In Your Experience: How Good are GM's?

[Jacob Marley]

I agree with Majoru on this point. One thing I want from a GM is a sound application of the rules, so that I get what I bargained for when I play my PC.

Agreed. However, in certain situations, I would rather have an incorrect application of a rule made in order to keep the session running than take the time to resolve the rule correctly. This, of course, assumes that the DM and player examines the rule and situation in question so that at a later date it will be ruled correctly.

 

[Dykstrav]

Agreed. However, in certain situations, I would rather have an incorrect application of a rule made in order to keep the session running than take the time to resolve the rule correctly. This, of course, assumes that the DM and player examines the rule and situation in question so that at a later date it will be ruled correctly.

As a general thing, this is how I usually handle questions about the rules.

I'm willing to take a minute or two to address a rules question, but after that, I'll tell the group the way that it's going to go down this time, and that we're going to examine the rules in greater detail during the week so that we can make sure that we're doing it right. Time at the table is precious, and I'd rather spend it playing the game than talking about playing the game.

I've noticed that this method actually makes players check up on my homework too--more players seem to reference the rules in question for themselves when I tell them that I'm not going to do it right away. The game keeps moving and we all know the rules as written a bit better. Win-win as far as I can see.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, I make it sound worse than it is. I won't berate a DM and people honestly forget rules sometimes and I don't have a problem with that(although, like I said, things DO flow smoother if the DM has the rules down pat enough not to have to ask).

I'm more than willing to help the DM if he forgets something. But I get a little annoyed when this happens:

Player: "I grab the monster"
DM: "Ok, make me a strength check, DC 25."
Me: "Umm, it's normally a Strength vs Reflex attack.."
DM: "Are you sure? That doesn't sound right to me. I'm going to use a strength check."
Me: (quietly looks up the rule in the book to be sure I didn't get the rule wrong)
Me(a minute later): "Yep, I just made sure, it's strength vs reflex"
DM: "Did I tell you to look up the rule? This is my game, I don't want you questioning my decisions."

And it's happened more than once unfortunately.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Most of the GMs i've played with have been good. Some haven't been that great. And a small number had great difficulty with the task.

If a GM is struggling to keep the players' interested, I usually do what I can as a player to help moves things along. I find that is usually the most productive solution.

 

[pemerton]

I get a little annoyed when this happens:

Player: "I grab the monster"
DM: "Ok, make me a strength check, DC 25."
Me: "Umm, it's normally a Strength vs Reflex attack.."
DM: "Are you sure? That doesn't sound right to me. I'm going to use a strength check."
Me: (quietly looks up the rule in the book to be sure I didn't get the rule wrong)
Me(a minute later): "Yep, I just made sure, it's strength vs reflex"
DM: "Did I tell you to look up the rule? This is my game, I don't want you questioning my decisions."

And it's happened more than once unfortunately.

I don't blame you for getting annoyed. I've never had this sort of experience, and don't have any interest in changing that!

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Another good example of bad DMing happened to me just this past weekend a the Red Box Game Day. Our DM didn't know the stealth rules at all. In one of the encounters, there are some rogues who hide and throw daggers at people(they do more damage with combat advantage).

So, the DM made one stealth check for each of the two enemies and only one member of our group had good enough passive perception to see one of them. She started shooting arrow at the Rogue.

One of the other people in the group, seeing that we were being hit by two 15-20 point daggers each round and that our Thief was shooting at something, wandered over to see what it was. He walked adjacent to the hidden enemy in a spot where the enemy had no cover or concealment and said "Do I see anything?" The DM asked him what his passive perception was and then said "No."

At this point, it was clear to me the DM didn't know the rules and I said "How is he still hiding, he doesn't have any cover or concealment to the Fighter there. The rules say he needs that or he is no longer hidden." The DM just turned to me and stared at me with a look that said "Don't quote the rules to me", although he said nothing at all. So, I took my clue and didn't say anything more about it.

However, for the rest of the game, the second Rogue kept attacking us with daggers over and over again, completely unseen. Since, apparently, the DM didn't know that attacking causes you to stop hiding immediately.

We eventually managed to defeat every enemy on the board except the hidden Rogue. After about a round or two of continuing to do sneak attack damage every round, Our fighter decided to threaten the unseen Rogue and the DM made him run away.

I did read the adventure afterwards and I'm certainly hoping the text of that encounter didn't contribute to his decision. There's a sentence that says "If a Rogue makes a hide check vs the passive perception of everyone in the group, he is essentially invisible."

 

[Dykstrav]

Our DM didn't know the stealth rules at all.

Unfortunately, this sort of rules ignorance isn't limited to DMs.

When I was DMing 4E, I had someone playing an assassin. He was under the impression that Stealth was an "I win" button to press, and every time Stealth didn't work for him, he got flustered and wanted to argue at the table about it. He was under the impression that someone with an area burst attack shouldn't be able to target him because of Stealth, that he should be able to make a Stealth check to remain hidden every time he made an attack, et cetera...

It really made him mad when people attacked the square he was in (with the -5 penalty for total concealment). He was under the impression that Stealth made a character immune to any form of attack, and we just didn't see eye-to-eye on the issue. Stealth doesn't function like the Forgetful Mind (Obfuscate 4 from Vampire: the Masquerade). If you go into Stealth, people don't magically forget that you just stabbed them in the back. If you just dropped in from nowhere, stabbed someone, then vanished again... They're going to be on guard and maybe even swinging at shadows.

That assassin character lead that group to coin the phrase, "Stealth is the new grapple."

 

[BenBrown]

I've had many more good than bad, and a fair number of mediocre in between.

There were a couple of guys who started campaigns back in my college days that I dropped out of after a few sessions. Nothing awful, just not real interesting.

Probably my most typical "bad GM" experience came in what was my longest-running gaming group (some of whom I still game with). A Champions GM put us up (for reasons I never found out) against the PCs from his previous campaign, who pretty much handed us our butts. I think a player revolt in that case was only headed off by the GM getting a new job and moving out of town. There was no bad intention there, but I don't think he could see how frustrated we were.

My best friend when I was 12 or so introduced a GMPC. Kind of necessary since I was the only player, but the GMPC was always finding things that I missed, and it was annoying at the time. Of course, since he was even younger than I was, I don't think I can fault him too much.

Other than that, for the most part, things have been great. Even games at cons (the few I've been to) and things like Living Greyhawk, which I only did for one summer have been fun (in the latter case sometimes despite the written adventure).

As for the long-term gaming group I mentioned above, it's produced a couple of the finest gaming experiences I've ever been in, and I've improved my GMing a lot while gaming with that crew.

 

[Hussar]

Y'know Majoru, I had a very similar experience. We were playing Shackled City and in the first adventure there are Skulks, which have the ability to hide as a free action (or some such thing, I forget now the exact power.) The DM treated it as Improved Invisibility and then was shocked when he wiped out the entire 2nd level party with a pair of them.

Had pretty much the same reaction when myself and one other player questioned him on the rules.

On the flip side, I've seen this from players as well. But, "How good are Players" is a different thread.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Contrast with this thread - Rules Experts & Casual Players Mix Question - where everyone (including me) is saying that it's a fine and good thing that GMs should make temporary rulings when the rules are in doubt.

I can understand being annoyed when a ruling, or in this case what seems to be a rules misunderstanding, leads to PC death. But otoh the GM must be allowed the authority to make rulings at the table. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant, really, questioning the GM slows the game down.