The Six laws of DM'ing

[Cavara]

The DM's Code of Laws outside the DM guide.

Law One: The DM's Law of Divinity
In table top role playing games the DMs are to act as though they were gods toying with the very lives of the player...or at least like Peter Molyneux/ or Tolkien watching from the park bench to make sure all the little kids play exactly the way THEY want the kids to play, WITH FANTASY STEREOTYPES.

Law Two: The DM's Law of Interest
The DM in all of his might as defined in the first law can warp the universe to his choosing. This allows for the inclusion of stereotyped rip offs from but not limited to: Games, Books, Movies, and video games. It is advised however that originality be maintained or that references be vague as to maintain player interest but to give DM a sense of self satisfaction for seeing a favorite from something he/she likes being bad ass in a campaign.

Law Three: The DM's Law of Dominance
The DM's work always take precedence over the players. The players work involves maintaing one character while the DM's involves maintaining the intricacies of the world. Thus to protect these intricacies DMs are granted the rite to stop parties from breaking the world with any means necessary, even if these means make little too no sense.(NOTE: The **** you button has been reinstated due to abuse of the 3.5 system and will thustly produce an unstopable DM smitation of DM's choice)

Law Four: The DM's Law of Nonexistence:
The third law only pertains to effects that players try to instigate on there own however in the event that players attempt to use an already proven or Wizards of the Coast approved method of breaking the world or any aspect of the world the DM can invoke the Law of Nonexistence to simply and effectively null the object, class, person, or any other abuse from the DM's universe of choice. (I.E. i say its not real so its not real.)

The Fifth Law: The DM's Law of Selectivity:
DM's Laws can only be invoked or revoked by DM's. The DM's Laws can be invoked at any point in time or revoked at any point if the situation is deemed suitable by the DM.

The Sixth Law: The DM's Law of Omnipotence:
DM's are granted the ability to invoke the DM's laws at any point in time to silence any debates presented by any topic. DM's have usually
suffered through hell to DM anyways thus earning that right (the sixth
is usable only by DM's who have DM'd for 5 years or more)

[The Demented One]

Oh man, this reads like the first half of a Blake poem if Blake played roleplaying games with Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Byron.

EDIT: Okay, I need to go to sleep now.

[Fortuna]

Forgive me if I'm dim, but this says to me "do what you like but try to make it fun", and could be summed up in 25 words or less without losing significant semantic value. Am I missing something?

[Pechvarry]

This seems mostly dedicated to players understanding the DM and his "buck stops here" power. That said, I think there's something important to be said from the other side of the table:

This is not an excuse for the DM to power trip over his peers.

[Math_Mage]

Forgive me if I'm dim, but this says to me "do what you like but try to make it fun", and could be summed up in 25 words or less without losing significant semantic value. Am I missing something?

On the one hand, you're right. On the other hand, "James Fenimore Cooper is a terrible writer whose novels have little plot, less characterization, atrocious writing style and no deference to narrative plausibility" (http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/HNS/Indians/offense.html) would accurately sum up that Mark Twain piece, but does not do it justice. :smallbiggrin:

[JaronK]

I have one law of DMing: if the players are having a good time, you're doing it right. Any action that leads to the players having a good time is a good action, and any action that reduces the fun the players have is a bad action.

That's really it as far as I'm concerned.

JaronK

[Kurald Galain]

I am not entirely clear on whether the first post is just a restatement of Rule Zero several times over, or whether this is an attempt at satire on DMOTR-style railroading.

[Gnorman]

I am not entirely clear on whether the first post is just a restatement of Rule Zero several times over, or whether this is an attempt at satire on DMOTR-style railroading.

Definitely the latter.

[Cavara]

It's one part me messing around and one part me getting tired of the threat of knowledge meta, Pun Pun, and the players specing there characters to through NPCs into high orbit with a grapple check.

[Yora]

I think these sound like very awful rules for GMs. I wouldn't want to follow them, and I probably wouldn't want to play in a game with a GM like that.

[Cavara]

I think these sound like very awful rules for GMs. I wouldn't want to follow them, and I probably wouldn't want to play in a game with a GM like that.

Your choice whether or not to go with them... personally i made the list for fun while debating the existence of PunPun the god slaying level 1 kobold in my campaign (which i decided to 4th Law). Most of my players enjoy my game anyways the Laws are more of a joke and to be take with a sizable grain of non-seriousness.

[Toliudar]

I'm afraid that I'm with JaronK on this one. The point of having rules that are more or less objective is that as a DM I get to step back from being the jerk who says no, and instead guides through how a rules framework impacts a player's desires.

Still, if your players are having a good time with this framework, good on ya!

[bosssmiley]

The OP's post is one of the wittiest and most subtle satires of "legalese trumps common sense" game rule writing I've read in ages. I didn't even realise it was a parody until halfway through. Kudos. :smallbiggrin:

/r/ this in Timecube (http://www.timecube.com/)-ese (caution: link causes 2d6 San damage).


Oh man, this reads like the first half of a Blake poem if Blake played roleplaying games with Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Byron.

Nah, that's Nobilis (or possibly Agone) you're thinking of. :smallwink:

[Sipex]

For those of you still taking this seriously: This is a joke.

[Tyndmyr]

Forgive me if I'm dim, but this says to me "do what you like but try to make it fun", and could be summed up in 25 words or less without losing significant semantic value. Am I missing something?

I see nothing addressing fun. I basically see "The DM is god. STFU and listen to him."

I like your rule much better.

[WrstDmEvr]

I would agree with these rules, albeit only in the case of munchkins and/or extreme powergamers. For example, in my current group, there is one player who, in every campaign we have, makes/cheats his way towards an extremely broken character. Personally, I would have no problem in telling him to stop and make a balanced character, because I don't feel the group as a whole can have fun when all the encounters are solved before anybody else gets a chance to do anything. I realize this may be totally screwing the player over for an arbitrary reason, but the DM should have power for situations exactly like this; when a player is doing something that blocks the other players from having fun. In a perfect world, the DM would not need to enforce any of these rules because the players would understand that the only way to have a good time is to make sure everybody is having fun, and would scale back by themselves(or perhaps with a friendly nudge from the DM), but since some groups have issues with powergamers/munchkins, I would consider these rules to be an unfortunate necessity that a DM should be able to invoke, in the right circumstances. My 2 cp.

Additionally, I'm sorry if I just rehashed Random_persons rule; I think this is what you meant, but I just wanted to say that in some groups, it's OK to limit one persons fun for the benefit of the entire group.

[The Demented One]

I would agree with these rules, albeit only in the case of munchkins and/or extreme powergamers. For example, in my current group, there is one player who, in every campaign we have, makes/cheats his way towards an extremely broken character. Personally, I would have no problem in telling him to stop and make a balanced character, because I don't feel the group as a whole can have fun when all the encounters are solved before anybody else gets a chance to do anything. I realize this may be totally screwing the player over for an arbitrary reason, but the DM should have power for situations exactly like this; when a player is doing something that blocks the other players from having fun. In a perfect world, the DM would not need to enforce any of these rules because the players would understand that the only way to have a good time is to make sure everybody is having fun, and would scale back by themselves(or perhaps with a friendly nudge from the DM), but since some groups have issues with powergamers/munchkins, I would consider these rules to be an unfortunate necessity that a DM should be able to invoke, in the right circumstances. My 2 cp.

Additionally, I'm sorry if I just rehashed Random_persons rule; I think this is what you meant, but I just wanted to say that in some groups, it's OK to limit one persons fun for the benefit of the entire group.
I...I'm pretty sure these were a joke.

[Solaris]

I see nothing addressing fun. I basically see "The DM is god. STFU and listen to him."

I like your rule much better.

Because you secretly hate all DMs, including yourself. It's okay. We don't judge.
We just execute. :smalltongue:

[Cavara]

It is a joke generally... its even more of a joke about how defensive people are getting over the belief that its not a joke.:smallbiggrin:

[Tyndmyr]

I would agree with these rules, albeit only in the case of munchkins and/or extreme powergamers. For example, in my current group, there is one player who, in every campaign we have, makes/cheats his way towards an extremely broken character. Personally, I would have no problem in telling him to stop and make a balanced character, because I don't feel the group as a whole can have fun when all the encounters are solved before anybody else gets a chance to do anything. I realize this may be totally screwing the player over for an arbitrary reason, but the DM should have power for situations exactly like this;

If someone is cheating, making him stop is not arbitrary.

Likewise, encouraging your players to have a power level similar to one another is hardly arbitrary. It's a simple enough thing to state before characters are even made.

[Tyndmyr]

It is a joke generally... its even more of a joke about how defensive people are getting over the belief that its not a joke.:smallbiggrin:

Nah, jokes are funny. This is, at best, a troll, if it's not serious.

[The Glyphstone]

This is the internet. Everything here is SRS BZNS.
This is a RPG discussion forum on the internet. Everything D&D related is SRS BZNS.
This is a topic about Rule 0 in an RPG discussion forum on the internet. The chances of this not being SRS BZNS is smaller than Asmodeous deciding to knit himself a thick fuzzy sweater and have snowball fights with Bel.

[Cavara]

Then interpret it how you want...i still post it mostly for lols and as anti game-break ammunition, oh and i invoke the 6th law to invoke the 4th law.

[Glass Mouse]

Bah... As if the GM has all the power... It's wrong, and I deny it!

POWER TO THE PLAYERS!!


The First Law: The Player's Law of Reality
In tabletop games, players should take care never to stray too far from reality. Ensure this by making sure you never roleplay, and always have sufficient distractions within reach. If you start feeling a twinge of investment in the story, or - worse - one of your fellow players seem to stray down this path, it's time to start throwing peanuts at the unfortunate soul.

The Second Law: The Player's Law of Apathy
The player should never openly express enthusiasm about the game, lest the GM starts feeling self-secure and, god forbid, start thinking himself superior to the players. The worst you could do is actually openly enjoying the pre-planned plot, thus leading the GM to railroad. Avoid this.

The Third Law: The Player's Law of Inferiority
The player is inferior to his GM. This is an unfortunate, but indisputable, fact. As a player, you must keep this fact in mind when trying to steer through the harsh world of RPGing - The GM is out to get you! Use this knowledge to your advantage, and always remember the first two laws.

The Fourth Law: The Player's Law of Existance
The third law is true only as far as the rules stop. As a player, you have such a vast amount of books, rules and obscure exceptions that you can do practically everything you want. These books exist, you can't deny them, and if you can find a book your GM doesn't have, you got him!

The Fifth Law: The Player's Law of Selective Memory
Rules can only be invoked by those who remember them. Fortunately for you, rule four is absolutely in affect, and who can blame you for forgetting that eensy bitty detail that no one else even read? Existence through observation and all that.

The Sixth Law: The Player's Law of Unipotence
As a player, you are granted control over a single and very important element of the game: Your character. Remember that you are both responsible for and entitled to your own fun, and your character moves this power within your grasp. If you are accused of disrupting the game, just remember - it's your power, and you're entitled to it.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

For those of you still taking this seriously: This is a joke.
QFT


(NOTE: The **** you button has been reinstated due to abuse of the 3.5 system and will thustly produce an unstopable DM smitation of DM's choice)
I lol'd.

[Cavara]

I am Cavara and i approve the Players Laws, besides if they get bad enough i could always just invoke the 3rd or the 4th Law.

[Glass Mouse]

Heh. At least, the players still have the powers of Hissy-fit and Coup. :smalltongue:

[Doc Roc]

I have one law of DMing: if the players are having a good time, you're doing it right. Any action that leads to the players having a good time is a good action, and any action that reduces the fun the players have is a bad action.

That's really it as far as I'm concerned.

JaronK

So, my impulse is to add an additional law, that if your players trust you, it is okay to do something a little unfun now if you are confident it will lead to a significant net increase in player fun.

[White_North]

Oh man, this reads like the first half of a Blake poem if Blake played roleplaying games with Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Byron.

EDIT: Okay, I need to go to sleep now.

Interresting fact: Blake's campaigns were all inspired by phantomatic Miltons who occasionally pushed him to punish Byron for his powergaming.

[dragonfan6490]

Both the DM's Laws and the Player's Laws are BLASPHEMY! Blasphemy I say! All power is in the hands of the DM's girlfriend!:smalltongue:

Lol.

[Glass Mouse]

But what if.... If the girlfriend IS the GM?

Gasp!

[mikej]

Heh. At least, the players still have the powers of Hissy-fit and Coup. :smalltongue:

QFT

I've dealt with the before. Also recently as well :smallfrown:

[Fitz]

semi-serious point

it was once pointed out to me after i was getting stressed out trying to make a game i was running fun for the players " you are playing the game to. Just because you are the dm dosen't mean you shouldn't have fun too."

Fitz

[Cavara]

semi-serious point

it was once pointed out to me after i was getting stressed out trying to make a game i was running fun for the players " you are playing the game to. Just because you are the dm dosen't mean you shouldn't have fun too."

Fitz

QFT
Pretty much...however to my players occasional dissatisfaction fun for me is seeing the look on there faces when I mess around with there heads annoyingly.

[dragonfan6490]

But what if.... If the girlfriend IS the GM?

Gasp!

If this is true, then we are all doomed. DOOMED!

[Glass Mouse]

If this is true, then we are all doomed. DOOMED!

I'm not sure this bodes well or badly for my group - since that excact situation is the case there... only I'm the girlfriend GM :smallamused:

Also, Fitz +2

[Eldariel]

I'm not sure this bodes well or badly for my group - since that excact situation is the case there... only I'm the girlfriend GM :smallamused:

Also, Fitz +2

Well, he said we, not you are doomed, so you should be fine. The rest of us, on the other hand...