On taking power away from the DM

[Clavis]

As I would expect a "good player" to amend behavior from time to time to help other players at the table to have an enjoyable game session, I would hope that all players recognize that the "the player behind the DM screen" should have a good time as well and be willing to act accordingly.

Agreed, of course. My point is that in any group, the emergence of a leader is inevitable. It saves a lot of time and conflict if everybody just accepts the DM as leader to begin with. If that attitude seems quasi-fascist, remember I am talking about a game, not real-life politics. Often, people who are natural leaders will choose to be DM anyway.

Being a leader doesn't make it OK to be a jerk, however. Nor does the existence of a leader absolve those who are lead from all responsibility. I forget who said "People want to be led were they want to go", but IMHO its true. A true leader is a servant of those they lead. A good leader can create the environment where everybody gets to contribute, by maintaining order, setting a good example, and being the person who ensures that everybody is treated fairly.

I've been around a lot of far-left political groups and counter-culture social experimenters, and in my experience even the most outwardly egalitarian groups have de facto leaders. The worst situation is when there is no clear idea of who the authority is, because it just leads to chaos. I've found the same thing to be true at the gaming table, which is one reason I support the strong DM.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Again, my problem with this is far less about 'power' than how it 'cheapens' the game play (for lack of a better term.). My original opinion about 'power' being lost is more about mystery being lost and turning what used to be a game that incorporated more of a storytelling element that included problem solving, puzzles, character interaction and combat into one that is becoming a combat simulation with other stuff tacked on. Its a small gripe to be sure, but that my angle.

That is certainly a legitimate reason to want to change or remove some skill rules.

As you said, this is not a power issue per se. On one hand the DM may not like how certain rules as written play out. On the other hand, letting the rules enforce "how dumb is this low Int fighter" can also be viewed as empowering to the DM.

As a practical matter, playing Zork is fresh for only so long. Players who are deadly serious tend to create a Search SOP based on whatever rules the DM is employing. That may mean having certain standard approaches plus a list of 101 weird places to look. If the DM is so clever as to cook up a 102nd weird location, he is just wasting his time -- all he has accomplished is a "win" by overcoming the players tolerance for tedium (and it is not as if the players will notice or care about this secret victory).

 

[Psion]

I never said that the BBEG was immune, just that a first turn death would not be fun for any involved.

Oh, I'm sure there's lots of players who are all about getting the one turn kill. 'course, that's not fun for anyone else.

 

[Kraydak]

I certainly wouldn't tell them. They don't need to know. My job is to make the game fun and interesting. I'm not saying that I would do that all the time, far from it, but but in an intial round of comabt a case of anticlimax is more of a no no than a slight case of DM fiat.

....

I never said that the BBEG was immune, just that a first turn death would not be fun for any involved.

*blink blink*

So a party that decides, for whatever reason, to focus on save-or-dies effects will kill the BBEG on round X, of the DM's choosing, irregardless of the rules/dice. Huh. Lots of fun: try to survive until the DM gets bored. No point in using a scythe as opposed to a greatsword because an early round crit (largely equivalent to a failed save) will somehow gift the BBEG wthl bonus hp.

If a PC casts a save-or-die, the players is casting it to *kill*. He *wants* it to succeed. He *thinks* that would be fun. If a fighter chooses a scythe, he is choosing it for the rare, fight-ending crits.

If you, as the DM, are going to insist on the BBEG surviving until round X, that is a very significant house rule, with immense implications for character design and tactics. It is bad form to institute even the most minor of HRs without telling the players.

(it isn't as if players won't notice that BBEGs never seem to fail saves against save-or-die effects, or that huge early crits somehow don't seem to have the appropriate level effect. they eventually will, and many will be angry about having their "cool" stuff negated by DM fiat)

 

[Zogmo]

Not possible

It's just not possible for the DM to cheat when the rules are only guidelines. Where does it state in any edition that the DM should not fudge die rolls?

It seems there have been a few people posting who have quoted the rule books that state the DM should if needed even ignore die rolls. Every edition lets the DM know that he/she is in charge and is the ultimate arbitrator concerning the game.


What is possible and I believe is what everyone is saying is that it's just bad DMing.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Does it say, in any edition, that the DM should fudge die rolls?

 

[LostSoul]

*blink blink*

Ah, but you forget: the DM knows what the players want better than the players themselves.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Does it say, in any edition, that the DM should fudge die rolls?

I'd like to direct you to page 18 of the 3E DMG, where exactly that topic is discussed, and it's mentioned that a) DMs can't really cheat and b) fudging a roll is certainly a valid method of DMing certain scenes, as long as you don't let the players know.

Apart from that...just because it's not expressively allowed doesn't mean it's forbidden either.

 

[lin_fusan]

Story time

I have a personal story that illustrates the strength/weaknesses of the DM power equation between 2e and 3e.

2e: There was an optional rule for determining individual XP. Even though it was an optional rule, I think it illustrates the methods/rulings 2e (and to some extent 1e) used. Each class had a list of XP gained doing certain things. For example, magic-users (wizards) gained something like 100*spell level XP each time he cast a spell. But was that for every spell? For only a useful spell? What determines a useful spell?

Once, I argued as a DM that casting Rope Trick in the middle of a safe, quiet village did not garner XP. The player said that it should, 'cause there might have been an assassin. Argue, argue, argue.

On top of that, the XP gain was so variable, than one character kept getting nothing, only because he was playing a vital, but supportive role, rather than an XP-gaining role.

This optional rule was a headache, because it was so subjective on my part that there really wasn't any method of "fair" possible. Someone would feel robbed of their "rightful" XP regardless of what I choose.

3e: After a particularly grueling fight with a level 2 or 3 party, I award XP based on the CR of the opponents (thieves in a thieves lair). The players were complaining that it was too low. They pulled out the DMG and pointed out the chart that stated they should gain a bonus percentage of XP for a difficult fight.

However, I felt that they played practically crappy. The ranger was rushing from room to room, leaving behind the other characters. No one was covering the spellcasters from sneak attacks from behind. The druid player wasn't summoning monsters at the time (for some reason), and it was a mess. They survived by pure dumb luck on their part and poor rolls on mine.

There was a supposedly "objective" system in 3e so that I could be fair, but yet there were still complaints about my rulings. (On the flip side, no one argued for less XP for defeating a boss monster really quickly and taking no hits.)

Anyway, my personal experience stories are my way of explaining that the idea of taking power away from the DM, for me, means having an objective, standardized ruleset that you can depend on, which never remains perfectly objective and standard because you are dealing with people. It's a baseline to work with, and nothing more.

What some DMs do in 3e, I feel, is believe that the rules are law, and that they don't need to depend on anything else. They might not realize that the rules are kind of an equation, so if they reduce the amount of treasure per encounter for their campaign, they better remember that the game assumes a certain amount of money for the character, such that a certain CR at a certain point might not be an equivalent challenge anymore, for example.

 

[Thunderfoot]

That is certainly a legitimate reason to want to change or remove some skill rules.

As you said, this is not a power issue per se. On one hand the DM may not like how certain rules as written play out. On the other hand, letting the rules enforce "how dumb is this low Int fighter" can also be viewed as empowering to the DM.

As a practical matter, playing Zork is fresh for only so long. Players who are deadly serious tend to create a Search SOP based on whatever rules the DM is employing. That may mean having certain standard approaches plus a list of 101 weird places to look. If the DM is so clever as to cook up a 102nd weird location, he is just wasting his time -- all he has accomplished is a "win" by overcoming the players tolerance for tedium (and it is not as if the players will notice or care about this secret victory).

True, and that only perpetuates the me versus them attitude, something the game doesn't need. (any more of?) :\ There was a time when DMs used to create challenges for the characters in hopes that someone was clever enough to find them. It wasn't about 'winning' or beating the players, but a genuine need to test their limits. If they didn't find it, well, unfortunate, but it shouldn't be a game breaker, but what happens when the party finds that little nugget, they are obviously happy, and if the DM in doing his job correctly, so should he. I guess as on old timer I miss the 'luster' of the game and the 'freshness' of the unknown. Pretty sad when at 37 I can say my best days gaming are behind me...I really hope 4E cures some of this.