Something, I think, Every GM/DM Should Read

[Raven Crowking]

Agreed. DMing is a responsibility that you take on voluntarily. If you are more concerned with your own fun, you probably shouldn't be DMing.

(1) Every responsibility by necessity must bring with it the rights necessary to meet that responsibility. In the case of GMing, that includes the right to adjudicate the rules. Or, at least, it does in the vast majority of RPGs, including all editions of D&D (and explicitly so for all editions of D&D).

(2) If I decided to quit GMing, I know quite a few people who would be unhappy. I am guessing that TheUltramark is in the same boat.

Which brings me to

(3) The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing. Period. These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the mechanics of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.

Just for the record, I don't think that you understand the opposing argument, if you think it is the mechanics and not the effect of the mechanics on the fiction or the concept that the mechanics trump the fiction that people are claiming to dislike.

Dislike for the mechanics themselves only arises in terms of there being better mechanics, where "better" is defined as "match the fiction more closely" for the posters in question.


RC

 

[Hussar]

/snip

(3) The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing. Period. These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.


RC

There's a sucker born every minute. Saying that a DM should not put his fun absolutely ahead of everyone at the table (which is what Jester SPECIFICALLY stated: "The dm puts in the vast majority of the work for any given game. He is responsible for his fun first. Selecting the right players is key- but a dm should absolutely not run a game that requires he make sacrifices that make it less fun for him.") and that a DM who does put his fun ahead of everyone else's at the table and should never make any sacrifices which reduce that fun is probably going to be a piss poor DM isn't a huge stretch.

Sorry, no one at the table EVER should put their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table.

 

[Zhaleskra]

Sorry, no one at the table EVER should put their fun ahead of anyone else's at the table.

This part I agree with. If you are upsetting even one person at the table, then you are the problem.

The GM has just as much right to vote with his feet as players. And as mentioned above, it only takes one jerk.

 

[Thasmodious]

again - for the eleventeenth million time...a punch knocks the snake prone.

at my table, if a player says "I'm going to hit it with my sword" then he attacks using his sword, if he says "I'm going to try and grab it" then he makes that appropriate attempt. If a player says "I'm going to punch the snake" then he attempts to punch the thing, not grab it and spin it around over his head and slam it to the ground, or flip it over with the flat of his pike, or block the snake's strike. If enforcing that kind of "what you say is what you do" mentality makes us "sticklers" then I guess we are.

First, why are you so hung up on a punch? There are many powers that apply the prone condition, why does it have to be a punch? I'm confused on this issue since you are the only one in all these discussions talking about punches.

Secondly, at no point in D&D has a to-hit roll represented a single swing of the sword. Rounds used to be a full minute, for Pete's sake. They are abstracted representations of a number of moves leading to a chance to do damage, not an 80s video game where you hit your button and stab then six seconds later the monster claws, then six seconds later you stab...
The 4e martial powers themselves are abstracted "moves" and the flavor text is not binding, but a suggestion of what the power could look like. They are designed to be open for interpretation. So a Sweeping Strike could be a sweep with the weapon at the legs or a feint with the weapon before you go all Cobra-Kai on them or whatever. A slam attack could be with a fist or a full body, lead with the shoulder kind of move.

Imagination and variety are the order of the day, not limited thinking and obstinate, arbitrary "never at my table" rulings.

 

[Thasmodious]

The DM may put the most in - but also IME gets the most back out. I certainly do or I wouldn't do it. (Also DMing 4th is a lot less work than previous editions).

But seriously I get the most out when everybody is engaged and having fun. Looking primarily to my own fun is not only selfish but counterproductive.

I would give xp. Instead, I'll QFT.

 

[TheUltramark]

Okay - so as long as the player is careful in what he says, then you have no problem with it? The mechanics don't change, but the player, before making the attack roll, describes it as an attempt to flip the snake violently over. It's alright for a snake to be prone then?

not automatically, but I am easy to talk into stuff

Most of us have been arguing against a DM vetoing the mechanics of knocking the snake prone, not focusing on the "punching" part.

yes I know, and its been driving me bat-crap

 

[TheUltramark]

First, why are you so hung up on a punch? There are many powers that apply the prone condition, why does it have to be a punch? I'm confused on this issue since you are the only one in all these discussions talking about punches.

Secondly, at no point in D&D has a to-hit roll represented a single swing of the sword. Rounds used to be a full minute, for Pete's sake. They are abstracted representations of a number of moves leading to a chance to do damage, not an 80s video game where you hit your button and stab then six seconds later the monster claws, then six seconds later you stab...
The 4e martial powers themselves are abstracted "moves" and the flavor text is not binding, but a suggestion of what the power could look like. They are designed to be open for interpretation. So a Sweeping Strike could be a sweep with the weapon at the legs or a feint with the weapon before you go all Cobra-Kai on them or whatever. A slam attack could be with a fist or a full body, lead with the shoulder kind of move.

Imagination and variety are the order of the day, not limited thinking and obstinate, arbitrary "never at my table" rulings.

that was the scenario - can you punch a snake prone, and not one person provided a useful explanation. All I got was "you're unfair" or "that's not how you should play" or"you can pick up a snake" or "use the flat end of your weapon" or "why does it have to be a punch"

from your post, I would ask the following question:

if a player says I want to grab the "monster A" by the neck, do you then have the player roll to grab? of course you do. If the attack is successful, the player doesn't get to roll sword damage, does he? of course not. The words the player uses to describe his action define what he does. I appreciate your 80's video game reference, and your attempt to fill me in on 2e rules and nuances, it was quite enjoyable and a good chuckle is always nice, but my limited thinking probably got in the way.

 

[Fifth Element]

Just for the record, I don't think that you understand the opposing argument,

For the record, I was respoding to TheUltramark, who apparently does not have a problem per se with knocking a snake prone, but will disallow it if not described appropriately ahead of time. In other words, a snake having the prone condition is fine, as long as the players provides a reasonable explanation. I was just clarifying, since I didn't want to misread him.

 

[Fifth Element]

(3) The only metric of "you probably shouldn't be DMing" is that you cannot find players who enjoy your style of GMing. Period. These sort of "If you don't do it this way, it's wrongbadfun" remarks are, IMHO, extremely counterproductive.

Re-read what this was a response to. Of course you should best be DMing for players who share common play preferences. But the comment was that the DM should put his fun first, ahead of the players. That's what I disagree with.