a flaming whip is still hot, so still hurts.)
~I like a DM that can encourage roleplaying, though support the guy who wants to be just the fighting and killing machine.
~I like a DM who will let me build the character I want, even if that means I have four classes and three prestige classes. (I don't want to be a "munchkin," but sometimes the characters we/I want are complex, in more than just personality.)