The fault of a bad DM.

[fanboy2000]

I've seen it many times in a variety of threads.

People are debating the flaws and merits of a system/game/specific adventure/etc./etc./etc...

...and someone inevitably claims that the system/game/specific adventure/etc./etc./etc. is not flawed. It is merely the "fault of a bad DM".

The most recent thread I've seen this in is http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/277054-why-flight-considered-game-breaker.html



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.



It's to the point (for me) that this approaches "godwin-ing"* a thread. Sure a bad DM can ruin great stuff. Sure a good DM can make the terrible great. But, in such discussions, let's hold off on blaming the DM and maintain discussion on the real issue.


Agree? Disagree?

Agree.

Generally speaking, I think it's best to discuss game mechanics from the stand point of the ordinary DM or player. Discussing things from at the extremes can be helpful, but doesn't, I think generally help.

Exception: the product is specifically designed either for good DMs or poor DMs.

 

[amerigoV]

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?

No, if that was the expectation up front. My contention is from the POV that things are coming up in game and the DM decides to remove them without working through alternatives. Ie, a player starts using fly (illusions, whatever) and the DM then removes wants to remove fly AFTER it has been used in the game a few times.

There are ways to make it work. Sure, some things are broken in a game - but there is usually a reasonable adjustment that the group can agree to without complete removal/nerf* of the concept.

*(by nerf, I mean change it to the point that no would even consider using it vs. pairing it back to not be broken)

If the expectation up front is "here is the campaign world, to fit the concept their is no X, Y, and Z," then I have no problem if things are removed (presuming the concept is cool enough to still be fun).

 

[Hussar]

No, if that was the expectation up front. My contention is from the POV that things are coming up in game and the DM decides to remove them without working through alternatives. Ie, a player starts using fly (illusions, whatever) and the DM then removes wants to remove fly AFTER it has been used in the game a few times.

There are ways to make it work. Sure, some things are broken in a game - but there is usually a reasonable adjustment that the group can agree to without complete removal/nerf* of the concept.

*(by nerf, I mean change it to the point that no would even consider using it vs. pairing it back to not be broken)

If the expectation up front is "here is the campaign world, to fit the concept their is no X, Y, and Z," then I have no problem if things are removed (presuming the concept is cool enough to still be fun).

Fair enough. But the ability to judge whether or not element X should be removed from the game before play starts requires a fair bit of experience from the GM. Until it goes pear shaped that first time, the GM is unlikely to have the necessary knowledge to know that he doesn't like X.

And, even finding a "reasonable adjustment" requires a fairly high level of GM experience, and player experience as well, since you're involving the players.

Sure, this is the best way to resolve things. Get everyone on board and work out a workaround. But, we're not always faced with a best situation. Suppose the DM perceives a problem but the player doesn't. Assuming everyone is being honest of course. What's the GM's recourse here? Does he nod to the player and keep the element despite his misgivings? Or does he over rule the player and either reduce the ability to where he feels comfortable, or eject it entirely?

It's easy enough to say, yeah, everyone should work together, but, that's not easy at the table. Particularly in a newer group, for example, or with a more inexperienced group. Or a more immature group.

And, one person's reasonable nerf is another person's total gutting. Rock says, "Scissors are fine. Nerf paper!"

Sometimes (and most certainly not all the time) the best solution is just to put a big wall around something and remove it.

 

[amerigoV]

But, we're not always faced with a best situation. Suppose the DM perceives a problem but the player doesn't. Assuming everyone is being honest of course. What's the GM's recourse here?

Good points. Back in 3.0, haste was brewing to be a problem. I recall pounding the hell out of my PCs with it (Ice Storm/Cone of Cold, Fireball/Fireball, etc) and saying "hmmm, perhaps we should tone this spell down." That seemed to get their attention

Interestingly enough, it ties into the other threads around "who do you game with." This becomes a group dynamic question. Reasonable people that respect one another will come to an agreement all can live with (the DM should lead the discussion). Sure, inexperienced DM may still make mistakes, but a good group will understand that rules will evolved over time. That is not to say we do not have friends that can be an ass about things. But even then, if they are your friend it likely is not the first time you have dealt with their attitude.

I can see where this can be very problematic if you have a group with players you do not associate with outside of gaming.

 

[Votan]

Good points. Back in 3.0, haste was brewing to be a problem. I recall pounding the hell out of my PCs with it (Ice Storm/Cone of Cold, Fireball/Fireball, etc) and saying "hmmm, perhaps we should tone this spell down." That seemed to get their attention

I think that 3.0 Haste is a very good example of a game rule (in this case a spell) that wasn't an ideal piece of design. There are always going to be issues like that in any non-trival game.

Some flaws are so large that they make the game unenjoyable or completely unplayable. It's rare to see these in a modern RPG (no edition of D&D has had one, in my opinion) but every ruleset has quirks that may or may not advance a fun gaming experience.

Discussing and understanding these points of balance can only make the conversation fun and create a set of ideas to pick from in addressing the idea. And, if the issue is arising from a misunderstanding of the rules, learning that can also be very helpful to the DM or players in question.

[my 4E warlord is a lot less strangely overpowered now that I understand commander's strike properly]

 

[Hussar]

/snip

[my 4E warlord is a lot less strangely overpowered now that I understand commander's strike properly]

Heh, you too huh. I did that. And, to be fair, when it was pointed out that I had misinterpreted the power, I switched over.

But, take another example. I had a player show up at a game who insisted that because his elf had a ring of sustenance (3.5 e) that he could regain spells after one hour of rest.

When this was pointed out to be in error, he actually left the group. Now, my feeling here is, good bye, don't let the door hit you on the way out, but, he was just some random internet stranger. It's easy to eject someone from your game in this situation.

But, I remember gaming with friends and having flaming rows about the rules way back in the day. And ejecting John because you disagree with his rules is a bit trickier when he's your room mate.

It is a social contract issue 100%. I don't think that playing with friends actually helps all that much, but, yes, I agree with the basic premise.

 

[Janx]

I think the problem is that calling someone a "bad GM" is not diplomatic.

In root causing the problem that someone describes in a post, we are likely to determine one or more of the following:
the players are a problem
the GM misunderstoof the rules
the GM was caught by surprise by a rule/player action
the GM made a bad decision
the game has a design flaw

Look at how many of those have the GM at fault. It's easy to then say, "bad GM". Say that, and your target (the GM who has a lesson to learn) is going to stop listening. That's bad communicating.

Conversely, folks who post about a problem on the internet, and then get a deluge from people who are successfully using the product, should consider that the product may not be broken, and that they are doing it wrong.

How many "Combat takes too long" posts have there been? If I can run 6 combats in 4 hours for a low level party and I outline my methods, and you don't use my methods and in the same approximate conditions have slow combat, then you are doing it wrong.

Nobody wants to admin fault.

It'd be great if as speakers, we always used the most tactful words. But the listener also has a responsibiliy to turn off their emotion chip and actually determine what useful material they can get out of it. Even if the only message they can get is "Janx thinks you're doing it wrong", the listener should consider that as a possibility.