thecasualoblivion
First Post
That sword cuts both ways. If a flawed tool is to your tastes, you will rationalize and defend the existence of said flawed tool. People are just as quick to defend real flaws in games they like.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
The fault of a bad DM.
- Thread starter Aberzanzorax
- Start date
That sword cuts both ways. If a flawed tool is to your tastes, you will rationalize and defend the existence of said flawed tool. People are just as quick to defend real flaws in games they like.
TheAuldGrump
First Post
Sorry, but as has been said already - you can't say that there aren't bad DMs because you disagree with an example.
There are inexperienced DMs, who are doing something wrong, but will get better with experience.
There are 'my way or the highway' DMs, who are surprised when they find all their players hitching a ride on the highway rather than play their games.
There are 'storytellers' who railroad and micromanage their games. (There are also 'storytellers' who never forget that the PCs are the heroes - they can be some of the best GMs going.)
Sometimes the DM is to blame.
The Auld Grump, gods know that I look back on my first campaign and cringe....
*EDIT* In the cited example the term 'Unprepared DM' would have been a better choice than 'Bad DM' - I have never had a problem with flight and/or invisibility in my games, but I also know that it is always a possibility that I need to be prepared for once the options become available.
There are inexperienced DMs, who are doing something wrong, but will get better with experience.
There are 'my way or the highway' DMs, who are surprised when they find all their players hitching a ride on the highway rather than play their games.
There are 'storytellers' who railroad and micromanage their games. (There are also 'storytellers' who never forget that the PCs are the heroes - they can be some of the best GMs going.)
Sometimes the DM is to blame.
The Auld Grump, gods know that I look back on my first campaign and cringe....
*EDIT* In the cited example the term 'Unprepared DM' would have been a better choice than 'Bad DM' - I have never had a problem with flight and/or invisibility in my games, but I also know that it is always a possibility that I need to be prepared for once the options become available.
Last edited:
A
amerigoV
Guest
In my opinion, it gets put at the feet of the DM as they are the crossroads of a social game in which they are the position of adjudicator. The game is what it is (apparently not a movie, story, or sombrero from some of the other threads around here). It is the people, both DMs and players, that either make it work or breaks the game.
Older editions of D&D put a lot on the shoulders of a DM - game world development, adventure development, rule adjudication (much more than today), and all the things needed in session. It is no coincidence that 3.x put more rules into players hands and 4e gave the DM better tools to make their adventures. It helped take the "swing" out of the DM play - today you are likely to have a more "fair" game under 3.x and 4.0 than when the rules were sparse (for example, I had very few house rules under 3.x vs. prior editions). There are still great DMs and horrible DMs, but I think the "average" DM is much better.
But having so much defined can have its drawbacks. For myself, I felt like 3.x put me in a box of trying to "find the right rule" for every situation. Having so much detailed out tended to push me to find the right rule ("its got to be here somewhere") vs. improvising where needed ("+2 bonus and move on!"). I moved on to Savage Worlds and just love the "freedom" for lack of a better word. I think that might be one of the reasons for the popularity of old schoole gaming - people can go back to a less defined ruleset with better adjudication from their experience from a more robust ruleset (pure hypothesis here, but I do feel liberated running something like Savage Worlds vs. 3.x or 4e)
Older editions of D&D put a lot on the shoulders of a DM - game world development, adventure development, rule adjudication (much more than today), and all the things needed in session. It is no coincidence that 3.x put more rules into players hands and 4e gave the DM better tools to make their adventures. It helped take the "swing" out of the DM play - today you are likely to have a more "fair" game under 3.x and 4.0 than when the rules were sparse (for example, I had very few house rules under 3.x vs. prior editions). There are still great DMs and horrible DMs, but I think the "average" DM is much better.
But having so much defined can have its drawbacks. For myself, I felt like 3.x put me in a box of trying to "find the right rule" for every situation. Having so much detailed out tended to push me to find the right rule ("its got to be here somewhere") vs. improvising where needed ("+2 bonus and move on!"). I moved on to Savage Worlds and just love the "freedom" for lack of a better word. I think that might be one of the reasons for the popularity of old schoole gaming - people can go back to a less defined ruleset with better adjudication from their experience from a more robust ruleset (pure hypothesis here, but I do feel liberated running something like Savage Worlds vs. 3.x or 4e)
The truth is a three edged sword - "flaw" and "strength" are not objective universal truths. One person's flaw is another's colorful and interesting mechanical facet.
To me the issue is not "Bad Dms don't exist".
It's the assumption that if a DM has an issue with X, he's a bad DM, and if he was a Better DM he wouldn't have an issue with X. Where X is a facet of the game system.
Yah. There's a pretty big leap from "DM that doesn't deal with some particular thing well" to "bad DM". As if all good DMs are good at everything, and don't have any stumbling blocks themselves?
A
amerigoV
Guest
Sometimes its all in the presentation. If someones says "I'm struggling with the Fly spell in my campaign. Here are my thoughts to make it work better and be fair, what have others done?" then I am all for that. Yes, some pricks will come along and call them a bad DM, but that is their problem, not the OP.
If the OP says "Flying is broken, I'm ruling it out of my game," then I tend to put that in the bad DM category. Looking to nerf everything that is not "I run up an hit it" tends not to get a positive reaction.
But flight is not "everything that is not I run up and hit it". Flight is one thing, just one. So, you'd be extending way beyond the statement.
This seems... incredibly quick to judge and slap on a label.
GMing is a big, complex job. RPGs are, generally, highly complex activities. There are so many aspects of GMing that aren't being considered here that a call of "bad GM" is (to me) entirely unwarranted and premature. Writing off a GM as overall bad for not meeting what you desire on one rules item is kind of like writing a kid off as a "bad student" because they aren't particularly good at geometry.
So what if the GM doesn't allow flight? Is flight so central to the game experience that the whole thing is ruined by that call?
Would we be having this conversation if the DM just said he wanted to nerf magic?
Many groups apparently like really low magic games, restrictions on spellcasters and magical items, etc etc. Some DMs even put on severe restrictions on spellcasters like "You can't learn that spell unless you find someone who can teach it to you", etc. This allows the DM a severe control on what spells the PCs get access to.
No one brings question to that.
The only difference between ye olde "I want low magic" and "I don't want flgiht" is:
1) The Flight DM is isolating one spell or one effect he doesn't like, and is removing it, as opposed to entire classes,
2) It's removed for mechanical, not thematic, reasons,
3) People think that the Low Magic DM is just making choices for his campaign.
But in both cases, the DM is nerfing something in the game. He's removing access to something. And the Low Magic DM is removing/restricting a lot more than the single option that Flight presents.
All the Flight DM has to say, to be accepted, is "Flight is hampering the Type of game I like" rather than "It's ruining my adventures" and he'd be accepted.
Many groups apparently like really low magic games, restrictions on spellcasters and magical items, etc etc. Some DMs even put on severe restrictions on spellcasters like "You can't learn that spell unless you find someone who can teach it to you", etc. This allows the DM a severe control on what spells the PCs get access to.
No one brings question to that.
The only difference between ye olde "I want low magic" and "I don't want flgiht" is:
1) The Flight DM is isolating one spell or one effect he doesn't like, and is removing it, as opposed to entire classes,
2) It's removed for mechanical, not thematic, reasons,
3) People think that the Low Magic DM is just making choices for his campaign.
But in both cases, the DM is nerfing something in the game. He's removing access to something. And the Low Magic DM is removing/restricting a lot more than the single option that Flight presents.
All the Flight DM has to say, to be accepted, is "Flight is hampering the Type of game I like" rather than "It's ruining my adventures" and he'd be accepted.
Last edited:
BryonD
Hero
I would contend that if a tool is the tool of choice of a fantastic DM and that DM can do outstanding things with it, then it is obviously not a flawed tool.
It may well be that it takes skill to use the tool, and other tools are needed for DMs who are not yet (or perhaps never will be) able to use a more advanced tool. And the existence of these tools is a very good thing.
But to blame failure on a demonstrated tool rather than the artist is just sour grapes.
Similar Threads
