|
Y'all are definitely doing it wrong. The correct way to play D&D is to weight player preference by the dollar value of their contribution to the DM. If someone slips me a C note, they can play a dragon 2e bladesinger that shoots flaming rodents out its ass. That's always been part of the core rules.
As a GM, I approve this system. Small bills, no consecutive serial numbers preferred
Y'all are definitely doing it wrong. The correct way to play D&D is to weight player preference by the dollar value of their contribution to the DM. If someone slips me a C note, they can play a dragon 2e bladesinger that shoots flaming rodents out its ass. That's always been part of the core rules.
A time honored tradition, along with 100 XP for the person who brings me a drink or something to eat.
"Homage" or "tribute" fancies it up nicely, and grants it an air of not merely legitimacy, but grandness.
I've been selling myself too cheap. I can usually be bought with cookies, or beer (not both, instant heartburn).
Anyway, in response to my evil twin the OP (we didn't resolve this before, but I think I get to be the good twin based on both age and beauty), I am in the benevolent dictator camp. During the game, the DM has to be in charge. Rules discussions, settuing discussions about permissible classes and races and so forth should take place outside game time, preferably before when possible.
The realtionship between the players and the DM is a social contract based on trust, in which the players voluntarily give up control of the game to the DM in exchange for his promise to be as fair as possible and deliver awesome fun. If that trust doesn't exist or is broken, it's going to be hard to keep a game going.
One last plug to the players who come on here to complain about individual DM decisions. Give your DM the benefit of the doubt. He has, by definition, more information than you do about what is going on. He probably has a reason fro what he is doing, even if the reason isn't apparent to you. Trust him and move on, then talk to him about it outside the game. That attitude amongst players, and the willingness of DMs to listen and meaningfully consider player's opinions when brought to them in this way, makes for much happier, more immersive games for all.
With the voices in my head, it's more of an oligarchy. ;)
In seriousness though: DMs are in a leadership role and need to have the veto power, so to speak. At the same time, a FAIR DM is going to consult players on important issues like major rules changes. And it never hurts to ask for ideas. Good leaders in most situations get more done by taking good advice and being amicable than just laying down the law for the hell of it and standing alone. Tabletop RPGs tend to be cooperative games, etc. etc. etc.
Part of being DM is ensuring people are having fun. This includes taking feedback and incorporating as best she sees fit in her game. But the "as best she sees fit" is also part of the equation.
So you deleted almost all of my posts but left the creepy dude's sick fantasies up there? I call BS.A large number of unacceptable posts (and resulting replies) have been removed. I now return you to your previously scheduled discussion.
Lesser of evils, ha-satan.
|
Lesser of evils, ha-satan.So you deleted almost all of my posts but left the creepy dude's sick fantasies up there? I call BS.A large number of unacceptable posts (and resulting replies) have been removed. I now return you to your previously scheduled discussion.
Yes, pedophilia is a lesser evil. Do you have children Urizen? I think Nekogami over there wants to touch them in the naughty places...but your cool with that, right?
Holy f~&@, you people will defend anyone on this board, won't you?
I don't know, the whole "sex offender" witch hunt scares me as much as the actual offenders.
Really folks, it would be great if this thread would get back on topic.
And in case that was too subtle, yes, that was a warning.
|
|
Holy f~&@, you people will defend anyone on this board, won't you?I don't know, the whole "sex offender" witch hunt scares me as much as the actual offenders.
Well, excuse me for stepping in. I thought someone should say something on a board where saying "retard" or "gay" is wrong. Mah bad dawg.
I'm sorry for attempting to discourage anyone from molestering children. Apparently, they deserve it, and I was wrong.
Edit: Also, I prefer Democracy over Dictatorship, as far as DMing style goes.
Senior Software Developer
|
Well, excuse me for stepping in. I thought someone should say something on a board where saying "retard" or "gay" is wrong. Mah Bad dawg.
I'm sorry for attempting to discourage anyone from molesting children. Apparently, they deserve it, and I was wrong.
Seriously dude, this isn't the thread for that, and you know it.
Of course if I have a problem with something the DM does, I would discuss it with him after the game and hope to come up with an agreeable solution. When I am DMing (most of the time nowadays) this is exactly what I request of my players as well. At the table, the DM's ruling is inviolate and I do not want to be wasting precious gaming time arguing a point.
Agreed, but the GM must be willing to accomidate and admit he/she was wrong. We have a GM that insists on 'after the game resolution', but then hand waves his preconseptions into 'law' or penalizes players for 'meta-gaming' (anything he wants to call meta-gaming). This goes to effectively re-writing entire Classes right before games, rules that work one way for players and another for monsters, etc.
A responsible and mature GM can generally accomidate most players, but players must respect the GM's vision for the game. My game does not have Half-Orcs or Monks. It is not set on Golarian. Several of my 'Factions' have their own Prestige Classes, and vs versa. I do not do color coded Dragons. I have a number of campaign specific Races and a lot of web cobbed feats. I use a spell point system. These have been parts of my game for 35 years and I have no plans to change them.
That said, I have given creative direction to the players and watched them drag the game through roller coaster story arcs on several occasions. Exhausting, disconserting and mind rattling to be sure, but I eagerly look forward to the next time.
Most games tell you that a GM is the absolute lord and sovereign over a game and all that they say is immutable law. While the sentiment has a solid foundation it is a flawed interpretation of the truth. While the GM runs the game he isn’t the only person playing it.
In actuality a GM is more like the captain of a pirate ship than a monarch. Pirate captains were more or less elected by their crews and they stayed captain by leading their crews to plunder and riches. A GM is similar in that he promises to create a story through the players can be a part of. Based on this promise the players will act in accordance to the wishes of their GM as far as the game is concerned. The players trust their captain/GM to lead them to a place where they want to go while the GM will trust the players to allow him to do so within the confines of the story.
Well, I got very little player rotation in the group I've been DM'ing for the last six or seven years, so I know their playstyles quite well.
All in all, it's a little bit of both democracy and dictatorship. I get to say which kind of alignments are disallowed ( all evil ones ) and what gets to be houseruled, but I allow discussion about those things. I get to decide which campaign we will run, since I get the work of preparing all of it, but so far my players have almost always been content with it.
|
Well, first off, I am almost always the DM.
There is only one other regular guy DMing amongst my group of friends, and his game is so chaotic that it makes my head hurt.
Anyways...
I really try and promote Democracy for rules issues, with me being the tie-breaker. Funny thing is, half of the players just want me to be a dictator on these issues. I actually have to be a Dictator...in forcing Democracy on them. Odd, huh?
'No, we are going to VOTE on this, so that nobody complains 6 months down the road that their opinion wasn't respected...'
I am pretty happy with Pathfinder, although we use a few throwback rules from 3.5, and 3.0
I like gritty realism, and the rule that I most miss from 3.0 was the possibility of hitting allies while firing into melee (It happens..). Most of the players started with 3.5, and didn't even know about this. They actually really loved it, and we use the old rule.
We voted on using the Crit and Fumble Decks, with all loving them, except for one player (Who is not in my current campaign for other reasons...mostly having to do with being flaky). He loved the Fumble, but not the Crit deck...because he just likes loads of damage, X3 weapons+ only... Even when he got a 'Instant Death' card on a Crit, he whined...
I did make a few calls regarding what they could play.
I specifically wanted to use the APG classes (We started a few months back, with the Playtest versions). I told prospective players that I wanted to run a game with only APG Classes, to see how they worked. Bought the First Kingmaker Adventure, and away we went. Nobody complained, I wasn't telling Joe, the Elf guy (There's always one) 'No,Joe, you can't be an Elf,bummer for you...' I was saying 'Hey folks, APG Classes only, I'm looking for a prolonged Playtest on them, who wants to play?' I had far more applicants than needed (I also relented, and allowed a Cleric, when I went from 4 to 5 players...).
I am running Kingmaker for them, and the very nature of the Campaign is set up for Non-Linear play...so me being a Dictator and pushing them along isn't the norm. They sometimes get sidetracked with weird tangents, both In game and Out. I occasionally have to put on the Fascist-DM hat, just to get things moving in a productive direction. Not because I am a 'meanie', but simply because my time, and that of the other players (Many of whom have a very small window of possibility to play our game) is more important than a conversation about the True Blood Finale, and what Class Eric Northman would be(I love the show too, but C'Mon...).
They sort of milled about when choosing a Leader, with the final choice being pernaps not the best one... the Witch with the Cha 13 (Er...) .This, I later learned was purely because they wanted to say 'Witch-King' all night long (Well, Baron right now). I told them that (Other than this annoying me...hearing it 30 times a night... :| ) That there would be repercussions from proclaiming him a King, when he is clearly not there yet. I have some In-Game things going on to make it interesting for them, based on their indiscretions with the term. Should be fun for all...Well,maybe not the Witch...baron.
When it comes to pizza, however,I do not budge: Chicken,Pineapple and Jalapenos... Good thing Dave (The Cavalier) also loves that, we each goes halves on one.
-Uriel
A responsible and mature GM can generally accomidate most players, but players must respect the GM's vision for the game. My game does not have Half-Orcs or Monks. It is not set on Golarian. Several of my 'Factions' have their own Prestige Classes, and vs versa. I do not do color coded Dragons. I have a number of campaign specific Races and a lot of web cobbed feats. I use a spell point system. These have been parts of my game for 35 years and I have no plans to change them.
Exactly, if I want to play a half-orc monk and I find out that you have neither in your game then I need to 1. find another character concept or 2. find another game. I cannot expect you to change your style. My own style tends to be more detail oriented (although I prefer the term "running a tight ship", too many years in the Navy I guess). I don't gloss over encumbrance, or ammunition, or spell components, or the weather, or the journey, or the wounds during battle, etc. As a player those are the things I like to imagine and as a DM, those are the things I ensure come up. After all it's the details that will get ya. I do try to make sure I don't fail to see the forest for the trees though. But if a player expects that I won't care about the details just cause they don't, they'll be in for a surprise (although I lay out all this kind of stuff along with any houserules in a handout that I give to players before they begin).
The appropriateness of a DMing style depends on the composition of the group. For example, I make VAST changes to the ruleset (to the point that it might as well be called a new game), exclude things (e.g. classes/races/monsters) from my world based on what fits, include things I made up and so on. However, I tend to game with family and/or friends. These people know that my goal is the enjoyment of all of us, so they trust me to make dictatorial decisions. Of course, I do ask for feedback, so as to make informed decisions based on what they fo or do not enjoy.
|
|
In my opinion, a GM is a dictator. But a good GM is a benevolent dictator. This is because there's no good way to allow 'voting' in a game at all.
If you do allow voting, then you will make the players feel like they all decide everything, and they will cast their votes. Someone will inevitably be outvoted. This person will resent not getting their way in a democratic environment, even though they will intellectually realize that they were outvoted and that's just how it's supposed to go. This creates tension and hard feelings more often than not.
|
This has been an absorbing thread to read. The question of whether a DM rules like a tyrant, or all of the players has a say is an interesting one.
I’m sure like many of the posters before me have said: Gming is a balancing act. As a DM I try to take in what my players want, what their likes and dislikes are, and I try to craft a game everyone will enjoy at the table. Now since different people have different tastes, I try to rotate the spotlight, so on some nights, the game will be tailored towards one player, and another night, to another player. I can't please all of my players all of the time, so I try to remind them, that the spot light will come around to them.
While I encourage my players to bring their ideas to me, in terms character ideas they have, or story threads for the game, I like background hooks, PC family members etc., I like this and I try to incorporate it into my game. I feel the players have more of a stake in the game, if i incorporate stuff they have brought me and it shows that they are interested.
Now all of that being said, in my opinion, while I try to listen to my players, I do feel I have the final word. I feel I have the final word on the rules; my interpretation is the one that stands at the gaming table.
I also have the right to determine what is in and what is not allowed in my game. Usually I try to lay things out before hand especially if I am going to deviate from the normal core rules. I float the idea to my players. “ Lets try a world where Frodo failed” I showed them the “midnight” Campaign and they said um err no thanks. Or Lets try a human only campaign etc. If no one wants to play, I don’t force it on my players.
In terms of what is allowed and not allowed, I try to set some broad parameters before hand, which I tell the players as we are starting the campaign. In 3.5, for example I would often say the core rulebooks are in, and everything else requires my approval to be let into the game. I have to read the materiel if I don’t have it myself. I don’t accept some vague “ oh yeah I read it on the Internet somewhere”. I have to be able to read the materiel in my own library of RPG books or I like the player to provide me with a photocopy or print out of what they want to use beyond the core rulebooks. However I do have the final say.
I generally say yes. And Generally I allow some discussion on the rules. However, I do feel my decision and interpretation is final.
In terms of Tyranny or Democracy, I suppose I go with Tyranny, in terms of a benevolent dictator, rather then a Draconian Tyrant. While my players may advise me on their opinions, at the end it is my decision to make, and my interpretation of the rules. I prefer to talk softly but I carry a big stick.
In actuality a GM is more like the captain of a pirate ship than a monarch.
Arrrr!