Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Thasmodious]

I was going to mention those as things you might try -- but they really are not to the point.

You already have the Power, which is a 'rule' just as much as a "fate chip"!

If the players ability to do these things isn't veto power because its a part of the system, then neither is the DMs. The DMs authority isn't handed down by divine writ, but is a part of the rules system. Various systems modify that role and authority in any number of ways. The point comes back to what is known and agreed upon beforehand. The social contract. If we are playing 4e, that carries certain conceits and expectations. If those are not the expectations in play, the DM is obligated to inform the players so they can make appropriate adjustments to their expectations.

I know, I know, the DM isn't obligated to anything other than RULE THE PLAYER'S WITH AN IRON FIST! I'm kidding.

 

[Rel]

Folks, I'll remind you that conversing in a friendly manner is what we do here. Taking snarky pot shots at each other is not. Keep that in mind or take a break from the thread.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If the players ability to do these things isn't veto power because its a part of the system, then neither is the DMs. The DMs authority isn't handed down by divine writ, but is a part of the rules system.

Ultimately, neither is derived from the system.

The GM's power comes from the same source as the players' power -- they can walk. Frankly, if the game is actually a power struggle in this manner, they should walk!

Anyone who doesn't believe that the GM should have the ability to arbitrate the game should walk from any game I am GMing, and I will surely walk from any game he or she runs!

 

[Ariosto]

If you are trying to swing your sword at a troll that is out of reach then the fault is almost entirely with the DM

Not when the player is stubbornly insisting that he can reach the troll despite the DM's statement to the contrary.

The case is no different if the player is obstinate about something else. Once the proposition is understood and disposed of by the referee one way or another, that is the end of the matter.

If the DM says you "miss" because the troll is intangible then the DM sucks. You don't miss. Your sword passes through the troll without touching anything. A completely different story.

Besides being what it means in conventional English when you "don't touch" the target, "miss" is D&D technical jargon for an attack that has no effect. It has been so for about 40 years now.

There's a world of difference between futile and not working for a reason.

Not in English.

Also, I used those examples because the reasons should be obvious! Expecting the DM to make every ruling in accord with a view so eccentric as not to grasp those very plain points is just preposterous. People out of sync with common sense have it incumbent upon them (or 'us', on occasions when I am in that position) to adjust to the consensus.

 

[Ariosto]

I agree that the DM is the final arbiter in cases where a decision must be made. The point Thasmodious is trying to make, I think, is that the rules state that when a player rolls damage, the monster takes that damage, no arbitration is needed.

Sorry, but in no game I have ever seen would you be allowed to sit around and roll attacks as many times per minute as you please and force the referee therefore to declare dead some mass of figures.

No, I am afraid that you would need the referee's approval to make any action valid. Communicating your intent clearly is a team effort to avoid misunderstanding. Adjudication is the DM's responsibility.

Now, the game-balance philosophy that I and others have outlined is certainly an argument worthy of consideration. Consideration does not guarantee agreement, though. Perhaps a DM who does not presently embrace it, and thus conclusions drawn from it, will change her or his mind in the future.

If someone is unwilling to accept a DM's rulings in the meantime then that person should seek entertainment elsewhere.

 

[Thasmodious]

No. No one has argued that the GM should disallow something that the GM believes to be reasonable. What is "reasonable", and who has the final say as to what is "reasonable" is, AFAICT, the crux of the argument.

No one is saying that, given a belief that X is correct, the GM should do not-X.

People are, on the contrary, suggesting that the GM may not believe X is correct, and that the GM should/must (in many, but not all, forms of games) have the power to determine on that basis.

Who has the final say has not been in question. No one has said the DM cannot overrule a power. What has been argued is that the DM should not overrule a power unless absolutely necessary. And when is the prone or not prone condition of a snake ever central to the game as a whole?

The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated.

What is the crux of the argument is whether the DM should tend to refuse a player explanation that doesn't entirely satisfy the DM, but isn't impossible. My, and others, position is that the DM should not tend to overrule because doing so invariably leads to a feeling among the players of arbitrary rulings and "guessing" the DM. My position is no remotely plausible explanation or action should be overruled. I use the same position when a player is justifying using a skill in a skill challenge that at first doesn't seem to fit. I may have no bias towards outcome, victory or defeat both have the potential for drama and advancement, but I do have a bias towards the players getting the opportunity to play the characters they are envisioning. This includes giving them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to "wonky" situations.

Why would the benefit of the doubt be with me? I don't have a bias to the outcome. Why do I really care if the snake has a -2 to hit, grants CA, and gets a bonus against ranged attacks next round? I don't. So if there is any reasonable way to see a player's choice through, it's going to happen. That is also the stated position of the 4e system itself.

Everyone at the table has an equal responsibility to sacrifice, IMHO. Not just the one doing the most work.

In gamer utopia, sure. But in reality, it's your game and part of the job is to make it enjoyable for others. Everyone has a responsibility towards that, not being disruptive, not playing "loners who would never travel with a party", etc. But DMing is a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities. If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM. And should. That's why we're such awesome people.

 

[Thasmodious]

Oh, and I use my new power to speak for you wisely sir. Won't abuse it at all, not at all...

Yes, I can see it clearly -

New thread
Fifth Element - Thasmodious would like it known by all that the EnWorld moderators are "poopyheads", especially Rel, and he dares them to respond!

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who has the final say has not been in question.

No?

What has been argued is that the DM should not overrule a power unless absolutely necessary.

Who decides what is "absolutely necessary"?

"The argument that a snake being knocking prone is UNreasonable has been soundly, objectively defeated" only if you accept the evidence given. And, if you accepted the conclusion before the evidence......Well. Of course you conclude that it is soundly, objectively defeated.

And, again (so that we don't lose track), I accept that, under some circumstances, a snake can be knocked prone.

But far more importantly, IMHO, I accept that the GM may rule otherwise. And I don't require that the GM prove it is "absolutely" necessary, either. Just that the GM believes that it is the best call, to make the best game, at that moment. That's all.

Accepting that is part of being a good player, IMHO and IME....a major part. I don't expect a "gamer utopia", but neither do I believe that GMing is "a big, largely thankless, job and bears most of the burden for making a good game that is engaging to 3-5+ completely different personalities". I have certainly been thanked. I've been thanked a lot over the years. I've had former players from over 20 years ago look me up through the Internet to thank me....to tell me that they are continuing campaign milieus I created.....and to ask me for advice.

Nor do I believe that "If something has to give, it's almost always going to fall on the DM. And should."

I run games I enjoy running. I run games that I would enjoy playing in.

If you don't want to play in the games I'm running, that's fine. I have always had more people looking to get in than I have at the table anyway, and I can do something else with you that we both enjoy. That's worked for me now for over 30 years, and to this day I could still get 15 new players for the weekend if everyone dropped out right now.

FWIW, I think my system works fine. I run the best game I can, and that requires running a game I enjoy, in a manner that I enjoy, with people whose company I enjoy, and who also enjoy the game as it is run. There is no shortage of such people, so it's winning all around IME.

YMMV, though.


RC

 

[Ariosto]

Hey, if having to spend a "Fate Chip" to use your Power will satisfy you, then go ahead and suggest that to your DM.

I'm just not seeing that as what you are really arguing for so far, though.

 

[RedTonic]

I've found that outrageous stunts are more linked to the players and the tenor of the game than the underlying mechanics. Of course, when we were playing in high school and didn't have more than a fast and loose grip on the rules, we tended to accept tons more outrageous stuff than my current group does--like hang gliding with a gigantic leaf from a more than colossal tree in order to attack an ancient red dragon (whose demise wasn't grandma friendly at all and had more to do with me overwhelming the GM than the statistical power of my character).