3e was the first edition of D&D without a DMG that said, "It's fun to dick over the players for no reason." D&D players started with that edition and realized that yes, D&D is fun even if you don't dick over the players. Those players found themselves at odds with the sort of GMs who think that not solving one riddle is a reasonable cause for ROCKS FALL EVERYONE DIES.
Extreme paraphrasing aside, I still agree with you in regards to the DM. As I said, there are crappy DMs out there--the kind who have a small God complex at every table they run--that deserve to have a few hundred walk outs. My complaint stemmed from rules adjudication spats because the DM deviates from the core slightly. I'm not talking about inconsistent rulings, just different ones. I've noticed a lot more rules lawyering from people at the table these days (people I've played with for many, many years who never really did so before) that was not a problem in the past.
I, for one, actually GM a lot more than I play.
GMs have, by default, all the power in a game. This is in no way abrogated by being bound by the rules. The ability to drop something on the PCs they have no prayer against always remains, after all. I'm also not even arguing against changing the rules (as my 9 page House Rules document will attest). Heck, I've even been known to change or add rules on the fly...but openly, and with the players' full knowledge and agreement.
What I (and, I believe, others) are arguing against isn't absolute GM power per se, but, basically, dishonesty. If a GM is going to be deviating from the books (which are the base assumptions of the game, after all) it seems to me that the players are, in fact, entitled to know more or less how he's doing so. As long as all such deviations are agreed upon, everything's cool. I'm arguing against doing them on-the-fly without telling the players what you're doing, because that's basically lying to your players, which strikes me as uncool.
And you're right, you can indeed just leave a bad GM's game. If you know. I mean, I've played in games that were bad...and I didn't realize it for a while. To give a (true) example: the game seemed good on the surface, and if we failed, well, maybe that was just bad luck, and then we kept failing, and the NPCs all knew our every move before they made it, and never made any mistakes...and it became obvious we were never going to win, because the GM wouldn't let us. And sure, then I stopped going, after literally months of wasted time, frustration, a several page character background and details on said character's entire family written out. Plus a fair degree of emotional investment.
Would've been nice to know that I was in a no-win scenario up-front, y'know?
Dishonesty severely curtails the players' ability to know about what's going on, and thus to know when they should leave the game. And that's a problem. A GM shouldn't need to resort to tricking the players in order to keep them in the game, and if they are, something is deeply wrong.
Or, to simplify: It's not about 'being protected from the GM', but about staying informed so you can make accurate evealuations of whether you still want to participate in the game and to what degree.
I'm in the same boat these days, much to my chagrin. I don't mind DMing by any means, but I enjoy playing slightly more (although a friend of mine has been kind enough to start up a Kingmaker session to give me a break).
A good metric for realizing when your DM is going to behave that way is when every question you ask gets shut down with a resounding "no" every time. It is usually pretty clear when the campaign is being rail-roaded (at least, IME) towards a certain end despite player input (which we always call "texted") because it's hard to ignore that your decisions have no impact on pretty much anything.
I do agree with you in that it sucks when you're totally invested into a character just to be have to drop it entirely. In such situations I'd be more willing to just reboot that character under a less craptastic DM in the future. Generally speaking, any mainstay characters I have that are subjected to different campaigns or tables, I will mostly commit the results of said adventures to that character's "canon." If they get stuck under said craptastic DMs, however, that's where exceptions get made. I had a DM try (and it was overtly prejudiced)to kill off my Wyrmslayer Paladin (the 2nd character I had ever made in D&D ever) by blatantly ignoring how things were intended to work in the published adventure he was running. I came to find out later that he had ran a Paladin through the same module and had basically decided that he didn't want mine to outshine him, so he was determined to end me. Big shock, that was the last time I ever sat in a game he ran.
Regardless, small tangent accomplished, I have no problem with informed players voicing logical complaints, or occasionally asking, "wait, doesn't that work like this?" I'm simply rubbed the wrong way by the prevailing attitude voiced by some that the DM is there at their pleasure, and should only deliver an experience either completely by the books or tailored to that player's needs (AKA, players always win--hurray!) instead of what the story presented dictates. By this, I mean pretty much what crane said above; if you give overt clues that are summarily ignored, you shouldn't feel like a bad guy for having their poor decisions bite them in the ass down the road.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I sometimes have a vision of RavingDork logging onto his computer in a darkened room where the light of his computer screen illuminates his face from below, giving him a sinister and evil look as he opens his latest "hypothetical question" post on the PF message boards. His eyes light up and a gleeful smile erupts as he sees the "132 replies" note.... He smugly rubs his hands together and reaches forth with a finger that looks more like a talon to click the mouse on the link to see what mayhem he has wrought today.....
On the subject of the GM and the relative contributions to the "collective story" being constructed by the GM and the players, much of what has transpired on this thread has been hyperbolic hysteria, nothing more, nothing less.
Let's all agree on the following core principles, if we can:
1. A bad GM is a bad GM and no interpretation of the rules is going to make them a good GM.
2. A good GM is not defined or constrained by the rules, they have a larger goal in mind than simply executing the rules as written.
3. All GMs are able to invoke "Rule 0" whenever they like, no matter if they are "good", "bad", or "indifferent" GMs.
4. No single event in one encounter is going to be the beacon of clarification on whether a GM is "good" or "bad."
I hope we can at least agree on those. (Of course, who am I kidding? This is the interwebz after all...)
For those who consider a GM who does something "dishonest" to automatically push them into the "bad GM" bucket, let me point out that it is common practice, even among widely acknowledged "good" GMs to "fudge" dice rolls. Fudging a dice roll is "dishonest" by definition. So "dishonesty" in and of itself is not enough to say if a GM is "good" or if the event in question was managed properly. A GM who mis-applies a spell rule, is called out on it but responds by claiming the spell is a unique researched version of the spell, is arguably doing the same thing as fudging a die roll. He is making an on-the-fly call to invoke his unique GM "powers" to make a decision and let the game move on.
Now, how the players react to that call is going to be be based on the relationship the GM has to those players. If the GM has been running a fun game, with a lot of trust between the players and the GM and the players feel their characters are allowed to utilize their skills and abilities in meaningful ways to advance the narrative, then 95% of the time the players will shrug and say "OK, that's cool" and move on. If the GM has been running a miserable game, with routine GM fiat decisions that have not allowed the players to enjoy their characters, then perhaps that ruling would be the last straw and the game would erupt into chaos and retribution.
But there is nothing inherently "wrong" about a GM making an off-the-cuff ruling that they believe is the best way to keep the game moving and keep the game fun.
Now, this goes both ways. If the game in question has been one that has been fun and the players have been engaged, but when the GM says "that was a special researched version of the spell" that player says "B&+#+~~&! You just made that up! You got the spell wrong and just don't want to admit it! Show me your notes that this was a researched spell, or else go back and fix the encounter!"
Well, in that case you don't have a GM problem.
You have a player problem.
Shorter version: if everyone is having fun, quitcherb~~%~in!
Fast and bulbous!
That's right, the mascara snake
Fast and bulbous.
@AD, very succinctly put my friend. I agree with everything you just said.
|
I sometimes have a vision of RavingDork logging onto his computer in a darkened room where the light of his computer screen illuminates his face from below, giving him a sinister and evil look as he opens his latest "hypothetical question" post on the PF message boards. His eyes light up and a gleeful smile erupts as he sees the "132 replies" note.... He smugly rubs his hands together and reaches forth with a finger that looks more like a talon to click the mouse on the link to see what mayhem he has wrought today.....
*snrk* Okay, I'm amused. :)
On the subject of the GM and the relative contributions to the "collective story" being constructed by the GM and the players, much of what has transpired on this thread has been hyperbolic hysteria, nothing more, nothing less.
I don't know about hysteria...a certain degree of hyperbole, perhaps, though all my examples have been quite serious and accurate accounts of games I've been in (mostly with the same two GMs, actually). So...maybe not as much hyperboe as you're thinking.
Let's all agree on the following core principles, if we can:
1. A bad GM is a bad GM and no interpretation of the rules is going to make them a good GM.
2. A good GM is not defined or constrained by the rules, they have a larger goal in mind than simply executing the rules as written.
3. All GMs are able to invoke "Rule 0" whenever they like, no matter if they are "good", "bad", or "indifferent" GMs.
4. No single event in one encounter is going to be the beacon of clarification on whether a GM is "good" or "bad."I hope we can at least agree on those. (Of course, who am I kidding? This is the interwebz after all...)
I'll agree whole-heartedly with 1, 2, and 4. 3...is a little trickier. I think that a really good GM is gonna be somewhat circumspect in invoking Rule 0 mid-game. Not unwilling to do it, but also not thinking of it as their first option, y'know? So part of being a good GM, IMO, is not invoking Rule 0 every time you might like to.
For those who consider a GM who does something "dishonest" to automatically push them into the "bad GM" bucket, let me point out that it is common practice, even among widely acknowledged "good" GMs to "fudge" dice rolls. Fudging a dice roll is "dishonest" by definition. So "dishonesty" in and of itself is not enough to say if a GM is "good" or if the event in question was managed properly. A GM who mis-applies a spell rule, is called out on it but responds by claiming the spell is a unique researched version of the spell, is arguably doing the same thing as fudging a die roll. He is making an on-the-fly call to invoke his unique GM "powers" to make a decision and let the game move on.
Slightly different varieties of dishonesty there. I think a GM fudging dice rolls is fine as long as he informs the players he sometimes does so (say, when they join the game). If he doesn't inform them of that, then I think it's inappropriate and dishonest, and does indeed make him a poor GM in at least one respect. He's giving people a false impression of the kind of game he's running, after all.
Similarly, if, when called out on the Explosive Runes thing, a GM says "Well, for reasons of logic, this whole scenario only works if they work the way I thougfht they did, so this version is customized." That's honest (maybe not fine, because it's really a situation he shouldn't have orchestrated without being sure, but honest), and thus acceptable. It's still a bit inconsistent and thus unfair to the PCs...but in the situation, they might understand, and be willing to go with it.
If, on the other hand, he says something like "That might be true if these were normal explosive runes, but these are a custom spell I worked out in detail just for this." he's lying, misrepresenting the kind of game he's running, and being unfair to the PCs to boot. Totally unacceptable.
Now, how the players react to that call is going to be be based on the relationship the GM has to those players. If the GM has been running a fun game, with a lot of trust between the players and the GM and the players feel their characters are allowed to utilize their skills and abilities in meaningful ways to advance the narrative, then 95% of the time the players will shrug and say "OK, that's cool" and move on. If the GM has been running a miserable game, with routine GM fiat decisions that have not allowed the players to enjoy their characters, then perhaps that ruling would be the last straw and the game would erupt into chaos and retribution.
This is certainly true. :)
But there is nothing inherently "wrong" about a GM making an off-the-cuff ruling that they believe is the best way to keep the game moving and keep the game fun.
As long as they're upfront about it, sure.
Now, this goes both ways. If the game in question has been one that has been fun and the players have been engaged, but when the GM says "that was a special researched version of the spell" that player says "B$!!+%!*! You just made that up! You got the spell wrong and just don't want to admit it! Show me your notes that this was a researched spell, or else go back and fix the encounter!"
Well, in that case you don't have a GM problem.
You have a player problem.
Depends on the exact situation...but it's certainly a possibility, yeah.
|
|
I'm in the same boat these days, much to my chagrin. I don't mind DMing by any means, but I enjoy playing slightly more (although a friend of mine has been kind enough to start up a Kingmaker session to give me a break).
I usually like GMing, so it's not too big a problem. Though a few more games to play in would be nice...
A good metric for realizing when your DM is going to behave that way is when every question you ask gets shut down with a resounding "no" every time. It is usually pretty clear when the campaign is being rail-roaded (at least, IME) towards a certain end despite player input (which we always call "texted") because it's hard to ignore that your decisions have no impact on pretty much anything.
Some GMs are subtler than this, for example, in the game I mentioned previously, it was only when we came up against the main villain (directly or indirectly) that we were really sure to fail...and that's sorta understanable if you come up against a main villain early in a game. It was only later that the inevitability of failure no matter how powerful we were or how good our plan was became clear.
I do agree with you in that it sucks when you're totally invested into a character just to be have to drop it entirely. In such situations I'd be more willing to just reboot that character under a less craptastic DM in the future. Generally speaking, any mainstay characters I have that are subjected to different campaigns or tables, I will mostly commit the results of said adventures to that character's "canon." If they get stuck under said craptastic DMs, however, that's where exceptions get made. I had a DM try (and it was overtly prejudiced)to kill off my Wyrmslayer Paladin (the 2nd character I had ever made in D&D ever) by blatantly ignoring how things were intended to work in the published adventure he was running. I came to find out later that he had ran a Paladin through the same module and had basically decided that he didn't want mine to outshine him, so he was determined to end me. Big shock, that was the last time I ever sat in a game he ran.
Sadly, nobody's run a game in the system or world in question since. :(
Maybe I'll find an online game to play him in sometime...
Regardless, small tangent accomplished, I have no problem with informed players voicing logical complaints, or occasionally asking, "wait, doesn't that work like this?" I'm simply rubbed the wrong way by the prevailing attitude voiced by some that the DM is there at their pleasure, and should only deliver an experience either completely by the books or tailored to that player's needs (AKA, players always win--hurray!) instead of what the story presented dictates. By this, I mean pretty much what crane said above; if you give overt clues that are summarily ignored, you shouldn't feel like a bad guy for having their poor decisions bite them in the ass down the road.
I've certainly run into bad players at least as often as bad GMs. They tend to be easier to deal with, though. Especially as a GM, since if you don't give into their unreasonable demands they will often just leave. :)
Say that, during an interesting and thought-provoking political mystery, your GM had a highly intelligent wizard send you and your fellow PCs on an important quest to deliver some missives to the King. These messages were SO important, a matter of national security in fact, that the PCs were given multiple copies spread out amongst the party (should someone fall) and then expressly forbade from reading them themselves (as they were meant for the king's eyes only).
Along the way, you meet some NPCs, some friendly, others not. You go through several encounters and a few semi-related mini-adventures--some of which involve people, for and against the king, trying to stop you for various reasons. Through interacting with them, you slowly begin to suspect that your employer is a really bad guy. Eventually, you realize the truth of his past history. Rather than continue the quest and be a pawn in whatever evil scheme the wizard has going, you return to your would-be benefactor and demand an explanation of his past crimes that have so recently come to light.
In response, he asks you one question: Do you still possess the King's letters? Yes? Good.
o_O I could see this being fun if all of the attempts made to stop me were actually people /knowing/ that I had explosive runes, but /I/ didn't know that.. especially if we capture them and they explain the circumstances. So far, I'm not seeing anything too bad.
*greater dispel magic*The GM TPKs the entire party in one go via the dozens of explosive runes letters we had been carrying all along--those that were meant for the king.
...Here's where it goes really wrong. Ignore the whole regicide theme for a second. This could have been an epic confrontation -- the king is my brother, a doppelganger, your father, this is all just a test -- with either (1) really excellent RP or (2) really good combat.
What you did is this:
Luke, I am your father! <decision to fight, leap to death, etc.>
-to-
*blow up Alderaan*
Your GM ends the (brief) campaign and congratulates you all on completing a rather "interesting" story. He compares it to the movie, THE DEPARTED, which was apparently his inspiration.
...That's like the end of The Sopranos. Terrible.
How would you feel after that? Was it a good game with a great and interesting story? Or were you totally cheated?
I would not be happy about this at all and would not play a homebrew with that GM again.
Eliminating the opportunity for players to interact with the story and railroading their deaths takes a tabletop game, with infinite choices and clever solutions, into a cheesy console game.
It's one thing for my character's death to be inevitable -- quite another for it to be unavoidable.
I would actually understand the crybaby whining if there was actually something to gripe about. If you were really invested in the game and the GM gave a Lady or the Lion scenario, and killed you for guessing wrong, I could see being a little upset.This isn't that though. This is Thinking 101.
The wizard gives you a clue.
You ignore the clue, blatantly.
You die.
Sorry for your luck, thanks for playing.
What clues?
Even in real life do you think every mail person reads every important message they deliver?
The very concept of 'political intrigue' is based on secrets... and when dealing with Kings and wizards, MOST messages would be considered 'Eyes-only'
Heck... even if the detect magic worked.... It isn't unreasonable to think 'those explosive traps are to keep us from prying into the kings business'....
I imagine in a high fantasy world... MOST of the kings messages are 'magically encrypted' to need a password to open them.
In hindsight, it's easy to look at scenario and just scoff saying they have it coming... but in an actual game... if someone gave my character a note saying 'Deliiver this to the king... ONLY the king...' I wouldn't be breaking the seals to see what it was.
If the mage was legit (as I MUST assume or I wouldn't be working for him...) then THAT kind of thing will get you executed!!!
When would you assume that they cast detect magic while holding and looking at something they would have packed away? Do you think that obviously they would have naturally DM on everything they have every day or just walk around with it active when they pack or unpack their bag, even if they don't say they do?
GM, "while your character mindlessly uses detect magic, he notices something glowing in his pack."
This.
Detect magic may go through cloth easily enough.... but unless you have ZERO magical gear/items/potions stashed away, You knew that bag was gonna glow anyway ;)
Phantom, haha.
And in my opinion it (the letter) became a clue when they realized the wizard was up to no good.
Yeah... that whole bit is kind of fuzzy. Not really sure what happens between "I have a private message for the king..." and "He's evil and we're his assassins!!!!"
Serious disconnect there. ;)
Honestly, it REALLY is a horrible plan anyway.
ONE note. ONLY one!!!
Any 'secret' should only be written down once. Doing it THIS way... the King is ONLY going to read ONE anyway.... and when the survivors are arrested, they've got THREE other copies of the letter that diviners can trace back to the wizard...
Sloppy.
Your grand scheme should only lead back to you if someone SCREWS UP.... NOT if it goes according to plan ;)
All of this could have been solved with a detect magic in my opinion...
Thank you, Thank you, someone with a little common sense. As to why nobody did this in the first place, we'll never know. Or as to why any of the more roguish characters didn't think to sneak a peek, well same thing as above.
Has anybody looked at what would of happened, if you had delivered these missives. I can see it now. Standing there all proud having completed your assigned task, "Delivery this to the King". Woohoo, we did it. BOOM,,,,,,, the king is dead. All of the guards in attendance, scream for your death, and immediately cut you down where you stand for murdering the King.Game over, same results. Roll up new characters, Please.
Actually, it's a pretty interesting proposition if the PCs deliver the letters, room go boom, and they all happen to make their reflex saves, then the rest of the campaign turns into "Dealing With the Consequences."
But still I maintain my original statement: they should have opened up and read the letters as soon as the received them, cause, y'know, it's obvious!
It would depend a great deal on the set up before the campaign ever started. If it was stated this would be a high stakes political game with lots of betrayal and backstabbing etc going on. Then I would have been ok with it. Not exactly happy(if I was happy would depend a whole lot on what happened between the start and the end). If there was no clue at all it was that kind of political game I would have been annoyed.
Have to agree with this; The scenario as presented would not work within the tone of my game. But in the right campaign full of backstabbing and betrayal and where TPKs are may occur around at any dark corner or with a simple unopened letter it sounds fine.My guess would be most players would have no issue with it as long as know what they are getting into ahead of time.