What is the #1 most important thing to remember about DMing?

[Raven Crowking]

That's a tough question. So another words; if an irresistible good idea hits an immovable bad idea, does it make a sound in the forest?

No.

I mean, specifically, that in order to change a rule because you have a "good idea", you have to trust your idea is good at least as much as is needed to try it.

That seems to contradict your earlier statement that you trust the game designers more than yourself.

Really? That's surprising. I've seen DMs do it all the time. Their reasoning is usually something like, "I don't like the way the books do it." Or often it's, "I'm doing it like they did in *previous version of D&D*."

Out of curiosity, how is not liking the way something is done, or attempting to institute something you know worked previously, a "willy-nilly" change? It seems to me that you are describing changes intended to cause positive change, that have been thought out to various degrees.

To be sure, sometimes these flop.....and that can well be because the person making the change doesn't understand the interactions his change is going to affect.

When I was playing 3e, for example, I went back to rolling initiative each round. I did this to increase the chaotic nature of combat, and to speed combat up. It worked on both counts. It caused me and mine no problems whatsoever, and made the game better for all concerned. Was this a willy-nilly change? If not, why not?

Meanwhile, in the days of 3e, at least one designer was suggesting not using wandering monsters. And, when (some) people followed that advice, they ran smack into the 15-minute adventuring day problem. Was this a willy-nilly change? If not, why not?


RC

 

[steeldragons]

But at least I'll give it some thought first before I just go changing things willy-nilly.

Well, no one (that I have ever heard of!) recommends changing things willy-nilly.

"Willy-nilly"?! I'm with RC.

"Helter skelter", perhaps. "Loosey-goosey", almost certainly.

But "willy-nilly"? HEAVENS NO!


--SD

 

[ExploderWizard]

"Willy-nilly"?! I'm with RC.

"Helter skelter", perhaps. "Loosey-goosey", almost certainly.

But "willy-nilly"? HEAVENS NO!


--SD

Introducing house-rule all-fruit. Call it loosey-goosey, call it helter-skelter, just don't DARE call it willy-nilly.

could you please pass the willy-nilly?

 

[JamesonCourage]

Sounds to me like you've found a better reason than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described."

If that's the extent of the reasoning required, then the original statement of "any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described"" is rather pointless.

I mean, I'm sure there's some reasoning beyond "I dislike X" when changing something literally every time it's changed. There's a reason you're changing the rule to something else, such as "I like this rule more." That goes beyond the original statement in question, which is limited to "I dislike this current rule." The addition of "I prefer this change" is beyond that, but it is true of the change, or it would not be made.

As such, I assumed that it was discounted from your statement. If that isn't the case -since the reasoning you quoted me for was essentially "I like this change more"- then your original statement seems pointless to me.

I'm not trying to argue semantics here. But saying "well, anything outside of "I dislike it" counts as another reason, even if the new reason is "I like this more"" seems kind of... obvious. Maybe that's not what you're saying, but it certainly is the impression I'm getting. I could certainly be totally off base, though, and if so, go ahead and clarify it for me, if you don't mind.

I guess I just don't understand how "I like this change more" is ever separated from "I dislike this rule" and I'm curious how you think it might be.

Side note: Just to be clear, I do understand that you're trying to single out that I made a decision based on group enjoyment rather than on my personal preference. Your original quote, however, does not reference that whatsoever. If the original quote was also intended to imply that "you should have a reason beyond "I dislike this" and should include "and everyone likes this" then I think I understand. I just didn't detect that in the original quote.

If, however, that's the case and I somehow missed it, then I think we're on the same page

 

[Raven Crowking]

It's not the most important thing to remember about GMing (that's "If it stops being fun, stop doing it", IMHO), but it's an important rule nonetheless:

By all means, share your authority with those you deem appropriate (perhaps, but not necessarily limited to, some or all of your players). But do not give it up to anyone, player or game designer, simply because you are told that you should.

RC

 

[Macbeth]

This may seem like a non-sequitur, but it's not: I like to run. If one of my friends sent me an email saying "Here's how I've been running on hills it works great for me" and then listed several things that he does to have a great run over hills, I'd probably consider him as someone who know's what he's talking about and take his advice. He has, after all, run on a lot more hills than me.

That's all I get from a game text. It's like a letter from another GM who's saying "hey, here's the rules for running and playing a game like this." He's probably spent far more time working on his game than I have, so I'll follow what he says.

Neither the game designer nor my running friend are infallible, but they know more about the topic than I do, so I assume they're saying this things for a reason. Talking about "smartness" or whatever is kind of unrelated, It's about knowledge and thought put into the topic. I assume I haven't thought about D&D as much as the designers at WotC, or Burning Wheel as much as Luke Crane, so I'm going to take their word for it when they tell me how the game works.

The rules of a game are like a warranty. If you break it, you might make something that works perfectly for you, but you might also end up with a pile of scrap.

 

[Oryan77]

I mean, specifically, that in order to change a rule because you have a "good idea", you have to trust your idea is good at least as much as is needed to try it.

That seems to contradict your earlier statement that you trust the game designers more than yourself.

If my thought process was, "Ok, I'm confident that I'm smarter than the game designers because, let's face it, I'm awesome and nothing I do with my D&D game will ever blow up in my face.", then sure, I'd be contradicting myself.

But that's not how I operate. I think like this: "Ok, I'm a graphic artist, not a game designer. Since game design is their job, they are probably much more knowledgeable than I am about game designing. The designers tell me that I should rule it like X, but I wonder if ruling it like Y would be more fun or better? Why didn't the designers rule it like Y? What would happen if I ruled it like Y? I'll go post on the forums and ask opinions about what people think if I ruled it like Y. Afterall, I'm no game designer and I won't pretend to think I know better than a game designer. But (as someone mentioned) the game designer doesn't know my group and can't plan to cater to my needs. Maybe plan Y will work for me, but I'd like to find out first before I implement it."

Ok, so that's the long version of my thought process. I usually cut it down to: "I wonder if my plan Y idea would work? I don't want to cause any problems in the game, so let's figure this out before I just implement it."

I know I said I'm the smartest man alive (so far, everyone seems to agree), but I'm also humble enough to admit that maybe a game designer knows better than I do when it comes to rules. But if I get lucky every once in awhile and use a house-rule that works for us, I'm not thinking, "Hah, you idiots, why didn't you just rule it like I did you fools!" Overall, I am not afraid to say that they are smarter than I am when it comes to game design. They are!

It seems to me that you are describing changes intended to cause positive change, that have been thought out to various degrees.

When I say, "willy-nilly", doesn't that imply that it was not "thought out to various degrees"? If it was thought out to some degree, then I wouldn't exactly say that the rule was implemented "willy-nilly". Unless if maybe the rule was called Willy-Nilly. Maybe it's a feat or something. I don't know.

An example would be my buddy who is going to DM us in 4e Darksun.

He barely knows the 4e rules, but he's already had us using the 2e Darksun ability score racial modifiers instead of the standard +2/+2 that 4e races get. This means, as a Half-Giant, I'm getting a +4 Str/+2 Con/-2 Int/-2 Wis/-2 Cha score rather than just a +2 Str/+2 Con. He gave absolutely no thought as to how this might affect our PCs. His only reason for doing it was, "I prefer the 2e adjustments."

I'm no game designer, but I'd assume that as useful as all ability scores are in 3e/4e to many different parts of a character, and the fact that no PC in 4e takes any penalties, this ruling might be gimping our PCs in a lot of ways. I figure, the game designers don't have penalty ability scores for a reason. I could be wrong, but I at least gave it some thought and mentioned it to him. He told me, missing 1 point here and there is hardly a game changer.

I just asked him about my weapon size damage because he made my Half-Giant large sized. I don't know 4e rules very well, and when I asked him about my weapon damage, he said, "Uhm, 2d8 sounds good." He came up with that pretty willy-nilly. In fact, soon after I saw the ruling in the PHB that said my weapon damage would be 2d6. He said he'd rather just keep it at 2d8.

A lot of people come up with rules willy-nilly. In fact, I just want to say willy-nilly again.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If that's the extent of the reasoning required, then the original statement of "any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described"" is rather pointless.

I mean, I'm sure there's some reasoning beyond "I dislike X" when changing something literally every time it's changed. There's a reason you're changing the rule to something else, such as "I like this rule more."

An example would be my buddy who is going to DM us in 4e Darksun.

He barely knows the 4e rules, but he's already had us using the 2e Darksun ability score racial modifiers instead of the standard +2/+2 that 4e races get. This means, as a Half-Giant, I'm getting a +4 Str/+2 Con/-2 Int/-2 Wis/-2 Cha score rather than just a +2 Str/+2 Con. He gave absolutely no thought as to how this might affect our PCs. His only reason for doing it was, "I prefer the 2e adjustments."

Game, set, match?

My point was, if you've done analysis enough to know that there is some aspect of a particular rule which is making the game less fun for your players, and you have come up with a new rule that improves the table experience for everyone, then you've found a reason beyond simple dislike of an existing rule.

You do not have to do serious thinking to say, "I don't like X; I will change it to Y." You have to do some serious thinking about things before you have a good indication of whether Y will be "more fun for the group" or not.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Game, set, match?

Yeah, that other quote did confirm what I expressed exactly, didn't it?

My point was, if you've done analysis enough to know that there is some aspect of a particular rule which is making the game less fun for your players, and you have come up with a new rule that improves the table experience for everyone, then you've found a reason beyond simple dislike of an existing rule.

As far as I can tell, if you change a rule, then "I dislike X" is hand in hand with "I prefer Y." Which was what I was trying to point out. Simply getting rid of a rule can be justified as "I dislike X." However, if you're going to change the rule, then "I prefer Y" is pretty much ingrained into the reasoning just as much as "I dislike X" is.

Which is why I was saying that it's basically impossible to find "I dislike X" as the sole reasoning when changing a rule. The original quote I was commenting on said the following: "any rule change should have a valid reason other than "I don't think X should work that way" or "I don't like how Y is described"". I was pointing out that all rule changes have reasoning beyond "I don't like X" after you questioned my statement. Up until that point, I sort of assumed that was a given.

You do not have to do serious thinking to say, "I don't like X; I will change it to Y." You have to do some serious thinking about things before you have a good indication of whether Y will be "more fun for the group" or not.

I don't think either statement is necessarily true or false. I've definitely done both serious and casual analysis when it comes to "I don't like X; I will change it to Y" and to "is this change going to be more enjoyable for the group?" I think both should be analyzed with some amount of effort, personally, but I definitely think that the best rules are the rules that enhance the enjoyment of the game.

 

[Fifth Element]

but it's an important rule nonetheless:

By all means, share your authority with those you deem appropriate (perhaps, but not necessarily limited to, some or all of your players). But do not give it up to anyone, player or game designer, simply because you are told that you should.

So...why should they listen to this rule then?