D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Mort]

This guy (played briefly in college with him) claimed he was a very old school DM. One of his favorite tricks was to cripple a PC if they got too powerful. And by powerful, it usually meant they could stand up to his amazing NPCs who were supposed to be awesome and powerful. He targeted spellbooks, forced alignment/code conflicts that would cause divine characters to lose their powers, and if you got a too awesome set of magic items, you better be sure he was busting out Disjunction, Crystal brittle, or other item destruction. He also would lock you in dungeons with vampires to de-level you if you got too powerful. There is a good reason I have negative reactions to a lot of those "old school killer DM" boasts

In all my years of gaming I've never understood boasting about being a "killer DM."

It's extraordinarily easy to kill PCs or to take their stuff, make them depowered etc. As the saying goes the DM has infinite dragons.

Anyone who thinks that's, in any way, the mark of a good DM, is not someone I want to be playing with.

 

[AlViking]

In all my years of gaming I've never understood boasting about being a "killer DM."

It's extraordinarily easy to kill PCs or to take their stuff, make them depowered etc. As the saying goes the DM has infinite dragons.

Anyone who thinks that's, in any way, the mark of a good DM, is not someone I want to be playing with.

I've had exactly one "killer DM". One is also the number of sessions he ran for us.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've had exactly one "killer DM". One is also the number of sessions he ran for us.

Everyone remembers their bad GM experiences, but I don't make the mistake of assuming bad is the standard and we should change the rules to limit all GMs, just to be sure.

 

[AlViking]

Everyone remembers their bad GM experiences, but I don't make the mistake of assuming bad is the standard and we should change the rules to limit all GMs, just to be sure.

Considering how many DMs I've had over the decades, there have only been a couple that I would consider "bad" along with a few that just weren't for me. After a certain point I suspect that if a person considers the majority of the GM's they've had "bad" it's a reflection on the player having unrealistic demands and expectations, not an issue with the GMs.

 

[Mort]

Everyone remembers their bad GM experiences, but I don't make the mistake of assuming bad is the standard and we should change the rules to limit all GMs, just to be sure.

Good, clear, rules can help somone be a better "good" GM.

No amount rules help can turn a truly bad GM (IMO things such as a proud "killer GM" or one that proudly doesn't actually bother with the rules because they "know" them, and many other things) into a good GM.

 

[kermit4karate]

I'm gonna do it! Can I do it?? I'm pulling @AlViking's eloquent comment on this subject from my Bag of Nonsensical Holding!

Yes, there can be the occasional bad DM but the odds of having a bad player are far higher just because of the number of players to DM. There is no perfect answer. Collaborative rule building may work better for some groups but I think they are the exception. Even if they aren't, I'd rather have the DM make the final call whether I'm player or DM.

 

[Remathilis]

Considering how many DMs I've had over the decades, there have only been a couple that I would consider "bad" along with a few that just weren't for me. After a certain point I suspect that if a person considers the majority of the GM's they've had "bad" it's a reflection on the player having unrealistic demands and expectations, not an issue with the GMs.

I've not had a lot of bad DMs, but I did have some very bad experiences with a few DMs. The guy I mentioned wasn't very long lasting, I dipped out after a few sessions. But I did have a DM who I felt was a close friend for a long time and who ended up being emotionally manipulative (in all areas of life, not just D&D) that really helped form my strong opinions on player agency and the rule of God-Emperor DMs. He routinely liked stirring up drama and used the "the DM is always right" garbage from the rules itself to justify it.

Two examples out of 20+ years isn't a lot, but one example being a long running example that still leaves me with some PTSD regarding DMs who use the rules justify attacking players (not the word I wanted to use, Grandma rule). So the more the game pushes away from DM is all powerful to DM is the facilitator amongst all the players is a good and healthy one.

 

[AlViking]

I've not had a lot of bad DMs, but I did have some very bad experiences with a few DMs. The guy I mentioned wasn't very long lasting, I dipped out after a few sessions. But I did have a DM who I felt was a close friend for a long time and who ended up being emotionally manipulative (in all areas of life, not just D&D) that really helped form my strong opinions on player agency and the rule of God-Emperor DMs. He routinely liked stirring up drama and used the "the DM is always right" garbage from the rules itself to justify it.

Two examples out of 20+ years isn't a lot, but one example being a long running example that still leaves me with some PTSD regarding DMs who use the rules justify attacking players (not the word I wanted to use, Grandma rule). So the more the game pushes away from DM is all powerful to DM is the facilitator amongst all the players is a good and healthy one.

I think that the manipulative DM would have just used other means to be manipulative. Text in a book isn't going to change the person running the game.

 

[Remathilis]

I think that the manipulative DM would have just used other means to be manipulative. Text in a book isn't going to change the person running the game.

Yes and no. We switched from 2e to 3e, and 3e's more precise rules made it harder for him to use the DM is Always Right to fuzzy away things he didn't like. At the very least, we could use RAW to shield us from some of his impulses.

Put another way: if you know someone could be harmful to themselves or others, you might not be able to stop them 100% of the time, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't put a lock in knife drawer. The clearer the rules are about what is acceptable and what is not, the easier it is for v young impressionable players to see when a manipulative jerk is acting out of bounds.

Edit: I also want to point out that he wasn't always a jerk. He had some wonderful moments and could be a good friend as well. But he liked getting his way and when he didn't, he would use the rules to get his way or at least get revenge. It wasn't so clear that he was doing this until years later in life and exposure to other players (who played more like I how I wanted to play) showed me how manipulative it really was.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good, clear, rules can help somone be a better "good" GM.

No amount rules help can turn a truly bad GM (IMO things such as a proud "killer GM" or one that proudly doesn't actually bother with the rules because they "know" them, and many other things) into a good GM.

Good, clear advice can do that IMO. Rules that enforce behavior just breed resentment and make people feel constrained.