In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Dykstrav]

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.

After what Chris Perkins went through from posting celebrity D&D games on line, I'd say that it'd take a serious set of brass balls to post videos of your own game online. I'd give you XP just for doing it--I bet you that the vast majority of people who criticize "bad" DMing wouldn't have the cojones to do it if their lives depended on it.

Do it, my friend. Any DM who puts his game out there for the world to see is a good DM in my book.

 

[13garth13]

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.

Yes, well, that is bad form (still a DMs perogative, but typically house rules are available for perusal before the game starts), although I suppose he/she could be forgiven for thinking that everyone did it that way....

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?

Now, don't get too close to reducing an argument to the point of absurdity....but depending on the circumstances, sure I might ask for a check to go up the stairs (are they slippery with blood or slime, covered with debris, etc etc.). But minor stuff generally wouldn't require a check.....

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?

Yup, house rules should be known in advance and certainly not assumed....but I sure wouldn't hold it against a DM if he forgot to mention it....it's not good form, but it's not "Bad DMing" either.....let the DM know that in the future you'd like house-fules to be made available up front and then move on....

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.

Dude, have you ever watched the Olympics or something similar and seen a world-class athlete screw up? Or in some cases not even make the grade to get on the Olympics team dispite previous records in the sport in question? Believe it or not, even the best mess up once in awhile (oh, say, 5% of the time ), but they most assuredly do not get to succeed automatically.

And no, I'm not trying to suggest that D&D should model real life (that way lies madness), but for some of us (I would say a sizeable minority in fact) the chance of failure for extraordinary actions (i.e. beyond what some peasant could accomplish) is a part of the game. No, it's not in the RAW, and I have never claimed that it was...but for those of us who use rules like this, it enhances the fun. There's nothing like the shouts of glee from the players and groans from me when one of my NPCs or monsters fails spectaculary at what should have been a "gimme" moment, all because I rolled a one, or conversely the groans (and chuckles, because, hey, slapstick may be low humour, but it is still funny ) from the players when one of their own screws up. It's all a part of the table fun, man.

I get that it really doesn't mesh with your idea of D&D and heroic fantasy, and that's entirely understandable (different strokes and all that). But your reaction to it seems more than a little bit extreme. It's not a deliberate attempt to screw you the player and your PC....you seem to be taking it personally.....

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.

Buddy, please.....you said that it was a bad rule, and the fact that apparently so many DMs used it confirmed your suspicions that bad DMing was rife in the gaming community.....now you may not have meant it to sound that way, but when you link that particular house rule with bad DMing....guess what, you've all but called someone a bad DM.

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.

And if you go back and reread my post to you, I think you will find that NOWHERE in the message is there even the faintest suggestion that I thought this was a universal houserule, nor did I ever attempt to link annecdotal evidence to reveal such a universality.....I think you will find that I said there were a lot of DMs who use such a rule.....a lot doesn't mean all, nor does it even mean a majority, it just means "a lot", i.e. more than you might think.

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.

Hussar, just because you don't like it doesn't make it "wrong", and I'm not sure why you keep repeating this like it's makes you right and them wrong. It's not "bad DMing" or "wrong" to use such a house rule.....it's a bloody house-rule, and you either agree with it's usage at the gaming table when you join in, or you don't like it and you discuss it afterwards/before the game with the DM. And if the DM overrules your objection because for him/her the rule brings some sort of flavour/atmosphere/mood to the table and that benefit outweighs your lack of enjoyment with that ONE RULE, then you can either accept that and enjoy yourself despite your objections, or you can be miserable because clearly you aren't going to enjoy that DMs game/gaming style.

This doesn't mean that either you are WRONG or the DM is WRONG, it just means that you have incompatible gaming styles and you're probably not going to mesh very well....

I'm sorry that you feel that because you put x number of ranks into your character that you feel somehow slighted and your choices as a player invalidated when someone requires you to roll anyway on the off chance that your character screws up against all odds to the contrary. But that's how YOU feel, and it doesn't make it right or wrong, just out of sync with the DMs style. As I said above, there's any number of athletes out there who might as well be superhuman compared to my levels of physical prowess, but even they occasionally make mistakes that they probably haven't made in years, and usually it's when the spotlight is on them. So yeah, even the best have a chance of screwing up (be they athletes, doctors, astrophysicists or adventurers), but you better believe that they don't have too many successes that are automatic either. It's not fair, but that's the way it rolls (and as I have repeatedly stated, if that sort of policy strikes you as a screw-job....well, that is your right, and I'm not saying that you are wrong for feeling that way........I don't agree, but that's because we are different people).

So yes, I do feel that someone should always have a chance to fail, but not necessarily an automatic chance of success.....I don't know if that makes me a RBDM, or some sort of grim n' gritty grognard (hell, I miss the item saving throw tables....), or just someone who doesn't view the game the same way as you do, but I'm not WRONG anymore than you are.


Cheers,
Colin

 

[Hussar]

Great replies all. And, I'll admit, I'm impressed with everyone putting up with my rants. Nice.

Just something I want to call out specifically here:

So yes, I do feel that someone should always have a chance to fail, but not necessarily an automatic chance of success.....I don't know if that makes me a RBDM, or some sort of grim n' gritty grognard (hell, I miss the item saving throw tables....), or just someone who doesn't view the game the same way as you do, but I'm not WRONG anymore than you are.

Why this is a bad idea:

1. From a gamist point of view. This is a bad idea because it biases the game against the players. The players will make far more skill checks over the course of the campaign than the DM will. And, consequently, the "1 always fails" will occur to players far more often than it will to NPC's. Note, this doesn't occur in combat, where a 1 actually is an autofail because, over the course of the campaign, the DM will make at least as many attacks as the party (probably combined). Thus, in combat, this rule is balanced - it favours no one. Out of combat, however, this biases the game against the players.

2. It runs counter to extablished rules. How does Take 10 work if 1 autofails? I can Take 10, in 3e or 4e, any time I wish. There are no restrictions in the rules like there are for Take 20 in 3e. If 1 autofails, is a player allowed to Take 10? If a player IS allowed to Take 10, then trivial actions will never fail, thus bypassing the autofail rule.

3. From a simulationist angle, it fails. It's ridiculous to think that a doctor will misdiagnose 5% of his patients, regardless of the difficulty of the diagnosis. Yes, in the Olympics, people do choke from time to time. But, somehow I doubt Olympic Swimmers begin floundering and drowning 5% of the time while treading water in a calm pool. Let's not forget here, we're talking about a trivial action for this character. The character actually cannot fail this action (except by changing the rules). It's not a case of blowing a dive which is very difficult, it's a case of treading water in a still pool and starting to drown 5% of the time.

The thing is, I highly doubt most DM's actually take the time to examine these things. They rule from "common sense". It makes sense that you should be able to fail actions. You can fail combat actions, so why should jumping be different? And, on a gut level, I totally agree that it does make a lot of sense.

But, here's a case where gut reaction is actually pretty demonstrably wrong. It interferes with other rules, it isn't really all that believable when you step back and think about it, and it breaks the balance of the game.

Now, it's not a major issue. And I certainly didn't quit this guy's campaign because of it. I was bringing it up as an example where "common sense" leads to poor rules. Doing this in no way makes someone a bad DM.

But, it also doesn't make someone a good one either.

 

[Kaffis]

I don't feel equipped to answer the question. I've had a few DM's with whom I have just not clicked at all, and a few of those have seemed to be floundering in the role altogether. I don't have an issue labelling the latter "bad," but is it fair to call the former "bad" as well?

Also, what makes a DM good? One DM, early in my roleplaying career, as it were, I would not hesitate to call fantastic by any measure. He was enthusiastic, engaging, high energy, would find fun, entertaining, and characterful ways to play out NPCs, moved action along at a good pace while mixing in opportunities to roleplay...

Most of my other ones are kind of hazy, though. This guy is very good at doing things on the fly, but his campaigns lack structure and tend to fall into completely open-ended, player driven stuff, and God help you if a player (or worse, party) doesn't have an idea of a direction they want to go. Another concocts elaborate missions or quests and schemes and plots all the ways it can go wrong if your party doesn't think of one of 3 solutions that bypass them and allow success, and then sits around and watches as the party spends 3 sessions trying to plan the "right" approach without a lot of help or clues. Yet another had essentially plotted out the entire campaign, with no room for player interest or influence, and so the gaming experience resembled some 2 bit amusment park ride, watching the scenes go by as you roll down your little railway listing to "It's a Small World After All" as the little animatronic guys wave at you.

Incidentally, none of those guys had a problem finding and keeping players, generally, but neither did they really satisfy me long-term. Are they bad? My gut reaction is to say, no, they keep other players happy, apparently. Are they good? Not for me.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

"Don't quote the rules at me", in general, should be a part of good DMing. *BUT*, "don't quote the rules at me", when used correctly, applies to not letting the rules trump common sense as dictated by the actual circumstances in play. This DM is using a really bad misunderstanding of the rules, but in his mind, he is using "the rules". So he is using the rules to trump anything remotely approaching common sense.

I'm of the opinion that any time the DM has to change something, it is inherently biased by that DMs opinion.

For instance, if you change the rule to allow failing automatically on a 1, you are doing so because an opinion of some sort. Likely that you believe every act should have a chance of failure or that it's more realistic or something.

Unfortunately, opinions aren't shared by everyone. I'm in agreement with Hussar in that I think a 5% chance to fail in most things is way too large. Especially when DMs up the ante and use a "natural 1 is always a critical failure" rule. I'd be paranoid to ever jump over anything if I thought there was a 5% chance that I'd stumble and knock my nearby friend into the pit.

I don't believe the game is helped out at all when I can fail extremely easy tasks. It's rather frustrating for me to deal with it. Some DMs feel it helps. But I don't think changing the rules based on personal opinion is necessarily good DMing. Basically, I feel that good DMing involves putting aside your own feelings and opinions and to avoid confusing players with a huge list of house rules which may or may not actually benefit the game.

I actively encourage my players to quote the rules to me. I want to know if I do something wrong.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I actively encourage my players to quote the rules to me. I want to know if I do something wrong.

I agree with this. Nobody's infallible, and I've got a lot of intelligent, well-informed players. Refusing to tap their rule expertise in addition to my own is, IMO, a mistake.

OTOH, I have had players who attempt to analyze the rules when they don't have all the facts. For example, I remember one player who would become argumentative every time a creature used Combat Reflexes because he'd gotten it into his head that "only one AoO" was some sort of universal rule and simply could not accept that monsters might have Combat Reflexes.

So while I'm more than willing to hear corrections, I also think the DM needs to have the "this discussion is over" veto button without needing to engage in a debate or fully explain why this particular rule should or should not factor into the current situation.

I don't believe the game is helped out at all when I can fail extremely easy tasks. It's rather frustrating for me to deal with it. Some DMs feel it helps. But I don't think changing the rules based on personal opinion is necessarily good DMing. Basically, I feel that good DMing involves putting aside your own feelings and opinions and to avoid confusing players with a huge list of house rules which may or may not actually benefit the game.

This I disagree with. While it's certainly possible for DMs to have bad house rules, I don't think there's anything wrong with having clearly stated house rules for a game. Particularly when it comes to D&D. (Which, after all, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the house rule kit-bashing of Arneson and Gygax.)

"Clearly stated", however, is an important part of that. As a player I should not be side-swiped unexpectedly when the rules suddenly don't work the way I thought they did. (I also think it's generally important that mid-stream changes in the ruleset be discussed and largely agreed upon as a group.)

 

[The Shaman]

I'm of the opinion that any time the DM has to change something, it is inherently biased by that DMs opinion. . . . Basically, I feel that good DMing involves putting aside your own feelings and opinions and to avoid confusing players with a huge list of house rules which may or may not actually benefit the game.

Which is only a problem if you disagree with that opinion, or if you assume the designer's opinion is somehow inherently 'better' than the guy's at the head of the table.

For the Flashing Blades game I'm running, I made extensive changes to the rules pertaining to ranks and positions; the designer abstracted different periods of the 17th century, and I wanted to capture more of the feel of the specific period for the game, so that meant changing some of the rules pertaining to Soldier characters. I replaced the fictional knightly orders of the game with historical examples, and added a new category of orders, with new requirements. I added new combat actions, like feinting and taunting your opponent, which the game did not include in the core rules but which are appropriate to the genre and fun for players to use. These are just a few examples from my extensive house rules for the campaign.

And yes, it's all my opinion, but I don't see any reason to believe that my opinion is in any way inferior to that of the designer of Flashing Blades. Mark Pettigrew isn't running the campaign - I am. Mr Pettigrew didn't include rules for galleys and Barbary corsairs in High Seas, so should I just settle for never including them in the game I want to run?

Running a game involves making decisions and those decisions reflect my opinions. I put time and effort into making informed decisions, and I arrive at my opinions from experience with the system and the knowledge of what I want to offer in the campaign.

And anyone who doesn't care for that is certainly welcome to tell me so - once. After that, play or go home.

 

[Redcrow]

My experience with various GM's breaks down something like this... 30% Bad, 50% Mediocre, 15% Good, and 5% Great.

I like to consider myself a Good GM, though not (yet) a Great one. Though I can honestly say that in my 25+ years of gaming experience, I started out Bad then moved up to Mediocre and eventually achieved Good status.

I've had the distinct privilege to play with a few truly Great GM's over the years and those experiences showed me just how much of an art there is to GMing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

OTOH, I have had players who attempt to analyze the rules when they don't have all the facts. For example, I remember one player who would become argumentative every time a creature used Combat Reflexes because he'd gotten it into his head that "only one AoO" was some sort of universal rule and simply could not accept that monsters might have Combat Reflexes.

I had a couple of players who would over-quote the rules to me. Mostly, because they didn't trust that I was making the right calls. Although, part of the reason my players trust me now is that I've slowly earned that trust. Each and every time they say "Hey, he already took an AoO", I say "Yep, but he's got Combat Reflexes" and they say "Oh, cool".

Sure, it adds another couple of seconds to the game, but I feel it increases the trust between the players and I. They know I'm not cheating, I know they aren't cheating. And after a short while, they just stop asking about the same things, since they learn to trust that I know what I'm talking about and I'm making the right decision. So much so that I can say "Don't worry, the enemy has the ability to do that" and no one questions me after that.

I just don't demand that trust, I earn it over time.

This I disagree with. While it's certainly possible for DMs to have bad house rules, I don't think there's anything wrong with having clearly stated house rules for a game. Particularly when it comes to D&D. (Which, after all, wouldn't exist if it wasn't for the house rule kit-bashing of Arneson and Gygax.)

I think house rules are needed in games with bad rules or with big holes in them. Early D&D had huge holes in it that if they weren't corrected with house rules you had players running around twisting the rules constantly.

I have found that in the more robust games, especially ones with lots of rules, that house rules often cause a house of cards effect. Change one rule and the entire game comes tumbling down.

It depends on the group whether they notice that the game has come tumbling down, however. I've joined a couple of games where, once I was explained the house rules, I realized that it made certain classes immensely more powerful than others. But no one in the group was interested in playing those classes, so no one noticed. I came in and started playing one of those classes....and instead of deciding that their house rules were dumb because they allowed me to do that, they blamed me for playing that class.

I recently had a discussion about this topic with friends of mine who refused to switch to 4e. I explained to them that the reason I stopped playing 3.5e was that the rules were broken in that they allowed players to come up with extremely overpowered combos. They told me that they had never seen an overpowered combo. But wanted me to join their game. I suggested the character I'd play to prove to them how broken the rules were. They said they wouldn't allow that character in their game. They proceeded to reject my 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th ideas for characters as well.

I pointed out that if they rules allowed me to make so many different characters that were horribly broken, then the rules were flawed. They told me the rules weren't flawed, any player who attempted to use those rules were bad players.

I find this happens even more often with house rules at 95% of them haven't been thought through all the way. They create a weird loophole, imbalance or other issue when they are introduced. And when someone points out how bad the rule is, they boot the player out of their group for disagreeing with the rule rather than reconsider it.