Hi all probably a fairly silly question but how much do you trust the GM to be totally fair !
I know it often depends on the individual person but as a whole do you think they are a 100% honest.
I only ask as on a few other forums I've been on there seems to be a lot of mistrust as to how the GM will handle things not covered by the rules , and this then leads to a need for everything to be in the rules just in case
Your thoughts please
|
-2% honest. I dm and i occasionally play with 3 other dms who i consider halfway decent. It isnt that i dont trust the dm for things not in the rules.
It is that playing mother may I? Isnt something i want to do in my roleplaying game. Also sometimes issues crop up with say you sign up for a cool neutral themed elf vietcong and it turns into mary sues chastise the bad humans on account of the alignment system being terrible in general.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't trust me at all!
I mean, just look at me, I practically ooze suspicion.
Maybe, if I overthrow myself...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a GM I don't feel bound by rules, and also don't expect my GMs to be bound by rules. So it's impossible to cheat.
But, a GM can be unfair, which is far far worse.
However, you can have a GM who's style of running a game doesn't match what you want as a player, which is a problem but not necessarily with either the GM or yourself. But a problem of expectations.
I'm a GM, so I may be a tad biased here. That said... I ask that my players trust me to have the good of the game foremost in my mind, even if it may not always be immediately obvious. This applies for rules, rolls, and stories.
Thing is, I see a GM's job as being a bit like that of a stage magician -- I'm providing my players with a performance, an ongoing story they interact with and influence. Seeing how the sausage is made does not necessarily improve its taste (rather the opposite, really).
Really though, I feel that if you can't trust a GM to have the best interest of the game at heart (whether or not this is equal to strict fairness is a matter of taste), why are you playing with them???
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is that playing mother may I? Isnt something i want to do in my roleplaying game.
And that's a huge part of why I play (and GM) Pathfinder.
I can't wrap my head around playing a game where there's a random probability element (dice) but you've still got a DM who you have to ask if you can do things. Pathfinder has a rich, complex rule set that very clearly documents what a PC can do, and how. That lets a player know confidently what it takes to climb a tree. Sure, they might not know the exact DC, but they know that barring any unforeseen circumstances, their +35 to Climb should get them up any normal tree without difficulty.
The rules-light systems frankly disturb me.
Not that GM-trust is exactly the issue there, but it's very close. I can succeed at the things my GM wants me to succeed at, and can't do what my GM doesn't want me to do. With a rules-heavy system, I can do what I want to do, when I want to do it, and the world reacts to my actions. Basically, I have a hand in writing the story.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's different kinds of trust:
Trusting them not to fudge dice (if that bothers you).
Trusting them to make good difficulty balance decisions. ("I just thought it would be more realistic if all the monsters in the dungeon attacked you at once.")
Trusting them to be able to improvise rules in a fair and consistent manner.
Etc.
I've been on both sides of the screen. I tend to trust my GMs unless they give me a reason not to. And as a GM I want them to trust me. This does not mean I will not fudge dice. Most GMs do it. If there's an encounter that's a little too hard and the PCs didn't do anything stupid to get themselves into that situation, I will fudge to make it possible to win. If they did something stupid, or ignored my GM warning of "Are you really sure you want to do that?" All bets are off.
For example. If they encounter a dragon as part of the adventure and I realize mid battle that I made the encounter a little too difficult, I will scale back. The point is not to TPK, it's to have an adventure. However, if the party discover a sleeping dragon as a side note, or added fluff (or a random encounter or something like that), and they want to go poke it, I will not hesitate to slaughter their stupid butts (or at least kill one of them). I will do what I can to dissuade them from doing this and even give them a "are you sure", but if they do it, they will deal with the consequences. Mess with the bull, get the horns. Basically, I won't scale back if it's too difficult because they were being dumb. Sometimes I'll have mercy in these situations, but other times I'm just like, screw it. You messed up big time.
Same thing with ease of battle. If the party is murder hoboing their way through every encounter I build, I will eventually make one that they won't be so prepared for.
Basically, I want to trust my GMs or my players to trust me that I am fair. Not necessarily that I'll never go outside the rules for this or that from time to time, but that when I do, it's for the fun of the adventure and to give them a challenge, and be fair with it.
I'm also the type of person where if they have a problem with a way I handled a situation to talk to me about it. They'll give me their point of view, I'll give them mine, and we'll come to an agreement.
To give an example of the reverse side of things. I'm an experienced player, but I still do stupid things occasionally. I'm playing in a campaign where I have a mask that grants me see inadvisability for a short time. I activated it and looked into the next room ahead. I asked the GM, "Do I see anything invisible in the room ahead of me." he said, "No." So I rushed into the room, only to realize that standing in the corner, where I couldn't see him, was an assassin. He was not invisible, but he was, in fact, out of sight. I was nearly one shot. It was my character's abilities and the party's quick action that saved my character's life that session. The GM was like, "Sorry, but you just rushed into the room." I said, "That's fair, I was being dumb. I didn't see anything invisible, but I didn't think about the parts of the room I couldn't see from the hallway."
Fair GMing doesn't always mean that the player's won't get hurt for their actions.
Trust your GM with their decisions and calls of the rules unless they're abusing their power as it were.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Always trust the GM. They are nothing but kindness and trust. If they are smiling, or cackling uncontrollably, or staring at you with an I'm so sorry but I have to do this sort of look, it just means that you're playing right into their hands doing a good job.
IMHO it is important for a DM to be as fair and unbiased as possible, and to follow all game rules as closely as possible. To this end, when DMing I make all rolls in the open, unless it's really crucial that the players not know to what extent they have succeeded or failed a given roll.
Of course that doesn't mean I don't fudge monster or NPC design at times, giving some bad guy a few more hit points or other features that don't necessarily derive from monster manual listings or strict application of player creation rules. Is that being unfair? I don't think so, but some might.
Back in the 70s and 80s, I knew many folks who wore the DM hat, and sadly some of them were egregiously unfair, to the extent it did become a game of "mother may I?" some, much or even most of the time. Worse still, is when some players are a DM's "favorites" and it shows. Or when the DM kills your character without there being a self-evident in-game reason why.
There can come a time when a player has to decide whether to walk out of such a game or not. Sad, but any hobby is bound to have its bad apples.
While it depends on your GM you should always be able to trust your GM to provide an enjoyable game and tell an interesting story. If they are not providing those services, then they will have broken the unspoken contract between player and GM. At which point they no longer deserve your trust.
As a GM, I will fudge rules and lie about rolls to create a better story. I do not do this lightly, but dynamic/thematic/dramatic situations will have successes/failures/crits as would best serve the narrative and the game. This will go both ways, for and against the PCs as serves the ultimate goal: improving the overall experience of the players.
|
I trust all my GMs to make the gaming experience enjoyable. If I don't trust a GM I don't see a reason to play with them. That doesn't mean they will always keep the result of a roll. Sometimes they may have to alter rolls or encounters for the game to flow. It could be to avoid a TPK that was due to mistuning or other similar scenarios.
When I have taken the GM seat the focus was building a world they could enjoy and make the sessions involved for each player.
YMMV as some groups/people want things strictly by the book/roll and that is where they/you adapt to it. If players want transparency I will roll openly.
As far as rules that fall into a grey area...that is table variation and a GM should make a ruling that is consistent and improves the session. It may not always sit well when a player wants to try and push the rules to the limit or when the GM wants to squelch creative use of rules. It goes both ways.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The GMs job is to provide a memorable experience for the players.
I totally don't care what they are fudging, and I fudge a lot of stuff as a GM (much of the time in favor of the PCs). I think everyone should GM sometime and realize what is really going on, especially all the time spent preparing, and be a little more sympathetic than a lot of the conversation I see on these forums.
Rules (and especially non-rules) are just a construct to try and make the game playable, and the GM should implement them fairly (towards the NPCs and all the PCs together), but they are completely right in whatever they want to change. You've earned that when you spend many extra hours putting time into something.
Here is the very 1st rule in the PRD:
The Most Important Rule
The rules presented are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of "house rules" that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
This question even highlights such a huge problem with our society. There is this constant "Us vs Them" in like everything around now.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm playing in a campaign where I have a mask that grants me see inadvisability for a short time.
That would be a *really* handy item.
Richard
I'm playing in a campaign where I have a mask that grants me see inadvisability for a short time.That would be a *really* handy item.
Richard
Bahaha! Wow, what an awesome typo. Of course I meant invisibility. I wonder how that happened. I didn't even notice when I read through it before I posted it.
I feel that most GMs have the best of intentions and have the good of the game in mind if they fudge in one way or the other. I feel that if it's something that would happen regularly though it should be addressed with the players. For example if a player makes a character specializes in save or suck spells and the GM decides that the main (named) antagonists will never fail a SoS spell, they should just let the player know that is the case and decide if they want to keep the character concept or not. The GM of course may decide that the important NPCs don't fail SoS on the first 3 rounds of combat, until they have fought a appropriately challenging battle, or some other metric, but they should be open about it IMO, not just pretend to roll saves that are predetermined as successes without letting the player know and adapt their character if they want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I trust them until given reason to not. The vast majority of DMs will do what is best. That said I have never had a GM that I agree with entirely. The trick is to make sure everyone is having fun
As a GM I don't feel bound by rules, and also don't expect my GMs to be bound by rules. So it's impossible to cheat.
But, a GM can be unfair, which is far far worse.
This is mostly the camp I'm in. I can spend 6 hours figuring out the exact way to build a monster to work properly in the rules, or I can have him "Play as a Small Dude" with the same stats. I could spend a long time cultivating exactly how McGuffin X's curse works and how much gold it's worth, or I can just make it work the way I want since the players really don't know the difference and it saves a bunch of work that's considered non-essential anyway.
Similarly, I can have an encounter that floats around Position A, the players take a left at Albuquerque and I need content; looks like that encounter happened at Position B! How random!
It is that playing mother may I? Isnt something i want to do in my roleplaying game.
Theoretically this shouldn't come up. If you have the players describe their actions rather then tell you "I ROLL DIPLOMACY" then you can tell them when the rolls are appropriate. It lends to more natural conversations and it also forces the player to roll what they RP'd.
If they say "I tell him I'm gonna kill his mother, roll diplomacy"; that breaks everything. If they say "I tell him I'm gonna kill his mother" and the GM tells him to roll Intimidate; the game has worked out exactly as the player caused; even if it's not how they desired. No where in here is there room for Mother May I?
The only thing that comes up in my group with that is Item/Archtype/Class balancing stuff. To some degree this should be expected IMO.
That lets a player know confidently what it takes to climb a tree. Sure, they might not know the exact DC, but they know that barring any unforeseen circumstances, their +35 to Climb should get them up any normal tree without difficulty.
The rules-light systems frankly disturb me.
Not that GM-trust is exactly the issue there, but it's very close. I can succeed at the things my GM wants me to succeed at, and can't do what my GM doesn't want me to do. With a rules-heavy system, I can do what I want to do, when I want to do it, and the world reacts to my actions. Basically, I have a hand in writing the story.
I think that you're causing something to be mutually exclusive that doesn't need to be.
In a rules heavy system; I have to check if it's slippery, on a slope, in a stairwell, and look up the values, and calc a DC. In a rules light system I can say "It's normally Medium difficulty (DC15 + PC Level or so) and it's gonna be doable, but a lot harder here because of thing X (DC20 + PC level or so)" and bam; it's roughly in line with the system but I'm not drowning myself in the minutia of charts looking for 17 things.
I fully agree that if I design something badly that is easily circumventable, you should be able to circumvent it. That's player agency. That said, I also believe that rather than saying "The lie is believable, OK, that's -5 to difficulty. But the person doesn't like you, that's +10; oh but it's also something that the NPC knows; and they tried to lie before so it's +5"
What's worse, if you do your roll (sense motive in this case) in front of the players and then they argue about it because you fudged some math by 2 on accident or some garbage; now you're arguing rules in an RP session.
_________
IMO:
* Hide the rolls. It can break immersion and it lends unnecessary information to the PCs about things. Especially because rolls at odd times make the player unsure when you do rolls that matter. [Such as Stealth and perception of opponents, etc]
* Fudge to make things simple. Add +1-5 or -1-5 based on the things that affect the roll. Make the DC roughly 10,15,or 20 for the tasks, and add player level if it makes sense. (this is a talking point straight from TheAngryGM that I've taken to heart)
* Have your players say what they are doing and "hand them" the dice rolls, rather than them say "I roll <X>".
* Don't hide necessary information behind DCs. That's dumb.
* Don't waste time rolling for things that have no consequences. If they can climb the tree by taking 10 or 20, just give it to them.
Hi all probably a fairly silly question but how much do you trust the GM to be totally fair !
I know it often depends on the individual person but as a whole do you think they are a 100% honest.
I only ask as on a few other forums I've been on there seems to be a lot of mistrust as to how the GM will handle things not covered by the rules , and this then leads to a need for everything to be in the rules just in case
Your thoughts please
I invited a friend who never played a roleplaying game before into our current campaign of experienced players. After a few levels, he became interested in optimizing his character himself rather than relying on the advice of the other players, so I directed him to the guides and forums online. In addition to the learning how to advance a character, he also absorbed their warnings about evil GMs.
Thus, his character, never a trusting sort, began making weird warnings. For example, I planted a black blade where the party's bladebound magus would find it just in time for his 3rd level Black Blade ability. It was in the hands of a deceased magus. The intelligent blade described the nearby monster that had killed his former master. And the newbie's character said, "I think the blade is in league with the monster." What?!
I have some informal agreements with my players to encourage more than hack-and-slash play. If they try to gather information, then they will find some information. And I will drop some kind of warning if they approach an encounter that is too dangerous for them. If they wander in safe territory, then I don't bother with random encounters, but if they wander in untamed territory, then I will roll random encounters. The newbie, after any NPC reveals some information about what the party seeks, will warn, "He might be leading us into a trap!" Yet he is the one who wanders alone in untamed territory, and twice I have rolled 100 on him for the most dangerous encounter.
And I am the only GM this newbie has ever played under, so every warning about evil GMs feels like an insult. And the other players, when the newbie suggests some nasty trick I might play, exclaim, "Stop giving him ideas!" (I have used one or two. After all, they were warned by the newbie's character.)
As for how trustworthy I am, I make mistakes. It does not matter that the mistake was unintentional, it can still be rough on the party. I do listen to my players when they claim I have a rule wrong, and one player pages through the rulebook for a reference as we try to continue as far as we can without a definitive ruling.
The trust I have for the GM is pretty much baked in to the trust I invest that spending time with these people is going to be more pleasant than doing something else. Boundaries are pretty much just ordinary social boundaries.
I've played enough of these things that I've seen bad ideas run well and good ideas run badly, so I'm generally content to wait for something to see how something plays out before I form an opinion on it. If a GM is doing something, presumably it's because in their opinion it was going to be the most fun, interesting, or engaging thing. Maybe they're wrong, but the place, manner, and time to talk about "bad GM calls" is privately, supportively, and in between games.
|
I tell any new players that I GM that my role is to be a storyteller and adjudicator and occasional cat-herder. If I do those two things well, then that is me 'winning'. I also tell them that if there is any point where they feel the relationship between GM a players is looking like us versus him, then I have done something very wrong and I want them to bring it up.
After that, it is up to me to follow through on the two roles. If I do a good job, the trust will come. My games have generally went very well. If anything, it is the player relationships that cause more problems (that's the cat-herding role). :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all probably a fairly silly question but how much do you trust the GM to be totally fair !
I am always and at all times completely fair.
Not necessarily nice, honest, or possessed of a conscious, but I am fair. All characters have an equal chance of falling prey to my schemes.
I expect the game to be a 'playing with' situation. If it ever feels like a 'playing against' situation, then a discussion needs to be had.
I don’t understand the question.
What does ‘fair’ mean when playing a creative storytelling game?
I treat my GMs with respect and assume I will get the same in return, it usually works out.
Worrying about whether a GM is ‘fair’ sounds absurdly confrontational.
Agreed, However:
A lot of folk play the game as more of a competitive wargame than a cooperative storytelling game. If you view the game as a competition, then fairness becomes an issue.
I don’t understand the question.
What does ‘fair’ mean when playing a creative storytelling game?
I treat my GMs with respect and assume I will get the same in return, it usually works out.
Worrying about whether a GM is ‘fair’ sounds absurdly confrontational.
Agreed, However:
A lot of folk play the game as more of a competitive wargame than a cooperative storytelling game. If you view the game as a competition, then fairness becomes an issue.
If the game ever devolves into a competition, the GM wins.
He has infinite resources.
I have zero qualms about ending a campaign that devolves into a player vs. GM fight. If anyone wants that type of game, I'll break out my tyranids.
I don't trust me at all!
I mean, just look at me, I practically ooze suspicion.
Maybe, if I overthrow myself...
Ninja'd!
You do ooze.
Suspicion, that is.
Competition does not have to be mean spirited or vicious. It is not part of my normal chosen playstyle, but it is OK.
From the olden times,
Dave Hargrave's table was very intense, and a certain degree of competition was a part of it. One of his favorite "rules" was that "You can out-think me, but you can never out-gun me." Now, I should point out that he loved it when we we came up with ideas he didn't think of and gave out extra rewards for clever ideas. It was competitive, but not hostile.
I don’t understand the question.
What does ‘fair’ mean when playing a creative storytelling game?
I treat my GMs with respect and assume I will get the same in return, it usually works out.
Worrying about whether a GM is ‘fair’ sounds absurdly confrontational.
Fair meaning treating the players fairly, not favoring one over the other. Not abusing the station the GM holds. As a GM, I'm not always concerned if a player likes every decision I make. However, I make it clear that I'm open to what they have to say and will listen to their side of a disagreement, but the ruling is still mine to make based on the rules and how the campaign is going.
Being a fair player to the group, basically. Treating everyone with respect is a part of that, I believe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People play with GMs they don't trust?
Only as far as I can smell them.
Are they downwind or upwind?
I've stopped playing with DMs who don't roll out in the open, been burned too many times.
Trust but verify with play. If they start getting too far off the path and I get the sense that we aren't going to mesh, I'll excuse myself from the game rather than have problems later.
As a GM, I try to be open and fair with people and not give them reason to believe I am out to get them or otherwise be unfair. That doesn't mean that their idea of "fun" will match up with mine or everyone else's. Sometimes people don't like how I GM. You cannot make everyone happy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've stopped playing with DMs who don't roll out in the open, been burned too many times.
I stopped rolling in the open because players reacted to my rolls with out of game knowledge.
"Oh, I rolled a one on my perception check. Guess I don't spot anything. Say, for no reason why don't you come over here and take a look"
"Oh, I rolled poorly on my spellcraft. Guess any information I'm given is false!"
Etc
This so much. I had a friend try and get us into a Dungeon World campaign a few months back. God, I hated it.And that's a huge part of why I play (and GM) Pathfinder. . . . The rules-light systems frankly disturb me.
As an avid Dungeon World player, this statement (in the context of this thread) makes zero sense to me. Like, there's literally nothing to trust/distrust the DM on in DW. If the DM isn't letting you trigger moves, then they're doing a bad job as a DM. As in they are literally applying the rules incorrectly. It'd be like a DM in pathfinder telling you to roll a d10 for attack rolls.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
110% or go home. That's the only way the game works.
I usually have players rolling that.
I find it influences their decisions if they know the results, if the roll commits them to an action or can be easily retried they can roll it. Otherwise I get a bit of metagaming the results. One of my players is particularly bad about this, so I just adopted it as rules for my games in general. I figure not everyone is good at segmenting their in game and out of game knowledge, and picking/choosing who can roll what is just another way of playing favorites.
Plus, not knowing their result makes them pay more attention to the fluff I feed them as to their result.