So you want to play Pathfinder RPG: A comprehensive guide for Dungeon Masters and Players


Advice

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Irontruth wrote:
He does encourage GM's and players to work out their issues. Gods don't do that though. Gods make decree's from on high and punish people when they don't follow them.

This is an entirely unsupported statement based upon a false premise (explained below), and is fallacious in the fact that it is a sweeping/hasty generalization. To defeat your assertion here all one needs to do is provide one example of a God encouraging people to work out/resolve/fix their interpersonal problems with each other.

Examples from the Bible:
Ephesians 4-32
{url=http://www.openbible.info/topics/working_together]Here is a list of verses about working together[/url]

Examples from the Bhagavadgita:
The entirety of the Gita is to teach people how to preform Yoga with the goal of working together/becoming one with God and by definition each other - because Hindus believe in interconnectivity of all living creatures. Their version of the "golden rule" is essentially to treat others poorly is to treat yourself poorly and worse to treat God poorly.

"Yoga has two different meanings - a general meaning and a technical meaning. The general meaning is the joining together or union of any two or more things. The technical meaning is 'a state of stability and peace and the means or practices which lead to that state.' The Bhagavad Gita uses the word with both meanings." - Mata Amritanandamayi Devi.

So following Gita principles the Yoga of GMing is a cooperative state - however since the GM position is a position of governance (over the rules of the game) he holds a responsibility to teach and enforce the rules. And according to Krishna's teachings, if one fails to uphold the duties entrusted to you by your peers - then you are not practicing the Yoga of Action. Ergo - you are failing your peers, yourself, and your God. You can replace GMing with any duty entrusted to you by others - this could be a paid job - or a simple promise you made.

Furthermore to refute your second point about God's punishing - Krishna doesn't punish - he allows one's own karma to punish the person - as that is seen as enough.

Chapter 2 of the Gita teaches about working together to achieve a unified consciousness at the lowest levels this is working together with those around you to promote harmony and peace. The last six chapters of the Gita expound on this much further.


I have provided examples from two major religions (Christianity and Hinduism) when all I needed was one singular example to expose the assertion as uncogent.

Now - instead of focusing on the age old phrase "DM is God of the table" move past it. As you admit your self the GM should be the final arbiter of the rules in almost all cases (exceptions may include a band new GM who needs to defer to a more experience player who is assisting them). The point of the guide and the original statement made so many decades ago:

Gary Gygax wrote:
Most aspects of the game can be expressed numerically, from attributes like strength and health and intelligence to the power of a weapon and the probability that it will successfully connect with an enemy and the amount of damage it would inflict. But one player has to paint a picture with words: That person assumes the role of the dungeon master and describes for other players what they see and hear in this imaginary world, and what effects their actions have.

In other words, the dungeon master is God while the other players are mortals subject to natural law.

If you take exception to the phrase - blame Gygax and not the OP. It is a very old school line of thought - when SRDs were not readily on hand and it was the GM who held all the rules for reference - while the players only held one third of them.

If you focus on the trees you will miss the forest - so look at the intention and meaning of the guide instead of the entomology of a word or intention of a singular phrase used as an example to reference the views of one of the originators of our system (let's face it - no D&D no Pathfinder).

In the end I agree that a source link should have been given to the thread that started this in the original post as a prologue as it has relevance in context - but this is a rough rough rough draft by any standards - and not intended to be a final version of anything. Otherwise it would be consolidated into one post - or a PDF document on Google Docs like every-other finished guide out there.

Solution - we all work together to help the OP achieve a final and polished version, building him up and thanking him for taking the time to undertake a project we have been unwilling to do ourselves by offering suggestions based in reasoning that can be supported.

Or for those who disagree with the majority of what is said in this guide - simply write your own. Certainly there are multiple philosophies about what a GM is - some believe the GM to hold no authority at the table and must acquiesce to all player whims - even if they are disruptive on not according to RAI. Some believe the GM has total authority and can/should tell player's "no" from time to time, and many theories in-between. Each holds merit in their own right - but none are exclusively "correct" since the table is a collaborative effort. In the end - the intention was to find the most common answers to these questions and issues and provide them. With the caveat to new players that the GMs rulings are to be respected and not to detract by persistency in argumentation. That if it is truly disagreed with - respectfully talk away from the table after the game - but still be willing to accept that the GM may still not agree with your interpretation.

Silver Crusade

Thanks for the support Lex, I'm feeling a little less bad of a human being now.
What I would vastly prefer is a way to rephrase vital sentences as to not lose out of sight that :

- The GM is the final arbiter...
- ... but also a player like any other
- The players are playing in the GM's game...
- ... but the GM's game is also their own in equal parts, as they are the one who will shape it and expand the game with their own characters

- Et caetera, without making the final thread long like an arm nor losing the whole GM/players are on the same feet perspective. It's not meant to replace a Gamemastery Guide, only to teach or remember the "advanced" basics that usually come with experience for new GMs and players. And recent testimonies show that they are far from acquired, even for full-grown adults.

Without using this as an excuse, don't forget that the original post (nor this one) isn't written in my native language. While I can pride myself with a natural aisance in mine, there are some subtilities during translation of thoughts that may be lost, or some words that bear more signification and innuendos than perceived. (Also, wrote in a good 4-hours course after midnight and under medication.)


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bickering over anecdotal GMs is stupid. Both sides upthread have extrapolated disastrous consequences that I haven't seen result from these styles in my own game. Therefore, the conclusions you're reaching are not necessarily a product of the rules, but rather of x-factors like player/GM personality.

If you want to sidestep all of those discussions about whether a GM can/should be authoritarian, I suggest this rule:

Game with people you would enjoy spending an evening with even if there was no gaming going on.

This one important idea is often overlooked because people are sometimes unable to find a group and they want to play. That's an unfortunate state of affairs.

However, if we look at the upthread disagreement as to the role of the GM, and many other reigning disagreements on the forums, they are all solved by observing this guideline.

Some people enjoy hashing out details with their friends, in a competitive/aggressive manner. These people are likely to enjoy the game, even during conversations that some other groups might dread or consider to be "derailing" the game.

Some groups are completely comfortable handing dictatorial powers over to the GM. Some are not, and would walk out on that behavior.

But if you have a game group that act like friends because they are friends, who care about each-other's emotional well-being, you will be able to work through your differences easily enough.


A Man In Black wrote:
Lex Talinis wrote:
Furthermore it seems as though you may be missing the many times he encourages DM's and players to have an open and honest dialogue - but if it is not longer a value added dialogue then instead of yelling at your DM - understand that they are the final say. Sure it could be more eloquently worded - but eloquence is just as subjective from one person to the next as what people consider "good art."
This is quite on topic.

The rest really wasn't though, ergo the spoiler ;)

A Man In Black wrote:
He encourages a GM to assert control of the group, then entertain a dialogue with the players within that framework of absolute control. The GM is in charge, and cedes control at his whim to the players, and their recourse if they disagree is to leave. That's better than the attitudes of the ironfisted my-way-or-the-highway types, but it's not the only framework or relationship to have. It's not even a healthy framework: it only functions when the GM is a dominant person willing to do most of the work or take on the job of delegating the work, and when the players are willing to be subject to that dominance. That doesn't describe all players or GMs; I would submit that it doesn't even describe most players or GMs.

I agree that it is not the only way. However, there are many ways to assert control - many are very peaceful and interpersonally correct - not draconian as so many here have assumed it to be. But at the same time it is the GM's responsibility to keep things on point so entertaining constant rules lawyering from players can and does take away from other players enjoyment of the sessions. An agreement must be made in advance of how the group will discuss disagreements and how much time will be dedicated to it. A GM should have the fortitude and humility to admit if they misunderstood a rule or misapplied a rule if presented with a proper (read respectful and accurate) challenge to the ruling. Likewise it is also imperative that players respect that the GM may have their valid reasons for a ruling or interpretation of a rule and that simply disagreeing with the GM and arguing ad nauseum is not value added and will most likely result in the loss of a GM (and for some groups this may mean the loss of a regular game) or not being invited back to play.

In all my years of playing and DMing/GMing I have only ever ended one game prematurely and by vote of the rest of the group not invited a person back. Nine times out of ten respectful discourse will solve any issue. Sometimes people will still disagree - but so long as it is not a deal breaker - people need to learn to let those things go.

A Man In Black wrote:
I assume the thread that spawned this is the "How do I discourage dipping?" thread? Because that is just a dysfunctional group. If one player was the problem, everyone can eject that player; you don't need an all-powerful GM exercising jus divinum to do that. If everyone was the problem and bullying a GM who was made uncomfortable, that GM needed to just leave, because that group was treating him like crap. Bullying the group right back wasn't going to fix that dysfunctional group, just perpetuate the same problems.

You're assumption is correct. However, if you read the entirety of that thread you see that this was not the first group to have the same set of issues with that GM at the helm. So yes I fully agree that group of players was an unfixable situation - there were some issues that repeated themselves from different groups towards the same GM. And one of the major contributors was a lack of respectful discourse, social contract regarding rules debate, and table rules easily and clearly accessed. Also since the GM is relatively new to the role - their ignorance of many rules was taken advantage of. It was a worst case senario and one that is still infuriating on many levels for me.

Again I agree about it only working if the GM is the primary workhorse - but a table where that is not the case is unappealing to me as a player - so you can infer where I stand on that. As a GM - receive a lot of personal enjoyment from preparing the sessions and presenting them. So while I delegate one task (usually initiative tracking), I simply wouldn't enjoy it as much if I didn't shoulder most of the work so that the players could focus on playing. I know it is old school - perhaps that is not what players look for now days - but it is what my group enjoys, and I'm sure many others do too.


Evil Lincoln wrote:

If you want to sidestep all of those discussions about whether a GM can/should be authoritarian, I suggest this rule:

Game with people you would enjoy spending an evening with even if there was no gaming going on.

This has already been stated - and by myself several times in the thread that spawned this and in others.

The idea of a GM as a tyrant is a foreign concept to me and generally inconceivable in my experiences since I play with friends and all but one of us have been friends for 15 years or longer.

If you don't enjoy your company - why keep it.


I really liked this post Max. I think maybe tone down some of the word usage, because people can understand it differently than intended (as you have seen).

Such as the word 'god'. I thought you intended to say like a god you created the world, you control the basics of the world. Such as what kind of money is in it, whether there is gravity etc. And the players are in it making their own decisions within that tools that you gave them. Perhaps that not what you meant, either. But yea, other than some high charged words I really liked it.

This is sort of advice I could have used a year ago when I started GMing, honestly. : ) Don't take the criticisms to harshly.


Also, I really think GMs should be called referees. Kirthfinder uses the term, and I love it. It explains perfectly what the person running the game needs to be.

Silver Crusade

Taking advices for the future Google Doc Guide, so keep the feedback coming, it will not be lost.


Ephesians 4:32 is advice to men, not advice to God about dealing with men.

Your excerpt about Yoga is pretty much the same thing.

These are examples of religion promoting unity among it's followers, not how the god must adhere to the wishes of its people.

Another analogy that can be used, the elected sheriff. You're there to enforce the rules and you get a lot of power from that, but if you abuse it you might just lose the next election.

Silver Crusade

I like the OP's Guide. Alot! Sent it to my players and to my friend's group he GMs as well....14 players in all (with between 20+ yrs experience to only started rpgs about a month ago)....and we all agreed that it was a very good guide. Nobody had any issues with the 'God' thing, it was already understood that the GM was pretty much the guy in charge and our rulings are final. Player grievances come before or after the game, definitely not during.....and its usually the other players that police that though, luckily i've never had to, just sat back once and watched one player (who doesn't play in our group anymore) get trounced on by the rest of the group for starting to argue with me when I made a ruling against his favor....can't remember what it was though.

But I guess I can understand that some players have had GMs that were 'out to win'. I can also understand that there's some GMs that have had players strong hand them. If I had a group of players hand me a list of GM do's & don'ts, I'd walk away from that group....after I crumpled it up and threw it over my shoulder laughing hysterically of course.


Irontruth wrote:

Ephesians 4:32 is advice to men, not advice to God about dealing with men.

Your excerpt about Yoga is pretty much the same thing.

These are examples of religion promoting unity among it's followers, not how the god must adhere to the wishes of its people.

Another analogy that can be used, the elected sheriff. You're there to enforce the rules and you get a lot of power from that, but if you abuse it you might just lose the next election.

Since it covers religious stuff that some might find offensive:
You ignore that many if not most tenants of the Christian faith believe that the Bible is the word of God - ergo the advice/directive is from God (or His Holy Spirit) to men, and the proclamation is that God embodies these aspect Himself and wants his creations to be more like him in those regards.

Furthermore, the entire Bagavadgita is a dialogue and instruction from God to his servent on how to become a better person and live a life that is in unity with God. As in it is advice from God ;) Thus the Yoga is a directive from God.

I like the analogy of the Sharif it is much more applicable to the role of the GM IMHO then Gygax's natural law analogy. However as stated by a poster above - if you run in a homebrew world that was created by the DM - natural law by definition would make the GM the God of that world.

I think in spirit we agree here - but I fear you are still looking at the trees and missing the forest.


GM = Referee isn't bad - but a referee is bound by RAW and does not have the authority to abridge the rulebook or even add to it. Pathfinder has given GM's the authority to abridge or add as they see fit.

I think when players understand that and GM's communicate clearly what they have abridged or added to the rules and provides a written reference to this a mutual respect is far easier to come by.

In the end we are all supposed to be friends sitting around a table spending time together enjoying each other and a game we love. If respect is lacking from either GM or players - then there is usually something much bigger going on.

Maxx - Thank you for continuing to work on this :) I for one appreciate it. What is good for the goose is good for the gander and a polished document introducing the nature of the player and GM responsibilities to each-other with input from multiple GMs is a noble and good undertaking. I do suggest that when, in your document, you advise a course of action that has proven to be debatable or controversial here that you include their perspectives as alternatives to the primary advice and state why it is given. :)


sirmattdusty wrote:

Player grievances come before or after the game, definitely not during.....

If I had a group of players hand me a list of GM do's & don'ts, I'd walk away from that group....after I crumpled it up and threw it over my shoulder laughing hysterically of course.

I agree with both these points. The DM is god. He creates the world you are privleged enough to enjoy. He puts in the hours of work so you can come to game hyped up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos to play your epic narly warrior dude. He creats the world, the fights, the npcs... everything.

That diserves respect. During game his word should be final. If you have issues with it bring it up after the game and the DM should lisen and consider the players point. But again the DM has final say.

The original poster is completly correct. I tend to notice that most players who dont want to accept that the DM is boss, are those that like to rules lawyer, number crunch, and usually want to run the game without having to run the game or do the hard work. I say to those players go play Oblivion and use the cheats. It will work better for you.

But then thats just my opinion. Thankfully I DM and if you disagree you can find a new DM. Ive yet to have player leave. Ive been told I can spin a good tale or two.

Silver Crusade

Dragonamedrake wrote:
sirmattdusty wrote:

Player grievances come before or after the game, definitely not during.....

If I had a group of players hand me a list of GM do's & don'ts, I'd walk away from that group....after I crumpled it up and threw it over my shoulder laughing hysterically of course.

I say to those players go play Oblivion and use the cheats. It will work better for you.

Well....Skyrim now, right?

Shadow Lodge

Dragonamedrake wrote:


I agree with both these points. The DM is god. He creates the world you are privleged enough to enjoy. He puts in the hours of work so you can come to game hyped up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos to play your epic narly warrior dude. He creats the world, the fights, the npcs... everything.

That diserves respect.

I have no respect for control-freaks that refuse any assistance and then expect to be revered for their work. And it's a privledge to have players willing to enjoy your world.

Silver Crusade

NaharaVensari wrote:

I really liked this post Max. I think maybe tone down some of the word usage, because people can understand it differently than intended (as you have seen).

Such as the word 'god'. I thought you intended to say like a god you created the world, you control the basics of the world. Such as what kind of money is in it, whether there is gravity etc. And the players are in it making their own decisions within that tools that you gave them. Perhaps that not what you meant, either. But yea, other than some high charged words I really liked it.

This is sort of advice I could have used a year ago when I started GMing, honestly. : ) Don't take the criticisms to harshly.

To you and people who enjoyed the reading : you're welcome, it's my pleasure. Hope it can help some people. The tone was indeed a bit harsh, but could have been necessary for some people.

For the use of the word "god", this is indeed how I was intending it to be understood.


TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


I agree with both these points. The DM is god. He creates the world you are privleged enough to enjoy. He puts in the hours of work so you can come to game hyped up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos to play your epic narly warrior dude. He creats the world, the fights, the npcs... everything.

That diserves respect.

I have no respect for control-freaks that refuse any assistance and then expect to be revered for their work. And it's a privledge to have players willing to enjoy your world.

Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).


TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


I agree with both these points. The DM is god. He creates the world you are privleged enough to enjoy. He puts in the hours of work so you can come to game hyped up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos to play your epic narly warrior dude. He creats the world, the fights, the npcs... everything.

That diserves respect.

I have no respect for control-freaks that refuse any assistance and then expect to be revered for their work. And it's a privledge to have players willing to enjoy your world.

This. If my players want to world build with me, I'll let them. Two or more heads are better than one, after all.

Silver Crusade

Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Are you absolutely against players and GMs playing together, and the players having their word to say on your games ?

Because "those that like to rules lawyer, number crunch, and usually want to run the game without having to run the game or do the hard work" are almost exactly like me.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ugh...who wants to 'world build'? I'd get a 100% better product just paying the $5 - $15 for the mod...and not go crazy trying to construct a meaningful, exciting world from scratch.


Maxximilius wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Are you absolutely against players and GMs playing together, and the players having their word to say on your games ?

Because "those that like to rules lawyer, number crunch, and usually want to run the game without having to run the game or do the hard work" are almost exactly like me.

I have a great working relationship with my players. In fact I usually ask for feedback after every game on what I can do to make the game more fun. But I will not stand for arguements during game. That does nothing but slow the game down to a screaching halt. I wont let my game crash and burn because a player wont listen. I have a standing rule that any objections can be voiced after the game. I am happy to listen and change the outcome if needed.

This is a worse case senario in which a player wont adhere to my rules. I have yet to see a player be that bull headed.

Silver Crusade

There is no GM/players issue that can't be resolved by a good headbutt.
Remember this, youngsters.


sirmattdusty wrote:
Ugh...who wants to 'world build'? I'd get a 100% better product just paying the $5 - $15 for the mod...and not go crazy trying to construct a meaningful, exciting world from scratch.

World building is the most fun part of Pathfinder, IMO.

Shadow Lodge

Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Wow, you admit to being a control-freak? Thank you for your honest self-awareness!

The DM is first-among-equals. You will not have a harmonious game with a DM used to absolute power and players used to sharing power.

Sovereign Court

I like what the OP is doing here, and wish to pop in to say I support and cherish this kind of positive - community focused discussion. The folks of the PAIZO community are the very best, and the OPs intention here is a good and powerful one. Nice work.

-Pax


TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Wow, you admit to being a control-freak? Thank you for your honest self-awareness!

The DM is first-among-equals. You will not have a harmonious game with a DM used to absolute power and players used to sharing power.

You call it control-freak... I call it being a DM. Im all about self-awareness. I will be running a control-freaking awsome game in which my players enjoy a fully fleshed out and drama free gaming experience.

You will be suffering through Crash to Desktop bugs over and over on your epic Skyrim character. Or brow beating some poor sob you call a DM into caving every time you feel your being mistreated.

Either way Im having fun. Your having fun... I guess. I can assure you that of all the years I have DM'd every one of my players jump to play my games. And everyone will tell you who has full control of the game.

I do. When they DM... they do. Maybe it has to do with us all DMing at some point. Or maybe our old fart mentality. Either way it works for us.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
You will be suffering through Crash to Desktop bugs over and over on your epic Skyrim character. Or brow beating some poor sob you call a DM into caving every time you feel your being mistreated.

I've dealt with this sort of player before, and I can tell you from experience that turning into a jackboot GM doesn't fix the problem. What does fix the problem is discussing things with them calmly and openly, compromising where compromise is warranted, sternly refusing to cave where compromise is not warranted, and getting rid of players who refuse to respect the rest of the people at the table.

Shadow Lodge

Dragonamedrake wrote:

You call it control-freak... I call it being a DM. Im all about self-awareness. I will be running a control-freaking awsome game in which my players enjoy a fully fleshed out and drama free gaming experience.

You will be suffering through Crash to Desktop bugs over and over on your epic Skyrim character. Or brow beating some poor sob you call a DM into caving every time you feel your being mistreated.

One, what the hell is Skyrim and why should I care?

Two, that is one way to DM. As a fellow DM, I can say that it is not the only way to DM.

Three, you're projecting a lot onto me, with absolutely no evidence of it. Please stop making baseless attacks on my character.


TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:

You call it control-freak... I call it being a DM. Im all about self-awareness. I will be running a control-freaking awsome game in which my players enjoy a fully fleshed out and drama free gaming experience.

You will be suffering through Crash to Desktop bugs over and over on your epic Skyrim character. Or brow beating some poor sob you call a DM into caving every time you feel your being mistreated.

One, what the hell is Skyrim and why should I care?

Two, that is one way to DM. As a fellow DM, I can say that it is not the only way to DM.

Three, you're projecting a lot onto me, with absolutely no evidence of it. Please stop making baseless attacks on my character.

Skyrim is a video game in the Elder Scrolls series.

Shadow Lodge

That explains why I've never heard of it. Still don't care.

Silver Crusade

Pax Veritas wrote:

I like what the OP is doing here, and wish to pop in to say I support and cherish this kind of positive - community focused discussion. The folks of the PAIZO community are the very best, and the OPs intention here is a good and powerful one. Nice work.

-Pax

And you maybe didn't even stumble upon this thread yet !

We should get paid for this. Community managers. *Shakes fist*

Sovereign Court

Dragonamedrake wrote:


I agree with both these points. The DM is god. He creates the world you are privleged enough to enjoy. He puts in the hours of work so you can come to game hyped up on Mountain Dew and Cheetos to play your epic narly warrior dude. He creates the world, the fights, the npcs... everything.

I buy and run Paizo stuff.

I don't invent the world or put in hours of work: I just enjoy reading Paizo books and would read them even if I had no players.

Does this mean then, that I am not 'god' but Paizo is?

I'm worried about this thread, I really am... I don't think it has enough smurfs.


Dragonamedrake wrote:

I have a great working relationship with my players. In fact I usually ask for feedback after every game on what I can do to make the game more fun. But I will not stand for arguements during game. That does nothing but slow the game down to a screaching halt. I wont let my game crash and burn because a player wont listen. I have a standing rule that any objections can be voiced after the game. I am happy to listen and change the outcome if needed.

This is a worse case senario in which a player wont adhere to my rules. I have yet to see a player be that bull headed.

Does this only apply to actual arguments or to any player rules objections? I've raised rules questions many times when the GM was making an error. Not always to my advantage, either, so it's not really rules lawyering. I just have a good head for rules and often know them better than the GM.

If he wants to overrule that's fine, I won't fight about it, but if he's just misreading or forgetting something should that always be ignored or held to the end of the session?

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The GM has to know the rules he uses, or to have someone who can help when there is a rules question. If he doesn't know them, his duty is search and know them for next time ; even if it means improvising a temporary solution.


All of these points have been mentioned before. Those who will follow most likely already do, and those that won't dont. Putting all of it in one place won't stop player or GM's from making things harder for the group that do so.

PS:Objections should not have to wait until after the game. Now if the GM says he disagrees after you try to correct them, then you can(in my opinion should) wait until after the game to show him he ruled incorrectly.

@ Dragonamedrake: You can't always change the outcome after the fact. If player A dying causes player B to die because player A was the cleric how do you fix that can keep verisimilitude. Question someone does not bring the game to a halt or make a game crash and burn. Constant bickering or refusing to let go of a single disagreement brings the game to a halt.

edit:Maybe you can change the outcome, but can you so do and still have the story make sense?

Silver Crusade

thejeff wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:

I have a great working relationship with my players. In fact I usually ask for feedback after every game on what I can do to make the game more fun. But I will not stand for arguements during game. That does nothing but slow the game down to a screaching halt. I wont let my game crash and burn because a player wont listen. I have a standing rule that any objections can be voiced after the game. I am happy to listen and change the outcome if needed.

This is a worse case senario in which a player wont adhere to my rules. I have yet to see a player be that bull headed.

Does this only apply to actual arguments or to any player rules objections? I've raised rules questions many times when the GM was making an error. Not always to my advantage, either, so it's not really rules lawyering. I just have a good head for rules and often know them better than the GM.

If he wants to overrule that's fine, I won't fight about it, but if he's just misreading or forgetting something should that always be ignored or held to the end of the session?

Reminding the GM about a rule he's forgetting or answering a rules question the GM asks is fine. It's the ARGUING with the GM during the session that should be a no-no....wait until the session ends discuss your concerns.


Dragonamedrake wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Wow, you admit to being a control-freak? Thank you for your honest self-awareness!

The DM is first-among-equals. You will not have a harmonious game with a DM used to absolute power and players used to sharing power.

You call it control-freak... I call it being a DM. Im all about self-awareness. I will be running a control-freaking awsome game in which my players enjoy a fully fleshed out and drama free gaming experience.

You will be suffering through Crash to Desktop bugs over and over on your epic Skyrim character. Or brow beating some poor sob you call a DM into caving every time you feel your being mistreated.

Either way Im having fun. Your having fun... I guess. I can assure you that of all the years I have DM'd every one of my players jump to play my games. And everyone will tell you who has full control of the game.

I do. When they DM... they do. Maybe it has to do with us all DMing at some point. Or maybe our old fart mentality. Either way it works for us.

One day if you get the chance you should watch me GM or play so I can show you how to do it without being a control freak.

Having people in your games does not make you a great GM. Sometimes the players don't know better, or the options or so limited they accept what they are given among other reasons.

In short don't mistake the circumstances that cause people to stay at your table for awesomeness you don't really possess.

Example included--> click me

edit:changed last sentence for clarification


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My personal view is: you handle the world and I'll handle me. You let me know what's there and I'll let you know what my character wants to do about it. The only time I've found I come into conflict with the GM is when he makes a blatant misrepresentation of my intent. "I go walking down the corridor" turns into "you vault into the darkness like a cheetah on crack." Erm, no, back up. Or, and I haven't had this happen but would take issue if it did, if I were denied something on my character sheet that I should rightfully have. For example, if I'm asked to make a save and I ask if it's such and such because I get a bonus to that only to be told "no, you don't" would make my blood boil.

Silver Crusade

Buri wrote:
For example, if I'm asked to make a save and I ask if it's such and such because I get a bonus to that only to be told "no, you don't" would make my blood boil.

What if it's something you don't know about? What if you have to make a save against A and though you 'normally' get a bonus against A, it's because of B that makes your bonus not apply - and you just don't know about it. I might do that once...ONCE against a player's expected powers/save/abilities, ect...

For example, there was this very powerful whip in an old written adventure mod whose special abilities temporarily removed an elf's immunity to magic sleep effects for so many rounds, allowing for the mage to cast sleep on an elf. I think it was the last boss in the dungeon...can't remember, this was super early days of 3.x. I can remember the elf's player being quite surprised at what happened and I do remember that AFTER the session ended, I showed him the whip's stats and he was like...'oh, ok, that's cool'.


TOZ wrote:
Dragonamedrake wrote:


Well then you would be one of those players not present at my game. Im sure I can find you a link for those oblivion cheats (err.. skyrim).

Wow, you admit to being a control-freak? Thank you for your honest self-awareness!

The DM is first-among-equals. You will not have a harmonious game with a DM used to absolute power and players used to sharing power.

Well now TOZ arent you making an assumption about what is required for a harmonious game?

I tend to run games with a fair bit of rule discussion but everyone agrees at the end of the discussion the GM makes the call.

But you seem to be suggesting that you play in a different style of game, with a different method of deciding how contentious rules will be interpreted, or a different style of deciding if certain rules will be applied--and indeed player input on the world in general.

what happens in your games if the Gm doesnt want a certain prestige class or say guns, or psionics, but a player does?

How do your games run when there is an in game disagreement as to how a particular spell/feat/magic item etc works, and the diagreeing parties agree to disagree - who makes the final call on how it will be played?

who decides if the king is a benevolent good guy or a manipulative sneak?

exactly how do the players co-operatively game (beyond directing their own players in the world and joining in the game, playing by the rules etc) in a way that a "control freak" might struggle to cope with.

As I said above I like the advice- the quibbling has also been interesting as it shows different perspectives on an important part of the game.


Werecorpse wrote:

what happens in your games if the Gm doesnt want a certain prestige class or say guns, or psionics, but a player does?

How do your games run when there is an in game disagreement as to how a particular spell/feat/magic item etc works, and the diagreeing parties agree to disagree - who makes the final call on how it will be played?

I believe every group should talk about how to resolve rules conflicts before the "first session", or at the "session 0". There are multiple options, the simplest is to pick one person to be the rules expert and make decisions (usually, but not always, the GM). I'm in favor of that method, but it requires everyone to agree to it and respect it BEFORE the rules conflict.

Second, if your players keep coming to your table with character ideas that run counter to your proposed theme/mood/setting, you either haven't communicated your goals properly, or they just aren't interested in your theme/mood/setting. As a GM you have 3 options that I can see:

1: take the option the player is interested in away, forcing them to play a character they are less interested in.
2: adjust your theme/mood/setting to accommodate the player.
3: try explaining the theme/mood/setting to the player again to see if they alter their goals.

If you're having trouble keeping your players interested, 1 is probably the poorest choice.

Werecorpse wrote:
who decides if the king is a benevolent good guy or a manipulative sneak?

If an NPC is being introduced via player actions, I usually let them tell me something about them, sometimes through a leading question.

-Why did this king start the tradition that everyone must wash their hands before entering the throne room?
-Why does the king desire to expand his kingdom eastward?
-Why is the king always seen in public riding a horse?

Whatever answer they give me I'll go with. I will probably modify it a little, but the essence of their suggestion will remain.

Paizo Employee Senior Software Developer

Removed some "Imma get some popcorn and encourage fightiness"-type posts. They really don't help.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dragonamedrake wrote:

I have a great working relationship with my players. In fact I usually ask for feedback after every game on what I can do to make the game more fun. But I will not stand for arguements during game. That does nothing but slow the game down to a screaching halt. I wont let my game crash and burn because a player wont listen. I have a standing rule that any objections can be voiced after the game. I am happy to listen and change the outcome if needed.

This is a worse case senario in which a player wont adhere to my rules. I have yet to see a player be that bull headed.

It takes two to argue, here. I have GMed for quite a long time, and in that time I've found that increasing control means a greater propensity for arguments, either with me or between the players, just because of the greater feeling of restriction. Lots of GMs will squeeze their fist tighter to stop these arguments, but they're only ratcheting up the tension even more.

I agree that the GM needs to take swift action to deal with arguments, and often say, "Guys, stop, this is derailing and isn't going to lead to having any fun." However, it's just as important and ten times harder to say to an angry player, "Whoa, man, okay... what is it you actually want?" and then accommodate someone who just got in your face.

Players don't get into arguments because they're naughty children who aren't disciplined well enough. They get into arguments because they are unhappy, and grinding them under your heel as GM isn't going to make them any happier.

51 to 100 of 126 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / So you want to play Pathfinder RPG: A comprehensive guide for Dungeon Masters and Players All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.