Ten rules for dm conduct

[Mark Chance]

Although some of us don't recognize that rule. Let's face it, DM's are very often wrong. And they are ALWAYS replaceable.

There are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong, and my way. In my game, we do things my way.

 

[Arnwyn]

Wow. The people who revised the list simply lengthened the entries and needlessly spelled out what was clearly implied.

 

[Desdichado]

Wow. The people who revised the list simply lengthened the entries and needlessly spelled out what was clearly implied.

Wow. That comment is completely inaccurate, as what was spelled out wasn't clearly implied, and at least in my case, I directly contradicted the "rule" more than once.

 

[Archade]

Rule #57 - Thou shalt sacrifice live pizza unto the DM.

No kidding - that was on my DM screen all through high school and university. The players thought it was great. They also like the pizza topping matrix from the Hackmaster GM screen too.

Now, I just give out 1xp per beer brought to my house, regardless of who consumes it ...

Blair / Archade

 

[Flyspeck23]

Wow. That comment is completely inaccurate, as what was spelled out wasn't clearly implied, and at least in my case, I directly contradicted the "rule" more than once.

Not quite. If you re-read your reply there's only one rule where you don't just expand the rule by its implication (it's rule 9, if you're wondering - and with rule 8 you throw your own house rules into the mix). No contradictions at all.
Of course other people might fill out the blanks differently, so I won't call your effort pointless. Far from it. I especially like your additions to rule 1 and 4. On the other hand these rules implied that from the beginning - for me at least; but maybe not for others.

There are three ways to do things: the right way, the wrong, and my way. In my game, we do things my way.

Seems like your games are similar to my games

 

[Desdichado]

Not quite. If you re-read your reply there's only one rule where you don't just expand the rule by its implication (it's rule 9, if you're wondering - and with rule 8 you throw your own house rules into the mix). No contradictions at all.
Of course other people might fill out the blanks differently, so I won't call your effort pointless. Far from it. I especially like your additions to rule 1 and 4. On the other hand these rules implied that from the beginning - for me at least; but maybe not for others.

Seems like your games are similar to my games

#3 and #5 I disagree with fundamentally. #8 I do something completely different so that the "rule" doesn't even apply at all to my games. I feel my revisions completely change the rule around to almost the opposite of what it says in those cases. Several others, I blow off as inconsequential, as in #9. Others I feel were lacking essential clarifications about how they work. Anyhow, I hardly feel that, like arnwyn says, that I needlessly lengthened and added nothing to the list that wasn't already clearly implied.

 

[Arnwyn]

#3 and #5 I disagree with fundamentally.

So you think that out of game problems should be brought into the game? Hmm... doesn't sound like that contributes to a good game to me. As for #3, you say, if I read your list correctly, that you will tell your players that you made a mistake, and make the correction by reassuring them that going forward things will be done differently. Sounds like you agree with #3, not disagree.

Several others, I blow off as inconsequential, as in #9.

But, as seeing by a bunch of posts that show up here at ENWorld, that "abuse" does happen (and continues to happen just so the DM can play). Not so inconsequential.

On the other hand these rules implied that from the beginning - for me at least;

Me as well. I'll stick with my "needless" assertion - individual groups can make their own interpretation without lengthening already succinct rules.

Woo! Messageboard pedantry during a slow day at work!

 

[Desdichado]

Me as well. I'll stick with my "needless" assertion - individual groups can make their own interpretation without lengthening already succinct rules.

Individual groups can make their own rules, if they so desire. If you're going to invalidate the posts that expand on the "rules", you invalidate the whole point of the thread, or for there being any such rules to begin with. You're on a slippery slope that ends at there not being any need for internet discussions about D&D at all.

I don't agree with correcting mistakes that happen in game either; in fact I'm a firm believer in letting the mistake stand. Recognizing it, however, and not making the mistake again is a completely different consideration.

And although no, I don't plan on bringing out of game problems to the game, I don't plan on simply saying "it's against the rules to have out of game problems." They need to be dealt with, not ignored.

And finally, since "I will not be abused" is not an enforceable rule, I think it's completely inconsequential. As someone else said here, it's a bit like saying that you have a personal rule that nothing you own will ever be stolen from you. Whatever.

 

[Flyspeck23]

And finally, since "I will not be abused" is not an enforceable rule, I think it's completely inconsequential. As someone else said here, it's a bit like saying that you have a personal rule that nothing you own will ever be stolen from you. Whatever.

Substitute "I will not be abused" with "I won't let myself be abused". Anyway, you can only be abused if you're not conscious about it. You can take steps to avoid it... compare this to "My car won't be stolen from me". While it might happen, you can take measures against it (only parking in safe places for instance).
"I will not be abused" is a reminder. Compared to the grand theft auto example, it's like saying "At least I'll lock the doors of my car, and see what else I can do to prevend theft".

If you are conscious about yourself (as a DM) not being abused, well... you are going by these rules

 

[jasper]

Ex of corrected mistakes.
Player forgot creature summon attack was a touch attack. So bad guys were missed and pc died. I look right at the monster too and forgot it ray was a touch attack. The combat was not done over. I just ruled character was dropped to -9.

Giving the axe of dwarves lords to first level dwarf as random treasure is a mistake which needs to be corrected generally out game. Sorry Bob I know you how rule Hommlet and are marching the towns people on Nulb but the axe is unbalacing the game. I taking from you. If the player wants, I would do something like having his dwarf's granddaddy steal the axe etc. If the player does not want to go through a in game reason no blood no foul.

mistake not correct
Yes Bobby should gotten a full attack twice last combat. But the monster still dead , the pcs are still alive. Blood but no foul.

Bobby's Fighter grabs the wand of magic missle from the still warm hands of dying wizard and shoves up giant nose. Dead giant. The fighter is last man standing and is now grabbing various potions of healing to prevent everyone else from dying. Now the fighter could not activate the wand. I could redo combat since I caught the mistake one round after the wand cooked off. But it felt better not to. So to explain it Bob nows remembers he is a fifth level wizard also (1st edition game) and during the week we come up with a backstory.