|
Once upon a time, GMs would receive advise like this:
"The ultimate success of this adventure in your campaign rests upon you, the DM. It is your skill and knowledge, not only of the adventure and the AD&D@ rule system, but of your players as well, that determine how enjoyable your games with this adventure are. There is no “right” way to run any encounter. There is only your way of running encounters. You may add or delete from the story as you see fit. What is contained within is only a skeleton; it is your input that makes it a worthwhile adventure." (GDQ 1-7: Queen of the Spiders)
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
I definitely agree that players are too infatuated with being uber amazing, detracting from the DM, who i essence allows said player to be anything at all. I think that the general respect towards DMs from players has waned in the last few years. DMing is challenging and time consuming, and usually no-one wants to do it(at least in my circles), or can't. So c'mon gaming community show the love and submit to the DM, cause someone's gotta do it.
Once upon a time, GMs would receive advise like this:
"The ultimate success of this adventure in your campaign rests upon you, the DM. It is your skill and knowledge, not only of the adventure and the AD&D@ rule system, but of your players as well, that determine how enjoyable your games with this adventure are. There is no “right” way to run any encounter. There is only your way of running encounters. You may add or delete from the story as you see fit. What is contained within is only a skeleton; it is your input that makes it a worthwhile adventure." (GDQ 1-7: Queen of the Spiders)
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
Nope. You might have a spoiled group though.
|
I love being the GM, DM, S@M....:) In my gaming group there is 9 of us. I have to admit that there is a lot of work that goes into it. You need to "KNOW" the core rule book. If you are running your own campaign world or an AP, there is a little extra love that you need to put into making the experience good for your players. IMHO the nice thing about Paizo is the awesome amount of feed back that you get from staff and other pathfinders. If you don't like something tweek it or get rid of it. I usually do not GM. I bought CoT and the Core Rule Book and I have started the Pathfinder Crusade for my gaming group. I am looking forward to KM and SS as the GM. I do realize that I will not have a PC the next adventure I run. That is a little to much "work".
+1 to Pathfinder and every other game I am playing...hmmm I think I should get payed to be a professional RPGer. Just to play and that is it. Where is that damn winning lottery ticket???!!!
|
|
Nope. You might have a spoiled group though.
My group's fine. In fact, we've been playing with 8+ players now for 4 years and I dare say we'll carry on. The problem is really mine, rather than theirs, and it's come about through a feeling I'm getting that "the industry" expects me to deliver a module as written using the rules as written.
This doesn't seem like a lot of fun to me.
When I first got into GMing years ago the emphasis was very much on the GM fleshing out the bones, both in the way the setting was laid out and in the way that the dynamics of the setting played out. To quote again, this time from G3:
"As has been said in the previous modules in this series, while considerable details has been given, it is up to you to fill in any needed information and to colour the whole thing and bring it to life. You, as Dungeon Master, must continue to improvise and create, for your players will certainly desire more descriptions, seek to do things not provided for here, and generally do things which are not anticipated. The script is here, but you will direct the whole, rewrite parts, and sit in final judgement on character's actions."
When do you ever get advice like that now? How does the typical Pathfinder Player feel about the idea that GMs can rewrite parts of the module as they see fit, as well as run all the encounters as they see fit?
Richard
|
I've noticed more and more of a trend for GM fiat to be demonized. This has come with the rules being more and more formalized and complex, and the loss of a clear divide between player and GM material. When I first started, players didn't tend to look at GM books or monster books unless they were going to be taking the GM helm.
|
|
GMing is still lots of fun. The recent (post AD&D2e) rulesets offer players greater space for both character customization, interaction with rules options, and impact over the overall campaign/storyline/game. Which, in my book as a GM, is a good thing.
The nasty part is that rules lawyering, min-maxing, and otherwise rules abusing players have greater maneuvre space too.
The wrong attitude - that IMHO is amplified by the necessary or unavoidable areas of contact between genres such as movies, comics, novels or VG related to same narrative current - is players coming at the table saying "I win the roleplaying by pwing everyone else by crunching numbers written on a paper sheet", or just berating the GM for bending a rule that stand in the way of good narration, or by requesting impossible things such as being of superhero-level power from the start just because his/her character is inspired by that guy from the comic/novel/movie, and so on.
I hate with the strenght of a raging quasar the idea "the rules say that by level X I should have riches numbering in the hundreds of thousands so I should be able to buy item Y, so my character must have it", not understanding that availability of item Y is just theoretical, and that his character should primarily survive and succeed mostly on the player ability to roleplay and interact properly and not only by the stuff written down on a sheet.
You choose a rogue in a campaign based mostly on constructs, undeads, plants, elementals, or similar stuff? Deal with it, play your strenghts and don't focus on the weaknesses.
Players who expect GMs to run encounters "by the book" just because that way they're sure that they have a fair chance, could have just the same fun solving algebrical functions. Fair chance and all. It's a lack of personal involvement, lack of will be to face minor/major defeats, desire to show off no matter the situation.
GMs should always tailor-fit the adventure, campaign or encounter to the gaming group at the table, augmenting or dimishing the difficulty or the overall lethality, on his personal opinion.
Does the GMs do so just to humiliate the characters? The problem is within the person playing the GM, not derived from the rules.
Does the scene have a greater meaning on the overall balance of the adventure/campaign? Do the players have approached the encounter with the wrong attitude? I could go on for a while with this rant.
At the moment, rules do not stand in the way of GMing fun, or player fun. Attitude does, as always has been.
I agree that more modern rules give greater chance of abuse and that other social factors have greater impact on the expectations, but again, rules by themselves are rather fine (even if not without problems).
The guilt of "not fun" should be given to the personal approach of the people at the table, and not to the "player power vs GM power" by itself.
I have fun DMing.
Players point out concerns if needed but I have the last word.
On the other hand, I use my power to grant fun to the group through good combat, descritpion and setting design, quotes and story.
|
|
I've noticed more and more of a trend for GM fiat to be demonized. This has come with the rules being more and more formalized and complex, and the loss of a clear divide between player and GM material. When I first started, players didn't tend to look at GM books or monster books unless they were going to be taking the GM helm.
Totally agree here. I've always felt one of the GM's responsibilities is to smooth out play at the table. As a player, I try to think outside the rules and imagine things my character would try do if his actions were not limited by the numbers on his character sheet. Then, I ask the GM for a ruling, before I pick up a rulebook. As a GM, I regularly throw out rules I think inhibit play or add rules I feel enhance it, often off the cuff. IMO, this is way the game should be played.
As for the OP, I think what we're seeing are more subsets of gamers developing. On one hand, you have a group that seems to prefer their games to play out like an MMORPG. OTOH, you have a group that clings to simulation and a time when your role in the game was not necessarily determined by your abilities in combat, but by your character's background, as well.
PRPG falls somewhere in the middle. There are plenty of options to satisfy a player's thirst for power. However, the modular nature of the game lends itself to GM fiat, allowing a multitude of ways to run an adventure.
So... Yes, I would say GMing is still fun, assuming the right type of GM hooks up with the right type of players.
|
Once upon a time, GMs would receive advise like this:
"The ultimate success of this adventure in your campaign rests upon you, the DM. It is your skill and knowledge, not only of the adventure and the AD&D@ rule system, but of your players as well, that determine how enjoyable your games with this adventure are. There is no “right” way to run any encounter. There is only your way of running encounters. You may add or delete from the story as you see fit. What is contained within is only a skeleton; it is your input that makes it a worthwhile adventure." (GDQ 1-7: Queen of the Spiders)
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
Are we in danger of moving D&D/Pathfinder into a game which is great to play but boring to GM?
Will we eventually end up with a game where the players read the module as well as all the other books and a GM is no longer needed?
Has GM-creativity bitten the dust?
Richard
I haven't seen this, yet. While many (most of the one I use) modules sold today are far more detailed, I don't think they kill my fun as a GM.
I always make as many modifications as needed (for my vision of the story, for the immersion of the PCs and for the gamiong style of my group).That may be more (my shackled city campaign does barely resemble the one in the book and contains a war threatening Ravens Bluff, Spelljamming Orks/Scro, Yuan'Ti gods and the rebuilding of a trade stop with fortress)or less
(in my Rise of the runelord campaign I so far I only changed the Sandpoint Sage to a dwarf and added a PCs father to the surviving rangers in part 3).
Setting the tone of an adventure is always the part a gm has to do - unless they invent tabletop adventures that tell and describe themselfs.
Many newer adventures give you frameworks for expanding them, even if they are not expicetly mentioned. We spend many hours with Crown of the Kobold King
I haven't met a player who expected me to run an adventure as written, but it may be because I don't play at conventions and haven't found enough spare time to add organized play to my gaming experiences.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If there was a magical time when players and GMs never argued, where players never asked for more stuff and GMs didn't worry about house rules and campaign restrictions being fought with--or where overzealous GMs never stomped on player creativity because they were too afraid of how it affected their game.... then I missed it.
I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.
The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.
And part of the source of those arguments is, in fact, the very principle of creativity that helps hold up what makes role playing games work. As long as both GMs are players are encouraged to be creative and work together to tell stories, there are going to be times when one person's creative ideas clashes with another's. Just because these clashes occur does not mean creativity is dead---indeed, it means it is quite alive and kicking.
And if the GM's right to be creative overrides the players' ability to be creative, something is wrong---JUST LIKE IF the players' right to be creative overrides the GM's right to be creative, SOMETHING IS WRONG.
Good campaigns, whether run with the White Box or with the newest Pathfinder supplements, involve cooperation between players and GMs. If both sides do not agree to cooperate, the problem is not with the system used, but with the people. You will always find someone arguing on behalf of GM authority, and another person arguing on behalf of player autonomy---but ultimately, BOTH are right. Problems only arise when that is not recognized.
And certainly, there is no clause in today's RPGs telling GMs to bow to their players and not be creative. Pathfinder has an entire hardcover book dedicated to jogging and inspiring GM creativity; it's called the Game Mastery Guide.
As for me, as a GM, I have never as yet "followed a script." I write my own adventures, and the very few modules I have used/pulled from (mostly for running demos), I tend to alter as needed. While certainly my players have made decisions that take the story in unexpected routes, I have always found that running with that has led to better stories that have, indeed, forced me to be more creative than ever before.
The problem is really mine, rather than theirs, and it's come about through a feeling I'm getting that "the industry" expects me to deliver a module as written using the rules as written.
This doesn't seem like a lot of fun to me.
A patient goes to his doctor and says: "Hey doctor! My arm hurts when I do this!" The doctor thinks a moment and replies: "Well, just don't do that."
Seriously - what's the issue? If you have fun doing things one way, do it that way. Are Mr. Buhlman or Mr. Jacobs going to burst down your door and take away your GM screen if you don't? Is Gary Gygax going to rise from the dead and strike you from the netherworld?
This is a nonissue thread. Bad form.
|
|
I don't have a problem with the rules and, now that there is no GM's guide, sharing them with players.
What I'm concerned about is what feels like a natural next step which is losing editorial control on the adventure.
If the adventure says that the monsters charge in and attack, can I not have them parley instead?
Can I choose what tactics they use, rather than obey the adventure?
Can I change their feats and skills?
Can I change the way they organise themselves?
Can I substitute their spells, change their abilities?
Can I substitute one monster for another?
Can I change the layout of the adventure?
Can I, in fact, simply use the adventure as a skeleton, and taylor it completely to my taste?
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?
Richard
Nope. You might have a spoiled group though.My group's fine. In fact, we've been playing with 8+ players now for 4 years and I dare say we'll carry on. The problem is really mine, rather than theirs, and it's come about through a feeling I'm getting that "the industry" expects me to deliver a module as written using the rules as written.
This doesn't seem like a lot of fun to me.
When I first got into GMing years ago the emphasis was very much on the GM fleshing out the bones, both in the way the setting was laid out and in the way that the dynamics of the setting played out. To quote again, this time from G3:
"As has been said in the previous modules in this series, while considerable details has been given, it is up to you to fill in any needed information and to colour the whole thing and bring it to life. You, as Dungeon Master, must continue to improvise and create, for your players will certainly desire more descriptions, seek to do things not provided for here, and generally do things which are not anticipated. The script is here, but you will direct the whole, rewrite parts, and sit in final judgement on character's actions."
When do you ever get advice like that now? How does the typical Pathfinder Player feel about the idea that GMs can rewrite parts of the module as they see fit, as well as run all the encounters as they see fit?
Richard
James the creative director here encourages the DM to change things if you are the DM, and certain things are left to DM discretion. Where are you getting your ideas from? I am asking because I don't get where you are coming from with the original statement.
I've noticed more and more of a trend for GM fiat to be demonized. This has come with the rules being more and more formalized and complex, and the loss of a clear divide between player and GM material. When I first started, players didn't tend to look at GM books or monster books unless they were going to be taking the GM helm.
It is not a matter of DM Fiat being demonized. It is bad DM fiat, and power-mad DM's making it hard for the rest of us.
OF COURSE you can.
If the module, say, suggest to use the monster in a way, is because is what the author imagine the monster should do against an average group.
It does not mean you cannot adapt. But a suggestion is farb better than nothing - in that case, why buy the module?
If there was a magical time when players and GMs never argued, where players never asked for more stuff and GMs didn't worry about house rules and campaign restrictions being fought with--or where overzealous GMs never stomped on player creativity because they were too afraid of how it affected their game.... then I missed it.
I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.
The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.
+1 on that.
|
|
I don't have a problem with the rules and, now that there is no GM's guide, sharing them with players.
What I'm concerned about is what feels like a natural next step which is losing editorial control on the adventure.
If the adventure says that the monsters charge in and attack, can I not have them parley instead?
Can I choose what tactics they use, rather than obey the adventure?
Can I change their feats and skills?
Can I change the way they organise themselves?
Can I substitute their spells, change their abilities?
Can I substitute one monster for another?
Can I change the layout of the adventure?
Can I, in fact, simply use the adventure as a skeleton, and taylor it completely to my taste?
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?
Richard
Quite obviously you can do all of that, but why you should need this written down?
Because the players (who in theory should not know what's gonna happen in the adventure) would complain?So the real question is not if, but rather why a player would complain if the GM changed a detail or a large part of an adventure to actually improve the game custom-fitting a pre written module to the group personal tastes and gaming style?
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?
Read the messageboard here for any adventure path and you'll find people doing any and all of those things.
However, it's like any other situation in which you dig around in the guts of something you bought and void your warranty -- if you post saying "I know this pit fiend was supposed to talk to the level 4 party, but I had him attack instead and it was a TPK, this adventure is dumb", no one is going to pull any punches in telling you you did a stupid thing there.
I'll also point out that while you don't have to run pretty close to the adventure, your players reap one pretty cool benefit if you do: they can talk to other people who played the same adventure and compare notes and see how a different group of people solved the same problems. That's true with adventures of any edition of any RPG, incidentally -- if you ran Tomb of Horrors and made Acererak a space hippopotamous ninja instead of a demilich, I'm not going to say you're doing it wrong, but at least with respect to that encounter they're missing the fun of that shared gamer experience.
Organized play is another animal entirely; for various reasons, that should always be run as close to the author's intentions as the GM's ability allows.
|
|
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?Richard
None of my players have complained. If I understand you right, none of your players have either. I don't see the problem.
I love it! It is harder now, especially as we move from the basic PFRPG to splat book hell, and it seems harder to get players to focus on the story and not all the uber feats and gear. But, that's what I love the most about DM'ing. I can make the story shine!
|
I wish I had a problem with players being too into creating great characters. I tend to find lazy players who expect me to own all the books, read the books and memorize all the rules for them and who generally don't even know what options are available to them. I end up doing all the work if I want to game. That's what burns me out.
I've had players who have been gaming for 10+ years and still need me to help them with character creation because they've never read and/or don't own the core book(s). I've even bought books (used & cheap) for the players I've known the longest and still they barely read them, if at all. My players suck! ;-)
I'd give anything for a good munchkin player to challenge me. I'd even be willing to run 4e!
|
|
None of my players have complained. If I understand you right, none of your players have either. I don't see the problem.
I see a trend to empower players more. Ultimately, players are going to want to know that the challenges they're facing are "controlled" in much the same way that the rules themselves are now "controlled" (i.e. in full visibility to the players).
Pathfinder Society play typifies this, and it may be where the future lies.
I think the danger is that by expecting GMs to just deliver the script, GMing is going to become more mechanical and more boring, and the game cannot work without GMs (at the moment, anyway).
Personally, of course, I can work with my players to make sure this doesn't happen, but that's not really my point. I want to work with Pathfinder as written as much as possible, because there's an awful lot of creativity in both the rules and the adventures. However if the over-all feel of the game is to straight-jacket GMs then it's going to become harder and harder for me to fight against current, and future, player expectations.
Richard
|
Now it seems to me that "player power" is pushing GMs into the simple roles of script-readers and dice-rollers.
I disagree. The player empowerment movement can result in some culture clash at times, but I view it largely as freeing the GM from having sole responsibility for the creation of story and/or creativity, along with a healthy dose of removing or moderating a GM-as-adversary mindset. I think it has nothing to do with the GM's development and interpretation of content.
That said, the 3e family has an embedded concept of rules mastery, which means that adept players have an expectation that the rules will work a certain way and won't be arbitrarily changed. The story content, however aren't rules. But, for example, if you present a white dragon with a fire breath weapon, I (as a player) would expect there to be an in-game reason, not merely a "gotcha!"
I don't have a problem with the rules and, now that there is no GM's guide, sharing them with players.
What I'm concerned about is what feels like a natural next step which is losing editorial control on the adventure.
(list of examples snipped for brevity)
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?
Not only would I accept it, but I would expect it. I don't want to play with script reader GMs. The ability to modify a published adventure, however, stems out of self-confidence, and some GMs just don't have that self-confidence.
I do expect GMs to have a reasonable understanding of the rules and to communicate house rules. I'm a fairly booked-up player. I'm not a rules lawyer, but I do think that adept players serve a role as being a rules resource to GMs; not to say "you're wrong, this is the way it is," but to be a resource to the GM. It takes some skill to communicate in a way that respects the GM's responsibility as final arbiter, and there are lots of rules situations where there is variance in how people deal with things.
That all said, organized play is another beast. :)
|
|
I've noticed more and more of a trend for GM fiat to be demonized. This has come with the rules being more and more formalized and complex, and the loss of a clear divide between player and GM material. When I first started, players didn't tend to look at GM books or monster books unless they were going to be taking the GM helm.It is not a matter of DM Fiat being demonized. It is bad DM fiat, and power-mad DM's making it hard for the rest of us.
+1
IIRC, bad DM fiat was *part of the rules* in 1e--the DM was encouraged to impose in-game sanctions ("bolts from the blue") on straying players. In the White Box days, I once had a DM lower my character's INT because I didn't cast a sleep spell at what he thought was the best time. All of the other players objected vociferously, though, and he relented.
That sort of thing is best left behind us.
First, let me state, my group has a new DM (or DMs), so the issue I'm about to relate is no longer an issue.
I think, for my group, at least, is not an issue with GM-editing, as much as it is an issue with bad-GM'ing.
A few years back, a friend and member of our game group bought World's Largest Dungeon by AEG. Whatever the various opinions of it may be, he thought the concept was awesome, and really wanted this huge, epic tome.
After he received it, he decided he couldn't read it or look at the maps too much, because he had determined that he didn't want to run it - he wanted to play it.
Two different GMs ran WLD for us on two separate occasions, about a year apart.
Both runs (about 5-6 sessions each) ended poorly, with everyone hating the experience, due to not being able to find our ways out of particular sections of the dungeon, and initially, with the belief that the book itself was just poorly assembled.
After the second run broke up, I picked up the book and started reading it (or at least, the sections and encounters we had been through).
Imagine my surprise when I found that a TON of the issues we had been through were, contradicting what the two different GMs had claimed, pretty thoroughly addressed in the book.
Entire encounters critical to progression through the dungeon were scrapped by these people. Various other encounters were altered from their original, totally pooching the situation (one specific encounter involved a cockatrice in one part of a dungeon area turning PCs to stone. In this same dungeon area, there was a gnoll encounter (or series of encounters) that would provide a couple potions of stone-to-flesh to recover the petrified PCs. Gnoll encounters? Pretty much scrapped, we assume because that GM hated gnolls (which he had stated in the past)).
As stated above, I'm not throwing this up to say "GMs can't be trusted!" but at the same time, I can totally understand why some players can be mistrusting or unwary of a GM going "off-the-rails" for a printed adventure path, adventure module, etc.
We don't have these issues these days, so we're a lot more laid back about it, but we also foster the attitude that if the GM is going to change a significant quantity of material from what's written, we'd rather just not dick around with the printed adventure, instead having the GM do his/her own thing, and just not see the module/AP at the table.
|
|
Pathfinder Society play typifies this, and it may be where the future lies.
Organized play is a different beast, and that includes PFS, which inherited a lot of culture from Living Greyhawk. In organized play, the cultural expectation is that you don't go out of your way to modify the content, but make adjustments as needed on the fly with respect to plot in order to keep things moving.
So, to your list of "Can I...." I previously responded that I would expect a GM to make changes. In PFS, on the other hand, the answer is, "Generally not."
That said, good organized play GMs are not script readers. They bring the adventure to life. They make minor tweaks as needed to keep things moving. They do not materially change challenge encounters. They do so and still have a creative voice and ability to interpret the material in a unique way that stays within the framework of the published adventure.
In organized play I steer away from script reading GMs, and I steer away from GMs who modify the content to a high degree.
There may be a tendency for there to be some leakage between organized and tradional play, in both directions, but it would be a mistake to think that the organized play culture is an industry standard that constitutes an expectations of how a GM is expected to run a traditional game, either by him or his players.
I have been a DM / GM for about 30 years, and I still love it.
I'm very picky about who I'll run games for, and that keeps my stress levels down and makes things more fun for me.
I still enjoy the creative outlet that running a game gives me, and I like to see how my players will surprise me with creative solutions to problems that I didn't see coming.
If the day comes that my players argue rules with me and complain about what items they have or don't have, I'll put my books back on the shelf until I find a new group.
For me, there are two basic things I need to have fun as a DM. The first is a good group of players. I have a great group, and most of us have been playing together for years. Of the seven players that rotate in and out, only two ever cause any problems at all, and three others have DMed for the group regularly. Having players that want to make fun characters is really important, as well as having people that understand that as the DM you are working with them so that everyone can have a good time. If you don't play with people that you get along with, you aren't going to have a great time running.
The second thing I need is a story that I want to tell. I don't want to run a game just to DM - want to tell a story. If you have a story you want to tell, and you want your players to be involved in, then you will enjoy putting in the effort to run. The complexity of the rules and such does not mean as much as the right group of people and the right story to tell.
My group has a lot of fun, but then I'm lucky (or cursed) in that out of a group of 5 players, all but one of us takes turns DMing an adventure they have in mind, It tends to make the players a bit more understanding of the DM's workload and frequently we pitch in and will help stat up a monster or NPC for the DM if he or she asks.
Course this goes in the other way too, a DM player can be one of the most persnickety rules laywers out there!
My group's fine. In fact, we've been playing with 8+ players now for 4 years and I dare say we'll carry on. The problem is really mine, rather than theirs, and it's come about through a feeling I'm getting that "the industry" expects me to deliver a module as written using the rules as written.
I have no idea where this impression is coming from. In 30 years of gaming, I've never really encountered much from the industry telling me to deliver the module as written using the rules as written much less an increasing trend. In my observation, that impetus comes mainly from the fans dating back to the days that people used to write in to TSR for questions on the rules.
I do think that games like D&D have taken steps to more thoroughly define rule systems to provide more structure for DMs to adjudicate player actions. But I don't think that's really a push to keep people using the rules as written per se. Rather, it's a way for DMs to use what's there in a consistent fashion so that players can make rational decisions.
Paizo specifically tells GMs to change things as needed. See, for instance, The Most Important Rule
The rules in this book 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.
The GMG has similar language, and even the Pathfinder Society guidelines encourage GMs to reward creative play. The important thing here is for the GM and players to work together and understand the overall group goals for the game.
Never mind my group - what I'm really asking is: would today's Pathfinder players be outraged if I did any of the above, or would they accept that that is actually my job?
Read the messageboard here for any adventure path and you'll find people doing any and all of those things.
However, it's like any other situation in which you dig around in the guts of something you bought and void your warranty -- if you post saying "I know this pit fiend was supposed to talk to the level 4 party, but I had him attack instead and it was a TPK, this adventure is dumb", no one is going to pull any punches in telling you you did a stupid thing there.
I'll also point out that while you don't have to run pretty close to the adventure, your players reap one pretty cool benefit if you do: they can talk to other people who played the same adventure and compare notes and see how a different group of people solved the same problems. That's true with adventures of any edition of any RPG, incidentally -- if you ran Tomb of Horrors and made Acererak a space hippopotamous ninja instead of a demilich, I'm not going to say you're doing it wrong, but at least with respect to that encounter they're missing the fun of that shared gamer experience.
Organized play is another animal entirely; for various reasons, that should always be run as close to the author's intentions as the GM's ability allows.
First of all, now I want to run Tomb of Horrors with Acererak as a space hipppopotmous ninja...can we get good stats on that?
I've been a GM since the late 70's myself, and I still have a ball with it. But I also let my players know right off the bat that good roleplaying will always trump rules and that we're going to wing quite a bit of it to make it a fun game and not a wargame.
"Can he see me?" No. "So can I get a flanking bonus even though I'm shooting from 45 feet away." Sure, why not. "Sneak attack?" For this turn, sure. You're a rogue, thats the sort of thing you do.
There are times that the above discussion might be in violation of the rules, but we don't worry about that.
At the same time, if a monk on horseback tries to do a stunning kick against a kobold on the ground...yeah, that's not going to happen even if the player can dig out some rules. It's just silly. Get off the d@mn horse first..
As a GM, you have to let your players know that you're gonna wing some of it or use house rules.
If you wanna change some of the adventure, do it. Especially if it fits the flow of the game. And if its fun for everyone. If it derails the storyline, but everyone (includng the GM) are enjoying it, go for it.
ROTR:
OK, my players didn't do that, but if they'd figured out how, I would have allowed it.
I don't think I've ever run a module without adding to it or changing some of the encounters. Whether for a larger party or just because I had a better idea (or at least one I thought was better).
I don't believe that GMs are the gods and rulers of their games, but they are normally the organizers and the ones who have the lion's share of the work. As a GM, I set down a few ground rules that players ahve to agree to if they want to game in "my" world. But anything else is open for negotiation.
In the online PFRPG PBP game I'm starting, we have a player who is playing a dwarf from the Ulfen lands. After spending his skill points, he doesn't have enough to get what he wants (and makes him a good character) and pick up a rank of linguistics to get Taldan. (INT 10). So, he asked if he could get common (Taldan) for free so that we weren;t constantly doing translations and dice checks every time he spoke.....It's not a game breaker, so I gave him a free language. Not all of hte players know I did this, but those who do don't care. Am I breaking the rules. Sure. But who cares. It makes it more fun.
I feel that if your players are trying to railroad you into un-fun games, its time to reeducate them or get new players...
I've always found GMing fun the majority of the time. If I didn't then I wouldn't invest the several hours per week that I take to maintain my campaign. I dislike getting into arguments with my players over rules, but it happens from time to time. We work through them and move on.
Ultimately, my players respect my efforts as GM and cut me some slack and I show my appreciation of my players by giving them fun storylines to pursue and entertaining combats to keep them on their toes. If I felt like my players didn't appreciate my efforts then I wouldn't continue running. That hasn't happened in my campaigns to date.
|
|
I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.
The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.
Dismissive FTL
Obviously you missed the point the poster was trying to make with relation to DM power/control over creativity and adjudication in older editions vs. Over-codified 3.0/3.5
There is a difference in how the games are run
There is a difference in the philosophy towards player empowerment as directed by Wotc via selling new rules to players (splats)
There is a difference in how much decision making power the DM has over older editions vs. newer versions (Encounters per day, CR, WBL, etc)
Stop with this "there were no good old days" garbage already.
The game/group dynamic has changed, the philosophy and sales model to deliver product to players vs. DM has changed.
DM adjudication has been replaced in every opportunity possible with a fixed rule in an attempt to hard-code (FAIL) the game & minimize:
Bad DMs
Different games at each table
Solve problems and answer questions
Yet these hard-coded rules just create a rigid and inflexible system which does not address/solve the last three issues. Instead of fixing this issue via design philosophy and training new DMs they went the road of "replace it with a rule to make it dummy proof". That created a series of bad and inflexible rules to lock in DMs and players alike.
The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of the money was - they targeted the 4 out of the 5 players in the group vs. the older model of focusing mostly on the DM for revenue.
Stop saying things haven't changed, they have.
The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of the money was - they targeted the 4 out of the 5 players in the group vs. the older model of focusing mostly on the DM for revenue.
... but that's been happening since at least 1989.
So, more than half of the history of D&D.
While things have almost certainly changed, I don't think its necessarily a bad thing. It is simply a function of more people having the books to look at as time goes on. It is no longer the norm for only the DM to have the books, and so it is harder for the DM to make major adjustments without at least some consultation with the players. This is good in that it helps facilitate the player's ability to move between groups and DM's smoothly, a must in our mobile society.
It does make it harder for the DM to just run with whatever pops into his head, but the internal consistency can also aid the DM by providing a guideline of sorts when something is needed, but not immediately coming to mind.
In the end, I don't think that DMing is particularly easier or harder, or more or less fun, than it was when the game first began, it is just that the challenges have changed.
|
|
I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.
The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.
Dismissive FTL
Obviously you missed the point the poster was trying to make with relation to DM power/control over creativity and adjudication in older editions vs. Over-codified 3.0/3.5
There is a difference in how the games are run
There is a difference in the philosophy towards player empowerment as directed by Wotc via selling new rules to players (splats)
There is a difference in how much decision making power the DM has over older editions vs. newer versions (Encounters per day, CR, WBL, etc)
Stop with this "there were no good old days" garbage already.
The game/group dynamic has changed, the philosophy and sales model to deliver product to players vs. DM has changed.DM adjudication has been replaced in every opportunity possible with a fixed rule in an attempt to hard-code (FAIL) the game & minimize:
Bad DMs
Different games at each table
Solve problems and answer questionsYet these hard-coded rules just create a rigid and inflexible system which does not address/solve the last three issues. Instead of fixing this issue via design philosophy and training new DMs they went the road of "replace it with a rule to make it dummy proof". That created a series of bad and inflexible rules to lock in DMs and players alike.
The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of...
Thank you. And by targeting the players (and their money), they make it harder for GMs running a themed homebrew to justify disallowing things that don't fit thematically.
In the 3x days, it was a PITA to tell someone that just dropped $200+ on splats that you want to run a "core" game.
It's wasn't too hard to tell someone back in the day that only spent $12 on one book they couldn't play a cavalier or a barbarian (1e UA), and it was easier to demonstrate in three seconds why both classes were just straight munchkin garbage (even though we didn't have that word yet).
The expectations have changed. And player empowerment coupled with the insane amount of prep time needed to run a game (compared to the old days) makes it more difficult.
And I don't know too many DMs who aren't completionists that have the time to absorb dozens of books and several subsystems (my biggest beef with stuff like psionics and Bo9S) just to accommodate every player's desires.
I always have to laugh at these, "Why ain't gaming like the good old days?" posts. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I think they seriously miss the mark.
The only thing that makes "the good old days" is not the rulesets used, but the players' nostalgic memories of when they were new to gaming, and they hadn't encountered the arguments yet. But if there are rules, there has been rules lawyering, whether White Box or Pathfinder or D&D Essentials. If there is a player-GM dynamic, those players and GMs have argued at some point, even if it's over a very reasonable thing.
Dismissive FTL
Obviously you missed the point the poster was trying to make with relation to DM power/control over creativity and adjudication in older editions vs. Over-codified 3.0/3.5
There is a difference in how the games are run
There is a difference in the philosophy towards player empowerment as directed by Wotc via selling new rules to players (splats)
There is a difference in how much decision making power the DM has over older editions vs. newer versions (Encounters per day, CR, WBL, etc)
Stop with this "there were no good old days" garbage already.
The game/group dynamic has changed, the philosophy and sales model to deliver product to players vs. DM has changed.DM adjudication has been replaced in every opportunity possible with a fixed rule in an attempt to hard-code (FAIL) the game & minimize:
Bad DMs
Different games at each table
Solve problems and answer questionsYet these hard-coded rules just create a rigid and inflexible system which does not address/solve the last three issues. Instead of fixing this issue via design philosophy and training new DMs they went the road of "replace it with a rule to make it dummy proof". That created a series of bad and inflexible rules to lock in DMs and players alike.
The creative power has shifted because the people printing the game knew where most of...
I agree, things have changed. I think that the prevalence of wargames, WoW, and, especially, CCGs have created a subset of players who are very rules-oriented and power-hungry. They aren't used to laying games where teamwork and actual character development over power/ability increase is the main thing.
There is an atmosphere of "mine mine mine" with a lot of the newer players I encounter.
But most of them can be trained to be better Roleplayers. And he rest can find GMs who cater to their needs. And, without trying to start a flame war, 4E, as presented, fits that niche pretty well. (And it sometimes contributes to the stats over roleplaying arguement, but it is a step closer to actual roleplaying).
But, if the game isn't fun, I DO give the GM at least 1/3 of the blame. You have to find a group that likes to play in the worlds you create. And you ahve to give the players enough of what they want to make them want to play.
Sometimes, that means putting your foot down and enforcing some basic ettiquitte or telling the players exactly what you expect out of the basic campaign. (For example, in my new PBP game, you can play LG, LN (g), NG, or CG. That's it. If you don't want to be a good guy [you don't have to be a saint. You can even be an ex-badguy trying to reform] then you should find another GM. And I expect EVERYONE to work as a team.)
Gamers, and GAMES, have changed (PF looks only slightly like DD1E). But most gamers can be trained to play like the "good old days". And the other players can help with that.
In most of my games now, I put out a player manifesto, a list of rules and guidleines just to make sure everyone is on the same page for gamer ettiquitte. (No deliberately undermining other player's goals, work as a team, no texting during P&P games, etc.)
And its worked pretty well.
i have fun gming, but only because of the story unfolding and the look on the characters faces. the reason im running a game is because i want the other people at the table who gm to use some of the ideas that i introduce (if they like it and want too, im not forcing the too.) but im a player at heart, have been and always will be. gming is hard for me. im so used to one playstyle that when i have to run monsters or npcs that i dont like how their abilities are its hard for me. but i try my best regardless. but i cant wait to sit down and play again.
I understand exactly where the OP is coming from, even if I would say yes to his basic question of "Is GMing fun anymore". As a few others have pointed out, very clearly the rules have changed to reduce the role of the GM by constraining him with ever more and more detailed rules and limiting the areas for GM discretion. The statement of Rule Zero has also been weakened significantly from 1e all the way up through PF, although it still exists and, in my opinion, is one of the foundations of the game. Like the OP, I don't really find these developments to be good ones, nor do the other GMs in our half old-school, half newbie group. So we pretty much ignore them and continue to use a lot of GM discretion.
I understand pretty well why the changes were made, and why the new style of play is appealing to a lot of folks. It certainly standardizes games more, makes it easier to start DMing, and controls the worst impulses of poor DMs (and judging from various complaint threads there are a lot of them out there, or at least a lot of players who think their DMs are poor).
As long as they keep Rule Zero in some reasonable form, and expressly acknowledge that different gamestyles, homerules and so forth are not only allowed but expected and encouraged, I'm happy. If and when designers ever do cross that line and eliminate GM discretion or even start to actively discourage it, I'll be gone, because it won't be the game I love anymore.
So long live GM discretion, in whatever form each table decides it should take. In diversity lies strength for the hobby in general and PF in particular.
i have fun gming, but only because of the story unfolding and the look on the characters faces. the reason im running a game is because i want the other people at the table who gm to use some of the ideas that i introduce (if they like it and want too, im not forcing the too.) but im a player at heart, have been and always will be. gming is hard for me. im so used to one playstyle that when i have to run monsters or npcs that i dont like how their abilities are its hard for me. but i try my best regardless. but i cant wait to sit down and play again.
You can always vary the abilities as long as the basics are there. This also keeps the rules lawyers on their toes. Give the cockatrice breath like the bull gorgon or give the rust monster an anti-magic touch as well as the rusting power or just wing the stats if you need to. I don't always pull out the bestiary when the party goes off script and encounters a monster. Need a "Crypt Worm" for a level 3 encounter? Fine, 45 Hp, +3 to initiative, +Saves +6/+3, AC 20/13/17, Attack: +9/ 2d6+4 damage plus Poison Spores every 3 turns DC 15 or 1d3 CON. Make up the rest as ou go along.
I'm not saying ignore the rules entirely. The cockatrice stll turns people to stone, the rust monster is still not smething you want up close, and the completely made up "Crypt Worm" is something the party should be able to figure out will ahve some sort of nasty, disease/poison effect.
When I can, I use the stats from the bestiary, sometimes upped or dropped to make the encounter interesting or unique.
And that's without using an Advanced, Fiendish, Dire Flumph
3. When you are inexperienced, it is better to use modules, and to run them as written, at first. It teaches you what you can get away with winging it, and how to judge relative strengths of party vs. monster. PF Society is good, RPGA tournaments were even better. I got many a first time DM comfortable with running by starting them with an RPGA classic tournament.
I think this is a good point.
Most DMs and especially new DMs aren't nearly as good as they think at eyeballing challenge difficulty or fully thinking through the consequences of changes they're making (either to an adventure or the rules in general).
That doesn't mean that you should never change an adventure or make house rules; it does mean that not doing so is a good default until you have the experience to make less serious mistakes.
Really, I think a lot of the backlash on the internet against DM fiat is either because of exceptionally bad DM fiat(e.g. the example above where the DM drops a PC's INT score because he doesn't think he did the smartest possible thing in a fight), or because DM fiat is used as a bad argument to try to smooth over balance problems (e.g. "It doesn't matter if the soulknife is mechanically terrible, a good DM will make it work somehow.")
DM fiat is regarded with contempt as it is most often used by bad DMs on a power trip. Now this is not to say you can't change things. But for it to not be fiat, you need solidly defined reasons for it.
"I am making full attacks a standard action so you can actually take them with some degree of reliability and so that non casting enemies can better threaten PC spellcasters." is a change backed by a solid, mechanical reason.
"Warlocks are overpowered/ToB is anime herp derp/No your Fighter cannot have the sword upgrade he must have to function." are examples of why DM fiat is regarded with such contempt. Not just because those claims have no solid basis behind them, but because changing things randomly indicates other problems.
I agree.