Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[TheAuldGrump]

People keep saying that. If a GM is "bad", then he's not fun to play with, regardless if he runs the game by the rules or willy-nilly by the seat of his pants.

Why play with bad GMs?

Sometimes it is so they can learn how to become good GMs.

It seems that this conversation has reached the nobody done be listening to nobody stage - no matter how many times you repeat yourself folks aren't going to change their minds. In part because you are wrong - for their groups.

Other people are unlikely to change your position, in part because they are wrong - for your group.

You need to accept that your approach works for you. It would not work for me, so don't keep beating the dead horse, no matter how much it looks like it is just resting. Folks find techniques that work for them.

In turn, folks, he has found a method that works, for him - it is unlikely that you will change his mind, and, yes, the horse is sill dead, poking it with a stick to make it look like it is moving does not work.

If a small rules set and an arbitrary GM works for you, then fine. I would not want to either run such a game, nor play in such a game.
But I'm not, I am happy running the games that I run, in the way that I run them.

The Auld Grump

 

[Hussar]

It's because of the job each does at the table, and the implications that the job holds for how much fun the game is going to be.

Not every GM is trustworthy, but (IMHO) no game is worth playing where the GM is not trusted. It's a simple IF/THEN statement. IF you don't trust the GM, THEN the game will suck. IF you do trust the GM, THEN the game may still suck, but the odds are a hell of a lot better that they will not than if you don't trust the GM.

Put another way: Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre GM can do a reasonable job. Not given the benefit of the doubt, a great GM can seem like a total wanker.

(This leads to a related observation: If someone claims that many of their GMs have been total wankers, then it might relate to how much trust that player is willing to extend, rather than the relative GMing skills involved.)

YMMV.



RC

Reverse it around though. Given the benefit of the doubt, a mediocre player can do a reasonable job. Given no benefit of the doubt, a great player will seem like a total wanker. It's a two way street.

See, I used to be a bit believer in the whole, "Trust Thy DM" creed that early games espoused. Then I got repeatedly bitten on the ass for it. So, no, my distrust of DM's came AFTER experience, not before.

But, thanks for trying to put words in my mouth yet again.

 

[Hussar]

Something I don't quite understand. RPG's are collaborative games. I think we all agree on that.

How can something be collaborative if everyone's ideas are subordinate to one person?

Again, maybe it's because my groups have almost always been made up of DM's. It's been very, very rare that I've had a group of all players. I'm not so full of myself that I'm going to turn to someone who's been gaming just as long as me, has just as much time behind the screen as me, and say, "Well, too bad, I'm the DM and my word is law."

If I cannot actually come up with a better justification than that for whatever my ruling happens to be, then I don't deserve to be sitting behind the screen and I would hope that my entire group would eject me from the big daddy chair if I tried to pull something like that.

I much, much prefer to GM through consensus building and actual collaboration rather than beating people over the head with my "The DM is the Rules" stick.

 

[Water Bob]

Sometimes it is so they can learn how to become good GMs.

Well, teaching someone to be a GM is an altogether different endeavor. It's a special circumstance. And, it seems that they wouldn't be taught "in-game", but rather out of game. Then, maybe a trial run to see how they do.

It seems that this conversation has reached the nobody done be listening to nobody stage - no matter how many times you repeat yourself folks aren't going to change their minds. In part because you are wrong - for their groups.

Where'd you get the idea that I was trying to change them? Because of title of the thread says "should" read? Don't forget, it also says, "Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read".

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

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

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

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.

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..."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Water Bob]

Something I don't quite understand. RPG's are collaborative games. I think we all agree on that.

Yup. I often key in on something the player does and then built upon it. Just today, I'm bringing in a new character (and new player) to my game. His back ground that we've been working out is that the new character is an orphan. I created the orphanage and several NPC personalities, then presented it to the player. One of the NPCs, I said, had lost her virginity with the player's character. I thought that'd be a nice hook into his background. When I showed it to the player, he said, "Nope. No sex in the orphanage. I look at these people like they were my family."

Fair enough, I said. And, we changed the virginity thing on the spot, combining our visions of his orphanage background.

The player could have just as easily had a take where the orphange people were mean to him, giving him a rough childhood, and if that were so, it would definitely change the way I brought things to the tabel in the way of that character's background.

It is definitely a collaborative game.

How can something be collaborative if everyone's ideas are subordinate to one person?

Think of the game as the making of a movie where the players are actors and the GM is the producer/writer/director with final cut, and you'll get the idea.

Who's got a lot of input and creative control over their characters? The actors.

Who ultimately decides what goes into the movie? The producer/writer/director.

Again, maybe it's because my groups have almost always been made up of DM's. It's been very, very rare that I've had a group of all players. I'm not so full of myself that I'm going to turn to someone who's been gaming just as long as me, has just as much time behind the screen as me, and say, "Well, too bad, I'm the DM and my word is law."

Having DMs in your group is like having a sick person at the hospital who is also a doctor. He's got to be very discliplined and well mannered to keep from telling others how they should do it.

When I play, I allow the DM to be the DM. I might suggest something, but if he over-rules my suggestion, then I shut up and let him run his game. It is his game, and his word is law. When I play, I play by the exact same rules that I use in my own game.

It's not easy for all DMs to do that, I know.

I much, much prefer to GM through consensus building and actual collaboration rather than beating people over the head with my "The DM is the Rules" stick.

I'm not saying that you can't, as GM, come to a conclusion on a ruling by consensus. I do that all the time, myself. What I'm saying is, if you strongly see things a different way than what the player is describing, then, in the end, You Are The Rulebook. You have final say.

You're the Judge.

 

[Water Bob]

Folks, here's a core point of this thread. It comes from the article linked in the OP (that I'm sure many of you haven't read).

The example reads:

John the Roguish: “I grasp my sword, blade downward, and leap off the ledge, driving the sword blade deep into the goblin’s back using the weight of my body and the fall to cause tons of extra damage.”

GM: “Seriously?”​

John the Roguish: “Yeah.”​

Frank the Cleric: “Oh, hell, here we go again.”​

GM: [decides that he’ll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.] “You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit.”​

Frank the Cleric: “Roll high.”​

John the Roguish: “Screw you, Frank. I roll a 2.”​

GM: “Two points of damage, then. You don’t take any falling damage, because the goblin broke your fall. You’re on the ground and so is he. Frank’s standing there with his mace, completely confused by what just happened.”​

Frank the Cleric: “While the goblin’s sprawled on the ground, I slay him with a mighty blow of my mace.”​

GM: “Roll to hit.”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t see why I should be down on the ground.”​

GM: “You rolled a 2, that’s a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you’re on the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit.”​

John the Roguish: “Where’s that in the books?”​

GM: “It’s not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit.”





Your GM is more than just the "monster mover". You have to trust your GM because he's got to make calls that aren't in the book...

GM: [decides that he’ll give John a to-hit roll. Success will let him get extra damage, but failure will cause some sort of disaster.] “You leap off the ledge. Roll to hit.”

John: “I rolled a 2.”

GM: “Okay, you trip as you jump off the ledge and you get tangled up with the sword. You knock the goblin down to the ground, but you don’t land on your feet either. You’re both sprawled on the floor. Also, you may have hit yourself when you landed on the goblin. Roll to hit again.”

John: “I rolled a 15.”

GM: “You stab yourself in the leg. Roll damage.”





You have to accept that your GM is The Rulebook, even if you don't agree with his call.

GM: “Two points of damage, then. You don’t take any falling damage, because the goblin broke your fall. You’re on the ground and so is he. Frank’s standing there with his mace, completely confused by what just happened.”​

John the Roguish: “I don’t see why I should be down on the ground.”

GM: “You rolled a 2, that’s a crappy roll, you got tangled in your sword, and you’re on the ground. You would have done double damage if you hit.”







And, you have to give your GM room to be creative in order to make the game outstandingly fun for everybody. You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."

John the Roguish: “Where’s that in the books?”​

GM: “It’s not. I just made it up.




Let the GM "make it up". Find peace with that. And, you just might surprise yourself at how much fun you've having at your game.





For you skeptics out there, try this: Do a 3 or 4 session game. Everybody create brand new characters just for this short mini-campaign. In this experiment, everyone agree that the GM IS THE RULEBOOK, and that his word is law. Everyone agree not to argue even once with the GM.

Then, run the 3-4 session mini-game.

When you're done, if you didn't have a load of fun, go back to the way you were doing it before.

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

If you have a good GM, I guarrantee you this will be a hoot.

 

[chaochou]

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

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

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

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.

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..."

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.

I'm just saying that's not what I think of when I think of superior play.

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

 

[Jhaelen]

You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."

Oh, wow. This is some naive, rosy-coloured glasses view.
I guess the author doesn't remember how things were in 'old-school' games. Players argued because there was no written rule! And what you did was this:

You invented a house-rule.

For some players this turned into a game within the game: trying to debate with the DM to convince him to alter his or her decision in your pc's favor.

After a couple of years you ended up with a game that was hardly recognizable as the system you started with (which isn't necessarily a bad thing but could cause problems when switching groups).

One of the advantages 2e had over 1e was that it codified a lot of things that had been commonly used house-rules previously.

If you have a good GM, I guarrantee you this will be a hoot.

Who's refuting that? (Well, I at least don't.) With a good DM you're going to have fun no matter what system or ruleset you use. And if all of your players refrain from arguing, everyone will have even more fun. That's obvious!

I'd also like to note that the example given could just as easily happen in a 4e game using page 42 as a guideline to determine
- a reasonable difficulty for the required check
- a reasonable result in case of success
- a reasonable result in case of failure

Rules and guidelines help a DM to avoid making bad judgement calls (which can occasionally happen to the best of DMs) _and_ they make it easier to deal with members of the debating club.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Where'd you get the idea that I was trying to change them? Because of title of the thread says "should" read? Don't forget, it also says, "Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read".

Dude? Read your own posts in this thread with a critical eye.

Seriously.

That is pretty much what you have done in almost all of them. Recently with multicolored text.

Repetition does not make you right.

Claiming superiority does not make you right.

Claiming that others are wrong does not make you right.

Using, umm, colorful text, does not make you right.

And, at this point, I am thinking that you are just making yourself look wrong. Digging a hole, finding a bigger shovel, digging a deeper hole, rinse, and repeat.

The Auld Grump

 

[Neonchameleon]

Folks, here's a core point of this thread. It comes from the article linked in the OP (that I'm sure many of you haven't read).

Many of us read that old thing years ago. And indeed I agree with you to an extent. Most DMs should read it - and then be able to pick it apart and use the straw for kindling (in particular the false dichotomies that thing is riddled with). And then work out why an assumption of character incompetence is frustrating and grindy. For instance I see absolutely nothing wrong with saying "I loot the room". It's not a moment of tension, and making the PCs check every part of the room that might possibly have treasure is just tedious and annoying.

The example reads:

[SNIP]


GM: “It’s not. I just made it up. Frank, roll to hit.”

All that tells me is that the GM is trying to fake stunt mechanics out of a game that doesn't include them. In the new school version, the rogue is being suicidally stupid. Leaping around in combat untrained is a fast way to get yourself killed. And he explicitely doesn't have anything that would make him more effective at it.

And then we move onto the second zen moment. "Player skill nto character abilities." Which can be rephrased as "Don't roleplay. Treat the game as a tactical skirmish wargame with your character being your playing piece." Because that's what using your skill not your character's skill means. Treating who you are playing as nothing more than a collection of tools to use and not as someone competent in their own right. No one who supports this has any legs to stand on when it comes to comments about roll-playing vs roleplaying.

The Third Zen Moment is not old school at all. It's not even D&D. Last time I checked, D&D wizards could warp reality in any edition when they got to a high enough level - definite superheroes. And the fourth zen moment is not about game balance at all except in the most straightjacketed format.

You have to accept that your GM is The Rulebook, even if you don't agree with his call.

No. But the GM should use the rulebooks if there is anything to help - the game rules are about the consistency of the world. And players should have a consistent idea of the chances of what they are trying to do working - to do anything else shatters trust in the gameworld. The GM is not the rulebook. The GM interprets and extends the rulebook.

And, you have to give your GM room to be creative in order to make the game outstandingly fun for everybody. You can't argue with him because what he says is "not in the books."

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.

Let the GM "make it up". Find peace with that. And, you just might surprise yourself at how much fun you've having at your game.

And by the same token good modern rules (including 4e - Skill Challenges used properly and p42) actively support the GM in making up things beyond their explicit scope. This is new school gaming - we don't just leave things to the DM to make up; we actively give the DM help to make things up that are fast, consistent, and fun. While not encouraging them to go into petty detail about irrelevant stuff. We also are not restricted to DM fiat pass/fail. Instead character and player skill both matter. Do something smart and you have easier target numbers than you did (e.g. easy vs medium DC) but if your character is good at something you are better at meeting that target number. Unlike the Old School Primer advocated play we don't drop the character skill and hence the in character abilities and roleplaying. And unlike their caricature we don't drop the player skill and inventiveness. Both matter and any attempt to force a dichotomy is a bad thing.

Also because the DM is making things up with actual mechanical support, the arguments you get now are "That's not what I was intending to say I was doing" (which is fair enough). Not the "Where the hell did that come from?" (do you want page numbers?). And the numbers feel right so the players aren't shocked, the immersion isn't shattered by a bad call, and so trusting the DM becomes much easier as the whole thing is more transparent.

(And for anyone who claims that Old School has anything to do with Rules Light, I'll point out Chivalry and Sorcery and that the only D&D spinoff that indended to make things simpler was Tunnels and Trolls).