Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I hope the three core rulebooks have a "DM's clause".
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 3729832" data-attributes="member: 5143"><p>I mean that it is possible for a person to be a good DM AND misuse their power. However, if the system reigns in their power slightly then they can be a good DM who CAN'T misuse their power.</p><p></p><p>For example: If it's accepted that the rule is that you need to roll a d20 to hit and add your modifiers and if your total is equal to or greater than the opponents AC then you hit then the DM and players are on an equal footing in terms of hitting each other. If the rule system tells the DM "Feel free to make up whatever you want, since it's your game and no one can question your authority" then you will have DMs who add to their attack rolls and subtract off the PCs attack rolls. Each one will have a "good" reason for it, but it'll happen.</p><p></p><p>The example I've given in other threads is the time I ran into the DM who insisted that I have a 90% chance of hitting my party with a missile weapon if I fired from the back of my party order. He told me this after I decided to fire an arrow I knew wouldn't hit (I needed a natural 20) and wouldn't let me take back my action. I figured, what the heck, I'm going to miss anyways so it won't hit anyone. Then I rolled a natural 1 and he decided on the fly that meant I AUTOMATICALLY hit one of my party members...and for DOUBLE damage.</p><p></p><p>When I insisted that the rules said there were no chance to hit a party member at all in 3.5 edition rules and that a natural one ALWAYS missed everyone...he referred me to Rule 0 where it told him he couldn't make up anything he wanted. As far as he was concerned that the rules were the starting point and each and every individual situation required new rules based on the circumstances of the moment. Every time a player tried something that offended his sensibilities the rules would become nearly impossible to succeed and normally horribly detrimental to the players. However, all of the enemies knew the limitations of this reality and how to stretch it so everything they did worked automatically.</p><p></p><p>I prefer a situation where the ability of the DM to change things is not actually WRITTEN anywhere. Everyone KNOWS things can be changed, but the default assumption is that nothing is. That way each change will be a big deal to players and thereby make DMs more hesitant to change things randomly and on a whim.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 3729832, member: 5143"] I mean that it is possible for a person to be a good DM AND misuse their power. However, if the system reigns in their power slightly then they can be a good DM who CAN'T misuse their power. For example: If it's accepted that the rule is that you need to roll a d20 to hit and add your modifiers and if your total is equal to or greater than the opponents AC then you hit then the DM and players are on an equal footing in terms of hitting each other. If the rule system tells the DM "Feel free to make up whatever you want, since it's your game and no one can question your authority" then you will have DMs who add to their attack rolls and subtract off the PCs attack rolls. Each one will have a "good" reason for it, but it'll happen. The example I've given in other threads is the time I ran into the DM who insisted that I have a 90% chance of hitting my party with a missile weapon if I fired from the back of my party order. He told me this after I decided to fire an arrow I knew wouldn't hit (I needed a natural 20) and wouldn't let me take back my action. I figured, what the heck, I'm going to miss anyways so it won't hit anyone. Then I rolled a natural 1 and he decided on the fly that meant I AUTOMATICALLY hit one of my party members...and for DOUBLE damage. When I insisted that the rules said there were no chance to hit a party member at all in 3.5 edition rules and that a natural one ALWAYS missed everyone...he referred me to Rule 0 where it told him he couldn't make up anything he wanted. As far as he was concerned that the rules were the starting point and each and every individual situation required new rules based on the circumstances of the moment. Every time a player tried something that offended his sensibilities the rules would become nearly impossible to succeed and normally horribly detrimental to the players. However, all of the enemies knew the limitations of this reality and how to stretch it so everything they did worked automatically. I prefer a situation where the ability of the DM to change things is not actually WRITTEN anywhere. Everyone KNOWS things can be changed, but the default assumption is that nothing is. That way each change will be a big deal to players and thereby make DMs more hesitant to change things randomly and on a whim. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
I hope the three core rulebooks have a "DM's clause".
Top