The fault of a bad DM.

[Beginning of the End]

Now, while a fantastic DM can just about rewrite any game, change rules, and make water into wine, I contend that a flawed tool is a flawed tool, regardless of how well a skilled artisan can make do with it.

OTOH, if you're holding a hammer by the metal bit and trying to drive in the nails using the wooden handle, then you're using the hammer wrong.

And if you're trying to use a screwdriver to hammer those nails in, then you're really doing it wrong.

"I don't want characters who can fly."
"What system are using?"
"Mutants & Masterminds."

Well, there's your problem right there. You're going to need to do some house ruling or find a different system. But just because Mutants & Masterminds or high-level D&D include rules for flying doesn't mean that they're "broken" or "bad tools" because you're trying to use them without including flying.

(Tangentially, it really bugs me that Oberoni stuck his name on the Rule 0 Fallacy and somehow gets credit for it. From now on I'd like the fireball spell referred to as Craig's Firebloom. Let's make that happen, people.)

 

[Fifth Element]

However, people need to be aware that not all fault will lie with a game.

Agreed. It seems to me that the context this most often arises in is: "[X] edition sucks because of [Y]", where [Y] is actually the fault of the DM rather than the game system.

 

[Piratecat]

I like to think that I'm a decent GM, and there are some games that are much, much harder for me to make sing than others.

Likewise, I know some people who are truly awful GMs, and I know players who have gotten turned off from rules systems due to them.

In short, I think it's a little dangerous to generalize without examining the specific example.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Perception and personal taste also has a lot to do with things.

If you believe that game balance is the DM's responsibility as opposed to the system's responsibility, a badly balanced game is the DM's fault, no matter how badly the system handles balance. Other people prefer that balance be provided by the system. On the other hand, some people feel that verisimilitude is the responsibility of the DM as opposed to the system, and vice versa.

 

[Oryan77]

Why does it have to be a big deal?

This is what I'm always wondering. From both players and DMs. People can be way to picky about the smallest things, and then get way to outraged about the issue. It's unnecessary.

Not that I haven't been at fault myself. I've found myself being picky about an issue as a DM, and then told myself, "Why does it have to be a big deal?"

But that's me as a DM. Me as a player on the other hand, I have never felt the need to argue with a DM about anything. I can go with whatever flow he needs me to go with as long as I feel he's trying to be fair at the same time. So if a DM felt I was abusing a spell or something, and he asked me to deal with it because it's making his job as DM too hard, I have no problem at all changing my ways. I definitely wouldn't argue with him and say he's a bad DM. It seems that very few other players would do the same though.

 

[Henry]

I like to think that I'm a decent GM, and there are some games that are much, much harder for me to make sing than others.

If you're merely a decent GM, then I'm the freakin' King of England.

I can't discount the ability of a GM to make a game sink or swim without even changing a single rule. I just couldn't grasp Alternity until I had a demo game run for me by one of the designers at Gencon -- I came home to run two successful campaigns of it afterward.

I'll also note that I don't think any GM in this world is good enough to make a game of FATAL or Spawn of Fashan workable, short of gutting the rules.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

I think like most things with the possibility of being faulty logic or a fallacy, the "Good DM/Bad DM" premise is a fallacy when it's taken as a given. That is, when somebody drops the "Good DM/Bad DM" argument without backing it up with evidence. Like the slippery slope position, the "Good DM/Bad DM" argument can be a fallacy if one assumes it to be true without justifying why it is so.

Here are a few considerations as to what might be effective evidence supporting whether a problem is a more of a “user” problem or a system problem (and of solutions on how to deal with it):

-How much does the issue invalidate (or even enable) the classic tropes of the genre/gameworld? (Example: How many traditional encounters/traps does flight invalidate or enable? What sense of wonder does it add or detract?)

-How much does it influence gameplay? (e.g.: How is flight working as a way around problems? How does it alter balance between the classes?)

-How widespread is the problem? (How many gamers are influenced by it, both positively and negatively? What demographics of players are affected by it?)

-How easy is it to change/modify by the DM/Players should they decide to? (And what are the indirect implications for such change? E.g.: How will removing flight affect the characters' ability to deal with certain challenges?)

-What other alternatives are there to completely changing or removing an element from play? Are there more effective but less dramatic changes than what has been proposed? (E.g.: How would putting in skill checks or otherwise restricting flight work in comparison to removing flight from most play?)

-How much of the DM and players time does it take to deal with the issue that could otherwise be spent productively elsewhere? (E.g.: How much time does it take to rewrite or create from whole cloth challenging encounters for flying parties?)

-How does the issue relate to the player/dm characteristics and social interaction? To what degree is the issue a result more of social dynamics/group playstyle than game rules? (E.g.: How much is the overuse of flight an intentional power grab vs. how much of its overuse is accidental or necessary?)

-How do the rules interact with player/GM social dynamics and playstyle to produce the end product that is the game? (E.g.: At what point does access to flight become too easy? How much does the system push players/GMs to exploit it?)

 

[korjik]

But..but... a cooperative game which people get together to have an evening of fun with isn't a test. It's a bunch of people choosing to spend some time together in a particular way. If the guy who happens to have the "DM" role has particular strengths and/or weaknesses - so be it. Who's to criticise him for it? Just roll with it, adjust accordingly, and make sure you're having fun.

In the context of the "flight" thread - the DM isn't performing on The X Factor in front of Simon Cowell. He's just having fun with his friends; if his particular characteristics mean that not having flight would be more fun for all involved, then just don't have flight. Why does it have to be a big deal?

Those who value their worth by their GMing ability - well, let's just say I feel sorry for them. It's just a game.

Cause when the 'just dont have flight' turns into 'just dont put flight into the next rules set', it causes a problem.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Cause when the 'just dont have flight' turns into 'just dont put flight into the next rules set', it causes a problem.

Any good DM could just houserule flight back in.

 

[firesnakearies]

Any good DM could just houserule flight back in.

Ha, I see what you did there.