The role of the DM in the game and the group.

[Nifft]

If you can run this game better than I can, then I will happily roll up a character and let you run the game. Otherwise, do your best to help make this game as fun as possible for everyone at the table.

Eh. I can run a good game. My friends can run a good game. The games we run are different, but I don't know if I could call one better than the others.

However, I'd like to emphatically agree with this bit, which I will QFT:

do your best to help make this game as fun as possible for everyone at the table

IMHO, this goes for everyone player and DM and snack-bringing SO alike.

Cheers, -- N

 

[TheCrazyMuffinMan]

To me, the DM is part storyteller, part administrator , part referee and part game-show host .

He narrates the game as you go about, he decides who gets to join in on the game, he interprets the rules (of both the game and the session) as needed to keep the game going smoothly, and he provides great risks as well as equally great rewards.

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Players may leave a group for a variety of reasons, and the term "jerk" is fairly subjective one. Nonetheless, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

In this case, the term "jerk" applies if all the players think he's being a jerk. Of course, it is subjective, and the things the DM would have to do in order to be called a jerk are different for each group. That makes it important for the DM to know the party. That's sort of consensus: If he knows that simply introducing house rules if his NPTs are dying too quickly for his taste (say, they keep bull-rushing his cultists off the cliffs and he rules that because of the rail, this is simply impossible, not just more difficult) will peter off his party, he will probably not do it (unless he wants to get in conflict with his party), but if he knows that it won't bother them, he might go for it.

 

[Elf Witch]

I am both a player and a DM and here is my take on this.

The DM has the power to make the decision of what classes, races, prestige classes he wants in his game. And what setting he wants to run.

As for house rules the DM has the final say. but a good DM does not spring them on the players in the middle of a game without any warning. You know the "oh that doesen't work I have house ruled"

The DM can say I don't think this is working let's try this. But the players should be allowed to discuss how they feel about a house rule and a good DM listens to his players and takes what they say into consideration.


Adding/kicking people out of the group. The DM has the final say on how many people he wants to run for. But the actual inviting a new person or kicking someone out should be a group discussion and decision. Everybody has to deal with everyone else at the table and saying that only the DM can say who comes and goes is just not conducive to group harmony.

As for scheduling like other people have said the DM ends up having the final say becuase you can't play without him.

As for the social rules of eating, smoking, drinking most of this is up to the host and the rules he has at his home.

Drinking and I take that to mean booze then I think this should be a group decision if it is okay with the host to have alcohol in his home then the group should decide if they want to allow it at the table. When I run I allow a little booze but I don't want to run a game if people are getting drunk and as a player I don't want to play at a table with people getting drunk. I don't find it fun.

 

[Jeysie]

Hmm. It seems to me that my group is weird in that we collaborate on almost everything... there's very little that rests on the say-so of only one person.

Social aspects and hosting considerations are pretty much moot for us, admittedly, since we game online. If you want to smoke up a storm, drink a case of beer, or play Metallica at top volume while RPing, nobody cares as long as you still pay attention to the game. (Though, weirdly enough, AFAIK everyone in my group happens to be a non-smoker and at least mostly a non-drinker anyway.)

Scheduling is a group activity. We're willing to work around any occasional week that a person can't make the establishied schedule. However, if someone is constantly having problems making the RP night, we usually have to let them leave or drop down to semi-NPC status, because our current schedule is already pretty much the only one that everyone in the group can make regularly.

Adding/dropping people is mostly a group activity. New additions have to be approved by everyone - although unless the person seems to be a jerk, we're usually permissive to anyone who decides we seem fun to game with. Theoretically a DM can turn away a new player if he feels there's more PCs than he can handle, but in practice we have a hard time just keeping the number of PCs at the standard four (Real Life manages to get in the way a *lot*).

The DM technically has control over what setting and campaign idea they want to run with. However, since we as a group tend to brainstorm ideas frequently, and our DMs always ask if a given story from the idea pool that they want to run with sounds fun to everyone else, it tends to be a group matter in practice anyway.

The actual running of the game and rules decisions again are technically the province of the DM. However, the fairness of a given rule decision or houserule is open to group consensus, and the feedback sessions we have at the end of every week's RP will sometimes cause a DM to change gears.

Of course, in the opposite direction, the players are willing to play along with the DM too, since the DM's taking the time to dream up the story. For instance, often when one of our DMs worries about motivation for the PCs in a campaign idea, the rest of us say, "Hey, you dream up the story you want; we'll cook up why our PCs would follow it."

As for paying attention to the plot, despite the fact that I don't DM - not because I don't want to or I'm bad at it, but because I'm horrible at thinking up plots for campaigns - I serve as the de facto group secretary, and there's been occasions where *I've* reminded the *DM* of stuff that's been going on in the game.

In short, I guess you could think of us as a round table board of directors... the CEO may technically get the final say, but only with a very large amount of feedback from everyone else. We're a group of friends as well as a group of RPers, so we're big on trying to make sure everyone's having as much fun as possible.

Peace & Luv, Liz

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Adding/kicking people out of the group. The DM has the final say on how many people he wants to run for.

That's true. If the group's running at capacity, it should be counted as automatic veto by the DM to everyone and anyone else who wants to join.

But the actual inviting a new person or kicking someone out should be a group discussion and decision. Everybody has to deal with everyone else at the table and saying that only the DM can say who comes and goes is just not conducive to group harmony.

As I said above: I think noone can be invited in unless everyone's okay with that.

As for disinviting anyone, that's more problematic: I do think that if the DM is fed up with someone, that someone will have to leave the game (of course, the rest could just all leave the group and form a new one, minus the old DM, if they agree that the DM is the problem person here). If two players don't get a long with each other, things are more problematic. I think in that case, the whole group has to talk this over and reach consensus.

As for the social rules of eating, smoking, drinking most of this is up to the host and the rules he has at his home.

I'd say that the other players should have a say, too. Personally, I refuse to play in a smoking room. Of course, as host I don't have to play in a smoking room, since my house is strictly non-smoking. We make smoking breaks for the addicts, where they go outside to feed their cancer.

Drinking and I take that to mean booze then I think this should be a group decision if it is okay with the host to have alcohol in his home then the group should decide if they want to allow it at the table.

I'd say that is more true for cigarettes, but drinking should be discussed, too.

When I run I allow a little booze but I don't want to run a game if people are getting drunk and as a player I don't want to play at a table with people getting drunk. I don't find it fun.

I remember one game when the DM drank one too many. It was quite a mess, combat was a farce. The lack of a battlemap didn't help...

 

[Kahuna Burger]

I remember one game when the DM drank one too many. It was quite a mess, combat was a farce. The lack of a battlemap didn't help...

Mapless combat with a drunk DM.... That has to the simultaneously the worst and funniest session ever....

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Mapless combat with a drunk DM.... That has to the simultaneously the worst and funniest session ever....

Well, the combat I remember went like this:

DM: "Well, there's 12 enemies, so each of you will be attacked by 3"
Player 1: "Not me, those guys are still in the room, and I'm in the hall shooting arrows."
DM: "Oh, well, then they attack *you*"
Player 2: "But I'm not even with the party, I left them and went somewhere else 10 minutes ago."
DM: "What? Yes, right. Well, the other enemies attack you two, too.
Player 3: "But I'm unconscious! Do they really hack me to pieces with 6 people? I'm no threat to anyone?"
DM: "Fine, they all attack *you*
Player 4: "But they can't! I'm standing in the corner, they can't all attack me at once."
....

Whenever I have doubts about using maps and minis, I remember that fight and why I insist on a battlemat!

 

[RFisher]

Eh. I can run a good game. My friends can run a good game. The games we run are different, but I don't know if I could call one better than the others.

Then the point isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at someone who does think they could do better. No matter how they might define "better".

Whenever I have doubts about using maps and minis, I remember that fight and why I insist on a battlemat!

I think maybe the lesson should have been to insist on a sober DM rather than a battlemat. (^_^)

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I worked up the following quite some time ago now. A misunderstanding between myself (as DM) and the players (one in particular) led to a highly unpleasant game session which revealed reasons behind a lot of inexplicable in-game choices they'd been making since we started playing 3rd Edition. It was an issue that could have and should have been avoided. So, to eliminate that basic level of miscommunication I wrote:

A D&D Manifesto​

1. The first job of everyone playing the game is to enjoy it. It is the whole point to the exercise. If you're not having fun why are you here?
2. Be constructive. If you're not having fun try to do something about it. Don’t be disruptive in the process, but don’t expect someone else to come along and inflict fun upon you either. You are there to enjoy yourself – but not to be passively entertained. Your participation is a necessary component.
3. Communicate! If you aren't having fun as a player, even though you may think it's very obvious, it's quite possible the DM or other players aren't going to know unless you say something. If you’re not enjoying your experience as DM you don’t have to put up with it. Nobody can force you to run a game, and if they try they don’t deserve to be rewarded with your efforts. Now sometimes you end up DMing because everyone else wants to aviod the job more than you do, but remember that noone can take advantage of you without your permission. If you have a problem with ANYTHING in the game as far as rules, behavior of a player, etc. then SAY SO. ESP is not a standard human ability.
4. The day a DM can't deal with a helpful suggestion or even sincere criticism from players about the campaign is the day the DM needs to give up the chair. The game does not revolve around stroking the DM's ego.
5. A campaign is not absolutely under a DM's control. The PC's have to live and function with some fantasy approximation of a life. That means that when characters take actions within the campaign the campaign needs to take those actions into account. Through their characters the players make changes to the campaign. Therefore the DM cannot and should not attempt to force the campaign to go ONLY in predestined directions because the freedom that is necessary for player characters can and will foil prearranged plans.
6. Things do not always go as the DM plans (see #5). For this reason among others the DM should really not be seeking to tell a story. The only way to get characters to tell the story the DM wants them to tell is to force them into it. Campaigns are about the Characters. They are about a story created by the characters - not about characters being plugged into a story preordained by the DM. You must provide opportunity for the characters to do things but not constantly control what they try to do.
7. Danger levels: The most satisfying combats are usually the ones that take characters right to the edge of death, with the very real danger of death being present, yet without actually crossing that threshold unnecessarily. Random numbers between 1 and 20, differences in gear, spells, skills, PC tactics, and the skill and ferocity with which the DM runs the opponents all make it impossible to plan perfectly. Combat encounters are never a sure thing regardless of how meticulously designed they are. Therefore when PC's are played right up to the edge of their capacities, or the DM attempts to run encounters right on the edge of disaster it is the most exciting place to be. But it is also is the most likely way for events to slip out of control. This is just something that needs to be kept in mind by everyone.
8. A DM who truly sets out to deliberately kill the PC's has no business being a DM. The DM has at all times and in all ways the ability to kill the PC's whenever he bloody well feels like it. Simply having the next encounter be intentionally lethal is as easy as breathing. It is never the DM's job to intend to kill the characters because… well what kind of fun is that for anybody? A DM who gets his jollies by forcing players to lose favorite old characters and create new ones that they know will stand no better chance of long-term survival doesn't deserve the patience his players undoubtedly have to give him. If the DM is running combats at the edge of danger where the fun is (see #7) then PC's will occasionally die anyway.
9. Even given #’s 7 and 8 above it is still in everybody's interest for a campaign to have places, creatures, or encounters that the PC's are not actually able to defeat. It gives a campaign world a needed aura that it does not exist purely for the benefit of the PC's but has a life of its own. This isn't just one way of creating a more realistic campaign. It is necessary for having any kind of verisimilitude and willing suspension of disbelief. Without it the world becomes a place where the dangers within it always scale precisely to the PC's capabilities. There is never anything like a real "Canyon of Doom" or legendarily undefeatable monster if its power is always adjusted to what the PC's can immediately handle.
10. Given #9, there are people and places that the PC's cannot and should not face. Part of the DM's job then is to make sure that the players and their characters are suitably warned about lethal dangers. That goes back to #8 – that it is never the DM's job to set out to kill the characters. But if the characters ignore warnings (for whatever reason) the DM is then justified in applying what he actually knows to be lethal force in an encounter. Still doesn't mean he should, but it can’t really be held against him if he does. What this means for players is that the bull-headed notion of always fighting to the death and never surrendering will ultimately lead only to a TPK (total party kill) which is no fun for anyone.
11. Fair Play: It is generally in the interest of "fair play" for the DM to have the rest of his campaign world operating largely under the same rules that the PC's do. It's the "game" part of role-playing games. If the PC's can't do it then the NPC's generally shouldn't either. If the NPC's can do something then the PC's should generally be able to do it too. But to get fanatical about "being fair" is not in anyone’s best interests either. It would mean that the DM is restricted in creating new and interesting challenges for the characters. While there are innumerable options within the existing rules, being allowed to create new rules, singular exceptions to rules, and even things that would not otherwise be possible under the known rules is a DM's prerogative. Only if the DM overuses or abuses this privilege are the players being cheated. In short, the "rules" never have, and never will, contain the absolute answers for everything in a campaign. It falls under the 3.0 Players Handbook "Rule 0" clause - the DM is allowed to alter rules for his campaign. It may also be that the DM needs to explain some of those alterations up front.
12. As a corollary to #11, the players and their characters are not always bound by "the rules" in what they can do (or at least in what they can attempt.) There simply isn’t a rule for everything. One of a DM's biggest jobs is adjudication and adaptation of rules to the many situations that arise within a game. So by definition PC's can at least attempt to do things outside of the rules. In fact they generally get extra credit for such creativity (unless they make themselves a pest by constantly trying to do things not covered by the rules). To then deny the same privilege to the DM would be silly; to expect the DM to religiously follow rules when the players don’t.
13. The DM is not a slave to the dice. The dice don’t run the game, the DM does. DM’s use die rolls to assist in making decisions about what should happen in the game as well as dictating random results. I feel that at the very least the DM should be free to alter dice rolls that would negatively affect the PC's. A little of that goes a long way and just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. To fudge things in the favor of the players is a useful tool to have when the random elements of game mechanics interfere with enjoyment of the game. As long as the sting of death is not being entirely removed as a result, there should be no taboo against fudging by the DM in the players favor. Fudging is your escape clause so only use it when as a DM you NEED to alter a situation gone horribly wrong. However, to arbitrarily adjust results against the PC’s is not a good idea. Don’t go there. It often serves no purpose but to enforce a preconceived conclusion that the DM has – that the DM wants to force the PC’s to lose. Slavish obedience to the dice and their results is actually an attempt to dodge the responsibilities of the DM as primary instigator of a fun, interesting, and exciting game. The DM already has vast latitude in deciding how many and how often dice rolls get made as well as many of the modifiers that would affect them. To then say that he must unwaveringly accept dice rolls only as-is or else be branded "unfair" is silly.
14. The DM is certainly not required to roll his dice in the open and should actually be discouraged from doing so. There may be factors at work behind the screen that the players should not and need not be able to deduce by meta-game mathematics. Also, given #13, it prevents the DM from attempting to work things in the PC's favor without unnecessarily revealing that he’s doing so. Players on the other hand should always roll their dice openly. Nothing is kept secret from the DM once it is put into play because the DM needs, and still has adjudication and veto power. The only situation I can think of where a player can hide his roles is as regards another player - but even then the DM still has authority to see all rolls, even if all the players don't.
15. Differences of Opinion About Rules: Conventional wisdom suggests that whenever it is at all feasible rules-lawyering should be kept to a minimum during the game. The commonly accepted procedure is like objecting in a courtroom. Players should concisely state the substance of objections, the DM should make a ruling after listening to all sides, and if players take exception to the ruling it should be noted - but then play should proceed. If a DM is not out to screw the players but to simply provide the best game possible there are very few problems whose minutia could not wait until later (even until after the session is over) to hash out. Also, the DM is not perfect and not everything he rules on in a game should be considered a law graven in stone. If they make mistakes and change their minds later it doesn’t mean everything from earlier events needs to be "retconned." See #16 below.
16. Retconning or Retcon is short for Retroactive Continuity. To make everything better by saying, "Okay, what really happened instead was this..." It is the cousin to the deus ex machina. When bad rulings, mistakes, oversights, meta-game complications, or bad/boring plots go REALLY bad this is one way to fix things. It always works, but it is never very satisfying. If things have not degenerated too far it may actually be better to handle things this way. But there comes a certain point where it is better to simply accept what has taken place no matter how stupidly or badly it was done. Better to take it in stride and move forward instead of trying to fix the past and all its myriad consequences, even when it means inconsistencies in applying rules. The kicker is that this level of screw-up always seems to involve a character's death making resolution of the problem more emotionally charged than would normally be the case.
17. The DM is not there to oppose the players. He is there to provide the world for the characters, things for them to do within it, and to adjudicate their actions. If the DM sees himself as the opponent for the players – he wins. The only question then is how tedious and humiliating an experience he wants to make it for the players. He gets to make up anything and everything that the characters encounter. There is no ability for the players to trump that, so there can be no purely antagonistic position between players and DM without the DM simply being a gigantic wanker.
18. Characters die. They can – and should – occasionally die permanently. It is my firm belief that resurrection magic is in the game only because it is so easy for characters to die and playing on the edge of disaster is more fun and exciting (see #7). Unless permanent character death is more than just a possibility that never really occurs there is no fear of death and playing "on the edge" is meaningless. Players must accept the reality that their favorite characters can and will occasionally die permanently and that the DM can’t predict when and who it will be. Very seldom will a character even be able to willingly go out in a blaze of glory. Such things are very hard to engineer.
19. Players must learn the rules. Nobody needs to pass a rules knowledge test or memorize it all - not even the DM. But it's more than reasonable to expect that players read the entire Players Handbook and be able to understand it. Anyone new to the game needs to accept that they will need to do a lot of reading and put some effort into learning the game, and there is a lot of information they need to absorb right from the start. The basics of the game can be taught in short order, perhaps an hour or at most one game session. After a few sessions of play they should NOT require having basics repeatedly explained. The more time you spend playing the game as a new player the more you should be reading the rules, RE-reading the rules, and paying attention to the application of the rules to other players and their characters, not just your own. Players who can't be bothered to read and understand spells that their character casts, general combat rules, and the workings of the skill system should only be given so much leeway before a DM asks them to leave. Only if the DM informs players up front that the rules DON'T MATTER, or the player actually has disabilities is anyone excused from achieving a general, functional knowledge of the game.