Dungeon mastering is a human social interactive activity. When it comes down to humans dealing with humans there are very few activities of that nature that don't have a wide range of possibilities.
The problem is "that being an otherwise fine player, or otherwise fine DM is not enough to overcome a fatal weakness. There are DM's that work fine with dictatorial players. and it's one thing when a player indicates a preference for a style of DMing. It's something completely different when someone brings up that question with the very hostile accusatory tone that the OP comes in, that's an attempt to bully a DM with an accusation of "cheating". A person who opens a relationship with a DM in that mode has fatally poisoned the way they will interact.
As a player, you're a guest at my table, I have a right to expect some deference with the effort I'm giving so that you can have a good time, in return I'll give respect to you as a player by being a fair judge. Expecting to Co-DM as some players seem to do is beyond what I'm willing to tolerate.
Wow hold on there. Where is the hostility? Sure the thread title acustory tone...even hostile(that is just to get people's attention). But than again I am tired of GM who get stagnate in their style...or judge all players based on the bad player they had back than...or a bad GM they had when they were a player.
I have not said there is only one true style to GM. But I do think GMs atleast in my area have stagnated alot in there is no growth...every one GM out there thinks his style is perfect. There is no need to learn more. With the exception of I and one of my other regular GMs I play with most reject ideas just out of hand.
I don't bully anyone. I'll talk to a GM after or before the game at length. The only time when I demostrate during a game is the last ditch chance to save the game for me.
Here is the problem I see with most GMs I have seen...and on these boards.
Player comes up with a interesting idea. Comes to the GM. The GM says 'No'. Players ask why? Note at this time I can accept almost any answear that you can think of...except the one that follows...the answear is usualy a varient of this.
"Because I had this player named Bob who I allowed to do it once and wrecked the game for everyone" My reply is usualy,"I am not Bob."
A perfect example of this was posted before where the reason stated about letting the characters have a free rein in the game is because a dick player once killed the plot hook. Note it was the action of one player.
Killing any new idea because of the actions of some dick....where is the fun in that? Sure I am all for trusting the players...but from what I have seen alot of GMs don't trust their players and usualy it is based on some past event. Players by the way suffer from the same thing at times.
There is no mandated stated in this thread that you should change your style to match my own. Atleast it was not intended to be one. My point is only to get GMs to think about their style and to expand on it. Heck I plan on running AP because such things run counter to my style because I might be ble to learn from it.
It's amazing to me to see the wide range of difference on the role of Dungeon Master.
I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer. I run a very democratic table where everyone gets an equal share in how the game plays out and Rule 0 has not been welcome for some years.
The concept of telling an otherwise fine player to leave the table because they asked if you would roll in the open is mind-boggling to me. The same with getting agitated because they wish to keep their current hit point total secret for fear I might meta-game. Of course I live in an area where finding a replacement player is major work, but still. I like to have an gaming enviroment were it's all open and everyone is free to have the experience they want to have, which is why I normally turn a blind eye to the occasional bit of dice fudging from the players.
To me the Dungeon Master's role is to craft an enjoyable game for the player and I try to have a very hands off approch in doing that. I guess I would prefer to be the silent puppetmaster gently pulling strings as opposed to the director that gives direction to the actors on stage.
Also I agree with the idea that even if a Dungeon Master couldn't cheat because they control the rules, that breaking the social contract that binds the group together can leave the players feeling cheated. If the players feel cheated than they lose trust in the Dungeon Master which just makes it harder to have fun. Building trust is, like many thing, very hard to do but oh-so easy to destroy.
+1000...though at my table Rule Zero is not just for the GM....if a player or GM has a problem with a rule and want to houserule...they are allowed to bring it up via e-mail or before or after the game for group discussion...the GM as finale say but personaly I usualy always lisaten to my players and come up with a compromise if their is a debate.
Also it does not amaze me their is a wide range of differences on the role the GM...what amazes me how most GMs are very closed minded about things.
B...because it allows the player to imagine what happens...or better yet let the player describes what happens.Which sounds better?
A: "The creature lunges toward you, fangs bared, attempting to gore you with it's crude, jagged horns. However, in it's haste and rage, it over-estimates it's attack. Clutching your wounds, you painfully manage to pull your body out of the way just as the creature's horns graze your tattered armor."
or
B: "The creature attacks, but you dodge it. Next?
See how the DM having that little bit of extra info can paint a prettier picture?
When a player describes what happens, I don't counter it. Not sure what you're implying by this.
If you'd really prefer the DM not describe anything and just "imagine what happens", then why play a social game? Why have a DM at all, if all you're going to do is roll dice and imagine what happens? Isn't part of the DM's job to describe what's going on?
When a player describes what happens, I don't counter it. Not sure what you're implying by this.
If you'd really prefer the DM not describe anything and just "imagine what happens", then why play a social game? Why have a DM at all, if all you're going to do is roll dice and imagine what happens? Isn't part of the DM's job to describe what's going on?
You only put two options...and asked for the best.
Personaly I think C: Let the player describe the action in regards to his PC...with the DM taking over only to encourage and inspire the player to do so himself.
My problems with A is that you are in part describing what the PC is doing....given the choice I rather get out of combat fast so I can start playing my character again...just my opinion.
Sure the GM can...heck in great detail describe things...just not what is going on with my PC. I would even say GM who don't give the full desciption of a room...or pre combat stuff is a lousy GM.
Though there is nothing wrong with A either if given the player says he is clutching his wounds. That is much more cooperative story telling as the game is intended.
As a DM you should allow your players to decide what they want in their game or at least explain how you run the game so they know up front.Bullpuckey. At my tables, I'm the judge. I have responsibility as to how tables are run and I'll run them the way I see fit. If you have an issue with that see the appropriate convention coordinator. If it's in my home game, I probably would not have invited you in the first place.
I'm somewhere in the middle. If I'm feeling in the mood to DM a game, I almost always have a style, story, or setting in mind. I ask the players if they'd be interested, and if so, we start up a game. I ask for input on some things they'd like to see or do in the game, and we discuss(key word here) house rules. I am not just letting them decide the whole game ala carte, and I'm not brow-beating them into "my" story either. We discuss and find something to agree upon, that's fun for everyone involved.
Every DM I have ever played under, has their own style of game they run. Players have their preferred styles of games too. These don't always mesh together. The games I run typically have a story going on, that bends and changes with the decisions and paths the players take. I refuse to railroad my players into the story, but if something world-changing is going on, and they refuse to take part, the game world changes to reflect this(example; if they were the only ones who could stop an invading army, said army invades). Some players I've DM'ed for only wanted a sandbox. Any and all attempts to bring up a plot or adventure outside of when they specifically want it has been met with resistance and grade-school pouting. These types of players are not invited back.
Hm...as far as i know ESRB rating of R means Restricted, or above 18. maybe it's like that in europe...never bothered with film ratings anyway...would like them to go away completely,.Hmmm...but R is spleens exploding and people going to pieces...NC 17 would be blood with very little gore on the side...I was thinking the opposite. In the US, an R-rated movie means any age can view, they just need to be accompanied by an adult. I saw Aliens and the first two Terminator films in the theater as a child with my Mom.
NC-17 means nobody under the age of 17 permitted at all, so much more graphic.
G : Everyone can see.
PG : Parental Guidance Suggested, but not required.PG-13 : Parental Guidance Suggested for anyone under 13, but not required.
R : Restricted, no one under 18 without a guardian.
NC-17 : No one under 17 allowed at all.
X : Unofficial, adults only.
Basically, NC-17 was added as an 'adults only' by the ESRB to avoid the 'adult' connotation that X had already garnered. In reality, who get's into what depends on who's selling tickets and who has the best bluff. My wife worked in a theatre, and saw 16yo's selling tickets for R movies to other 16yos all the time.
When a player describes what happens, I don't counter it. Not sure what you're implying by this.
If you'd really prefer the DM not describe anything and just "imagine what happens", then why play a social game? Why have a DM at all, if all you're going to do is roll dice and imagine what happens? Isn't part of the DM's job to describe what's going on?
You only put two options...and asked for the best.
Personaly I think C: Let the player describe the action in regards to his PC...with the DM taking over only to encourage and inspire the player to do so himself.
My problems with A is that you are in part describing what the PC is doing....given the choice I rather get out of combat fast so I can start playing my character again...just my opinion.
Sure the GM can...heck in great detail describe things...just not what is going on with my PC. I would even say GM who don't give the full desciption of a room...or pre combat stuff is a lousy GM.
Though there is nothing wrong with A either if given the player says he is clutching his wounds. That is much more cooperative story telling as the game is intended.
You're nitpicking. If a player describes their actions, why would I talk over them? I simply gave an example of using mechanical game knowledge to flesh out a scene, and I'm getting picked apart word for word. Change the wording. Do what you like. You've obviously already missed the entire point of the post.
Besides, re-read "A". I only described in a vague, general manner what the actual player does. I don't imply them readying a specific spell, drawing a weapon, saying something, or any other specific gesturing other than "clutching wounds" implying the player was low on HP and moving out of the way, implying the monster misses the attack.
I didn't say "You do a quadruple-back flip off of the wall behind you, making a silly face while quoting Monty Python in latin, as the beast misses you", so stop making it out like I did.
Cheating is about asserting control to achieve a preferred outcome, and most of the time it is based on an interpretation of a rule. So when there is the perception of losing control, like rolling behind a DM screen, or not providing information to the DM, or not agreeing on a rule, then trust starts to erode. Regardless of your intentions, perception is reality. Therefore, you have to ask yourself if what is your goal for playing the game, as role playing at its best is a cooperative exercise versus a competition. At least that is my belief. So it is best to get all your preferences out at the start of a game, and if something is done that you don’t like, then ask, or if you pick up resentment based on what you are doing as a player or DM, then explain what you are doing. If you end up on the road where everyone’s views are polarized, then it probably best to take a break, or move on to a new game. If there is no give and take, then you may as well play a computer game, or run a completely open game - where anyone is free to review player’s characters, monsters, NPCs, traps, magic items, etc.
For the 3 scenarios described, you can find a player and/or DM that contribute equally to drive the process to the end state.
Asking the DM to roll out in the open I think is a pretty fool proof way of finding out if a DM is going to do any of the things that annyoyed the OP (or "cheat", again using the OPs word). If a DM IS willing to roll everything out in the open chances are he IS NOT going to do any of the things the OP is irritated about. If, on the other hand, a DM is not willing to roll in the open and in fact gets annoyed at the suggestion then you can surmise he is more likely to do some (or all) of the things that annoyed the OP. So I feel it remains a valid way for the OP to avoid what he feels will be a bad game.
I disagree. While it is a surefire way to piss me as a DM off, (or even as a player, if I saw another player attempt to harass a DM in this manner) it is not a surefire way to find out if the DM is willing to cheat.
If I roll in front of you, and roll a 4, and hit you, all that tells you is that the current modifier on that roll equaled or exceeded your AC - 4. If the next time around I roll a 10 and miss, what does that say? Maybe the guy had a buff expire, or used true strike. (Didn't see the spell? Maybe it was silent/still/cast by someone else/disguised.) Maybe the guy was using power attack and combat expertise the second time around. Maybe the guy was striking for nonlethal damage that second time. And maybe, the DM is "cheating" and making up the modifiers as suits him. You still don't know.
So if I'm a GM to who the roll of the dice means nothing, it doesn't help you to see whether or not I roll a 4 or an 18. Those can mean different things even when they are the same thing.
So not only does your little insulting method give a false positive (since I would definitely come up as a 'cheat' under your system, because there's no way I'm going to give you metagame information or let you know when you are making a secret Perception check to note a trap/assassin or a Sense Motive check to tell when you are being bluffed.), but your method also gives false negative, since a cheating DM doesn't need to explain why a 4 hits and a 10 misses.
So yeah. Not impressed with telling the DM that what she asked for doesn't matter, and she should just roll. Not impressed with asking the DM to roll in front of you to make sure she doesn't cheat.
I have no issue with a player leaving a bad DM's game, or even a good DM's game whose style conflicts with their own enjoyment. If you can do so in an emotionally mature and healthy manner, that's probably best. I don't even have an issue with confronting the DM on the issue after a session, telling him what you feel and how it ruins your enjoyment. (I actually require my players to give weekly feedback on sessions, so that even when I disagree with them, I know what they are feeling) It's possible there is a compromise or a misunderstanding, and everything can be good. But trying to confront the DM on things during the session isn't the right way to deal with it. It's socially immature, disruptive and displays a lack of courtesy.
That doesn't even make sense. There's still people who believe the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it. Doesn't make it true.
Believing does not make things true.
In this case it does. The only people who can determine if cheating occurs are those potentially involved. If they call it as cheating(rules actually being broken) then cheating has occurred.
"I asked the GM what monster he was using so I can look up its stats and he wouldn't tell me. He was cheating because I called him a cheater."
Crying wolf doesn't make a wolf be there.
"Cheating" is defined as "rules being broken", not "someone feels treated unfairly or thinks the rules have been broken". And the RPG rules are defined as "whatever GM says."
The GM always follows the rules. Because what the GM says is, per definition, the rules. They can do crappy stuff, they can do dickish stuff, they can do all that, but they can't cheat.
That is not true at all. If the rules did not change, and the GM did the opposite of what the rules state then he is not following the rules, therefore he broke the rule. There is difference between changing a rule on the fly, and just ignoring it.
The rules change. Whatever the GM does is automatically according to the rules. They change to suit his whims.
So you are saying that the moment a GM breaks a rule it changes to whatever just happened even if only for an instant?
Almost. I say that the rules automatically accommodate the GM so he doesn't actually break them.
Just like you can't break a rope by snapping it in half. It bends, taking any shape you want them to take. You can even tie knots.
Rules of games like international football are sticks.
RPG rules are ropes.
Asking the DM to roll out in the open I think is a pretty fool proof way of finding out if a DM is going to do any of the things that annyoyed the OP (or "cheat", again using the OPs word). If a DM IS willing to roll everything out in the open chances are he IS NOT going to do any of the things the OP is irritated about. If, on the other hand, a DM is not willing to roll in the open and in fact gets annoyed at the suggestion then you can surmise he is more likely to do some (or all) of the things that annoyed the OP. So I feel it remains a valid way for the OP to avoid what he feels will be a bad game.
Anyone who has the audacity to demand anything from me as GM, especially indulging his obsessive-compulsive meta-gaming by rolling in the open would be out on the street at once.
Demanding the GM rolls stuff in the open - thus giving the player information ha has no right to (like what the monsters stats are) - is dumb.
Insinuating that a GM who refuses is a cheater is dumb and rude.
This does not make the DM a good or bad DM, nor is it some kind of irrational request for a potential player to make of a DM.
It could only get more irrational to demand the GM play nude so he won't hide cards up his sleeve. People who demand stuff like that "to keep the GM straight" probably are the kind of people who'll wear tinfoil heads to prevent the government from reading their thoughts or making them obey.
Players are entitled to play in whatever kind of game they like.
Players are entitled to choose whether they want to play in the game that is offered. They're even entitled to make suggestions.
They have no right whatsoever to dictate GM styles.
You sound like you want to reduce the GM to a slave catering to the players' whims.
Asking this upfront is good for the DM and the player as they now have a better understanding of each other at the very least.
Yeah, they can toss the player out of the group and have a better game with more reasonable people, that's true.
No need to get all huffy about it if you are a DM and a potential payer asks you to do this. It's no different than any other aspect of the game a player may ask about.
So you demand that the guy gives you meta-game knowledge, call him a cheater if he doesn't, and heap on insults if the guy won't ask if you want your boots licked, too?
To me, what the OP is really looking for is a Referee not a DM.
Good luck with that. He'll better expect to have to pay people for their time.
As a DM you should allow your players to decide what they want in their game
Of course they can decide what they want. Doesn't mean they'll get it. Just means that they can go if they don't get what they want. That or cope.
or at least explain how you run the game so they know up front.
Nobody says the GM shouldn't explain how he runs the game.
I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer.
Little known fact (or so it seems): Those are not the only two choices.
The concept of telling an otherwise fine player to leave the table because they asked if you would roll in the open is mind-boggling to me.
A guy who demands stuff like that probably isn't fine otherwise. Especially if he goes all Conspiracy Theory on the GM and calls him cheater if he doesn't agree at once.
The same with getting agitated because they wish to keep their current hit point total secret for fear I might meta-game.
You let the players cheat and meta-game with the HP, fine. Others won't be walked all over.
everyone is free to have the experience they want to have
I want to play a serial rapist. If there are female players playing female characters, I want my character to rape those characters. I want to describe the act in great detail, looking that woman - or, better yet, girl - in the eyes the whole time.
Spoiler: Not really. I'm no creep. There really are people like that around, though.
And yes, I'm using the worst possible example here (which seems to be par for the course).
What remains a fact is that everyone should be comfortable in their role.
That includes the GM...
I've seen DMs who accommodated their players' every demand. Some of those players were real pricks, and that coupled with the fact that the GM wouldn't deny unreasonable demands broke those games.
Also I agree with the idea that even if a Dungeon Master couldn't cheat because they control the rules, that breaking the social contract that binds the group together can leave the players feeling cheated.
We never claimed that the GM can do no wrong. There are bad GMs. Some are bad because they're wusses and let everyone walk all over them, others are control freaks, rail-roaders, player-haters (finally a situation where that term makes sense!). They're just not cheaters. Being dicks is what they are.
The GM has to realise that he's dealing with dials, not switches. And sometimes more than one dial for a particular issue.
The GM has to be stern. Stern but fair. I'm not talking about strict-schoolteacher-stereotype strict here, but they have to stick to their guns. They can (and should) listen to all sorts of requests and suggestions, but they need to be firm enough to deny these requests if they're unreasonable. They need to be stern enough to remove trouble players.
Sometimes they can try to talk sense into people, but a good GM knows when someone is a lost cause and kicks him out quickly to minimise the damage he does.
Crying wolf doesn't make a wolf be there.
And the RPG rules are defined as "whatever GM says."
Hyperbole does not add to your case.
Making the rules in no way implies that you can't break them or do you want to say that politicians can't break the law?
......Just like you can't break a rope by snapping it in half. It bends, taking any shape you want them to take. You can even tie knots.
Rules of games like international football are sticks.
RPG rules are ropes.
I understand your point of view, but I don't agree of course. Oh well.
Asking the DM to roll out in the open I think is a pretty fool proof way of finding out if a DM is going to do any of the things that annyoyed the OP (or "cheat", again using the OPs word). If a DM IS willing to roll everything out in the open chances are he IS NOT going to do any of the things the OP is irritated about. If, on the other hand, a DM is not willing to roll in the open and in fact gets annoyed at the suggestion then you can surmise he is more likely to do some (or all) of the things that annoyed the OP. So I feel it remains a valid way for the OP to avoid what he feels will be a bad game.
Anyone who has the audacity to demand anything from me as GM, especially indulging his obsessive-compulsive meta-gaming by rolling in the open would be out on the street at once.
Demanding the GM rolls stuff in the open - thus giving the player information ha has no right to (like what the monsters stats are) - is dumb.
Insinuating that a GM who refuses is a cheater is dumb and rude.
Here we agree. :)
Hm...as far as i know ESRB rating of R means Restricted, or above 18. maybe it's like that in europe...never bothered with film ratings anyway...would like them to go away completely,.
They're an useful tool if they're suggestions. Especially if they list the things that might be bad for kids ("PEGI 18 - Bad Language, Sex, Violence, Blood")
If they base stupid laws on that stuff, it gets crappy.
Today I received a game in the mail. It cost 10€ - and 5€ in shipping because it has to be sent to me personally. Because it has an FSK rating of 18. Because apparently if some 17-year-old gets hold of that game, he'll flip out and kill everyone at his school. Everyone. Starting with himself.
Nevermind that I've been playing games like that since I was 12 or so (and that includes the stuff that was actually banned). And even though I often thought it would be a good idea to kill maybe not everyone but at least a lot of the people at my school, I never went and got myself a rocket launcher just like in Doom and started fragging the punks.
I must be the exception, though.
Anyway, I have no idea what the laws are like right now - but I think in many areas, neither sex nor violence will get parents and government both running for the hills. There, the ratings really are just a recommendation. If you want to let your 12-year-old kid play Medal of Duty: Bad Company, nobody will bat an eye.
Hyperbole does not add to your case.
Crying wolf doesn't make a wolf be there.
And the RPG rules are defined as "whatever GM says."
You're the one who's saying that whenever someone feels cheated, they have been cheated.
That's simply not true. It means that they feel cheated. People can be quite irrational with their feelings.
Making the rules in no way implies that you can't break them or do you want to say that politicians can't break the law?
That's not even close to relevant.
Politicians are (supposed to be) servants of the people. They're still people. They can't just decide laws. They are bound by the constitution, and laws must be decided on, and politicians are still subject to them. Whether democracy and politicians really work should not be part of this discussion.
A GM is a whole different animal. They don't just make the rules, they ARE the rules. They're not bound by anything. Rule 0 gives them free reign.
In that regard, they're absolute rulers. Tyrants. Dictators. Gods, really. And not the wishy-washy Greek type of god. More the way Christians and the like define the term. Almighty and all knowing.
They can create a stone that is so heavy nobody can move it AND they can move that stone. Imagine Chuck Norris sitting behind that screen.
A GM is a whole different animal. They don't just make the rules, they ARE the rules. They're not bound by anything. Rule 0 gives them free reign.
In that regard, they're absolute rulers. Tyrants. Dictators. Gods, really. And not the wishy-washy Greek type of god. More the way Christians and the like define the term. Almighty and all knowing.
They can create a stone that is so heavy nobody can move it AND they can move that stone. Imagine Chuck Norris sitting behind that screen.
That's why I'm a "referee" and not a "GM" at my table. I quit playing the game you describe sometime during the '80's.
I trust my players not to abuse things; they trust me not to be a dick. We're all grown-ups. That might have something to do with the fact that I'd much rather reject an applicant than throw out an established player, so I vet all candidates.
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.
The only people who can determine who cheats are those individuals in that situation. If they declare it as cheating then it is cheating. Therefore GM's can cheat.
As to the politician thing I was just going off of the "those who make the rules can not break the rules" argument. I know the quotes are not your exact words. They are only there for clarity.
I did not see you are cheated if you feel cheated.
–verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
It is this simple:
Did you agree to XYes
Did you follow X
No
Is this a group where X is expected to be followed by everyone
Yes
Did X ever change to anything else for the group
No
Cheater!!!!
Now if a group says the GM can do whatever he wants then that is a social contract for that group, and that GM can not cheat.
I removed a couple posts. Play nice.
I've always seen my-self as more of an Intermediary between the players and the game world rather than a Dictator of the all the game that many of you seem to prefer.Little known fact (or so it seems): Those are not the only two choices.
Of course not. I'm sure that like most things the vast majority of Dungeon Masters fall in the middle. However the squeaky wheel gets the grease so to say. A distrubingly, to me, large number of posters on gaming forums (not just this one) seem to either get rolled over by their players or have a god complex. Niether is an acceptable way to run the game in my opinion.
The concept of telling an otherwise fine player to leave the table because they asked if you would roll in the open is mind-boggling to me.A guy who demands stuff like that probably isn't fine otherwise. Especially if he goes all Conspiracy Theory on the GM and calls him cheater if he doesn't agree at once.
A Dungeon Master that demends something from their player and brooks no hesitation or questioning and answers it with raised voice or claims of godhood is likewise as unstable. Just my opinion.
You let the players cheat and meta-game with the HP, fine. Others won't be walked all over.
The same with getting agitated because they wish to keep their current hit point total secret for fear I might meta-game.
Honestly, I can't remember ever asking for a character's Hit Points. I do recall asking how the character was doing so often with the expectation to recieve a vague answer such as; fine, badly injuried, and so forth.
Of course I also don't know the character's saves on spells or armor class, rather I tell them what the target rolled or the total attack and they tell me if it's successful. I find that my players enjoy it more than if I simply said 'he saves' or 'your hit'.
As for being walked all over; if someone happens to step on your foot it doesn't require you to punch them in the face. Maybe that's just me.
I want to play a serial rapist. If there are female players playing female characters, I want my character to rape those characters. I want to describe the act in great detail, looking that woman - or, better yet, girl - in the eyes the whole time.
everyone is free to have the experience they want to have
No Dungeon Mastering style will make up for poor/immature/mentally ill players. I count my-self lucky that I have a group of mature and generally well-adjusted players that are every bit as invested in playing a good game as I am in running it.
That includes the GM...I've seen DMs who accommodated their players' every demand. Some of those players were real pricks, and that coupled with the fact that the GM wouldn't deny unreasonable demands broke those games.
I agree. However on the otherside are Dungeon Masters that make no accommodations for their players and are equally as prickish.
Also I agree with the idea that even if a Dungeon Master couldn't cheat because they control the rules, that breaking the social contract that binds the group together can leave the players feeling cheated.We never claimed that the GM can do no wrong. There are bad GMs. Some are bad because they're wusses and let everyone walk all over them, others are control freaks, rail-roaders, player-haters (finally a situation where that term makes sense!). They're just not cheaters. Being dicks is what they are.
The GM has to realise that he's dealing with dials, not switches. And sometimes more than one dial for a particular issue.
The GM has to be stern. Stern but fair. I'm not talking about strict-schoolteacher-stereotype strict here, but they have to stick to their guns. They can (and should) listen to all sorts of requests and suggestions, but they need to be firm enough to deny these requests if they're unreasonable. They need to be stern enough to remove trouble players.
Sometimes they can try to talk sense into people, but a good GM knows when someone is a lost cause and kicks him out quickly to minimise the damage he does.
I suppose it would help if I said that my definition of cheating for this purpose is 'to be deprived of something expected'.
When I sit down to play a game with rule book in hand (one that I paid good money for), a rule book for a game that the group agreed to play, I expect to play by the rules that are written in that book. I understand that modifications need to made to rules sometimes because no game is perfect. However when I'm told (as I have been in the past, to my face in no uncertain terms) that my character automatically fails at something because the story requires it, well gosh-darn it I feel cheated. When an enemy gets to escape despite all the effort the group put into stopping him, I feel cheated. When a large part of my character concept and build relies on the rules functioning a certain way and the Dungeon Master decides suddenly that they don't function that way, I feel cheated. When said Dungeon Master tells my we can discuss it after the game, then after game tells me there will be discussion of the subject and that their judgement is final, well, I feel cheated.
At the start of the game a social contract is formed to play the game a certain way and and all houserules or modifications should be made clear at this point. Despite what Rule 0 may say, that is the one rule that the Dungeon Master can cheat at. Again that's just my opinion.
A GM is a whole different animal. They don't just make the rules, they ARE the rules. They're not bound by anything. Rule 0 gives them free reign.In that regard, they're absolute rulers. Tyrants. Dictators. Gods, really. And not the wishy-washy Greek type of god. More the way Christians and the like define the term. Almighty and all knowing.
As much as I enjoy a livily discussion, we can stop here. There is no middle ground for us to meet upon. Our concepts of what a Dungeon Master are and should be are just too alien to each other to make it worth our time.
No matter how much I may disagree with your style, if you and you're players are enjoying your-selves then you're doing it right.
If there was a clear-cut definition of what DM/GM is(no, not bothering to look it up), it would have to be a simple, vague definition. From what we've seen in this thread alone, different people expect different things from their DM's. Since most groups evolve out of their own experience and preferences, not every group is going to be the same. People expect different things. Then, we bring those expectations to a thread with complete strangers and all of a sudden, expect our views to line up precisely. Not gonna happen. Leave your imaginary moral high-horse and tin foil hats at the door.
Not every DM is out to "cheat" you. If you walk into a what's supposed to be a fun, social game and start making demands, out of fear of unfairness, maybe you need to re-examine why you showed up to that game in the first place. Most games I DM, I do so from my home(access to books, mini's/accessories, and PDF's). Anyone rude enough to come into my home and start making demands, when all we're trying to do is play a game and have fun, will quickly be shown the door on the way out. Project your trust issues somewhere else.
The thread has been interesting to follow. Very passionate, and quite honestly, pretty entertaining.
I don't consider myself either a good DM or a bad DM, I'm just a DM. My first goal is to make sure that everybody sitting around the table has a good time. That goes for myself as well.
That being said. I generally roll behind a screen. I will occasionally fudge rolls, not necessarily to further the story, but to keep the game fun. I may tweak stats, and will often ignore some strategy advice in monster entries with my current group because they do not think strategically, and it would be very easy for me to kill them by applying that strategy. (The prospect of making new characters every few weeks does not appeal to me, nor would it appeal to them. ) That said, I have killed PC's and will probably continue to do so when the combat plays out that way. If I played with a group that put more insight to strategy during combat, I would run my combats accordingly.
I run printed stuff (to help save on time) though I let the adventures guide me (and guide the players). I don't force the module on the rails, the players know that it is a module, and so they ware willing to make some allowances for that, but I still let them go where they will with the story and guide them back onto the "tracks".
I have certain expectations of my players. I keep a "cheat sheet" with relevant stats for each character behind my screen, and make certain rolls for them (primarily Perception, though I may roll a Fort save for them if they have a chance of contracting a disease with a long onset) and a few others. This sheet also has their AC's and their HP's. I expect my players to roll so at least one other person can see it (not necessarily me). I expect my players not to meta-game (or do it as little as possible honestly). I expect my players to try and stay on task, and not bring up certain topics at the table. They expect me to be fair as a GM, and to put together a fun game. I'm not an arbiter, nor am I a referee. I certainly function in those roles, but I also have a responsibility to bring to life NPC's, the locales they travel in, the things they hear, smell and taste. Essentially, the world doesn't exist with out me, the game doesn't happen with out the Players, and the story doesn't come to life with out both of us working together.
That being said. I don't have to time to look up all the rules during a game. I'm not an encyclopedia of rules, I don't have most of them memorized. I try and refresh myself with pertinent rules for each game session. If I run across something that I don't know, and a player may not know off the top of their head, I make a ruling and move on. We'll find out the rule later. I expect the players to go with that. If any of them have a problem, then they can bring it up to me after the game (if it is a life and death scenario for their character then I'll hear it then). I'll listen to what the players have to say. I'll consider their input, but I make the final decision as to what happens in these situations. I'm willing to admit when I've made a mistake. I'm not willing to put up with angry disruptions.
I also have things that are just part of the games that I run. I have a list of house rules I hand out before each new campaign. I also have a list of table rules. House rules can be tweaked (and like I said, I'm open to player input). Table rules can't. If you don't like the table rules, well, then you probably won't enjoy the game. The house rules are tweaks I've made to either make the game more enjoyable, or "fix" things that may annoy me personally. I don't expect an argument or hostility to come with these house rules. If I say only certain books are being used, then that's that. If I say you need to clear feats and spells with me before you can take them, then that's that. If I disallow monster races, or even normal races or classes, it's probably because that fits the campaign better, and that's that. The table rules are there to help keep folks focused on the game, and to avoid arguments about things outside the game.
I want the games to be fun. I want everybody to walk away from a game session with some memorable quotes, memorable scenarios, and generally having felt like they didn't waste 4 or 5 hours of their night. I'm certainly open to players suggestions. But if I state that something works a specific way, then I don't want arguments. If a player insists on being disruptive, I'll ask him to leave. Not at the table in front of the other players, but discreetly after the game session. If he isn't having a good time, then I'm not having a good time, and if I'm the reason for that, then he needs to find another game.
I've played under DM's that fall under all three of the OP's "Cheating GM" list. I have never considered them cheats. They have a very specific play style, and I accept that. I've played under GM's that have a fairly fixed plot and sacred cow NPC's. They were brilliant at weaving the plot, and made the game enjoyable despite those "faults". I've played with GM's who were very much, let the dice fall where they may. To the point of being almost adversarial. I didn't enjoy those games as much. But the I know other players in the group who did. I've played with many GM's who were pretty much like me. When the situation calls for it, they fudge things. When they don't have an answer, they make it up. They might have some house rules that I'm not used to, simply because they saw something they didn't like and "fixed" it. Just like me.
GMing is a very subjective role. That's very apparent from all the arguments that have popped up in this thread. I could probably play in any one of my fellow posters campaigns and have a blast running a PC. I treat each new DM as an individual whose playing style I need to learn. I know that each one is different, and even the games I don't enjoy as much as others, I guarantee I'll still have fun. Me personally as a GM, many on here would probably enjoy my games, many wouldn't. But regardless, I'd still try and make sure that each person walks away from a game session having had a good time.
Being a DM is a tough job. I have done it since time out of mind, it sometimes feels like nowadays, but I understand I still have mountains to climb. Regarding the DM rules #1-#3, my view is that these are not sins of quality, but rather sins of degree.
Gone far enough, #1 means no challenge, and most likely, no interest. However, playing is far and away more than surviving the latest threat of death. Many of the sessions I recall most fondly as a player did indeed not contain any plausible threat of death, but focused on roleplaying interactions, investigation, rewarding environments, discussions in-character and so on. I would say it's not the threat of death that is the real point here, but the threat of FAILURE. If what you're doing is intriguing your way to the top of the court hill, being ostracised is just as intimidating as death.
#2, the killer DM, means you have not understood your job correctly, however, you may still have done roughly the right things on the path to your failure. It is important to every player to be challenged, and a killer DM certainly makes sure of that. It's just that unfair killer DMs are no fun. A campaign where everyone knows that there is a huge dragon in the big cave, and the PCs at lvl 1 go there, well, I would not see it as a terrible crime if the DM killed off the PCs. If your campaign is sandbox enough, PCs will die due to inappropriate-CR threats, and that's fine so long as the players understand this.
#3 is the part I am closest to on this list. I want there to be some kind of story, otherwise, is it all about XP and GP and CR? I feel that without a story, at least a sketchy one, there is little room for roleplaying. Given that nowadays I mostly have time only for published adventures, I always have such a story framework. Certainly, there is a lot of room for the personal stories in the larger ones, but a sandbox world can be oh-so-boring and above all, static.
It is also a question about improvisation. Say that the heroes suddenly barge off from Sandpoint just as the next development was to happen, what do I do as a DM? Do I railroad them back, do I freeze things in Sandpoint until they come back, do I let the invading army destroy the town... and what do I give them where they have gone instead? Pathfinder is a complex game to improvise, and while I am reasonably good at doing so, I know it's not going to feel as polished or exciting as what I have prepared well for. It really is a situation where choices are difficult to make. I believe that staying ahead of the players is critical. You have to listen very carefully for what they might be doing some time in the future, and prepare reasonably well for it, sometimes even asking them what they would prefer to do.
Regarding rolling dice in the open, I roll behind a screen, and I make no excuses for it. I sincerely doubt the players would enjoy a fifth consecutive fight against 3d6 goblins while down in the Caves of Random Encounters. I don't find massive critical hits that auto-kill PCs very enjoyable. I don't want the players to metagame about "hey, if 12 was enough for him to hit me, he has to either have a 16 strength or be 8th level, unless of course his belt is magic, dibbs by the way." This is not about fairness or "dealing with it", it's about disruptive consequences that destroy characters and interest in the game. Certainly, I always try to handle the dice properly, but I believe I do know when to fudge and when not to by now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You would be immediately thrown out of my game. I have no patience for that sort of nonsense and attempt to create a power struggle when none should exist. I'm already investing 10 hours for every one my players do to ensure that the game is fun, challenging, interesting and exciting for everyone.So your game is very anti-new player who might have played under a GM who uses a similiar thing as I do.
This jumped out at me as the key relevant piece of information on your 'side' of this thing.
That isn't 'anti-new player'. That's anti-new issues. The dynamic between you and a GM should be different than that between you and someone selling you a car from a newspaper ad. If it's a new GM to you then that dynamic should be entered into in a similar way to one in which you hope to get laid. No, I don't mean pay for the food, get the door for them, ask what movie they'd rather see, buy them flowers, take them out to coffee, or pretend like you've got your act together.
What I mean is check your baggage at the curb.
You don't get into a new relationship pissed at the other party for something your ex did to you, at least not if you want to stay in it for very long. You can keep the past experience in mind so that if it arises again you know it doesn't work for you and you leave, sure! However, it isn't reasonable to expect others to compensate for how we've been treated by people other than them. If a woman shows up on a date with me and slaps me in the mouth because the last guy called her a b&#$# or something, and she wants to let me know she won't take that, the date is over. It doesn't mean her expectations of decent treatment are unreasonable. However the sin for which I am being punished was not committed by me.
It amounts to questioning someone's integrity. If you're so sure you have a reason to do that with a particular person then you don't have a good relationship with that person, and you should walk away. If you feel that you have a reason to do that with everyone who GMs, then the problem is you.
I'm not trying to be rude, and I don't have an interest in getting involved in the argument here. I'm posting hoping it helps and that's all there to it for me. I think it sucks that there are that many people out there who've had bad GMs, but perpetuating the adversarial vibe with the next one before offense is even offered doesn't help.
Sincerely, good luck.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Or a GM that states a rule is one way...than changes it next session...than again after that session...and again? That is GM cheating.
That is GM inconsistency and I hate it probably as much as you do.
Or how about the mandate to provide fun? What does that mean exactly? Here I thought that was everyone's responisibility...but with the philosphy that it is only the GMs job...you are cheating your players by enforcing your version on what is fun for them. Are you not?
It is the responsibility of everyone at the table. But as you mentioned, the GM controls 90% of everything--therefore, it is mainly the GM's job, not only the GM's job. Part of that mandate is knowing your players, knowing what they like and expect, and delivering that. Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said that it's a mark of a bad GM to try to unilaterally decide on and impose your own vision of fun without considering your players. If you're part of a group that wants pure RAW and expects you to roll in the open and never use a GM screen, well, you probably should comply as a GM, or find a different group of players. Those kinds of decisions are a matter of consensus and there's give and take involved.
Personally, as a GM, I'd never accept a player at my table who made demands, any more than I'd humor a house guest I invited over for burgers who suddenly demanded lobster and caviar.
That said, I've been on the player side of the screen from an overtly railroady GM and I hate the experience. We had awesome tactics, we rolled well, and we didn't make any stupid errors... we beat some encounters I'm sure he thought were going to kill us (like 4 level 1 PCs with nary a silver weapon vs a pack of 6 wererats, whom we killed with tactics like sneak attacks with silverware and bull rushing them into fireplaces), we cornered the boss and were about to beat him too, when all of a sudden he used a previously-unmentioned artifact ring to teleport away. This wasn't a case of sandbox stumbling into a dragon's lair, either; it was a determined, resourceful villain who just outclassed us. And we kept beating him despite it through frankly brilliant play, only to have him use some plot power to gain the upper hand. I pretty much ragequit when it became obvious that no matter how well we planned and executed, no matter how high we rolled, we could not accomplish our goals. I don't think the GM ever fudged any rolls against us, he just put us up against a high-unbeatable adversary who also happened to have plot armor.
#3 is the part I am closest to on this list. I want there to be some kind of story, otherwise, is it all about XP and GP and CR? I feel that without a story, at least a sketchy one, there is little room for roleplaying. Given that nowadays I mostly have time only for published adventures, I always have such a story framework. Certainly, there is a lot of room for the personal stories in the larger ones, but a sandbox world can be oh-so-boring and above all, static.
The thing is a sandbox does not mean any story at all. Actualy my campaigns often contain multiple stories...there is not one huge BBG at the end...the story just depend on the players pushing it forward. My campaigns are based off the characters backgrounds...that is the story.
Also how exactly is sandbox campaign static? I don't get how that is even remotely possible? I see most publish APs to be pretty stactic in very little actualy changes...
It is also a question about improvisation. Say that the heroes suddenly barge off from Sandpoint just as the next development was to happen, what do I do as a DM? Do I railroad them back, do I freeze things in Sandpoint until they come back, do I let the invading army destroy the town... and what do I give them where they have gone instead? Pathfinder is a complex game to improvise, and while I am reasonably good at doing so, I know it's not going to feel as polished or exciting as what I have prepared well for. It really is a situation where choices are difficult to make. I believe that staying ahead of the players is critical. You have to listen very carefully for what they might be doing some time in the future, and prepare reasonably well for it, sometimes even asking them what they would prefer to do.
Is this a actualy honest question...or commentary?
I'll answear how I handle it. What the PCs do away from the 'central stage' depend on where they are going and why?
As to what happens when they are gone....just follow the logical consequences of what happened. You could do a number of things...depending on the situration.
1) If the PCs are just going to x location for a reason that make sense in character...and plan on coming back....than freeze the timetable a bit. As to wqhy? Well one unless the PCs have the timetable....does it matter when it happens? If they know when it is going to happen....than you can create alot of things that might forestall a invasion...from bad weather...to a random anciernt dragon fly over.
2) If you have the invasion happen build a loose outline on what the PC can do to handle the situration...what was the goal for the invasion...etc.
3) I don't railroad much anymore...but this also can work if you can hide the rails from the PCs(the best way of course is to play of on what you do know about the character's goals, personality, etc....to make it atleast consistent with the character.)
Sorry but the above is very generic suggestion as I don't know the AP.
But as far as PF is too complex of a system to ad lib stats...and such. I really never ran into that problem. But I can understand people having that diffitculty....here is some suggestion to 'buy time'...
1) Go to the bathroom...go have a cig....whatever call a break to the game for 5 minutes if you need to think.
2) Haveing delaying encounter of things you can ad lib( monster stat blacks are great for this) to delay the encounters you need to prepare for next session.
3) Let the players RPing among their characters...planning...or buying stuff...or etc. That can eat up alot of time.
4) If the session is close to being over...call it early. Heck I even explain to my players that they have surprised me in the direction they choose to go...and congrats. them for it, but I need time to prepare.
5) if the group is easily distracted....encourage some out of game talk about something.
You would be immediately thrown out of my game. I have no patience for that sort of nonsense and attempt to create a power struggle when none should exist. I'm already investing 10 hours for every one my players do to ensure that the game is fun, challenging, interesting and exciting for everyone.So your game is very anti-new player who might have played under a GM who uses a similiar thing as I do.This jumped out at me as the key relevant piece of information on your 'side' of this thing.
That isn't 'anti-new player'. That's anti-new issues. The dynamic between you and a GM should be different than that between you and someone selling you a car from a newspaper ad. If it's a new GM to you then that dynamic should be entered into in a similar way to one in which you hope to get laid. No, I don't mean pay for the food, get the door for them, ask what movie they'd rather see, buy them flowers, take them out to coffee, or pretend like you've got your act together.
What I mean is check your baggage at the curb.
You don't get into a new relationship pissed at the other party for something your ex did to you, at least not if you want to stay in it for very long. You can keep the past experience in mind so that if it arises again you know it doesn't work for you and you leave, sure! However, it isn't reasonable to expect others to compensate for how we've been treated by people other than them. If a woman shows up on a date with me and slaps me in the mouth because the last guy called her a b#@!@ or something, and she wants to let me know she won't take that, the date is over. It doesn't mean her expectations of decent treatment are unreasonable. However the sin for which I am being punished was not committed by me.
It amounts to questioning someone's integrity. If you're so sure you have a reason to do that with a particular person then you don't have a good relationship with that person, and you should walk away. If you feel that you have a reason to do that with everyone who GMs, then the problem is you.
I'm not trying to be rude, and I don't have an interest in getting involved in the argument here. I'm posting hoping it helps and that's all there to it for me. I think it sucks that there are that many people out there who've had bad GMs, but perpetuating the adversarial vibe with the next one before offense is even offered doesn't help.
I agree with you 100%. I have never advocated anything of the sort...yet at the mere suggestion of player questioning a GM...it induces immediately anger? It not even at the gaming table...it is just on a message board. Heck I don't get pissed off at any GM...I don't get angery over at anybody over a freakin game.
It is the responsibility of everyone at the table. But as you mentioned, the GM controls 90% of everything--therefore, it is mainly the GM's job, not only the GM's job. Part of that mandate is knowing your players, knowing what they like and expect, and delivering that. Maybe you missed the part of my post where I said that it's a mark of a bad GM to try to unilaterally decide on and impose your own vision of fun without considering your players. If you're part of a group that wants pure RAW and expects you to roll in the open and never use a GM screen, well, you probably should comply as a GM, or find a different group of players. Those kinds of decisions are a matter of consensus and there's give and take involved.
True the GN is in the best position to determine and encourage fun at the table...I don't deny it...but that does not mean the GM can't share that 90% power with the players.
Also because the fact the GM has 90% power mean it is very easy for that GM to even unintentionaly ru roughshod over the PCs. One of the biggest ways to do this is to fudge the dice. Fudging the dice should be like a scaple in a GM's toolbox...I have unfortuanl;y started to see a trend to use ot more like a sledgehammer.
Personally, as a GM, I'd never accept a player at my table who made demands, any more than I'd humor a house guest I invited over for burgers who suddenly demanded lobster and caviar.
I agree with you 100%...please note I have never suggested going down to a table for the 1st time w/ a GM and demanding anything. I usualy talk to a GM first before the session and share ideas about gaming...and give the game a try and continue to ave conversations. But I have never sat down at a table and demanded anything...and would not welcome a player who does at my table. But that is also players who demand stuff also tend to demand stuff from the other players as well.
While I personally don't like railroading players. When it comes to D&D I find I need a MUCH bigger buffer of time to change directions.
And stats beside. The players are NOT the only ones playing. If the players radically shift story direction to where it is a different story, then I may not want to run the game anyway.
This is absolutely true for me as well. In fact the current AP I'm running is already off the rails, and I need to put in extra work before the next game session to guide it back. As for stats, I generally don't try and make it up on the fly, though i do use a +2 or +5 or a straight die roll on skill checks for mooks that have no stats, and wouldn't normally need them other than an opposed skill check here and there. If i need the stats for something in game, I'll use those from the Gamemastery Guide, or one of the few other books I have, I'll even have it marked if I'm anticipating the need.
There is a certain point though, like you, where the game can become so derailed that there's no going back and I'm no longer having fun any more. I made the mistake in a campaign years ago to just go along with where the players took the story. After about 6 months of gaming I realized I was no longer having much fun. Because I wasn't having fun, the players stopped having fun and the game dissolved.
|
True the GN is in the best position to determine and encourage fun at the table...I don't deny it...but that does not mean the GM can't share that 90% power with the players.
Also because the fact the GM has 90% power mean it is very easy for that GM to even unintentionaly ru roughshod over the PCs. One of the biggest ways to do this is to fudge the dice. Fudging the dice should be like a scaple in a GM's toolbox...I have unfortuanl;y started to see a trend to use ot more like a sledgehammer.
But it cuts both ways. The DM is entitled to have fun too. Many DMs, unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to the DMs chair, will want to have some sort of overriding theme or plot going on in their games. Not all - but I for one find aimless wandering between fights just to nab treasure and xp boring. I'm talking as a DM here - it's dull to adjudicate. So sandbox style is, for me, boring.
And therefore if I, as a DM, have prepared something with an element of plot because that is what I like, I'd quite like the players to play along a bit. Sure, I have to find appropriate hooks to bring them in as characters and keep them engaged, but as players I expect a degree of understanding that what they will get is structured, with an intended outcome (which will be "the PCs win", pick up the next plot coupon, and move on where intended). If players ignore that, they aren't contributing to the fun - they are throwing back at the DM what he has prepared and saying "Give me something else" - but rarely is the onus on anyone other than the DM to provide that "something else". So I don't really buy this "empowerment" stuff - at its worst, it just sounds like a justification for being a dick to the DM.
I can see this working if the players and the DM have explicity agreed that it will be a freeform game with nothing prepared upfront - but I would suggest that few DMs are really so good at improvisation that this could be sustained for long - I couldn't, and I would get bored anyway.
Multiple storylines are really just the same as having a specific storyline - just more of them. The benefit is that you can potentially fail (in one storyline) and the campaign isn't over. But some players will be demotivated by striving for several session just to have things peter out into mediocrity and failure. Players are generally drawn to D&D to be heroic and powerful, not naff losers. Again, if this is understood from the offset, no harm done. But it might not be inspiring.
But, as ever, these are issues of communication and DM style, not cheating. Generally speaking, if you know what you are doing, you don't need to fudge dice - encounter design should be appropriate based on the party's abilities. But, on the other hand, I had a guy temporarily abandon a campaign because his character died (though he had other stuff going on in his life, the death of his character was a catalyst). If I had fudged his dice and his character had lived, maybe he wouldn't have done that.
In many ways, I'm not attempting to be fair as a DM, I'm attempting to let my players have fun. Most players create their characters and want to test them against whatever challenges come up. They don't want you to fudge, because it would mean their players were not being fairly tested, and any victories (generally) won in this way would be worth less because it wasn't solely through their own efforts. But the issue isn't, in my view, about fairness/cheating in and of itself. It is about whether fudging dice rolls makes for a more fun game. I can forsee circumstances where fudging would make for a more fun game. This is especially where, as a DM, players achieve a sense of achievement and the testosterone surge that goes with that. If, as DM, I've deceived them, does it make it less fun? Maybe, but probably only for me, and maybe there are other considerations (like the one I mentioned above) which trump scrupulous sticking to dice rolls. And if my players are happy, pretty much I am happy.
|
In many ways, I'm not attempting to be fair as a DM, I'm attempting to let my players have fun. Most players create their characters and want to test them against whatever challenges come up. They don't want you to fudge, because it would mean their players were not being fairly tested, and any victories (generally) won in this way would be worth less because it wasn't solely through their own efforts. But the issue isn't, in my view, about fairness/cheating in and of itself. It is about whether fudging dice rolls makes for a more fun game. I can forsee circumstances where fudging would make for a more fun game. This is especially where, as a DM, players achieve a sense of achievement and the testosterone surge that goes with that. If, as DM, I've deceived them, does it make it less fun? Maybe, but probably only for me, and maybe there are other considerations (like the one I mentioned above) which trump scrupulous sticking to dice rolls. And if my players are happy, pretty much I am happy.
Yes, this. This exactly. First of all, i make sure my players don't know when i fudge the rolls. Thankfuly, i am good at math, so all my calculations are done quickly. If i see the monster would hit, and i know that the damage it would deal would kill the player, i generaly rule it a miss, or reduce damage to give the character a fighting chance. Dice are there to provide for randomness and luck. Nobody says that they should be adhered to as a straightjacket. It is simple, if a fight is too easy, because i rolled poorly, and characters rolled well, but they are not having fun because they expected more of a challenge, well, then i will fudge in their favor by making monsters hit more often and harder. If the fight is going poorly for the characters, and they are not having fun, i will lower the AC of the monsters or make them hit less often and hard.
Of course, if the fight is the endgame fight or an important BBEG, i will not fudge one bit, for either side. But i would hate it for a random encounter to wipe the party away. That would be stupid and anticlimactic. PCs are heroes after all.
My first priority is for my players to have fun, then for me to have fun because they are having fun.
If a session passes and they all had fun, then i consider i won. And that it is a success.
In the realm of computer RPGs, there is a theory of this, the sandbox vs narrative style. Take a look at, say, Final Fantasy games since VI. There is a main story, defined mainly as where you need to go at any given point to advance the plotline. There are also optional places you can go to, sometimes many, sometimes only one or a few. Often, this consists of a final "super boss", that is far harder than the story end boss. As long as you stay along the marked path, you meet level-appropriate resistance. Once you step off this path, you meet fixed resistance. If you're not up to that, you die. It is a crude system, but I would suspect it works rather well in a campaign too, if you just mark the "off-story" places as such.
Another issue that is important is the concept of fairness. The purpose of being fair as a DM, and indeed, following the game rules at all, is so that the players can make judgement calls about what effects their actions will have before they announce them. Sway too much there, and the game might as well be you telling the story yourself. However, allowing yourself to pick a better number on the d20 you just rolled, if you stay between 1 and 20, and roll behind a screen, will not likely unbalance the game. After all, it's what you could have rolled. A corollary to this is that you, as the DM, choose the situations the PCs will have to deal with. If you try out a new monster and the PCs are flying like chaff in the wind, it's your fault whatever you do. Yes, there is a system to help you judge this, but it's far from perfect. Mistakes do happen. And if you find yourself facing a probable TPK, which will be more fun for the players? A fudged roll, or having that TPK? When you have set up the challenge clearly, letting them face enemies of roughly the same type before so they can adequately judge it, THAT is when you should consider putting that TPK.
But it cuts both ways. The DM is entitled to have fun too. Many DMs, unless they are dragged kicking and screaming to the DMs chair, will want to have some sort of overriding theme or plot going on in their games. Not all - but I for one find aimless wandering between fights just to nab treasure and xp boring. I'm talking as a DM here - it's dull to adjudicate. So sandbox style is, for me, boring.
I agree a BAD sandbox game is the PCs aimlessly wondering around getting exp and treasure is pretty dull to me also. I not talking about that. In a sandbox game a GM can and hopefuly does effect the plot of the game. The plot (or plots) is just built of the player's action and the GM's reactions and vice a versa. I find this to be very fun...as heck I can be surprised as a GM.
And therefore if I, as a DM, have prepared something with an element of plot because that is what I like, I'd quite like the players to play along a bit. Sure, I have to find appropriate hooks to bring them in as characters and keep them engaged, but as players I expect a degree of understanding that what they will get is structured, with an intended outcome (which will be "the PCs win", pick up the next plot coupon, and move on where intended). If players ignore that, they aren't contributing to the fun - they are throwing back at the DM what he has prepared and saying "Give me something else" - but rarely is the onus on anyone other than the DM to provide that "something else". So I don't really buy this "empowerment" stuff - at its worst, it just sounds like a justification for being a dick to the DM.
Everything 'at it's worst' is a bad thing...thus the 'at it's worst part of the statement. Conversly at it's best the players and GM are working together and everybody is having a good time.
Also just swallowing what the GM is dishing out...leads to people not having fun either. It all depends on how the players does it and how the GM takes it. I find more often that it is more a problem of GM ego than players being rude.
I can see this working if the players and the DM have explicity agreed that it will be a freeform game with nothing prepared upfront - but I would suggest that few DMs are really so good at improvisation that this could be sustained for long - I couldn't, and I would get bored anyway.
I agree things should be explicity stated at the start of the game. What the campain will be about...heck part of my dislike for railroady type campaigns is I created characters unintentionaly that don't fit in the adventure...if the GM just said to me you might want to create another character...it would have been 100% better.
And you are right it is hard to run a game via improvisation...but as with anything if you practice you will become better. As to it being boring...I think that has more to do with your players not knowing what to do...
Multiple storylines are really just the same as having a specific storyline - just more of them. The benefit is that you can potentially fail (in one storyline) and the campaign isn't over. But some players will be demotivated by striving for several session just to have things peter out into mediocrity and failure. Players are generally drawn to D&D to be heroic and powerful, not naff losers. Again, if this is understood from the offset, no harm done. But it might not be inspiring.
See the funny thing here is how can you create a stroyline that does not have back up plans for the PCs failing? I find that curious....I mean even when I am running a railroady game I always take into account the PCs might fail at a certain part even with me doing a little fudging. True if you are fudging alot for it to happen...than they won't fail. But at that point why roll dice at all?
Personaly though my best moments in RPGs come from failures and figure a way to overcome them.
But, as ever, these are issues of communication and DM style, not cheating. Generally speaking, if you know what you are doing, you don't need to fudge dice - encounter design should be appropriate based on the party's abilities. But, on the other hand, I had a guy temporarily abandon a campaign because his character died (though he had other stuff going on in his life, the death of his character was a catalyst). If I had fudged his dice and his character had lived, maybe he wouldn't have done that.
True communication is very important. And without that people get cheated on the expections...which is well cheating in a way.
As for the guy who temporily left a game due to RL issues and used his character death as a way out of the game temporily to deal with them without just saying I have to leave which can lead everybody including a very plot conscience GM in the lurch. Probably overall I have to say it is a good thing you killed off his character. Not the best solution...but I have to say better them they staying in the game.
In many ways, I'm not attempting to be fair as a DM, I'm attempting to let my players have fun. Most players create their characters and want to test them against whatever challenges come up. They don't want you to fudge, because it would mean their players were not being fairly tested, and any victories (generally) won in this way would be worth less because it wasn't solely through their own efforts. But the issue isn't, in my view, about fairness/cheating in and of itself. It is about whether fudging dice rolls makes for a more fun game. I can forsee circumstances where fudging would make for a more fun game. This is especially where, as a DM, players achieve a sense of achievement and the testosterone surge that goes with that. If, as DM, I've deceived them, does it make it less fun? Maybe, but probably only for me, and maybe there are other considerations (like the one I mentioned above) which trump scrupulous sticking to dice rolls. And if my players are happy, pretty much I am happy.
I agree if your players are having fun....and if you are having fun it means you are not doing anything wrong. But it is possible for things to be better. It is what you know. We evidently have completely different definations for what a sandbox style campaign is all about. Who know maybe if you had played in a similiar style of sandbox as I run...you would have a completely different opinion. I know alot of new to my style players who are used to central plot games have a blast when they play in my games when they figure out it is ok to have goals outside the central plot and the freedom my games offer. But if asked before they will say sandboxes style games are a bad idea.
That is the thing that gets me. A GM who is closed minded about things is probably ultimately cheating themselves.
There seems to be an implicit assumption that all players have more fun if the DM fudges rolls for them. Maybe that's true for a lot of players, but it's manifestly not true for all players. Houstonderek and myself would be major exceptions, for example.
So a DM has to know his or her players. Simply assuming "if I fudge rolls and don't let them know, they'll have more fun" as an axiom is a sure way to lose players like us (which may be the goal, I don't know).
There seems to be an implicit assumption that all players have more fun if the DM fudges rolls for them. Maybe that's true for a lot of players, but it's manifestly not true for all players. Houstonderek and myself would be major exceptions, for example.
So a DM has to know his or her players. Simply assuming "if I fudge rolls and don't let them know, they'll have more fun" as an axiom is a sure way to lose players like us (which may be the goal, I don't know).
I'm in your category. I get equally as frustrated with with DM fudged rolls both for and against me.
|
|
There seems to be an implicit assumption that all players have more fun if the DM fudges rolls for them. Maybe that's true for a lot of players, but it's manifestly not true for all players. Houstonderek and myself would be major exceptions, for example.
So a DM has to know his or her players. Simply assuming "if I fudge rolls and don't let them know, they'll have more fun" as an axiom is a sure way to lose players like us (which may be the goal, I don't know).
No, there is no such assumption. It is a balance, as with all things. If I fudged every roll, my players would notice, and I would get bored. Actually, I hardly ever fudge - I can't remeber the last time I did it in face-to-face, and can only remember one occasion in PbP. My point is simply that saying a DM who fudges a roll is "cheating" is absolutist and not in line with my experience as a DM - there are good reasons to do so. They probably don't come up much, though.
Generally speaking, where I will fudge (or more likely, hand-wave) is in NPC-to-NPC interactions. I don't treat the rules as a form of scientific law, but for reasons of balance I run the rules where the PCs interact with the world so the players have a level playing field. An NPC is just a figment of my imagination, mostly, and if two of them are doing stuff I'll just say what happens and move on.
|
|
What's the point of having all those weird the dice on the table if you're not going to use them to determine what happens when you roll them?
If you don't want to allow randomness into your game don't even bother picking up a die in the first place. Just say "The orc misses badly again! I can't believe it!" and don't even pretend to roll, what's the point of rolling then fudging? Seems like a waste of time to me.
Well, I don't do that, so the issue is moot.
By the time you get down to dice rolling anything can happen. That's the exciting part! So as DM and player you better be prepared for the consequences and you better do everything in your power to keep those dice in your favor. That's what all those little "+1's" are for! :)
Agreed - which is why I will generally not fudge. Anyway, 99 times out of 100 I have produced an appropriate encounter that will stretch the PCs and not kill them, and I don't fudge. I will allow PCs to be killed (or otherwise receive permanent nastiness) if I'm pretty confident that they can be resurrected or otherwise cured fairly easily (a PC died in my game maybe a year ago, and was swiftly raised). Because getting your character killed or otherwise incapacitated can mean you end up sitting out hours of game play while the combat finishes and then the other players have to go on some adventure to get you cured. Or you find an appropriate point to introduce a new character. And so on. So I prefer to avoid it, as a DM, because the main thing is that the players have fun.
I'm not saying that, if you don't want to fudge, you should. It is down to what the players will tolerate. I'm just saying that this absolutist stuff about cheating is somewhat insulting to those of us who run games, not to prove some sort of moral point, but to have a laugh with some friends. It's not a sport.
|
|
I'm just saying that this absolutist stuff about cheating is somewhat insulting to those of us who run games
The "cheating" term is not mine but in fairness to the OP I think he meant it more in a "short cut" fashion and not a "breaking the law" fashion.
It was a general comment rather than specific to you.
I think the bottom line, IMO, is if a player thinks their DM is cheating, or manipulating the odds against them in any other way, then they need to sit down and speak to their DM. No need for "Sense Motive" checks on DM's fudging dice, no need to make obnoxious demands at a table where we're supposed to be having fun.
It seems like a lot of players and DM's have been burned in the past, by some manner of terrible player/DM and they carry a chip on their shoulder into new games from it. I personally play in several completely separate groups, and I can tell you ever group dynamic is different. Leave your baggage at the door, and communicate potential misgivings. No need to lash out or be accusatory on either side of the screen.
The best games I've played in were the ones where the players and DM worked together, both sides had structure and rules, but were open minded and willing to listen to ideas and potential changes along the way. As a DM, I'll often times ask the group about amending a house rule if something doesn't quite flow right. I try to listen closely to things players say to each other that they'd like to do at some point in game, and try to incorporate those things without someone having to specifically request it. Adaptable structure, if you will.
I think the bottom line, IMO, is if a player thinks their DM is cheating, or manipulating the odds against them in any other way, then they need to sit down and speak to their DM. No need for "Sense Motive" checks on DM's fudging dice, no need to make obnoxious demands at a table where we're supposed to be having fun.
It seems like a lot of players and DM's have been burned in the past, by some manner of terrible player/DM and they carry a chip on their shoulder into new games from it. I personally play in several completely separate groups, and I can tell you ever group dynamic is different. Leave your baggage at the door, and communicate potential misgivings. No need to lash out or be accusatory on either side of the screen.
The best games I've played in were the ones where the players and DM worked together, both sides had structure and rules, but were open minded and willing to listen to ideas and potential changes along the way. As a DM, I'll often times ask the group about amending a house rule if something doesn't quite flow right. I try to listen closely to things players say to each other that they'd like to do at some point in game, and try to incorporate those things without someone having to specifically request it. Adaptable structure, if you will.
I agree with you 100%...this is why I started this thread.
The "cheating" term is not mine but in fairness to the OP I think he meant it more in a "short cut" fashion and not a "breaking the law" fashion.
I'm just saying that this absolutist stuff about cheating is somewhat insulting to those of us who run games
As the OP...I never said all fudging is bad...and it is sometimes neccesary...the problem comes from excessive Fudging. There was nothing absolutist in anything I posted.
Heck the idea a GM can not cheat is absolutist.
|
|
If everyone agrees that the NPC and PC must all follow the same rules and the GM does not comply with the group's rules then he is cheating.As a GM, I'd never agree to such a rule. NPC's are subject to NPC rules, PC's to PC rules while they have a ton of overlap, they are never one and the same.
Absolutely - I've always thought it was madness to consider that. I know some people feel otherwise, but the rules are very imperfect at describing possible outcomes. They exist instead to provide a degree of predictibility for players, not because they should be considered the beginning and end of what can happen to any individual in that world. An NPC-NPC interaction does not require the DM to complywith the letter of the rules. Of course, if players and DM agree otherwise, then so be it - but I don't think it's necessary.
|
|
The "cheating" term is not mine but in fairness to the OP I think he meant it more in a "short cut" fashion and not a "breaking the law" fashion.
I'm just saying that this absolutist stuff about cheating is somewhat insulting to those of us who run games
As the OP...I never said all fudging is bad...and it is sometimes neccesary...the problem comes from excessive Fudging. There was nothing absolutist in anything I posted.
Heck the idea a GM can not cheat is absolutist.
OK - so what is excessive? I mean, in principle I agree - if we are smply talking about degree it comes down to the player/DM compact and DM style again.
OK - so what is excessive? I mean, in principle I agree - if we are smply talking about degree it comes down to the player/DM compact and DM style again.
What is excessive?
That is the question that all GMs should be asking themselves when they are about to fudge a dice roll...or even fudge a NPC reaction that goes counter to that NPC personality and goals. Is this really neccessary.If I do this how am I effecting my players feeling of revelvence to the game?
I know alot of GMs think they can maintain the illusions of choice and challenge...but I will submit they can't....the old saying goes 'You can feel all the people some of time, you can fool all the people some of time, but you can not fool all the people all the time' is just as true for GMs and anybody else. Especialy if you have the same players for years...people will learn when you are doing x or y.
And the absolute worst thing a GM can do in his game is to make the players feel like they are not important at all. The one complaint a player makes that I always take seriously is, "I felt like I just wasted my time." or "I could have phoned it in." etc. Which fudging dice or any of my above examples will do.
When you cross that line you are a bad GM...you are a cheating GM in my book.
So yes the answear to that question is very variable from GM to GM and to group to group...but It is a question that really good GMs ask themselves everytime they are about to fudge something. I am finding less and less GMs willing to question themselves...and react very badly to a player questioning them.