In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Hussar]

It sounds like you want to DM. I don't think being a player is your strength.

While I do DM most of the time, I don't consider myself a problem player. Maybe I am. But, how is pointing out mistakes by the DM a bad thing?

Take this specific example - a 1 autofails. Note, I never said that a 20 autosucceeds, because it certainly didn't, but that was a separate issue. That means, no matter how skilled you are at something, no matter what, you will have a 5% chance of failure.

That's ridiculous.

Expert rock climber, can climb a waterfall practically, will stumble and fall 5% of the time, walking up a steep hill? Really?

Doctor House, brilliant surgeon, giant, massive brain, best in his field, will misdiagnose 5% of the time, even if he's only diagnosinga common cold.

Einstein will get basic math problems wrong 1 in 20.

The greatest sword maker in the world will screw up 1 sword in 20?

Y'know, it's funny. "It's a common house rule" was EXACTLY the justification the DM in question gave me. Which, to me, just points to how common bad DM's are. Doing this is arbitrarily increasing difficulty for no reason, other than to screw the player. It doesn't add tension, it just adds frustration. It's certainly not "simulationist" at all. It's ridiculous.

It's never been true in any edition of D&D. It's never been a rule. And it's not like it's even a good house rule. It's a bad one. It goes against how skills work, in that as you increase in level, your abilities increase as well. That lock you tried to pick at level 1 was difficult. At level 20, you should be able to do it in your sleep. But, you still fail 1 in 20.

But, it's a common house rule. If it's a common house rule, one wonders how common good DM's are.

 

[Hussar]

Looking at the poll numbers, which I know are not conclusive and all that, it looks like the "I have mostly bad DM's" crowd has held stable at about 25% for some time. The largest bloc seems to be people who've had the occassional bad DM but mostly good.

I honestly do think I've just had some really, really bad luck when joining new groups.

 

[13garth13]

While I do DM most of the time, I don't consider myself a problem player. Maybe I am. But, how is pointing out mistakes by the DM a bad thing?

Take this specific example - a 1 autofails. Note, I never said that a 20 autosucceeds, because it certainly didn't, but that was a separate issue. That means, no matter how skilled you are at something, no matter what, you will have a 5% chance of failure.

That's ridiculous.

Expert rock climber, can climb a waterfall practically, will stumble and fall 5% of the time, walking up a steep hill? Really?

Doctor House, brilliant surgeon, giant, massive brain, best in his field, will misdiagnose 5% of the time, even if he's only diagnosinga common cold.

Einstein will get basic math problems wrong 1 in 20.

The greatest sword maker in the world will screw up 1 sword in 20?

Y'know, it's funny. "It's a common house rule" was EXACTLY the justification the DM in question gave me. Which, to me, just points to how common bad DM's are. Doing this is arbitrarily increasing difficulty for no reason, other than to screw the player. It doesn't add tension, it just adds frustration. It's certainly not "simulationist" at all. It's ridiculous.

It's never been true in any edition of D&D. It's never been a rule. And it's not like it's even a good house rule. It's a bad one. It goes against how skills work, in that as you increase in level, your abilities increase as well. That lock you tried to pick at level 1 was difficult. At level 20, you should be able to do it in your sleep. But, you still fail 1 in 20.

But, it's a common house rule. If it's a common house rule, one wonders how common good DM's are.

Ummmm....dude....ask my players if I am a good DM....and I'm pretty darned sure (based on feedbackI've received) that you would get a yes (possibly even a resounding one). That's not to toot my own horn, but rather to point out that the majority of my players have told me (over the 30 odd years as a DM) that I'm a pretty damn good DM and guess what? That rule about 1s failing is generally a houserule in my campaigns too (there are a few exceptions, but yeah, generally speaking, for saves, skill checks, etc. a 1 is an instant failure, and there's even a chance of a critical failure).

It's not ridiculuous, it's a chance of failure in a fantasy game with randomly generated events, up to and including the (slim) chance that Conan won't make the 15 foot leap across the chasm. I'm sorry that it doesn't synch up with your notion of fun, but clearly for an awfully large number of people (obviously not just the various groups I've played with), it's not such a bloody big deal.....

If none of my players mind it and still keep coming back for more, then how on earth do you justify using your personal dislike of the rule to back up your supposition that bad DMs are common? Seriously, you don't like it, it rubs you the wrong way as a player, so therefore it's the hallmark of a bad DM and by the same token good DMs must be awfully uncommon?

Geez, man.................

Cheers,
Colin

 

[aboyd]

While I do DM most of the time, I don't consider myself a problem player. Maybe I am. But, how is pointing out mistakes by the DM a bad thing?

Hmm. I suspect you don't really want to have the answer. I say this because you have already heard dissenting opinions from people in this thread, and rather than try to embrace them and understand them, it seems you have begun posting defensively. That's not a good place to learn from.

And I didn't say that pointing out mistakes by the DM was a bad thing. I didn't clarify my position at all. You characterized my position that way yourself -- I suspect because you know that correcting mistakes is reasonable, and thus any criticism that says otherwise can be easily ignored.

So you've asked for an answer, but I feel that what you really want is to reassure yourself that everyone else is wrong. Can you come at this from a "I want to hear this and be more awesome as a player" standpoint? I guess I'll take a risk that you can.

To answer your question, I have to generalize the question. What, in general, is bad? Now I can answer. For starters, your own post blows out of proportion the house rule about failing skill checks. You've taken a 5% failure chance and 1) composed a small diatribe about something that other players would have easily shrugged off, and 2) you've managed to take other poster's comments about being fine with the house rule and turned it into a commentary on "how common good DM's are."

Hussar, if you can get this worked up about something that others aren't getting worked up about, then that's your first hint that your playing skills are not commensurate with the general population. Other people are going to be considered easier to have around, and they won't be finding fault with the DM nearly as much.

And then the previous post you made:

We come across a 10 foot pit. I declare that I sail over the pit with ease, demonstrating my grace (the character is short, fat and a total slob - I liked the image this presented ). The DM tells me that I have to roll.

"Oh, is there something in my way or something?" I ask.
"No," is the reply. "But a skill check of 1 always fails."
"Umm, no it isn't actually. That's never actually been true in any edition of D&D."
"Well, there has to be a chance of failure, so, you have to roll."

Did the DM get the rule wrong? Yeah. Was I responding to that part of your text? No. In my game, it wouldn't have gotten that far. Too many player mistakes before that point.

First of all, if a player in my game "declared" success without a roll, I would be just as curious as the DM was in your game. You're taking control of a game mechanic that is for the DM to adjudicate. But when he tries to get back to game mechanics, you ask, "is there something in my way" as if you are running the game and the guy elected to adjudicate things has been relegated to an understudy. The fact that you have to ask if there is something in your way should be a hint that you are not the person who has all the information, and thus you are the wrong person to try to adjudicate the jump.

Thus, you should be DMing, not playing. You do not play nice with someone who has authority over the outcome. So the only viable solution is either that you learn to relax and cede control, or you stop sitting in the chair for the actors, and start sitting in the chair for directors.

 

[Hussar]

First of all, if a player in my game "declared" success without a roll, I would be just as curious as the DM was in your game. You're taking control of a game mechanic that is for the DM to adjudicate. But when he tries to get back to game mechanics, you ask, "is there something in my way" as if you are running the game and the guy elected to adjudicate things has been relegated to an understudy. The fact that you have to ask if there is something in your way should be a hint that you are not the person who has all the information, and thus you are the wrong person to try to adjudicate the jump.

No I have not. A jump check does not actually have a DC. All a jump check does is determine how far you jump. End of rule. If I have a +11 jump and the pit is only 10 feet wide, I make it every single time, unless there is additional information that I am lacking.

Thus the question, "Is there something in my way?" Because that's the only way you actually fail this check.

Unless, of course, the DM has decided that it is "common sense" that every skill check must carry the chance of failure.

That is, by the way, the piece of information I was missing. The DM had changed the rules without informing the table. It has nothing to do with me taking over the narrative.

If I declare that my character walks up the stairs, do I need to make a check? Do I need to ask the DM before I climb the stairs? After all, I might slip and fall, therefore there is an element of risk. I guess a player should never state an action but should always phrase it as a request?

Again, how is playing by the rules relagating anyone to understudy? As a player, unless informed otherwise, shouldn't I assume that rules are in force?

See, IME, the chances that a rule will be in force is directly related to how much of a road block it's putting in front of the player. If the rules make things difficult for the player, then we must play exactly by the rules. OTOH, if the rules say that a given action should be a freebie for the player, then, oh hell no. The rules have to be wrong and difficulty must be increased until there is a chance of failure again.

Common sense tends to get applied pretty selectively.

And, lets not forget something here. I have not once said that anyone posting in this thread is a bad DM. Not once. But, don't forget that I've had nothing but bad DM's for years. FOUR player revolts where the entire group walked out on the DM, out of 8 DM's. THAT'S how bad it's been.

Now, if you've never had your group walk out on you and your players are groovy with what you rule, fine. But, please, don't try to make your anecdotes universal. This "common house rule" was a complete surprise to me. I had never, ever seen it in 3e or 4e, despite playing with many, many players and more than a few DM's.

Just because you do it, doesn't make it universal. I have no idea how many DM's rule that 1 always fails on a skill check. Even if lots do it, it's still wrong. The only purpose it serves is to artificially inflate difficulty and negate player choices. The player has chosen to spend resources becoming very good at something and you've basically said that no matter what, you always have a chance to fail.

Do I also conversely always have a chance to succeed? Man, makes Take 20 one HELL of a powerful tool in 3e.

 

[S'mon]

While I do DM most of the time, I don't consider myself a problem player. Maybe I am. But, how is pointing out mistakes by the DM a bad thing?

Well, I wouldn't want a player coming in to my game with the expectation that I'm probably a bad DM and need to be kept in line through strict adherence to the RAW. OTOH the issues and beliefs that you've demonstrated, while problematic for a player, would seem to be mostly fine for a GM - eg you're likely to take care that players don't feel 'screwed over'. If as DM you do ever violate the RAW (which seems unlikely from what you've said) then it seems it would only be to favour the players, which few will object to.

IMO a player who thinks most DMs are crap is going to make a poor player. A DM who thinks most other DMs are crap should be ok, depending on other factors it could even be a positive.

 

[S'mon]

Re "1 auto failing" as a house rule, it can work if the GM only calls for checks for non-trivial tasks, and uses discretion in deciding what was non-trivial.

In Hussar's example the GM thought jumping over an 11' pit was inherently non-trivial, whereas Hussar looked at his character sheet and saw his minimum jump was 12'. I think from Hussar's description there was slightly poor communication by both sides. I'm not sure Hussar should have described his PC sailing across the pit prior to explaining his minimum jump distance, and the first time he did it perhaps the GM should be the one describing it.

As GM though I would have accepted the player's explanation that his minimum jump from standing start per RAW was 12', and not required a skill check, just as I wouldn't require a Wizard with a Fly spell to roll to see if he bumped his head on the ceiling. If there were a serious problem with the PC's abilities compared to the setting-reality (grim & gritty setting where I've accidentally allowed a wuxia PC) I might have to house-rule it at the table, but that should be the rare exception and I'd accept that was a minor GMing failure not to have caught it already.

Example of the latter sort of minor GM fail from my campaign - I had to house-rule the 4e Arcana skill so it didn't auto-detect all nearby weak(!) magic. That didn't fit my setting (plus I think it's really poorly designed - stronger magic should be easier to detect). But ideally I should have spotted this and house-ruled it before a PC first tried it.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Take this specific example - a 1 autofails. Note, I never said that a 20 autosucceeds, because it certainly didn't, but that was a separate issue. That means, no matter how skilled you are at something, no matter what, you will have a 5% chance of failure.

That's ridiculous.

Expert rock climber, can climb a waterfall practically, will stumble and fall 5% of the time, walking up a steep hill? Really?

Doctor House, brilliant surgeon, giant, massive brain, best in his field, will misdiagnose 5% of the time, even if he's only diagnosinga common cold.

Einstein will get basic math problems wrong 1 in 20.

The greatest sword maker in the world will screw up 1 sword in 20?

Those are excellent points. I wouldn't defend the houserule from a simulationist perspective, but it is good at creating drama and excitement. Taking 10 can be used to counter those problems. By the 3e rules one can take 10 when one is 'not being threatened or distracted'. Personally I don't much like taking 10, because of the loss of drama, so I tend also not to allow it in a 'pressure situation', which I have never really defined but would include swimming a fast flowing river, climbing a mountain, jumping a pit or using a knowledge skill to learn about a monster once combat has started. All the main challenges of 'the adventure', really.

This also raises issues about just how skilled the PCs are and player perception of their PC's skill level vs the GM's. Players quite often perceive their PCs as more capable than the GM does, I've noticed. How is the failure interpreted? If it's described as being due to outside circumstances or bad luck then it doesn't undermine the table perception of the PC as skilled, which is often important to players. However if the PC is a clumsy fool 1 time in 20 then that can be an assumption clash between player and GM.

While I do use the 1 = fail rule in superhero games also, I perceive superhero PCs as being more skilled than D&D PCs, at least low level ones, so I don't have any kind of critical failure in superhero games. It's jarringly wrong for Captain America to slip on a banana skin 1 time out of 20, just as in your examples. As you say, from a simulationist perspective, the 1 in 20 rule is inadequate when dealing with super-skilled individuals such as House and Einstein.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Too many player mistakes before that point.

...

Thus, you should be DMing, not playing.

I don't think Hussar made any mistakes, in fact I really like his narration of his dumpy halfling gliding over the pit. I'd go so far as to call it skilled play.

I like it when the players just make up, it's something I used to encourage very much when running superhero set in Marvel-esque worlds, where the players could just invent characters and comic book-style history on the spot, without asking the GM's permission. I feel the asking interrupts the flow. Generally speaking, asking the GM questions is dull, compared to speaking in character or describing your PC doing cool stuff.

 

[Oryan77]

Speaking of being a bad DM, my wife recently took a 2 minute video of one of our games with her new HD Mini recorder. I've been debating on whether or not to put it on Youtube. It really makes me look like a bad DM.

One of the players stayed up for 24 hours working on a student film. And he still managed to make it to our game. So several hours into our game, he had been awake for probably 32 hours or so, he started falling alseep at the table while we were playing. My wife starts filming him while he's dozing off. You can see one player copying stats down for his new summoned monster while waiting for his turn (looks like he isn't paying attention), and another player is staring at the table & listening to me do the NPC actions (looks like he's bored).

As I was rolling attacks for an NPC, I'm about to describe what the NPC does & says but I see her giggling & holding up the camera, and I got a little frazzled since I didn't know what she was doing. So I lose my concentration and I can't spit out what the NPC was going to say (it makes me look like a mumbling idiot).

This video really makes me look like I'm the most boring and pathetic DM in existence. It looks like I've put a player to sleep, one player looks bored, & the other player looks more interested in the book than what I'm saying. It makes it look like our game must be super boring! It's really embarrassing.