Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[JamesonCourage]

I'm not trying to change anybody's game. Lots of people play in a style that I wouldn't have in my game.

This seems reasonable.

They may have games when everybody can't show up.

Sounds normal. To each their own, though. I don't fault you for your rule on this one bit.

They may have long, bloody arguments with the DM over his judgement calls.

This happens occasionally in my game, but to be fair, I'm working out the kinks in the rules, and the feedback helps, and the players know it does. In other games (such as D&D or Mutants and Masterminds), the arguments don't work that way.

They may throw lots of experience upon PCs, raising them up to 30th level and beyond and they may make sure that every gold piece and piece of treasure and every magic item is found in a dungeon before the PCs leave, cleaning it all up like D&D locusts.

Not my style of game, but I agree, more power to them.

They may like saying, "Is there a trap down the corridor? Here I roll my Spot check? It's a 14. Did I see anything? I did?. OK, here, I roll my Disable Device skill. It's a 17. Oh, we're past the trap? OK..."

Not usually how we play, but again, nothing wrong with it. Same page so far.

They may do all that and more....AND THAT'S OK! It's their game. I'm not trying to tell them that they're having no good bad fun if they're enjoying themselves.

Awesome

I posted that article for those who "get it" and understand that there is some valuable advice--a refresher course, if you will--written in that thing that can help a good GM be even better in my opinion.

I'm honestly curious, because I think some people are understandably somewhat offended by this... what exactly does "get it" mean? Those who agree? That seems to be the implication.

Hey, if you want to run around and roll play instead of role play, all the while min/max'ing your characters, I'm not here to tell you not to do that.

Just so we're on the same page, you aren't saying that other people who roleplay in the described methods are roll playing and min/maxers, right? It's just a new example? Because the other examples above are definitely not min/maxing, roll playing examples.

I'm just saying that's not what I think of when I think of superior play. If you've got another take on it, then, buddy, more power to ya. Enjoy yourself.

Cool I'm glad you we can agree to play however is fun for our groups.

Trust me. I won't come over to your house and take your dice away from you.

Not really worried about it, but I get the gist of what you're saying

 

[Storminator]

man! Threads like this are awesome! For a little while...

PS

 

[Raven Crowking]

Sorry, that was supposed to be Hussar, not RC - I corrected it while you were posting.

I saw that. But fear not; I, too, have encountered bad GMs.

The problem kicks in when a GM uses that authority to screw his players, and thereby screws up his job, then wonders why he has no players.

The problem kicks in when a GM understands that it is his job to make things difficult for his players, but fails to understand the limitations and restrictions implied by the purpose behind those difficulties. Specifically, if the GM doesn't understand that difficulties are intended to be overcome, and that there are intended to be periods in which the PCs simply reap the rewards gained thereby.

It is utterly fine for the players to feel that something bad has happened.

It is not okay for them to feel that the GM is screwing them. If they really believe that, they should quit. If they do not, they should be willing to accept that, sometimes, bad things happen....indeed, the game is largely about overcoming the twists of fate that are thrown at you (not unlike what occurs with the heroes in pulp novels).

It is absolutely great for the players to feel Boo-Yah! They overcame something in some unexpected way because they used their brains and their characters creatively.

A good GM is on the side of the players, even as he is throwing a train wreck at their characters. In a good game, this is clearly understood on both sides of the table.

This I will grant - but it is actually something that is liable to be affected by a positive feedback loop - if you get three bad GMs in a row you are less likely to be forgiving of #4.

This is absolutely true.

While I think Hussar's attitude may contribute to his perception, I do not think that Hussar's attitude is necessarily unreasonable based on his experience. Just unfortunate.


RC

 

[Water Bob]

All that tells me is that the GM is trying to fake stunt mechanics out of a game that doesn't include them.

"Fake" stunt mechanics.

Boy, I can tell you don't "get it".

So, if a rule is not printed in a book somewhere, and the GM just makes it up off the top of his head, the GM's ruling is bogus? And, its counterfeited if someone in the next session says, "Hey, I looked it up, and here's how the falling attack should have been administered."

If anyone reading this thinks the player who looked it up at the next session is "correct", then we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this.

Of course. But by the same token the GM should not simply rule contrary to what is in the books or else things become meaningless.

Yep. Definitely doesn't get it.

On one level, I'm amazed so many people think this way.

On another, I'm sure they're amazed that I think the way I do.



EXAMPLE:

You know, I saw a permanent damage chart in one of the Conan supplements (Warrior's Guide - I play the Conan RPG, which is based on d20 3.5 but different in a lot of areas). The rule says that, when damage rolled for a weapon results in the maximum number (a "6" on a weapon that does 1d6, for example), then the permanent damage chart was to be used.

What a horrible rule!

If you follow this rule, then your smaller, lighter weapons will be doing permanent damage much more often than the bigger weapons that do more damage. A weapon that does 1d4 damage will have a 25% chance of rolling on the chart every time it hits, while a weapon that does 1d10 only has a 10% chance chance of rolling on the chart. A weapon that does 2d6 damage only has a 2.7% chance of making it to the permanent damage chart once damage is thrown.

The point here is: The rules in the books are not divinely inspired. Some rules, like the one above, are quite poorly written. You shouldn't give more authority to the written rules than you do your GM.

Clearly then you think in terms of superiority. Implicitly, you think of the listed game choices as inferior.

I do. Otherwise, I'd embrace them.

Just like you make choices in your game as to what you like and don't like. Be default, you think the way you play is superior to other ways of playing because that is the result of your choice (unless you're into chosing things that you don't like).

There is one thing I'd like to change about my group. I'd like to get them to speak more "in character" than what they do now. They're not good about that. I'm trying to get them to think more in the first person, saying, "I'll move over there by the barrel and poke my head over the top." Rather than, "Caelis moves over by the barrel and pokes his head over the top."

It's an immersion thing.

These posts don't give me the impression that you have a lot of familiarity with non-dungeon, non-PC-power-advancement based play.

Boy, are you off the mark.

They also suggest that you're not that familiar with the stunt/improvisation rules from 4e (or other games). I also don't see the link between roleplaying and GM-fiat.

I don't know squat, really, about 4E. Haven't read any of it. I do know about things like combat challenges and stunts in the Iron Heroes RPG, and that similar rules appear in other recent games.

IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.

Well, I'm sure that some players think, "Whew! IT's IN THE BOOK! IT"S OK IF HE DOES IT!" So, maybe that's a good thing--for those players who need the printed rule to validate their GMs.

 

[Raven Crowking]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]: Sorry if those last couple of posts came off a bit like I'm trying to read your mind, or tell you what you're saying. I find it unfortunate that you've had the experiences you have, and, sometimes, when you really enjoy something, it's hard not to think "Ah, if only you could see it this way, you could enjoy it too!"

I'm not sure if you are still trying out game systems or not, but your enjoyment of Sufficiently Advanced (for example) may well stem (in part) from the way responsibilities are shared. And, maybe, if I had your experiences, I would enjoy a game like SA more than I do.

In either event, it is always a good thing to try to match your desires with the game and group which will best meet them.

I feel safe in thinking that is something we both agree on!


RC

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I saw that. But fear not; I, too, have encountered bad GMs.



The problem kicks in when a GM understands that it is his job to make things difficult for his players, but fails to understand the limitations and restrictions implied by the purpose behind those difficulties. Specifically, if the GM doesn't understand that difficulties are intended to be overcome, and that there are intended to be periods in which the PCs simply reap the rewards gained thereby.

It is utterly fine for the players to feel that something bad has happened.

It is not okay for them to feel that the GM is screwing them. If they really believe that, they should quit. If they do not, they should be willing to accept that, sometimes, bad things happen....indeed, the game is largely about overcoming the twists of fate that are thrown at you (not unlike what occurs with the heroes in pulp novels).

It is absolutely great for the players to feel Boo-Yah! They overcame something in some unexpected way because they used their brains and their characters creatively.

A good GM is on the side of the players, even as he is throwing a train wreck at their characters. In a good game, this is clearly understood on both sides of the table.
RC

Just because I haven't posted this in a while....

Die Hard Effect by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

And along those same lines:

Pit Trap by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

The Auld Grump

 

[Rel]

I don't know squat, really, about 4E. Haven't read any of it. I do know about things like combat challenges and stunts in the Iron Heroes RPG, and that similar rules appear in other recent games.

IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.

I think you're making a huge assumption here, that is probably one of the cornerstones of this debate. I believe that many, many GMs do not feel that it is "faster making it up off the top of his head". If that were true in every case then we wouldn't have "games" at all because there would be no rules.

Most games have a rule for determining whether you hit your opponent when you swing your sword. And, in most cases, this mechanic is very simple because it will be used very often. Personally I would find it incredibly tiresome to have to make a GM judgment call each time rather than having this mechanic already available.

So the question really becomes how far do you extend this thinking into situations that crop up less commonly. People tend to try and notice or spot things very frequently so I think it's probably a good thing for the game to have a mechanic for that and to apply that mechanic consistently. Picking Locks? Ok I guess. Grappling an opponent? Maybe. Leaping off a ledge and trying to skewer a goblin while avoiding falling damage? Aha! Now we've crossed a line (my personal line) where I don't think you need a specific rule to handle that rather rare situation.

BUT I think it is perfectly fine, perhaps even smart, to give the GM some kind of unified "stunt" mechanic for just this type of situation. In my opinion the best sorts of stunt mechanics are fairly simple, very flexible and easy to apply to a wide range of situations. If a mechanic fits those criteria then I regard it as better than GM fiat if for no other reason than I don't have to reinvent the wheel each time somebody wants to do something along these lines.

The system I'm currently using (Savage Worlds) has an implied stunt mechanic that basically works like this:

Pick an applicable Trait for the player to roll (Could be Agility or Strength or Throwing or Stealth or whatever)
Establish a target number (default is 4 but you might increase that due to difficulty or make an opposed roll to establish this number)
If the player's roll equals the target number they succeed. If they beat it by 4 then they succeed spectacularly.

It's simple, it's fast and it makes adjudicating those situations easy. However it still includes a fair bit of GM decision making in terms of selecting a Trait to roll and target number. And I would assert that the GM has the "last word" on how those rulings are made.

However when I say "last word" I want to underscore that there are plenty of words that might be exchanged prior to that. If the player asserts that since he's ultimately making an attack against the goblin then his Fighting skill should be used rather than Agility then I should take that into consideration and possibly change my mind. If I'm unsure then what I feel that I've got to do is to make a call, but let the player know that if they want to discuss the matter further after the game then I'm willing to do so. I might still change my mind later or I might not. I just don't think I gain much by being authoritarian about it.

 

[Barastrondo]

IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head. He doesn't need some rule in the book to back him up.

Well, I'm sure that some players think, "Whew! IT's IN THE BOOK! IT"S OK IF HE DOES IT!" So, maybe that's a good thing--for those players who need the printed rule to validate their GMs.

I think you're making some unfounded assumptions about the players' attitude here. Some players think that it's a good thing to use book rules not because of trust issues with the GM, but because it empowers them to make informed decisions without first checking with the GM every time. Yes, it's faster for the GM to just make something up without checking a simple rule: but it's also faster for a player who knows what to expect to take an action without first having to ask "So what would your estimation of my chances be in this instance?" Now, if the players have been playing with this one GM for years upon years, and know his judgment calls as well as they know the rules, then yes, there's no real benefit: but that's just not always the case. People join, leave, form new groups.

It's basically like playing chess without having to double-check how those little horsey-things move every few turns. It really isn't the slowdown that you would expect (particularly since things like the p. 42 rules are summed up on a chart that appears on the GM screen, for instance; it's just as easy as checking an NPC's defenses and hit points).

 

[Neonchameleon]

"Fake" stunt mechanics.

Boy, I can tell you don't "get it".

You know, you'd get a much better reception on this thread if you stopped preaching about how you "got it" and realised that some don't get what you do and others not only get what you do we see beyond you.

So, if a rule is not printed in a book somewhere, and the GM just makes it up off the top of his head, the GM's ruling is bogus?

Of course not. The DM's ruling is bogus if he arbitrarily changes the way the world works by fiat and against PC expectation.

And, its counterfeited if someone in the next session says, "Hey, I looked it up, and here's how the falling attack should have been administered."

If anyone reading this thinks the player who looked it up at the next session is "correct", then we definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this.

Flow trumps accuracy for immersion. As DM I'd do exactly what you did at the time. And then the next session nod and say "We'll handle it that way next time it comes up."

On one level, I'm amazed so many people think this way.

On another, I'm sure they're amazed that I think the way I do.

Oh, I'm not even slightly surprised you think the way you do. You appear to be someone who's grasped one jigsaw puzzle piece and be waving it around and claiming that anyone who doesn't think that what you have is the whole of the puzzle doesn't get it. This is predictable and common.

EXAMPLE:

You know, I saw a permanent damage chart in one of the Conan supplements (Warrior's Guide - I play the Conan RPG, which is based on d20 3.5 but different in a lot of areas). The rule says that, when damage rolled for a weapon results in the maximum number (a "6" on a weapon that does 1d6, for example), then the permanent damage chart was to be used.

What a horrible rule!

Agreed. But the cure for a horrible and recurrant rule is not a DM ass-pull. It's to house-rule it. Replacing the rules with better ones. But I'll tell you something else. Most RPGs were put together by professional game designers. Most DMs are not professional game designers. Which means that most books are better designed than most DMs can manage.

Also, I expect transparency. One of the best rules in 1e AD&D was that 1gp = 1xp. This set the entire tone of the campaign, making the PCs money grubbing adventurers who went into dungeons to loot them and remove everything not nailed down (and even steal the nails).

If a GM were to change that rule in the middle of a 1e game simply because he thought it was a bad rule, he'd be changing the very morality embedded into the universe. And that would shatter immersion faster and harder than the DM snorting helium before RPing the ogres. A consistent gameworld is a part of immersion and when the DM violates the rules he breaks that consistency. And breaks the immersion.

There might even be a literary reason why daggers are more likely to scar people in Conan and greatswords to knock them out - it certainly wouldn't surprise me in a Xena-based RPG for this to be intentional.

I do. Otherwise, I'd embrace them.

And that tells me that you just don't get it. I consider Perversity Points from Paranoia a superb rule. But I don't embrace them because I don't often want to play paranoia and think it would go down like a lead balloon at my current table. I consider the tower from Dread one of the best rules out there. But I'm not normally running horror.

IMO, those rules are OK, but all they're doing is putting structure to GM fiat. And, a GM can do it faster making it up off the top of his head.

Yes, possibly - at least if the DM isn't prone to second guessing himself. But the time to look up an amount of information that fits on an index card is trivial. And it's sure. No real arguments second guessing yourself.

I'm now going to give the example I normally use of why improvising with mechanical scaffolding is IMO superior to improvising out of thin air. It was my third session DMing D&D ever. And through some luck (a natural 20 in the right place) and being sneaky bastards, my PCs had managed to turn a dragonrider and his very young dragon. But if the dragon was spotted from the air from either side, he was doomed. There wasn't enough local cover to hide him from street level where he'd start a riot or a panic. And so they needed to move him through a city that was hostile to the dragons to get him to a safe house. (Or demolish a bombed out building to hide him under but they didn't try that).

Anyway the plan the PCs came up with was to loot a couple of horse blankets and a cart, put the dragon's back legs and tail in the cart, put a couple of corpses over it, and claim they had a plague cart. With a plan like that, how do you work out how hard it is to perform? How do you manage the pacing? The random factors that may derail the plan? What if one thing goes wrong? Can they pull it back? With 4e's excellent skill challenge mechanics I had the pacing, the difficulty, and a source of random troubles sorted out in less time than it took me to take a swallow of my drink. In my third session as a DM. Yes, a pure fiat DM could have probably done the same thing using his experience to cover for a lack of extended action mechanics. But I doubt many could off that level of inexperience.

And that is why I like modern RPG mechanics. They actively empower both DM and players to do what they want. They aren't normally something you want to fight - they are something that helps you do what you want to do better.

Reading your posts, why do you even bother with any game mechanics at all? Just play freeform - it's what you appear to be advocating.

 

[Mallus]

But, be open while you're doing this experiment to completely trust the GM and allow him the creative room to make the calls as he sees fit.

Here's the thing, a group giving their DM the trust and permission required to run the game primarily on DM calls is only the first step. The easy step.

The next, and far more interesting/difficult step is: how do I, as DM, run a challenging and interesting game where I *am* the rulebook, the principle task resolution system?

Let me be frank, as rulesbooks go, I'm terribly incomplete, even though I've been running campaigns since the mid-1980s. The things I don't know could --and do-- fill libraries.

In theory, I have no problem with designing all the challenges my players will face, and then adjudicating their solutions to them, sans printed rules.

In practice... well, therein lies the rub.

It's fine to advocate in favor of clever traps, puzzles and riddles the players actually solve themselves. But it's quite another matter to to design, or even find, challenging obstacles for a group of smart, talented, accomplished people who still find the time to read both eclectically and voraciously, or worse, who live both eclectically and voraciously. For example, I think the PhD count in my group is currently 2 (soon to be 3) and the lawyer count is 1. Creating (certain types of) "hands-on", less abstract challenges for them would be a full-time job.

I already have a full-time job. Plus other hobbies. Have I mentioned my lovely wife? Also, I quite like to drink...

There's a lot to like in the Old School Primer --and yes, I read it, a long time ago. But what it doesn't address is some of the practical difficulties in running long-term games in that mode. And, to be fair, neither do you...

The authority/permission to act as the rules book is one thing, the skill(s) required to do so are another. Just because I *can* act as "the rules" doesn't mean I wouldn't benefit from a well-designed set of rules for the times when whatever acumen I posses fails me and I need to answer the player demanding to know "so, what happens now?"