Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Water Bob]

Some DMs are total dicks, though.

Why would you play with a total dick, no matter if he was curbed in via a rule for everything or given free reign to judgement call every circumstance?

Dicks are dicks. Don't play with them.

(I know...we'll see what kind quips come from those two last statements )

I cut my teeth on "old school gaming." My first character to survive to 2nd level got killed by turning down the wrong corner into a "magic missile crossbow trap."

DM's have to learn how to be good DM's. Many are young when they start out and they don't have a grasp on what makes a good game, and they haven't realized yet that the game is not a competition between the DM and players.

A young, inexperienced DM will mostly likely be a bad DM no matter the play style.

I've yet to run into a game that did not allow me to play the style of gaming I wanted.

In the end, sure. That's correct. But you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.

"I'm checking for secret doors! I rolled an X. Did I find it.?"

That's the point being made.

Well, I think play-styles and GM-ing styles changed precisely because some players found the 'old school' style a complete chore.

I think that TSR, and then WotC, are basically book publishers. Rule books always sell better than books that focus on other aspects of the game. A majority of the people playing the game will buy the new Fighter's Guide, but only a smaller subset of total buyers will get the new sourcebook on the Jungles of Chult.

More rules = more sold books = more $.



I think, with 4E, we're seeing a bit of a rebellion against the old d20, crunchy market--an attempt to get back to the more rules lite days as most games were 20 and 30 years ago.

The problem here is that the Rogue's success (in the "classic" example) does not represent an excercise of skill; it represents the player being Clever.

I've got two things to say to that. First, you're not playing a computer game. A player's play should always trump a dice roll.

This type of thing would even pop up in Ye Olde School type games. Characters had the CHA stat. So, when the character walked into the local tavern and pissed off the barkeep, some player may cry, "But, my character has an CHA 18! Give me a roll!", after that player had role played a real jerk that insulted the barkeeps mother.

In my game, role play is king, regardless of stats on a page. I try to use the throws to guide me in how I roleplay NPCs. If the player makes a high CHA check, I'll make the NPC friendly. If the check is low, I'll make the NPC not so friendly.

But, no matter the outcome of the throw, I'm not going to allow a high CHA score and a good roll trump a player's roleplaying.

 

[Henry]

That is indeed cool. But it's not actually part of the rules, right?

It's kind of a losing game to get into the "what's in the rules versus outside the rules" in an old-school vs. new-school thinking debate, because no edition of D&D has this kind of thing in the rules, and in fact the oldest versions of D&D only inferred in the broadest terms that such a thing was possible. (To me, "it's your game, do with it what you will" is pretty far from strong advice on improvised stunts, keeping good session pacing, inspiring your players -- stuff that I had to learn from sharing with others.)

The only reason I used to do these things in Basic D&D and Advanced D&D years ago was because I was used to games of "make-believe" and "let's pretend"; the rules in many places were contradictory and hard to understand, and talking with Gary Gygax years later I came to the glaring truth that he rarely used the rules as written, either! Not even for combat, the most detailed structure in the game!

I've played every edition so far, from Original D&D down to 4E, and the best DM skills I've learned have not been from a D&D book, it's been from talking to other DMs, observing their tricks, and sharing notes. It's true that some of the later DMGs have been picking up and including some of this "advice of the ages", but that's because people like Chris Perkins, Monte Cook, James Wyatt, and Jason Buhlman learned those cool DM tricks through the School of DM Hard Knocks, and wanted to pass them along to others.

 

[nedjer]

Dicks are dicks. Don't play with them.

Fair takes me back to life in the convent school

 

[The Shaman]

The Primer is a good read, but it's important to bear in mind that it's written in support of Swords and Wizardry, Matt Finch's OD&D retroclone; it's a guide to playing S&W, and as such I think it's very well done.

But I disagree with the notion I've heard expressed by a number of gamers, particularly in the last few years, that 'old school' begins and ends with OD&D.

 

[Crothian]

In the end, sure. That's correct. But you've got to make a conscious decision if you're not just going to roll dice and look at the numbers--especially if there's a stat on the charcter's sheet that says the character is very good at a task.

"I'm checking for secret doors! I rolled an X. Did I find it.?"

That's the point being made.

That's how the 1e did it though. There was a number characters needed to roll to find secret doors. That hasn't changed. It's when you move away from D&D that you get away from this.

 

[Water Bob]

But I disagree with the notion I've heard expressed by a number of gamers, particularly in the last few years, that 'old school' begins and ends with OD&D.

I don't think that at all. I've never played OD&D. I've never layed 4E, either. As for the other editions, I really like AD&D, 2E, and 3.5, all three of them.

But, I do think the skills and Feats and all the numbers on the 3.5 character sheet lends itself to what is described in the document as "modern gaming".

What I'm saying is, if you find yourself in that rut, there's no reason why you can't run a game using what the document refers to as "old school play" but still use modern day mechanics.






To illustrate what I'm saying, let's take the traps example in the article. Run the scenario as shown under the Old School Style.

"But...!!! What about my Spot skill!" The player says, "Did I put those skill points in it for nothing?"

No, Mr. Player, your character will still benefit, mechanically, from your high Spot rating, and you'll still be able to use it to detect traps and such. Except, now, the DM rolls your Spot secretly behind his screen and uses the result to guide how he describes the scene and answers your questions as you roleplay it out, Olde School Style.





Example:

GM: “A ten-foot wide corridor leads north into the darkness.”

John the Roguish: “We move forward, poking the floor ahead with our ten foot pole.”

GM: Is about to say that the pole pushes open a pit trap, when he remembers something. “Wait, you don’t have the ten foot pole any more. You fed it to the stone idol.” [if the party still had the pole, John would have detected the trap automatically]

John the Roguish: “I didn’t feed it to the idol, the idol ate it when I poked its head.”

GM: “That doesn’t mean you have the pole back. Do you go into the corridor?”

John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?”


HERE, THE PLAYER HAS BASICALLY CALLED FOR A SPOT CHECK. THE GM ROLLS THE SPOT BEHIND HIS SCREEN AND GIVES THE PLAYER NO IDEA OF THE RESULT--AS THE RESULT WILL BE ROLEPLAYED WHEN ANSWERING THE PLAYER'S QUESTIONS.

With a failing result, the DM will not offer any description the player does not ask for. He'll answer the player's questions, but the player has to be specific, and the DM will make discovering the trap as reasonably hard as he can.

With a successful result, the DM will be more willing to provide broad information based on the player's questions, and the rest of the scenario might go like this on a successful Spot check....




GM: “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.”

John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?”

GM: “Yeah, the water seems to be puddling a little bit around a square shape in the floor where the square is a little higher than the rest of the floor.”

John the Roguish: “Like there’s a covered pit trap?”

GM: “Could be.”

John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”

GM: “How?”

John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to jam the mechanism?”

GM: “You can’t see a mechanism. You step on it, there’s a hinge, you fall. What are you going to jam?”

John the Roguish: “I don’t know. Okay, let’s just walk around it.”

GM: “You walk around it, then. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”




So....how would it be different if the secret Spot check had been failed?

It might go like this...




John the Roguish: “No. I’m suspicious. Can I see any cracks in the floor, maybe shaped in a square?”


GM: “No, there are about a million cracks in the floor. You wouldn’t see a pit trap that easily, anyway.”

John the Roguish: “Okay. I take out my waterskin from my backpack. And I’m going to pour some water onto the floor. Does it trickle through the floor anywhere, or reveal some kind of pattern?”

GM: “No, it just puddles there on the floor, making muddy seams between the cracks."

(See...this is hard on the player. The G\DM decides that, since the Spot check failed, that the Player's idea of trying water has a result that is not obvious as with the success example above. There is years of dirt and grim in those floor cracks, so thick that the water is not penetrating. Yet, the DM still gives the player an "out" by drawing attention, albeit slim attention, to the "mud" between the cracks. If the player catches on and pulls his dagger to scrap through the mud, then the DM should allow the water to sink down through the cracks.)

THIS IS WHAT YOU DO WITH A FAILED CHECK. YOU MAKE IT HARDER FOR THE PLAYER.

NOTE THAT A PLAYER CAN STILL USE HIS NOGGIN AND FIND A SUCCESS EVENTHOUGH HIS DICE THROW FAILED.

USE THE DICE THROW TO DETERMINE HOW YOU GIVE OUT INFORMATION, BUT STILL ALLOW THE PLAYER TO USE HIS PLAY SKILL TO OVERCOME SITUATIONS.

DON'T BE RULED BY DICE THROWS. LET ROLEPLAYING, FUN, EXCITEMENT, AND COMMON SENSE PREVAIL.

John the Roguish: “Hmm...no indication of a trap.?”

GM: “Not that you can see.”

John the Roguish: “Can I disarm it?”

GM: “Disarm what?”

John the Roguish: “I don’t know, maybe make a die roll to discover the trap and jam the mechanism?”

GM: “You can’t see a mechanism."

John the Roguish: “OK, I'm going to hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor."

GM: “It's hard, but you seem to feel like the floor gives a little as you push on it."

John the Roguish:"I push harder."

"GM:It pops quickly. It's been closed so long that the mud and dirt were sealing it in place, but, yes, indeed, there is a trap door there. When it gives, you jolt, but since Franks' got a hold on you, he keeps you from tipping forward when you put your weight on the trap. What do you want to do now?"

"John the Roguish:Is there room to walk around it."

"GM:There is. There’s about a two-foot clearance on each side.”

John the Roguish:"We walk around it, then."

NOTE HOW THE SPOT CHECK FAILED BUT THE PLAYER'S ABILITY TO PLAY THE GAME ALLOWED HIM TO OVERCOME THE BRICKED THROW AND STILL DEAL WITH THE TRAP.



Of corse that's just one way to do it. You may enjoy a different approach.

 

[Greg K]

I agree with both you and the article.
I don't have it in front of me, but the 1e and 2e rule books all have a paragraph in the beginning that reads(paraphrase) these are just guidelines, feel free to change them to fit your game

Yes, they do. The 3.0 DMG basically states the same in a few places and it gives lots of variants for customizing the game.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Yes, they do. The 3.0 DMG basically states the same in a few places and it gives lots of variants for customizing the game.

As does the 3.5 DMG, and the 3.5 MM too (more or less, in some ways).

Don't make me go chapter and verse on y'all. AGAIN!



Water Bob, I regret to inform you that your decision to run a d20 game, S&S in flavour though it indubitably is, has dictated that your OS card be forfeit.

Hand it over, buddy.

 

[chaochou]

John the Roguish: “OK, I'm going to hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor."

GM: “Nothing happens"

Rinse and repeat for the next 10 feet of corridor. And the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next and the next. And the next and the next and the next. And the next.

When suddenly

John the Roguish: “OK, I'm going to hold on to Frank The Cleric with my left hand, put all my weight on my left foot, and then lean in with my right foot, allowing the tip of my boot to put some pressure on the center of the corridor."

GM: “Okay, as you put pressure on the floor you hear a click and the entire ceiling section drops down on you and Frank the Cleric for 20d10 damage. Ooops."

I don't suppose these make such good examples though.

It's built into the original example that the player is looking in exactly the right spot for exactly the right type of trap.

But with no trap there the whole things dissolves into an exercise in searching repetitively, every 10 feet, for the non existent. And with anything other than a pit trap there the player can still get killed despite 'using his noggin'.

This doesn't encourage any sort of gameplay that I want to experience. In my experience it results in player caution and paralysis as they check every flagstone for pits, pressure plates, poisoned bdarts, hidden crossbows, sprung blades, magical wards, secret doors, concealed doors, illusions, etc etc etc.

Sorry, but it ain't for me.

 

[Greg K]

As does the 3.5 DMG, and the 3.5 MM too (more or less, in some ways).

Don't make me go chapter and verse on y'all. AGAIN!

(

Lol. I never owned the 3.5 core books (I just use the srd with my 3.0) so I couldn't state with certainty.