In general, I have issues with GM's hiding their rolls and telling us what they want.
If they are afraid of us seeing the dice and figuring out his creature's attack bonuses, then that's his choice I suppose, but if I ever find out he's fudged the numbers (up OR down) I'm apt to leave the game.
To me, I'm not playing in the DM's prison, he's not my guardian or my executioner. He's just the guy who's controlling the world, the AI so to speak.
I prefer to see GM's as (and I GM as) a simple referee, an arbiter of the interaction of the world and the rules among the PC's.
(For what it's worth, I seem to mostly be DMing these days, though I'm a player at heart.)
I play D&D for close to 20 yers now, been near full-time GM for a long the better part of that time, atm we have two campaigns running and I put my campaign on hold for a while, I simply do not have the time to commit to preparing an interesting gaming session every week.
I will continue my campaign when I can properly prepare, fortunately we are blessed with multiple persons willing and capable to DM.
I have to say this though : I HIDE MY ROLLS, HELL I EVEN FUDGE THEM !
so now that I said that.. I do not usually do so in an encounter designed for some steel-to-steel combat unless I discover I made a huge miscalculation in my preparations.
I do this to enhance a storyline I set up, sometimes (though rarely) it just works better if you assume something happens, and why not.. I write the story.
If it suits my story purpose to succeed or fail on a roll I am not going to bother rolling it, not that this is in any way a normal course of action, but I might do it.
Players will just have to trust I do not do it to screw them over when I do, which I don't, it's not hard for a DM to do this you know...
If I feel like knocking the players out with a sleep poison, I might just describe them feeling unusually light headed before they see the floor rushing towards them after eating a hearty meal at the tavern.
I won't use the automatic fail to kill them or steal them of every item they possess though.
Just had to mention it ^^ I generally tend to play my encounters straight off, players might die, BBEG's might fall to a single spell, but it does keep things exciting this way.
I don't often run into any serious disagreement, my players know I am a fair judge, they might not agree and discuss it and sometimes I am swayed, sometimes I have to call DM fiat and leave it at that.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
[let's keep it CIVIL please, I'm not starting this as a flame war thread but as a place to put out your opinions.]
These days, I'm a full time GM.
Depends on the GM, really. Like most, I've had good and bad. Funny thing is, the longest running campaign I played in (6 years) was horrible with DM control (he once changed- or rather, had the king magically change- my character's alignment because I didn't agree to go on the mission for the king). I still managed to have a blast with the character.
I firmly believe that the rules aren't meant to be a straightjacket. If I have to stop the game and dig around for some obscure rule, I'm disrupting the game just as if someone starts chatting on their cell phone.
Of course, messageboards are a different world. Gamers will argue (IMO) inane points ad nauseum, especially on the internet. To take a few recent examples: "Mages could use cantrips to disrupt the world's economy by forming X guild . . .", "I own a pair of sai and therefore I know . . . ", "I'm in the SCA, so I know all about wearing armor . . . ", "I studied martial arts so in my opinion . . .", "I've got a degree in history and bows weren't used like that . . . . " After a meaningful discussion of a particular rule, it's entirely appropriate to say "Well if you don't like it, change it in your game." Because that's all the argument really comes down to.
That is a reason I tend to ignore rules discussions unless the topic is of extreme interest.
mostly I browse the forum for interesting ideas I can implement, or when I cant figure out how something is applied.. I pick the answer I like best and move on ^^
As a final arbiter of the rules type of thing? Yeah... ultimately, the DM has the final say. That isn't to say that he shouldn't keep everyone's happiness in mind, or accept input from players, but the DM needs to keep the game going and should be the one making the final call. He can agree with the player's interpretation, it's still the DM making the call that the player's interpretation is the one they will use. That's why he's the referee.
I've seen (as a player) and handled (as a DM) odd situations in a number of ways:
- The DM decided to allow the strange/unclear/odd interpretation for this combat only and write it off as something of a heroic moment. After the game (between sessions) the DM and player(s) decide how they'll handle this thing, and moving forward, handle it the new way.
- The DM (me in this case) grossly underestimated the power of the party. Due to home-made class abilities "that-should-not-be", and just plain old forgetting some abilities, etc, they spend 2 rounds killing what should have been (and was described as) a really amazing and eventful combat (albeit with no-name creatures).
In this case, I've personally pumped up the hitpoints of the creature(s), or simply added additional creatures to the combat to "liven things up".
Not the same as fudging dice rolls, I guess, but it is changing things arbitrarily (not the stats from the MM entry, etc).
- The player asked to do something cinematic/cool/great-story-wise, but it's outside of the normal rules for combat/spells/abilities/etc.
In this case, I've asked the player to roll an appropriate skill check (DC 10 or 15 or higher if it's a hard thing they intend to do). Basically like an "aid another" check on themselves, but to get added functionality instead of a +2 bonus.
If they fail? Depending on the game setting I make comical storytelling to describe their action. Want to move, pick up an item and still make two attacks in one round? Make an Acrobatics check! Failed? You attempted to jump over the barstool, but your toes caught, fell flat on your face, and only managed to get to your item and pick it up.
These are all DM fiat that I feel if fine. Even fudging dice rolls might be okay on occasion and depending on the situation, however the DM really should have taken control of the situation before having to let it get to that point.
It also depends on what the players want too. Some groups are more about collaborative storytelling, and if fudging dice rolls makes the story what everyone wanted, then there's no issue.
As a full time DM I try to give as much slack as possible to my players. However, if a conflict comes up during the game, I am the last word. I am willing to listen to what they have to say after the game and away from the table, but ultimately it is my job to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the game is fun.This. I GM for fun, too; if I'm not having fun, then someone else can step up to the plate.
+1
If you don't like DM Fiat, then go play a video game. Can't do anywhere near as much, in fact, you're automatically railroaded as to what you can or can't do. DM fiat exists because there HAS to be final say on a ruling, and also because the rules can't cover everything.
Also, I completely disagree with kyrt-ryder. The DM should NOT roll out in the open. You (as a player and a character) are not supposed to know how powerful a creature is, and that includes attack bonuses, damages of attacks, save bonuses, or AC, hell, even save DC's for their special abilities. A DM shouldn't say "Make a fort save, DC 23," he should say "Make a fort save," take note of the total, and let the player know if he passed or not. Also, you're not supposed to know that the DM just made a secret perception roll to see if you noticed something that you weren't particularly looking for, cause if you did, you'd know there's something there for you to notice. Rolling in the open leads to (often unintentional, and even unaware) metagaming, and rolling behind the screen eliminates that problem.
Now I can understand not liking the DM fudging rolls, but I tend to disagree. Only for story purposes though, or to keep your 10th level fighter from dying because one measley goblin got a lucky shot on you in the third room of the dungeon. Then again, I'm a storyteller, not a simulationist, though I very very VERY rarely fudge rolls anyway.
(Part time player, full-time DM)
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
I think as some have mentioned that there is a bit of a generational disconnect on this question, as well as anecdotal.
I personally am a big fan of DM fiat, but as one tool in a 'toolbox' of sorts. I've played D&D since '79, and I have been party to many differing gamestyles and DMs over the years through high school, college and the military. I currently run four PbPs right here on this forum and play in several others.
Picture DM fiat as a scalpel. Now, a scalpel can be invaluable when trying to slice a Gordian Knot or perform surgery. The scalpel is less handy when someone sticks it in your eye. Is it the scalpel's fault it is in your eye? Or the weilder's? If a scalpel saved your life, you'd likely think kindly of it. If you've lost an eye to one, not so much.
No set of rules can cover everything. That being said, one of the reasons I love 3X/Pathfinder is that there ARE rules to cover a lot of things that had to be 'DM fiated' in the past. I'd rather have a nice mechanic in place than have to think up a reasonable roll for people to make, which can often be perceived as arbitrary.
Back in the 'good old days' the DM had control over much more of the rule structure than now. If the DM was benevolent and fair-minded, all goes well. It's when you have someone who uses their DM fiat powers to belittle the other players or to make 'their' NPCs the heroes that you begin to have a problem. It's not the DM fiat, it's the DM.
Of course, the problem you see now is the pendulum swinging the other way. Players begin to have a sense of entitlement, and there is a proliferation of 'rules lawyering'. However, I'd much rather have this problem than the DM making up rules at a whim. I think if everyone in the game acts mature and agrees to abide by the DM's descisions as long as he doesn't abuse the fiat power then the game will go much smoother.
My 2CP.
The problems I see with "GM fiat" are legacy issue from when the game was still in it's infancy. Don't get me wrong, E. Gary Gygax is a god in my country, but he had a very "me vs. them" mentality when it came to running his games.
As a matter of preface, I run a Hackmaster game.
I should point out that Gygax himself iterates several times that the DM is an *impartial Adjudicator* - he spoke out in the DMG against both being for the players ("Just because they missed something, don't give it to them") and being against them.
As the adjudicator, the DM has the final say, but it's in the interest of what makes sense and is fun. What people forget is that survival is a reward, and not guaranteed.
|
I will mention this because a few people have brought this up. I had a problem for a while of having a reputation of being a "Killer DM." I absolutely refused to save anyone C or NPC from their own stupidity or poor die rolls. As such, about ever three weeks someone was rolling up a new character, generally as a result of their own stupidity. I mean, seriously who throws down alchemist fire to free themselves from tar spread on the ground?
However, I realized that while my players had agreed in abstract to the idea of straight rolls with everyone seeing them, in practice dieing every few weeks because of a few lucky die rolls on my part, a few bad die rolls on their part, or just generally poor plnning was not much fun. So I changed my methods. Sure the guy who throws alchemist fire at his feat while standing in tar is still going to do, as is the guy who mixes the chemicals wrong and creates an explosion. However, not everyone in the party will die with them, even if they are in the blast radius specified by the adventure. I also began to randomize my attacks in combat, by using a d6 (since I have six players) to determine who gets attacked by each opponent that round. This is how I handle DM fiat in thise situations to make things more fun for my players.
I have a problem with the idea that it is the GM's game for one simple reason. The GM is one of 4 or 5 people involved in the game. Without the players there is no GM, because there is no game. That said the GM needs a certain level of authority or the whole thing falls apart. That authority requires trust, and the whole "its the GM's game" idea creates an atmosphere that easily leads to the abuse of said trust. I've known more people driven out of a game or gaming as a whole by that abuse of power and trust.
Graywulfe
The flip side to that is that there is also no game without a GM. Being the GM is arguably the least 'rewarding' role in the group. It takes more time and effort by far to be the GM than it does to be a player. The GM does not go home with a character sheet and the goodies - material or otherwise - that the character(s) accrued.
Trust at a game table is mutual - and there are extremes of behavior on both sides of the screen. It is easy to be abusive and unpleasant whether as a player or as the GM. There have been and certainly will be to come many attestations demonstrating such behavior.
I do agree that 'abuse of power' can occur - and that it is the social group's (represented by those at that table) collective responsibility to address such issues when they do. Times like these are when a GM needs to take a break, let some one else GM for a while and enjoy being a player again. Some times the GMs friends need to let their buddy know that time has come. Maybe the GM needs a few weeks or months, maybe even a year to 'clear the Etch-a-Sketch'.
If the GMs friends fail to 'uphold the social contract', who is the one truly suffering - the players or the GM? Many people far more easily perceive when things are not going well with others than for themselves.
If you don't like DM Fiat, then go play a video game.
Or just find a better GM, because I'm betting the real source of people's displeasure is a poor GM abusing fiat instead of GM fiat per se. (Or try talking to the GM outside of the game so that they can become a better GM, if they're a reasonably mature person.)
|
Agreed with Mairkurion.
Its the meta-game issue, extending from a player munchkining to the GM level. I don't think its necessarily bad in-and-of itself, but the abusive GM can destroy a game utilizing bad fiat.
I've had a GM that I tried talking to outside of the game because I had been hearing complaints from other players about how he ran the game. He took it personally, and began running encounters to "get" my character and would deny me access to items and feats he'd let other players have the very next session. I left the group, obviously, and slowly and surely the rest of the group trickled away too.
Talking to the GM isn't always the best bet. It should be the first step, but everyone should be willing to walk away if they can. Its not worth playing with anyone who is abusive.
Whew! Sounds like some harrowing experiences with horrible GMs that have been posted here, and I feel for those of you who had to experience them.
DM fiat is like a car. In the right hands, it is a useful tool to get things moving. In the hands of a horrible driver, it is a 1-ton death machine on wheels! :)
|
|
Whew! Sounds like some harrowing experiences with horrible GMs that have been posted here, and I feel for those of you who had to experience them.
DM fiat is like a car. In the right hands, it is a useful tool to get things moving. In the hands of a horrible driver, it is a 1-ton death machine on wheels! :)
Exactly right. A GM who makes bad decisions and designs will often destroy his own game, but it is the players who must make the decision to stop enabling such bad behavior.
I've seen an otherwise fantastic DM (actually, the best I've ever played with) get stuck in ruts, so that he was pissing off players and making playing not fun for the majority. With adjustments made on both sides, happiness was increased. A certain kind of humility, goodwill, and maturity is needed in such situations for communication to achieve the desired effect, and it may take some time or a break for the GM in question. But we've all gamed with a!&@@+*s I suspect, and the answer there is: don't. It's a more important rule when it comes to the GM versus a single player who's not the GM, but I prefer to have a no-ahole game on the whole.
It all must be a taste thing - I don't mind GM's making a ruling, though I also appreciate a bit of insight as to how they come to the decision, but generally once the call is made I prefer to get on with the game :)
So long as its fun, 90%RAW works just fine.
Of course it's also good at the outset if the GM can tell you what sort of things are not on, such as dodgy feat chains leading to exploit etc... saves disappointment later.
As a full time DM I try to give as much slack as possible to my players. However, if a conflict comes up during the game, I am the last word. I am willing to listen to what they have to say after the game and away from the table, but ultimately it is my job to make sure that everything runs smoothly and that the game is fun.This. I GM for fun, too; if I'm not having fun, then someone else can step up to the plate.+1
If you don't like DM Fiat, then go play a video game. Can't do anywhere near as much, in fact, you're automatically railroaded as to what you can or can't do. DM fiat exists because there HAS to be final say on a ruling, and also because the rules can't cover everything.
Also, I completely disagree with kyrt-ryder. The DM should NOT roll out in the open. You (as a player and a character) are not supposed to know how powerful a creature is, and that includes attack bonuses, damages of attacks, save bonuses, or AC, hell, even save DC's for their special abilities. A DM shouldn't say "Make a fort save, DC 23," he should say "Make a fort save," take note of the total, and let the player know if he passed or not. Also, you're not supposed to know that the DM just made a secret perception roll to see if you noticed something that you weren't particularly looking for, cause if you did, you'd know there's something there for you to notice. Rolling in the open leads to (often unintentional, and even unaware) metagaming, and rolling behind the screen eliminates that problem.
Now I can understand not liking the DM fudging rolls, but I tend to disagree. Only for story purposes though, or to keep your 10th level fighter from dying because one measley goblin got a lucky shot on you in the third room of the dungeon. Then again, I'm a storyteller, not a simulationist, though I very very VERY rarely fudge rolls anyway.
(Part time player, full-time DM)
I'll up your +1 with another +1 and what you said. ;)
I would also like to respond to what VV said about the game not being the DMs game, but the groups.
I'll agree with that if the group helped the DM design the world, helped the DM design the encounters, prepped the maps, made sure encounters won't be too out of whack, helped plan for 10 different contingencies and watch the players do something you've never even thought of, run combat, run every damned NPC in the game... Oh yeah, and placate the rules lawyer, the drama queen (or king), AND the guy trying to imitate Lion-O so that the other three players can have a good time, too.
Yeah, then it's "the groups" game. Until then, it's at least half the DMs game.
As far as a-hole DMs with bad fiat rulings? Leave the game and find a "Good DM" TM. Forcing people to play RAW... well, why aren't you playing Warhammer?
It all must be a taste thing - I don't mind GM's making a ruling, though I also appreciate a bit of insight as to how they come to the decision, but generally once the call is made I prefer to get on with the game :)
So long as its fun, 90%RAW works just fine.
Of course it's also good at the outset if the GM can tell you what sort of things are not on, such as dodgy feat chains leading to exploit etc... saves disappointment later.
This.
One thing I always try to do is run anything odd that I am looking at doing by the DM before I start putting it together. The idea is if I can say, "Look I ran this by you, you okayed it even when I told you the full extent of what I will do with it." Then I'm not being the "jerk who did too much and broke the game" and he's not being the "jerk who DM fiated something awesome" unless he is actually being said jerk.
By clarifying what I can expect I can also clarify what he is allowing, making it better for everyone.
|
|
I am 100% opposed to this new school player narrative garbage. Players decide their level of involvement, if they want to be heroes - have at, if they want to be bums or let other people do the work then their characters (and how they develop) will reflect this. There is no default setting, I AM A HERO and I CAN DO THIS. If people want that then they should stick to single player protagonist games, where everyone and everything is just there to show how badass they are- oh yeah, follow a script. That's not D&D though. D&D is better than a movie or a book because it DOESN'T follow these conventions.
With all that being said I did survive 80's-90's DMing. Most of the time I was the DM but on occasion I did get to play and the experience could be very "swingy". If a DM is running a world with some good internal constancy and gave the player who wanted to try something heroic the opportunity to do so (maybe even "more' than a fair chance) then everything was good. It was ridiculous when it became a me vs them scenario. That is on both sides of the table - once with the DM showing how hard he can be and the other with the players showing how he punched a hole in the DM's world. Neither one is what ANY RPG is about. I lay out the world, players can decide (to a degree consistent with that world) who they are and what they are about.
I think that whole era had some bad DM's because good DMing philosophy, ideas, examples were not really out there. At least not like there is now. I don't think it's because players started to take more control over the game. Again, if that is the case then the whole thing turns into a game of player vs DM, trying to see who can one up the other via the rules, builds, combos (Wotc era D&D), and that just sucks.
And as others had mentioned the DM is not some kind of damn AI, he is there to enjoy running and playing the game also. Getting to see if he can come up with some interesting scenarios/motion and then watching the players react and interact once that motion is set.
As far as adjudicating rules the DM is there (and as long as there is a need for a DM) to manage those situations. I always listen to any arguments, but if it detracts from fun, takes away time then I rule on it and we discuss it later. If it doesn't lead to player death any changes that need to be made can be made out of game when discussing the situation.
All rolls on the DM side should be made in secret (IMO) since this is a numbers crunching game and I want a sense of unknown/fear to remain for my players. If they don't trust me with that then yeah, as a group we have a bigger problem then secret die rolls. The flipside is I don't want to know my players current hit points. I want to know if they are slightly wounded, wounded or pretty bad off. I trust my players to do the right thing without letting me know exactly where they are at - it's a two way street.
I'm a fan of everybody, DM and players alike, making all rolls where everyone can see. This keeps everyone honest, and leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that the simulation of reality (or at least a fantasy version thereof) is untainted and fair.
I respect that some DMs prefer to hide their rolls, and I will make some rolls in secret (those that the RAW suggest should be made in secret by the GM, such as Perception checks made by elves to notice secret doors within 10 ft. or whatever), but I (and my players) get the most satisfaction from knowing that everything was on the level.
The problem with hiding some rolls is the players figure out that when the GM rolls behind the screen (unless you tend to do random rolls like I do, rolls that don't really mean anything mixed in among those that do) then they tend to see that something specific is going on and go into hyper alert mode.I'm a fan of everybody, DM and players alike, making all rolls where everyone can see. This keeps everyone honest, and leaves no doubt in anyone's mind that the simulation of reality (or at least a fantasy version thereof) is untainted and fair.
I respect that some DMs prefer to hide their rolls, and I will make some rolls in secret (those that the RAW suggest should be made in secret by the GM, such as Perception checks made by elves to notice secret doors within 10 ft. or whatever), but I (and my players) get the most satisfaction from knowing that everything was on the level.
True. I do make random meaningless rolls from time to time for that very reason. Also, I will sometimes (though only occasionally, as it does slow things down a bit) draw the inn/shop/campsite/etc. on the battle mat and have the players place their minis even though nothing is about to happen. It keeps players on their toes. >:D
It was ridiculous when it became a me vs them scenario. That is on both sides of the table - once with the DM showing how hard he can be and the other with the players showing how he punched a hole in the DM's world. Neither one is what ANY RPG is about.
*Dances down the aisle and before the altar, a la Jim Belushi.*
And just for keeping score, I will also say I'm with you on the DM die rolling. Assuming trust, there's more suspense and immersion if the players are depending on DM narration, not making inferences from watching die rolls.
I can see where youre coming from Xaaoon, there is a very strong willed group of people around here who seem to think their way is the only way (Im even like that to a point). Overall I think people just need to chill out some. There seems to be a lot of extreme opinions around here and people seem to easily forget that every game is different and that if you arent having fun you can take your stuff and go home. How I run a game (gritty, realistic, full of psychic's and horror filled events) isnt going to interest someone who isnt a roleplayer. Neither would I be entertained if I joined a game and found zero roleplay going on. Neither game example is wrong, theyre just different and people forget that its ok to be different and its ok to disagree.
Couple things I want to touch on so far. 1st hiding rolls:. I do hide some rolls, not all but some. Im notorius for hiding Perception (spot & listen) checks for the players. The reason being that if I ask for a perception roll the players know that theres something out of the ordinary. Even the most anti-metagaming player is going to think about what it could be and how they can gain an advantage. Its just human nature. If an illusion goes off I also hide the players saves and tell only the characters who saved that what theyre seeing is an illusion. I do this by keeping a 3 by 5 card with the players name and important statistics on it (hit points, AC, will save, and perception bonus). I call these initiative cards and when combat starts I arrange them from highest to lowest initiative, moving the front card to the back when a player takes their actions (this really speeds up combat and keeps all the neccessary info I need in my hand).
DM vs the players mentality: Im really not sure where this attitude started although I know its appeared in a few popular blogs and media over the years (the most famous I can think of is Penny arcade which is supposed to be taken as Satire). This is probably the worst advice you can give a DM or a group of players. The DMs job is a big one and we get little respect for the hours of personal time we sacrifice to run a game. Even so, sacrifice of time does not give us a license to be jerks. Our job is to create an enjoyable gaming experience so that we and the rest of the group has fun. Our job is not to screw over players, challenge yes, screw over no. At the same time players have to understand that they cant be jerks either, theyre hear to play the game and have fun. Not to alienate their friends
Rule 0: The DM is the final arbitrator of the rules but they need to be flexible too. If you players dont like a call the DM makes you have a couple of options. First you can ask for a break and talk to the DM about it (dont do this during the game, thats just rude). Second, you can just accept the rule but note that you want to talk about it later (after the game or during a break). Third, you can leave the game, be polite about it and tell them why before getting your stuff and going home. Tell them you'll be back next time if you want to give it another shot or if you're sure you wont enjoy yourself from there on tell them you wont be coming by to play again. No matter what option you take try to be polite about it
Rule 1: Have fun. Or at least thats my rule #1. Fun is a very subjective term that varies from person to person. Some people find being buried in grease and gas while they work on a muscle car fun, while I find it boring. I have fun roleplaying and telling a story with the gameplay while others play the game purely for the love of a combat system or because of competitive reasons. Its important to know what kind of game your DMs enjoy and its likewise important for the DM to understand what kind of game you (the player) enjoy. Working together you can make the whole game fun for yourselves and everyone else but you have to be willing to put the time in. If you dont work together with the DM and the rest of the group Rule 1 cant succeed
Finally: DM fiat's are fine when worked out with the players. I think people around the forums just need to chill out and realize that opinions are by definition subjective. None of them are straight out fact
|
I have been slapped down by several posters on this server when I mention that the DM is the final word on adjudicating the rules.
I've been playing D&D since 83.
I almost always end up DMing since no one else wants to step up and DM. So after all these years of DMing (and making house rules), I have developed a strong "My game" mentality.
I want to know why there is so much anti-DM control sentimentality when it comes to this subject.
I understand people who want to play it RAW, but when a rule is interpreted multiple ways it can be a hindrance. When certain combinations of abilities/feats/spells are used it can cause the DM to lose control of the game, or cause players to not have fun, because X player is hogging the spotlight. I know as DM I can personally pick the meanest nastiest monsters to kill my players in every encounter, but I'm not there to win the game, I'm there to provide fun for me and my players.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
[let's keep it CIVIL please, I'm not starting this as a flame war thread but as a place to put out your opinions.]
The Gamemaster IS the rules. Period. A good gamemaster serves the campaign first, the overall game second, and the characters third. Players growing up on the D&D of the 2000s, have been taught that old skool DMs were bad, they were taught that Gygax killed characters, and that players are entitled to invoke the 50 book collection of volumous wotci splat rules as though it could trump, control, or contain the DM. Perhaps this was a reaction from years of a vocal minority of crappy DMs ruining the reputation of the job for the general mainstream? Or perhaps a collection of half-truths and fractured game history as taught by marketing masterminds trying to sell a different Hasbro game under the popular name Dungeons & Dragons - with an in acurate selling point of game balance and diminished responsibilities of the DM.
Fact is - the ability for players to act as baracks rule lawyers has been generally growing since the late 2e years, stronger during 3e, and strongest during 4e. In inverse proportion was the decreased involvement with the games creators Gygax and Arneson. Once Magic the Gathering took off as a popular game system that didn't require much of the human adjudication and spontaneous imagination that Gary's original game required, a growing culture of desensitized youth was concurrently raised on movies from Speilberg that s p e l l e d - o u t everything the viewer needed to know. The foundational crisis in gaming imho is the movement by marketers of the wotci to slowly move the game Dungeons and Dragons toward their original flagship game, Magic the Gathering.
I recently acquired many copies of Dragon Magazine from the late 1990s and early 2000s and re-read some comments from none other than Wolfgang Bauer who explained that the company who purchased "D&D" in 1999-2000 was never really good at role-playing games nor developing that kind of game. Instead they were really about card games. I belive the world will see a sterile, widgeted, card-game called D&D 5e by 2012. And appropriately so, for this growing apocalypse of the game's original design has been slowing becoming eclipsed by the "dark sun" of Bill Slavicsek's R&D for the past decade.
I do belive that Ryan Dancey and some others saw this happening and did manage to get the OGL out the door for those of us who did start playing in 1983 like many others. Using the OGL, the actual game design created by Gygax and Arneson need never to be lost to cultural memory, even though the actual "brand" has been prostituted to sell editions like 4e and beyond imho. It has been, and will continue to be my belief that lighting doesn't strike twice for people like Perkins and Slavicsec who championed the creation of Star Wars Minis game, influenced the creation of the 3e Miniatures Handbook, and eventually drove the miniatures game toward the mainstream.
All of this support the ideas asked about in the OPs question. Chiefly, the attitudes of players against "DMs". And please, even if you disagree, try to harvest my message in this next paragraph:
>>DM Fiat had always been part of the art that made great games. The art of seeing the game through the singular mind's eye of the dungeonmaster seems to have been lost to modern gaming. This shift, I belive, came mainly from wotc who wanted to sell 3.0/v.3.5 books at an alarming rate, and which contained "for the first time" both player and DM information in-the-same-books. This MAJOR shift was likely done because of money - and to sell six books to six people, rather than 6 books to 1 DM, and only 1 book (the Players Handbook) to each player. This factual shift is understood also by many FLGS owners.
In sum, the rules lawyering has been encouraged for a decade to sell more books. (My theory - marketing ads said delivered the message 'you need this book to help your character survive against the DM'). Thus the "adversarial DM' model was brought to mainstream, with simultaneous bashing of Gygax as that company wanted to distance itsef from the prior TSR company to help build its own new editions identies.
Thank you for reading my thoughts. I welcome disagreement and believe deeply in your right to hold that view without argument. But as those of us playing since 1983, I guess we've seen what we've seen, we know what we know, and more than 25 years of datapoints combined should still be worth something more than to be dismissed as a 'hater' or 'old school'. Simply put, most aging gamers remember more clearly the truth of the games history than most of what modern Web sites, marketing, and spat books have led newer gamers to understand.
Case Study: in March 2006 I ran a campaign that lasted until May of 2008. At the table were old school 2e gamers with very minor experience in 1e, along side modern gamers born on Pokemon, Magic the Gathering, and v.3.5. We also had a brand new player who was still in high school. We spent the first year realizing that the ruleset was a good improvement over 2e, but still written with minis elements such as "squares" and gridplay feat rules. We listened to newer players discuss "character builds" as though that was meant by "character development". Bah. And we experienced a wonderful clash of worlds, where I strived to run the game RAW (rules as written). The result of truly adhering to every last rule - - - - -as you know, is a generally boring game that mechanically results in "average" everthing over time, i.e. "oh, the evil Lich raises its powerful spell against the paladin.... and misses his ranged attack roll." *yawn*.
So, DM fiat (GM fiat) is a vital and necessary part of the game. Period. GM fiat isn't something to be discussed and highlighted, nor argued about based on p.13 rules. Character builds and player books do not, and must never trump the DM. The game master is, and always will be the final arbiter of the game. And any game that relegates this supreme and important role has lost its D&D DNA.
*Thanks for listening*
-Pax Veritas
|
|
I'll up your +1 with another +1 and what you said. ;)I would also like to respond to what VV said about the game not being the DMs game, but the groups.
I'll agree with that if the group helped the DM design the world, helped the DM design the encounters, prepped the maps, made sure encounters won't be too out of whack, helped plan for 10 different contingencies and watch the players do something you've never even thought of, run combat, run every damned NPC in the game... Oh yeah, and placate the rules lawyer, the drama queen (or king), AND the guy trying to imitate Lion-O so that the other three players can have a good time, too.
Yeah, then it's "the groups" game. Until then, it's at least half the DMs game.
As far as a-hole DMs with bad fiat rulings? Leave the game and find a "Good DM" TM. Forcing people to play RAW... well, why aren't you playing Warhammer?
Well I had a really long post that got lost. So to sum it up. I include the GM in "the group." RPG's should be fun for all involved. I GM. I use GM Fiat, but I do so with an eye towards the fun of everyone at the table. I resolve problems in my games, whether that requires a change in my attitude, a change in my players attitude, a change in my or my player's understanding or expectations, removing myself from running the game, or kicking out a player.
Sorry for the abridged version
Graywulfe
|
|
Well I had a really long post that got lost. So to sum it up. I include the GM in "the group." RPG's should be fun for all involved. I GM. I use GM Fiat, but I do so with an eye towards the fun of everyone at the table. I resolve problems in my games, whether that requires a change in my attitude, a change in my players attitude, a change in my or my player's understanding or expectations, removing myself from running the game, or kicking out a player.
Sorry for the abridged version
Graywulfe
Everyone should keep this in mind at the table.
EDIT: We should all be calm too, the OP doesn't want this to be a flamewar and tempers can flare high so just be ready for inflammatory remarks. Just ignore them if you can.
|
The Gamemaster IS the rules. Period. A good gamemaster serves the campaign first, the overall game second, and the characters third.
This is how I run my games too as a full time DM, with a few breaks here and there. When I start a campaign, I have an idea in mind. That means things may change unexpectedly. You spells may suddenly work different. Fighters may not be allowed. Spellcaster may be limited to three spells, whatever. I also will not explain most of it. I know what is happening behind the scenes of a game, and sometimes it means people living when the should be dead, or dying when they had a ton of hit points left. My players don't bug me about why it is against the rules, or if I cheated, because they know there is a reason, and they trust that it will make sense down the road. Or if it doesn't make sense, that's OK to, because the overall experience of the campaign will be better for it. My players trust me.
That is a big issue I think. If players don't trust their dm to make decision that is best for the game, then maybe they will be ready to fight for a rule, or roll, but if you have faith in your dm, you play it like a player. Try to look for in game reasons, or move along, and enjoy what the DM has cooked up for you. If you come to my game telling me what I am doing is wrong (even if the rules support you), you will quickly be shown the door.
My job as a DM is to make sure we all have fun, I take it seriously when I run. Getting confrontational with me over the game is insulting me, telling me I don't know what I'm doing. For the time I put in to a campaign, I have no tolerance for that.
Now, if I have a campaign planned out where everyone is turned to rabbit or something, and no one like it, or the way a campaign is going and the changes that may have come up are not fun, I expect my players to tell me, and I will change it or scrap it and we will try something else, but I have rarely had that happen. Instead I get a lot of confused faces, some murmurs about what this or that is going to turn into to, and them when things are revealed a lot of smiles, shocks, laughing, sometimes groans, but mostly a lot of people showing that they had fun, and that makes it fun for me.
|
|
This is how I run my games too as a full time DM, with a few breaks here and there. When I start a campaign, I have an idea in mind. That means things may change unexpectedly. You spells may suddenly work different. Fighters may not be allowed. Spellcaster may be limited to three spells, whatever. I also will not explain most of it. I know what is happening behind the scenes of a game, and sometimes it means people living when the should be dead, or dying when they had a ton of hit points left. My players don't bug me about why it is against the rules, or if I cheated, because they know there is a reason, and they trust that it will make sense down the road. ...
The Gamemaster IS the rules. Period. A good gamemaster serves the campaign first, the overall game second, and the characters third.
If you and your players are having fun then I say more power to you.
That said, in my opinion, what you described is writing stories not running games. I could not deal with that style. I'm not a rules lawyer, but I need internal consistency to my world. As far as what you allow in the game at the outset, that falls totally into a GM's perogative, especially if they are open minded when a player has an idea that doesn't quite fit their plan. I have accepted when my GM has said no to an idea, I just want to understand the reasoning that gets us there. When I don't like the premise of a game I generally don't play.
Anyway your group enjoys your style so have fun.
Graywulfe
|
The Gamemaster IS the rules. Period. A good gamemaster serves the campaign first, the overall game second, and the characters third.
The GM is the referee and your friend. He serves the players first, then the game, which encompasses the characters and the campaign equally. The players serve their friends first, then the game. No one IS the rules. The rules are the rules, and they are an agreement between the players.
|
|
The GM is not just a referee, he's also the source of plot twists! :P
I am of the opinion that serving the campaign first should literally mean that you serve the players first, seeing as they are real and not the characters. I completely agree with TriOmegaZero though, the objective here is that everyone has fun.
GMfiat is about letting everyone have fun.
I used to have a player that would ask all kinds of questions such as: If I use my decanter of endless water to douse this room, then cast lightning bolt it should hit everyone right? To that I would say, no, its magical lightning so it just goes in a strait line. I only find out in a later campaign that he played in the GM who was running for him made his character take electricity damage because he was standing in a puddle. He argued it was magical lightning, but the GM said nope its electricity. The next room he entered in that GM's campaign was doused with a DoEW and then lightning bolt'd. They now use the "its magic" ruling.
So you do have to be careful with GM fiat, and IMO the best way to go is to follow the rules pretty closely if possible. Its only in oddball situations like the above that a GM should fiat on the fly.
But that brings up another issue. GM fiat that's well thought out versus GM fiat on the fly. I've seen more abuse with on the fly play than well thought out fiat.
Funny thing, I play for a while, and I've played all styles, and the funniest thing is I'm normally a Rules Lawyer. I stopped it a while ago, cause I saw the effect was bad. I like the rules, I like knowing the rules and when the DM doesn't go with the rules I get mad.
But the funny part is, there are those DMs one in specific that I play with for over 10 years, the same campaign, it's Old School Forgotten realms on second edition... and He does LOTS of stuff that make no sense to me whatsoever, but I don't argue, and today I know why, I trust him, completely. And that's the best game of my life because of it. My character is the "worst" in the game, regarding the rules. But I have TONS of fun, I don't care so much about the rules and I think that's why I enjoy it so much.
So, my point is. It's nice to know the rules in advance, it's necessary to know at least the rules regarding your character, in any game. But the rest is not necessary AT ALL. But for this to happen, you must REALLY trust your DM, if you don't, you won't have fun AND you will Rules Lawyer. I know it, cause I do it, and it's stressfull for me and for everyone around me, it's just not worth it.
lots of heartfelt truths...
I started playing in the 2000's, and strangely, I can't get-along with these new-schoolers, half the time. I honestly think (and this is very blasphemous)THE RULES ARE SECONDARY to story-telling, interaction, exploration, fun, and drama. Nothing breaks tension more then looking-up an obscure exception to a rule.
GM needs to rule, and rule fast, he doesn't need input during the game from his players, or even a rulebook. GM needs to make the game run smooth, and nothing should be able to stop him. Players want all the power, and it should be taken away! I love Paizo's approach to this, and I love when I see "subject to GM approval" all over the rulebook, it sends a message to my players.
If you want to GM your own game, then go ahead, otherwise shut-up. I am GM, this is my house, you come here to play my game, I do all the work, and you should appreciate it. I've never had anyone complain, or be disappointed by my style, or by my game over-all. My players always have fun, and always come-back for more. Except maybe, the occasional person who role-plays like a donkey, but can build a devastating DPR, on-hit-kill, hack'n'slash machine.
The problem is, when people start thinking they know the rules better, or think I'm wrong, which is fine, but make a deal out of it, or flip through their damn rule-book to see if they're right, or whatever. I don't care! I will make a suitable ruling in my session, and you will go along with it, if you have a problem talk to me later. Don't ever disrupt my game with petty things like this!
D&D is not a videogame, it is run by a human-being. If you can't respect that, and the GM, then you try running a game. Not half-ass either, you put ass much work in it as your full-time GM did, and you better have an at least 4hour adventure done once a week. And, it damn-well better be compelling, or my character is going to have trouble with his "motivation".
Sometimes players can be spoiled little brats that think the GM does this all for them. But, it IS a shared experience, and the GM pulls the most weight, so please just trust him and let things unfold, he always has a grand scheme, and always considers you when he writes.
PLEASE GIVE THE GM SOME RESPECT! HE COOKS YOUR FOOD, AND SERVES TO YOU.
Yeah, I hate it when I say, "Well, we're gonna just rule it this way for now and look it up later," at a critical moment when the rule really doesn't matter all that much (but moving the story along does matter) then a few minutes later, someone interrupts me with the rule when I am talking. That is a sure-fire way to get this DM riled up real good. It doesn't happen as much as it used to but there are times when someone decides to test the waters...
Yeah, I hate it when I say, "Well, we're gonna just rule it this way for now and look it up later," at a critical moment when the rule really doesn't matter all that much (but moving the story along does matter) then a few minutes later, someone interrupts me with the rule when I am talking. That is a sure-fire way to get this DM riled up real good. It doesn't happen as much as it used to but there are times when someone decides to test the waters...
Yeah, I didn't mean to come-off so strongly, but I've had a problem player lately. It got bad enough that the whole campaign was put on hold for a few months, and now we only play about once a month because we can hardly take playing with the guy, and there are only two players as it is...
My other campaign is awesome though, and I'm glad to focus on it (after we weeded-out another bad player, of course).
I had a player who said their character found a girlfriend, that was it-no describing why he chose her, no dates he takes her on, he just said he did it, then demanded roleplaying XP. My response? FOR WHAT?
then there are players that claim something is there goal, but back out when you refuse to tell them what exact repercussions they'll undergo.
|
|
Yeah, I hate it when I say, "Well, we're gonna just rule it this way for now and look it up later," at a critical moment when the rule really doesn't matter all that much (but moving the story along does matter) then a few minutes later, someone interrupts me with the rule when I am talking. That is a sure-fire way to get this DM riled up real good. It doesn't happen as much as it used to but there are times when someone decides to test the waters...
Right, this is usually problematic for flow reasons. I'll have people in my group say "This is how it typically is" a few minutes later, but I just, "Good, now we know for future reference" and keep going. Just let it roll off of you, people think they're clever because they can find the rule the fastest and that you might reward them for doing so.
What's really funny is when something like this comes up and EVERYONE at the table does it. I usually just sit back and relax for a minute until someone has a eureka moment. Its pretty funny, and they seem to have a good time doing it.
I have seen much more disparity in rules (and rules lawyers) in the 3E erra, versus 4E, since the later tried to simplify all the rules once again. Pathfinder it doing the same thing, i.e. lets take a break and focus on the core rules again.
I do believe people play these games for different reasons, and each brings their own expectations to the table (were you raised with paperback, television, internet, etc.) This has more influence then the version of the game. If you find you play style or version of the game is in conflict or not your cup of tea, then you move on.
I do play with final say in regards to being the DM, but typically it is only invoked in crucial moments to keep a storyline going. I also roll behind the screen for important rolls, but I mix them up with random ones, to keep the players off track.
However, I can understand how this would not be satisfactory to some of the posters, because they prefer an open game. This is totally acceptable if everyone agrees, but I would rather be a player in that type of game versus a DM.
My biggest conflict with DM fiat, is when a DM that has a very static world in regards to rule set, and can not make off the cuff decisions or deviations to reward roleplaying or creative thinking. Even if the reward is trivial, you can acknowledge these things in some fashion.
Before I respond to the OP, I will say, if you want to get this thread locked, then please keep up the edition war comments. These message boards have already went through those once, and the people managing this site have repeatedly said they don't want to see it again. I'm not going to flag anyone myself, because I would prefer it was not locked, but if that is your goal, then continue making such comments.
I want to know if you have a problem with DM running the game the way he wants to run it. Also put whether you are a Full-time DM, Full-time player or you do both.
[let's keep it CIVIL please, I'm not starting this as a flame war thread but as a place to put out your opinions.]
Full-time DM very rarely a player, running two campaigns currently.
Let me say what my gaming philosphy is when it comes to DMing. I belive it is best to stick to the RAW as much as possible. I believe it is best to be consistent as much as possible. I believe it is best to include as many viewpoints as possible in making game rule decisions. I believe that the DM ultimately has to deal with each rule more than any other player and thus a DM should have a larger say in the rule decisions. I believe that players should have alot of leeway when it comes to their characters, the only thing about the game they can control directly.
Why is consistency important? ... Seriously, it seems so obvious to me, I have a hard time thinking of a way to respond to something like that. As both a player and a DM I like to know how things are going to function before the moment of truth. This is one of the reasons I never really got into the earlier editions. There was so much at the time that I just didn't feel clicked to me. I never felt confident in my ability to play the game and always felt like I had to keep checking with the DM, "I rolled a 17 again, did I succeed like last time or fail." I just felt too lost, consistency helps to remove that feeling.
While I think the DM tends to have a larger position when it comes to the rules, I believe every player should get a say on any rule ultimately. Again, I believe sticking to the RAW as much as possible is the best thing, but in some cases the RAW isn't 100% clear. In those cases a call has to be made, and made consistently. Now during a game, I am fine saying, "Let's do it this way for now." And putting it off until later. If someone pulls out the rule and shows how it works in the RAW, clearly, I say, "Ok let's do it that way." Pointing out how the rules work is never something I will be upset with a player about, education is always valuable. I would rather it be caught early than to later learn I did the whole session wrong and feel like a total idiot. If there is no clear rule, between sessions I often discuss the rules with the players. I maintain a veto power on a ruling, but my view is not always the dominate one, and in the absense of abuse, I will often defer to the group in such cases.
As for types of characters. Again, as long as we stick to the RAW as much as possible, I am pretty flexible on the types of characters people want to play. If I can't work a concept into the game, that is pretty telling on my ability than on the nature of their concept. I also enjoy allowing players play whatever they want without me saying "NO". I enjoy that as a player and as a DM. The PC is the about the only thing the player gets to control and so, again absent some abuse issue, the default should be "YES". Wonky choices have a way of fixing themselves. That half-dragon were-wolf fiendish drow character is going to see that in the long run they are actually sucking more than everyone else and look to play a more standard choice usually. If they are fine being weak and playing something wonky, hey all the more fun gaming. That is what keeps them coming back each week.
EDIT: Oh yeah, I also roll out in the open. If it is something the PCs shouldn't know, I might hide it behind my forearm, but almost all rolls are in the open. When I roll 19 and 20 on one player and then a 2 and 3 on another, they know, that was the rolls. Players have to roll in the open, why not the DM? They will figure out stats, so what. I play with people that DM, they know the stats already of most monsters, no big surprise there. If a 17 misses but an 18 hits, gee what's its armor class, let's think about that.
Yeah, I hate it when I say, "Well, we're gonna just rule it this way for now and look it up later," at a critical moment when the rule really doesn't matter all that much (but moving the story along does matter) then a few minutes later, someone interrupts me with the rule when I am talking. That is a sure-fire way to get this DM riled up real good. It doesn't happen as much as it used to but there are times when someone decides to test the waters...Right, this is usually problematic for flow reasons. I'll have people in my group say "This is how it typically is" a few minutes later, but I just, "Good, now we know for future reference" and keep going. Just let it roll off of you, people think they're clever because they can find the rule the fastest and that you might reward them for doing so.
What's really funny is when something like this comes up and EVERYONE at the table does it. I usually just sit back and relax for a minute until someone has a eureka moment. Its pretty funny, and they seem to have a good time doing it.
Of course the other side of that coin is the DM who is too much of an idiot to realize that he doesn't actually know the rules. DM fiat should not be used as a replacement for actual game knowledge. The absolute worse DMs at doing that (using fiat for game knowledge) is the ones that DMed in other editions. Instead of taking the time to actually use the rules of the edition they are suppose to be DMing, they just try to make stuff up (often it doesn't even match the old edition either) and then wonders why everyone looks at them strange as if they are talking in tongues. I agree don't waste valuable game time looking through several books for a single rule, but if someone knows it and/or finds it fast, go ahead and use it. IMO of course.
|
|
Of course the other side of that coin is the DM who is too much of an idiot to realize that he doesn't actually know the rules. DM fiat should be used as a replacement for actual game knowledge. The absolute worse DMs at doing that (using fiat for game knowledge) is the ones that DMed in other editions. Instead of taking the time to actually use the rules of the edition they are suppose to be DMing, they just try to make stuff (often it doesn't even match the old edition either) and then wonders why everyone looks at them strange as if they are talking in tongues. I agree don't waste valuable game time looking through several books for a single rule, but if someone knows it and/or finds it fast, go ahead and use it. IMO of course.
Right, I would like to think that I know the rules pretty well but even an old dog sometimes forgets the details. Was it +1 or +2, how much did it cost again, is it a potion or an elixir? I agree with you though. Rules consistency is needed. If you decide to make a longsword do 2d6 damage at the start of the campaign, it'd better do a 2d6 the next session too and not 1d4 because the DM says so! I'd never play in a game like that, willingly at least.
If a GM can come up with a good ruling and use it consistently and fairly then that shouldn't be too much of a burp for the group to deal with. Its like I said above, on-the-fly GMing isn't going to work as often as well thought out GMing. It still sometimes must be done.
My biggest conflict with DM fiat, is when a DM that has a very static world in regards to rule set, and can not make off the cuff decisions or deviations to reward roleplaying or creative thinking. Even if the reward is trivial, you can acknowledge these things in some fashion.
I think this is a very important skill for a GM to have, but it is also probably the hardest one to learn for new GM's.
Of course the other side of that coin is the DM who is too much of an idiot to realize that he doesn't actually know the rules.
DM fiat should not be used as a replacement for actual game knowledge. The absolute worse DMs at doing that (using fiat for game knowledge) is the ones that DMed in other editions. Instead of taking the time to actually use the rules of the edition they are suppose to be DMing, they just try to make stuff up (often it doesn't even match the old edition either) and then wonders why everyone looks at them strange as if they are talking in tongues. I agree don't waste valuable game time looking through several books for a single rule, but if someone knows it and/or finds it fast, go ahead and use it. IMO of course.
You're adorable. Not everybody can memorize the book.
I admit when I'm wrong. I don't gloat when I'm not. In these instances, even when I'm wrong, if I ask for the game to move on, it needs to move on. Period. If people are going to get bent out of shape about that, we don't have to continue at all. My players are smart enough to know when I'm not in the mood for nitpicky b@#@@%~$.