PCs questioning DMs

[DerianCypher]

1. The DM finds it easier to just wing things, invent things on the spot, make contrived NPCs or ones that break the rules, rather than do things the hard way and challenge the players by staying within the rules. It's inconsistent and makes the players feel like they're not in control of their characters.

2. The DM plays "by the rules" but gets a little carried away when taking advantage of being able to pre-plan and tailor encounters, as well as knowing the party tactics and tendencies - because he doesn't want things to be a cakewalk, and anticlimactic. So the enemies end up seeming untouchable, and the players get frustrated. Usually there's a limit to just how much of a challenge the players want.

I can proudly say I've never done #1. I always make my NPCs ahead of time, generally think up a brief history and always follow the rules.

As for number 2, I use very good (The word "perfect" has been tossed around but I refuse to accept that) tactics for my mobs, but COME ON they are fighting GODS who have been sitting around guarding these planes for thousands of years. They are going to be damn hard if not impossible to defeat!

 

[Privateer]

I have a smashing idea.

1) Write down what insane, far-fetched tactics you're giving the baddies.

2) Make a copy; a xerox would be great. Just make sure that it could not be altered obviously.

3) When the players think you're making it up as you go, show them the second copy, making sure they can see it has not been altered and can't see the rest of the tactics =)

4) Laugh evilly at their naive attempts to "rat you out." Bwahaha!

Besides, at the end, you now have a sheet to give the players as a trophy or, in the course of regular post-tough-fight rioting, fuel.

 

[Dark Jezter]

For the good of the game--and the hobby--this attitude must die.

Thank you for your thought-provoking and insightful post. It's changed my outlook entirely!

[/sarcasm]

 

[Tsyr]

Thank you for your thought-provoking and insightful post. It's changed my outlook entirely!

[/sarcasm]

He's right, though.

 

[maddman75]

I disagree very strongly that there's nothing wrong with memorizing monster stats and using that knowledge in character! This is the very *definition* of metagaming!

I don't ban book from the players, but if we run into an odd monster, I expect you to role-play as if you had no idea what this was. If you can't do that, and may the gods help you if you blurt out 'hey, these guys are weak against acid!' or something that your character doesn't know. Guess what - not anymore! And I'll probably change a few other things while I'm at it.

I'm getting canterkerous in my old age, and am starting to see the wisdom of the gygaxian approach to dealing with munchkins, powergamers, and rules lawyers. Blast them with bolts of blue lightning from the sky. If they ask for an explaination - you've angered the gods. Continue until they behave themselves.

The DM is always right - and that is a huge responsibility. If his version of right doesn't make the game more fun all around, then he will quickly find himself without any players.

 

[Agback]

Re: Re: Clarification

If you're going to be a player, you must trust in (or at least consent to) the DM's knowledge of the rules and his fair judgment. If you cannot do this, then you have no business being in that person's campaign.

I think that that is going too far. I agree that if RPGs are to work the character-players have to, and therefore have to be able to, trust the GM to get a lot of things right. But fairness and especially superior knowledge of how the rules work are not always things that the GM has to have.

I have GMed several successful campaigns by starting with a new ruleset that all of us were picking up as we went along. And once I agreed to run a campaign using a ruleset that the character-players knew and that I did not. In this case, I handed off adjudication of rules issues to the players and concentrated my efforts on devising situations and determining NPC behaviour. That worked fine. And on another occasion I and a group of other very experienced GMs got the little brother of one of our number to run a string of adventures while we taught him the rules of the game (CoC).

But of course these things only worked in games in which the players' aim was chiefly to extemporise and vicariously experience an exciting adventure. Players for whom a substantial portion of the fun comes from a contest with the formal rules would not have been so happy in these situtations.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Azlan]

Re: Re: Re: Clarification

I think that that is going too far. I agree that if RPGs are to work the character-players have to, and therefore have to be able to, trust the GM to get a lot of things right. But fairness and especially superior knowledge of how the rules work are not always things that the GM has to have.

Well, sure, I'd play with a DM who didn't have superior knowledge of the rules. (Although, it might get tedious if he's so unknowledgeable, he is slow with the rules and he often fumbles with them.)

But who wants to play with a DM who is not fair in his judgments... ?

 

[hong]

Re: Re: Re: Re: PCs questioning DMs

It's not necessarily the DM's fault. In fact, in most cases, it isn't the DM's; it's far more common to be the fault of argumentative and/or self-centered players.

Let's not forget that it takes two sides to have an argument.

So, Azlan, I haven't seen you in the Rules forum lately. Would you like to have an argument?

 

[Witch Doctor]

About the book reading:

We're all a bunch of college guys with little money, so we only have about 1 set of books between all of us.

So usually, we're all over the book when somebody buys one, not to memorize monster stats, but just to see what's new, any cool feats, new uses of skills, etc. So when D.C. banned a couple books, it's not so much rage as hurt. We had let him see ours, but then he turns around and says, "no" when he gets a new book.

I can understand where he's coming from, but still doesn't make me feel better.

BTW, we're more of a bunch of friends that game, rather than a group of gamers who happen to be friends (if there is a defference).