Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Mark CMG]

If something being somewhere is going to be automatically seen or known, I don't bother with rolling dice. It's time wasted that could better be spent RPing. For my games, knowing the party can probably beat orcs because the players have faught them before falls under metagaming. Having players be tipped off that something is hidden because I had them roll a perception check that they failed just feels like sloppy GMing.

 

[Jhaelen]

The hard part is getting players to trust their GMs to be more than just arbiter of the printed rules. GMs should be, as this document says, THE RULEBOOK.

Eh, not really.

One advantage of printed rules is that they help to protect players from 'bad' GMs.
'Good' GMs automatically earn the players' trust; this has nothing to do with the existence or amount of printed rules.

Printed rules are only ever a bad thing if you have 'bad' players who try to usurp the GMs job as the final arbiter on rules by invoking the RAW on her. Reminding them of Rule Zero will easily remedy this, though (unless they're '_really_ bad players' ).

Given a 'good' DM and 'good' players there's nothing but advantages in having 'good' printed rules

 

[Fifth Element]

The first rule is: Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*. Nobody can play your character the way you do. It's a sacrifice to get to a game. We all do it because we enjoy playing. I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session. If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.

The second rule is: You accept me as the DM. I am The Rulebook. I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people. They have differnent opinions. If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment. If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say. If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement. There is no argument. If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.

I take it from these rules that the people you game with are not people you would necessarily otherwise spend time with? Is that fair to say?

In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.

Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.

 

[Fifth Element]

If something being somewhere is going to be automatically seen or known, I don't bother with rolling dice. It's time wasted that could better be spent RPing

4E recognizes this explicitly, by having passive Perception and Insight scores, which help determine what should be automatically seen or known. Thus, the system is giving this same advice to DMs who might not yet have realized its wisdom.

Written rules helping the DM be a better DM.

 

[Barastrondo]

It's a good point that things gotten cheaply are often held in contempt. The thing to remember, though, is that if you're talking about the viewpoint of the person feeling the contempt, then that is the person who is defining just what qualifies as "cheaply." From the perspective of the player, if they feel they've put in a reasonable amount of effort to earn a reward, they won't feel contempt for it.

This is important because "what is gotten cheaply is often held in contempt" is a massive potential pitfall for GMs. Specifically, it is a bad thing to start looking at stuff players have earned, saying to yourself "They got that too cheaply," and then starting to hold their rewards or (worse!) the players in contempt. And if you start holding people or campaigns outside your own table in contempt because their group enjoys a different play style than you do -- you've been poisoned by your concept of "unearned," and should likely apply leeches.

It is for the person doing the earning, or not, to determine whether or not it feels right. It's not a good idea to impose an observer's contempt as the law. The good GM will base his decisions on whether or not the players are themselves feeling challenged, not on whether or not he feels they're being challenged.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In my groups, for example, we're all friends and family first, and D&D players second. Most of us have busy lives and several have young children, so your rule #1 would not work since occasional absences are unavoidable, and we wouldn't want to punish everyone else by not having a session just because someone's kid has the flu.

I agree.

I'll call a game if 2-3 people can't make it, but a single person? I can work around that!

Rule #2 has some applicability, since the DM is given final say in most things. But I can't just say "My game, my rules, don't like it? You're out." because I'm not the only DM in the group and I wouldn't say that to my wife or my best friend, who both play. The DM having last call doesn't have to be a "my way or the highway" approach, just an agreement amongst the players that someone has to have the final say. Part of that responsibility, when I DM, is used to say that sometimes, the players can have the final say.

Here we differ, probably on the basis of different experience.

I know that the best job I can do as a GM only happens when it is clear that the GM has the final say. In fact, I have rarely seen a case where that was not true.....and those few cases were where the GM was so bad that no game at all was preferable. Consequently, if you want me to GM, the players agree that I have the final say.

And, although you might find it strange, that arrangement has served me well over many, many years. Even if everyone else in the group was a GM.

Of course, it helps that I have always been willing to accord others the same respect. It also helps if you can distinguish between a reasonable observation that one should take notice of (and possibly change a ruling on the basis of) and whining because something didn't go as the player wished/expected.

But, as I said, our experiences obviously differ, so YMMV.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Here we differ, probably on the basis of different experience.

I don't think we really differ that much. As I said, when I DM I do expect the final say, and I grant the same to others who DM. I was more objecting to the presentation than the content.

Where we probably do differ is that sometimes I use that final say to grant the players the final say now and again, rather than always using it myself.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't think we really differ that much. As I said, when I DM I do expect the final say, and I grant the same to others who DM. I was more objecting to the presentation than the content.

Where we probably do differ is that sometimes I use that final say to grant the players the final say now and again, rather than always using it myself.

Well, we don't differ there, then, either.

Part of having that authority means that you have the authority to delegate!


RC

 

[MrMyth]

Not entirely sure where to comment here, since there seems to be, like, 3 or 4 different elements of discussion at play: player skill vs character skill, DM fiat vs structured rulings, improvisation vs a strict list of powers...

For myself, in nearly all these categories, I tend to find that it is best to try and find an approach that includes both options, and even has them support each other.

Sure, a player walking up and rolling some dice to find and disable a trap feels less exciting than having them figure out how the trap is worked into the environment and how it can be safely disarmed. At the same time, you don't want the game to turn into 'mother may I?', where the wrong choice - even made by a skilled thief - trivializes their character's capabilities.

As is often pointed out - the fighter's player doesn't need to demonstrate his physical prowess to have his PC behead an orc. Should the rogue's player need to have an actual knowledge of traps in order to have his PC disarm a trap?

Instead, I like keeping both approaches as options, and certainly think that regardless of what is chosen, you want to avoid making it all feel mechanical, so to speak.

Basically, I'm not a fan of rolling a spot check and being told, "Yeah, there is a 20' pit trap in the corridor," or "You find a dart-throwing trap in the wall." Use of descriptive terms is important - "You notice that the ground is structurally weak in the corridor ahead," or "You notice a trip wire along the corridor, and it seems to tie into small holes embedded into the walls."

At the same time, I don't want the characters to be forced to 'figure out my puzzle' in order to know how to bypass the trap, or even realize it is there. Success on the check just telling them... that there are cracks in the ground... goes a bit too far in the other direction.

Water Bob's early example in this thread is the sort of thing I'd fine pretty unenjoyable in actual play. Even when the character succeeds on his skill checks, he has to basically work through the DM's puzzle to figure out what the situation is and how to deal with it.

In those examples, the smart player of the hulking and reckless barbarian will be able to easily find and bypass the various traps, while the less creative player of the skilled rogue will blunder into one trap after another, simply because he can't figure out what tricks the DM is looking for to discover the traps, no matter how well he rolls.

The rolls and the descriptions and the creativity should enhance and support each other, but neither should be the only path to success.

Similarly, when it comes to creative combat actions - like trying to trick two enemies into hitting each other - I definitely agree that letting characters be creative can offer a lot to the game. I tend to prefer having some guidelines - such as pg 42 in 4E - that can help me quickly figure out how to resolve such thing in a balance fashion.

Basically, I like having creative actions that feel like they have a solid result in combat, but I don't want to have to just come up with a decision completely via DM fiat... especially since I feel that risks such actions feeling either not worthwhile at all, or potentially too good. Once a group discovers a creative use of a spell that can instantly turn the tide of a fight... they start to look for ways to use the same trick as often as possible, until it feels more like a loophole than actual creativity.

Now, a really skilled DM doesn't need any guidelines at all, of course. I think that the ability to rule on the fly is a valuable one. But that level of DM skill is relatively rare - and even for a DM that can do so, doing so quickly is even harder.

I would like to see such creativity more encouraged... even in 4E, where you have outright guidelines for such stunts, and the books themselves encourage players to try such things, it is very easy to fall into the mindset that one should just stick with exactly what the character sheet says the PC is capable of. I'm not sure how to find an easy way around that, in the end. And, honestly, a group that has that mindset is likely to be stuck in it regardless of edition, or style of play, or even game itself. Sometimes, that is just how some folks are wired.

 

[the Jester]

If you're going to play in my game, then you have to agree to a couple of rules. If you don't agree, then you're not invited to play with me and the other players who have agreed.

The first rule is: Everybody shows up to play the game or nobody plays*. Nobody can play your character the way you do. It's a sacrifice to get to a game. We all do it because we enjoy playing. I don't want players not showing up for silly reasons, so, from the beginning, everyone commits to being at each game session. If you can't make that commitment, then, no offence, please don't play in our game.

You do realize that most adults have other things going on in their lives, right?

Do you get upset if someone has to cancel because their kid is sick or is playing their first ball game and the parent puts more importance on their child than on your game? What about when someone is gone on a business trip? What if someone has dinner with the in-laws and can't make it?

The second rule is: You accept me as the DM. I am The Rulebook. I will endeavor to be fair, but people are people. They have differnent opinions. If my call is different from what you would do as DM, then politely voice your comment. If it makes sense, we'll go with what you say. If I don't agree, then there is no disagreement. There is no argument. If you want to play in this game, then you have to accept my judgement as final and move on.

I find the whole "I am the Rulebook!!" statement you keep making to be pretty funny. That said, I agree in principle here- the dm's call is final. Where I disagree with you is that (I think) you want the dm's word to frame the game, whereas I prefer to have the game rules frame the dm's word.

Again, though, this is fine- there are many more differences in playstyle out there, and nothing wrong with any of them.

EDIT: So long as everyone involved is having fun, anyhow. I guess I'd object to a playstyle that included something like, "Your character died, now we kill YOU TOO!!!" "BLACKLEAF, NO!"