This mentality needs to die

[Garmorn]

Lots of experienced DMs in one place overanalyze an ingame decision. Some of them looking at the clouds, seeing playstyle-differences and edition-problems instead of castles and dragons. Some bragging involved.

It´s an ENworld thing, mostly - on other boards i visit, we talked about a couple of of fun videos and that was it. No "make the game your own, find your own playstyle, be a creative DM - but when you put a video of your session online, i will write a 30.000 word post, detailing what you did wrong, what i would do better, and where your problems are rooted."

I thought so. I have found the only good measure of a gaming night is the players reactions on the way out of the door. My last game night seemed to be a bust. It was lot of setup for the over all campaign. More talking to NPC then my novice players have done period. We had one battle I threw in at the request of a player. (She did a off comment about wanting to kill things so I added something that fit the campaign on the fly).

Up till and in the battle they actually seemed bored. The post game response was quite different. They just got 2nd level and where talking about canceling plans to out with friends so they could level their characters.

 

[wedgeski]

I have found the only good measure of a gaming night is the players reactions on the way out of the door.

Well said.

This has historically been a contentious issue, but as I get older I'm slowly coming around to the view that a game of D&D *is* all about the players. It doesn't matter how much fun I have behind the screen, if the the players are deflated and/or bored and/or disinterested, I can't look back on the session as a success. These guys come to my place to escape for a few hours, to live a life impossible. The more years I GM, the more convinced I am that it's my job to enable that for them. If I had a good time in the process, which much more often than not, I do... well, all's good in the world.

 

[Psion]

(Quoting posts that led to this point to provide context)

Since DCs relate to Skill Checks...nothing. There is no "critical success" on a Skill Check for that very reason (3E or 4E).

One reason why I lean to Fantasy Craft over either these days.

This is a very strange thread for me. I have watched the video and think it would be a great game to play in. It is just my style. So where is the problem?

Er, was this supposed to be somehow related to my post which you quoted?

To answer your question generally: if it seems like fun to you, you are doing it right (for you). But obviously, a lot of us saw that specific bit as being un-fun in certain ways.

As to the specifics of my post, I was responding to Vyvyan Basterd's rule-ism specifically. Critical hits are fun. But I like my fun gameplay to extend beyond stabbing the bad guy, and think that criticals outside of combat can/should have flashes of excitement as well, so I think skills SHOULD be able to critical. Thus my comment about why this is one reason that Fantasy Craft has risen above D&D 3e or 4e for my fantasy gaming needs.

Make sense?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Well said.

This has historically been a contentious issue, but as I get older I'm slowly coming around to the view that a game of D&D *is* all about the players. It doesn't matter how much fun I have behind the screen, if the the players are deflated and/or bored and/or disinterested, I can't look back on the session as a success. These guys come to my place to escape for a few hours, to live a life impossible. The more years I GM, the more convinced I am that it's my job to enable that for them. If I had a good time in the process, which much more often than not, I do... well, all's good in the world.

The DM is a player too and is entitled to have a fair share of the fun. My view of the expectations of gaming is that it isn't the DM's "job" to simply entertain the players and it isn't the players "job" to amuse the DM at the expense of thier own fun.

Instead, I believe that a game runs best when everyone at the table does thier best to ensure that all participants have a good time.

Lets face it, a DM who isn't having a good time will eventually spoil the fun for the rest of the group. Running games takes more energy and effort than simply playing and if the game isn't fun for the DM too then why should they be expected to keep running?

 

[Hussar]

So, just so I got this straight.

DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.

Would that sum it up?

Darkfire doesn't do any damage. There's nothing in the description to denote that it is actually warm at all. It's just a 4e version of a Faerie Fire spell. So, I think we'd all agree that we wouldn't let anyone melt ice with Faerie Fire, so, why would we suddenly let them do it with this spell?

So, it's not the actual ruling, but perhaps that he said that you cannot use abilities on objects. But, again, this is kosher by the rules and it completely forestalls having to explain to someone that while the spell has the word "fire" in the name, it isn't actually hot and would not cause ice to melt.

Having played with the guy who would then proceed to tell me for the next half an hour that the name is stupid/confusing/unrealistic and how he watched some show on Discovery about how you could totally melt ice with St Elmo's Fire, I can totally see that ignoring the flavour explanation in favour of a mechanical explanation could be the right way to go with that player.

So, where's the problem here? He made a call that fit the mechanics, fit the flavour of the ability. It's a 100% justifiable call.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So, just so I got this straight.

DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.

Doesn't sound like you got it straight. There was no abuse involved or intended.

The thing seems blown way out of proportion. It doesn't really matter if he used the "target: creature" line or the power description to make his decision. It was his decision to make, he made one, and the game went on.

That's a bad example for bad DMing. It's a good example for bog-standard DMing.

 

[mudbunny]

Doesn't sound like you got it straight. There was no abuse involved or intended.

The thing seems blown way out of proportion. It doesn't really matter if he used the "target: creature" line or the power description to make his decision. It was his decision to make, he made one, and the game went on.

That's a bad example for bad DMing. It's a good example for bog-standard DMing.

I didn't even see it as that. I saw it as being on the same level as saying "the monster is now bloodied".

What I saw as a good example of DMing and a quick mind was when he was RPing the part of the dwarf statue, and the player makes a comment about we are exploring this place, and Chris goes "We??"

 

[SkidAce]

I didn't even see it as that. I saw it as being on the same level as saying "the monster is now bloodied".

What I saw as a good example of DMing and a quick mind was when he was RPing the part of the dwarf statue, and the player makes a comment about we are exploring this place, and Chris goes "We??"

I am glad you mentioned that bit. I loved it...I was running around the track and almost stumbled..lady asked why I was grinning.

Yup, enjoyed it.

 

[Psion]

So, just so I got this straight.

DM makes a call that is 100% legal by the rules, is actually pretty in keeping with the spirit of the rules and he's a bad DM because he's not letting his players abuse the rules.

Would that sum it up?

Um, has anyone here taken the stance that this is the problem? If so, I missed it. This sounds like a bit of a strawman. Most people who have taken in consideration what darkfire is--it does no damage, ergo a heatless fire--said that they would have ruled likewise.

I do disagree that you call trying to use their ingenuity to solve a problem abuse of the rules.

What seems to be the problem here is the reason Chris gave, a bit of rules minutia, apparently intended to disambiguate its use during combat, as the root for justification for denying him what he thought was a good idea. A better approach would have to been to discuss what darkfire IS, letting the player know what his character would know: this power really can't meaningfully heat anything.

Now I for one am not calling Chris a "bad DM". I think I'm a good DM, but I'm sure if all my past sessions were taped like this, it would be replete with moments of bad DMing like this.

But I would sure as heck learn something from such tapes.

 

[MrMyth]

NO.

For some reason, some DMs -- regardless of edition -- are afraid to use common sense.

If it weren't so sad, it'd be funny because Basic Attacks also list 'one creature' as their valid target -- so apparently you can't even try to smash a door down with your hammer or fists in Chris' game.

You know, I don't like the "it only works on creatures" argument either, but I think there are a lot of assumptions about Chris' game being made based on a single isolated incident - one in which there was plenty of other reasons available to support his ruling.

Also: I like the name Faerie Fire, and Darkfire as the drow variant. Sorry. It's simple, succinct, and evocative of what it does. I found it several times more interesting and accessible than a lot of the (relatively silly) suggestions for replacing it. I'm not going to claim that my opinion is the only one that matters, but I really don't see the fault with it or it somehow being representative of a fundamental flaw in D&D naming conventions.

As for this specific situation - I certainly wouldn't have allowed Darkfire to melt the door in any way. What I probably would have done, if the player wanted to use it, was given them a check to cast the Darkfire upon the door - letting the eldritch like spread across it, outlining cracks and weak spots for others to focus on, and giving some bonus on future checks made to open it. Something like that would let the player use their power, while staying true to the nature of the ability and helping overcome the obstacle.

But while that may well be my call, I don't expect any other DM to feel 'required' to rule similarly, and saying that glowing lights doesn't help get through a frozen door seems entirely within the domain of reason. I don't really like the explanation he gave, but its a single comment about a single moment, and I don't think it merits a full condemnation of his DMing style as the downfall of RPGs.