As a DM: Why I hold my ground?


Gamer Life General Discussion

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

I know some of you think I am a stubborn DM but I have my own reasons for why I like to finalize my decisions. I have learned through the years to keep the decisions simple and to keep my judgements final. What this does is it keeps everyone at the table on the same page and it makes everything fair.

If I plan on running a specific style of game and I let one person reflavour a class or race that Ihave banned then I have to let everyone else do it and by then everyone still gets to play whatI banned which in turn makes my planned game pointless. If I state that elves do not exist in my world and no reflavouring then do not proceed to ask me if you can anyway, unless I open the floor for discussion. I have also found that this alleviates a lot of arguing and that time could be better spent playing the game. I have seen too many games fall apart because that special snowflake class, race, and even item was allowed.

I don't mind if my style is criticised but don't act like your method is somehow superior or that mine is somehow wrong because no style is superior and no style is wrong.

I know my DMing style doesn't suit some people but that's okay because the game would get pretty boring if every DM was exactly the same.


I'll say this about that: If your game falls apart because you let someone (or everyone) be a "special snowflake" you did something wrong. How unique or common a PC character's race/class/whatever is should be less than insignificant as compared to your world and campaign as planned. If it's so fragile that it cannot SURVIVE if someone has something a little bit different, you need to reconsider why it's that fragile and why you think it NEEDS to be.

This ain't even a part of arguing for my own usual philosophy (to allow for re-flavoring to better fit whenever possible), I just truly do not see how letting someone have something different (note: Not overpowered, just different flavor-wise) can destroy a game.


Oh here we go. We should have just called this "Questions Related to Player Entitlement" cont. or whatever the other one was before it Cont.

And when you frame it around disallowing things makes the game fall apart you're missing the point of the argument. It's not to say Shadow Soul or Ciretose or anyone on "that side" is incapable of figuring out how to make the class function..it's that for whatever various reasons they don't want to. One of the things he mentinoed is something I said awhile back which is the "floodgate argument" when you open the door to one you're going to open the door for everyone and create more work you don't want or add things to your game you don't want.

Again it's not about DM ABILITY to put in these things..its about the DMs PREFERENCE.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

And that's fine, whatever. If you're really not going to allow it because then you'd have to allow everyone else to do whatever, then don't.

But saying it'll make the game fall apart if you do? That seems like either an exaggeration or a very badly put together game.

You don't build campaign worlds like a house of cards. You build them out of sturdier stuff.

Because when you're chasing the rambunctious group of 5 year olds around the house playing tag or whatever, that house of cards is gonna come tumbling down at the first opportunity, whether you let them play in the part of your house that has the house of cards in it or not.

That house made of Legos, though, is gonna be a lot harder to destroy unless you throw something really tough at it.


My two cents.

1. Build the campaign world out of sturdier stuff.

2. Try to have a wide vision instead of a narrow one.

2a. Advice number 2 need not apply if the players have a narrow vision.

2b. Advice number 2 generally applies when the players have a wide vision.

I'd highlight the word "try" since it is not mandatory for a DM to actually apply said advice in his game.


I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.


kmal2t wrote:
I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

That scenario kinda assumes you skipped the off-game talk about the class being too strong and the player being entitled enough to complain about his toy being taken away when the others are overshadowed. Which would basically mean the DM is not doing his job well, and the players aren't being good sports playing the game together. Of course the most glaring problem is the lack of proper communication.

Too many variables and "what-ifs" in this scenario to hold water.


Icyshadow wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

That scenario kinda assumes you skipped the off-game talk about the class being too strong and the player being entitled enough to complain about his toy being taken away when the others are overshadowed. Which would basically mean the DM is not doing his job well, and the players aren't being good sports playing the game together. Of course the most glaring problem is the lack of proper communication.

Too many variables and "what-ifs" in this scenario to hold water.

Quote:
By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

I think you missed the point that you preemptively avoid this potential problem by not allowing the class. Some DMs might do this if they know there's a player like this at the table. I know the response might be "then why have him at this table get rid of him!" but not everyone at your table is always a super guy. Some of the people you just kind of deal with because hes a friend of someone else and you just have to deal with them in a certain way.

Silver Crusade

I'm sorry. Was the "Why I hold my ground" really a question, or just a justification?

I see a question mark at the end of the thread title, but not really a question posed by the OP. It's confusing at 1:30am...so I might have missed the question.


kmal2t wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

That scenario kinda assumes you skipped the off-game talk about the class being too strong and the player being entitled enough to complain about his toy being taken away when the others are overshadowed. Which would basically mean the DM is not doing his job well, and the players aren't being good sports playing the game together. Of course the most glaring problem is the lack of proper communication.

Too many variables and "what-ifs" in this scenario to hold water.

Quote:
By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.
I think you missed the point that you preemptively avoid this potential problem by not allowing the class. Some DMs might do this if they know there's a player like this at the table. I know the response might be "then why have him at this table get rid of him!" but not everyone at your table is always a super guy. Some of the people you just kind of deal with because hes a friend of someone else and you just have to deal with them in a certain way.

And actually, the DM's main mistake is NOT experimenting with the class before allowing it. If the DM could see BEFORE the game starts that the class is OP, then he/she would ban it but not before telling the player why. Then the player has time to make another concept. And really, I don't play with "people I just kind of deal with" because I wouldn't invite such people to my birthday parties either. Also, apparently a DM should never learn from experience.

Got any more things for me to refute?


Nymian Harthing wrote:

I'm sorry. Was the "Why I hold my ground" really a question, or just a justification?

I see a question mark at the end of the thread title, but not really a question posed by the OP. It's confusing at 1:30am...so I might have missed the question.

My assumption is he made a grammatical error and put the question mark because he started the sentence with the word why. Its obviously a declarative statement with the unspoken preface of [This is] why I hold my ground.


Quote:
And actually, the DM's main mistake is NOT experimenting with the class before allowing it. If the DM could see BEFORE the game starts that the class is OP, then he/she would ban it but not before telling the player why. Then the player has time to make another concept. And really, I don't play with "people I just kind of deal with" because I wouldn't invite such people to my birthday parties either. Got any more things for me to refute?

Captain Delusional to the rescue again. Let me see if I can break through your Argument of Impenetrable Logic +5 here.

First off, most GMs aren't going to sit there first build a character of the class then run battle dry runs with it up to the umpteenth level. Its not going to happen. Second they may not forsee a tactic you use with your abilities or a string of abilities you use a certain way that overpower the class. Last I checked people aren't perfect and they make mistakes. I know you're immune to this, but its something the rest of us have to deal with. And when he finally does reach this problem he may explain why and it may upset this player. I don't know how much experience you have playing, but not everyone you play with is always going to be a table of Ghandis and Mother Theresas. They may be an ok person but can be an annoying player with certain quirks. You may find a preexisting game from an ad online and when you join 4 of the people are great and make the game great and there's that one guy who's kind of annoying and tolerable. This ain't your birthday party where everyone gets along with you wonderfully. Its a socially gathering with varying personalities.

Oh damn I guess the Argument has 0 hitpoints now.


shallowsoul wrote:

I know some of you think I am a stubborn DM but I have my own reasons for why I like to finalize my decisions. I have learned through the years to keep the decisions simple and to keep my judgements final. What this does is it keeps everyone at the table on the same page and it makes everything fair.

If I plan on running a specific style of game and I let one person reflavour a class or race that Ihave banned then I have to let everyone else do it and by then everyone still gets to play whatI banned which in turn makes my planned game pointless. If I state that elves do not exist in my world and no reflavouring then do not proceed to ask me if you can anyway, unless I open the floor for discussion. I have also found that this alleviates a lot of arguing and that time could be better spent playing the game. I have seen too many games fall apart because that special snowflake class, race, and even item was allowed.

I don't mind if my style is criticised but don't act like your method is somehow superior or that mine is somehow wrong because no style is superior and no style is wrong.

I know my DMing style doesn't suit some people but that's okay because the game would get pretty boring if every DM was exactly the same.

Sounds reasonable. As long as your group enjoys it what's the problem?

These discussions always go wrong when people stop saying "I like..." and start saying "you should..."


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love it how a properly formed refutation of another person's argument leads to more hyperbole as well as personal insults.

And I agree with Steve Geddes. If the players are okay with how Shallow runs his game, then what say do we even have in that?

Silver Crusade

Ah. Thanks for the clarification, kmal2t. Just figured I mighta missed the question portion somewhere--it's a lot "brain no worky" immediately after a short nap during on-call. (I.e., not trying to come off as a nitpicky jerk; just not fully functional yet. Where did I leave that Duncan Hills tea?)

To the justification point:
It's your game. YMMV from other groups. As long as all at your table are having fun, it's all good. From that perspective, no need to justify "why". Unless there's a major-good reason to do so that I missed, which is totally possible. I've been living under a rock for a bit, and I don't always read through all posts on all subjects here in Gamer Life.


Quote:
Got any more things for me to refute?
Quote:
Though I could probably laugh at the fact that I need to repeat myself to you like this.

Not only do you come across as arrogant and snotty, but you still missed the obvious of what was pompous about your post. Then you still do it more.


And you missed the question once more.

How is saying that a DM should actually do some work and play with people he'd have fun playing with smug or pompous?

If you're going to stick to that, I might as well hide this thread. The previous ones that were locked already discussed this topic to death.


kmal2t wrote:
I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

That's a good argument, I suppose, but I already said banning things because they're OP is A-OK.

The issue with preemptively banning things because they MIGHT be OP, though, is that how are you ever going to find out if you never run it? I can understand, again, for 3rd Party stuff, but say the APG classes when they first came out.

This of course assumes everyone in the game is competent at building characters. There's a notable thread in the General Discussion (or was it Advice?) board right now about a guy who thinks Fighters are OP because one of the characters is specced into damage dealing with about two Feats at level 9, and the rest of the party is specced into Profession: Basket Weaving and the like.

How would anyone know how powerful they were if they were never used? Especially since, as you said, building one and then running test battles is boring and it's unlikely the GM will do so.

But the first bit was more in response to "If I let someone have a reskinned elf it could destroy my game", not "This new class could be OP and destroy the game".


Rynjin wrote:
kmal2t wrote:
I would refer to the falling apart thing maybe as the "Hidden Dragon" argument. You allow some class that appeared on the surface it would be reasonable and then find out that its far more powerful than the other characters and can be used to smoke the monsters too easily. Now so that everyone gets some badguys to hack at you have to nerf his character. This can lead to a pissed off player because not everyone takes it well when you remove cool stuff that they've had and gotten used to. By limiting it to what you know well you avoid this problem.

That's a good argument, I suppose, but I already said banning things because they're OP is A-OK.

The issue with preemptively banning things because they MIGHT be OP, though, is that how are you ever going to find out if you never run it? I can understand, again, for 3rd Party stuff, but say the APG classes when they first came out.

This of course assumes everyone in the game is competent at building characters. There's a notable thread in the General Discussion (or was it Advice?) board right now about a guy who thinks Fighters are OP because one of the characters is specced into damage dealing with about two Feats at level 9, and the rest of the party is specced into Profession: Basket Weaving and the like.

How would anyone know how powerful they were if they were never used? Especially since, as you said, building one and then running test battles is boring and it's unlikely the GM will do so.

But the first bit was more in response to "If I let someone have a reskinned elf it could destroy my game", not "This new class could be OP and destroy the game".

I've just posited the argument. I'm not really an ardent defender of it btw. And I get the response of, "how do you know it's broken unless you try?" And a certain DM may not want to ever try..I suppose?

But more likely it could not only be trying it but the CIRCUMSTANCE in which you try it. It could be the type of game being run, the setting, and the players you want to try it with. Like I said you may be open to trying it at some point, but not this game with this setting with this particular player.

Silver Crusade

It's also not just races or classes but custom magic items. I had a DM once who allowed one PC to have a custom item which in turn became everyone having a custom item, to keep everyrhing fair, and the game took a dramatic turn for the worst and eventually fell apart.


What kind of effects did the items have?

Silver Crusade

I will also say that I don't know every trick build out there but as a DM I do know how to break those builds. Now with that comes the dreaded DM vs Player which everyone else either sits back or their characters get annihilated in the crossfire which then leads to unhappy players.


By trick builds you mean the min maxing ones, or something like optimizing CMB to make sure you can Grapple or Trip foes?

The latter becomes less useful the higher level the characters are anyway, due to how CMD starts to scale on the upper end of the game.

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
What kind of effects did the items have?

For instance one of the items was a Psionically created item that granted an improved form ofTemporal Acceleration. Basically the Psionicist at the time could fully buff himself in 1 round. Another was a glove that allowed the wearer to use any touch spell from 60ft away.


lol, that DM clearly had no idea how unbalanced that kind of stuff is.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Mind you a lot these experiences are from 3rd edition but when you've been burned you take precautions.

I also ban things that I just don't like.


I'm still wondering what you meant with trick builds.

The Exchange

Icyshadow wrote:

And actually, the DM's main mistake is NOT experimenting with the class before allowing it. If the DM could see BEFORE the game starts that the class is OP, then he/she would ban it but not before telling the player why. Then the player has time to make another concept. And really, I don't play with "people I just kind of deal with" because I wouldn't invite such people to my birthday...

So design the world, populate it with fun areas, npcs, monsters, themes, adventure hooks, etc. AND you should have full, working knowledge, and active experimenting in every class the PCs may wish to have? I make some calls on what is OP by what I hear on the MBs or in real life. I find it a bit rude to expect that the GM should have active time experimenting with every class he allows in the game. Some of the responsibility of the players is to help keep the game balanced also, and maybe let other players know that their PC is detracting from the game. This onus shouldn't be shouldered only by the GM, it is everyone at the table's game.


Fake Healer wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:

And actually, the DM's main mistake is NOT experimenting with the class before allowing it. If the DM could see BEFORE the game starts that the class is OP, then he/she would ban it but not before telling the player why. Then the player has time to make another concept. And really, I don't play with "people I just kind of deal with" because I wouldn't invite such people to my birthday...

So design the world, populate it with fun areas, npcs, monsters, themes, adventure hooks, etc. AND you should have full, working knowledge, and active experimenting in every class the PCs may wish to have? I make some calls on what is OP by what I hear on the MBs or in real life. I find it a bit rude to expect that the GM should have active time experimenting with every class he allows in the game. Some of the responsibility of the players is to help keep the game balanced also, and maybe let other players know that their PC is detracting from the game. This onus shouldn't be shouldered only by the GM, it is everyone at the table's game.

Maybe I didn't present my case too well. Of course the players should also work to make sure the game doesn't break.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Noticed an awful lot of "DM doing his job" commentary in this thread.

News flash: If you are not getting paid, it is not a job.


Rynjin wrote:
I'll say this about that: If your game falls apart because you let someone (or everyone) be a "special snowflake" you did something wrong.

Demonstrably. You let someone be a "special snowflake," and it was wrong to do so.

Down with "special snowflakes"!


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
I'll say this about that: If your game falls apart because you let someone (or everyone) be a "special snowflake" you did something wrong.

Demonstrably. You let someone be a "special snowflake," and it was wrong to do so.

Down with "special snowflakes"!

Every adventurer is a special snowflake.

So the solution is to not play the game at all!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Naaaaaaaaah.

Give 'em all the special snowflake template (+0).

Upside: the character is always special and unique.

Vulnerability: GM's wrath (1 encounter/session of the GMs choice your special snowflake takes maximum damage from everything).

Liberty's Edge

Rynjin wrote:
I'll say this about that: If your game falls apart

You do realize there is a whole world between "Fall apart" and "Really great"

If something lessens the groups enjoyment, the game doesn't "fall apart" but it is less enjoyable.

The goal is maximum fun for the group, not meeting every whim of a single player who never learned to play well with others.


Turin the Mad wrote:


News flash: If you are not getting paid, it is not a job.

Never volunteered at a local charity, have you?

Liberty's Edge

While I am here, let me clarify my personal position when I GM and when I play and how it differs from Shallowsoul.

When I GM: My job is to create an interesting place that the players want to explore. If they aren't talking amoung themselves about how excited they are about what might happen next and what they want to do next at the end of a session, I'm doing it wrong. If the players think something that happened didn't make sense, I'm doing it wrong. If the players don't care about what is going on, I'm doing it wrong. If I can't get players to want to play, I'm doing it wrong.

When I play: My job is to make the game fun for everyone involved. If the other players or the GM groan when I tell them about my PC, I'm doing it wrong. If I stop the table to argue, I'm doing it wrong. If they don't invite me back, I did it wrong.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Hmm. I guess I've just never played with a GM that ran a campaign with a specific style. So I can't relate to it at all.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:


News flash: If you are not getting paid, it is not a job.

Never volunteered at a local charity, have you?

Show me where I can chalk up my time as being the GM, including all prep time, as charity work. Then we can talk.

Silver Crusade

ciretose wrote:

While I am here, let me clarify my personal position when I GM and when I play and how it differs from Shallowsoul.

When I GM: My job is to create an interesting place that the players want to explore. If they aren't talking amoung themselves about how excited they are about what might happen next and what they want to do next at the end of a session, I'm doing it wrong. If the players think something that happened didn't make sense, I'm doing it wrong. If the players don't care about what is going on, I'm doing it wrong. If I can't get players to want to play, I'm doing it wrong.

When I play: My job is to make the game fun for everyone involved. If the other players or the GM groan when I tell them about my PC, I'm doing it wrong. If I stop the table to argue, I'm doing it wrong. If they don't invite me back, I did it wrong.

Well my players have fun, I am repeatedly asked to run games, and I also have people that don't always want an alacarte kind of game, they like specific themed games so I'm not sure what you are implying.

Liberty's Edge

My implication is that it doesn't matter what I specifically want to run if no one else is interested in playing it. So if I have a group of players who aren't interested in something I am really excited about running, I run something else.

And vice versa, if as a player I come into a group with an idea I really like, but others aren't into, I play something else.

Shadow Lodge

shallowsoul wrote:
If I plan on running a specific style of game and I let one person reflavour a class or race that Ihave banned then I have to let everyone else do it and by then everyone still gets to play whatI banned which in turn makes my planned game pointless.

Well, just because you allow it does not mean everyone else WILL do it. And if they DO then they obviously didn't want to play that kind of campaign.


...so what exactly are people even arguing here? I'm seeing mutual agreement for the most part.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

That's the funny thing about discussion Icy. You don't have to be on sides all the time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
That's the funny thing about discussion Icy. You don't have to be on sides all the time.

Watch out, TOZ. That kind of reasonable talk will get you banned around here.

:-)


Not banned, but probably giving you both faves and insults. XD

Dark Archive

Icyshadow wrote:
Every adventurer is a special snowflake.

Only with regard to focus and stage time - but not in ability.

At least when using 3.5/PF RAW.

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / As a DM: Why I hold my ground? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.